20170919 Ver 2_DRAFT MitigationPlan_20200730

ID#* 20170919 Version* 2
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 07/30/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 7/30/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands W Buffer V Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matt Butler
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20170919
Existing IDf
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Walnut Wood Site
County: Guilford
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: *2
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Walnut Wood_MitigationPlan _DRAFT_Compiled.pdf 114.64MB
Rease upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matt Butler
Signature:*

“This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation
and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14).”

Draft Mitigation Plan
Walnut Wood Mitigation Site
RES Cape Fear 02 UMBI | USACE Action ID: SAW-2017-01470 | July 2020
Cape Fear River Basin | HUC 03030002 | Guilford County, North Carolina

Prepared By:
Resource Environmental Solutions LLC
Bank Sponsor:
Environmental Banc & Exchange LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1052
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan ii July 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
Project Components................................................................................................................ 1
Project Outcomes.................................................................................................................... 1
2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION ............................................................... 2
Site Selection .......................................................................................................................... 2
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 3
Watershed Summary Information .......................................................................................... 3
Landscape Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 3
Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future ............................................................................... 6
Reach Summary Information ................................................................................................. 6
Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints .......................................................... 10
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL ....................................................................................... 12
Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements ............................................................ 12
5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................ 15
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ..................................................................................................... 17
Reference Stream.................................................................................................................. 17
Design Parameters ................................................................................................................ 19
Vegetation and Planting Plan ............................................................................................... 24
Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................. 26
Determination of Credits ...................................................................................................... 27
7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................................ 28
Stream Restoration Success Criteria..................................................................................... 28
Vegetation Success Criteria .................................................................................................. 29
8 MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................. 29
As-Built Survey .................................................................................................................... 29
Visual Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 29
Hydrology Events ................................................................................................................. 30
Cross Sections ...................................................................................................................... 30
Vegetation Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 30
Scheduling/Reporting ........................................................................................................... 30
9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................... 33
10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................................................... 34
11 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ............................................................................................... 35
Initial Allocation of Released Credits .................................................................................. 35
Subsequent Credit Releases .................................................................................................. 35
12 MAINTENANCE PLAN ............................................................................................................. 37
13 INVASIVE SPECIES PLAN ....................................................................................................... 38
15 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ...................................................................................................... 39
16 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 40

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan iii July 2020

List of Tables
Table 1. Walnut Wood Project Components Summary ......................................................................... 1
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information .............................................................................. 2
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information ................................................................................ 3
Table 4. Jurisdiction Wetland Information ............................................................................................. 4
Table 5. Mapped Soil Series ................................................................................................................... 5
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics ......................................................................... 7
Table 7. Summary of Stream Parameters ............................................................................................... 7
Table 8. Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................... 10
Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements .................................................................................. 16
Table 10. Bankfull Discharge Comparison .......................................................................................... 18
Table 11. Peak Flow Comparison ........................................................................................................ 22
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses ...................................................... 23
Table 13. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Velocities ........................................................... 23
Table 14. Proposed Live Stake Planting List ....................................................................................... 24
Table 15. Permanent Seed Mix and Wetland Plugs ............................................................................. 25
Table 16. Proposed Bare Root Planting List ........................................................................................ 25
Table 17. Mitigation Credits................................................................................................................. 28
Table 18. Monitoring Requirements ..................................................................................................... 32
Table 19. Stream Credit Release Schedule ........................................................................................... 36
Table 20. Maintenance Plan ................................................................................................................. 37
Table 21. Financial Assurances ............................................................................................................ 39

List of Figures
Figure 1 – Project Vicinity
Figure 2 – USGS Quadrangle
Figure 3 – Landowner Parcels
Figure 4 – Land-use
Figure 5 – Existing Conditions
Figure 6 – National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 7 – Mapped Soils
Figure 8 – Historical Conditions
Figure 9 – National Flood Hazard Layer (FEMA)
Figure 10 – Conceptual Design Plan
Figure 11 – Monitoring Plan

Appendices
Appendix A - Buffer Mitigation Plan
Appendix B - Site Protection Instrument
Appendix C - Data, Analysis, and Supplementary Information
Appendix D - Wetland JD Forms and Maps
Appendix E - DWR Stream Identification and Buffer Viability
Appendix F - USACE District Assessment Forms
Appendix G - Regulatory Agency Scoping Letters
Appendix H - Plan Set
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 1 July 2020

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Project Components
The Walnut Wood Mitigation Site (Project) is located within Guilford County, less than five miles east
of Julian. The Project lies within the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina Department of Water
Resources (NCDWR) sub-basin 03-06-03 and United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14-digit
hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03030002040010 (Figure 1). The Project is being designed to help meet
compensatory mitigation requirements for stream impacts in the HUC 03030002. The Project proposes
to restore 4,564 linear feet (LF), enhance 2,766 LF of existing stream, and provide water quality benefit
for the 5,791-acre project drainage area. This mitigation plan is in accordance with the RES Cape Fear
02 Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument Modification with the addition of Walnut Wood
Mitigation Site (SAW-2017-01470). This site will be co-located with a DWR Riparian Buffer and
Nutrient Offset Bank of the same name (Walnut Wood).

The Project area, in whole, is comprised of a 32.11-acre easement involving multiple natural drainages
that have been impounded and piped that drain directly to Climax Creek. These features will be restored
to comprise three unnamed tributaries, totaling 4,564 LF, that drain directly into Climax Creek. The
stream mitigation components are summarized in Table 1. The Project is accessible from Alamance
Church Road. Coordinates for the Project are as follows: 35.9808°N, -79.6446°W.
Project Outcomes
The streams proposed for restoration have been significantly impacted by impoundments, and two
reaches have been buried and piped entirely. Proposed improvements to the Project will help meet the
river basin needs expressed in the 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) as well
as ecological improvements to riparian corridor within the easement.

Through stream restoration and enhancement, the Project presents 7,330 LF of proposed stream,
generating 5,670.400 base Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) (Table 1). Additionally, the Project
presents the opportunity to perform 1,745,337.531 ft2 (40.07 acres) of riparian buffer mitigation for the
Haw River Watershed; a tributary to B. Everett Jordan Lake, generating approximately 6.84 acres
(298,048 ft2) of riparian buffer restoration credits, and 0.45 acre (19,494 ft2) of buffer preservation
credits in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0295. There will be 20.31 acres (884,641 ft2) of nutrient
offset that are viable for buffer restoration credits in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B.0240.The
Riparian Buffer Bank Parcel Development Plan (BPDP) is found in Appendix A.

Table 1. Walnut Wood Project Components Summary
Stream Mitigation
Mitigation Approach Linear Feet Ratio Base Warm SMU
Restoration 4,564 1:1 4,564.000
Enhancement II 2,766 2.5:1 1,106.400
Total 7,330 5,670.400
Total SMUs 5,670.400

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 2 July 2020

2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The DMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP identified several restoration needs for each 8-digit HUC within the
Cape Fear River Basin. Specifically, goals for HUC 03030002 include creating a Local Watershed Plan
for this portion of the watershed. The project stream reaches are tributaries that flow into the Haw River
then into the Cape Fear River. The Haw River is the major river in the HUC 03030002; this river and
its tributaries flow to B. Everett Jordan Lake, a drinking water supply. This supply has been designated
a Nutrient Sensitive Water and NCDWR has developed a set of rules to reduce non-point source
pollution.

Many of the Project design goals and objectives will address major watershed stressors identified in the
2009 RBRP. Catalog Unit Specific Goals (CU) outlined in the 2009 Cape Fear RBRP for the watershed
include:

1. Promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural and urban areas by restoring and
preserving streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers.
Site Selection
The Project was identified as a stream and buffer mitigation opportunity to improve water quality,
habitat, and hydrology within the Cape Fear River Basin. The aquatic resources associated with the
Project have been highly manipulated and degraded over time due to agriculture and golf course
practices. Project streams have historically been diverted, piped, and impounded, leading to poor
biological and hydrologic function. Additionally, much of the Project area has operated as a golf course
for some time where riparian buffers are either very narrow or absent. Further, the now abandoned golf
course has been converted to an active livestock pasture. Therefore, the Project presents a great
opportunity to address the RBRP goal of reducing nutrient and sediment in agricultural and urban areas,
while also providing tremendous additional uplift to a degraded piedmont stream system. The Project
will directly and indirectly address stressors by reconstructing natural channels of tributaries to Climax
Creek, stabilizing eroding stream banks and establishing floodplain connectivity, reducing sediment
and nutrient loads, restoring riparian buffers, and protecting aquatic resources in perpetuity. Project-
specific goals and objectives will be addressed further in Section 5. A project watershed map with the
Project’s drainage areas is shown on Figure 2 and watershed planning priority boundaries are shown
on Figure 1.

The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes one parcel
in Guilford County with the following ownership in Table 2 & Figure 3. Once finalized, a copy of the
land protection instrument will be included in Appendix B. The Wilmington District Conservation
Easement model template will be utilized to draft the site protection instrument.

Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Owner of Record
PIN
Or
Tax Parcel ID#
Stream Reach
Kory D. Strader and Marjorie Brett
Wray Strader 8801-82-9027 All stream reaches

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 3 July 2020

3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Watershed Summary Information
Drainage Area and Land Use
The Project area is comprised of three tributaries that flow directly into Climax Creek. The total
drainage area for the Project is 5,791 acres (9.04 mi2). Primary land use within the drainage area consists
of approximately 55 percent forest and 37 percent agricultural land. Impervious area covers less than
one percent of the total watershed (Table 3 & Figure 4). Although the Project watershed is primarily
forested, most of the agricultural areas within the watershed are in close proximity to the Project and
play a significant role in the degradation of Climax Creek. Historic land-use within the immediate
Project area has been primarily served as an active golf course, while current usage has transitioned to
active pasture. While the area is no longer a functioning golf course, modifications such as piping and
impoundments have been left in place. Furthermore, nutrient enrichment contributors like the
application of fertilizer for golf course management has been replaced with the addition of livestock to
the property. These activities have negatively impacted both water quality and streambank stability
along the Project streams. The resulting observed stressors being streambank erosion, sedimentation,
channel modification, and the loss of riparian buffers.

Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information
Watershed Feature Designation
Level IV Ecoregion 45b – Southern Outer Piedmont
River Basin Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03030002040010
DWR Sub-basin 03-06-03
Project Drainage Area (acres) 5,791
Percent Impervious Area <1%
Surface Water Classification (drains to) WS-IV and NSW
Landscape Characteristics
The Project is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont Level Ecoregion. Pine (mostly loblolly and
shortleaf) dominates on old field sites and pine plantations, while mixed oak forest is found in less
heavily altered areas. Gneiss, schist, and granite are typical rock types, covered with deep saprolite and
mostly red, clayey subsoils. Kanhapludults are common soils, such as the Cecil, Appling, and Madison
series. Some areas within this region have more alkaline soils, such as the Iredell series, formed over
diabase, diorite, or gabbro, and may be associated with areas once known as blackjack oak prairies.
Vegetation
Historically, the majority of the land within the Project was a maintained golf course that included
fairways, greenways, a club house, maintenance building, driving range, water features (i.e., ponds or
streams), maintained field, and golf cart paths. The un-maintained fairways are now host to numerous
herbaceous and a few woody early-successional species. These open areas lack a developed riparian
buffer while areas located upslope contain planted specimen trees that served to buffer viewshed
between each golf course hole. Forested riparian areas along most of Climax Creek are well vegetated
but dominated by invasive species. Furthermore, the Project occurs along an ecotone, where the western
portion of the project is a piedmont alluvial forest (Schafale, 2012), and the upland areas adjacent to
the proposed restoration reaches have vegetation and soil characteristics of the basic oak-hickory forest
(Schafale, 2012).
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 4 July 2020

Vegetation found in the open fields include species typical of early field succession, such as pokeweed
(Phytolacca americana), fescue grasses (Fescuta spp.), joe pye weed (Eutrochium fistulosum) and
dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Invasive species such as lespedeza (Sericea lespedeza) and
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) are also present. A few mature juniper trees (Juniperus virginiana),
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and northern red oak (Quercus rubra) are interspersed throughout the open
areas along relic cart paths and fairways. In the riparian area around Climax Creek, canopy species
include white oak (Quercus alba), river birch (Betula nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
American beech (Fagus grandifolia) and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Understory
species include American holly (Ilex opaca), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana) and
greenbrier (Smilax spp.). Invasive species are also present, including Chinese privet, Japanese stiltgrass
(Microstegium vimineum), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).

Existing Wetlands
A survey of existing wetlands was performed in January of 2019. Wetland boundaries were delineated
using current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Soils were characterized and classified using the Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0 (NRCS, 2010). Within the boundaries of
the proposed Project, four jurisdictional wetlands are present while three are located adjacent to the
Project (Appendix D, Figure 5, Table 4). Wetlands are labeled as WA (Wetland A) through to WG
(Wetland G); described below in Table 4. All wetlands within the Project vicinity were rated using the
North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) (Appendix D). A preliminary jurisdictional
determination (PJD) request was sent to the USACE on February 8, 2019 and wetland determinations
were verified by the USACE on April 2, 2019. The final PJD has not yet been received (SAW-2017-
01470). Wetland forms are included in Appendix D.

Table 4. Jurisdiction Wetland Information
Wetland
ID
NCWAM
Rating
Wetland Type Area
(ac)
Vegetation
WA Low Headwater
Forest
0.09 Herb Stratum:
Common rush (Juncus effusus), dogfennel, devil’s beggartick
(Bidens frondosa), tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus)
WB High Bottomland
Hardwood
Forest
0.06 Tree Stratum:
Red Maple (Acer rubrum), American Sycamore, river birch,
and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Shrub Stratum:
Privet and American hornbeam

Woody Vine Stratum:
Greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia)
WC Low Headwater
Forest
0.06 Herb Stratum:
Common rush, dogfennel, devil’s beggartick, and tall fescue
WD Low Non-tidal
Freshwater
Marsh
0.12 Herb Stratum:
Common rush, dogfennel, devil’s beggartick, and tall fescue
WE Low Headwater
Forest
0.02 Herb Stratum:
Common rush, dogfennel, devil’s beggartick, and tall fescue
WF High Headwater
Forest
0.02 Tree Stratum:
Red Maple, sweetgum, and water oak (Quercus nigra)
Shrub Stratum:
American holly
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 5 July 2020

Wetland
ID
NCWAM
Rating
Wetland Type Area
(ac)
Vegetation
Woody Vine Stratum:
Greenbrier and Japanese honeysuckle
WG Low Headwater
Forest
0.37 Herb Stratum:
Common rush, dogfennel, devil’s beggartick, and tall fescue

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map depicts potential wetland
areas within the Project (Figure 6). These areas were investigated during wetland delineation in January
2019 (Figure 5, Table 4).
Soil Survey
Existing soil information from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey,
shows several map units across the project (NRCS, 2019). Map units include seven soil series across
the Project and are summarized in Table 5. Project soils are mapped as Chewacla loam, Enon fine
sandy loam, Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, Wehadkee loam, and Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott complex
within the easement (Figure 7).

Table 5. Mapped Soil Series
Map Unit Map Unit Name Percent
Hydric
Drainage Class Hydrologic Soil
Group
Landscape Setting
ChA Chewacla loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes,
frequently flooded
5 Somewhat poorly
drained
B/D Flood plains
EnB Enon fine sandy
loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
0 Well drained C Interfluves
EnC Enon fine sandy
loam, 6 to 10
percent slopes
0 Well drained C Hillslopes on ridges
MhB2 Mecklenburg
sandy clay loam, 2
to 6 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
0 Well drained C Interfluves
MhC2 Mecklenburg
sandy clay loam, 6
to 10 percent
slopes, moderately
eroded
0 Well drained C Hillslopes on ridges
WhA Wehadkee loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes,
frequently flooded
90 Poorly drained B/D Depressions on
flood plains
WkE Wilkes-
Poindexter-Wynott
complex, 15 to 45
percent slopes
0 Well drained C/D Hillslopes on ridges
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 6 July 2020

Existing Soils
Soils within the proposed stream restoration areas were evaluated by a licensed soil scientist. The
evaluation focused on the topographic floodplain of the small drainages at this site. The site soils
appeared to have been modified extensively during construction of the golf course by placement of fill
within the natural drainageways. Natural streams and other natural drainage features have been piped
by the addition of fill to raise the floodplain. Trenches were dug across the contour within the drainage
features in order to characterize soil morphology suspected of fill and manipulation during the
construction and maintenance of the previous golf course. Trenches were located perpendicular to the
general valley slope to intersect any historic floodplain or stream channel.

The soil evaluation confirmed extensive fill within the natural drainages at this site. While surface
material was found to be relatively consistent, the subsurface fill materials varied significantly. An
underlying native soil layer was found and exhibited hydric characteristics throughout the transects
evaluated. Underlying this fill, a natural soil was observed within the trenches. The seasonal high-water
table appeared to be at or near the buried natural soil horizon in the areas evaluated. Because of the
observed characteristics in the buried horizon, the water table was at or near the natural surface prior to
the development of this site. Based on hydric characteristics found in the buried soils, these drainages
most likely supported wetlands and streams. Each of the drainages evaluated appear to have adequate
watersheds that would support at least small tributaries and wetlands, but stream channels are not visible
due to extensive piping under the fill materials. The full soil report is included in Appendix C.

Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future
Historic aerial imagery indicates that Project and adjacent land has been established as a golf course
since at least 1981. The Walnut Wood golf course was constructed between 1977 and 1981, and ponds
were constructed between 1981 and 1993. Land use between 1948 and 1977 primarily consisted of
forested areas with less than 25% being in agricultural production. Prior to the conversion of a golf
course, stream signatures are visible on aerial imagery dating back to 1948 (Figures 8a and 8b). Stream
channels were also present on the Guilford County Soil Survey map (NRCS, 1977). Currently, the
project area remains a golf course that has been abandoned. In the immediate years after closing,
fairways and greens were intermittently mowed but were no longer functioning as originally intended.
As recent as 2019, livestock has also been introduced to the property and many former fairways are
now functioning as pasture. Much of the areas adjacent to the project streams have been allowed to
grow and are densely vegetated with privet. The northwestern portion of the easement adjacent to
Climax Creek remains forested. The future land use for the Project will include an established 32.11-
acre conservation easement, that will be protected in perpetuity. The conservation easement will
encompass 7,330 linear feet of stream with a minimum 50-foot riparian buffer. Outside the Project will
likely remain in mixed forestry and agricultural use.
Reach Summary Information
The Project area is comprised of three easement sections that connect to one main easement along
Climax Creek. The easement has multiple golf cart path crossings throughout the proposed reaches
WW1, WW2, and WW3. Furthermore, there are eight bridges crossing Climax Creek, that were utilized
for golf maintenance vehicles and golf carts. The proposed stream channels, which include three
unnamed tributaries to Climax Creek (Figure 5), were identified based on numerous observations in
the field and through desktop review. Historic aerial photography and historic soil survey maps show
that stream channels existed in these natural drainages prior to golf course conversion. Regional curve
data also show that each reach contains sufficient drainage area to support natural channel formation.
Results of the preliminary data collection are presented in Table 6.
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 7 July 2020

In general, all or portions WW1, WW2, WW3, and Climax Creek do not function to their full potential.
Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation due to modifications associated with
golf course development. Restoration reaches are piped and/or impounded for their entirety and
therefore lack basic stream functions as they naturally would have prior to human alteration. All of the
restoration reaches also lack a vegetated riparian buffer (Figure 5). Moreover, habitat along the piped
sections of the restoration reaches is nonexistent to support fish or other aquatic species. Enhancement
II areas along Climax Creek have a degraded riparian buffer but have adequate channel stability.
Morphological parameters are located in Appendix C. Channel characteristics are summarized in
Table 6.

Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach Drainage Area
(acres)
ABKF
(ft2)
Width
(ft)
Mean
Depth (ft)
Bank
Height
Ratio
W/D
Ratio
Sinuosity Slope
(ft/ft)
WW1 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.034
WW2 40.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.036
WW3 32.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0211
Climax Creek 5696 4.6 7.9 0.6 1.0 13.6 1.17 0.0043

Channel Classification
The restoration streams lack an actual channel but most likely would have been classified as intermittent
streams using the NCDWR Stream Identification Form version 4.11 and would likely have been C, G,
E, and F-stream types as classified using the Rosgen stream classification (Rosgen, 1996). Table 7
summarizes these stream parameters and stream determination scores performed on reference reaches
can be found in Appendix E. Stream determinations have been verified by the USACE.

Table 7. Summary of Stream Parameters
Reach Hydrology Status Stream
Determination
Score
Reach Length
(LF)
Rosgen Stream
Classification
WW1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
WW2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
WW3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Climax Creek Perennial 42.5 2703 E4-E5

Existing Channel Morphology
WW1
Reach WW1 begins at Pond A located on the northern end of the project and is then piped
underground and flows in a westerly direction towards Climax Creek. A golf cart path parallels the
reach and crosses it multiple times. The upper portion of WW1 drains through a narrow valley before
flattening out in the active floodplain of Climax Creek. The riparian buffer has a limited width and
is primarily comprised of open fairway grassland with sparse tree cover. The drainage area for the
reach is approximately 22 acres.
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 8 July 2020

Looking upslope along Reach WW1 Looking downslope along Reach WW1

WW2
Reach WW2 originates at the top of Pond B in the center of the Project, before flowing west through
an underground pipe into Pond C. WW2 is then connected to Pond D through another pipe and
subsequently Pond E just downslope. The reach finally connects to Climax Creek through a
jurisdictional channel originating from the emergency spillway of Pond E due to a failed outlet
structure. The channel has become severely disjointed due to the four impoundments along the reach.
Golf cart paths cross the reach in multiple areas over the underground pipe network located in
between each pond. The upper portion of the reach drains through a narrow valley and continues
until its confluence with Climax Creek. The reach has a limited riparian buffer with mostly open
fairway grassland and sparsely planted trees. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 40.9
acres.

Looking upslope at Pond D Looking downslope at Pond E

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 9 July 2020

0BWW3
Reach WW3 originates as a wetland just off site and flows to the west through a network of
underground pipes and sewer grates that collect surface runoff. The reach then flows into Pond F
before entering another pipe system just below the dam which then directly connects to Climax
Creek. Golf cart paths run parallel along the reach and cross it once just upstream of Pond F. The
majority of the reach is contained within a broad valley before flattening out in the Climax Creek
floodplain. The riparian buffer has a limited width and is primarily comprised of open fairway
grassland with sparse tree cover. The drainage area for this reach is approximately 32.4 acres.

Looking downslope at Pond F

Looking downslope along reach WW3

1BClimax Creek
Climax Creek is 2,766 linear feet and flows in a northerly direction along the western boundary of
the project. This perennial reach is mostly forested with riparian hardwoods throughout the northern
portion but opens up to grassland floodplain moving farther south. The channel buffers have been
degraded leading to localized bank erosion and mass wasting. There are currently eight bridge
crossings along the reach that were utilized for golf carts and maintenance vehicles. The average
channel width is approximately 35 feet with an average depth of around five feet. The drainage area
for this reach is approximately 5,696 acres.

One of seven bridges to be removed

Bridge to remain over Climax Creek

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 10 July 2020

Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
Table 8 is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Project. Supporting documentation can be
found in Appendix D, and Appendix G.

Table 8. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable Resolved Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes No Appendix F*
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes No Appendix F*
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix H
National Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix H
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes No Appendix H
Magnuson-Stevens Act - Essential Fisheries
Habitat No N/A N/A
*PCN will be submitted after the Final Mitigation Plan is approved
Property, Boundary, and Utilities
Due to landowner requirements, there are four existing planned crossings within the Project. These
crossings will occur at easement breaks and will allow landowners to continue current land-use and
access as needed. Livestock exclusion fencing will be installed across easement breaks in order to
provide contiguous livestock exclusion to the Project streams (Figure 10). One culvert crossing will
occur on reach WW2 and WW3, both at easement breaks. One bridge crossing will remain over Climax
Creek while another will be removed but a break in the easement will remain. Furthermore, six
additional bridges over Climax Creek and all existing golf cart paths will be removed from the
easement. There are underground powerlines in between reaches WW1 and WW2 that were left over
from the golf course facilities. All lines will be relocated out of the easement. (Figure 10).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, the Project is within several
flood hazard zones. Approximately 6.7 acres of the western portion of the Project is within the Cape
Fear Regulated Floodway (Figure 9). Approximately 10.48 acres of the middlemost portion of the
Project is within the FEMA 100-year flood zone (Zone AE, one percent annual chance of flooding)
(Figure 9). Hydraulic modeling will be required to determine whether restoration activities will have
an effect on 100-year flood elevations downstream. The design and permitting of the mitigation will
include coordination with the Guilford County Floodplain Administrator and a No-Rise Certification
or CLOMR/LOMR will be secured. No hydrologic trespass will be permitted to adjacent properties
upstream or downstream of the project. The Project can be found on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
Panel 8801 (map number 3710880100J), effective date June 18, 2007.
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 USFWS
database lists two Federally listed species that may occur in proximity to the Project: Small whorled
pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) and Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). No protected
species or potential habitat for protected species was observed during preliminary project evaluations.
Species and species habitat listed in the USFWS database were inspected during the field investigation
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 11 July 2020

to determine whether they occur at the Project. No individual species or habitats were identified on site.
Potential impacts to species and habitat off site, downstream, and within the vicinity of the Project were
also considered. A letter received from the USFWS, dated May 14, 2018, stated the “the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally-listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated habitat, or species currently proposed for listed under the Act”. Moreover, the
USFWS did recommend “that plans for restoration should include the construction of a steam channel
(rather than allowing the stream channel to form on its own in the pond bottom), and removal of
sediments as necessary to allow an appropriate riparian ecosystem to become established”.

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. Results from NHP indicated that there are no known occurrences within
a one-mile radius of the project area. Documentation is included in Appendix G.

Also, The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has known records for the federal
species of concern and state endangered Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana); and the
significantly rare eastern creekshell (V. delumbis) and Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus davidi) within
the vicinity of the site. The state special concern Greensboro burrowing crayfish (Cambarus catagius)
also has the potential to occur within the project area. Upon consultation with NCWRC regarding fish
and wildlife associated with the Project, NCWRC requested a site visit to verify habitat potential. Since
recent mussel and crayfish surveys had not been completed in the area, an on-site survey was the only
definitive means to determine if the proposed project would impact rare, threatened, or endangered
species. On September 11, 2019, NCWRC staff visited the site but did not find any listed species during
the visit. Other recommendations for the project included the use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly
sediment and erosion control devices, removing mature trees outside of the maternity roosting season
for bats (May 15- August 15), and maximizing riparian buffer widths when possible. All
correspondence is included in Appendix G.
Cultural Resources
A review of North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service (accessed
June 19, 2019) database revealed that there are no National Registered listings within a one-mile radius
of the proposed Project area. There are no anticipated impacts from Project activities to state surveyed
properties as there are none in the proposed project vicinity. A letter was received on August 16th, 2019
from the SHPO in response to the June 26, 2019 letter. The SHPO stated that there will be no effect on
historic resources. Documentation is included in Appendix G.
Clean Water Act - Section 401/404
Impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands will be unavoidable, due to the restoration and
enhancement actives proposed. Although these impacts are unavoidable, the proposed stream treatment
will result in an overall functional uplift of the stream and wetland system, as described in Section 4.
Climax Creek will have temporary impacts, due to enhancement activities such as bank stabilization.
Since restoration reaches, WW1, WW2, and WW3, are not currently jurisdictional, minimal impacts
will occur during the construction process. Three wetlands and six open water ponds will be impacted
due to stream restoration activities. Moreover, all stream and wetland impacts will be accounted for in
the Pre-Construction Notification form.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 12 July 2020

4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
The Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Harman et al. 2012) uses stream functions to describe
project objectives, existing condition assessments and monitoring, performance metrics, and design
criteria. The Framework 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, physicochemical and geomorphology) on lower level functions (hydrology and hydraulics).
Functions that affect the greatest number of other functions are illustrated at the base of the Pyramid,
while functions that have the least effect on other functions are illustrated at the top.

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 the Project will address the most critical functional objectives that will allow for a
more restored stream and riparian buffer 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 Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the Cape Fear 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 (physicochemical and biology) over time, and in combination with other
projects within the watershed. Additionally, anticipated functional benefits and improvements within
the Project area, as based on the Function-Based Framework are outlined in Table 9.
Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
Hydrology
This project intends to make local improvements to hydrology that has been severely altered. Much of
the improvement will come from excavating buried headwater streams and removing the network of
underground piping and ponds. Currently, WW1 and WW3 have storm drains that collect all surface
water. These drains are connected through a network of underground pipes that flow directly into a
lower pond before ultimately being piped directly into Climax Creek. WW2 has a series of four ponds
that collect surface runoff. The ponds are also connected via underground pipes before flowing into
Climax Creek through an emergency spillway due to a failed outlet structure. Removing the installed
pipe system and ponds will significantly restore hydrologic connectivity. Other hydrologic
improvements will come from altering land use within the riparian buffer of the restoration reaches,
WW1, WW2, and WW3, from fairway to riparian forest.
Hydraulic
Perhaps the greatest potential uplift of the Project will be achieved through establishing healthy
floodplain connectivity. Currently all restoration reaches in the Project do not have an actual stream
channel and therefore do not have functioning floodplain connectivity or stable flow dynamics.
Floodplain connectivity will be improved by constructing a new channel with appropriate bank height
ratios and entrenchment ratios. Stable flow dynamics will be improved by constructing a new channel
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 13 July 2020

that is geometrically stable based on the Project’s hydrology inputs. Additionally, instream structures
will be installed to address the energy and erosive power of the water so that a stable base flow is
achieved post-project. Currently, hydraulic parameters for all restoration reaches are not functioning
but post-restoration will be functioning. Whereas, the hydraulic parameters for Climax Creek are
currently functioning. Although already functioning, the enhancement of Climax Creek will ensure
continued functionality within the project vicinity, and the greater Cape Fear watershed.
Geomorphology
Sediment Transport will be improved by designing channels that transport sediment until it reaches an
appropriate place to settle like a point bar. Large Woody Debris Transport and Storage will be improved
by the use of woody debris such as log vanes, root wads, log weirs, and log toes for in-stream structures
on restoration reaches. The restoration reaches are also designed to accumulate woody debris by having
defined shallow riffles where cobble catches and holds woody debris and leaf packs. Riparian
vegetation is absent in all restoration areas. Therefore, riparian buffers will be planted out to a minimum
of 50 feet to improve the riparian vegetation to functioning levels. 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 in constructed channels based on reference reach conditions. This bed
form diversity will also further improve aquatic habitat. All these functional parameters are
interconnected and ultimately depend on each other to function properly. Therefore, by focusing
improvements to these parameters, the restored channels will achieve dynamic equilibrium and provide
maximum geomorphic functional uplift. Currently, geomorphologic parameters for all restoration
reaches are not functioning, due to the lack of an actual stream channel, and therefore lacking stream
structures and a riparian buffer. Post-restoration these reaches will be functioning. Additionally, the
geomorphological parameters of Climax Creek are currently functioning and will be protected within
the easement to ensure continued functionality.
Physicochemical
Although this project would support the overarching goal in the Cape Fear RBRP to promote nutrient
and sediment reduction in agricultural areas, it is difficult to measure nutrient and sediment reduction
at this project level because they can be affected by so many variables. However, several restoration
actions are known to help reduce nutrients and sediment even though they may not be measurable at
the project level. These activities include filtering of runoff through buffer areas, the conversion of a
golf course to a forested buffer, 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, the log structures placed in the stream create mixing zones where oxygen dissolves much
faster than the standard exchange rate of oxygen to dissolved oxygen. The processing of organic matter
will be improved once healthy riffles are shallow enough to catch twigs and branches that then retain
leaves. Many of these physicochemical 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.
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 14 July 2020

Biology
As mentioned for the physicochemical 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.
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. The enhancement and preservation of intact buffer
along Climax Creek floodplain will ensure continued functionality and connectivity of the terrestrial
habitat within the project.

Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native,
forested buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats,
and provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Provided measures are taken to minimize erosion and
sedimentation from construction/restoration activities, we do not anticipate the project to result in
significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 15 July 2020

5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project’s maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions
Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Project. These goals
clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient stressors in the 2009 Cape Fear River RBRP. The
Project will address outlined RBRP Goals and CU specific goals (listed in Section 2).

The Project goals are:
• Re-establish hydrology to historical headwater stream systems that have been impacted by piping
and impoundments for over 40 years
• Improve water quality within the restored channel reaches and downstream by reducing sediment
and nutrient loads, and increasing dissolved oxygen levels
• Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non-erosive manner in a stable channel
• Restore flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbank flows and
connection to the active floodplain
• Restore hydrologic connectivity to headwater wetland systems
• Improve ecological processes by creating terrestrial and aquatic habitat that currently does not exist,
and improving the native plant community
• Restore, enhance, and preserve native floodplain vegetation
• Indirectly support the goals of the 2009 Cape Fear RBRP to improve water quality and to reduce
sediment and nutrient loads

The Project objectives to address the goals are:
• Daylight piped stream reaches and remove ponds from first order systems
• Design and reconstruct piped stream channels sized to convey bankfull flows that will maintain a
stable dimension, profile, and planform based on modeling, watershed conditions, and reference
reach conditions
• Restoration of appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile in stream channels through pond bottoms
• Add in-stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced streams;
• Install habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of varying
depths to restored and enhanced streams
• Restoration of forested riparian buffers to at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel along the
Project reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community
• Treat exotic invasive species
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project that will perpetually protect streams,
wetlands, and their associated buffers

Anticipated functional benefits and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function Based
Framework are outlined in Table 9.

Limitations to achieving these watershed goals arise by remaining constrained to the project boundaries.
While we are restoring the 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 agricultural
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 RBRP goals.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 16 July 2020

Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements
Level Function Goal Objective Measurement Method
1
Hydrology
Transport of water from
the watershed to the
channel
to transport water from the
watershed to the channel
in a non-erosive manner
Convert land-use of
streams and their
headwaters from fairway
and pasture to riparian
forest
Percent Project drainage
area converted to riparian
forest
(indirect measurement)

2
Hydraulic
Transport of water in the
channel, on the floodplain,
and through the sediments
to transport water in a
stable non-erosive manner
Improve flood bank
connectivity by reducing
bank height ratios and
increase entrenchment
ratios
Cross sections

Stage Recorders

Bank Height Ratio

Entrenchment Ratio
3
Geomorphology
Transport of wood and
sediment to create diverse
bedforms and dynamic
equilibrium
to create a diverse
bedform
to achieve dynamic
equilibrium
Reduce erosion rates and
channel stability to
reference reach conditions

Improve bedform diversity
(pool spacing, percent
riffles, etc.)

Increase buffer width to
over 50 feet and protect
existing buffer
As-built stream profile

Cross sections

Visual monitoring

Vegetation plots
4
Physicochemical °
Temperature and oxygen
regulation; processing of
organic matter and
nutrients
to achieve appropriate
levels for water
temperature, dissolved
oxygen concentration, and
other important nutrients
including but not limited
to Nitrogen and
Phosphorus
Improve stream
temperature regulation
through introduction of
canopy

Increase dissolved oxygen
by installing in-stream
structures to created
aeration zones

Decrease nutrient loading
through filtration of
planted riparian buffer
Vegetation plots
(indirect measurement)

Established conservation
easement, protected in
perpetuity
(indirect measurement)
5
Biology °
Biodiversity and life
histories of aquatic life
histories and riparian life
to achieve functionality in
levels 1-4 to support the
life histories of aquatic
and riparian plants and
animals
Improve aquatic habitat
through the installation of
habitat features,
construction of pools at
varying depths, and
planting the riparian
buffer

As-Built Survey (in-direct
measurement)

° These categories are measured indirectly
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 17 July 2020

6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
Reference Stream
The restoration portions of the Project involve restoring flow to streams that are currently being piped
underground. As such, current physical parameters of the streams do not exist in a manner that can be
compared to a reference stream. Instead, reference streams were selected by proximity and similar
hydrology to the Project site as well as similar drainage areas to the proposed restoration streams.

Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the physiographic region and ecoregion,
• Ideal, undisturbed habitat – several types of woody debris present,
• Similar topography,
• Perennial stream flow – per NCDWQ Stream Identification Form,
• Pattern common among Piedmont streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.

Reference Watershed Characterization
The first selected reference site included three unnamed tributaries to Climax Creek on privately owned
property, located less than a mile south (upstream) of the Project site in Guilford County, NC. Two smaller
tributaries lead to one larger stream, which then drains to Climax Creek. Approximately 1,800 ft of stream
was surveyed at this site. The drainage areas of the two smaller tributaries are 13 and 15.5 acres, while the
drainage area of the larger creek is 57 acres at the furthest downstream area surveyed. The land use of the
first small tributary is mostly forest (84%) and residential area (12%), while the second is primarily pasture
(50%) and forest (40%). The land use of the larger unnamed tributary is a similar mix of forest (56%) and
pasture (31%).

The second selected reference site is another unnamed tributary to Climax Creek, located nearly 2 miles
south (upstream) of the Project on privately owned property, west of Whedbee Rd in Guilford County, NC.
The reach of stream surveyed and analyzed includes roughly 750 feet of stream extending upstream from
the confluence with Climax Creek. The drainage area for this segment of stream is 39 acres. The land use
in this watershed is primarily pasture (52%) and forest (41%). Site photographs of the reference streams
are located in Appendix C.
Reference Discharge
Bankfull discharge calculations for each reference stream were calculated using data collected in the field
and the Manning’s equation. Bankfull discharge was also calculated for each reference reach using the
Piedmont Regional Curve urban stream regression equation. Table 10 below compares the Manning’s
discharge with the Piedmont Regional Curve urban stream regression discharge.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 18 July 2020

Table 10. Bankfull Discharge Comparison
Reference Reach Drainage Area (Ac) Manning's Equation
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Piedmont Regional Curve
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1
Tributary 1 13 11.2 5.8
Tributary 2 15 9.2 6.4
Main Tributary 30 12 10.4
2 Tributary 1 30.7 15 10.6

Review of the above table shows that the bankfull discharges produced by the Manning’s equation are
slightly higher than those produced by the Piedmont Regional Curve urban stream regression equation. See
Section 6.2 for a more detailed description of the hydrologic analyses performed for this project.
Reference Channel Morphology
Bankfull cross-sectional areas for the two smaller tributaries are typically between 2 and 3 square feet.
Bankfull widths range from 3.5 to 4.5 ft, and depths were 0.8 ft, with a width to depth ratio of about 5. The
larger tributary was typically 4.5-5.5 ft wide and 1.2 feet deep, with a cross-sectional area ranging from 3.5
to 4.5 square feet and a width to depth ratio of about 4.

The second reference site yielded consistent morphological relationships. The bankfull area of cross-
sections taken at the downstream end is around 9 square feet, with a width and depth of about 6.5 and 2 ft,
respectively. The width to depth ratio is 4. Morphological parameters and cross-section plots are included
in Appendix C.
Reference Channel Stability Assessment
All reference reaches are stable and show no evidence of incision or erosion in the portions that were
surveyed and analyzed. The streams appear to maintain their slopes and have sufficient amounts of
vegetation to secure their banks. Riparian buffer widths exceed fifty feet on each side.
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 reaches,
bankfull is located at the top of bank elevation. The accuracy of this bankfull stage is verified by the
Piedmont 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 channels, and wrack lines present within the floodplains.
Reference Riparian Vegetation
Both reference sites have riparian communities characteristic of Piedmont Headwater Stream Forests
(Schafale 2012). Dominant canopy species across both reference reaches included sweetgum, tulip poplar,
white oak, American beech, and northern red oak. Understory species included sourwood (Oxydendron
arboretum), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), eastern red cedar and christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides). Herbaceous species at the second reference site include cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), creek sedge (Carex amphibola) and various other wetland sedges and grasses (Carex spp.).
Invasive species were also found within both reference reaches, including Chinese privet.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 19 July 2020

Design Parameters
Stream Restoration Approach
The restoration plan and design approach were developed based on existing conditions, reference reach
conditions and the Project goals outlined in Section 5. This Project will utilize Priority 1 restoration,
bioengineered bank stabilization, and natural channel design techniques. Stream restoration designs will
produce a single thread meandering channel consisting of a typical riffle pool relationship. Reference reach
data, NC regional curve data, and historical data will be utilized in the design of each restored stream reach.
Analytical design approaches will also be used to determine watershed discharge contributing to each
stream reach as well as enhance the overall design. A conceptual view is provided in Figure 10.

The restoration plan and design approach for each stream reach is detailed below:

Proposed Stream Reach WW1
A Priority 1 design approach is being used for this reach to create a channel where a historical channel is
believed to have existed prior to the creation of Walnut Wood golf course. Restoration activities for Reach
WW 1 include:
- Removal of existing storm sewer pipes and junction boxes
- Grading of a new channel through the existing fairway
- Installation of stone and wood structures to provide both grade control and lateral stream stability
- Use of In-Stream structures including brush toe protection, log steps, and reinforced riffles
- Removal of earthen berm from existing pond
- Filling in existing pond
- Creation of wetland area in former pond footprint
- Riparian planting
Proposed Stream Reach WW2
A Priority 1 design approach is being used for this reach to create a channel where a historical channel is
believed to have existed prior to the creation of Walnut Woods golf course. Restoration activities for Reach
WW2 include:
- Removal of existing storm sewer pipes and junction boxes
- Filling in four existing ponds
- Grading of a new channel through four existing ponds
- Installation of stone and wood structures to provide both grade control and lateral stream stability
- Use of In-Stream structures including brush toe protection, log steps, and reinforced riffles
- Removal of earthen berm from existing ponds
- Creation of wetland areas in former pond footprint
- Riparian planting

Proposed Stream Reach WW3
A Priority 1 design approach is being used for this reach to create a channel where a historical channel is
believed to have existed prior to the creation Walnut Woods golf course. Restoration activities for Reach
WW3 include:
- Removal of existing storm sewer pipes and junction boxes
- Grading of a new channel through the existing fairway
- Installation of stone and wood structures to provide both grade control and lateral stream stability
- Use of In-Stream structures including brush toe protection, log steps, and reinforced riffles
- Removal of earthen berm from existing pond
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 20 July 2020

- Filling in existing pond
- Creation of wetland area in former pond footprint
- Riparian planting
Climax Creek
An Enhancement II approach is being used for this reach to stabilize the channel banks in place and to
improve vegetation in bare areas on stream banks. Enhancement activities for Climax Creek include:
- Removal of seven old and fallen bridge structures
- Installation of geo-engineered bank stabilization structures
- Matting and live staking bare stream banks
- Installation of in-stream structures such as brush toe and reinforced riffles
- Inlet stabilization
Design Discharge
Typical Design Sections
Typical riffle and pool cross sections for all proposed stream reaches are shown on the design plans found
in Appendix H. Cross sections vary from upstream to downstream to accommodate additional watershed
area that will contribute to each proposed stream. Cross sections were developed using reference reach data,
existing ground data, and “in-house” spreadsheets. Typical riffle sections were used in straight reaches and
typical pool sections were used in meander bends. Typical riffle and pool cross sections were designed
based on cross sectional areas, bankfull width, mean depth, and stable side slopes.
Meander Pattern
Alignments for all stream reaches are shown on the design plans found in Appendix H. The meander
pattern was developed based on reference reach alignments, on-site constraints, existing valley locations,
and existing ponds. The meander pattern was developed to avoid on-site constraints while increasing
sinuosity. The meander pattern deviated where in-stream drops were needed due to rapid elevation changes.
All meander parameters can be found in the design reach Morph Chart found in Appendix C.
Longitudinal Profiles
All proposed profiles are shown in the design plans for each reach found in Appendix H. The design
profiles extend the entire length of each proposed reach alignment. Each profile was designed based on
existing conditions, valley slope, and design sinuosity. Log and stone structures will be used in each design
profile to provide in-stream habitat, grade control, and lateral stability. Constructed riffle slopes and log
drop heights were determined based on the size of the design channel and using natural channel design
techniques. Hydraulic modeling was performed for each proposed reach to determine potential bankfull
velocities and shear stresses along the design profiles.
In-Stream Structures
All in-stream structures are shown in the design plans for each reach found in Appendix H. The proposed
structures will be constructed using stone, logs, and woody debris. In-stream structures will be incorporated
into each proposed stream reach for grade control, lateral stability, and to provide aquatic habitat. Proposed
structures used for grade control will include step pools, constructed riffles, and log sills. The proposed
structures to provide lateral stability in the designed reaches include brush toe, matting with live stakes, and
vegetated geolifts. Details for each type of structure are also included in the design plans found in Appendix
H.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 21 July 2020

Data Analysis
Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic analysis was performed for each of the design reaches to determine the bankfull discharge that
could be expected based on the surrounding watershed. This bankfull discharge level was used, in
conjunction with reference reach data, to determine the appropriate channel geometry for each of the design
streams (Table 11). Multiple methods were used to determine possible bankfull discharges. Varying
watershed sizes were also used in the hydrologic analysis due to the drainage area of each design reach at
different locations along each proposed stream. Using multiple methods and varying watershed sizes allows
for greater comparison of results and a better channel geometry design. Inflow hydrographs and design
channel cross sections were determined using the following methods:

• Rational Method Peak Flows
• USGS StreamStats Peak Flows
• AutoCAD’s Hydraflow Hydrographs
• AutoCAD’s Hydraflow Express
• NC Regional Curves for Rural Piedmont.

Rational Method Peak Flow Analysis
The rational method was used to determine the peak flows for each design watershed as well as the varying
watershed sizes. The peak flow was found for the 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year flood events. These peak
flows were calculated using the Kirpich Method as the time of concentration and a composite “C” value
based off land cover GIS data. These peak flows were used in conjunction with a SCS Type II shape factor
to produce inflow hydrographs for each of the design reaches.

USGS StreamStats Peak Flows
USGS StreamStats online tool was used to generate peak flows for each of these drainage areas. These peak
flows are generated based on historic stream gauge data for each area. Both urban and rural peak flows
were generated using StreamStats. In addition to peak flows the USGS StreamStats reports include land
cover uses, drainage area elevations, longest flow paths, and soil data. The peak flows generated by these
reports were used for comparison with all other methods used. The USGS StreamStats for each drainage
area can be found in Appendix C.

AutoCAD’s Hydraflow Hydrographs
Hydraflow Hydrographs were used to determine rational method peak flows. These peak flows were
compared to those generated from the previous rational method peak flow analysis. The Hydraflow
Hydrographs program used the Kirpich Method for time of concentration and a composite “C” value based
on USGS land cover data. In addition to Rational Method peak flows, Hydraflow Hydrographs was used to
generate NRCS (SCS) unit hydrographs for each watershed. These unit hydrographs were compared with
those generated from the Rational Method peak flow analysis conducted previously. All Hydraflow
Hydrograph outputs can be found in Appendix C.

AutoCAD’s Hydraflow Express
Design cross sections were developed and tested for bankfull discharges using Hydraflow Express. This
analysis allowed for the testing of different proposed cross sections and their bankfull discharges. Design
cross sections were determined using reference reach data, calculated peak flows, and existing watershed
information. Different cross sections were developed for different stretches in each design reach. These
design cross sections and bankfull discharges generated by Hydraflow Express can be found in Appendix
C.
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 22 July 2020

NC Regional Curves for Rural Piedmont
Regional curves were utilized as another prediction for the bankfull discharges of each reach in the Project.
The North Carolina Piedmont regional curves by Doll et al. (2002) were used in this analysis. These NC
regional curves predict bankfull discharge using the drainage areas contributing to each reach. This
predicted discharge closely resembles the peak flows predicted using the 1 year 24-hour storm. The regional
curve equation for the NC Piedmont region by Doll et. al. (2002) is listed below:

Qbkf=91.62*(DA)0.71 (Doll et al., 2002)

Where Qbkf represents bankfull discharge in cubic feet per second and DA represents the drainage area in
square miles.
Table 11. Peak Flow Comparison
Reach Drainage Area (Ac) Qp (Rational) Qp (SCS) Qp (Regional Curve) Qp (Design)
WW 1
(Headwaters) 20.4 25.6 10.1 7.9 4.4
WW1
(Partial Watershed) 21.7 26.8 10.1 8.3 10.3
WW1
(Total Watershed) 22.0 27.1 12.4 8.4 18.3
WW2 (Headwaters) 19.8 21.3 23.7 7.8 4.4
WW2
(Partial Watershed) 35.2 37.8 43.0 11.7 10.3
WW2
(Total Watershed) 40.9 44.0 49.0 13.0 18.3
WW3 (Headwaters) 18.8 18.9 12.2 7.5 4.4
WW3
(Partial Watershed) 26.4 25.7 16.9 9.5 10.3
WW3
(Total Watershed) 32.4 31.2 18.3 11.0 18.3
**Peak flows calculated based on typical 1 year 24-hour rain event for this region. All peak flows reported in cubic feet per
second (cfs).

Stream Modeling Analysis
A two-dimensional model of each design reach was constructed to provide further insight into how flows
and the forces these flows carried would affect each reach. These two-dimensional models were created
with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System
(HEC-RAS) program. These models include the proposed three-dimensional surface created using
AutoCAD Civil 3D, Manning’s “N” values based on land cover data, and inflow hydrographs developed
during the hydrologic analysis. The goal of these two-dimensional models was to determine all forces acting
on each design reach during bankfull storm events. The focus of this analysis was the velocity and shear
stress in the channel at bankfull flows. These forces were then used to determine the appropriate riffle bed
material, pool depth, and structure design.

Shear Stress Analysis Approach
Bankfull shear stress is often analyzed to determine channel stability. Bankfull shear stresses are determined
based on a number of factors including bed materials (shape, size, and gradation), vegetative cover, channel
slope, channel dimension, bankfull flows, and the cohesiveness of stream bed and bank soils. Proposed
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 23 July 2020

shear stresses were determined for each proposed reach using a two-dimensional HEC-RAS model. Overall
reach average shear stress was determined as well as the shear stress found in a typical riffle section. The
shear stress was reported this way to better illustrate the shear stress across each reach. Reaches WW2 and
WW3 have to overcome a large elevation drop; therefore, each reach features a number of in-stream
structures to accommodate the required drop. However, including the drop sections significantly increased
the average shear stress found along the stream Thalweg and was not representative of the shear stresses
found throughout a typical riffle section. As a result, both the average and riffle specific shear stresses are
compared to the allowable shear stress as found in the literature. These comparisons are shown in Table 12
below.
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Reach
Typical Proposed Riffle
Bed Shear Stress at
Bankfull Stage (lbs/ft2)
Average Proposed Bed
Shear Stress at Bankfull
Stage (lbs/ft2)
Allowable Shear Stress1
Coarse
Gravel
(lbs/ft2)
Cobble
(lbs/ft2)
Vegetation
(lbs/ft2)
WW1 0.35 0.23 0.33 to 0.67 0.67 to 2.0 0.7 to 1.7
WW2 0.28 1.12 0.33 to 0.67 0.67 to 2.0 0.7 to 1.7
WW3 0.26 0.77 0.33 to 0.67 0.67 to 2.0 0.7 to 1.7
1 (Fischenich, 2001)

Table 12 shows that the average proposed bed shear stress for Reach WW1 and Reach WW2 are above the
recommended levels for simply a coarse gravel channel. To accommodate for this, in-stream structures
including log sills, cobble stone, brush toe, and selective use of boulder materials were included in the
proposed design. The typical proposed riffle shear stress for all reaches is below the allowable for coarse
gravel. Due to this, the proposed riffle design using coarse gravel should remain stable during bankfull
flow.

Velocity Analysis Approach
Multiple published data sources were reviewed to provide estimated entrainment velocities for channels
constructed using different bed and bank materials. Entrainment velocities were determined for each
proposed reach using a two-dimensional HEC-RAS model. Both overall reach average velocities as well as
typical riffle section velocities were determined for each proposed reach. Channel stability can be verified
by comparing the calculated velocities for each proposed restoration reach with the permissible velocities
found throughout multiple publications. This comparison is shown below in Table 13.

Table 13. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Velocities
Reach Manning's "n"
Number1
Typical Riffle
Proposed Design
Velocity (ft/s)
Average Proposed
Design Velocity (ft/s)
Proposed Bed
Material
Permissible Velocity2
(ft/s)
WW1 0.05 1.7 3.8 Course Gravel 2.5-6
WW2 0.05 3.6 6.8 Course Gravel 2.5-6
WW3 0.05 1.5 2.7 Course Gravel 2.5-6
1 (Chow, 1959)
2 (Fischenich, 2001)
Table 13 shows that the average proposed design velocity for Reach WW2 is slightly above the
recommended levels for channel constructed of only coarse gravel. To accommodate for this, in-stream
structures including log sills, cobble stone, brush toe, and selective use of boulder materials were included
in the proposed design. The typical proposed riffle design velocities for all reaches is below the allowable
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 24 July 2020

for coarse gravel. Because of this, the proposed riffle design using coarse gravel bed material should remain
stable at bankfull flows.

Vegetation and Planting Plan
Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration project. There are three
proposed planting zones that include the stream corridor, slopes, and the riparian wetland zone. Each zone
has a unique planting plan associated with it that was determined using multiple sources. Plant lists were
compiled using plant observations from reference reaches and typical native vegetation for the surrounding
area, as well as plants that have performed well in past restoration activities. The reference streams are
located in a Piedmont region of North Carolina characteristic of a Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
(Schafale 2012). Species observed in these reference reaches include tulip poplar, American beech, white
oak, and cinnamon fern, as well as various sedges (Carex spp.). Reference vegetation is also present along
Climax Creek and can be considered a Piedmont Alluvial Forest. Dominant tree species include sweet gum,
river birch, American sycamore, American hornbeam, and tulip polar.

The reference sites were chosen due to the stability of the channel, the physical structure of the forest
community, and to evaluate stream habitat. These target communities will be used for the planting areas
within the project, shown in Appendix H. The plant species list has been developed and can be found in
Table 14, 15, and 16. Species with high dispersal rates are not included because of local occurrence,
adjacent seed sources, and the high potential for natural regeneration. The high dispersal species include
red maple, tulip poplar, and sweetgum.

Table 14. Proposed Live Stake Planting List
Live Stake Planting Tree Species
Species Common Name Spacing (ft) Unit Type % of Total Species
Composition
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 5x5 Live Stake 20
Populus deltoides Cottonwood 5x5 Live Stake 20
Salix nigra Black Willow 5x5 Live Stake 60

The goal for restoring the plant communities along the proposed stream reaches is to provide bank stability
and plant diversity. Bank stabilization will initially be achieved using live staking, wetland plugs, and a
permanent seed mix. Live staking will be completed on the outside of meander bends and on both banks in
constructed riffle sections. Silky willow and silky dogwood live stakes will be used on the stream banks to
provide bank stabilization. Wetland plugs will be installed mainly along Reach WW2 due to the narrow
and steeper valley. Wetland plugs will be planted along the toe of slope and within deeper sections of the
pond bottoms to establish immediate coverage (Table 15). The permanent seed mix shown in Table 15
will also be used on the stream banks to provide both initial and long-term bank stabilization. The variety
of plant species to be used in all three planting zones will provide a diverse plant community along the
restored stream reach corridors.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 25 July 2020

Table 15. Permanent Seed Mix and Wetland Plugs
Permanent Seed Mix Species
Species Common Name % of Total Species Composition
Elymus virginicus VA Wild Rye 15
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 15
Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea 15
Heliopsis helianthoides Oxeye Sunflower 10
Dichanthelium clandestinum Deertongue 10
Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass 10
Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed Susan 10
Bidens aristosa Bur Marigold 10
Carex lurida Lurid Sedge 5
Plug Planting Wetland Species
Species Common Name % of Total Species Composition
Carex lurida Lurid Sedge 25
Helianthus angustifolius Swamp Sunflower 25
Iris virginica Blue Flag Iris 20
Juncus effusus Soft Rush 5
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 25

Planting is anticipated to be completed during suitable time frames for each of the proposed species.
Wetland seeding and plugs shall be installed in the spring prior to June 1st or in the fall prior to October
31st. Bare root trees should be planted in their dormant season prior to May 1st. All disturbed area shall be
seeded using permanent seed mix once construction has been completed.

Table 16. Proposed Bare Root Planting List
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Species Common Name Spacing (ft) Unit Type
% of Total
Species
Composition
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 9X6 Bare Root 15
Quercus phellos Willow oak 9X6 Bare Root 15
Asimina triloba Pawpaw 9X6 Bare Root 10
Betula nigra River birch 9X6 Bare Root 10
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 9X6 Bare Root 10
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar 9X6 Bare Root 10
Quercus nigra Water oak 9X6 Bare Root 10
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark oak 9X6 Bare Root 10
Quercus rubra Northern red oak 9X6 Bare Root 10

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 26 July 2020

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 as to maximize its effectiveness
and reduce chances of detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods will include
mechanical (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical (foliar spray, cut stump, and hack
and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds, will be removed from the Project 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.
Soil Restoration
Upon completion of all grading activities and prior to planting, the subsoil will be scarified and tilled. All
disturbed areas will be prepared using a disc or spring-tooth chisel plow to a minimum depth of 12 inches.
Any compaction will be deep tilled before the topsoil is placed back over the Project. Any topsoil that is
removed during construction will be stockpiled and placed over the Project during final soil preparation.
Completing this process will ensure favorable soil conditions to promote rapid plant growth. Rapid
establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the Project.
Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been utilized to develop the restoration and enhancement designs
described throughout this document. Rosgen stream classifications were used to define the restoration and
enhancement of each of the proposed reaches. A combination of measured/observed and analysis-based
methods were used in the design for this Project. These methods were deemed appropriate due to the rural
location, relatively small size of each watershed, and minimal infrastructure constraints. Reference reaches
were observed and measured to produce the original design parameters for each of the proposed reaches.
An iterative analysis-based approach was then used to refine the original design parameters. Numerical
methods such as the modeling of fluvial processes, production of design storm hydrographs, and the
development of bankfull discharge simulations were used for the iterative analysis and refinement of the
design. The restoration and enhancement designs proposed in this report aim to provide natural Piedmont
gravel-bed channel features that will promote stream bed diversity and improve aquatic communities. The
proposed design promotes flow along the floodplain for storm events that exceed the bankfull stage. The
stream corridor and floodplain areas will be planted with a diverse mix of plant and tree species. A complete
plant list can be found in Table 14, 15, and 16 above.

The Project proposes the removal of several old golf course ponds by dewatering and removing the dams.
The material excavated from each dam will be used to fill the existing pond footprints. The proposed
streams will then be constructed through the newly filled pond footprints and excavated dam areas. The
material excavated from the restored channel will be utilized to fill the outer limits of the original pond
footprints. Native woody material, biodegradable stabilization materials, and stone will be installed
throughout each restored reach. These materials will reduce bank stress, provide grade control, and increase
habitat diversity.

Wetland restoration will be incorporated into the proposed stream restoration to provide additional water
quality improvements, pollutant removal and wildlife habitat. Wetland restoration and enhancement areas
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 27 July 2020

will be planted with a diverse mix of plant species commonly found in wetland areas. The wetland plant
species list can be found in Table 15 and 16 above.

Riparian buffers will be established along each of the Project reaches. Riparian buffers will also be replanted
in all existing buffer areas impacted during construction. A Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest community,
as found in local reference reach sites, will be established and include a diverse combination of plant
species. A complete plant species list can be found in Table 14, 15, and 16 above.

A multitude of sediment control measures will be utilized on site. These sediment control measures include
riparian buffer planting, bank stabilization, stream restoration, stream enhancement, wetland restoration,
wetland enhancement, livestock exclusions, and discontinuation of golf course management practices.
These measures will provide functional uplift of the site by limiting the nutrient input and sediment from
activities outside of the proposed conservation easement.

Due to the location and scope of this Project stream, wetland and open water impacts cannot be totally
avoided. This Project proposes temporary and permanent impacts to both stream restoration reaches and
exiting wetland areas. Both stream and wetland impacts will be replaced and expanded through this Project.
Open water impacts will be permanent and not replaced by this Project. The removal of these open water
areas will allow for restored stream and wetland hydrology along all of the proposed restoration reaches.
All stream, wetland, and open water impacts will be accounted for in the Pre-Construction Notification
(PCN) form.
Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 17 are projections based upon site design (Figure 10). Upon
completion of site construction, the project components and credits data will only be revised to be consistent
with the as-built condition if there is a large discrepancy and with an approved mitigation plan addendum.
This will be approved by the USACE.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 28 July 2020

Table 17. Mitigation Credits
The Walnut Wood Mitigation Site Credits
Warm Stream
Totals 5,670.400
Stream Mitigation
Reach Mitigation
Type Proposed Stationing
Existing
Length
(LF)
Proposed
Length (LF)
Mitigation
Ratio SMUs
WW1 Restoration 0+00 to 9+86 0 986 1.0:1 986.000
WW2 Restoration 0+00 to 6+90 0 690 1.0:1 690.000
WW2 Restoration 7+55 to 16+14 0 859 1.0:1 859.000
WW3 Restoration 0+00 to 11+25 0 1125 1.0:1 1125.000
WW3 Restoration 11+85 to 20+89 0 904 1.0:1 904.000
Climax
Creek Enhancement II 0+00 to 8+59 859 859 2.5:1 343.600
Climax
Creek Enhancement II 9+19 to 14+13 494 494 2.5:1 197.600
Climax
Creek Enhancement II 14+78 to 28+91 1413 1413 2.5:1 565.200

Totals 2766 7330 5,670.400
Total SMUs 5,670.400

7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Project will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in the 2016
USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update and subsequent agency
guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Bankfull Events
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
Cross Sections
There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down-cutting or
erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified
using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be greater than 2.2 within restored riffle cross sections (.
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 29 July 2020

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. Cross section,
vegetation plot, stage recorder, and flow gauge locations will be used as permanent digital image stations.
Surface Flow
Intermittent stream 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 (flow
gauge). Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow. Three flow gauges will be
installed: one on WW1, one on WW2, and one on WW3.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project will
follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the survival of
at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, five-year old trees at seven feet in
height 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. Moreover, any single species can only account for up to 50 percent of the required number
of stems within any vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50 percent will be shown in the monitoring
table, but will not be used to demonstrate success.
8 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the NCIRT monitoring template. 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. Monitoring reports will be prepared
annually and submitted to the USACE. Monitoring of the Project will adhere to metrics and performance
standards established by the USACE’s April 2003 Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines and
the NC IRT’s October 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Table 17 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. The monitoring plan is presented in Figure 11.
As-Built Survey
An as-built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank to
compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual monitoring
reports unless requested by USACE. Stream channel stationing will be marked with stakes placed near the
top of bank every 200 feet.
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
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 30 July 2020

event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual monitoring will be presented
in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital images. Photographs will be
used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian
vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence
of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of photos over time
should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Hydrology Events
Stage recorders, a combination of manual crest gauges and automatic-logging pressure transducers, will be
installed to document the height and frequency of bankfull events on Priority 1 Restoration reaches, which
includes WW1, WW2, and WW3. A minimum of one gauge will be installed on each tributary that is greater
than 1,000 feet in length, with one gauge required for every 5,000 feet of length on each tributary and a
maximum of five gauges per tributary. Where restoration or enhancement activities are proposed for
intermittent streams, monitoring flow gauges should be installed to track the frequency and duration of
stream flow events. A stage recorder will be installed on the lower third of reach WW1, WW2, and WW3.
Additionally, flow gauges, an automatic-logging pressure transducer, will be installed on the upper third of
each of the reaches (WW1, WW2, and WW3) to document flow conditions.
Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at approximately one per 20 bankfull widths with half in pools
and half in riffle on all Restoration reaches. All cross-section measurements will include bank height ratio
and entrenchment ratio. Cross sections will be monitored in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring plots will be 100 square meters, or 0.025 acres, in size and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be 17 plots within the planted area (20.9 acres). Plots will be a
mixture of fixed and random plots, with 13 fixed plots and four random plots. Planted area indicates all
area in the easement that will be planted with trees. Existing wooded areas are not included in the planted
area. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the fixed plots: species, height, planting date (or
volunteer), and grid location. For random plots, species and height will be recorded for all woody stems.
The location (GPS coordinates and orientation) of the random plots will be identified in the annual
monitoring reports. Vegetation will be planted and plots established at least 180 days prior to the initiation
of the first year of monitoring. Monitoring will occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between the end of August
and leaf drop. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored so that none become dominant or alter the
desired community structure of the Project. If necessary, RES will develop a species-specific treatment
plan.
Scheduling/Reporting
A baseline monitoring report and as-built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be
developed within 60 days of the planting completion on the Project. 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
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 31 July 2020

of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final success
criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.

Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to the IRT. The
monitoring reports will include all information and be in the format required by USACE.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 32 July 2020

Table 18. Monitoring Requirements
Level Goal Treatment Outcome Monitoring
Metric Performance Standard Hydrology To transport
water from the
watershed to the
channel in a non-
erosive manner
Convert land-
use of Project
reaches from
cropland to
riparian forest

Improve the
transport of
water from the
watershed to
the Project
reaches in a
non-erosive
way
NA NA Hydraulic To transport
water in a stable
non-erosive
manner
Reduce bank
height ratios and
increase
entrenchment
ratios by
reconstructing
channels to
mimic reference
reach conditions
Improve flood
bank
connectivity
by reducing
bank height
ratios and
increase
entrenchment
ratios
Crest gauges
and/or pressure
transducers:
Inspected
semiannually
Four bankfull events occurring in
separate years
At least 30 days of continuous flow
each year
Cross sections:
Surveyed in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and
7
Entrenchment ratio shall be no less
than 2.2 within restored reaches
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2 Geomorphology To create a
diverse bedform

To achieve
dynamic
equilibrium
Establish a
riparian buffer to
reduce erosion
and sediment
transport into
project streams.
Establish stable
banks with
livestakes,
erosion control
matting, and
other in stream
structures.
Reduce
erosion rates
and channel
stability to
reference
reach
conditions

Improve
bedform
diversity (pool
spacing,
percent riffles,
etc.

Increase
buffer width
to 50 feet
As-built stream
profile NA
Cross sections:
Surveyed in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and
7
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
less than 2.2 within restored
reaches
Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2
Visual monitoring:
Performed at least
semiannually
Identify and document significant
stream problem areas; i.e.
erosion, degradation,
aggradation, etc.
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and
7
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall) Physicochemical ° To achieve
appropriate
levels for water
temperature,
dissolved oxygen
concentration,
and other
important
nutrients
including but not
limited to
Nitrogen and
Phosphorus
Plant or protect
riparian buffer
Improve
stream
temperature
regulation
through
introduction
of canopy

Decrease
nutrient
loading
through
filtration of
planted
riparian buffer
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and
7
(indirect
measurement)
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
Visual assessment
of established
conservation
signage:
Performed at least
semiannually
(indirect
measurement)
Inspect signage.
Identify and document any
damaged or missing
signs
° This category is measured indirectly
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 33 July 2020

9 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
Project’s ability to achieve performance standards are jeopardized, RES will notify the USACE of the
need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized
RES will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Prepare Corrective Action Plan for review and approval by IRT.
5. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
6. Provide the IRT a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed.
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 34 July 2020

10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval of the Project by the IRT, the Project will be transferred to Unique Places To Save:

Unique Places to Save
[phone]
PO Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
www.UP2Suniqueplacestosave.org

Unique Places To Save (UP2S) will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Project to ensure that
restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld.
Easements held by the UP2S 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 violation of the easement terms is found within the Project area, UP2S
works with the landowner to ensure the problem is rectified. When appropriate UP2S pursues legal
action to enforce the easement terms. UP2S typically requires the Project developer to install standard
UP2S signage as part of the easement transfer package. This includes well marked corners of the
easement boundary, as well as plastic or metal signs identifying the easement. The current sign standard
is a six-inch by six-inch aluminum sign with contact information. Signs are refreshed as needed.
Typically, a sign will last five to ten years before it is no longer legible due to fading from the sun.

UP2S requires an endowment for each easement it agrees to hold. 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 Project during which UP2S will not incur any expenses. It also
assumes a five percent annual return. This flat fee includes a property walkthrough, report, pictures,
sign installation, etc. Funding will be provided upfront to UP2S upon the easement closing in the
amount of $44,314.00. This fee ensures annual Site inspections occur and the terms of the conservation
easement are legally defended into perpetuity. An overview of the UP2S Easement Stewardship
program and the details on the specific endowment fee is included in Appendix B.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 35 July 2020

11 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved mitigation
plan of the site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise
provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for
construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the IRT, will determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules
below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released
depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending
on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of Project
credits will be subject to the criteria described in Table 19.
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 UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
b) Approval of the final mitigation plan;
c) Mitigation site must be secured;
d) Delivery of financial assurances;
e) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
f) Issuance of the 404-permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
Subsequent Credit Releases
The second credit release will occur after the completion of implementation of the Mitigation Plan and
IRT approval 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 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.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 36 July 2020

Table 19. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Stream Credit Release Schedule
Release Milestone Credit Release Activity Interim Release Total Released
1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated
above)
15% 15%
2 Baseline Monitoring Report and As-built Survey 15% 30%
3 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met.
10% 40%
4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met.
10% 50%
5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met.
10% 60%
6 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met.
5% 65%
(75%)
7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met.
10% 75%
(85%)
8 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met.
5% 80%
(90%)
9
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met, and project has received close-out
approval.
10% 90%
(100%)
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 37 July 2020

12 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The Project 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. Stream maintenance will
continue through the monitoring period.
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.
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.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 38 July 2020

13 INVASIVE SPECIES PLAN
Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
project. These site inspections may identify the presence of invasive vegetation. RES will treat invasive
species vegetation within the project area and provide remedial action on a case-by-case basis. Common
invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Japanese
honeysuckle, will be treated to allow native plants to become established within the conservation
easement. Invasive species vegetation will be treated by approved mechanical and/or chemical methods
such that the percent composition of exotic/invasive species is less than five percent of the total riparian
buffer area. Any control methods requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with
NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. If areas of invasive species exist within
the easement, they will be monitored yearly as part of the monitoring protocol, and treated if necessary.
If required, problem areas will continue to be treated until the project easement shows overall trending
towards meeting all monitoring requirements.

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 39 July 2020

15 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL

The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $900,000 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 $900,000 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 $239,000
Maintenance and 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
$239,000 amount includes contingency and estimated monitoring costs from the Engineer. The
Maintenance and Monitoring Performance Bond will be reduced by $34,000 following approval of
each annual monitoring report. The Maintenance and 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,
NCWHF has agreed to receive the funds and ensure the work is successfully completed.

Table 21. Financial Assurances
Construction Costs
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc.) $50000
Sitework $160,000
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs, logs, rocks, coir, etc.) $300000
Crossings $40,000
Vegetation $100,000
Miscellaneous/Admin Fees $250,000
Total $900,000
Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Set-Up, As-Built, & Equipment $30,000
Year 1 Monitoring and Report $14,000
Year 2 Monitoring and Report $14,000
Year 3 Monitoring and Report $14,000
Year 4 Monitoring and Report $14,000
Year 5 Monitoring and Report $14,000
Year 6 Monitoring and Report $14,000
Year 7 Monitoring and Report $14,000
Maintenance and Contingency $125,000
Total $239,000

Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 40 July 2020

16 REFERENCES

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Doll, Barbara. Et al. 2002 “Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams throughout the
Piedmont of North Carolina” Journal of the American Water Resources Association Vol 38,
No3. June 2002

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

Fischenich, C. 2001. ‘‘Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials.’’ ERDC Technical Note
No. EMRRP-SR-29, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
Miss.

Fischenich, J.C., 2006. Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration, EMRRP Technical Notes
Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-52), US Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. (available online at
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr52.pdf)

Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen and J.P.
Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.

Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function-
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-
K-12-006.

Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number FHWA-
HRT-05-072.

NCDENR 2012a. “Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina.” Water
Quality http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (Accessed July 2018).

NCDENR 2018b. “2018 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5.” Water Quality Section.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (Accessed July 2019).

NCDOT 2018. “Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures” January 2018

NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2011. A Guide to Surface Freshwater
Classifications in North Carolina. Raleigh. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/
get_file?p_l_id=1169848&folderId=2209568&name=DLFE-35732.pdf; accessed July 2018.

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). “Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009.”
Walnut Wood Mitigation Plan 41 July 2020

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO

Russell, Periann, 2008. Mapping Headwater Streams: Intermittent and Perennial Headwater Stream
Model Development and Spatial Application. Final Report for Federal Highway
Administration Contract Feasibility Study WBS: 36486.4.2. January 28, 2008

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2,
December 24, 2002.

USACE. 2003. April 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. 2018. Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator.

USACE. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.

USDA NRCS 2004. Design Guide MD#6 Riprap Design Methods: Plunge Pool Design Guidance
January 2004

USDA NRCS. 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH 654), USDA

USDA NRCS. 1977. Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina.

USDA NRCS. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas,
G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.

USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov (July 2018).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. EPA Manual. Quantifying Physical
Habitat in Wadeable Streams.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. “Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina.”
North Carolina Ecological Services. http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. (April 2018).
Figures List
Figure 1 – Project Vicinity
Figure 2 – USGS Quadrangle
Figure 3 – Landowner Parcels
Figure 4 – Land-use
Figure 5 – Existing Conditions
Figure 6 – National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 7 – Mapped Soils
Figure 8a – Historical Conditions
Figure 8b – Historical Conditions
Figure 9 – National Flood Hazard Layer (FEMA)
Figure 10 – Conceptual Design Plan
Figure 11 – Monitoring Plan
0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Service Area - HUC 03030002
14 Digit HUC - 03030002040010
Water Supply Watershed
©Date: 6/22/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JRM Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 1 - Vicinity Map - Walnut Wood.mxd1 inch = 1,000 feet
Walnut WoodProject
35.9808, -79.6446
WW122.0 ac
WW240.9 ac
WW332.4 ac
ClimaxCreek5696.0 ac
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGS Quadrangle
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
©Date: 7/21/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JRM Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 2 - USGS Map - Walnut Wood.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
Climax (1981)
STRADER, KORY D;STRADERWRAY, MARJORIE BRETT8801829027
0 500250
Feet
Figure 3 - Project Parcel
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Project Parcel
©Date: 6/23/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JRM Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 3 - Project Parcel.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
0 4,0002,000
Feet
Figure 4 - Land Use
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
Land-use
Agricultural
Developed
Forest
Impervious Surface
Water
©Date: 6/23/2020
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: MGB
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 4 - Land-Use.mxd1 inch = 4,000 feet
WW2
C lim a x C r e e k
Pond C
PondB
Pond D
Pond E
Pond F
Pond AWCWB
WA
WD
WE
WF
WG
0 500250
Feet
Figure 5 - Existing Conditions
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Project Parcel
Existing Wetland
Existing Pond
Existing Stream
Intermittent
Perennial
Existing Bridge
Cart Path
P P Underground Powerline
©Date: 7/22/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 5 - Existing Conditions.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
PFO1A
PFO1A
PUBHh PUBHh
PUBHh
PUBHh
PUBHh
PUBHh PUBHh
PUBHx
PUBHx
0 500250
Feet
Figure 6 - National Wetland Inventory
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
NWI Wetland (USFWS 10/15/2018)
©Date: 6/23/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JRM Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 6 - NWI.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
WhA
CcB
EnB
EnB
EnB
W
MhB2MhC2
MhB2
EnD
EnB
EnB
EnB
EnB
EnB
EnC
ApB
MhC2
MhC2
MhC2
MhC2
EnB
EnC
EnC
EnC
ApC
EnC
CcB
MhC2
CcC
ChA
EnB
EnC
EnC
HhB
HhB
MhC2
EnD
WkE
MhB2
WhA
MaE
MhB2
MhB2
ChA
CcC
EnC CcB
MhB2
EnB
MaE
W
ChA
MhC2
0 500250
Feet
Figure 7 - Mapped Soils
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
©Date: 6/23/2020
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: MGB
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 7 - Mapped Soils.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
Legend
Proposed Easement
Hydric (100%)
Predominantly Hydric (66-99%)
Partially Hydric (33-65%)
Predominantly Nonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)NRCS - June 2019
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name
ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
EnB Enon fine sandyloam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
EnC Enon fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
MhB2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded
MhC2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded
WhA Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
WkE Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 8a - Historical Conditions.mxd1948
1969 1977
Legend
Proposed Easement
Figure 8a - Historical Conditions
Walnut WoodMitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
©Date: 6/23/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Che c ked by: JRM 0 1,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
1959
Source: USGS EarthExplorer
Source: USGS EarthExplorer
Source: USGS EarthExplorer
Source: USGS EarthExplorer
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 8b - Historical Conditions.mxd1981
2003 2014
Legend
Proposed Easement
Figure 8b - Historical Conditions
Walnut WoodMitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
©Date: 6/23/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Che c ked by: JRM 0 1,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
1993
Source: USGS EarthExplorer
Source: NCOneMap
Source: NCOneMap
Source: NCOneMap
0 500250
Feet
Figure 9 - National Floor Hazard Layer
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
FEMA Zone AE
FEMA Regulatory Floodway
.2% Chance Annual Flood
©Date: 6/23/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\5_BPDP\Figure 8 - FEMA - Walnut Wood.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
X XXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X
XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X
XXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
WW1
WW2
WW3
Climax Cre
e
k
0 500250
Feet
Figure 10 - Concept Design Plan
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Project Parcel
Parcel
Existing Pond
Stream Mitigation Approach
Restoration
Enhancement II
X Proposed Fenceline
Existing Bridge
Cart Path
©Date: 7/24/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 10 - Concept Design Plan - Walnut Wood.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
Remove BridgeRemove BridgeRemove BridgeRemove bridge
Remove BridgeRemove BridgeRemove bridge
Pond damto be removed
Pond damto be removedPond damto be removedPond damto be removedPond damto be removed
Pond damto be removed
Cart path to be removed throughout easment
Pond B
Pond C
Pond D
Pond E
Pond F
Pond A
Reach Mitigation Approach Proposed Length Ratio SMUs
WW1 Restoration 986 1 986.000
WW2 Restoration 1,549 1 1,549.000
WW3 Restoration 2,029 1 2,029.000
Climax Creek Enhancement II 2,766 2.5 1,106.400
7,330 5,670.400Total
«
«
«
«
«
«
X X XXXXXXXX X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X XXXXXXXXX
X X XXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
WW3
WW2
WW1
Climax Creek©
0 300150
Feet
REFERENCE
1) Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Zone 17N
2) Map Projection is NAD_1983_StatePlane_
North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Date: 7/22/2020 Drawn by: EJU
Checked by:JRM Document Path: R:\resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 11 - Monitoring Plan - Walnut Wood.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Planted Area (20.9 ac)
Vegetation Plot Type
Fixed
Random
Stream Mitigation Approach
Restoration
Enhancement II
Proposed Cross Section
X Proposed Fencing
«Flow Gauge
«Stage Recorder
Figure 11 - Monitoring Plan
Walnut WoodMitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
1 in = 300 feet
Note: There will be 13 fixed vegetation plots,
and 4 will be randomly placed each monitoring year.
Flow gauge, stage recorder, cross section, and
vegetation plot locations are all proposed locations.
Fixed digital image locations will occur at each
cross section, vegetation plot, stage recorder, and
flow gauge.

Appendix A

• Walnut Wood Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DRAFT BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN

The Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
DWR Project Number: 2017-0919v1

Haw River Subwatershed of Jordan Lake
8-Digit HUC 03030002 / 14-Digit HUC 03030002040010

Prepared By:

July 2020
Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc and Exchange (EBX)

3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1062

Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan ii July 2020

Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Parcel Location ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Parcel Overview ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2.1 Parcel Ownership.................................................................................................... 3
2 PROJECT AREA – EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................. 4
2.1 Physiography .................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Soils ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Existing Riparian Conditions ......................................................................................... 5
2.4 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 9
2.6 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 10
2.7 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain/Floodway Mapping ... 10
3 RIPARIAN RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION PLAN ..................................... 10
3.1 Parcel Preparation ........................................................................................................ 11
3.2 Riparian Restoration Activities .................................................................................... 12
3.3 Riparian Preservation Activities ................................................................................... 12
3.4 Planting Plan ................................................................................................................ 12
3.5 Easement Boundaries and Fencing ............................................................................... 13
4 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN ............................................................. 13
4.1 Monitoring Protocol and Success Criteria .................................................................... 13
4.2 Adaptive Management Plan and Parcel Maintenance .................................................. 14
4.3 Long Term Management Plan ...................................................................................... 15
5 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE ............................................................................................. 15
6 MITIGATION POTENTIAL ........................................................................................... 15
7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 18

Supporting Figures
Figure 1. Service Area
Figure 2. Project Vicinity
Figure 3. Existing Conditions
Figure 4. Conceptual Design Plan for Riparian Buffer Bank
Figure 5. USGS Quadrangle
Figure 6. Mapped Soils
Figure 7. National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 8. National Flood Hazard Layer
Figure 9. Monitoring Plan

Appendices
Appendix AA. Buffer MBI
Appendix AB. Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Letter
Appendix AC. Supplementary Information
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 1 July 2020
1 INTRODUCTION
Environmental Banc and Exchange (EBX), an entity of RES, is pleased to provide this Buffer
Mitigation Plan (Plan) for the Walnut Wood Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank
(Project). This Project is designed to provide riparian buffer and nutrient offset credits for
unavoidable impacts due to development within the Haw River Subwatershed of the Jordan Lake
Watershed (Figure 1). This Plan is in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule
15A NCAC 02B.0295, 15A NCAC 02B.0703 and the RES Walnut Wood Mitigation Banking
Instrument for Riparian Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Credits (MBI), Appendix AA,
made and entered into by EBX acting as the Bank Sponsor (Sponsor), and the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality-Division of Water Resources (DWR).
The Plan has also been designed in concurrence with the Walnut Wood Stream Mitigation Bank
(SAW-2017-01470). The Walnut Wood Stream Mitigation Bank is proposed to provide 5,670.400
Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) within the conservation easement through a separate mitigation
banking instrument with the IRT.
1.1 Parcel Location
The Parcel is located in Guilford County approximately 5 miles east of Julian, North Carolina
east of NC Highway 421 (Figure 2). The Parcel is located within Haw River Subwatershed within
the Jordan Lake Watershed, USGS 14-digit HUC 03030002040010, a Targeted Local Watershed,
and DWR Subbasin Number 03-06-03.
To access the Parcel, head east on Mt. Hope Church Road from Interstate-40 and turn right onto
Old Julian Road. Turn right onto Scythe Road and after 1.8 miles turn right onto Alamance
Church Road. The parcel is on the left side of the road. The coordinates of the site are 35.9808°N,
-79.6446°W.
1.2 Parcel Overview
This Parcel is being proposed to restore and preserve stream and wetland complexes with the
adjacent riparian areas, in order to compensate, in appropriate circumstances, for unavoidable
riparian buffer impacts and nutrient load reduction requirements. When combining the Walnut
Wood Stream Mitigation Bank with the Walnut Wood Riparian Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient
Offset Bank, the conservation easement will total approximately 32.11 acres and will include
three unnamed tributaries that drain directly into Climax Creek. The parcel is located on an
abandoned golf course that was constructed between 1977 and 1981 and closed in 2016 (Figure
3). The fairways and greens are intermittently mowed but are no longer functioning as originally
intended. Further, livestock have been introduced and much of the former golf course is now
active pasture. The northwest portion of the easement adjacent to Climax Creek remains forested.
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 2 July 2020

Historical land use has resulted in degraded water quality and unstable channel conditions
throughout the project area.
Climax Creek is the main hydrologic feature in the Project. There are also six ponds onsite that
were developed for the golf course and are no longer being maintained. The four reaches of the
project are referred to as WW1, WW2, WW3, and Climax Creek; however, due to the
impoundments, the three tributaries (WW1, WW2, and WW3) that should drain to Climax Creek
are disjointed and only evident in sections (only portions of WW2 can be seen in Figure 3). There
are also seven jurisdictional wetlands within the boundaries of the proposed Project or just outside
the project area (Figure 3). Four easement breaks divide the Parcel to allow for future land use;
these breaks have been discussed and coordinated by the landowner to limit potential negative
impacts to the stream and surrounding riparian area due to any future agricultural practices. An
underground powerline is present in the northeast corner of the proposed easement (Figure 3).
Stream identifications and buffer viability determinations were verified by the DWR site visit
on April 2, 2019. Correspondence regarding this determination can be found in the buffer
viability letter dated June 5, 2019 in Appendix AB.
The goal of the Project is to restore and preserve ecological function to the existing stream and
riparian area by establishing appropriate plant communities while minimizing temporal and land
disturbing impacts. Restoration activities will include daylighting piped streams, draining the
ponds onsite and repairing the stream system through the remaining pond footprints. Revegetation
of the floodplain along with the restoration and enhancement of the remaining stream channels
(those currently uninhibited by existing impoundments) will re-establish a connecting stream and
floodplain which will aid in filtering sediment and nutrients flowing throughout the Jordan Lake
Watershed. Under the Walnut Wood Nutrient Offset and Buffer Bank, proposed activities involve
restoration and preservation specifically to the riparian areas adjacent to the newly created streams
onsite (Figure 4). Restoration and preservation of the Jordan Lake riparian buffer (as defined in
15A NCAC 02B .0267) is anticipated to result in a reduction of the water quality stressors
currently affecting the Project area: impoundments, piped streams, historic land use, floodplain
disconnection and erosion of stream banks.
Under this Plan, the Project will generate Riparian Buffer and/or Nutrient Offset credit within two
dedicated zones from the top of the bank: the top of bank to 100 foot-wide zone of buffer
perpendicular landward; and the 101-200 foot-wide zone of buffer perpendicular from the top of
the bank (Figure 4). The total drainage area of the Project is 5,791 acres (9.04 square miles)
(Figure 5).
Of the total 32.11-acre permanent conservation easement, the Walnut Wood Project presents the
opportunity to perform 1,258,738.052 ft2 (28.90 acres) of riparian buffer mitigation (before ratios
and percent reductions have been applied) by establishing or preserving a native forested and
herbaceous riparian buffer plant community with a minimum width of 100 feet and a maximum of
200 feet from the edge of the channels. Within the easement, 237,536 ft² (5.45 acres) will be
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 3 July 2020

restored for riparian buffer credit and 671,723 ft2 (15.42 acres) will be restored for nutrient offset
credit, 67,595 ft2 (1.55 acres) will be claimed as non-subject preservation, and 11,583 ft2 (0.27
acres) will be claimed as preservation. Both the restoration credit and preservation credit are not
viable for conversion to nutrient credit. Of the nutrient credited area, 633,091 ft2 is viable to
convert to riparian buffer restoration credit. According to 15A NCAC 02B.0295(o)(4) and (5),
“the area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than
25% of the total area of buffer mitigation”. As the total area of buffer restoration accounts for
8.67 acres, the total credits that could be generated from the preservation area will not exceed
2.89 acres. Table 1. and Table 1.1 provide an overall summary of the total buffer mitigation
credits.
Table 1. Walnut Wood Mitigation Project Summary
Total Riparian Buffer Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Totals Used Area Square Feet and Acres Credits
Restoration 237,536 ft2 (5.45 acres) 231,081.893 ft2
Preservation 79,179 ft2 (1.82 acres) 14,677.325 ft2
Total Riparian Buffer 316,715 ft2 (7.27 acres) 245,759.218 ft2

Table 1.1 Walnut Wood Mitigation Project Summary
Total Nutrient Offset Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Totals Used Area Square Feet and Acres Credits
Nutrient Offset 671,723 ft2 (15.42 acres) Total N: 10,405.969 lbs/ac
Total P: 310.470 lbs/ac

1.2.1 Parcel Ownership
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes one
parcel in Guilford County with the following ownership listed in Table 2. EBX will obtain
conservation easements from the current landowners. The Wilmington District Conservation
Easement model template was utilized to draft the site protection instrument. Once recorded, the
secured easements will allow EBX to proceed with the Project development and protect the
mitigation assets in perpetuity. Once finalized, a copy of the land protection instrument(s) will be
included in Appendix B.
Table 2. Parcel and Landowner Information
Landowners Pin or Tax Parcel ID Agreement Type County
Kory D. Strader and Marjorie Brett
Wray Strader 8801-82-9027 Easement Guilford

Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 4 July 2020

2 PROJECT AREA – EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Physiography
The Project is located within the Piedmont Physiographic region, specifically within the Southern
Outer Piedmont Ecoregion. The physiography of the ecoregion is mostly characterized by hills,
ridges and irregular plains. Streams generally have a low to moderate gradient with cobble, gravel,
and sandy substrates. Elevations range from 613 to 702 feet above mean sea level (NAD 27)
based upon USGS topographic mapping (Figure 5).
The named tributary within the project area is Climax Creek. Climax Creek has been classified
as Water Supply-IV (WS-IV), and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). Waters classified as WS-
IV are sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a WS-
I, II or III classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-IV
waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. Nutrient Sensitive Waters
(NSW) is a supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient
management due to being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation
(NCDWQ 2019). Natural drainage patterns throughout the watershed have been altered by
agricultural production, agricultural ponds, and dredging of the channels. Within the proposed
mitigation area, the channels drain surface water and groundwater from the surrounding hayfields.
2.2 Soils
The 2019 NRCS Web Soil Survey shows seven soil map units across the project. Project soil map
units (of various slopes and modified regimes) are mapped by the NRCS as Chewacla loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes, Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, Enon fine sandy loam, 6 to 10
percent slopes, Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, Mecklenburg sandy clay
loam 6 to 10 percent slopes, Wehadkee loam 0 to 2 percent slopes, and Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott
complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes (Table 3; Figure 6). All units are well drained except for
Chewacla loam, which is somewhat poorly drained, and Wehadkee loam, which is poorly drained.

Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 5 July 2020

Table 3. Mapped Soil Units within Project Limits
Map
Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name
Hydric
Components
within Unit
Drainage Class Hydrologic
Soil Group
Landscape
Setting
ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, frequently flooded 5 % Somewhat
poorly drained B/D Floodplains
EnB Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes 0 % Well drained C Interfluves
EnC Enon fine sandy loam, 6 to 10
percent slopes 0 % Well drained C Interfluves
MhB2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes, moderately eroded 0 % Well drained C Interfluves
MhC2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 6 to
10 percent slopes, moderately eroded 0 % Well Drained C Floodplains
WhA Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, frequently flooded 100 % Poorly drained B/D Interfluves
WkE Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott complex,
15 to 45 percent slopes 0 % Well Drained C/D Interfluves
2.3 Existing Riparian Conditions
Current land use in the vicinity of the project is an abandoned and infrequently mowed golf course
and disturbed riparian area. Additionally, livestock has been introduced to some of these areas
and are functioning as active pasture. The unmaintained fairways now host numerous herbaceous
and few woody early-successional species. These open areas lack a developed riparian buffer
while areas located upslope contain planted specimen trees that serve to buffer viewshed between
each golf course hole. Forested areas along Climax Creek are well vegetated but are dominated
by invasive species. Current site conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result
of impacts from agriculture (within the watershed in close proximity to the Project), ditching, and
historic land uses (previously an active golf course).
The site viability letter from DWR in Appendix AB provides details on land-uses within the
riparian areas on the site. The only change to the site since our site viability assessment in 2019,
is that cattle are currently allowed to graze the surrounding areas. .
Vegetation found in the open fields include species typical of early field succession, such as
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), fescue grasses (Fescuta spp.), joe pye weed (Eutrochium
fistulosum) and dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Invasive species such as lespedeza
(Sericea lespedeza) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) are also present. A few mature juniper
trees (Juniperus virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and northern red oak (quercus rubra) are
interspersed throughout the open areas along relic cart paths and fairways. In the riparian area
around Climax Creek, canopy species include white oak (Quercus alba), river birch (Betula
nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American beech (Fagus grandifolia) and American
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Understory species include American holly (Ilex opaca),
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana) and greenbrier (Smilax spp.). Invasive species are
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 6 July 2020
also present, including Chinese privet, Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), and
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
The streams within the Parcel limits including Climax Creek and the three unnamed tributaries
are described below.
Climax Creek – Climax Creek has a moderately wide floodplain within the Parcel and is mostly
forested with riparian hardwoods throughout the northern portion of the Project but opening up
to a grassier floodplain moving farther south. Climax Creek has a drainage area of 8.9 square
miles (5,696 acres) and flows in a northerly direction along the western boundary of the
Project, eventually coming to a confluence with Big Alamance Creek. The reach is
approximately 2,766 linear feet within the Parcel. The channel buffers have been degraded
leading to localized bank erosion and mass wasting.
WW1 – WW1 has a drainage area of 0.03 square miles (22.0 acres) and flows west before coming
to a confluence with Climax Creek. The proposed reach will be 986 linear feet. The riparian buffer
has a limited width and is mostly open grassland with sparse tree cover. The channel has seen
significant anthropogenic modification including impoundment (Pond A), and the remaining
channel buried and piped entirely.
WW2 – WW2 has a drainage area of 0.06 square miles (40.9 acres) and flows northwest, passing
through existing Ponds B, C, D, and E, finally coming to a confluence with Climax Creek. The
existing reach length is 153 linear feet and originates below Pond E from a failed outlet structure.
The proposed reach will be 1,549 linear feet. The riparian buffer has a limited width and is
primarily comprised of open grassland with some areas of softwood vegetation along the reach.
The channel has become severely disjointed due to the four impoundments along the reach.
WW3 – WW3 has a drainage area of 0.05 square miles (32.4 acres) and flows west through Pond
F before coming to a confluence with Climax Creek. The riparian buffer has a limited width and
is primarily comprised of open grassland with sparse tree cover. The proposed reach will be 2,029
linear feet. The channel has seen significant anthropogenic modification including impoundment
and is piped entirely.
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 7 July 2020

2.3.1 Existing Conditions Photos

Pond A
June 22, 2017
Pond B
June 22, 2017

Pond C
June 22, 2017
Pond D
December 17, 2019

Pond E
December 17, 2019
Pond F
May 12, 2017

Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 8 July 2020

Fairway along proposed WW3
May 12, 2017
Cart crossing between Ponds C and D (proposed WW2)
May 12, 2017

2.4 Wetlands
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI)
depicts several areas of potential wetland areas within the project bounds (Figure 7). A
delineation of existing wetlands was performed in January of 2019. The delineation was
performed using current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Regional Supplement to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain
Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). Within the boundaries of the
proposed Project, seven jurisdictional wetlands are present in and adjacent to the Project (Table
4; Figure 3).
Table 4. Existing Wetland Resources Summary at Walnut Wood Mitigation Site
Site
Number
Est. amount of
aquatic
resource in
review area
Type of aquatic resource
(i.e., wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Cowardin Class*
Class of aquatic resource
Geographic authority to which
the aquatic resource “may be”
subject
WA 0.09 acres PEM Section 404
WB 0.07 acres PFO Section 404
WC 0.07 acres PEM Section 404
WD 0.12 acres PEM Section 404
WE 0.03 acres PFO Section 404
WF 0.03 acres PFO Section 404
WG 0.37 acres PEM Section 404
Total 0.78 acres
* Classification is based upon current conditions.
A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) request was sent to the USACE on February 8,
2019 and wetland determinations were verified by the USACE on April 2, 2019. The final PJD
has not yet been received (SAW-2017-01470). Wetland forms are included in Appendix D of the
Walnut Wood Stream Mitigation Plan.
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 9 July 2020

2.5 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 (updated 26 March 2018) lists one endangered species
and one threatened species for Guilford County, North Carolina. Schweinitz’s sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) is currently listed as endangered and small whorled pogonia (Isotria
medeoloides) is listed as threatened. The Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected under
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) and prohibits take of bald and golden eagles.
No protected species or potential habitat for protected species was observed during preliminary
site evaluations. A summary of federally-protected species in Guilford County is included in
Table 5.
Table 5. Federally Protected Species in Guilford County
Common Name Scientific name Federal Status Habitat Present Record Status
Bald eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus BGPA No Current
Schweinitz’s sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E No Current
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T No Current
BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, E = Endangered
The proposed project offers some potential to improve and create habitat for wildlife species.
Habitat may be improved or created for species that require riverine habitat by improving water
quality, in-stream and near-stream forage, and providing stable conditions not subject to regular
maintenance. The project will also create upland and wetland forested habitat for terrestrial
species.. The USFWS agreed with the findings that minimal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources is expected from this Project. Documentation of this finding is found in Appendix G
of the Walnut Wood Stream Mitigation Plan.
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 were
mapped within one mile of the project. Results from NHP indicate that there are no known
occurrences of state threatened or endangered species within a one-mile radius of the project area.
However, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has known records for
the federal species of concern and state endangered Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana);
and the significantly rare eastern creekshell (V. delumbis) and Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus
davidi) within the vicinity of the site. The state special concern Greensboro burrowing crayfish
(Cambarus catagius) also has the potential to occur within the project area. Upon consultation
with NCWRC regarding fish and wildlife associated with the Project, NCWRC requested a site
visit to verify habitat potential. Since recent mussel and crayfish surveys had not been completed
in the area, an on-site survey was the only definitive means to determine if the proposed project
would impact rare, threatened, or endangered species. On September 11, 2019, NCWRC staff
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 10 July 2020

visited the site but did not find any listed species during the visit. Other recommendations for the
project included the use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control
devices, removing mature trees outside of the maternity roosting season for bats (May 15- August
15), and maximizing riparian buffer widths when possible. All correspondence is included in
Appendix G.

2.6 Cultural Resources
Environmental and cultural resources include historic and archeological resources located in or
near the project parcel. RES completed a preliminary survey of cultural resources to determine
potential project impacts. A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) GIS Web Service database revealed five historic sites within a half mile of the proposed
project area. The Starr-Friddle House (GF2043), the Cary Coble House (GF1883), the Petrea Log
House (GF1600), Hunter’s Creek Covered Bridge (GF1388), and the S.G. Hunter House
(GF1387) all occur (or have occurred in the past) within a half mile of the proposed easement. In
a letter dated August 16, 2019 the SHPO stated that they had “conducted a review of the project
and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project.” Correspondence
is provided in Appendix G of the Walnut Wood Stream Mitigation Plan.
In compliance with 15A NCAC 02R .0403(c)(7), (8), and (11) , the areas of preservation within
the Project include “the absence of extensive structures and infrastructure” (7), “the absence of
hazardous substance and solid waste” (8), and “the absence of encumbrances and conditions on
the transfer of the property interests” (11). An EDR, received in March 2020, is provided in
Appendix AC.
2.7 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain/Floodway Mapping
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map indicates that the proposed project area and
its associated floodplains are not located within a Zone AE flood area (Figure 8). A hydrologic
analysis will be completed on the existing and proposed conditions of these reaches.
3 RIPARIAN RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION PLAN
The goal of the Project is to restore ecological function to the streams and riparian areas by
establishing appropriate stream buffer plant communities where absent , as well as to protect these
buffers and stream function into perpetuity. The buffered channels will provide water quality and
habitat functions within the Haw River Subwatershed of Jordan Lake, such as nutrient and
sediment removal, filtration of runoff from nearby agricultural fields, and improved aquatic and
terrestrial habitat. The current land uses adjacent to the streams purposed for buffer restoration
and preservation are primarily composed of an abandoned and infrequently mowed golf course,
that has just recently introduced livestock to the area, and a disturbed riparian area. .
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 11 July 2020

Riparian restoration and preservation proposed under this Plan are shown in Figure 4, and were
determined viable mitigation approaches by the DWR in their letter dated June 5, 2019 attached
in Appendix AB. All riparian restoration and preservation buffer mitigation activities along
channels will occur within two dedicated zones from the edge of the bank: the top of bank to 100
foot-wide zone of buffer perpendicular from the top of bank; and the 101 to 200 foot-wide zone of
buffer perpendicular from the top of the bank.
Before beginning construction, RES will ensure that permitting scenarios are completed. RES
plans to obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit approval and will submit applications
for a CWA Section 401, a North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Erosion and
Sediment Control permit, and a FEMA no-rise condition and permit.
3.1 Parcel Preparation
Preparation within the Parcel will involve treatment for exotic invasive species, contoured
ripping, and seeding and planting. The earthern berm from the six ponds will be removed and the
ponds left to dry out and then filled back in before beginning construction of the stream channel.
Other stabilization and implementation of dispersal techniques will be utilized where surface
flows have become concentrated to minimize the chances of non-diffuse flow. A combination of
silt fencing, erosion control wattles, temporary seeding, and erosion control matting will be used
to reduce erosion and stabilize soil in riparian areas during any land disturbance activities. These
erosion control measures shall be inspected and properly maintained at the end of each working
day to ensure measures are functioning properly until permanent vegetation is established.
Disturbed areas shall be temporarily seeded within ten working days and upon completion of final
grading, permanent vegetation shall be established for all disturbed areas. Any topsoil that is
removed during construction will be stockpiled and reserved for final site soil preparation. After
construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before
the topsoil is placed back over the site. This process should provide favorable soil conditions for
plant growth. Temporary and permanent riparian seeding shall be done in accordance with the
erosion control plan. A list of species used in the seed mix can be found in the plan set, Appendix
H, Section P1 of the Stream Mitigation Plan. This seed mix and planted tree selection includes
pollinator species such as partridge pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata), oxeye sunflower (Heliopsis
helianthoides), blackeyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta), bur marigold (Bidens aristosa), and
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Bare root plantings and live stakes shall be planted according
to the planting plan found in the plan set, Appendix H, Section P1 of the Stream Mitigation Plan.
All riparian restoration and preservation activities will commence in concurrence with the stream
mitigation activities and not before. Therefore, the mitigation area where riparian restoration is
being performed may be altered slightly depending on the approval of the Stream Mitigation Plan.
The riparian restoration areas will be surveyed, and information will be provided in the As-Built
report.
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 12 July 2020

3.2 Riparian Restoration Activities
Buffer restoration is proposed along both right and left banks of the eastern section of the newly
repaired channel WW1 and along WW2 in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation
Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0295(n) (Figure 4). Nutrient offset is proposed along both right and left
banks of WW1, WW2, WW3 and Climax Creek. Stream restoration will address existing
impairments including impoundments, piping of streams, floodplain dislocation, bank erosion,
nutrient input, and buffer degradation. The stream design approach will include breaching the
existing dams of all six ponds, allowing them to drain and dry out, daylighting any piped streams,
and meandering the proposed channels within the natural valley. Within the easement, riparian
restoration areas will be planted from top of bank to a maximum of 200 feet from the stream with
bare root tree seedlings on an 9 by 6-foot spacing to achieve an initial density of at least 680 trees
per acre. Planting will consist of a composition of native bare-root tree species specified in
Section 3.4. The restoration of plant communities within the Parcel will not only provide
stabilization and improve water within the easement limits but will also provide ecological
benefits to the entire watershed.
3.3 Riparian Preservation Activities
Buffer preservation is proposed along Climax Creek, in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer
Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0295(o)(5) (Figure 4). However, preservation activities along
the left and right banks of WW2 and WW3 will be non-subject preservation on non-subject
streams in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 0295(o)(4).
Documentation of the site meeting the requirements of 15A NCAC 02R .0403(c)(7)(8) and (11)
is provided in Appendix AC. Preservation activities will consist of permanently protecting the
buffer from cutting, clearing, filling, grading, and similar activities that would affect the
functioning of the buffer through a conservation easement that will have clearly visible easement
markers and signs (see Section 3.5 for further descriptions of the easement boundaries). No more
than 25 percent of the total area of buffer mitigation will be used for preservation credit pursuant
to 15A NCAC 02B.0295(o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295(o)(4) and the rest of the area will be
protected in the conservation easement and not applied for credit. Furthermore, buffer
preservation can only generate Riparian Buffer mitigation credit and is not transferrable to
nutrient offset credits.
3.4 Planting Plan
Revegetation of the Project where riparian restoration is being performed will meet the
performance standards outlined in the Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0295. This includes treating invasive
species growth and planting at least 4 native hardwood bare root trees planted at a density to
ensure a density of 260 stems per acres at the completion of monitoring. No one tree species will
be greater than 50% of the established stems. Vegetation within riparian areas can vary depending
on disturbance regime and adjacent community types, so the protected buffer easement will be
planted with appropriate native species observed in the surrounding forest and species known to
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 13 July 2020

occur in similar environments. A Piedmont Alluvial Forest and Piedmont Headwater Stream
Forest will be the target community type for the riparian buffer restoration areas onsite (Schafale,
2012). Bare root trees should be planted in their dormant season prior to May 1st. Bank
stabilization will initially be achieved using live staking, wetland plugs, and a permanent seed
mix. Live staking will be completed on the outside of meander bends and on both banks in
constructed riffle sections. Silky willow and silky dogwood live stakes will be used on the stream
banks to provide bank stabilization. Wetland plugs will be installed mainly along Reach WW2
due to the narrow and steeper valley. Wetland plugs will be planted along the toe of slope and
within deeper sections of the pond bottoms to establish immediate coverage. Tree species
specified for planting on the Walnut Wood Project are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Walnut Wood Site Tree Planting List
Common Name Scientific Name Spa
cing
Unit Type Sub-Canopy vs
Canopy
% Composition
American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 9x6 Bare Root Canopy 15
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 9x6 Bare Root Canopy 15
River Birch Betula nigra 9x6 Bare Root Canopy 10
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 9x6 Bare Root Canopy 10
Water Oak Quercus nigra 9x6 Bare Root Canopy 10
Cherrybark Oak Quercus pagoda 9x6 Bare Root Canopy 10
Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 9x6 Bare Root Canopy 10
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 9x6 Bare Root Sub-Canopy 10
Paw Paw Asimina triloba 9x6 Bare Root Sub-Canopy 10
3.5 Easement Boundaries and Fencing
Easement boundaries will be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the Parcel
and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree-
blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundaries
will be marked with signs identifying the property as a mitigation site that will include the name
of the long-term steward and a contact number. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or
destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis. The easement boundary will be
checked annually as part of monitoring activities and the conditions as well as any maintenance
performed will be reported in the annual monitoring reports to DWR.
4 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
4.1 Monitoring Protocol and Success Criteria
Riparian buffer vegetation monitoring will be based on the “CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Level 2 Plot Sampling Only Version 4.2.” Annual vegetation monitoring will occur
each year for a minimum of five (5) years and will be conducted during the fall season with the
first year occurring at least 6 months from initial planting. The total planted area of the stream
and buffer/nutrient project is 20.9, however only 20.87 acres are for Riparian Buffer Restoration
or Nutrient Credit. Both areas would require 17 vegetation plots. Vegetation plots will be
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 14 July 2020

monitored a minimum of 100 m2 in size in the planted area (20.9 ac) and will cover at least two
percent of the planted mitigation area. Of those 17 plots, 13 will be fixed plots, while four will be
randomly placed each monitoring year to comply with the Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Guidelines and IRT recommendations (Figure 9). The following data will be recorded for all
planted and volunteer trees in the plots: species, height, planting date (or volunteer), and grid
location. All stems in plots will be flagged with flagging tape. Photographs will be taken at
established monitoring stations each monitoring year. Visual inspection reports and photographs
will be provided in the annual reports to ensure that restoration areas are being maintained and
compliant. The measures of vegetative success for the Parcel will be the survival of at least four
native hardwood tree species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of stems, at a density
of at least 260 planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5. Desirable native volunteer species may
be included to meet the performance standards as determined by DWR. Invasive and noxious
species will be monitored and treated so that none become dominant or alter the desired
community structure of the Project.
A visual assessment of the conservation easement will also be performed each year to confirm:
• Fencing is in good condition throughout the site (as livestock will now be present
in the surrounding area, outside of the easement);
• no cattle access within the conservation easement area;
• no encroachment has occurred;
• diffuse flow is being maintained in the conservation easement area; and
• there has not been any cutting, clearing, filling, grading, or similar activities that
would negatively affect the functioning of the buffer.

RES will monitor the stream mitigation bank for a minimum of seven years, or until release by
IRT approval.
4.2 Adaptive Management Plan and Parcel Maintenance
Adaptive measures will be developed, or appropriate remedial actions taken if in the event that
the Project, or a specific component of the Project, fails to achieve the defined success criteria.
Remedial actions will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified in this Plan, and will
include identification of the causes of failure, remedial design approach, work schedule, and
monitoring criteria that will take into account physical and climatic conditions.
Initial plant maintenance may include a one-time mowing, prior to initial planting to remove
undesirable species. If mowing is deemed necessary by RES during the monitoring period, RES
must receive approval by the DWR prior to any mowing activities to ensure that no buffer
violations have been performed. Failure to receive approval to mow within the Jordan Lake
buffer, as defined in 15A NCAC 02B.0267, by the DWR could result in Jordan Lake buffer
violations and violations of the conservation easement. If necessary, RES will develop a species-
specific control plan.
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 15 July 2020

4.3 Long Term Management Plan
EBX acting as the Bank Sponsor, will record a Conservation Easement with the Guilford County
Register of Deeds’ Office for this site. The Conservation Easement will be assigned to Unique
Places to Save (UP2S). All monitoring activities, including periodic inspections of the site to
ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation Easement are upheld, are the responsibility
of EBX until the Bank Parcel is transferred to UP2S. Endowment funds required to uphold the
Walnut Wood Bank Parcel conservation easement in perpetuity shall be negotiated prior to site
transfer to the UP2S.
The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the Conservation Easement has allowed for the
implementation of an initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during the design phase
and conducted by the Bank Sponsor. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring
and, if necessary, maintenance of the Parcel during the initial monitoring phase. These activities
will be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the RES Walnut Wood Riparian
Buffer and Nutrient Offset MBI made and entered into by EBX and DWR.
5 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of Performance Bonds sufficient to
assure one hundred percent (100%) completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and
monitoring, and any remedial work required. Financial assurances will be payable at the direction
of the DWR to its designee or to a standby trust. Financial assurances structured to provide funds
to the DWR in the event of default by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable. The initial
performance bond will be in the amount of at least $150,000 and shall be able to cover 100% of
the costs associated with construction of the riparian restoration areas. The monitoring bond shall
be in the amount of at least $100,000 and shall be able to cover 100% of the costs associated with
the monitoring and maintenance of the riparian restoration areas for five years.
Performance bonds for monitoring shall be renewed to cover each year’s monitoring period, with
confirmation of renewal provided to DWR with each annual monitoring report when applicable.
DWR reserves the right to alter the credit release schedule if monitoring reports are submitted
without proof of bond renewals when applicable.
6 MITIGATION POTENTIAL
The Project presents 32.11 acres of permanent conservation easement in Guilford County, North
Carolina. While this easement also encompasses areas for the Walnut Wood Stream Mitigation
Bank, the purpose of the Project is to generate Haw River Subwatershed of Jordan Lake Riparian
Buffer and Nutrient Offset credits.
There are two dedicated Riparian Buffer and Nutrient credit generation zones within the overall
buffer area: the first will begin at the most landward limit of the top of bank or the rooted
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 16 July 2020

herbaceous vegetation and extend outward to a distance of 100 feet. The second zone begins at
101 feet and extends landward to 200 feet from the top of bank. There will be no overlap in the
Riparian Buffer and/or Nutrient bank credit areas (Figure 4).
This Bank has the potential to generate approximately 5.45 acres (237,536 ft2) of riparian buffer
restoration credits, and 1.82 acre (79,179 ft2) of buffer preservation credits. There will be 14.5
acres (633,091 ft2) of nutrient offset that are viable for buffer restoration credits in accordance
with 15A NCAC 02B.0703, 0.88 acres (38,632 ft2) of nutrient offset credits will not be viable for
restoration credits as they are beyond the top of bank–100-foot zone. The riparian buffer
mitigation credits generated will service Jordan Lake buffer impacts within the Haw River
Subwatershed of Jordan Lake. The nutrient offsets generated will service nutrient load reduction
requirements where payments are authorized in 15A NCAC 02B.0703 within the Haw River
Subwatershed. The Sponsor will maintain four credit ledgers. One ledger will account for
Riparian Buffer Restoration credits, one ledger will account for buffer Preservation credits, one
ledger will account for Nitrogen nutrient offset credits, and one will account for Phosphorus
nutrient offset credits. All mitigation credit assets shall be shown on these credit ledgers. The
total potential mitigation credits that the Walnut Wood Bank will generate are summarized in
Tables 7, 7.1, and 7.2; Figure 4.
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 17 July 2020

Table 7. Walnut Wood Riparian Buffer Restoration and Nutrient Offset Credit Summary
Table 7.1 Walnut Wood Riparian Buffer Preservation Credit Summary

Table 7.2 Walnut Wood Total Credit Summary
Buffer Preservation

Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 17 July 2020

The Sponsor may use the credits generated on the non-forested open fields for Jordan Lake
Riparian Buffer Mitigation or Nutrient Offsets, but not both. All applicable ratios must be
accounted for when converting from nutrient offset to buffer. The Sponsor must submit a written
request and receive written approval from DWR prior to any credit conversions and transfers to
the buffer and nutrient offset credit ledgers. With each conversion and transfer request submitted
to the DWR, the Sponsor will provide all updated credit ledgers showing all transactions that have
occurred up to the date of the request.

Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 18 July 2020

7 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2007. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map:
Panel 3710880100J. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search. (October 2019).
Lee, M.T. et al. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, All Levels of Plot
Sampling. Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm. (November 2019).
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDNR). 2005. “Cape
Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.” Division of Water Quality. https://deq.nc.gov
/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-
2005. (October 2019).
NCDNR. 2016. “N.C. Wetland Assessment Method User Manual Version 5.” N.C. Wetland
Functional Assessment Team. https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Environmental
%20Sciences/ECO/Wetlands/NC%20WAM%20User%20Manual%20v5.pdf. (February
2020)
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. 2019. Nutrient Sensitive Waters and
Special Watersheds. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/nsw-
special-watersheds. (October 2019).
North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings (NCOAH). 2010. Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0703
- Nutrient Offset Payments. http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac.asp?folderName=\Title%2015
A%20-%20Environmental%20Quality\Chapter%2002%20-%20Environmental%20Manage
ment. (February 2020).
NCOAH. 2015. Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0267 - Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy:
Protection of Existing Riparian Buffers. http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac.asp?folderName
=\Title%2015A%20-%20Environmental%20Quality\Chapter%2002%20%20Environmental
%20Management. (February 2020).
NCOAH. 2015. Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295- Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection
and Maintenance of Riparian
Buffers.http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac.asp?folderName=\Title%2015A%20-
%20Environmental%20Quality\Chapter%2002%20-%20Environmental%20Management.
(January 2020).
NCOAH. 2014. Rule 15A NCAC 02R.0403 - Donation of Property.
http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac.asp?folderName=\Title%2015A%20-
Walnut Wood
Buffer Mitigation Plan 19 July 2020

%20Environmental%20Quality\Chapter%2002%20-%20Environmental%20Management.
(November 2019).
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (NCDNCR). 2018. North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service. http://www.hpo.
ncdcr.gov/. (2018).
NCDNCR. 2018. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database. https://ncnhde.nature
serve.org/. (2018).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. (November 2019).
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.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (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.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. (October 2019)
USWFS. 2018. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. http://www.fws. gov/wetlands/. (February 2020).
USFWS. 2018. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/guilford.html. (February 2020).

Figures

Figure 1. Service Area
Figure 2. Project Vicinity
Figure 3. Existing Conditions
Figure 4. Conceptual Design Plan for Riparian Buffer Bank
Figure 5. USGS Quadrangle
Figure 6. Mapped Soils
Figure 7. National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 8. Project Constraints
Figure 9. Monitoring Plan

0 105
Miles
Figure 1 - Service Area
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Service Area - HUC
03030002 Haw River
Subwatershed of the
Jordan Lake Watershed
©Date: 6/23/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\5_BPDP\Figure 1 - Service Area - Walnut Wood.mxd1 inch = 10 miles
Walnut WoodMitigation Project
35.9808, -79.6446
^_
0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 2 - Project Vicinity
Walnut WoodMitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
©Date: 6/23/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\5_BPDP\Figure 2 - Project Vicinity - Walnut Wood.mxd1 inch = 1,000 feet
WW2
C lim a x C r e e k
Pond C
PondB
Pond D
Pond E
Pond F
Pond AWCWB
WA
WD
WE
WF
WG
0 500250
Feet
Figure 3 - Existing Conditions
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Project Parcel
Existing Wetland
Existing Pond
Existing Stream
Intermittent
Perennial
Existing Bridge
Cart Path
P P Underground Powerline
©Date: 7/22/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\5_BPDP\Figure 3 - Existing Conditions Map - Walnut Wood.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
©
0 400200
Feet
Date: 7/22/2020 Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\5_BPDP\Figure 4 - Conceptual Design Plan for Riparian Buffer - Walnut Wood.mxdLegend
Proposed Easem ent
Pond Footprint
Proposed Stream Top of
BankMitigation Approach
Restoration (0-100)
Restoration (101-200)
Non-Subject Preservation
(0-100)
Non-Subject Preservation
(101-200)
Preservation (0-100)
Preservation (101-200)
Nutrient Offset (0-100)
Nutrient Offset (101-200)
X Proposed Fenceline
Figure 4 - Conceptual DesignPlan for Riparian Buffer Bank
Walnut WoodMitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
1 in = 400 feet
X XXXXXXX
X
XXXXX XXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X
XXXXXXX
X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X
X
XXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pond A
Pond B
Pond D
Pond C
Pond E
Pond FClim ax CreekWW3
WW1
WW2
Reference1) Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Zone 17N
2) Map Projection is NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
WW122.0 ac
WW240.9 ac
WW332.4 ac
ClimaxCreek5696.0 ac
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 5 - USGS Quadrangle
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
©Date: 7/21/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by:JRM Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\5_BPDP\Figure 5 - USGS - Walnut Wood.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
Climax (1981)
©
0 500250
Feet
Date: 6/23/2020 Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\5_BPDP\Figure 6 - Soils Map - Walnut Wood.mxdFigure 6 - Mapped Soils
Walnut WoodMitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
1 in = 500 feet
Legend
Proposed Easment
Hydric (100%)
Predominantly
Hydric (66-99%)
Predominantly
Hydric (33-65%)
Predominantly
Nonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)
WhA
CcB
En B
En B
En B
W
MhB2MhC2
MhB2
EnD
En B
En B
En B
En B
En B
En B
EnC EnC
EnC
Ap B
Ap B
MhC2
En B
EnC
EnC
EnC
ApC
EnC
CcB
MhC2
CcC
ChA
En B
EnC
HhB
MhC2
EnD
WkE
MhB2
WhA
MaE
MhB2
MhB2
ChA ChA
CcCEnC
MhB2
En B
MaE
ChA
MhC2
NRCS Web Soil Survey (2019)Guilford County Soil Survey (1977)
Map Unit Sy m bol Map Unit Nam e
ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
EnB Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
EnC Enon fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
MhB2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded
MhC2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded
WhA Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
WkE Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes
PUBHh
PUBHx
PFO1A
PUBHh
PUBHh
PFO1A
PUBHx
PUBHh
PUBHh
PUBHh
PUBHh
0 500250
Feet
Figure 7 - National Wetlands Inventory
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
NWI Wetland (USFWS 10/29/2018)
©Date: 7/22/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\5_BPDP\Figure 7 - NWI - Walnut Wood.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
0 500250
Feet
Figure 8 - National Floor Hazard Layer
Walnut Wood Mitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
FEMA Zone AE
FEMA Regulatory Floodway
.2% Chance Annual Flood
©Date: 6/23/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\5_BPDP\Figure 8 - FEMA - Walnut Wood.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
X X XXXXXXXX
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X XXXXXXXXX
X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
©
0 300150
Feet
REFERENCE
1) Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Zone 17N
2) Map Projection is NAD_1983_StatePlane_
North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Date: 7/21/2020 Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\5_BPDP\Figure 9 - Monitoring Plan - Walnut Wood.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Planted Area (20.9 ac)
Vegetation Plot Type
Fixed
Random
Buffer Mitigation Approach
Restoration (0-100)
Restoration (101-200)
Non-Subject Preservation (0-100) 5:1
Non-Subject Preservation (101-200) 5:1
Preservation (0-100)
Preservation (101-200)
Nutrient Offset (0-100)
Nutrient Offset (101-200)Stream Mitigation Approach
Restoration
Enhancement II
X Proposed Fenceline
Figure 9 - Monitoring Plan
Walnut WoodMitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
1 in = 300 feet
Note: There will be 13 fixed vegetation plots,
and 4 will be randomly placed each monitoring year
and reported to the IRT.

Appendix AA

• RES Walnut Wood Mitigation Banking Instrument
1

AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE RES WALNUT WOOD MITIGATION BANKING
INSTRUMENT IN THE HAW RIVER SUBWATERSHED FOR NUTRIENT OFFSET AND
RIPARIAN BUFFER MITIGATION CREDITS PURSUANT TO THE JORDAN LAKE
NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PREAMBLE ....................................................................................................................... 2
II. LOCATION AND GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA ...................................................... 2
III. AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................................. 3
IV. ESTABLISHMENT OF BANK PARCELS ....................................................................... 3
V. BANK PARCEL DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE .............................................................. 4
VI. POST CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION FOR THE BANK PARCEL ................ 6
VII. CALCULATION OF MITIGATION CREDITS FOR THE BANK PARCEL ................. 9
VIII. CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE .................................................................................... 10
IX. PROCEDURE FOR DEBITING AND CREDITING ...................................................... 11
X. BANK PARCEL CLOSURE ............................................................................................ 12
XI. GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR THE BANK PARCEL ................................................. 12

ATTACHMENTS
A – Division of Water Resources Authority Document
B – Delivered Credit Yield Table for Jordan Subwatersheds dated December 20, 2012
C – Jordan Lake Buffer Ledger Template
D – Jordan Lake Nutrient Offset Ledger Template

References
1. Riparian Buffer Mitigation Rule:
http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2002%20-
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0295.pdf
2. Nutrient Offset Credit Trading
http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2002%20-
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0703.pdf

2

I. PREAMBLE
This RES Walnut Wood Mitigation Banking Instrument (“Instrument”) regarding the establishment,
use, operation, and maintenance of the Walnut Wood Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank
Parcel (“Bank Parcel”), to provide Jordan Lake Watershed Riparian Buffer mitigation credits
(“Riparian Buffer Credits”) and Jordan Lake Nutrient Strategy nutrient load reduction credit
(“Nutrient Offset Credits”) is made and entered into by and among Environmental Banc and Exchange,
LLC (“EBX, LLC”) acting as the Bank Sponsor (“Sponsor”), and the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality – Division of Water Resources (“DWR”). This Instrument is in accordance
with the 15A NCAC 02B .0703 and Consolidated Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295, which
became effective on November 1, 2015, see Attachments and References.

The purpose of this Bank is:

A. To restore and preserve riparian vegetation adjacent to streams and/or agricultural ditches with the
intent to improve water quality within the Haw River Subwatershed of the Jordan Lake Watershed.

B. To convert golf course land uses within riparian areas adjacent to streams and ponds, into a dense,
hardwood vegetated state with the intent to significantly reduce nutrient loadings associated with
golf course practices into streams.

C. To provide mitigation and sell any resulting Riparian Buffer Credits and/or Nutrient Offset Credits
to third parties in the Haw River Subwatershed of the Jordan Lake Watershed, for development
(both existing and proposed) requiring such mitigation.

II. LOCATION AND GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA
A. The Geographic Service Area (“GSA”) is the designated area wherein a Bank can reasonably be
expected to sell Riparian Buffer Credits and/or Nutrient Offset Credits for impacts due to
development activities.

B. The GSA for this instrument is limited to the Haw River Subwatershed of Jordan Lake Watershed
of the Cape Fear River Basin.

C. Sale or transfer of Riparian Buffer Credits shall be limited to Haw River Subwatershed of Jordan
Lake Watershed, as defined in rule 15A NCAC 02B .0262, unless otherwise authorized by the
DWR or delegated local government in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0295.

D. Sale or transfer of delivered Nutrient Offset Credits shall also be limited to Haw River
Subwatershed of the Jordan Lake watershed, as defined in rule 15A NCAC 02B .0262 and in
accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0703.

E. The following table provides site-specific details of the Bank Parcel proposed under this
Instrument, which is within the Haw River Subwatershed Jordan Lake Watershed (8-digit HUC
03030002);

3

Table 1.0 – Site-specific Details
Bank Parcel
Name
County 14-Digit USGS
HUC
DWR Project # Project
Location
Named Receiving
Stream
Primary Land
Use/s
Walnut Wood Guilford 03030002040010 2017-0919v2 35.9808,
-79.6446
Climax Creek Combination of
forested and non-
forested areas
formerly used as
a golf course

III. AUTHORITIES
A. The Bank Parcel will be used to provide Riparian Buffer Credit and Nutrient Offset Credit in
accordance with the requirements in the DWR Authority document referenced herein as
“Attachment A” and attached to this Instrument.

B. Projects eligible for utilization of the credits are those requiring authorization under the
requirements of Attachment A and any new approved North Carolina (“State”) statutes and rules
for the Jordan Lake Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy.

C. The sale of mitigation credits generated from the Bank Parcel approved under this Instrument,
shall be consistent with approved North Carolina statutes and rules for the Jordan Lake Nutrient
Sensitive Waters Management Strategy.

D. Mitigation activities proposed under this Instrument and corresponding Buffer Mitigation Plan
(Plan) to generate Riparian Buffer Credits and Nutrient Offset Credits shall be consistent with
State statutes and rules for the Jordan Lake Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy that
are in place at the time a complete Plan is submitted to DWR.

IV. ESTABLISHMENT OF BANK PARCEL
A. In accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0295 and 15A NCAC 02B .0703, DWR has provided a “Site
Viability Letter” for the Bank Parcel proposed under this Instrument. The site viability letter is not
an approval of the site to generate Riparian Buffer Credits or Nutrient Offset Credits, but is a
preliminary review of the Bank Parcel that details and confirms existing land-use conditions,
defines the riparian sites (Restoration or Preservation), and identifies features (streams, ditches,
ponds, etc.) that meet general criteria to be suitable to generate Riparian Buffer Credits or Nutrient
Offset Credits . Table 2.0 below outlines when a Site Viability Letter was issued by DWR for the
mitigation site proposed under this Instrument:

Table 2.0 – Site Viability Letter Details
Bank Parcel NC DWR Site Visit Viability Letter
Received
Viability Letter
Expiration Date
Walnut Wood April 2, 2019 June 5, 2019 June 5, 2021

B. A valid Site Viability Letter is required prior to submittal of the Plan. Site Viability Letters will
either expire on the dates listed in the table above or upon the submittal of an individual As-Built
Report to the DWR, whichever comes first. If the Site Viability Letter expires prior to submittal
4

of a complete Plan as described in Section V to DWR, then the Sponsor must submit a formal
request to DWR for a new Site Viability Letter for that Bank Parcel.

C. The Bank Parcel proposed for inclusion under this Instrument shall require a BPDP be submitted
to, and approved by, the DWR prior to use of the individual Bank Parcel for mitigation purposes
or for any sale or transfer of any associated credits. The contents of the BPDP are provided in
Section V.

D. This Bank Parcel is slated to be developed in conjunction with the RES Cape Fear Umbrella
Mitigation Bank, and the Walnut Wood Mitigation Site, United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Action ID # SAW-2018-01637, for stream mitigation. The mitigation plan associated
with this Bank Parcel has been submitted to the Interagency Review Team (IRT) for review and
approval.

E. The BPDP submitted under this instrument will be placed on public notice and made available for
public commenting for 15 calendar days.

F. Most of the Riparian Buffer Credits on this Bank Parcel will be generated along stream channels
and in-line ponds that are proposed for stream mitigation. Stream Mitigation Plans will be
submitted under the RES Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank referenced in “D” in this section.
Additionally, all activities conducted within riparian buffers and adjacent riparian areas for
purposes of generating Riparian Buffer Credits will be conducted in concurrence with stream
mitigation activities. Riparian Buffer Credit may be achieved through restoration and preservation
of DWR riparian buffers as they are defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0243, and other riparian areas
allowed per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n) and (o) on the Bank Parcel. Riparian Buffer Credits are
only attainable if the width of the mitigated area is at least 20 feet as measured perpendicularly
from top of bank.

G. The Bank Parcel is intended to provide Jordan Lake Watershed Riparian Buffer Credit as follows:

1. Planting hardwood trees and shrubs on a Restoration Site as defined in 15A NCAC 02B
.0295(b) adjacent to mitigated streams.

2. Maintaining a Preservation Site as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0295(b) by placing a
conservation easement around riparian areas along streams as allowed by 15A NCAC 02B
.0295 (o).

3. Diffused flow will be maintained onsite to the maximum extent practicable.

H. The Bank Parcel submitted for review under this Instrument is anticipated to begin stream
mitigation construction in Spring 2021.

V. BANK PARCEL DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE
A. The Bank Parcel Development Package (BPDP) submitted under this Instrument shall be
submitted to DWR for review and must be approved by DWR prior to any construction on the
Bank Parcel. The BPDP must describe any changes that have occurred to the site between the date
5

of the Site Viability Letter and the date the BPDP is submitted to DWR. The BPDP shall include
detailed information consistent with the sections below concerning; 1) site location (14-digit HUC
is required); 2) existing conditions with current photos; 3) proposed buffer mitigation activities
including a detailed vegetation plan; 4) monitoring and maintenance plans; 5) financial assurances;
6) associated buffer mitigation calculations, which shall include credit generation, service area,
and accounting as appropriate for each regulatory authority; 7) stream buffer determination letter
from DWR, and 8) Site Viability Letter from DWR; 9) a figure depicting the proposed stream
mitigation areas; and 10) service area figure for each mitigation type.

B. The Sponsor will obtain all applicable federal, state, and local documentation, permits, or
authorizations needed to construct and maintain the Bank Parcel. This Instrument does not qualify
as, or substitute for, such documentation, permit, or authorization.

C. Any restoration activities or proposed construction within riparian buffers and other riparian areas
on the Bank Parcel to produce Riparian Buffer Credit must be approved by DWR in writing prior
to implementation. The failure of the Sponsor to comply with this requirement may result in a
revised or reduced credit release schedule for the Bank Parcel. All restoration activities must be
performed in concurrence with any stream mitigation activities and not before.

D. Requests for deviation from the approved BPDP must be submitted to DWR in writing. Written
approval from the DWR must be received prior to implementing any deviation from the approved
BPDP.

Property Disposition & Long-Term Management for the Bank Parcel

E. Prior to the release of any credits, the Sponsor shall record permanent conservation easements at
the Randolph County Register of Deeds’ office that is sufficient to ensure protection, operation
and maintenance of restored riparian buffers and other riparian areas for the duration specified in
the approved BPDP.

F. The form of the conservation easement shall be consistent with the standards employed by the
State of North Carolina in the protection of restored riparian buffers and riparian areas and shall
be approved by the DWR and USACE prior to the release of any credits.

G. The Sponsor shall not grant additional easements, right of ways, or any other property interest in
or to the project areas, without prior approval from the DWR and the USACE.

H. The Sponsor agrees to transfer or assign the conservation easement and its interests in perpetuity
to a qualified holder under NC General Statute (“GS”) 121-34 et seq. and 170(h) of the Internal
Revenue Code prior to the submittal of the Year 4 Monitoring Report. The holder shall be a land
trust or stewardship program that will hold and enforce the conservation easement and the interests
in perpetuity. The Sponsor shall choose a land trust or stewardship program that is accredited by
the Land Trust Accreditation Commission and/or has been approved by DWR prior to the end of
the fourth-year monitoring period. A land trust must be certified under 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code.

6

I. In the event the Sponsor is also the owner of the underlying fee interest in the property, the
conveyance of the conservation easement to a land trust or stewardship fund must be arranged at
the outset of the approved BPDP.

Financial Assurances for the Bank Parcel

J. Following approval of the BPDP for the Bank Parcel, the Sponsor shall provide
Performance/Maintenance Bonds from a surety company that is rated no less than an “A-” as rated
by A.M. Best, to construct the sites according to the approved BPDPs. It is the Sponsor’s
responsibility to confirm that the surety company is rated no less than an “A-” with each annual
bond renewal.

K. The amount of the Performance Bond shall be 100% of the estimated cost for implementation of
the mitigation activities of the Bank Parcel as described in the approved BPDP. No bond shall be
less than $150,000.00 to cover construction costs.

L. Alternatively, in lieu of posting Performance Bonds, the Sponsor may elect to construct the
projects prior to the first credit releases.

M. For the Bank Parcel, once DWR has released all credits for completion of all the items listed below,
then the Bank Sponsor will be released from its performance obligations under the performance
bond required in Item J and K of this section:

1. Instrument and BPDP approved by DWR, Conservation Easement recorded, Financial
Assurance posted;

2. Mitigation site earthwork and planting and installation of monitoring devices completed;

3. As-Built Report as described in Section VI has been received by DWR; and

4. DWR has submitted a written approval of the As-Built Report.

N. To comply with this section, DWR must be the Obligee on all performance bonds.

VI. POST CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION FOR THE BANK PARCEL
As-Built Report

A. The Sponsor agrees to perform all necessary work, in accordance with the provisions of this
Instrument and corresponding BPDP, to establish, maintain, and monitor Jordan Lake Watershed
Riparian Buffers or other riparian areas until Item B (1) and (2) of Section X have been satisfied.

B. When all stream mitigation activities have commenced, the Sponsor will submit an as-built plan
and report for the Bank Parcel within 30 calendar days after completing the establishment of the
riparian buffer mitigation areas. The as-built report will describe any deviation from the approved
BPDP and will document the following:

7

1. Buffer restoration and planting details, invasive species control, confirmation of fence
installation (if applicable), monitoring device locations, vegetation plot locations, photo
point locations, surface and groundwater elevations, as appropriate.

2. Provide confirmation that the construction of all stream mitigation activities has been
completed.

3. Boundary Survey of the conservation easement area, signed and sealed by a licensed
surveyor, including an inventory of the final mitigation areas for riparian buffer mitigation
credits in both square feet and acres.

4. As-built map of the mitigation area showing where riparian restoration and preservation
was performed and any deviations to the Bank Parcel from what was approved in the
BPDP.

5. As-Built map of the stream mitigation areas.

6. Aerial map of the mitigation area that was included in the approved BPDP.

Financial Assurance for the Bank Parcel

C. After completion of the restoration/construction on the Bank Parcel, a Performance/Maintenance
Bond will be secured for 100% of the estimated cost to implement the monitoring and maintenance
plan as described in the approved BPDP and As-Built Report applicable for the site. The Bond
must be from a surety company that is rated no less than an “A-” as rated by A.M. Best, and it is
the Sponsor’s responsibility to confirm that the surety company is rated no less than an “A-” with
annual bond renewals.

D. A Performance/Maintenance Bond shall be secured each year for a minimum of five years, and
until DWR has released all mitigation credits to the Bank Sponsor. Upon receiving a credit release
letter from DWR approving a monitoring report with no contingencies, the bond may be lowered
for that next year’s monitoring based on the adjusted cost to complete the monitoring. No bond
shall be less than $100,000 initially, to cover monitoring and maintenance costs.

E. Once DWR has released 100% of all credits for completion of all Bank Parcel milestones described
in Table 3.0 of Section VIII and in the corresponding BPDP, the Bank Sponsor will be released
from its performance obligations under the performance bond required in C and D of this Section.

F. To comply with this section, DWR must be the Obligee on all performance bonds.

Monitoring and Maintenance Reports

G. The Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Parcel as described in the BPDP until such time as DWR
determines that the performance standards described below have been met. The monitoring period
shall be a minimum of five consecutive years.

8

H. Performance Standards for Vegetation: Native hardwood trees or native hardwood tree and shrub
species should be planted at a density sufficient to provide 260 stems per acre after five years. A
minimum of four (4) native hardwood trees or four (4) native hardwood tree and shrub species
must be planted. No one species shall be greater than 50% of the planted stems. A list of species
for planting will be detailed in the BPDP for approval. Native hardwood tree volunteer species
may be included to meet performance standards as determined by the DWR.

I. A “stem” means a woody seedling, sapling, shrub or tree, no less than 10 centimeters in height.

J. If the performance standards of the vegetation are not met, supplemental plantings may be
required. Supplemental plantings will be utilized until the required densities have been achieved
and maintained for five years. Bank Parcel maintenance, such as ensuring diffuse flow, managing
invasive species, and pest control will be included in the BPDP.

Monitoring Reports for Riparian Buffer Credit:

K. Reporting criteria of the vegetation shall be based on the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) –
EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level 2 Plot Sampling only version 4.0 or any updated
versions of this protocol in place on the date of acceptance of the BPDP. The Sponsor shall submit
to the DWR an annual monitoring report no later than December 31 of each year for a minimum
of five consecutive years after the first full growing season. This report will describe the conditions
of the Bank Parcel, including an evaluation of the performance standards of the vegetation
contained within the approved BPDP. Reports shall contain the following:

1. A U.S. Geological Survey map showing location of the Bank Parcel;

2. A detailed narrative with supporting photos summarizing the condition of the Bank Parcel
along with any maintenance or remediation performed that year; and

3. A map, survey, or other figure showing locations of sampling plots, permanent photo
points, location of transects, etc.; and

4. Monitoring data, including specific vegetative counts showing that the trees or tree and
shrub species planted are meeting performance standards and updated photographs; and

5. A copy of the most recent Bank credit/debit ledgers; and

6. Corresponding verification letters from designated local governments upon request; and

7. Corresponding Mitigation Transfer Certificates upon request; and

8. Proof of performance bond renewal to cover the next monitoring year (if applicable)

9

Contingency Plans/Remedial Actions

L. In the event the Bank Parcel fails to achieve the performance criteria described in this Instrument
and the approved BPDP, the Bank Sponsor shall develop necessary contingency plans in
coordination with the DWR and implement appropriate remedial actions for the Bank Parcel and
the Bank. Depending on the degree of remedial actions required, the DWR may modify the
monitoring period.

VII. CALCULATION OF MITIGATION CREDITS FOR THE BANK PARCEL
Riparian Buffer Credits

A. All Riparian Buffer Credits shall be determined based on the ratios and percentages provided in
15A NCAC 02B .0295(m) and (n).

B. Riparian buffer restoration on the Bank Parcel, as described in 15A NCAC 02B .0295(n) and (o)(3)
and defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0295(b) may be used for Riparian Buffer Credit.

C. Riparian buffer preservation on the Bank Parcel, as described in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o) and
defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (b), can only be used for Riparian Buffer Credit.

D. Riparian Buffer Credit is defined as one (1) buffer credit per one square foot or 43,560 buffer
credits per one acre.

E. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295(l)(6)(B), “Buffer mitigation credit shall not be generated within
wetlands that provide mitigation credit required by 15A NCAC 02H .0506”.

10

VIII. CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
A. Upon submittal of all appropriate documentation by the Sponsor, and subsequent approval by
DWR, it is agreed that the mitigation credits associated with the Bank Parcel will become available
for sale to a third party in accordance with the Credit Release Schedule below in Table 3.0.

Table 3.0 - Credit Release Schedule for Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credits (excluding
Stormwater BMPs)
Task Project Milestone
% Credit
Available for Sale
1 BPDP Approved by DWR, Conservation Easement
Recorded* and Financial Assurance Posted
20
2 Mitigation Site Earthwork, Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices Completed 20
3 Monitoring Financial Assurance Posted and Approval of As-Built Report 10
4 Monitoring Report #1: Approved by the DWR** 10
5 Monitoring Report #2: Approved by the DWR** 10
6 Monitoring Report #3: Approved by the DWR** 10
7
Item B (1) of Section IX in this Instrument has been completed and approved by DWR.
5
No remaining credits will be released until Task 7 has been satisfied
8 Monitoring Report #4: Approved by the DWR** 5
9
Monitoring Report #5: Approved by the DWR** and final site visit by DWR has been conducted 10
Total 100%
* For specification, please see Section VIII in this Instrument
** DWR Approval provided upon a determination that the site is meeting performance standards contained within the
approved BPDP

B. DWR may modify the credit release schedules based on the information submitted or the order in
which required information is received. DWR will notify the Sponsor of any modification to the
credit release schedule.

C. DWR may consider a Credit Release Schedule for a Bank Parcel based on the extent of change
between current onsite conditions and proposed post construction conditions.

D. The Sponsor must initiate implementation of the approved BPDP for the site under this Instrument
in concurrence with all stream mitigation activities proposed in the approved Mitigation Plans
referenced in Item D of Section IV of this Instrument.

11

IX. PROCEDURE FOR DEBITING AND CREDITING
Credit Ledgers

A. The Bank Sponsor shall maintain a credit ledger for the bank parcel under this Instrument: The
credit ledger shall provide the accounting for Riparian Buffer Credit in square feet and acres.

B. The credit ledger shall be submitted on a separate 8 ½ inch by 11-inch spreadsheet with legible
font style and font size. The ledger shall be submitted using the templates provided in Attachment
B of this Instrument or any updated versions to these templates as provided by DWR.

Credit Processing

C. Riparian Buffer Credits generated on this Bank Parcel will be used to provide mitigation for
authorized buffer impacts within the Jordan Lake Watershed according to 15A NCAC 02B
.0295(g).

D. The Bank Sponsor shall obtain written verification of buffer mitigation required from the delegated
local government in the Jordan Lake Watershed or DWR prior to debiting Riparian Buffer Credits
from the individual Bank Parcel.

E. All credit and debit transactions for the bank parcel under this Instrument shall be accurately
depicted in the credit ledgers. The Bank Sponsor shall provide DWR up-to-date credit ledgers for
the Bank by the tenth (10th) of each month. At a minimum and upon request, DWR shall receive a
hard copy of updated credit ledgers along with the corresponding Mitigation Credit Transfer
Certificates and all corresponding letters from the designated or delegated local governments or
DWR where applicable once a year. Notification of all credit sales shall be provided to DWR until
all credits that have been released have been sold.

Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificates

F. All credit sales will include a Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate (“Certificate”) that is required
to be provided to the buyer of Riparian Buffer credits, that will include, at a minimum, the
following information:

1. Bank Details: (1) Bank Sponsor Name, (2) Bank Parcel as it appears in this Instrument, (3)
DWR project number for the BPDP.

2. Credit Details: (1) date of receipt, (2) identify if full or partial payment, (3 – when
applicable) amount of nitrogen credits purchased in pounds and confirmation from the
designated local government of the amount required, and (4 – when applicable) amount of
phosphorus credits purchased in pounds and confirmation from the designated local
government of the amount required, and (5 – when applicable) amount of Riparian Buffer
Credits purchased in square feet and the confirmation from DWR or the local government
of the amount required.

12

3. Permitted Project Details: (1) project name as it appears on DWR or local government
permits and/or certifications, (2) 14-digit HUC, (3) the subwatershed within the Jordan
Lake Watershed, (4-when applicable) nutrient strategy applicable to the project, (5 – when
applicable) designated local government requiring Riparian Buffer Credits, and/or (6)
DWR authorization number or delegated local government requiring Riparian Buffer
Credits for this project.

G. If the DWR determines that the Bank is operating at a deficit (e.g. the Sponsor is closing on sales
and/or transferring credit that is not available), or the Bank is selling credits out of compliance
with statutes, rules or this Agreement, the sale/transfer of credits will immediately cease, and the
DWR, in consultation with the Sponsor, will determine what remedial actions are necessary.

X. BANK PARCEL CLOSURE
A. Bank Parcel Closure shall be identified as the event when the Sponsor is relieved of all of its
responsibilities to the Bank Parcel and there are no Riparian Buffer Credits left to sell.

B. Bank Parcel Closure shall commence only after all of the following events have occurred:

1. Transfer or assign the conservation easement and all of its interests, in perpetuity, to a land
trust or stewardship program as described in Section V of this Instrument.

2. All five years of monitoring completed, and all monitoring reports submitted and approved
by DWR.

3. All credits have been released and debited and updated ledgers showing zero credit
balances have been submitted and approved by DWR.

XI. GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR THE BANK PARCEL
A. Upon the presentation of proper credentials, and during normal business hours, the Sponsor and
the landowner shall grant permission to the Director of DWR, or authorized representative of the
Director of DWR, to enter the property containing the Bank Parcel.

B. Amendments: This Banking Instrument may be amended or modified only with written approval
of all signatory parties, including the USACE if it is applicable to the amendment.

C. Any transfer of the Sponsor’s rights or obligations outlined in this Instrument or any other
agreement referenced in this Instrument to a third party must be approved by DWR prior to the
transfer.

D. Force Majeure: After 100% of all of the credits have been released according to the credit release
schedule in Section VIII and confirmation has been received by the DWR that the Conservation
Easement has been successfully assigned in compliance with Item H of Section V, the Sponsor
will not be responsible for Bank failure that is attributed to natural catastrophes including but not
limited to flood, drought, disease, regional pest infestation, etc. that are beyond the control of the
Sponsor.
13

E. However, if an event occurs before 100% of all of the credits have been released according to the credit
release schedule in Section VIII, then the Sponsor shall take remedial action to restore the property
to its condition prior to the event, in a manner sufficient to provide adequate mitigation to cover
credits that were sold prior to the occurrence of the event. Such remedial action shall be taken by
the Sponsor only to the extent necessary and appropriate, as determined by DWR and the Sponsor.

DWR must concur in writing that a force majeure event has occurred for this provision to apply.

F. Oversight: Actions taken by DWR may include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Site visits,

2. Issuance of Site Viability Letters,

3. BPDP review and approval of items listed in Section V of this Instrument,

4. As-Built Report review, and approval of items listed in Section VI of this Instrument,

5. Monitoring Report review, and approval of items listed in Section VI of this Instrument,

6. Credit Ledger review and approval of items listed in Section IX of this Instrument,

7. Certificate review of items listed in Section IX of this Instrument and cross analysis to
credit ledgers and,

8. Information requests, file reviews and audits

G. Reports, ledgers, files and other information shall be made available to DWR upon request, unless
otherwise specified in this or any other document.

H. Validity of the Banking Instrument: This Instrument will become valid on the date of the last
party’s signature.

I. Specific Language of Banking Instrument Shall Be Controlling: To the extent that specific
language in this document changes, modifies, or deletes terms and conditions contained in those
documents that are incorporated into the Instrument by reference, and that are not legally binding,
the specific language within the Instrument shall be controlling.

J. Any disputes over decisions regarding this Instrument, shall be referred to the Director of DWR
for a decision. The Director’s decision is subject to review as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of G.S.
150B.

K. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and is entered into knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily.

14

L. Notices: All notices and other communications which may be or are required to be given or made
by any party to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been properly given and
received on the date delivered in person or deposited in the United States mail, registered or
certified, electronic mail, return receipt requested, to the addresses set out below, or at such other
addresses as specified by written notice delivered in accordance herewith.

If to Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Attention: Mr. Matt Butler
3600 Glenwood Ave.
Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612

Matt Butler
[e-mail]

If to DWR: NC Division of Water Resources – 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Attn: Nutrient Offset and Buffer Banking Coordinator
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
15

M. Applicable Law: This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of North Carolina.

ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC

By: (Print)

(Signature)
Title:

Date:

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY-DIVISION OF WATER
RESOURCES

By: (Print)

(Signature)
Title:

Date:

Nutrient Offset Program & Buffer Mitigation Program
MBI Authorities for Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC effective 04/18/2019
Updated
09/15/2015
ATTACHMENT A
Authorities pertaining to the Walnut Wood Mitigation Banking Instrument
All Basins
General Statutes:
G.S. §143-214.11 Ecosystem Enhancement Program
G.S. §143-214.26 Nutrient Offset Credits
G.S. §143-214.20-24 Riparian Buffer Protection Program
G.S. §143-214.7 Stormwater runoff rules and programs
G.S. §143-215.8B Basinwide Water Quality Management Plans
Session Laws
S.L. 2015-246
S.L. 2015-149
S.L. 2014-90
S.L. 2014-120
S.L. 2013-413
S.L. 2013-121
S.L. 2013-265
S.L. 2012-200 (Amendment to G.S. §143-214.23 and G.S. §143-215.1)
S.L. 2011-343 (Amendment to G.S. §143-214.11)
S.L. 2009- 337 (Amendment to G.S. §143-214.11)
Administrative Rules:
15A NCAC 02B .0202 Definitions
15A NCAC 02B .0223 Nutrient Sensitive Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0237 Best Management Practice Cost-Effectiveness Rate
15A NCAC 02B .0703 Nutrient Offset Payments
15A NCAC 02B .0295 Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers
Jordan Buffer and Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy
General Statutes and Session Laws:
G.S. §143-214.5 Water Supply Watershed Protection)
S.L. 2013-395
S.L. 2012-201
S.L. 2012-200S.L. 2012-187
S.L. 2009-216
S.L. 2009-484
S.L. 2006-259 (Section 31(a))
S.L. 2005-190
S.L. 1999-329 (part of G.S. 143B-282)
Administrative Rules:
15A NCAC 2B .0262 Purpose and Scope
15A NCAC 2B .0263 Definitions
15A NCAC 2B .0264 Agriculture
15A NCAC 2B .0265 Stormwater Management for New Development
15A NCAC 2B .0267 Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Protection of Existing Riparian Buffers
15A NCAC 2B .0270 Wastewater Discharge Requirements
15A NCAC 2B .0271 Stormwater Requirements for State and Federal Entities
15A NCAC 2B .0272 Fertilizer Management
15A NCAC 2B .0273 Options for Offsetting Nutrient Loads
Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy
Delivered Credit Yield Table for Jordan Sub Watersheds
Updated
12/20/2012
Page 1 of 2
Attachment B
Delivered credit yields for buffer acres in Jordan small watersheds.
Watershed ID Jordan
Subwatershed
Delivery Factors TN Credit TP Credit
TN TP (lbs/30yrs) (lbs/30yrs)
03030002010010 Haw 25% 10% 562.34 14.38
03030002010020 Haw 37% 36% 832.26 51.77
03030002010030 Haw 44% 40% 989.72 57.52
03030002010040 Haw 49% 44% 1102.19 63.27
03030002010050 Haw 55% 48% 1237.15 69.03
03030002020010 Haw 15% 4% 337.40 5.75
03030002020020 Haw 22% 12% 494.86 17.26
03030002020030 Haw 48% 43% 1079.69 61.84
03030002020040 Haw 32% 33% 719.80 47.46
03030002020050 Haw 32% 32% 719.80 46.02
03030002020060 Haw 47% 42% 1057.20 60.40
03030002020070 Haw 54% 47% 1214.66 67.59
03030002030010 Haw 60% 56% 1349.62 80.53
03030002030020 Haw 44% 31% 989.72 44.58
03030002030030 Haw 25% 8% 562.34 11.50
03030002030040 Haw 42% 30% 944.73 43.14
03030002030050 Haw 64% 62% 1439.59 89.16
03030002030060 Haw 39% 19% 877.25 27.32
03030002030070 Haw 36% 18% 809.77 25.88
03030002030080 Haw 73% 64% 1642.04 92.04
03030002040010 Haw 30% 14% 674.81 20.13
03030002040020 Haw 28% 14% 629.82 20.13
03030002040030 Haw 71% 63% 1597.05 90.60
03030002040040 Haw 32% 15% 719.80 21.57
03030002040050 Haw 52% 50% 1169.67 71.90
03030002040060 Haw 54% 51% 1214.66 73.34
03030002040070 Haw 67% 60% 1507.07 86.28
03030002040080 Haw 53% 51% 1192.16 73.34
03030002040090 Haw 54% 51% 1214.66 73.34
03030002040100 Haw 75% 65% 1687.02 93.47
03030002040110 Haw 66% 60% 1484.58 86.28
03030002050010 Haw 74% 68% 1664.53 97.79
03030002050020 Haw 81% 74% 1821.98 106.42
03030002050030 Haw 42% 17% 944.73 24.45
03030002050040 Haw 80% 73% 1799.49 104.98
Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy
Delivered Credit Yield Table for Jordan Sub Watersheds
Updated
12/20/2012
Page 2 of 2
Watershed ID Jordan
Subwatershed
Delivery Factors TN Credit TP Credit
TN TP (lbs/30yrs) (lbs/30yrs)
03030002050050 Haw 71% 67% 1597.05 96.35
03030002050060 Haw 79% 73% 1777.00 104.98
03030002050070 Haw 78% 72% 1754.50 103.54
03030002050080 Haw 80% 73% 1799.49 104.98
03030002050090 Haw 79% 73% 1777.00 104.98
03030002050100 Haw 81% 75% 1821.98 107.85
03030002060010 Haw 81% 74% 1821.98 106.42
03030002060020 Haw 95% 97% 2136.90 139.49
03030002060030 Haw 88% 91% 1979.44 130.86
03030002060040 Haw 97% 98% 2181.88 140.93
03030002060050 Haw 92% 95% 2069.41 136.61
03030002060062 Haw 98% 99% 2204.38 142.37
03030002060070 UNH 40% 19% 867.70 27.32
03030002060080 UNH 59% 45% 1279.86 64.71
03030002060100 UNH 69% 63% 1496.79 90.60
03030002060110 UNH 61% 58% 1323.25 83.41
03030002060120 UNH 69% 63% 1496.79 90.60
03030002060140 UNH 85% 89% 1843.87 127.99
03030002060130 UNH 69% 63% 1496.79 90.60
03030002060160 LNH 85% 90% 1932.07 131.76
03030002060090* UNH 92% 94% 1995.71 135.18
03030002060090* LNH 92% 94% 2091.18 137.62
03030002060060* UNH 94% 96% 2039.10 138.05
03030002060060* LNH 94% 96% 2136.64 140.54
03030002060150* UNH 88% 91% 1908.94 130.86
03030002060150* LNH 88% 91% 2000.26 133.22
*Watershed is located in both the Upper New Hope (UNH) and Lower New Hope (LNH) Subwatersheds.
*Credits shown below are only for mitigation credits approved by the MBI, BPDP, and As-Built.Sale/ Release DatePurchaser Name or % of Credit ReleaseProject w/ 14 Digit HUC Local Gov'tSquare Feet Acres Square Feet AcresSquare FeetAcres Credits Released/Available to BankCredits Debited/Sold From BankBuffer Credit Balance(Sponsor Name & Instrument Name)(Parcel Name w/ HUC #) Buffer Credit LedgerDate Last Updated:DWR Bank Parcel Project #: Total Credits Released To Date:Attachment C
*Credits shown below are only for mitigation credits approved by the MBI, BPDP, and As-Built.Sale/Release DatePurchaser Name or % of Credit ReleaseProject Name14-digit HUC of ProjectLocal Gov't RequiringGenerated Nitrogen (lbs)Delivered Nitrogen (lbs)Generated Nitrogen (lbs)Delivered Nitrogen (lbs)Generated Nitrogen (lbs) Delivered Nitrogen (lbs) Credits Released/Available to BankNutrient Credit BalanceCredits Debited/Sold From Bank(Sponsor Name & Instrument Name)(Parcel Name w/ HUC #) Nitrogen Credit LedgerDate Last Updated:DWR Bank Parcel Project #: As-Built Credit Total:Delivery Factor: %NAttachment D

Appendix AB

• RES Walnut Wood Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Director
NORTH C:AROLINA
Environmental Quality
June 5, 2019
Jeremy Schmid DWR Project #: 2017-0919v2
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC Guilford County
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
(via electronic mail: jschmid(a,res.us)
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Walnut Wood Site
Located near 3172 Alamance Church Rd
Haw River Sub -Watershed
Dear Mr. Schmid,
On February 11, 2019, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a
request from Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) for an onsite mitigation determination
near the above -referenced site (Site). The Site is located in the Cape Fear River Basin within the
Haw River Sub -watershed of Jordan Lake. The site visit was to determine the potential for riparian
buffer mitigation and nutrient offset within a proposed Easement Boundary, which is more accurately
shown in the attached map labeled "Figure 3" prepared by RES. On April 2, 2019, Ms. Merritt
performed a site assessment of the subject site. Staff with RES and the Army Corps of Engineers
(ALOE) was also present. This site is also being proposed as a stream mitigation site by RES.
This mitigation determination is assessed using both existing and proposed conditions as presented in
Figure 3 and Figure X labeled "Conservation Easement Map" respectively. Piped stream channels
are likely prevalent throughout the site even though most were not visible to DWR onsite. Therefore,
the mitigation determination within riparian areas of proposed conditions will be partially dependent
on the approval of the Interagency Review Team (IRT) to construct and daylight stream channels
through existing ponds onsite. All impervious structures within riparian areas including golf cart
paths must be removed with diffused flow restored.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. This evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB)
and landward 200' from each existing or proposed feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (effective November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0240.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
"oars, cu+oi.ea
919.707.9000

Walnut Wood Site
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC.
June 5, 2019
Table 1. Mitigation Determination based on existing conditions shown in Figure 3
Feature
Classification
1Subjec
to
Riparian Land uses
adjacent to Feature
Buffer
Credit
2Nutrient
Offset
Mitigation Type Determination
in the Feld
w/in riparian areas
0-200'
Buffer
Viable
Viable
Rule
Climax
Stream
Yes
Combination of forested and
3Yes
Yes (non-
Non -forested areas - Restoration
Creek
non -forested areas formally
forested
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
used as a golf course prior to
areas only)
2018
Forested Areas - Preservation Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)
UTl
Stream
Yes
Combination of forested and
'Yes
Yes (non-
Non -forested areas - Restoration
non -forested areas formally
forested
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
used as a golf course prior to
areas only)
2018
Forested areas - Preservation Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)
UT2
Stream
No
Mature natural forest
'Yes
No
Preservation Site per 15A NCAC
02B .0295 (o)(4)
UT3
Not located
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
UT4
Piped Stream
No
N/A
No
No
N/A
UT4
Not located
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
downstream
A
Offline Pond
No
N/A
No
No
N/A
— no piped
stream above
or below pond
was observed
B
Offline Pond
No
N/A
No
No
N/A
— no piped
stream above
or below pond
was observed
C
Offline Pond
No
N/A
No
No
N/A
— no piped
stream above
or below pond
was observed
D
Offline Pond
No
N/A
No
No
N/A
-no piped
stream above
or below pond
was observed
Page 2 of 6

Walnut Wood Site
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC.
June 5, 2019
Feature
Classification
'Subject
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
zNutrient
Mitigation Type Determination
in the field
adjacent to Feature
w/in riparian areas
to
Credit
Offset
0-200'
Buffer
Viable
Viable
Rule
E
In -line pond-
No
Mostly non -forested used as a
Yes
Yes
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
connected to
golf course prior to 2018
.0295 (o)(3)
UT2
F
In -line pond —
Yes
Mostly non -forested used as a
Yes
Yes
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
connected to
golf course prior to 2018
.0295 (n)
UT4 piped
stream
'Subjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondence dated April 12, 2019 using the 1:24,000 scale
quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by the NRCS .
2 NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment. Generated credit yields for buffer restoration in the Haw River Sub -watershed are 2,249.36 lbs-N and 143.81 lbs-P.
'The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation Only site to comply with this rule.
Table 2. Mitigation Determination based on proposed conditions shown in Figure X
Feature
Feature
'Subject
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
zNutrient
Mitigation Type Determination
to
Buffer
Offset
Viable
wLin riparian areas
Classified
Proposed
adjacent to Feature
Credit
Viable
onsite
0-200'
Rule
Climax
Stream
Yes
Combination of forested and
'Yes
Yes (non-
Non -forested areas - Restoration
Creek
non -forested areas formally
forested
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
(Stream)
used as a golf course prior to
areas only)
2018
Forested Areas - Preservation Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)
UT1
Stream
Yes
Combination of forested and
'Yes
Yes (non-
Non -forested areas - Restoration
(Stream)
non -forested areas formally
forested
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
used as a golf course prior to
areas only)
2018
Forested areas - Preservation Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)
UT2
Stream
No
Mature natural forest
'Yes
No
Preservation Site per 15A NCAC
(Stream)
02B .0295 (o)(4)
UT3
Daylighted
N/A
Non -forested areas formally
1•4Yes
4Yes
Non -forested areas - Restoration
(not located)
stream
used as a golf course prior to
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
restoration
2018
Page 3 of 6

Walnut Wood Site
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC.
June 5, 2019
Feature
Feature
'Subject
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
ZNutrient
Mitigation Type Determination
adjacent to Feature
w/in riparian areas
Classified
Proposed
to
Credit
Offset
0-200'
onsite
Buffer
Viable
Viable
Rule
UT4
Daylighted
N/A
Mostly non -forested used as a
4Yes
4Yes
Non -forested areas - Restoration
(piped
stream
golf course prior to 2018
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
stream)
restoration
UT4
Daylighted
N/A
Mostly non -forested used as a
4Yes
4Yes
Non -forested areas - Restoration
downstream
stream
golf course prior to 2018
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o) (3)
(not located)
restoration
A
Stream
N/A
Mostly non -forested used as a
4Yes
No
Non -forested areas - Restoration Site
(off-line
Restoration
golf course prior to 2018
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
pond)
If stream channel is restored through
the pond, the new riparian areas will be
viable as a Restoration Site per 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3) and viable for
buffer mitigation only
B
stream
N/A
Mostly non -forested used as a
4Yes
No
Non -forested areas - Restoration Site
(off-line
restoration
golf course prior to 2018
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
pond)
If stream channel is restored through
the pond, the new riparian areas will be
viable as a Restoration Site per 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3) and viable for
buffer mitigation only
C
stream
N/A
Mostly non -forested used as a
4Yes
No
Non -forested areas - Restoration Site
(off-line
restoration
golf course prior to 2018
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
pond)
If stream channel is restored through
the pond, the new riparian areas will be
viable as a Restoration Site per 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3) and viable for
buffer mitigation only
D
stream
N/A
Mostly non -forested used as a
3 QYes
No
Non -forested areas - Restoration Site
(off-line
restoration
golf course prior to 2018 with
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
pond)
some mature forests along left
banks (see Figure X)
Forested Areas - Preservation Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)
If stream channel is restored through
the pond, the new riparian areas will be
viable as a Restoration Site per 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3) and viable for
buffer mitigation only
Page 4 of 6

Walnut Wood Site
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC.
June 5, 2019
Feature
Classified
Feature
Proposed
'Subject
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
Credit
Viable
2Nutrient
Offset
Viable
Mitigation Type Determination
to
Buffer
adjacent to Feature
0-200'
w/in riparian areas
onsite
Rule
E
stream
No
Mostly non -forested used as a
'Yes
'Yes
Non -forested areas - Restoration Site
(in -line
restoration
golf course prior to 2018
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
pond)
If stream channel is restored through
the pond, the new riparian areas will be
viable as a Restoration Site per 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (n) and viable for
buffer mitigation and nutrient offsets
F
stream
Yes
Mostly non -forested used as a
'Yes
'Yes
Non -forested areas - Restoration Site
(in -line
restoration
golf course prior to 2018
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
pond)
If stream channel is restored through
the pond, the new riparian areas will be
viable as a Restoration Site per 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (n) and viable for
buffer mitigation and nutrient offsets
`Subjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondence dated April 12, 2019 using the 1:24,000 scale
quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by the NRCS .
2 NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment. Generated credit yields for buffer restoration in the Haw River Sub -watershed are 2,249.36 lbs-N and 143.81 lbs-P.
3The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation Only site to comply with this rule.
' The IRT and DWR must approve all plans for breached ponds and daylighted stream restoration prior to buffer mitigation and/or
nutrient offset credits being approved.
The maps attached to this letter were prepared by RES and were initialed by Ms. Merritt on June 5,
2019.
This letter does not constitute an approval of this site to generate mitigation credits. Pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to DWR for written
approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters for
buffer mitigation credit. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240, a proposal regarding a proposed nutrient
load -reducing measure for nutrient offset credit shall be submitted to DWR for approval prior to any
mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
This viability assessment will expire on June 5, 2021 or upon the submittal of an As -Built Report to
the DWR, whichever comes first. This letter should be provided in all stream and wetland,
buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation plans for this Site.
Page 5 of 6

Walnut Wood Site
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC.
June 5, 2019
Please contact Katie Merritt at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
a�iggins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
KAH/km
Attachments: Figure 3, Figure X — Conservation Easement Map
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
Page 6 of 6

it ftf S&v&fi bA C4,mhd,
N
Le end
Proposed Easement (44.84 ac)
Approach
Restoration
Enhancement II
w��wa■qr■� �i►til
Y-�,jY1►i�YA1��J►�I�w��
���
rr1'Feet
i
Ift
Allot
Reach ID Appri
in
A
Len
Ratio SMU
Total
Credit Loss in Required Bufferl -240
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer) 861
6,366
Ir�Conservation Easement Map Date: 10/4/2018
1.1 \ Drawn by: MDE
Walnut Wood Mitigation Site GJ`��
�� Checked by: BPB res
Guilford County, North Carolina finch =400 feet

by
ro
P"s

{ ,MI►, j
.��- z#3 f . � Z•r � � � ., . ,
1 Y , 1> ♦ L rr
ow
04
v
r�
• , •
its iw ► ► a�
1 f,• Le end
Proposed Easement
FIGURE 3 Date 7n12017
Aerial Map � \ Drawn by BPBres
s o zoo aoo \� Walnut Wood Mitigation Site \�
i Feel '�\ Guilford County, North Carolina

Appendix AC

• Supplementary Information
o EDR Report
Certified Sanborn® Map Report
Inquiry Number:
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
Walnut Wood
3172 Alamance Church Rd
Julian, NC 27283
February 27, 2020
5988106.3
Certified Sanborn® Map Report
Certified Sanborn Results:
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein
are the property of their respective owners.
page-
The Sanborn Library includes more than 1.2 million
fire insurance maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris &
Browne, Hopkins, Barlow and others which track
historical property usage in approximately 12,000
American cities and towns. Collections searched:
Library of Congress
University Publications of America
EDR Private Collection
The Sanborn Library LLC Since 1866™
Limited Permission To Make Copies
Sanborn® Library search results
Contact:EDR Inquiry #
Site Name: Client Name:
Certification #
PO #
Project
02/27/20
3172 Alamance Church Rd
Walnut Wood Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Julian, NC 27283
5988106.3
Raleigh, NC 27605
Emily Ulman
The Sanborn Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by Resource Environmental
Solutions, LLC were identified for the years listed below. The Sanborn Library is the largest, most complete collection of fire insurance
maps. The collection includes maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris & Browne, Hopkins, Barlow, and others. Only Environmental Data
Resources Inc. (EDR) is authorized to grant rights for commercial reproduction of maps by the Sanborn Library LLC, the copyright holder for
the collection. Results can be authenticated by visiting www.edrnet.com/sanborn.
The Sanborn Library is continually enhanced with newly identified map archives. This report accesses all maps in the collection as of the
day this report was generated.
E504-4BAC-B273
NA
UNMAPPED PROPERTY
Walnut Wood
This report certifies that the complete holdings of the Sanborn Library,
LLC collection have been searched based on client supplied target
property information, and fire insurance maps covering the target property
were not found.
Certification #: E504-4BAC-B273
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (the client) is permitted to make up to FIVE photocopies of this Sanborn Map transmittal and each fire insurance map
accompanying this report solely for the limited use of its customer. No one other than the client is authorized to make copies. Upon request made directly to an EDR
Account Executive, the client may be permitted to make a limited number of additional photocopies. This permission is conditioned upon compliance by the client, its
customer and their agents with EDR's copyright policy; a copy of which is available upon request.
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot
be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE
OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,
WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any
analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to
provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.
Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2020 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of
Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
5988106 3 2
FORM-LBD-CCA
®kcehCoeG htiw tropeR ™paM suidaR RDE ehT
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
Walnut Wood
3172 Alamance Church Rd
Julian, NC 27283
Inquiry Number: 5988106.2s
February 27, 2020
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary ES1
Overview Map 2
Detail Map 3
Map Findings Summary 4
Map Findings 8
Orphan Summary 13
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary A-2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map A-5
Physical Setting Source Map A-16
Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-18
Physical Setting Source Records Searched PSGR-1
TC5988106.2s Page 1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2020 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5988106.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA’s Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited
Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process (E 1528-14) or custom requirements developed
for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD
JULIAN, NC 27283
COORDINATES
35.9793280 - 35˚ 58’ 45.58’’Latitude (North):
79.6454470 - 79˚ 38’ 43.60’’Longitude (West):
Zone 17Universal Tranverse Mercator:
622120.9UTM X (Meters):
3982303.5UTM Y (Meters):
661 ft. above sea levelElevation:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
5945663 CLIMAX, NCTarget Property Map:
2013Version Date:
5945539 KIMESVILLE, NCSoutheast Map:
2013Version Date:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
20140705Portions of Photo from:
USDASource:
5988106.2s Page 2
A4 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COU 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RGA LUST TP
A3 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COU 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RGA LUST TP
A2 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COU 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH LUST, UST, IMD TP
A1 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COU 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH FINDS TP
MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD
JULIAN, NC 27283
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ID DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTIONSITE NAME ADDRESS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5988106.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was identified in the following records. For more information on this
property see page 8 of the attached EDR Radius Map report:
EPA IDDatabase(s)Site
WALNUT WOOD GOLF COU
3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
JULIAN, NC 27283
N/AFINDS
Registry ID:: 110018656809
WALNUT WOOD GOLF COU
3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
JULIAN, NC 27283
N/ALUST
Incident Phase: Closed Out
Incident Number: 9664
Current Status: File Located in Archives
UST
Tank Status: Removed
Facility Id: 00-0-0000001049
IMD
Facility Id: 9664
WALNUT WOOD GOLF COU
3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
JULIAN, NC
N/ARGA LUST
Facility ID: 9664
Facility ID: 9664.0
Facility ID: 0-001049
WALNUT WOOD GOLF COU
3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
JULIAN, NC
N/ARGA LUST
Facility ID: 9664
Facility ID: 0-001049
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR’s search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL National Priority List
Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List Sites
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5988106.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-VSQG RCRA - Very Small Quantity Generators (Formerly Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators)
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROL Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI Old Landfill Inventory
DEBRIS Solid Waste Active Disaster Debris Sites Listing
LCID Land-Clearing and Inert Debris (LCID) Landfill Notifications
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5988106.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
AST AST Database
INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
HIST LF Solid Waste Facility Listing
SWRCY Recycling Center Listing
INDIAN ODI Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
ODI Open Dump Inventory
DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
IHS OPEN DUMPS Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS Spills Incident Listing
SPILLS 90 SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80 SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5988106.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION 2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD Records Of Decision
RMP Risk Management Plans
RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS PCB Activity Database System
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE Steam-Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV Indian Reservations
FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS Lead Smelter Sites
US AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES Abandoned Mines
ECHO Enforcement & Compliance History Information
UXO Unexploded Ordnance Sites
DOCKET HWC Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
FUELS PROGRAM EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
AIRS Air Quality Permit Listing
ASBESTOS ASBESTOS
COAL ASH Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC Underground Injection Wells Listing
AOP Animal Operation Permits Listing
MINES MRDS Mineral Resources Data System
PCSRP Petroleum-Contaminated Soil Remediation Permits
CCB Coal Ash Structural Fills (CCB) Listing
SEPT HAULERS Permitted Septage Haulers Listing
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5988106.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
EDR Hist Auto EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5988106.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped. Count: 1 records.
Site Name Database(s)____________ ____________
SHOFFNER’S STORE LUST TRUST
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.
8 0 6007 20720 600
600
720
6 0 0 720680640
7 20 6 4 0
72072 0
720680
6 80
72076064 0
6 406 406406
40640720680
64068 0
6
8064072 0
0 72064 0
6 40640
64064064 0 6406406 4 0
6 4 0
6 4072068072072068076076 0
7207607 6 0
720
6 40
7 207207606 8 0 680
7600680680680680
6
80680
680680680
6 806806806 806806
806
806 8 0
6 8 0
6 8 0
7607 207207 207207 2 0
72072072020720
7 20
720
7 2 0720
8
76 080
760
76 0760
7 6 0
76 0
760
7 60
7207 2 0
7
20
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.76 406806 80
6
680680640640
640
640
64072 0
6406 80
680680640720
640720640
680
6806806
8
0680
720
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
TargetDistance Total
Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000NPL
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Proposed NPL
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000NPL LIENS
Federal Delisted NPL site list
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Delisted NPL
Federal CERCLIS list
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500FEDERAL FACILITY
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SEMS
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SEMS-ARCHIVE
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000CORRACTS
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500RCRA-TSDF
Federal RCRA generators list
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-LQG
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-SQG
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-VSQG
Federal institutional controls /
engineering controls registries
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LUCIS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US ENG CONTROLS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US INST CONTROL
Federal ERNS list
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001ERNS
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000NC HSDS
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000SHWS
State and tribal landfill and/or
solid waste disposal site lists
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SWF/LF
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500OLI
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500DEBRIS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LCID
TC5988106.2s Page 4
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
TargetDistance Total
Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
1 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500 1LUST
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LAST
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN LUST
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LUST TRUST
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250FEMA UST
1 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250 1UST
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250AST
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250INDIAN UST
State and tribal institutional
control / engineering control registries
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INST CONTROL
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500VCP
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN VCP
State and tribal Brownfields sites
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500BROWNFIELDS
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US BROWNFIELDS
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500HIST LF
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SWRCY
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN ODI
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500ODI
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500DEBRIS REGION 9
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500IHS OPEN DUMPS
Local Lists of Hazardous waste /
Contaminated Sites
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001US HIST CDL
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001US CDL
Local Land Records
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001LIENS 2
Records of Emergency Release Reports
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001HMIRS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001SPILLS
1 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500 1IMD
TC5988106.2s Page 5
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
TargetDistance Total
Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001SPILLS 90
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001SPILLS 80
Other Ascertainable Records
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA NonGen / NLR
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000FUDS
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000DOD
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SCRD DRYCLEANERS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001US FIN ASSUR
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001EPA WATCH LIST
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.2502020 COR ACTION
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001TSCA
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001TRIS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001SSTS
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000ROD
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001RMP
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001RAATS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001PRP
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001PADS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001ICIS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001FTTS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001MLTS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001COAL ASH DOE
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500COAL ASH EPA
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001PCB TRANSFORMER
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001RADINFO
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001HIST FTTS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001DOT OPS
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000CONSENT
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000INDIAN RESERV
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000FUSRAP
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500UMTRA
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001LEAD SMELTERS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001US AIRS
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250US MINES
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250ABANDONED MINES
1 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001 1FINDS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001ECHO
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000UXO
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001DOCKET HWC
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250FUELS PROGRAM
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001AIRS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001ASBESTOS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500COAL ASH
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250DRYCLEANERS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001Financial Assurance
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001NPDES
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001UIC
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001AOP
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001MINES MRDS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500PCSRP
TC5988106.2s Page 6
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
TargetDistance Total
Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500CCB
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001SEPT HAULERS
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000EDR MGP
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.125EDR Hist Auto
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.125EDR Hist Cleaner
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001RGA HWS
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001RGA LF
2 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001 2RGA LUST
6 0 0 0 0 0 6- Totals --
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC5988106.2s Page 7
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
additional FINDS: detail in the EDR Site Report.
Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access
the state of North Carolina.
comprehensive information about environmental regulated entities in
common facility identifier in order to improve accessibility to
(NCDENR) Facility Identification Template for States that provides a
is North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources’
NC-FITS (North Carolina - Facility Identification Template For States)
Environmental Interest/Information System
110018656809Registry ID:
FINDS:
Site 1 of 4 in cluster A
Actual:
661 ft.

Property JULIAN, NC 27283
Target 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH ROAD N/A
A1 FINDSWALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE. INCORPORATED 1007709085
Not reportedLUR Filed:
NoFlag1:
NoFlag:
UnknownMTBE1:
NoMTBE:
Not reportedLand Use:
Not reportedSite Risk Reason:
Not reportedPhase Of LSA Req:
B090Site Priority:
01/28/1993NORR Issue Date:
04/11/1995NOV Issue Date:
Not reportedCorrective Action Plan Type:
LRisk Class Based On Review:
LRisk Classification:
COMMERCIALCommercial/NonCommercial UST Site:
0# Of Supply Wells:
RTank Regulated Status:
Not reportedLevel Of Soil Cleanup Achieved:
07/15/1997Close Out:
Not reportedClosure Request:
01/19/1993Cleanup:
01/19/1993Date Occur:
01/19/1993Date Reported:
PProduct Type:
Leak-undergroundSource Type:
Not reportedContamination Type:
9664Incident Number:
WS-3273UST Number:
00-0-000Facility ID:
JULIAN, NC 27283City,State,Zip:
3172 ALAMANCE CHURCHAddress:
WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSEName:
LUST:
Site 2 of 4 in cluster A
Actual:
661 ft.

Property IMDJULIAN, NC 27283
Target UST3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH ROAD N/A
A2 LUSTWALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE, INC. U001186699
TC5988106.2s Page 8
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
Fuel OilProduct Name:
01/13/1993Perm Close Date:
10/16/1984Installed Date:
RemovedTank Status:
1Tank Id:
0Longitude:
0Latitude:
GuilfordFIPS County Desc:
JULIAN, NC 27283Contact City/State/Zip:
Not reportedContact Address2:
3172 ALAMANCE CH RD.Contact Address1:
WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSEContact:
00-0-0000001049Facility Id:
JULIAN, NC 27283City,State,Zip:
3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH ROADAddress:
WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE, INC.Name:
UST:
Click here to access the North Carolina DEQ records for this facility:
7/11/1997Close-out Report:
Not reportedClosure Request Date:
Not reportedRS Designation:
Not reportedReclassification Report:
Not reportedSOC Signed:
Not reportedCorrective Action Planned:
Not reportedPublic Meeting Held:
Not reported45 Day Report:
Not reportedNORR Issued:
4/11/1995NOV Issued:
Closed OutIncident Phase:
8/4/1997Last Modified:
Not reported5 Min Quad:
PIRF CLOSED 7/15/97Comments:
Not reportedRP County:
JULIAN, NC 27283RP City,St,Zip:
3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD.RP Address:
Not reportedTelephone:
MITCH CLENDENINContact Person:
WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSECompany:
WSRegion:
MLWRegional Officer Project Mgr:
Not reportedTestlat:
35.9804 -79.6439Lat/Long Decimal:
FalseValid:
NError Code:
0Error Flag:
FalseRPOP:
FalseRPOW:
3785Reel Num:
18CD Num:
FalseRPL:
3PETOPT:
Not reportedRBCA GW:
File Located in ArchivesCurrent Status:
0Release Detection:
WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE, INC. (Continued) U001186699
TC5988106.2s Page 9
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for TCONS_KEY:
UnknownLeak Detection Name:
UnknownSpill Protection Name:
UnknownOverfill Protection Name:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
Not reportedManifold Tank:
NoCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
Not reportedRoot Tank Id:
1000Tank Capacity:
Gasoline, Gas MixProduct Name:
01/13/1993Perm Close Date:
10/16/1984Installed Date:
RemovedTank Status:
3Tank Id:
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for TCONS_KEY:
UnknownLeak Detection Name:
UnknownSpill Protection Name:
UnknownOverfill Protection Name:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
Not reportedManifold Tank:
NoCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
Not reportedRoot Tank Id:
10000Tank Capacity:
Gasoline, Gas MixProduct Name:
01/13/1993Perm Close Date:
10/16/1984Installed Date:
RemovedTank Status:
2Tank Id:
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for TCONS_KEY:
UnknownLeak Detection Name:
UnknownSpill Protection Name:
UnknownOverfill Protection Name:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
NoRegulated:
YesCommercial:
Not reportedManifold Tank:
NoCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
Not reportedRoot Tank Id:
10000Tank Capacity:
WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE, INC. (Continued) U001186699
TC5988106.2s Page 10
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
Not reportedRS Designation:
Not reportedReclassification Report:
Not reportedSOC Sighned:
Not reportedCorrective Action Planned:
Not reportedPublic Meeting Held:
Not reported45 Day Report:
Not reportedNORR Issued:
4/11/1995NOV Issued:
Closed OutIncident Phase:
8/4/1997Last Modified:
9664Facility ID:
Not reportedAgency:
NODGPS:
Not reportedLongitude Decimal:
Not reportedLatitude Decimal:
Not reportedLongitude Number:
Not reportedLatitude Number:
Not reportedLongitude:
Not reportedLatitude:
Not reported5 Min Quad:
Not reported7.5 Min Quad:
Groundwater SamplesSamples Include:
Responsible PartiesSampled By:
Not reportedWells Contam:
0Num Affected:
NoWells Affected:
Not reportedDem Contact:
12/4/1998Priority Update:
BPriority Code:
090BSite Priority:
NoRisk Site:
RuralSetting:
FacilityLocation:
Gasoline/dieselType:
Leak-undergroundSource:
Not reportedQty Recovered:
Not reportedQty Lost:
DIESELMaterial:
Not reportedQty Recovered 1:
Not reportedQty Lost 1:
GASOLINEMaterial:
Public ServiceOperation:
PrivateOwnership:
JULIAN, NC 27283Oper City,St,Zip:
JULIANOperator City:
3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD.Operator Address:
WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSEOwner Company:
Not reportedContact Phone:
MITCH CLENDENINOperator:
UPON REMOVAL OF USTS, SOIL CONTAM. WAS CONFIRMED.Incident Desc:
Not reportedSoil Contam:
Yes, Groundwater Contamination has been detectedGW Contam:
4/21/1995Submit Date:
12/29/1992Date Occurred:
9664Facility ID:
WSRegion:
IMD:
WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE, INC. (Continued) U001186699
TC5988106.2s Page 11
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
7/11/1997Close-out Report:
Not reportedClosure Request Date:
WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE, INC. (Continued) U001186699
1995 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD.
1996 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD.
1997 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD.
2000 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD.
2001 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD.
2002 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD.
RGA LUST:
Site 3 of 4 in cluster A
Actual:
661 ft.

Property JULIAN, NC
Target 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD. N/A
A3 RGA LUSTWALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE S115649281
2003 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
2004 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
2005 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
2006 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
2007 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
2008 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
2009 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
2010 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
2011 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
2012 WALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH
RGA LUST:
Site 4 of 4 in cluster A
Actual:
661 ft.

Property JULIAN, NC
Target 3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH N/A
A4 RGA LUSTWALNUT WOOD GOLF COURSE S115649282
TC5988106.2s Page 12
ORPHAN SUMMARYCityEDR IDSite NameSite AddressZipDatabase(s)Count: 1 records.JULIAN S105217868SHOFFNER’S STOREALAMANCE CHURCH ROAD LUST TRUSTTC5988106.2s Page 13
TC5988106.2s Page A-1
geologic strata.
of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the
Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics
2. Groundwater flow velocity.
1. Groundwater flow direction, and
Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components:
forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration.
EDR’s GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in
2013Version Date:
5945539 KIMESVILLE, NCSoutheast Map:
2013Version Date:
5945663 CLIMAX, NCTarget Property Map:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
661 ft. above sea levelElevation:
3982303.5UTM Y (Meters):
622120.9UTM X (Meters):
Zone 17Universal Tranverse Mercator:
79.645447 - 79˚ 38’ 43.61’’Longitude (West):
35.979328 - 35˚ 58’ 45.58’’Latitude (North):
TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES
JULIAN, NC 27283
3172 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD
WALNUT WOOD
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM®
TC5988106.2s Page A-2
should be field verified.
on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated
SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES
Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)TP
TP
0 1/2 1 Miles✩Target Property Elevation: 661 ft.
North South
West East698706684683681689675683682661646632644642650636627638638627625646682693676660635633661676693703688692689708728710General WNWGeneral Topographic Gradient:
TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY
should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or,
Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers).
sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data
using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other
Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC5988106.2s Page A-3
For additional site information, refer to Physical Setting Source Map Findings.
41Not Report1/2 - 1 Mile SW1G
41Not Report1/2 - 1 Mile SW3
GENERAL DIRECTIONLOCATION
GROUNDWATER FLOWFROM TPMAP ID
hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table.
authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
AQUIFLOW®
Search Radius: 1.000 Mile.
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the
Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail MapCLIMAX
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
NWI Electronic
Data CoverageNWI Quad at Target Property
FEMA FIRM Flood data3710880000J
FEMA FIRM Flood data3710881000J
FEMA FIRM Flood data3710881100J
Additional Panels in search area:FEMA Source Type
FEMA FIRM Flood data3710880100J
Flood Plain Panel at Target Property FEMA Source Type
FEMA FLOOD ZONE
and bodies of water).
Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC5988106.2s Page A-4
Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION
Plutonic and Intrusive RocksCategory:PaleozoicEra:
OrdovianSystem:
Lower Paleozoic granitic rocksSeries:
Pzg1Code: (decoded above as Era, System & Series)
at which contaminant migration may be occurring.
Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
move more quickly through sandy-gravelly types of soils than silty-clayey types of soils.
characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes
to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil
using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary
Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.
25
2
1
3
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
6
7
12
2
89
0 1/16 1/8 1/4 Miles
TC5988106.2s Page A-6
Min: 5.6
Max: 7.3
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Clayey
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clayloam70 inches37 inches 4
Min: 5.6
Max: 7.3
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Clayey
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clay37 inches33 inches 3
Min: 5.6
Max: 7.3
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Clayey
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clay33 inches 7 inches 2
Min: 5.6
Max: 7.3
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Clayey
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Claysandy clay loam 7 inches 0 inches 1
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)

> 0 inchesDepth to Watertable Min:
> 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min:
HighCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel:
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Well drainedSoil Drainage Class:
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downwardHydrologic Group:
sandy clay loamSoil Surface Texture:
MecklenburgSoil Component Name:
Soil Map ID: 1
in a landscape. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service SSURGO data.
for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns
Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil
DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC5988106.2s Page A-7
Min: 5.6
Max: 7.3
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Clayey
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clayloam70 inches37 inches 4
Min: 5.6
Max: 7.3
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Clayey
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clay37 inches33 inches 3
Min: 5.6
Max: 7.3
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Clayey
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clay33 inches 7 inches 2
Min: 5.6
Max: 7.3
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Clayey
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Claysandy clay loam 7 inches 0 inches 1
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)

> 0 inchesDepth to Watertable Min:
> 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min:
HighCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel:
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Well drainedSoil Drainage Class:
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downwardHydrologic Group:
sandy clay loamSoil Surface Texture:
MecklenburgSoil Component Name:
Soil Map ID: 2
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC5988106.2s Page A-8
Min: 6.1
Max: 7.8
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clayloam74 inches33 inches 4
Min: 6.1
Max: 7.8
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clay33 inches11 inches 3
Min: 6.1
Max: 7.8
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clay11 inches 7 inches 2
Min: 6.1
Max: 7.8
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clayfine sandy loam 7 inches 0 inches 1
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)

> 0 inchesDepth to Watertable Min:
> 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min:
HighCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel:
Hydric Status: Partially hydric
Well drainedSoil Drainage Class:
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downwardHydrologic Group:
fine sandy loamSoil Surface Texture:
EnonSoil Component Name:
Soil Map ID: 3
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC5988106.2s Page A-9
Min: 6.1
Max: 7.8
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clayloam74 inches33 inches 4
Min: 6.1
Max: 7.8
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clay33 inches11 inches 3
Min: 6.1
Max: 7.8
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clay11 inches 7 inches 2
Min: 6.1
Max: 7.8
Min: 1.4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clayfine sandy loam 7 inches 0 inches 1
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)

> 0 inchesDepth to Watertable Min:
> 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min:
HighCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel:
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Well drainedSoil Drainage Class:
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downwardHydrologic Group:
fine sandy loamSoil Surface Texture:
EnonSoil Component Name:
Soil Map ID: 4
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC5988106.2s Page A-10
Min: 3.6
Max: 6.5
Min: 14
Max: 141
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Clayey
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clayclay loam50 inches22 inches 4
Min: 3.6
Max: 6.5
Min: 14
Max: 141
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Clayey
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Claysandy clay loam22 inches14 inches 3
Min: 3.6
Max: 6.5
Min: 14
Max: 141
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Clayey
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Claysilty clay loam14 inches 5 inches 2
Min: 3.6
Max: 6.5
Min: 14
Max: 141
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Clayey
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clayloam 5 inches 0 inches 1
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)

> 38 inchesDepth to Watertable Min:
> 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min:
HighCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel:
Hydric Status: Partially hydric
Somewhat poorly drainedSoil Drainage Class:
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downwardHydrologic Group:
loamSoil Surface Texture:
ChewaclaSoil Component Name:
Soil Map ID: 5
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC5988106.2s Page A-11
Max: Min:
Min:
Max: Not reported
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clayclay14 inches 7 inches 2
Max: Min:
Min:
Max: Not reported
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clayloam 7 inches 0 inches 1
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)

> 0 inchesDepth to Watertable Min:
> 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min:
ModerateCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel:
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Well drainedSoil Drainage Class:
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downwardHydrologic Group:
loamSoil Surface Texture:
WilkesSoil Component Name:
Soil Map ID: 6
Min: 3.6
Max: 6.5
Min: 14
Max: 141
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Clayey
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clayloamy fine sand59 inches50 inches 5
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC5988106.2s Page A-12
Min: 4.5
Max: 6.5
Min: 4
Max: 14
Gravel.
Poorly Graded
Clean gravels,
SOILS, Gravels,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clayloam 7 inches 0 inches 1
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)

> 15 inchesDepth to Watertable Min:
> 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min:
HighCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel:
Hydric Status: All hydric
Poorly drainedSoil Drainage Class:
water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer.
Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a highHydrologic Group:
loamSoil Surface Texture:
WehadkeeSoil Component Name:
Soil Map ID: 7
Max: Min:
Min:
Max: Not reported
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Claybedrock48 inches44 inches 4
Max: Min:
Min:
Max: Not reported
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clay
bedrock
weathered44 inches14 inches 3
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC5988106.2s Page A-13
Min: 4.5
Max: 5.5
Min: 4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
and Sand.
Clayey Gravel
200), Silty, or
passing No.
pct. or less
materials (35
Granularsandy loam 5 inches 0 inches 1
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)

> 0 inchesDepth to Watertable Min:
> 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min:
ModerateCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel:
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Well drainedSoil Drainage Class:
textures.
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,Hydrologic Group:
sandy loamSoil Surface Texture:
ApplingSoil Component Name:
Soil Map ID: 8
Min: 4.5
Max: 6.5
Min: 4
Max: 14
Gravel.
Poorly Graded
Clean gravels,
SOILS, Gravels,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Claysandy loam83 inches57 inches 3
Min: 4.5
Max: 6.5
Min: 4
Max: 14
Gravel.
Poorly Graded
Clean gravels,
SOILS, Gravels,
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
200), Silty
passing No.
than 35 pct.
Materials (more
Silt-Clayloam57 inches 7 inches 2
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC5988106.2s Page A-14

Well drainedSoil Drainage Class:
textures.
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,Hydrologic Group:
sandy loamSoil Surface Texture:
ApplingSoil Component Name:
Soil Map ID: 9
Min: 4.5
Max: 5.5
Min: 4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
and Sand.
Clayey Gravel
200), Silty, or
passing No.
pct. or less
materials (35
Granularsandy loam62 inches51 inches 5
Min: 4.5
Max: 5.5
Min: 4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
and Sand.
Clayey Gravel
200), Silty, or
passing No.
pct. or less
materials (35
Granularsandy clay loam18 inches 5 inches 4
Min: 4.5
Max: 5.5
Min: 4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
and Sand.
Clayey Gravel
200), Silty, or
passing No.
pct. or less
materials (35
Granularsandy clay loam51 inches35 inches 3
Min: 4.5
Max: 5.5
Min: 4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
and Sand.
Clayey Gravel
200), Silty, or
passing No.
pct. or less
materials (35
Granularclay35 inches18 inches 2
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC5988106.2s Page A-15
Min: 4.5
Max: 5.5
Min: 4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
and Sand.
Clayey Gravel
200), Silty, or
passing No.
pct. or less
materials (35
Granularsandy loam62 inches51 inches 5
Min: 4.5
Max: 5.5
Min: 4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
and Sand.
Clayey Gravel
200), Silty, or
passing No.
pct. or less
materials (35
Granularsandy clay loam51 inches35 inches 4
Min: 4.5
Max: 5.5
Min: 4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
and Sand.
Clayey Gravel
200), Silty, or
passing No.
pct. or less
materials (35
Granularclay35 inches18 inches 3
Min: 4.5
Max: 5.5
Min: 4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
and Sand.
Clayey Gravel
200), Silty, or
passing No.
pct. or less
materials (35
Granularsandy clay loam18 inches 5 inches 2
Min: 4.5
Max: 5.5
Min: 4
Max: 14
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
and Sand.
Clayey Gravel
200), Silty, or
passing No.
pct. or less
materials (35
Granularsandy loam 5 inches 0 inches 1
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
micro m/sec
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)

> 0 inchesDepth to Watertable Min:
> 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min:
ModerateCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel:
Hydric Status: Not hydric
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC5988106.2s Page A-16
1/4 - 1/2 Mile ENENC3000000004091 1
STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID
Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location.
No PWS System Found
FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION
LOCATION
FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID
1/2 - 1 Mile SWUSGS40000892311 2
FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID
1.000State Database
Nearest PWS within 1 mileFederal FRDS PWS
1.000Federal USGS
WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION
SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)DATABASE
opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells.
professional in assessing sources that may impact ground water flow direction, and in forming an
EDR Local/Regional Water Agency records provide water well information to assist the environmental
LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.
6 8 0 6007 20720 600
600
720
6 0 0 720680640
0 720640
720720
720680
6 80
7207606 4 0
6 406 406406
40640720680
64068 0
6
8064072 0
6 40 72064 0
6 40640
64064064 0 6406406 4 0
6 4 0
6 40720068072 0 7206807607 60
7207607 6 0
720
6 40
7 207207606 8 0 68
0760680760 7680680680680
6
80680
680680680
6 806806806 806806
806
806 8 0
6 8 0
6 8 0
607607 207207 207207 2 0
7207207207 20720
7 20
720
7 2 0720
8 00
76 0800
760
7 60760
7 6 0 7607 6 0
760
7607207 2 07
20NC
TC5988106.2s Page A-18
Date: 01/08/19
Depth to rock - average: 44
Depth to rock - deepest: Not Reported
Depth to rock - shallowest: Not Reported
Average Water Table Depth: 76
Deepest Water Table Depth: 6334.
Shallowest Water Table Depth: 32.
Groundwater Flow: 41Not Report
Site ID: 155031G
SW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
63590AQUIFLOW
Date: 01/08/19
Depth to rock - average: 44
Depth to rock - deepest: Not Reported
Depth to rock - shallowest: Not Reported
Average Water Table Depth: 76
Deepest Water Table Depth: 6334.
Shallowest Water Table Depth: 32.
Groundwater Flow: 41Not Report
Site ID: 155033
SW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
63590AQUIFLOW
Not ReportedWell Hole Depth Units:
Not ReportedWell Hole Depth: ftWell Depth Units:
90Well Depth: Not ReportedConstruction Date:
Not ReportedAquifer Type: Felsic Metaigneous RockFormation Type:
Piedmont and Blue Ridge crystalline-rock aquifersAquifer:
Not ReportedContrib Drainage Area Unts: Not ReportedContrib Drainage Area:
Not ReportedDrainage Area Units: Not ReportedDrainage Area:
Not ReportedHUC: Not ReportedDescription:
WellType: GU-373Monitor Location:
USGS North Carolina Water Science CenterOrganization Name:
USGS-NCOrganization ID:
2
SW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
USGS40000892311FED USGS
WALNUT WOODSOwner:
0Well Depth:WellFacility Type:
WELL #1Facility Name:Ground WaterWater Type:
Ground WaterPrimary Source:Non Community TransientPWS Type:
WALNUT WOODSSystem Name:NC0241680PWD ID:
1
ENE
1/4 - 1/2 Mile
Higher
NC3000000004091NC WELLS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation EDR ID NumberDatabase
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC5988106.2s Page A-19
Not ReportedNot ReportedNot ReportedNot ReportedBasement
Not ReportedNot ReportedNot ReportedNot ReportedLiving Area - 2nd Floor
0%0%100%0.700 pCi/LLiving Area - 1st Floor
% >20 pCi/L% 4-20 pCi/L% <4 pCi/LAverage ActivityArea
Number of sites tested: 1
Federal Area Radon Information for Zip Code: 27283
: Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L.
: Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi/L and <= 4 pCi/L.
Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L.
Federal EPA Radon Zone for GUILFORD County: 3
111.001
__________________________________
Max pCi/LMin pCi/LAvg pCi/LNum Results
Radon Test Results
State Database: NC Radon
AREA RADON INFORMATION
GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
RADON
®
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
EDR acquired the USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model in 2002 and updated it in 2006. The 7.5 minute DEM corresponds
to the USGS 1:24,000- and 1:25,000-scale topographic quadrangle maps. The DEM provides elevation data
with consistent elevation units and projection.
Current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Flood Zone Data: This data was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It depicts 100-year and
500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. It includes the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) which incorporates Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data and Q3 data from FEMA in areas not covered by NFHL.
Source: FEMA
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 2003, 2015
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002, 2005 and 2010 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Wetlands Data: Wetland Inventory
Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
Telephone: [phone]
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
AQUIFLOW Information SystemR
Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has
extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table
information.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit
Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital
representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national
Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil
survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation
of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO)
soil survey maps.
SSURGO: Soil Survey Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Telephone: [phone]
SSURGO is the most detailed level of mapping done by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, mapping
scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360. Field mapping methods using national standards are used to
construct the soil maps in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the
original soil survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, townships and county
natural resource planning and management.
TC5988106.2s Page PSGR-1
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
FEDERAL WATER WELLS
PWS: Public Water Systems
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at
least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources.
PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after
August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS)
This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface
water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater.
STATE RECORDS
North Carolina Public Water Supply Wells
Source: Department of Environmental Health
Telephone: [phone]
OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
North Carolina Wildlife Resources/Game Lands
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
All publicly owned game lands managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and as listed in Hunting
and Fishing Maps.
NC Natural Heritage Sites: Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Sites
Source: Natural Heritage Occurrence Sites Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
A point coverage identifying locations of rare and endangered species, occurrences of exemplary or unique natural
ecosystems (terrestrial or aquatic), and special animal habitats (e.g., colonial waterbird nesting sites).
NC Natural Areas: Significant Natural Heritage Areas
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
A polygon converage identifying sites (terrestrial or aquatic) that have particular biodiversity significance.
A site’s significance may be due to the presenceof rare species, rare or high quality natural communities, or
other important ecological features.
RADON
State Database: NC Radon
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Radon Statistical and Non Statiscal Data
Area Radon Information
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey.
The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at
private sources such as universities and research institutions.
TC5988106.2s Page PSGR-2
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
EPA Radon Zones
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor
radon levels.
OTHER
Airport Landing Facilities: Private and public use landing facilities
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 800-457-6656
Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater
Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Earthquake Fault Lines: The fault lines displayed on EDR’s Topographic map are digitized quaternary faultlines, prepared
in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2015 TomTom North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection
and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject
to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.
TC5988106.2s Page PSGR-3
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED

Appendix B – Site Protection Instrument

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT

THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT (“Conservation Easement”) made this
day of , 201_ by and between ,
(“Grantor”) and (“Grantee”).

The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine,
feminine or neuter as required by context.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and
being in County, North Carolina, more particularly described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”);

WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not-for-profit or educational corporation,
association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue
Code, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq., the purposes or powers of which include
one or more of the purposes (a) – (d) listed below;

(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open-space aspects of real
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational, educational,
or open-space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or
aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the following
natural communities: add or delete as appropriate: wetlands, streams, and riparian
buffers. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain streams, wetlands
and riparian resources and other natural values of approximately _acres, more or
less, and being more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated fully herein by reference (the “Conservation Easement Area”), and
prevent the use or development of the Conservation Easement Area for any purpose
or in any manner that would conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition.

WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the Conservation
Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation Banking Instrument
(MBI) and Mitigation Plan for the Mitigation Bank, Department of the
Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW- , entitled “Agreement to Establish
the Mitigation Bank in the River Basin within the State of
North Carolina”, to be made and entered into by and between acting as
the Bank Sponsor and the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in
consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The
Mitigation Site has been approved by the Corps for use as a mitigation bank to
compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts authorized by DA permits.

WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the Conservation
Easement Area is also a condition of the approval of the Riparian Buffer
and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) and Bank Parcel Development
Package (BPDP) for the Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation
Bank, North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Project ID# ,
which was approved by the NCDWR, and will be made and entered into by and
between , acting as the Bank Sponsor, and the NCDWR. The
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Site is intended to be used to
compensate for riparian buffer and nutrient impacts to surface waters.

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third-party rights of enforcement
shall be held by the NCDWR and the Corps (to include any successor agencies) (“Third-
Parties”), and may be exercised through the appropriate enforcement agencies of the
United States and the State of North Carolina, and that these rights are in addition to,
and do not limit, the rights of enforcement under the NC DWR Project ID#
and the Department of the Army instrument number SAW-
(“Mitigation Banking Instrument”), or any permit or certification issued by the Third-
Parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby
unconditionally and irrevocably grants and conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors
and assigns, forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and
character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area
described on Exhibit B, together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation
values thereof, as follows:

ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT

This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation Easement is
an easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor,
Grantor’s personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, lessees, agents and
licensees.

ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent with
the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Conservation
Easement Area shall be preserved in its natural condition and restricted from any
development that would impair or interfere with the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and
uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated hereunder:

A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any
introduction of non-native plants and/or animal species is prohibited.

B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building,
mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising
display, antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other
temporary or permanent structure or facility on or above the Conservation
Easement Area.

C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and/or
commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes are
prohibited.

D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal
husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area are prohibited.

E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming,
cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the Conservation Easement
Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan and Bank Parcel Development Plan.
Mowing of invasive and herbaceous vegetation for purposes of enhancing planted or
volunteer trees and shrubs approved in the Mitigation Plan and BPDP is allowable once
a year for no more than five consecutive years from the date on page 1 of this
Conservation Easement, except where mowing will negatively impact vegetation or
disturb soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed by and shall not
violate any part of Item L of Article II.

F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways
on the Conservation Easement Area; nor enlargement or modification to existing
roads, trails or walkways.

G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation Easement
Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation
values of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving directions or proscribing rules
and regulations for the use of the Conservation Easement Area and/or signs identifying
the Grantor as owner of the Conservation Easement Area.

H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage,
waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or
other materials on the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.

I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any
manner on the Conservation Easement Area, except to restore natural topography or
drainage patterns. For purposes of restoring and enhancing streams and wetlands
within the Conservation Easement Area, is allowed to perform grading,
filling, and excavation associated with stream and wetland restoration and
enhancement activities as described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by
Department of the Army Nationwide Permit 27.

J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or
alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition,
diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into,
within or out of the easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is
prohibited.

K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered
or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.

L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited other than for
temporary or occasional access by the Enter Sponsor Name, the Grantee, its
employees and agents, successors, assigns, NCDWR, and the Corps for purposes of
constructing, maintaining and monitoring the restoration, enhancement and
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation
Easement Area..

M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Conservation
Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant,
the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area substantially in its natural
condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is prohibited.

ARTICLE III
GRANTOR’S RESEVERED RIGHTS

The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation Easement Area
for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation Easement, including, but not
limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area, the rights
of ingress and egress, the right to hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement
Area, the right to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement
Area, in whole or in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to
the terms of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor, its
successors and assigns, including acting as the Bank Sponsor, the right to
construct and perform activities related to the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation
Easement Area in accordance with the approved Mitigation Plan, the
_ Bank Parcel Development Package, and the two Mitigation Banking
Instruments described in the Recitals of this Conservation Easement.

ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE’S RIGHTS

The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, the Corps
and NCDWR, shall have the right to enter the Property and Conservation Easement Area
at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the Conservation Easement Area to
determine if the Grantor, or his personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns,
is complying with the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation
Easement. The Grantee, Enter Sponsor Name, and its authorized representatives,
successors and assigns, the Corps and NCDWR shall also have the right to enter and go
upon the Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making scientific or educational
observations and studies, and taking samples. The easement rights granted herein do
not include public access rights.

ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, the Corps, and
NCDWR are allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation Easement
Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to require the
restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Easement Area thatmay be
damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation
Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall
notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have 30 days after
receipt of such notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If the breach
remains uncured after 30 days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement
by appropriate legal proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without
notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if
the breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances
damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate.
The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to,
and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection
with this Conservation Easement. The costs of a breach, correction or restoration,
including the Grantee’s expenses, court costs, and attorneys’ fees, shall be paid by
Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach. The Corps
and the NCDWR shall have the same rights and privileges as the said Grantee to
enforce the terms and conditions of this Conservation easement..

B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision
hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition,
or provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of
a subsequent breach or default.

C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to
entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the
Conservation Easement Area resulting from causes beyond the Grantor’s control,
including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of God or third parties, except
Grantor’s lessees or invitees; or from any prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor
under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life,
damage to property or harm to the Conservation Easement Area resulting from such
causes.

ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS

A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns the
Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which
may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement or that there are no
outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in the Property
which have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor
further warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived
from and arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend title to the Property against the claims of all persons.

B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this
Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any
interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area. The Grantor agrees to
provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of the
transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement
shall survive any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Conservation
Easement Area or any portion thereof and shall not be amended, modified or
terminated without the prior written consent and approval of the Corps.

C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this
Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however that the
Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or assigns this
Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a qualified
holder pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 501 (c)(3)
and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and
agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or
assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes
described in this document.

D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The combined Mitigation Banking
Instruments: MBI with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and MBI with corresponding
BPDP, and this Conservation Easement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties
with respect to the Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions,
negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If
any provision is found to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction,
the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.

E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes,
assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the
Property free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor.
Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as
expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the obligation to
comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to the
exercise of the Reserved Rights.

F. Long-Term Management. If livestock operations will be maintained on the
property, Grantor is responsible for all long-term management activities associated
with fencing to ensure livestock do not have access to the Protected Property. These
activities include the maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures, as deemed
necessary by the Grantee, to ensure the aquatic resource functions within the
boundaries of the Protected Property are sustained.

G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the
continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the conservation purposes, this
Conservation Easement may only be extinguished, in whole or in part, by judicial
proceeding.
H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation Easement Area
is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to substantially abrogate the
Restrictions imposed by this Conservation Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in
appropriate actions at the time of such taking to recover the full value of the taking,
and all incidental and direct damages due to the taking.

I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest
immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the Conservation
Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted following an
extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to the fair
market value of this Conservation Easement as determined at the time of the
extinguishment or condemnation.

J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication
required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such address as may be hereafter
specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):

To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]

To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]

To Sponsor:

To the Corps:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

To NCDEQ -DWR:
NCDEQ – Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601

K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this
Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee, and if within a
reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee fails to
make an assignment pursuant to this Conservation Easement, then the Grantee’s
interest shall become vested in another qualified grantee in accordance with an
appropriate proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.

L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in
a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment does not
affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee
under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation purposes of this
grant.

M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The wetlands, scenic,
resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of the Conservation
Easement Area, and its current use and state of improvement, are described in Section
of the Mitigation Plan, prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor
and Grantee to be complete and accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and
Grantee have copies of this report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any
future changes in the use of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with
the terms of this Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to
preclude the use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the
Conservation Easement Area if there is a controversy over its use.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee for
the aforesaid purposes.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.

[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]
July 22, 2020
Matt Butler 
RES 
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 
Raleigh, NC 27605 
Dear Mr. Butler, 
This letter confirms that Unique Places to Save (“UP2S”), a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization located in the                
State of North Carolina, has preliminarily agreed to act as the conservation easement grantee and long-term                
steward for the Walnut Wood Mitigation Project (“Site”) located in the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030002)                 
in Guilford County, North Carolina. The Site consists of an approximate 32.11-acre conservation easement              
area. As the conservation easement grantee and long-term steward, UP2S has agreed to and shall be                
responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement                
are enforced and maintained into perpetuity. Specific responsibilities include: 
●Monitoring of the Site is conducted on an annual basis.
●Visits to the Site are coordinated with the landowner when possible.
●Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible.
●Signage and fencing (if applicable) for the easement boundary is maintained.
●Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are addressed following           
protocols contained in the Conservation Easement Deed and the UP2S Conservation Easement           
Violations Policy.
UP2S shall receive a stewardship endowment and administrative fee from Environmental Banc & Exchange,              
LLC (“EBX”), the Site sponsor to ensure annual Site inspections occur, and the terms of the conservation                 
easement are legally defended into perpetuity.  
_______________________________ ____________________________ 
Jeff Fisher, Board Chair
Unique Places To Save
Representative Signature 
EBX/RES
___Matt Butler________
Printed Name 
___07/23/2020_________
Date
PO Box 1183 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 919-428-2040 ​[e-mail]
dotloop verified
07/23/20 5:36 PM EDT
599O-5GCX-8BM9-JCXMJeff Fisher
dotloop signature verification: dtlp.us/4MK0-vupa-ttrD

Appendix C –
Data/Analysis/Supplementary Information

• Headwater Stream Study
• Reference Reach Cross Section Summary
• Reference Reach Morphological Parameters
• Restoration Reach Valley Statistics
• Soil Report
• Historic Imagery (1955)

Tributary 1
Tributary 2
Main Tributary
Walnut Woods Reference Reach Summary
Tributary 2 is similar to Trib 1, with a slightly larger
watershed. Slopes at Trib 2 are generally less steep
than at Trib 1 but cross section areas are slightly
larger, corresponding with the larger watershed.
The bed material is primarily sand mixed with fine
gravels.
The main tributary is the largest surveyed, draining
roughly 99 acres overall. Cross sections were taken
in the upstream half of this tributary, with
watershed sizes ranging from 26 to 57 acres. These
larger watershed sizes are closest to the proposed
streams on the Walnut Woods property, which
range from 20 to 40 acres. The valley width of the
stream around cross sections 5 and 6 is roughly 60 -
80 feet and the bed material contains larger
material than the smaller tributaries.
Watershed size: 15.3 acresStreambed material
Watershed size: 27.3 acres Watershed size: 57.4 acres
Tributary 1 was the smallest reference watershed
surveyed. The stream appears to transition from
intermittent to perennial flow at a watershed size
of roughly 13 acres. Upstream of this point, the
stream resembles a braided channel, while
downstream transitions to a single channel. This
tributary is characterized by relatively steep slopes
(3-5%) and step pools formed by fallen trees and
logs. Generally, these pools are about 2 feet deep
and 8 - 10 feet long, with 8-10" water surface
drops over the logs.Watershed size: 12.5 acres Watershed size: 12.9 acres
Drainage Area Bankfull Width Bankfull Depth Area Slope Valley width Tributary
acres ft ft sf ft/ft ft
11.1 3.5-4 0.5 1.4-1.5 0.04 50 1
12.5 3.5-4 0.5 1.4 0.04 30 1
12.9 4 0.75-0.8 2.3 .035-.05 30 1
15.3 3.5-4.5 0.75-0.9 2.0-3.0 .01-.025 30 2
26.4 4.5-5.5 1.2 4.0-4.4 0.01 50 main
27.3 5.5 1.4 5.9 0.01 50 main
30.2 4.3 1.1 3.6 0.01 60 main
53 8 1.1 6.6 0.01 60-80 main
57 5.6 1.1 5.2 0.01 60-80 main
Walnut Woods Reference Reach Data Summary
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Bankfull Depth (ft)XS Area (sf)/Bankfull Width (ft)Drainage Area (ac)
Walnut Woods Reference Reach
XS Area (sf)
Bankfull Width (ft)
Bankfull Depth (ft)
Kris Bass Engineeringwww.kbeng.org919.960.1552Walnut Woods Stream RestorationGuilford County, NCProject Area
Watersheds
Trib 1
Trib 2
Trib 3
Main Stream
Cross Section Locations
Streams
Legend
Ref erence Stream Watersheds
15.7 acres
15.5 acres
13.0 acres
99.6 acres
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mapping Headwater Streams Page 40 of 54 FINAL
Periann Russell Last Update: 6/5/2008

The average slope may not vary enough between intermittent and perennial stream
origins to be effective in predicting location, except for the mountain sites. Conversely,
contributing drainage area may help in determining origin locations in all Ecoregions except for
mountain sites, and geologically weak areas in the Carolina Slate Belt. This finding provides
additional insight into landscape processes that influence intermittent and perennial stream
origins.
Table 14: Distribution of
Intermittent and Perennial Origin Contributing Drainage Area (acres)

Carolina Slate
Belt-A
Carolina Slate
Belt-B
Eastern Blue
Ridge
Foothills
Northern
Outer
Piedmont
Rolling Coast
Plain
Triassic
Basin
int per int per int per int per int per int per
Min 0.20 0.72 0.05 2.04 0.23 0.24 1.55 2.54 0.16 7.16 0.10 0.13
10% 1.47 7.53 0.77 2.39 2.17 1.02 1.80 4.07 7.52 10.76 1.24 1.89
25% 2.85 11.58 4.89 9.52 3.72 2.91 4.48 10.05 11.15 28.82 1.95 3.27
50% 7.36 15.99 23.80 37.50 4.60 4.98 8.82 16.18 25.67 84.00 3.70 6.85
Mean 11.20 23.74 50.86 60.85 5.16 5.27 12.72 20.52 40.66 95.59 5.11 10.40
75% 14.47 35.40 69.96 68.16 6.34 7.04 15.06 27.11 55.15 122.00 7.16 15.79
90% 27.39 43.33 142.41 187.26 8.16 9.81 22.99 41.31 101.33 217.34 11.87 27.80
Max 74.63 107.00 322.27 328.28 14.60 15.85 115.95 64.81 173.65 343.66 16.51 32.49

The product of average slope and contributing drainage area (Figure 11 & Table 15) is an
index that serves as a surrogate for erosion or energy potential of overland flow or stream flow.
In the context of stream origins, it represents the interaction of drainage area and slope and the
potential to sufficiently incise through the soil profile to intersect with the groundwater. The
index was examined for its predictive strength in delineating intermittent and perennial origins.
Statistically, the slope-area product is significantly different between intermittent and
perennial origins in all Ecoregions except Slate Belt – B and Blue Ridge Foothills. The t-test
result is similar to the t-test result for drainage suggesting that drainage area is the strongest
Upstream –wetland complex with less defined channel,
standing water, roots, and no gravel
Transition to more defined channel marked by log jam
Perennial begins with step pools Step pool with bedrock and log Gravel evident in well defined stream
Watershed Size: 11.1 ac
Intermittent
Watershed Size: 11.1 ac
Intermittent
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 1 - Trib 1 - Reach 1 - XS 1
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 1 2 3 4Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 1 - Trib 1 - Reach 1 - XS 2
Watershed Size: 12.5 ac
Intermittent
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 1 2 3 4Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 1 - Trib 1 - Reach 2 - XS 1
Watershed Size: 12.9 ac
Perennial
Riffle
Watershed Size: 12.9 ac
Perennial
Riffle
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 1 2 3 4 5Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 1 - Trib 1 - Reach 3 - XS 1
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 1 - Trib 1 - Reach 3 - XS 2
Watershed Size: 15.3 ac
Perennial
Riffle
Watershed Size: 15.3 ac
Perennial
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
0 1 2 3 4 5Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 1 - Trib 2 - Reach 1 - XS 1
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 1 2 3 4Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 1 - Trib 2 - Reach 1 - XS 2
Watershed Size: 26.4 ac
Watershed Size: 26.4 ac
Pool
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
0 1 2 3 4 5Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 1 - Main Trib - Reach 1 - XS 1
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 1 - Main Trib - Reach 1 - XS 2
Watershed Size: 27.3 ac
Watershed Size: 30.2 ac
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 1 - Main Trib - Reach 2 - XS 1
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
0 1 2 3 4 5Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 1 - Main Trib - Reach 3 - XS 1
Watershed Size: 53.0 ac
Watershed Size: 57.4 ac
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
0 2 4 6 8 10Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 1 - Main Trib - Reach 4 - XS 1
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 1 - Main Trib - Reach 5 - XS 1
Watershed Size: 38.5 ac
Riffle
Watershed Size: 38.5 ac
Pool
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
0 2 4 6 8Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 2 - DS Reach - XS 1
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
0 2 4 6 8Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 2 - DS Reach - XS 2
Watershed Size: 30.7 ac
Pool
Watershed Size: 30.7 ac
Riffle
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
0 1 2 3 4 5Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 2 - US Reach - XS 1
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 2 4 6 8Depth (ft)Station (ft)
Ref 2 - US Reach - XS 2
Walnut Woods Reference Morphological ParametersTributary 1Tributary 2Tributary DSFeatureRiffleRiffleRifflePoolRiffleRifflePoolRifflePoolRifflePoolRifflePoolRifflePoolRifflePoolDrainage Area (ac)1315302638.5Drainage Area (sq mi)0.0200.0230.0470.0410.060NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)5.86.410.49.412.5DimensionBankfull Area (sq ft)2.32.0-3.03.64.49.12.16.795.9192.54.911.94.911.94.911.995.9192.5Bankfull Width (ft)43.5-4.54.35.56.67.34.536.457.4811.6811.6811.636.457.4Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.790.831.11.21.80.41.64.15.41212124.15.4Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.830.901.11.21.80.41.64.55.91212124.55.9Wetted Perimeter (ft)5.585.656.57.910.28.17.744.668.21015.61015.61015.644.668.2Hydraulic Radius (ft)0.410.440.550.560.890.260.872.152.820.490.760.490.760.490.762.152.82Floodprone Width (ft)30656451350732752002502831.62831.62831.6200250Width/Depth Ratio5.064.853.914.583.6718.252.818.8810.638.005.808.005.808.005.808.8810.63Entrenchment Ratio7.5016.2514.889.2753.0310.0061.115.494.363.502.723.502.723.502.725.494.36Bed MaterialDescription (D50)sand/fine gravelsand/fine gravelsilt/gravelPatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)---Radius of Curvature (ft)---Radius of Curvature Ratio---Meander Wavelength (ft)---Meander Width Ratio---ProfileRiffle Length (ft)---6---10-20-20-50-25-30---Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.035-0.050.01-0.025-0.013---0.03-0.01-0.01-0.025---Pool Length (ft)----6.25---25-20-50-20-30--Pool - Pool Spacing (ft)----24.8---10-20-20-50-25-30--Additional Reach ParametersValley Length (ft)415-351Channel Length (ft)464-463Sinuosity1.12-1.32Rosgen ClassificationE5E5E6E4-E510050.260.885309.2356968.900432.6251528991.15silt/gravelDesignClimax CreekExistingReference 1Reference 25309.23251528991.15E4-E51.02E4bReach Climax Creek56968.900432.6silt/gravel10050.260.8815.881.371008.6220502098Reach WW332.40.05111.0gravel3015012.93156516321.04E41.13E4bReach WW240.90.06413.0gravel4523.081.9915.881.37706.0388310011.341.27E4 E6Reach WW1220.0348.4gravel30-805 7051079 89516.98 3.22-0.01-28.91 7.536.72 1.6773 14.5gravel silt/gravel34 5.5Main TributaryTributary US30.70.04810.6
Valley Stats
Reach Valley Length (Ft) Elevation Max (Ft) Elevation Min (Ft) Valley Slope (%)
WW1 883 647.89 617.87 3.40%
WW2 1565 676.28 619.97 3.60%
WW3 2050 669.79 624.4 2.21%
Climax Creek 2515 623.12 612.4 0.43%
Walnut Wood – Soil Evaluation
Walnut Wood Site - Guilford County NC

1
August 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127 [e-mail]

Provide for:
Mr. Brad Breslow
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Re: Preliminary Hydric Soil Evaluation
Walnut Wood Mitigation Site
Guilford County NC

1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is located at an abandoned Walnut Wood golf course. The site is located approximately 10
miles southeast of Greensboro NC. It is south of Alamance Church Road (SR 1005) in Guilford County.
This site is along the eastern floodplain of Climax Creek. This project area consists of approximately 15
acres along two unnamed tributaries to Climax Creek.

The current land owner plans to construct a stream restoration project within the drainage feature found on
this property. During construction of golf courses, it is typical for the land surface to be significantly
contoured to meet a concept for a challenging course. To accomplish these changes to the land, drainage
modifications in the form of piping, drain tile and relocation of streams, ditches, and surface flow paths are
constructed. Often fill and growing media are brought to the site to raise the landform and provide a suitable
growing media. Older courses were not always constructed with consistent materials and techniques used
today. Given the age of this course, it is unknown the techniques and materials used at this site.

The site has three small drainages to Climax Creek, a third order or larger channel. The small drainages
flow west to Climax Creek, which flows north. The northernmost drainage, WW1 and the southernmost
drainage, WW3, were included within this study. The central drainage feature contains multiple constructed
ponds and was not examined.

Vital to stream restoration is the material in which the stream flows. Soil material present at the site will
most likely provide substrate for the stream and soil for vegetation needed to stabilize stream banks and
establish the buffer. The success of the proposed project needs to account for the type of soil materials and
unique spatial variability at this site to help predict the desired response to the soils present. This purpose
of this report is to provide a description of general soil characteristics at the abandoned Walnut Wood golf
course that may assist the designers and engineers of this project.
2 METHODOLOGY
This work provides a characterization of soil morphology suspected of fill and manipulation during
construction and maintenance of the previous golf course. The golf course is expected to have extensive
anthropogenic disturbance with soil exhibiting fill materials. This characterization will include texture,
color, mottles, and rock content. Evidence of mottling from current wetness conditions will accessed. The
Walnut Wood – Soil Evaluation
Walnut Wood Site - Guilford County NC

2
August 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127 [e-mail]
thickness of horizons, depth of fill material, and the underlying buried soil horizon will be described. It is
unknown if the natural soil horizon is buried intact or is excavated prior to fill deposition. The natural
horizon within this landscape may exhibit properties of alluvial or wet soils and may provide justification
for proposed stream restoration activities.

The evaluation at the Walnut Wood site focused on the topographic floodplain of two small drainages
(WW1 and WW3). The trench method was used to examine the soils. Trenches were approximately 3 feet
wide and three to four feet in depth. The trenches were placed across the contour within the drainage
features. Due to constraints on equipment availability and weather, a total of four trench transects (T1
through T4) were dug, two within the WW1 drainage and two within the WW3 drainage. The locations
were selected by the client in consultation with the engineer, soil scientist, and equipment operator and are
assumed to be representative of soil conditions across the site. Trenches were located perpendicular to the
general valley slope to intersect any historic floodplain or stream channel. For each transect, a representative
profile was described in detail with one to three additional points noted for depth and textures of horizons.
The additional data was collected across the transect to further characterize anthropogenic impacts, spatial
variations, and where present, to identify the depth of the buried natural soils prior to the site’s conversion.
Any conditions observed potentially influencing the success of the proposed stream restoration were noted
with approximate locations identified. Beyond field examination, samples were not collected and laboratory
testing for physical, chemical or nutrient analysis was not performed.

Soils examined were characterized and described using observed morphology of soil and by discerning soil
patterns within each transect. Soils descriptions include structure, color, mottles, texture, consistence, and
the presence of rocks, roots, and other notable features of each horizon. Each point was surveyed by RES
staff to provide location and relative elevation across each transect to provide spatial context to any patterns
present.
3 SOILS
The site soils appeared to have been modified extensively during construction of the golf course by
placement of fill within the natural drainageways. Natural streams and other natural drainage features have
been piped by the addition of fill to raise the floodplain. It is unknown where the fill material originated,
and the NRCS soil mapping is not reliable for assessing fill material present. Although the surface soils do
not reflect the mapping, the soil survey may be informative of less or undisturbed upland soils of the
contributing watersheds. The soil evaluation may be used to interpret current surface soil properties such
as infiltration, erosion potential, and as a growing medium for vegetation. The NRCS mapping units were
published prior to the construction and underlying natural soil horizons that may be exposed may be similar
to the NRCS map units and will exhibit differing soil properties from fill materials.

The NRCS Alamance County Soil Survey indicates a Chewacla loam on the floodplain of Climax Creek,
extending up into the south tributary drainage. Mecklenburg sandy clay loam is present on the adjacent
upland slopes and in the headwaters of these drainages. Chewacla soil are formed in loamy alluvium
derived from igneous and metamorphic rock found in the surrounding upland areas of the watershed. The
adjacent upland soils formed in residuum weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite. None of the
mapped soils are considered hydric by the NRCS, but the Chewacla map unit may contain inclusions of
poorly drained Wehadkee in concave landforms on the floodplain and well drained Riverview soils on
higher features. The poorly drained Wehadkee is classified as hydric by the NRCS.
Walnut Wood – Soil Evaluation
Walnut Wood Site - Guilford County NC

3
August 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127 [e-mail]
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Land use (Topography)
The site is within the piedmont Physiographic Region where the landscape is gently rolling to hilly
landscapes near stream drainages. Both the drainages evaluated have a single pond constructed with a pipe
system that conveys water into and out of these ponds. Flows were visible within the ponds and pipes, but
stream channels are not present due to the fill and subsurface drainage network.
4.2 Soils
Extensive fill was found within each of the two small topographic drainage features evaluated. Much of the
fill material examined appears to be from upland sources with sandy or clay textures. Underlying this fill,
a natural soil was observed within all trenches. The depth of fill followed expected trend with the deepest
near the center of transects and thinning near the upland slopes. Prior to the placement of fill material,
natural soil surfaces in WW1 appear to have been relatively undisturbed (exhibited a typical dark surface
layer). Within WW3, the natural soil surface may have had portions of the surface removed or possibly
incorporated into the first layers of fill.

The undisturbed buried soil was found to have a dark to black silt loam above a gray sandy clay. Where the
natural buried horizon appears gray without the black layer above, it was most likely this silty layer was
removed during construction and prior to addition of the fill. Removal may have provided a better
compaction.

The surface fill horizon is relatively homogeneous, lacking larger pore space and likely has a slow
infiltration rate. The dense surfaces are underlain by mixed fill material that ranged from clayey to sandy
in nature. Rock and heavily weathered rock (saprolite) were included in some of the fill. The reddish mottles
observed in much of this fill appears to be the color of the fill material and are not the result of weathering
or biological driven redoximorphic processes. The total depth of fill varies from 13 inches to greater than
40 inches to an undisturbed layer. As would be expected, fill is deeper within the central area and becomes
shallower near the slopes. Within transect T3, the current center of the valley does appear to be the center
prior to fill.

Drainage WW1
Transects T1 and T2 are within the WW1 drainage feature. The fill surface horizon is approximately 12
inches thick. It consists of a firm, weakly structured clay or sandy clay that is likely restrictive to rooting
and infiltration. A thin loamy surface was observed in some profiles that may have been from placement of
sod or from possibly weak horizon development. The T2 transect is located closer to the floodplain of
Climax Creek where the transect becomes wide and the transect did not extend all the way to the left slope.
Buried soils are probably influenced by larger floodplain of Climax Creek. The elevation trend of the buried
surface appears to support this by indicating a depressional feature to either side of this transect.

Drainage WW3
Within drainage WW3, the surface material consists of a weakly structured sandy clay loam or in some
cases a sandy loam. The surfaces in this drainage have a higher sand content and are not as dense or
restrictive as Drainage WW1. Infiltration and rooting are likely better. The underlying fill contains layers
that are sandy with limited clays. Rock or saprolite was not observed. This drainage narrows near T-4 and
the slope increases down to the floodplain of Climax Creek. From the graph of natural soil elevations, the
fill may have shifted the natural center of this valley.

Walnut Wood – Soil Evaluation
Walnut Wood Site - Guilford County NC

4
August 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127 [e-mail]
4.3 Soil Hydrology
The seasonal high water table does appear to be at or near the buried natural soil horizon in the areas
evaluated and the water table was found within sections of the trenches. Because of the observed
characteristics in the buried horizon, the water table was at or near the natural surface prior to the
development of this site. A few profiles did indicate that saturation and potentially the seasonal high water
table to occur at or even above the observed buried natural soil layer. The fill material does not yet exhibit
redoximorphic features, likely due to the depth of fill and lack of the appropriate combination of conditions
needed to form these characteristics. The seasonal high water table may be higher than observed and is
currently influenced by extensive drainage and piping. This drainage system limits the natural sources that
once saturated this floodplain.

The trenches excavated across the floodplains exposed a central culvert/pipe with additional drainage pipes
across the landscape. Pipes consisted of various materials, including RCP, clay tile, plastic, and PVC. Flows
were observed within a central pipe in each drainage. Within transect T-3, a small PVC pipe broken during
excavation allowed water to flow into the bottom of the trench. Each of the drainages evaluated appear to
have adequate watersheds that would support at least small tributaries and wetlands, but stream channels
are not visible due to extensive piping under the fill materials. Wetland soil characteristics were not found
in the upper 12 inches of these transects.

In most small drainages typical of this landscape, small seepages likely occurred intermittently along the
slope at the flood plain elevation. These seeps would be where groundwater discharged at least during
wetter periods. The natural role of any seepages would have supported small streams and wetlands, as
indicated by the hydric soil exposed during this study. Since wet soils limit maintenance activities and
create poor playing conditions, previous construction of the golf course may have targeted these seepage
areas along the slope and even higher in the headwaters to capture this discharge to prevent wet soil
conditions within the golf course.
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The soil evaluation confirmed fill within the natural drainages at this site. While surface material was found
to be relatively consistent, the subsurface fill materials varied significantly. An underlying native soil layer
was found and exhibited hydric characteristics throughout the transects evaluated.
5.1 Site Soil Summary
The soils within two small drainages, WW1 and WW3, are topographic lows of small valleys. The soils
within these features were found to have soil composed of fill materials placed over the natural soils. The
upper 12 inches consists of clayey material that is expected to have limited infiltration capacity. Below this
clayey fill material is a mix with textures ranging from sandy to clayey, often containing hard rock or soft
rock. Within this fill is an extensive drainage system is located. Fill materials range from 13 to nearly 50
inches in depth above a natural soil horizon with the deepest fill centrally located and becoming shallower
near the upland slopes. The buried horizons within the study trenches exhibited hydric characteristics and
indicators. Where a natural surface horizon was observed, it was a black silty textured typically found along
drainage ways that are saturated for long periods. In some areas it appears that some or all of the natural
surface was removed prior to fill placement. The differences observed between WW1 and WW3 is can be
attributed to different sources of fill materials and dates of construction. Soil in WW1 have a denser surface
layer underlain by a mix of low-grade fill material while soils in WW3 has a slightly lighter, but clayey
surface layer underlain by sandier materials that appeared to lack rock.

Walnut Wood – Soil Evaluation
Walnut Wood Site - Guilford County NC

5
August 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127 [e-mail]
Based on hydric characteristics found in the buried soils, these drainages most likely supported wetlands
and streams. The origin of the hydrology source within these drainages was not evaluated, but most likely
consisted of at least one spring or discharge area with other smaller ones located throughout the watersheds.
The seepages and areas immediately below any springs may have supported wetlands. The study indicates
within the lower reaches of these two watersheds, significant areas containing wetlands may have existed
prior to the placement of fill materials.
5.2 Recommendations and Potential Limitations
The proposed use of this site is construction of stream channels. This use will be affected by the existing
soil and fill materials along with topography, all of which have been altered. Design and construction will
need to account for the current soil types and allow for the natural seepages to reform within the constraints
of the project. Due to the presence of fill material within the proposed floodplains of these drainages,
constructing a natural design channel may provide challenges to the success of the project in both design
and construction. The surface appears to be heavily compacted in places and the subsurface fill is a mix of
textures and material. Below is a summary of soil characteristics observed and the potential to affect project
design and success.

Summary
Site Characteristics and Potential Constraints
• The surface soils present are still within the range found across alluvial floodplain soils in the
region.
• Surface compaction is present throughout the site.
• Clay soils provide added cohesion that should provide short-term benefits during construction,
especially along channels. Long-term, these clayey soils may pose erosion issues between
construction and prior to site stabilization.
• The fill materials may not contain adequate soil nutrients or proper pH for vegetation growth.
• Where the channel bed breaches the clay layer, it may create a short-term losing stream until the
subsoil voids are saturated. Will be more of a problem near Transect 3 which has a very sandy fill
beneath. There is the potential that flows in this area will drop into this layer and exit farther
downslope, limiting flow in the channel through this portion.
• Limit bed depth/construction of structures. Due to the shallow depth to mixed fill material, streams
may become “losing” channels for short reaches or short periods. This may not be practical due to
the required structure construction or depth of channel bed. May be more useful in the upper reaches
where channel may be shallower. The potential for creating a losing channel is most likely limited
once the layer of fill becomes saturated and the voids filled with water.
• Stabilize channel banks after construction to limit erosion. Promote vegetative cover for long-term
stabilization.
• Decompaction of surface layers up to 18 inches throughout the project is recommended. The
compacted surface layer found in WW1 may inhibit vegetation survival and growth if not
decompacted. Decompaction will increase infiltration rates, promote appropriate microbial
communities, enhance vegetation establishment and survival. This also may allow a high water
table to discharge to the surface where old seeps were located.
• Based on the presence of hydric indicators and evidence of past saturation within the underling
natural soil horizon, there is the potential that the surface may exhibit wetland characteristics in the
long-term.

Based on historic soils found beneath the fill, it appears there is a good probability of hydric soils reforming
and returning to portions of this site due to landscape position and the characteristics of the buried soil. The
Walnut Wood – Soil Evaluation
Walnut Wood Site - Guilford County NC

6
August 2019
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127 [e-mail]
extent of reestablishment of a hydric soil within this landscape is not predicted by existing surface soils.
Potential areas where reestablishment may occur would be within any shallow depressional features
existing after construction and where seepage and groundwater discharge is occurring. It was not evaluated
where these may exist, but the drainage system observed does indicate that efforts were taken to capture
any seepage flows. Removal of any of these structures will enhance the potential for surface discharge. In
addition, a list of plants and trees adaptable to saturated conditions should be considered to allow for the
site having wetter conditions. Steps may be taken to reduce potential problems during design or construction
to provide conditions that are suitable for plant roots and to improve near surface biological activity.
5.3 Study Limitations
The most limiting constraint of this study is the small number of transects sampled. Naturally, soils are not
homogeneous and due to the extensive earthwork observed at this site, it is unknow if this information is
truly representative. The characteristics of the surface fill does appear to be relatively cons istent, but the
underlying fill was highly variable. The natural buried surfaces also likely varied significantly more than
shown with this limited study. It is likely that natural variations occurred progressively up slope within each
drainage and any variation along the side slopes of these small valleys was likely obscured, especially where
groundwater may have occurred.

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

Soil Scientist Seal
SCALE 1:24000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Feet
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Miles
Declination
MN 8.71° WGN 0.79° E

MNGN
Legend
Parcel Boundary
Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Map Name: CLIMAX
Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft.
Walnut Wood Mitigation Site
Figure 1. Vicinity Map-USGS
Guilford County, NC
SCALE 1:480001000Feet0.00.10.2MilesNESESWNWNESWLEGENDParcel BoundaryUnnamed TributaryTransectScale: 1 inch = 400 ft.Horizontal Datum: WGS84Walnut Wood Mitigation SiteFigure 2. Transect LocationsGuilford County, NC
645.0646.0647.0648.0649.0650.0651.00.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0Transect 1Surface Elev.Native Soil619.5620620.5621621.5622622.5623623.56240.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0Transect 2Surface Elev.Native SoilLeft FloodplainRight FloodplainRight Floodplain Left Floodplain
653.0654.0655.0656.0657.0658.0659.00 102030405060708090Transect 3Surface Elev.Native Soil632.5633.0633.5634.0634.5635.0635.5636.0636.5637.0637.50.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0Transect 4Surface Elev.Native SoilLeft FloodplainLeft FloodplainRight FloodplainRight Floodplain
Appendix B
Walnut Wood Site – Guilford County, NC
Photo Log
May 2019
Page 1 of 3
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
238 Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127

1. Transect T1 in drainage WW1. Ground water in trench bottom.
(#5701)

2. Transect T1 in drainage WW1. Profile T1-02. Saturated buried
horizon exposed at 43 inches. (#5704)
Appendix B
Walnut Wood Site – Guilford County, NC
Photo Log
May 2019
Page 2 of 3
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
238 Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127

3. Transect T2 in drainage WW1. Profile T1-02. Surface materials.
(#5709)

4. Transect T2 in drainage WW1. Profile T1-02 Buried soil horizon at 28
inches. (#5710)
Appendix B
Walnut Wood Site – Guilford County, NC
Photo Log
May 2019
Page 3 of 3
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
238 Shady Grove Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-602-0127

5. Transect T3 in drainage WW3. Profile T2-03. Underlying sandy fill
material with buried soil horizon at 24 inches. (#5727)

6. Transect T4 in drainage WW31. Profile T4-01. Saturated buried
horizon exposed at 27 inches. (#5735)
SOIL EVALUATION FORM
for
WALNUT WOOD
SOIL EVALUATION
Project Name: Walnut Wood
Location:Transect 1 point 02 Date Evaluated: 2019 February 15
County:Alamance Evaluator: G K Lankford
Slope %2
Slope Shape Down
slope concave Across
slope linear
Auger
Boring Pit Cut Other:____________________________________
Matrix Mottles
1 0-3 7.5YR 2/2 ----L --subangular
blocky
slighty sticky
slighty plastic
provides limited rooting depth for herbaceous
vegetation
2 3-12 5YR 4/6 ----C not redox-parent material subangular
blocky
slighty sticky
slighty plastic
mottles are saprolite
fill w/clay clods
3%small angular gravel
3 12-30 7.5YR 4/6 7.5YR 7/1 2%SL not redox-parent material subangular
blocky --3% small angular gravel
4 30-44 7.5YR 4/4 2.5YR 4/8
7.5YR 4/6
10%
7%SC not redox-parent material subangular
blocky
nonsticky
nonplastic mottles are saprolite with rock appearance
5 44-50 7.5YR 4/1 7.5YR 3/3 2%SiL-CL concentration angular blocky slighty sticky
slighty plastic
buried soil horizon at -44"
redox concentrations along old root channels
6 50-70 7.5YR 5/1 7.5YR 4/6 5%SL-fSL concentration granular --
Depth of Fill
Soil Survey Mapped Unit
Measured Watertable
SHWT
Hydric Indicator
Depth to Hydric Indicator
Saturation
Additional Profile Notes:
SEAL
44
not observed
44
44
Evaluation Method:
NotesHorizon
Depth (in)
Munsell Moist Color Mottle
Percent
Redox Feature
(depletion/concentration
Structure/
Consistence
Stickiness/
PlasticityTexture
George K Lankford, LLC
2019 5/24/2019
SOIL EVALUATION FORM
for
WALNUT WOOD
SOIL EVALUATION
Project Name: Walnut Wood
Location:Transect 2 point 01 Date Evaluated: 2019 February 15
County:Alamance Evaluator: G K Lankford
Slope %<1
Slope Shape Down
slope concave Across
slope linear
Auger
Boring Pit Cut Other:____________________________________
Matrix Mottles
1 0-13 7.5YR 4/6 ----SC --subangular
blocky
slighty sticky
slighty plastic
2 13-18 7.5YR 5/1 7.5YR 2.5/1
7.5YR 3/4
10%
10%SCL concentration (organics)
concentration (iron)
subangular
blocky
slighty sticky
non plastic buried soil horizon at -13"
3 18-44 7.5YR 6/2 7.5YR 4/6
7.5YR 2.5/1
20%
5%SCL concentration (iron)
concentration (organics)angular blocky slighty sticky
slighty plastic
4 44-54 7.5YR 2.5/1 7.5YR 4/6 15%C concentration (iron)angular blocky slighty sticky
non plastic
5 54-60 7.5YR 5/2 7.5YR 4/6
7.5YR 2.5/1
20%
5%SiL-CL concentration (iron)
concentration (Mg nodules)angular blocky moderately sticky
moderately plastic
6
Depth of Fill
Soil Survey Mapped Unit
Measured Watertable
SHWT
Hydric Indicator
Depth to Hydric Indicator
Saturation
Additional Profile Notes:
SEAL
13
13
Structure/
Consistence
Stickiness/
Plasticity Notes
13
Texture Redox Feature
(depletion/concentration
not observed
Evaluation Method:
Horizon
Depth (in)
Munsell Moist Color Mottle
Percent
George K Lankford, LLC
2019 5/24/2019
SOIL EVALUATION FORM
for
WALNUT WOOD
SOIL EVALUATION
Project Name: Walnut Wood
Location:Transect 2 point 04 Date Evaluated: 2019 February 15
County:Alamance Evaluator: G K Lankford
Slope %<1
Slope Shape Down
slope concave Across
slope linear
Auger
Boring Pit Cut Other:____________________________________
Matrix Mottles
1 0-10 7.5YR 4/4 ----SCL --
2 10-29 7.5YR 4/4 7.5YR 4/6 10%SCL not redox-parent material
3 29-44 7.5YR 5/1
7.5YR 3/4
7.5YR 4/6
7.5YR 2.5/1
20%
10%
5%
SCL
concentration
concentration
concentration (hard nodules)
buried soil horizon at -29"
4
5
6
Depth of Fill
Soil Survey Mapped Unit
Measured Watertable
SHWT
Hydric Indicator
Depth to Hydric Indicator
Saturation
Additional Profile Notes:
SEAL
not observed
Evaluation Method:
Horizon
Depth (in)
Munsell Moist Color Mottle
Percent
Structure/
Consistence
Stickiness/
Plasticity Notes
29
Texture Redox Feature
(depletion/concentration
29
29
trench location at this point set slightly downslope from main trench
containing T2-02
George K Lankford, LLC
2019 5/24/2019
SOIL EVALUATION FORM
for
WALNUT WOOD
SOIL EVALUATION
Project Name: Walnut Wood
Location:Transect 3 point 02 Date Evaluated: 2019 February 15
County:Alamance Evaluator: G K Lankford
Slope %1
Slope Shape Down
slope concave Across
slope linear
Auger
Boring Pit Cut Other:____________________________________
Matrix Mottles
1 0-5 7.5YR 4/6 ----SCL --subangular
blocky
non sticky
non plastic few angular pebbles
2 5-13 7.5YR 4/7 7.5YR 4/8 5%SCL not redox-parent material angular blocky
3 13-24 7.5YR 4/4 7.5YR 2.5/1
7.5YR 4/6
10%
10%SC not redox-parent material angular blocky
4 24-37 7.5YR 5/3 7.5YR 4/6 15%SL concentration subangular
blocky buried soil horizon at -24"
5 37-50 7.5YR 6/1 7.5YR 5/8 35%SC concentration angular blocky possibly residuum (not alluvial parent material)
6
Depth of Fill
Soil Survey Mapped Unit
Measured Watertable
SHWT
Hydric Indicator
Depth to Hydric Indicator
Saturation
Additional Profile Notes:
SEAL
24
24
Structure/
Consistence
Stickiness/
Plasticity Notes
24
Texture Redox Feature
(depletion/concentration
not observed
Evaluation Method:
Horizon
Depth (in)
Munsell Moist Color Mottle
Percent
George K Lankford, LLC
2019 5/24/2019
SOIL EVALUATION FORM
for
WALNUT WOOD
SOIL EVALUATION
Project Name: Walnut Wood
Location:Transect 3 point 03 Date Evaluated: 2019 February 15
County:Alamance Evaluator: G K Lankford
Slope %1
Slope Shape Down
slope concave Across
slope linear
Auger
Boring Pit Cut Other:____________________________________
Matrix Mottles
1 0-11 10YR 4/6 ----SL --
2 11-25 7.5YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/6 10%SCL concentration buried soil horizon at -11"
3 25-40 7.5YR 6/2 7.5YR 5/6 25%%SC concentration water table
4 40-50 7.5YR 6/1 7.5YR 5/6 10%SC concentration
5
6
Depth of Fill
Soil Survey Mapped Unit
Measured Watertable
SHWT
Hydric Indicator
Depth to Hydric Indicator
Saturation
Additional Profile Notes:
SEAL
11
11
Structure/
Consistence
Stickiness/
Plasticity Notes
11
Texture Redox Feature
(depletion/concentration
25
Evaluation Method:
Horizon
Depth (in)
Munsell Moist Color Mottle
Percent
George K Lankford, LLC
2019 5/24/2019
SOIL EVALUATION FORM
for
WALNUT WOOD
SOIL EVALUATION
Project Name: Walnut Wood
Location:Transect 4 point 01 Date Evaluated: 2019 February 15
County:Alamance Evaluator: G K Lankford
Slope %1
Slope Shape Down
slope concave Across
slope linear
Auger
Boring Pit Cut Other:____________________________________
Matrix Mottles
1 0-10 7.5YR 4/6 ----SCL --subangular
blocky
non sticky
slighty plastic
2 10-18 7.5YR 4/3 7.5YR 2.5/1
7.5YR 4/6
30%
10%SCL not redox feature angular blocky sticky
slightly plastic
3 18-27 7.5YR 5/4 7.5YR 4/6 15%SL not redox feature angular blocky non sticky
non plastic
4 27-47 7.5YR 5/1 5YR 4/6 20%SL not redox feature angular blocky slightly sticky
slightly plastic
buried soil horizon at -27"
evidence of disturbance
5 47-64 N 6/-7.5YR 5/8 20%SC concentration massive slightly sticky
plastic few small rounded gravel
6
Depth of Fill
Soil Survey Mapped Unit
Measured Watertable
SHWT
Hydric Indicator
Depth to Hydric Indicator
Saturation
Additional Profile Notes:
SEAL
27
27
There may have been a natural surface present above 24 inches.
Structure/
Consistence
Stickiness/
Plasticity Notes
27
Texture Redox Feature
(depletion/concentration
not observed
Evaluation Method:
Horizon
Depth (in)
Munsell Moist Color Mottle
Percent
George K Lankford, LLC
2019 5/24/2019
SOIL EVALUATION FORM
for
WALNUT WOOD
SOIL EVALUATION
Project Name: Walnut Wood
Location:Transect 4 point 02 Date Evaluated: 2019 February 15
County:Alamance Evaluator: G K Lankford
Slope %1
Slope Shape Down
slope concave Across
slope linear
Auger
Boring Pit Cut Other:____________________________________
Matrix Mottles
1 0-4 7.5YR 3/4 ----SCL --
2 4-16 7.5YR 3/4 7.5YR 4/6 10%SiL not redox feature
3 16-27 7.5YR 5/4 7.5YR 4/6
7.5YR 2.5/1
20%
5%SCL concentration
concentration buried soil horizon at -27"
4 27-38 7.5YR 5/1 7.5YR 5/8 20%SC concentration
5
6
Depth of Fill
Soil Survey Mapped Unit
Measured Watertable
SHWT
Hydric Indicator
Depth to Hydric Indicator
Saturation
Additional Profile Notes:
SEAL
16
27
Structure/
Consistence
Stickiness/
Plasticity Notes
16
Texture Redox Feature
(depletion/concentration
28
Evaluation Method:
Horizon
Depth (in)
Munsell Moist Color Mottle
Percent
George K Lankford, LLC
2019 5/24/2019
Kris Bass Engineering
www.kbeng.org
919.960.1552
Walnut Woods Mitigation Project
Guilford County, NC
1955 Historic Imagery
Proposed Easement
Parcel Boundary
Legend
1955 Historic Imagery
Existing Stream

Appendix D – Wetland JD Forms & Maps

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400

res.us

February 8, 2019

David Bailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Dear Mr. Bailey,
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) is pleased to present this Request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination for Walnut Wood Mitigation Site located in Julian, Guilford County, North Carolina
(35.9808°N and -79.6446°W). As part of this scope of work, RES is submitting this request to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a confirmation of the limits of Waters of the U.S. on the subject site.
The Walnut Wood Mitigation Site (the “Site”) contains one parcel totaling 145-acres in Guilford County,
NC. The Site will involve the restoration and enhancement of four unnamed tributaries to Climax Creek
and Climax Creek. The Site is located within the Cape Fear River Basin (8-digit USGS HUC 03030002,
14-digit USGS 03030002040010).
The purpose of the proposed Site is to generate compensatory mitigation credits for inclusion in the RES
Cape Fear 02 Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank in hydrologic unit 03030002 of the Cape
Fear River Basin associated with Department of the Army permit authorizations pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act.

The Site will result in significant water quality improvements including:
• Decreased non-point source pollution and sedimentation,
• Filtration of runoff, and
• Improved hydrologic function.

The Site will provide uplift for ecological functions, including:
• Improved aquatic habitat diversity,
• Invasive species treatment,
• Restore hydrologic connectivity,
• Enhance flood attenuation, and
• Wildlife corridor enhancement and preservation

The Site will restore, enhance, and protect an important aquatic resource and wildlife corridor while also
accommodating existing agricultural land uses.

2
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me at
[phone] if you have any additional question regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Schmid | Senior Ecologist
Attachments: Jurisdictional Determination Request Form, Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form,
Landowner Authorization Form, Vicinity Map, USGS Topographc Map, National Wetlands Inventory
Map, Soils Map, Potential Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map, and Wetland Data Sheets
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 1

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
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.

ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
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: [phone]
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]

INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
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 H.
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(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent 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.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 2
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address:
City, State:
_______________________________________________
____________________________________________
___ County:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN):
B.REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
_________________________________________
Telephone Number: _________________________________________
Electronic Mail Address: ________________________________________
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant1
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain. ________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
C.PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION2
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Landowner Authorization Form
Site: Walnut Wood
Property Legal Description
Deed Book/Page: 8110/2408
County: Guilford
Parcel PIN Number: 8801-82-9027
Street Address: 3172 Alamance Church Road Julian NC 27283
Property Owner: Ko D. Studer andspouse, Mari orie Brett WraV Strader
The undersigned, registered property owner of the above property, do hereby authorize
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Division of Water 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 restoration project, including conducting stream
and or wetland determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permits) or
certification(s).
Property Owner Address: 5616 Coble Church Road Julian NC 27283
Me hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
1
(Property Owner Authnri7Pd Sia nfiiral
(Property Owner Printed Name)
4846-3189-9210, v. 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 4

F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)

I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.

A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United States”on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional “waters of
the United States”. PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
“preliminary” in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.

I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.

An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United
States” are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other “affected
party” (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).

I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.

G. ALL REQUESTS

Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.

Size of Property or Review Area acres.

The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 5

H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS

Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude: ______________________
Longitude: ______________________

A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
 North Arrow
 Graphical Scale
 Boundary of Review Area
 Date
 Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
 Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
 Jurisdictional non-wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non-Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
 Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non-
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non-Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non-jurisdictional (i.e.
“Isolated”, “No Significant Nexus”, or “Upland Feature”). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
 Wetland and non-wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non-wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.

Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)

____________________________________________________________________________
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled “Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations” to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Program/Jurisdiction/
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 6

Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form7 and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form8

Vicinity Map

Aerial Photograph

USGS Topographic Map

Soil Survey Map

Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)

Landscape Photos (if taken)

NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets

NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms

Other Assessment Forms

_____________________________________________________________________________
7 www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/JD/RGL_08-02_App_A_Prelim_JD_Form_fillable.pdf
8 Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/

Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory authorities referenced above. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B.NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
C.DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D.PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.:Long.:
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody:
E.REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE”SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
see attached table
01/31/19
Jeremy Schmid
CESAW-RG-R
NC Guilford Julian
35.9814 -79.6412
NAD83
Climax Creek
Waters_NameStateCowardin_Code HGM_Code Meas_Type Amount Units Waters_Type Latitude Longitude Local_WaterwayWANORTH CAROLINAPFOSLOPE Area0.09 ACRE DELINEATE 35.982513 -79.645116 Climax CreekWBNORTH CAROLINAPFORIVERINE Area0.06 ACRE DELINEATE 35.981978 -79.647775 Climax CreekWCNORTH CAROLINAPFOSLOPE Area0.06 ACRE DELINEATE 35.98204 -79.646536 Climax CreekWDNORTH CAROLINAPFOSLOPE Area0.12 ACRE DELINEATE 35.979992 -79.643413 Climax CreekWENORTH CAROLINAPFODEPRESS Area0.02 ACRE DELINEATE 35.978206 -79.641685 Climax CreekWFNORTH CAROLINAPFODEPRESS Area0.02 ACRE DELINEATE 35.977031 -79.641919 Climax CreekWGNORTH CAROLINAPFODEPRESS Area0.37 ACRE DELINEATE 35.97725 -79.645289 Climax CreekOW-1NORTH CAROLINAPOWArea0.52 ACRE IMPNDMNT 35.982301 -79.644297 Climax CreekOW2-ANORTH CAROLINAPOWArea0.56 ACRE IMPNDMNT 35.980587 -79.645742 Climax CreekOW2-BNORTH CAROLINAPOWArea1.48 ACRE IMPNDMNT 35.980119 -79.644639 Climax CreekOW2-CNORTH CAROLINAPOWArea0.75 ACRE IMPNDMNT 35.980075 -79.642807 Climax CreekOW2-DNORTH CAROLINAPOWArea1.01 ACRE IMPNDMNT 35.9794 -79.642537 Climax CreekOW-3NORTH CAROLINAPOWArea0.88 ACRE IMPNDMNT 35.977111 -79.647658 Climax CreekClimax CreekNORTH CAROLINAR3Linear 2926 FOOT DELINEATE 35.979815 -79.647189 Climax CreekWM2NORTH CAROLINAR4Linear153 FOOT DELINEATE 35.980603 -79.646349 Climax CreekWM4NORTH CAROLINAR4Linear63 FOOT DELINEATE 35.978971 -79.650663 Climax Creek
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the termsand
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit)or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or toprovideanofficial
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be”navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: _______BBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Corps navigable waters’ study: ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: _________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
State/local wetland inventory map(s): ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
FEMA/FIRM maps: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ____BBBBBBBBBBBB.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
or Other (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:__________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Other information (please specify): ______________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Vicinity, USGS, NWI, Soil, Existing conditions, WOUS
24k Climax
Jeremy Schmid Digitally signed by Jeremy Schmid
DN: cn=Jeremy Schmid, o, ou, email=[e-mail], c=US
Date: 2018.04.24 10:02:26 -04'00'
0 1,000500
Feet
Project Vicinity
Walnut WoodMitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Walnut Wood Study Area (50.50 ac)
©Date: 1/25/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\JD\Vicinity Map.mxd1 inch = 1,000 feet
Walnut WoodProject
0 2,0001,000
Feet
USGS Climax Quadrangle (2016)
Walnut WoodMitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Walnut Wood Study Area (50.50 ac)
©Date: 1/29/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\JD\USGS Map.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
EnB
ChA
ApB
MhC2
MhC2 MhC2
ChA
EnC
MhB2
WhA
ApC
CcB MaE
MhB2
MhB2
CcC
MhC2
EnB
MhC2
MhB2
MhB2
EnB
WhA
EnC
WkE
EnCEnB
EnD CcCMaE
MhB2
EnC HhB HhB
0 400200
Feet
Mapped Soils
Walnut WoodMitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
©Date: 1/25/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\JD\Soils Map.mxd1 inch = 400 feet
Legend
Hydric (100%)
Predominantly Hydric (66-99%)
Partially Hydric (33-65%)
Predominantly Nonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)
Walnut Wood Study Area (50.50 ac)
NRCS - Web Soil Survey (2019)
PUBHh
PUBHx
PUBHh
PUBHh
PFO1A
PFO1A
PUBHx
0 400200
Feet
National Wetlands Inventory
Walnut WoodMitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
Legend
Walnut Wood Study Area (50.50 ac)
NWI Wetlands (USFWS 10/29/2018)
©Date: 1/25/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\JD\NWI Map.mxd1 inch = 400 feet
M!M!
M!M!
M!M!
M!
M!M!Climax CreekWW2
WW4
98
7
65
4
21
WG
WD
WA
WCWB
WF
WE
OW-2b
OW-3
OW-2d
OW-1
OW-2c
OW-2a
©
0 300150
Feet
REFERENCE
1) Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Z15N.
2) Map Projection is NAD_1983_StatePlane_
North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Date: 1/29/2019 Drawn by: JLS
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Walnut Wood\MXD\JD\WOUS map.mxdLegend
Study Area (50.50 ac)
Wetlands
Open_water
Property
Streams
M!Upland Data Point
M!Wetland Data Point
Potential Wetland or Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map
Walnut WoodMitigation Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
1 in = 300 feet
Revisions: NONE
Waters Name Type
WA Wetland 0.09 ac
WB Wetland 0.06 ac
WC Wetland 0.06 ac
WD Wetland 0.12 ac
WE Wetland 0.02 ac
WF Wetland 0.02 ac
WG Wetland 0.37 ac
OW-1 Open Water 0.52 ac
OW2-A Open Water 0.56 ac
OW2-B Open Water 1.48 ac
OW2-C Open Water 0.75 ac
OW2-D Open Water 1.01 ac
OW-3 Open Water 0.88 ac
Climax Creek Stream 2926 ft
WM2 Stream 153 ft
WM4 Stream 63 ft
Area/Length
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-1
08-Jan-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Walnut Wood
RES
Jeremy Schmid
Valley bottom
P
Julian/Guilford
NC
-79.643335.9798
Enon PEM
concave
above average precipitation, wetland area continuously mowed (golf course), artificial drainage system installed below ground
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
0.5YesNo
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
water seeping from pond upslope
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
5
10
20
0
0
0
Yes No
20.0%
0.0%
30.0%
0.0%
66.7%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
20 40
0.0%
0 0
25 100
0
0 0
0.0%
45 140
0.0%
3.111
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
22.2%FACW
11.1%FACU
22.2%FACW
44.4%FACU
0.0%
45
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-1Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Juncus effusus
Eupatorium capillifolium
Bidens frondosa
Schedonorus arundinaceus
(Plot size:
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-1SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
8-16+
2-8
0-2
5Y
5Y
10YR
5/1
5/1
3/3
70
90
100
10YR
5G
10YR
5/8
4/2
5/8 10
20
10
Loam
Sandy Clay Loam
Sandy Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-2
08-Jan-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Walnut Wood
RES
Jeremy Schmid
Hillside
P
Julian/Guilford
NC

-79.643435.9797
Enon

convex
continuously mowed (golf course)
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
10
10
40
0
0
0
0
Yes No
050.0%FACU
50.0%UPL
40.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
100 400
20
20 100
100.0%FACU
120 500
0.0%
4.167
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%FACU
16.7%FACU
66.7%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
60
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-2Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Quercus falcata
Pinus echinata
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Ligustrum sinense
(Plot size:
Andropogon virginicus
Lonicera japonica
Schedonorus arundinaceus
(Plot size:
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-2SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
6-12+
0-6
10YR
10YR
5/8
4/4 Silty Clay Loam
Silty Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-3
08-Jan-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Walnut Wood
RES
Jeremy Schmid
Swale
P
Julian/Guilford
NC

-79.641735.9782
Enon PFO

concave
above average precipitation, wetland area continuously mowed (golf course), artificial drainage system installed below ground
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
1
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
20
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
20
20
0
0
0
0
Yes No
466.7%FAC
33.3%FAC
50.0%
0.0%
80.0%
30
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
10 20
0.0%
50 150
20 80
0
0 0
0.0%
80 250
0.0%
3.125
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%FACW
40.0%FAC
40.0%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
50
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-3Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Juncus effusus
Microstegium vimineum
Schedonorus arundinaceus
(Plot size:
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-3SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
7-16+
0-7
10YR
10YR
5/1
4/2
85
100
10YR 4/6 15
Sandy Clay Loam
Sandy Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-4
08-Jan-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Walnut Wood
RES
Jeremy Schmid
Hillside
P
Julian/Guilford
NC

-79.641835.9781
Enon

convex
continuously mowed (golf course)
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
10
10
20
5
0
0
Yes No
0100.0%FACU
0.0%
30.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
85 340
0
0 0
0.0%
85 340
0.0%
4.000
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40.0%FACU
13.3%FACU
13.3%FACU
26.7%FACU
6.7%FACU
75
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-4Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Juniperus virginiana
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Schedonorus arundinaceus
Andropogon virginicus
Rubus argutus
Eupatorium capillifolium
Phytolacca americana
(Plot size:
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-4SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
4-12+
0-4
10YR
10YR
5/8
4/4 Silty Clay Loam
Silty Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-5
08-Jan-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Walnut Wood
RES
Jeremy Schmid
Valley bottom
P
Julian/Guilford
NC

-79.645635.9772
Mecklenburg PEM

flat
above average precipitation, wetland area continuously mowed (golf course), artificial drainage system installed below ground
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
0.5YesNo
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
artificial drainage system installed below ground is starting to fail, wet area contained other potential wetland veg unidentifiable due to winter die off
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
40
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
10.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
20 40
0.0%
0 0
40 160
0
0 0
0.0%
60 200
0.0%
3.333
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%FACW
66.7%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
60
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-5Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Juncus effusus
Schedonorus arundinaceus
(Plot size:
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-5SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
5-16+
0-5
10YR
10YR
5/2
4/3
85
90 10YR
10YR
5/8
5/8 15
10 Sandy Clay Loam
Sandy Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-6
08-Jan-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Walnut Wood
RES
Jeremy Schmid
Hillside
P
Julian/Guilford
NC

-79.645635.9771
Mecklenburg

convex
area continuously mowed (golf course)
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
10
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
0100.0%FACU
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
110 440
0
0 0
0.0%
110 440
0.0%
4.000
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
90.0%FACU
10.0%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-6Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Juniperus virginiana
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Schedonorus arundinaceus
Andropogon virginicus
(Plot size:
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-6SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
5-12+
0-5
10YR
7.5YR
5/8
4/4 Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-7
08-Jan-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Walnut Wood
RES
Jeremy Schmid
Floodplain
P
Julian/Guilford
NC

-79.646535.9810
Chewacla

concave
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
2YesNo
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
10
20
10
30
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
314.3%FACW
28.6%FAC
414.3%FAC
42.9%FAC
75.0%
70
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
10 20
0.0%
70 210
30 120
30
0 0
100.0%FACU
110 350
0.0%
3.182
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
10
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
10
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%FAC
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-7Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Platanus occidentalis
Carpinus caroliniana
Liquidambar styraciflua
Acer rubrum
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Ligustrum sinense
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Smilax rotundifolia
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-7SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
4-16
0-4
2.5Y
7.5YR
6/4
4/4
90 10YR 6/6 10
Sandy Loam
Sandy Loam
floodplain of Climax Creek, lot of recent alluvial deposits everywhere
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-8
08-Jan-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Walnut Wood
RES
Jeremy Schmid
Floodplain
P
Julian/Guilford
NC

-79.647735.9819
Chewacla PFO

Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
3YesNo
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
50
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
455.6%FACW
22.2%FACW
522.2%FAC
0.0%
80.0%
90
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
70 140
0.0%
30 90
10 40
10
0 0
100.0%FACU
110 270
0.0%
2.455
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
10
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
10
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-8Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Betula nigra
Platanus occidentalis
Liquidambar styraciflua
Carpinus caroliniana
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Ligustrum sinense
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-8SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
2-12+
0-2
10YR
10YR
4/2
4/3
90
100
10YR 5/8 10
Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-9
08-Jan-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Walnut Wood
RES
Jeremy Schmid
Floodplain
P
Julian/Guilford
NC

-79.647935.9819
Chewacla

Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
20
20
10
20
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
228.6%FACU
28.6%FACU
514.3%FAC
28.6%FAC
40.0%
70
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
40 120
60 240
20
0 0
100.0%FACU
100 360
0.0%
3.600
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
10
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
10
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%FAC
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-9Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Juniperus virginiana
Liriodendron tulipifera
Liquidambar styraciflua
Acer rubrum
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Ligustrum sinense
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Smilax rotundifolia
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-9SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
4-12+
0-4
7.5YR
7.5YR
5/3
4/3
70
100
5YR 5/6 30
Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NO
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
NO
LOW
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WA
Jeremy Schmid- RESHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
4/2/19
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Rating
LOW
LOW
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
YES
NA
YES
NA
YES
HIGH
HIGH
YES
HIGH
YES
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
Rating
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
YES
HIGH
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WB
Jeremy Schmid- RESBottomland Hardwood Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
4/2/19
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Rating
HIGH
LOW
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
LOW
LOW
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WC
Jeremy Schmid- RESHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
4/2/19
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
LOW
LOW
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NO
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
NO
LOW
NA
LOW
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
NA
NA
NA
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
Rating
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WD
Jeremy Schmid- RESNon-Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
4/2/19
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Rating
NA
NA
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
LOW
LOW
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WE
Jeremy Schmid- RESHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
4/2/19
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
LOW
LOW
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NO
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
NO
LOW
NA
LOW
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
YES
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
YES
HIGH
YES
HIGH
NA
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
Rating
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
YES
HIGH
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WF
Jeremy Schmid- RESHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
4/2/19
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Rating
HIGH
MEDIUM
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
LOW
LOW
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WG
Jeremy Schmid- RESHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
4/2/19
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
LOW
LOW
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NO
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
NO
LOW
NA
LOW

Appendix E – DWR Stream Identification
and Buffer Viability

ROY COOPER
Governor
NCHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
UNDA CULPEPPER
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
E'nvbvantental Quality
April 12, 2019
Jeremy Schmid DWR Project # 2017-0919v2
Resource Environmental Solutions Guilford County
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Subject: On -Site Stream Evaluation and Determination for Applicability to the
Jordan Lake Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0267) and Water
Quality Standards
Project Name: Walnut Wood Site
Address/Location: 3172 Alamance Church Rd, Julian, NC
Parcel ID's: Guilford County PIN #8801-82-9027
Streams Evaluated: Climax Creek and Unnamed Tributaries to Climax Creek
Field Date: April 12, 2019
DWR Staff: Katie Merritt
Determination Type:
Buffer:
Stream:
❑ Neuse (15A NCAC 02B .0233)
® Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 02B .0259)
Determination (where local buffer
❑ Catawba (15A NCAC 02B .0243)
ordinances apply)
® Jordan (15A NCAC 026.0267) (governmental
and/or interjurisdictional projects)
❑ Randleman (15A NCAC 02B .0250)
❑ Goose Creek (15A NCAC 02B .0605-.0608)
See the following table and written explanation regarding the stream determinations.
iN
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
E 512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000

Resource Environmental Solutions
Jordan Lake Riparian Buffer/Stream Determination
DWR Project #20170919v2
Page 2 of 3
Feature IDl
Feature
Type
Not
Subject
Subject
Start@
Stop @
Soil
Survey
USGS
Topo
Climax Creek
Stream —(P)
X
Easement
Boundary
Throughout
X
X
UT1
Stream — (1)
X
Culvert
Climax Creek
X
X
UT2
Stream — (1)
X
Pond E outfall
Climax creek
UT3
No stream
observed
X
Easement
Boundary
X
UT4
Piped Stream
observed- (1)
X
Easement
Boundary
Pond F
X
UT4
downstream
No stream
observed
X
Pond F Outfall
X
A
Pond
X
See map
X
B
Pond
X
See map
C
Pond
X
See map
D
Pond
X
See map
E
Pond
X
See map
UT2
F
Pond
X
See map
X
1 See maps provided showing labeled features
z Ephemeral (E), Intermittent (1), Perennial (P), Ditch (D)
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) received a Request from Resource Environmental
Services, LLC (RES) for a Stream Buffer Applicability Determination for a Potential Mitigation
Site at the location described above. A Landowner Authorization Form was provided by RES.
On April 12, 2019, DWR staff, along with Jeremy Schmid from RES conducted a site visit.
DWR determined that the two features on the site, Climax Creek and one Unnamed Tributary
to Climax Creek are both streams and are subject to the Jordan Lake Riparian Buffer Rules and
are both located on the most recently published NRCS Soil Survey of Guilford County, North
Carolina and shown on the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1: 24,000 scale.
There is one other Unnamed Tributary (UT2) to Climax Creek that was determined to be at least
intermittent but not subject to the Jordan Lake Riparian Buffer Rules.
It important to note that most of the features listed in the table above have been modified by
earthen dams, culverting, and underground piping. Therefore, many of the features could not
be observed.
There may be other streams or features located on the properties and on the included maps
that may be subject to the buffer rules or may be considered jurisdictional according to the
US Army Corps of Engineers and subject to the Clean Water Act.
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners
or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR may request a determination

Resource Environmental Solutions
Jordan Lake Riparian Buffer/Stream Determination
DWR Project #20170919v2
Page 3 of 3
by the Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of
this letter to the Director in writing.
If sending via US Postal Service:
c/o Karen Higgins
DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.):
clo Karen Higgins
DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
This determination is final and binding as detailed above, unless an appeal is requested within
sixty (60) days.
This determination only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve
any activity within the buffers. The project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the
proposed activity. Any inquiries regarding applicability to the Clean Water Act should be
directed to the US Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office at (919)-554-4884.
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact Shelton Sullivan
at [phone].
Sincerely,
14�
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Attachments: Figure 3, Topo, Guilford County Soil Survey
cc: 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file copy
DWR Winston RO via email -Sue Homewood
Kory & Marjorie Strader — 5616 Coble Church Rd, Julian, NC 27283
Filename: 20170919v2 WalnutWoodStreamCall(Guilford)

1ILI Y�
VaN
� ,+' � •ham
a IIA °" ! p
A
1ai% 1
P iL r i lr
t
OLNut
.
'Fill
tat
A Lego,
'� , •: Proposed Easement
F
FIGURE 3 Dale: 7l1/2017
E w ` � Aerial Map Drawn by: BPB I res
o zoo aoo Walnut Wood Mitigation Site
f
Guilford County, North Carolina

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Project/Site: Latitude:
Evaluator: County: Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30*
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:

A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_________) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _________)
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = _________)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:

Sketch:

Appendix F – USACE District Assessment
Methods/Forms

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant’s name: 2. Evaluator’s name:
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. –77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other _______
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):

14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.

Total Score (from reverse): Comments:

Evaluator’s Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change – version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

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

1. Consider channel flow with respect to channel cross-sectional area (expected flow), drainage area, recent precipitation, potential
drought conditions, surrounding land use, possible water withdrawals, presence of impoundments upstream, vegetation growth in
channel bottom (as indicator of intermittent flow), etc.
2. Human-caused alterations may include relocation, channelization, excavation, riprap, gabions, culverts, levees, berms, spoil piles
adjacent to channel, etc.
3. The riparian zone is the area of vegetated land along each side of a stream or river that includes, but is not limited to, the
floodplain. Evaluation should consider width of riparian area with respect to floodplain width, vegetation density, maturity of
canopy and understory, species variety, presence of undesirable invasive species (exotics), breaks (utility corridors, roads, etc.),
presence of drainage tiles, logging activities, other disturbances which negatively affect function of the riparian zone.
4. Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges includes pipes, ditches, and direct draining from commercial and industrial sites,
agricultural fields, pastures, golf courses, swimming pools, roads, parking lots, etc. Sewage, chlorine, or other foul odors,
discolored water, suds, excessive algal growth may also provide evidence of discharge.
5. Groundwater discharge may be indicated by persistent pools and saturated soils during dry weather conditions, presence of
adjacent wetlands, seeps, and springs feeding channel, reduced soils in channel bottom.
6. Presence of floodplains may be determined by topography and the slope of the land adjacent to the stream, terracing, the extent of
development within the floodplain, FEMA designation if known, etc.
7. Indicators of floodplain access include sediment deposits, wrack lines, drainage patterns in floodplain, local stream gauge data,
testimony of local residents, entrenchment ratio, etc. Note that indicators may relic and not a result of regular flooding.
8. Wetland areas should be evaluated according to their location, size, quality, and adjacency relative to the stream channel, and
may be indicated by beaver activity, impounded or regularly saturated areas near the stream, previous delineations, National
Wetland Inventory maps, etc. (Wetlands must meet criteria outlined in 1987 delineation manual and are subject to USACE approval.)
9. Channel sinuosity should be evaluated with respect to the channel size and drainage area, valley slope, topography, etc.
10. To evaluate sediment deposition within the channel consider water turbidity, depth of sediment deposits forming at point bars and
in pools, evidence of eroding banks or other sediment sources within watershed (construction sites, ineffective erosion controls). In
rare cases, typically downstream of culverts or dams, a sediment deficit may exist and should be considered in scoring.
11. When looking at channel substrate, factor in parent material (presence of larger particles in soil horizons adjacent to the stream), average
size of substrate (bedrock, clay/silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, etc.), and diversity of particle size (riprap is excluded).
12. Indications of channel incision and deepening may include a v-shaped channel bottom, collapsing banks, evidence of recent
development and increased impervious surface area resulting in greater runoff in the watershed.
13. Evaluation should consider presence of major bank failures along the entire reach under evaluation, including uprooted trees on
banks, banks falling into channel, formation of islands in channel as they widen, exposed soil, active zones of erosion, etc.
14. Increased root depth and density result in greater bank stability. Consider the depth and density that roots penetrate the bank
relative to the amount of exposed soil on the bank and the normal water elevation.
15. Assessment of agriculture, livestock, and/or timber production impacts should address areas of stream bank destabilization,
evidence of livestock in or crossing stream, loss of riparian zone to pasture or agricultural fields, evidence of sediment or high
nutrient levels entering streams, drainage ditches entering streams, loss of riparian zone due to logging, etc.
16. Riffle-pool steps can be identified by a series of alternating pools and riffles. Abundance, frequency, and relative depth of riffles
and pools should be considered with respect to topography (steepness of terrain) and local geology (type of substrate).
Coastal plain streams should be evaluated for the presence of ripple-pool sequences. Ripples are bed forms found in sand bed
streams with little or no gravel that form under low shear stress conditions, whereas, dunes and antidunes form under moderate
and high shear stresses, respectively. Dunes are the most common bed forms found in sand bed streams.
17. Habitat complexity is an overall evaluation of the variety and extent of in-stream and riparian habitat. Types of habitat to look
for include rocks/cobble, sticks and leafpacks, snags and logs in the stream, root mats, undercut banks, overhanging vegetation,
pool and riffle complexes, wetland pockets adjacent to channel, etc.
18. Evaluation should consider the shading effect that riparian vegetation will provide to the stream during the growing season. Full
sun should be considered worst case, while good canopy coverage with some light penetration is best case.
19. Stream embeddedness refers to the extent that sediment that has filled in gaps and openings around the rocks and cobble in the
streambed. The overall size of the average particle in the streambed should be considered (smaller rocks will have smaller gaps).
20. Evaluation should be based on evidence of stream invertebrates gathered from multiple habitats. Scores should reflect
abundance, taxa richness, and sensitivity of stream invertebrate types. (see attached examples of common stream invertebrates on page
4).
21. Evaluation should include evidence of amphibians in stream channel. Tadpoles and frogs should receive minimum value, while
salamanders, newts, etc. may be assigned higher value.
22. Evaluation of fish should consider the frequency and, if possible, the variety of different fish taxa observed.
23. Evaluation of wildlife should include direct observation or evidence (tracks, shells, droppings, burrows or dens, hunting stands, evidence
of fishing, etc.) of any animals using the streambed or riparian zone, to include small and large mammals, rodents, birds, reptiles,
insects, etc.
3
Common Stream Invertebrates

Sensitive Taxa – Pollution sensitive organisms that may be found in good quality water.

Caddisfly Mayfly Stonefly Dobsonfly

Riffle Beetle Water Penny Gilled Snail

Somewhat Tolerant Taxa – Somewhat pollution tolerant organisms that may be found in good or

Beetle Larva Clam Sowbug Cranefly

Crayfish Damselfly Nymph Scud Dragon Fly Nymph

Tolerant Taxa – Pollution tolerant organisms that may be found in any quality water.

Blackfly Larva Leech Midge Fly Larva

Aquatic Worm Pouch & Pond Snail

4

Appendix G – Regulatory Agency Scoping
Letters

• SHPO Response Letter
• USFWS Response Letter
• NCWRC Correspondence

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

August 16, 2019

Matt DeAngelo
Resource Environmental Solutions, Inc.
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

Re: Walnut Wood Mitigation Site, Guilford County, ER 19-2378

Dear Mr. DeAngelo:
Thank you for your letter of July 26, 2019, 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
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office ����` rED I
Post Office Box 33726 R V
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
MAY 16 2018
May 14 2018 RpLEIGt4 PEGULATOR'y
y PlplD OFFI�
Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: RES Cape Fear 02 UMBI — Walnut Wood Site/ SAW-2017-01470/ Guilford Co.
Dear Ms, Dailey:
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, and other
information, is expected to have minimal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources,
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 action is 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.
In general, the Service believes that the Walnut Wood site will provide a good opportunity for
stream restoration. However, the project information does not discuss future plans for the
uplands surrounding the proposed conservation easement, and the Service would be concerned if
surrounding land use (residential or commercial construction, or a new golf course development)
were to affect the proposed project. The proposed wooded buffers (easement widths) appear to
be rather large, but the sinuosities of the streams and actual proposed easement widths have not
yet been documented.
Further, the Service has concerns for the restoration of stream WW2 through the four existing
ponds with unconsolidated bottoms. Plans for the restoration of these areas should include,;,
construction of a stream channel (rather than allowing the stream channel to form on its own in
the pond bottom), and removal of sediments as necessary to allow an appropriate riparian
ecosystem to, become reestablished.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments. We look forward to
reviewing specific mitigation plans for the proposed site. Should you have any questions
regarding the project, please contact Kathy Matthews at [phone], extension 27,
Sineei�
Pete enjamin
Field Supervisor

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

22 August 2019

Mr. Matt DeAngelo
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Subject: Request for Project Review and Comments
Walnut Wood Mitigation Site
Guilford County, North Carolina

Dear Mr. DeAngelo,

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your request to
review and comment on any possible concerns regarding the Walnut Wood Mitigation Site. Biologists
with NCWRC have reviewed the provided documents. Comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and
North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).

The Walnut Wood Mitigation Site is located south of Alamance Church Road and east of Coble Church
Road in southeast Guilford County, North Carolina. The site occurs within an old golf course with
fairways, greenways, buildings, water features, some forested areas, and other associated features. The
project will provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands. The proposed
project will restore 4,539 linear feet (lf) of stream, enhance 2,678 lf of stream, and provide water quality
benefits for the 5,694-acre drainage area. The project will impact Climax Creek and its unnamed
tributaries and ponds within the Cape Fear River basin. Climax Creek is classified as a Water Supply IV
and Nutrient Sensitive Water by the N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR).

We have known records for the federal species of concern and state endangered Carolina creekshell
(Villosa vaughaniana); and the significantly rare eastern creekshell (V. delumbis) and Carolina ladle
crayfish (Cambarus davidi) within the vicinity of the site. The state special concern Greensboro
burrowing crayfish (Cambarus catagius) also has the potential to occur within the project area. Recent
mussel and crayfish surveys have not been completed in the area. Therefore, the lack of records from the
site does not imply or confirm the absence of federal or state-listed species. An on-site survey is the only
definitive means to determine if the proposed project would impact rare, threatened, or endangered
species.

We have no objection to the project. However, we offer the following recommendations to minimize
impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Page 2

22 August 2019
Walnut Wood Mitigation Site
Guilford County

1. We recommend surveys for state-listed mussel and crayfish within and downstream of Climax
Creek. If mussels and crayfish are found, they will need to be relocated to suitable habitat
upstream of the impact area. Please contact Brena Jones, the Central Aquatic Wildlife Diversity
Research Coordinator, at 919-707-0369 or [e-mail]. The full extent of the
Greensboro burrowing crayfish’s distribution in this watershed is unknown due to lack of targeted
surveys. The Greensboro burrowing crayfish has been found in all types of soils from sandy
loams to hard clay and burrows are not usually directly associated with any drainage or stream
flow (McGrath 1994). If there are signs of burrowing crayfish activity (holes), burrows should be
photographed and the location recorded, as ground disturbance may lead to crayfish mortality
through burrow destruction and crushing.
2. We recommend leaving snags and mature trees or if necessary, remove mature tees outside the
maternity roosting season for bats (May 15 – August 15). We also recommend tree species
favored for bats, such as white oak and hickories.
3. We recommend that riparian buffers are as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner
needs. NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams to
maximize the benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland
runoff, and wildlife habitat.
4. Due to the potential for state rare species to occur downstream of the site, we request stringent
sediment and erosion control measures. The use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly sediment
and erosion control devices is strongly recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other
products should have loose-weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable
joints between the vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing that has been reinforced with
plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it impedes the movement of terrestrial wildlife
species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources
including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills.
Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Provided measures are taken to minimize erosion and
sedimentation from construction/restoration activities, we do not anticipate the project to result in
significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. If I can be of additional assistance, please call (919)
707-0364 or email [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

ec: Brena Jones, NCWRC
1
Jeremy Schmid
From:Matt Butler
Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 11:07 AM
To:Jamey Mceachran; Bradley Breslow
Cc:Jeremy Schmid; Megan Engel
Subject:FW: [External] Walnut Wood Mitigation Site - Guilford
No issues at Walnut Wood. 

Matt Butler, PMP
Project Manager
RES | res.us
Direct: 919.209.1067 | Mobile: [phone]

From: Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 2:41 PM 
To: Matt Butler <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [External] Walnut Wood Mitigation Site ‐ Guilford 

Matt, 
I showed the pictures of the crayfish and mussel and they are common species. The mussel was Villosa delumbis. All is 
good to go. 

Olivia Munzer 
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator 
NC Wildlife Resources Commission 

From: Matt Butler <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 12:42 PM 
To: Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Jones, Brena K. <[e-mail]>; Matthew Deangelo <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [External] Walnut Wood Mitigation Site ‐ Guilford 

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to 
[e-mail] 

Olivia, 

Thank you for the comments regarding the Walnut Wood Mitigation Site.  I am the PM for this project and had a couple 
questions after reviewing your letter. 

1. The second paragraph of your letter describes a project named Carpenter Bottom in Gaston County within the 
Catawba River Basin.  I wanted to check and make sure the remainder of the document is correct and just this 
description is a carry‐over from a previous letter. 
2. You noted a recommendation for aquatic survey with Brena.  Is that something that I will coordinate with Brena 
and her team will complete the survey? 

We look forward to working with you on this project. 

2
Thank you, 

Matt Butler, PMP 
Project Manager   
RES | res.us 
Direct: 919.209.1067 | Mobile: [phone] 

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. 

Appendix H – Plan Set

WALNUT WOOD MITIGATION BANKGUILFORD COUNTY, NCVICINITY MAPSITE MAPSHEETC1A1E1E2E3DM1S1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S12XS1P1F1D1D2D3D4D5D6TITLECOVERAERIAL OVERVIEWNOTESEXISTING CONDITIONSPARCELS/REGULATORYOVERLAYDEMOLITIONREACH WW1.0REACH WW1.1REACH WW2.0REACH WW2.1REACH WW2.2REACH WW3.0REACH WW3.1REACH WW3.2REACH WW3.3CLIMAX CREEK 1.0CLIMAX CREEK 1.1CLIMAX CREEK 1.2CROSS SECTIONSPLANTING PLANFENCING PLANDETAILSDETAILSDETAILSDETAILSDETAILSDETAILSRESOURCE ENVIRONMENTALSOLUTIONS, LLC3600 GLENWOOD, STE 100RALEIGH, NC 27612S1S2S6S5S4S3S7S8S9 S10S
1
1
S12PROJECT SITELocation InformationOwner:Kory Strader, Marjorie Brett WrayStraderOwner Address:5616 Coble Church Rd. Julian, NC27283Owner Phone Number:919.209.1067Site Latitude & Longitude:35.979963, -79.646371River Basin:Cape FearPIN:8801829027-000Deed Book & Page:8110-2408Zoning:AG-AgriculturalJordan Lake Buffer:YesRandleman Lake Buffer:NoTotal Acreage:145.10Disturbed Acreage:30.9
REACH WW1REACH WW2REACH WW3CLIMAX CREEKCONSERVATIONEASEMENTPARCEL BOUNDARYFeet0120240Alamance Church Rd.Alamance Church Rd.HEADWATER WETLAND(SEE DETAIL 3/D3)POND WW2.1POND WW2.2POND WW2.3POND WW2.4PROPOSED FLOODPLAINSTORAGEPROPOSED ROAD(SEE DETAIL 4/D4)PROPOSED ROAD(SEE DETAIL 4/D4)POND WW1.1POND WW3.1POND DAM TOBE REMOVEDPOND DAM TOBE REMOVEDPOND DAM TOBE REMOVED
LEGENDEXISTING CONTOURSEXISTING TREEEXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING FENCEEXISTING STREAM TOSEXISTING CART PATHPROPOSED CONTOURSPROPOSED TOP OF BANKPROPOSED THALWEGFLOODPLAIN CORRIDORGRADING LIMITSEXISTING WETLANDEROSION CONTROL NOTES:1.ALL EROSION CONTROL NEAR ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION MUST BE SETUP AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF GRADINGOPERATIONS.2.ALL SLOPES SHALL BE SEEDED AND STABILIZED WITH A DENSE COVERAGE OF GRASS. ANY EXPOSED OR BARE SLOPES SHALL BE RE-SEEDED OR PROTECTED WITH EROSION CONTROLMATTING. EROSION CONTROL MATTING SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ROLANKA COIR MAT 70 AND INCLUDE LESS THAN 40% OPENINGS.3.ALL BACKFILL SHALL BE SUITABLE FOR PLANT GROWTH AND GENERALLY FREE OF DEBRIS OR OTHER MATERIAL GREATER THAN 2 INCHES IN SIZE.4.ALL ELEVATIONS AND CHANNEL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MET WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF 0.1'5.STABILIZATION MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOLLOWING COMPLETED AREAS OF CONSTRUCTION. SPECIFIC SEEDING REQUIREMENTS ARE PROVIDED INTHE PLANTING PLAN.6.PROVIDE TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT GROUNDCOVER ON ALL EXPOSED AREAS WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF ANY PHASE OF GRADING. PROVIDE APERMANENT GROUNDCOVER FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 14 WORKING DAYS OR WITHIN 90 CALENDAR DAYS (WHICHEVER IS SHORTER) FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTIONOR DEVELOPMENT.7.ALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE INSPECTED EVERY SEVEN (7) DAYS OR AFTER EACH RAINFALL OCCURRENCE THAT EXCEEDS ONE-HALF (1/2) INCH. DAMAGEDOR INEFFECTIVE DEVICES SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED, AS NECESSARY.8.ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED DURING ALL PHASES OF THE CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND ALLDISTURBED AREAS HAVE BEEN STABILIZED. ADDITIONAL CONTROL DEVICES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO CONTROL EROSION AND/OR OFF-SITE SEDIMENTATION.ALL TEMPORARY CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE REMOVED ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED.9.THE CONTRACTOR MUST TAKE NECESSARY ACTION TO MINIMIZE THE TRACKING OF MUD OFF SITE AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DAILY REMOVE MUD/SOIL FROM PAVEMENT, AS MAYBE REQUIRED.10.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCOMPLISH ALL STREAMBANK EXCAVATION FROM OUTSIDE THE ACTIVE CHANNEL WHENEVER POSSIBLE. ALL DISTURBED STREAMBANK MUST BESTABILIZED WITH SEEDING, MULCH AND EROSION CONTROL MATTING BY THE END OF EACH WORKDAY.PROJECT NARRATIVE:THIS PROJECT INVOLVES THE BREACHING OF FIVE DAMS ON OLD FARM PONDS, THE RESTORATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,700 LF OF NATURAL STREAMS, AND THE ENHANCEMENT OFAPPROXIMATELY 2,700 LF OF CLIMAX CREEK. THIS PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN JULIAN, NORTH CAROLINA ON WALNUT WOODS GOLF COURSE WHICH HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR SEVERALYEARS. THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK INVOLVES THE INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND GRADING, AS WELL AS REMOVAL OF EXISTINGSTRUCTURES. ALL WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTION AND INSPECTION OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER.THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE CAPE FEAR WATERSHED AND THERE IS A FEMA REGULATED FLOODPLAIN IN THE PROJECT AREA. CLIMAX CREEK HAS A REGULATED FEMAFLOODPLAIN ASSOCIATED WITH IT. CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS PROJECT SHOULD LAST FROM 90 TO 180 DAYS WITH ALL WORK BEING COMPLETED IN DRY WEATHER CONDITIONS. THISPROJECT IS PROPOSING THE USE OF SILT FENCE ON ALL DOWN SLOPE AREAS TO ENSURE THAT NO SEDIMENT LEAVES THE SITE IN A POTENTIAL RAIN EVENT.PROJECT NOTES:THE LOCATION AND ALIGNMENT OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE FINAL LOCATION AND ALIGNMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED DURING CONSTRUCTION USING BESTPROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND APPROVED BY RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS.MATERIALS LISTS ARE PROVIDED AS AN APPROXIMATION ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF STONE, BACKFILL, OR OTHER ITEMSNECESSARY TO PROPERLY COMPLETE THE JOB.THE LATEST VERSION OF THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS APPLIES TO THESE SPECIFICATIONS:A.NCDOT “STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROADS AND STRUCTURES”, DATED JULY 2006B.NCDEQ “EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL" 2006THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL THE “CALL BEFORE YOU DIG” TOLL FREE NUMBER TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL UTILITIES ARE LOCATED AND MARKED. ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES ISTHE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.ANY DAMAGE RESULTING FROM ACTIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR TO STRUCTURES OR GROUNDS ON SITE WILL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR, TO AQUALITY MEETING OR EXCEEDING THEIR PREVIOUS STANDARDS.THE CONTRACTOR IS TO ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING AND DISPOSING OF ANY MAN-MADE MATERIALS OR OTHER DEBRIS THAT LIE WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, AS REQUESTED ANDAPPROVED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE STREETS IN FRONT OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE WILL BE KEPT CLEAN AT ALL TIMES. IF NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THIS TASKA WASH STATION MAY BE REQUIRED.CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE(PROFILE VIEW)GUILFORD COUNTY GENERAL PLAN NOTES:1.SOIL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES MUST BE INSTALLED INITIALLY AFTER THEGRADING PERMIT IS ISSUE AND PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING. EROSION CONTROLSTAFF WILL CHECK THESE DEVICES FOR PROPER INSTALLATION AND COMPLIANCE WITHTHE APPROVED PLAN. A DEVICE RELEASE IS REQUIRED BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF ANYCOMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT.2.DURING DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, THE PERSON FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FORTHE LAND-DISTURBING SHALL INSTALL AND MAINTAIN ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENTEROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AS REQUIRED BY THE APPROVED PLANOR BY ANY PROVISION OF THE GUILFORD COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ANDAPPLICABLE TOWN ORDINANCES. ADDITIONAL DEVICES MAY BE REQUIRED BY THEEROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR IF NECESSARY.3.IF FILL MATERIALS ARE BEING BROUGHT ONTO THIS PROPERTY OR IF WASTEMATERIALS ARE TAKEN FROM THIS PROJECT, THIS INFORMATION MUST BE DISCLOSEDAND SHOWN ON THE EROSION CONTROL AND GRADING PLAN. BORROW AREAS ANDDUMP SITES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THIS PLAN.4.UNDER THE GUILFORD COUNTY SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLORDINANCE (AND APPLICABLE TOWN ORDINANCES); AGENTS, OFFICIALS, OR OTHERQUALIFIED PERSONS ARE AUTHORIZED TO PERIODICALLY INSPECT THE SITES OFLAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. OBSTRUCTING, HAMPERING, OR INTERFERING WITH SUCHINSPECTIONS CARRIES UP TO A $5000 PER DAY CIVIL PENALTY. THE INSTIGATION OF THISCIVIL PENALTY REQUIRES NO PRIOR NOTICE.5.IN AN EFFORT TO MINIMIZE EROSION AND EXPOSURE TIME, EASEMENT AREASSHALL NOT BE GRUBBED OR GRADED UNTIL UTILITIES ARE READY TO BE INSTALLED.ALSO, THE IMMEDIATE SEEDING OF THE DISTURBED EASEMENT AREAS AFTER UTILITIESARE INSTALLED WILL ELIMINATE MANY PROBLEMS. EASEMENT AREAS WHICH CROSS ORARE ADJACENT TO WATERCOURSES SHOULD RECEIVE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.6.NO LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY SHALL BE PERMITTED IN PROXIMITY TO A LAKE ORNATURAL WATERCOURSE UNLESS A BUFFER ZONE IS PROVIDED ALONG THE MARGIN OFTHE WATER BODY OF SUFFICIENT WIDTH TO CONFINE VISIBLE SILTATION WITHIN THEFIRST 25% OF THE BUFFER NEAREST THE LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY.7.SIDE DITCHES 2% OR STEEPER SHALL BE RIP-RAPPED; OR SEEDED AND STABILIZEDWITH EXCELSIOR MATTING (OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL); OR STABILIZED BY ANYOTHER METHOD APPROVED BY THE COUNTY SOIL EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR.8.IF A PERMANENT POND IS USED AS A SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE OR ISDESIGNATED AS A PERMANENT WATER QUALITY POND, IT MUST BE CLEANED OFSEDIMENT WHEN HALF FULL. IT MUST ALSO BE CLEANED OUT TO DESIGN VOLUME;ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION SUBMITTED AND FINAL INSPECTIONPERFORMED BY COUNTY STAFF BEFORE THE GRADING PERMIT IS FINALIZED.9.CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES DISTURBING 1 OR MORE ACRES WILL NEED TOCOMPLETE AN E-NOI TO OBTAIN COVERAGE UNDER THE NCGO1 (AVAILABLE ATDEQ.NC.GOV/NCGO1) UPON COUNTY’S APPROVAL OF EROSION CONTROL PLAN ASREQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT. WITHIN 24 TO 48 BUSINESS HOURS OFDEMLR RECEIVING PAYMENT WITH E-NOI FORM, THE APPLICANT WILL RECEIVE AN EMAILWITH THE CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE (COC) ATTACHED. SECTION B OF THIS PERMITREQUIRES THE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE OWNER(S) TO PERIODICALLY INSPECT ALLSEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AND TO KEEP A RECORD OF THESEINSPECTIONS. FURTHERMORE, THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL, AND LAND RESOURCES REQUIRES THEFINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE OWNER(S) TO SELF-INSPECT THE SITE AT VARIOUS PHASESOF DEVELOPMENT. THESE PHASES ARE OUTLINED ON THE COMBINED SELF-MONITORING,AND INSPECTION FORM.10.THE ANGLE FOR GRADED SLOPES AND FILLS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN THEANGLE THAT CAN RETAIN VEGETATION COVER OR OTHER ADEQUATE EROSION CONTROLDEVICES OR STRUCTURES. THE NPDES PERMIT REQUIRES THAT PERIMETER SLOPES,BERMS, SWALES, DITCHES, SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1, AND AREAS WITHIN HIGH WATERQUALITY (HQW) ZONES TO BE SEEDED WITHIN 7 DAYS. SLOPES LESS THAN 10 FEET INLENGTH AND ALL OTHER AREAS MUST BE SEEDED WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER FINAL GRADEIS ESTABLISHED.11. THE OWNER(S) IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE OF THEGROUND COVER ON THE PROPERTY. GROUND COVER MUST BE MAINTAINED TO ADEGREE THAT PREVENTS SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION AT ALL TIMES.12.ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN IS CONDITIONED UPON THE PROPERTYOWNER(S) COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE WATER QUALITY LAWS,REGULATIONS, AND RULES. IN ADDITION, LOCAL TOWN OR COUNTY ORDINANCES ORRULES MAY ALSO APPLY TO THIS LANDDISTURBING ACTIVITY. THIS APPROVAL DOES NOTSUPERSEDE ANY OTHER PERMIT OR APPROVAL.13.NO TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURE(S) MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUTAPPROVAL FROM THE SITE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. DEVICES REMOVED WITHOUTAPPROVAL OF THE INSPECTOR MAY RESULT IN ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INCLUDINGDEVICES BEING REPLACED TO APPROVED PLAN SPECIFICATIONS.JORDAN LAKE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS:TEMPORARY SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL DEVICES, PROVIDED THAT THEDISTURBED AREA IS RESTORED TO PRE-CONSTRUCTION TOPOGRAPHIC ANDHYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE ANDREPLANTED IMMEDIATELY WITH COMPARABLE VEGETATION, EXCEPT THAT TREEPLANTING MAY OCCUR DURING THE DORMANT SEASON. A ONE-TIME APPLICATION OFFERTILIZER MAY BE USED TO ESTABLISH VEGETATION. AT THE END OF FIVE YEARSTHE RESTORED BUFFER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RESTORATION CRITERIA INSECTION 9.(C)(7) OF THIS ORDINANCE:·IN ZONE TWO PROVIDED GROUND COVER IS ESTABLISHED WITHIN TIME FRAMESREQUIRED BY THE SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL ACT, VEGETATION INZONE ONE IS NOT COMPROMISED, AND RUNOFF IS RELEASED AS DIFFUSE FLOW INACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7.(E) OF THIS ORDINANCE.·IN ZONES ONE AND TWO TO CONTROL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH USES APPROVEDBY GUILFORD COUNTY OR THAT HAVE RECEIVED A VARIANCE, PROVIDED THATSEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL FOR UPLAND AREAS IS ADDRESSED, TO THEMAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL, OUTSIDE THE BUFFER.·IN-STREAM TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES FOR WORKWITHIN A STREAM CHANNEL THAT IS AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTIONS 401 AND 404 OFTHE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT.IN-STREAM TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES FOR WORKWITHIN A STREAM CHANNEL.(Sheets: S1-S9)MATERIAL ESTIMATES:CUT: 19,940 CYFILL: 23,537 CY#57 STONE: 100 TN#4 STONE: 115 TNCLASS A STONE: 100 TNCLASS B STONE: 230 TNCLASS 1 STONE: 250 TNSMALL BOULDERS: 40 TN30" HDPE PIPE: 190 LF36" HDPE PIPE: 95 LFPROPOSED RESTORATIONUNITMITIGATION TYPESTREAM LENGTH(LF)AREA (AC)REACH 1RESTORATION986-REACH 2RESTORATION1549-REACH 3RESTORATION2029-CLIMAX CREEKENHANCEMENT II2703-LIVE STAKE/ MATTING REPAIREASEMENT BOUNDARYBRIDGE REMOVAL/TYPICALBANK GRADINGOUTLET STABILIZATIONCONSTRUCTED RIFFLELOG SILLBRUSH TOENCDOT CLASS 1 STONELOG SILL WITH STONE TOENRCS GATERIFFLE GRADE CONTROLSMALL BOULDERBRUSH TOE/BANK REPAIR(Sheets: S1-S9)(Sheets: E2, S1-S12)(Sheets: E2,S1-S12, P1)(Sheets: E2, S3-S6, S9-S12, P1)(Sheets: E2, S1, S3)(Sheets: E2, S10-S12, P1)(Sheets: E2, S1-S4, S6, S10-S12, P1)(Sheets: S1-S9)(Sheets: S1-S9)(Sheets: S1-S9)(Sheets: S1-S12, P1)(Sheets: S1-S9)(Sheets: S1-S9)(Sheets: S1-S9)(Sheets: F1)(Sheets: S5, S11, S12 )(Sheets: S4, S7)(Sheets: E2-E5)(Sheets: S10)(Sheets: S12)(Sheets: S5, S11-S12)(Sheets: S10-S11)(Sheets: S1-S9)STREAM CONSTRUCTION NOTES:1. ALL PROPOSED CHANNELS AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT CROSSINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN A DRY CONDITION VIA OFFLINE CONSTRUCTION WHERE POSSIBLE. PUMP AROUNDOPERATIONS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO AREAS WHERE THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED CHANNEL ALIGNMENTS OVERLAP.2. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND PUMPING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREAM AT THE END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL UNLESSOTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. WITH APPROVAL, A PUMP AROUND MAY BE ALLOWED TO RUN CONTINUOUSLY IF THERE IS NO FORECAST FOR RAIN OVERNIGHT, AND/OR THE PUMPAPPARATUS IS MAINTAINED AND MONITORED CONTINUOUSLY.3. POND DAM BREACHING SHALL BE DONE IN STARTING WITH THE MOST UPSTREAM DAM AND WORKING DOWNSTREAM. IF DAM BREACH IS TO BE LEFT FOR MORE THAN 7 DAYS STABILIZEACCORDING TO DAM BREACH DETAIL (SEE DETAIL 3/D2).4. CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE CHANNEL FIRST, WORKING IN AN UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTALSOLUTIONS.5. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL WITHIN AREAS THAT ARE TO BE CUT 9" OR MORE BELOW EXISTING GRADE. STOCKPILED TOPSOIL IS TO BE PLACED ALONG THE FLOODPLAIN BENCHES.REMOVE AND STOCKPILE ORGANIC MATERIAL FROM POND BOTTOM. THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED ALONG FINISHED GRADE TO A DEPTH OF 3 INCHES.6. INSTALL STRUCTURES AS SHOWN ON PLANS AND DETAILS. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING, OBTAIN APPROVAL OF RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS ON INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.7. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS. THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW/RIFFLE CHANNELSECTIONS. IN AREAS WHERE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH NATIVE SUBSTRATE TO PLACE A MINIMUM 6" LAYER, SUPPLEMENT THE NATIVE SUBSTRATE WITH A 50 50 MIX OF #57 AND #4 STONE, ORRIVER ROCK WITH A D50=1.5".8. IN-STREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS (BRUSH TOES, AND COIR LOG) MAY BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PERAPPROVAL FROM RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS.9. UPON COMPLETION OF FINE GRADING, INSTALL STREAM BANK STABILIZATION INCLUDING, EROSION CONTROL MATTING OR SOD MATS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS.10. FILL AND STABILIZE ABANDONED SEGMENTS OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL PER DIRECTION OF RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS.(Sheets: S1-S9)LOG SILL(PROFILE VIEW)(Sheets: S1-S9)SEEDING NOTES:1.RE-SEED ALL SLOPES AND DISTURBED AREAS AS DIRECTED. TEMPORARY TURF SEEDING OF: 120 LBS/ACRE RYEGRAIN - AUGUST THROUGH APRIL 40 LBS/ACRE BROWNTOP MILLET-MAY THROUGH JULY PERMANENT TURF SEEDING (SPRING/SUMMER ONLY) OF: 15 LBS/ACRE KY BLUEGRASS 5LBS/ACRE CENTIPEDE 25 LBS/ACRE BERMUDAGRASS (HULLED).2.APPLY FERTILIZER (10-20-20) AT A RATE OF 500LBS/AC AND LIME AT 2TONS/ACRE WITH 3 TONS/ACRE IN CLAY SOILS..3.SPREAD STRAW MULCH ON ANY DISTURBED AREAS AT A RATE OF 2 TNS /ACRE. ANCHOR STRAW BY TACKING WITH BIODEGRADABLENETTING OR A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL.4.COVER ALL SLOPES GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 3(H):1(V) WITH COIR MATTING AND SECURE WITH BIODEGRADABLE STAKING. MULCHINGSHALL BE PLACED UNDERNEATH COIR MATTING AT A RATE OF 2 TNS/ACRE.SMALL BOULDER(PROFILE VIEW)(Sheets: S4,S8)(Sheets: S1-S9)
SCALE: 1IN=120FTFeet0120240EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY COMPILED BY ASCENSION LANDSURVEYING, PCMAJOR CONTOURSMINOR CONTOURSEXISTING TREEEXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING WETLANDEXISTING STREAMEXISTING CART PATHJORDAN LAKE BUFFERCLIMAX CREEK THALWEGEXISTING WOODEN FENCEEXISTING ELECTRIC LINEPARCEL BOUNDARYJORDAN LAKEBUFFER LINESCLIMAX CREEKTOP OF BANKCLIMAX CREEKTHALWEGEXISTING STORMWATERPIPEEXISTING WETLANDEXISTING WETLANDEXISTING CONTOUREXISTING WETLANDALAMANCE CHURCH RD.POND WW2.1POND WW2.2POND WW2.3POND WW2.4POND WW1.1POND WW3.1EXISTING STORMWATERPIPEEXISTING STORMWATERPIPEEXISTING WETLANDEXISTING BRIDGEEXISTING BRIDGEEXISTING BRIDGEEXISTING PIERASSUMED EXISTINGDRAINAGE PIPEASSUMED DRAINAGEPIPE
PARCEL BOUNDARYEXISTING CONTOUR100-YR. FLOODPLAINFLOODWAY100-YR ELEV. 622'100-YR ELEV. 626'100-YR ELEV. 628'100-YR ELEV. 630'100-YR ELEV. 632'JORDAN LAKE BUFFERLINESCLIMAX CREEKCLASSIFICATION:WS-IV;NSW100-YR ELEV. 625'100-YR. FLOODPLAINEXISTING WETLANDFeet0200400EXISTING WETLANDS
REMOVE AND DISPOSEOF BRIDGEREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF CART PATHEASEMENT LIMITSREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF CART PATHREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF CART PATHREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF CART PATHREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF CART PATHREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF CART PATHREMOVE SAND TRAPPIER AND INFRASTRUCTURETO BE REMOVEDFeet0120240REMOVE EXISTINGVEGETATIONCLEAR AND GRUB, TYPEASEMENT FENCINGREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF 18" RCP DRAINAGE PIPEREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF YARD INLETS(10 INLETS TOTAL IN THIS REACH)REMOVE AND DISPOSEOF CART PATHPARCEL BOUNDARYBRIDGE TO REMAINREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF BRIDGEREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF BRIDGEEASEMENT BOUNDARYMAJOR CONTOURMINOR CONTOUREXISTING TREEEXISTING TREE LINEPARCEL BOUNDARYEXISTING STREAMEXISTING CART PATHCLIMAX CREEK THALWEGEASEMENT BOUNDARYEXISTING ELECTRIC LINEREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF 18" RCP DRAINAGE PIPEREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF YARD INLETS(3 INLETS TOTAL IN THIS REACH)REMOVE AND DISPOSEOF YARD INLETS(2 INLETS TOTAL IN THIS REACH)REMOVE AND DISPOSEOF 18" RCP DRAINAGE PIPEREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF YARD INLETS(3 INLETS TOTAL IN THIS REACH)INVESTIGATE AREA FOR YARD INLET.IF FOUND REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF YARD INLETEXISTING TREE TOBE REMOVEDCLEAR AND GRUBREMOVE AND STOCKPILEEXISTING TREE, TYPREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF FENCEREMOVE AND DISPOSEOF FENCEEXISTING FENCEALAMANCE CHURCH RD.REMOVE AND STOCKPILEEXISTING TREE, TYPASSUMED DRAINAGEPIPEASSUMED DRAINAGE PIPETO BE LOCATED IN THE FIELD.REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF PIPEASSUMED DRAINAGE PIPETO BE LOCATED IN THE FIELD.REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF PIPE
Station=0+00.00elev = 645.9Station=0+19.00elev = 644.9Station=0+34.00elev = 644.5Station=0+55.15elev = 643.5Station=0+63.14elev = 643.4Station=0+92.98elev = 642.9Station=1+01.28elev = 642.7Station=1+24.28elev = 642.4Station=1+35.73elev = 642.0Station=1+61.57elev = 641.5Station=1+74.31elev = 641.2Station=2+07.69elev = 640.7Station=2+17.68elev = 640.4Station=2+46.46elev = 639.9Station=2+56.36elev = 639.6Station=2+83.92elev = 638.6Station=2+93.84elev = 638.3Station=3+16.81elev = 637.3Station=3+31.37elev = 636.8Station=3+40.93elev = 635.8Station=3+48.24elev = 635.6Station=3+69.55elev = 634.6Station=3+84.31elev = 634.2Station=4+02.00elev = 633.2Station=4+26.00elev = 631.9Station=4+34.85elev = 631.7Station=4+49.85elev = 631.0Station=4+64.50elev = 630.5Station=4+81.97elev = 629.5Station=4+91.10elev = 629.3Station=4+10.00elev = 632.9LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)REACH WW1EXISTING GROUNDCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)WW 1.1WW 1.1M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

T
O
S
H
E
E
T

S
2BRUSH TOE(SEE DETAIL 4/D3)GRADING LIMITSTOP OF BANKTHALWEGPOOLCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)EXISTINGPONDSCALE: 1IN = 20FTPROFILE VIEWREACH WW1 - PLAN VIEWFeet02040EASEMENTBOUNDARYHORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEETVERTICAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 4 FEETFUTURE POND OUTLET PIPELOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)EXISTINGCONTOURPROPOSEDCONTOURPROPOSEDTOP OF BANK
Station=5+18.40elev = 628.3Station=5+27.66elev = 628.0Station=5+45.99elev = 627.0Station=5+67.24elev = 626.4Station=5+80.58elev = 625.4Station=6+06.59elev = 624.6Station=6+29.41elev = 623.6Station=6+37.26elev = 623.3Station=6+54.24elev = 622.3Station=6+70.24elev = 621.8Station=6+93.96elev = 620.8Station=7+08.05elev = 620.4Station=7+31.21elev = 619.4Station=7+39.31elev = 619.2Station=7+60.00elev = 618.9Station=7+67.82elev = 618.7Station=7+85.93elev = 618.6Station=7+99.83elev = 618.1Station=8+12.19elev = 617.9Station=8+26.01elev = 617.5Station=8+47.21elev = 617.2Station=8+56.62elev = 617.0Station=8+75.89elev = 616.8Station=8+84.97elev = 616.6Station=8+98.77elev = 616.4Station=9+12.91elev = 616.0Station=9+43.13elev = 615.8Station=9+49.17elev = 615.6Station=9+66.61elev = 615.3Station=9+80.09elev = 614.9LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)REACH WW1EXISTING GROUNDCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)WW 1.1WW 1.1MATCHLINETO SHEET S1
BRUSH TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D3)GRADING LIMITSTOP OF BANKTHALWEGPOOLCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)Feet02040SCALE: 1IN=20FTPROFILE VIEWREACH WW1 - PLAN VIEWEASEMENTBOUNDARYHORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEETVERTICAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 4 FEETEXISTINGCONTOURPROPOSEDCONTOURLOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)LOG SILLEXCLUDING POOL(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)REINFORCEDSTREAM TIE-IN(SEE DETAIL 3/D3)REINFORCEDSTREAM TIE-IN(SEE DETAIL 3/D3)
Station=0+00.00elev = 673.1Station=0+25.98elev = 672.3Station=0+43.98elev = 671.3Station=0+58.98elev = 670.9Station=0+95.00elev = 670.4Station=1+43.00elev = 669.9Station=1+77.00elev = 669.4Station=2+19.00elev = 669.0Station=2+60.00elev = 668.5Station=3+05.00elev = 668.0Station=3+48.00elev = 667.5Station=3+88.00elev = 667.1Station=4+01.00elev = 666.1Station=4+14.00elev = 665.1Station=4+27.00elev = 664.1Station=4+40.00elev = 663.1Station=4+53.00elev = 662.1Station=4+78.00elev = 661.9Station=5+03.00elev = 661.9Station=5+33.00elev = 661.6Station=5+46.00elev = 660.6Station=5+59.00elev = 659.6Station=5+72.00elev = 658.6Station=5+85.00elev = 657.6Station=5+98.00elev = 656.6Station=6+11.00elev = 655.6Station=6+24.00elev = 654.6LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)REACH WW2EXISTING GROUNDCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)W
W

2
.
1 WW
2
.
1
MATCHLINE TOSHEET S4GRADING LIMITSTOP OF BANKTHALWEGPOOLCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)EASEMENTBOUNDARYSCALE: 1IN = 30FTEXISTING PONDSPROFILE VIEWREACH WW2 - PLAN VIEWLOG SILL WITH STONE TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D6)BRUSH TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D3)HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEETVERTICAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 4 FEETPROPOSEDCONTOUREXISTINGCONTOURFeet03060PROPOSEDFLOODPLAINSTORAGEPROPOSED ROAD(SEE DETAIL 4/D4)TALL SLOPE PREP(SEE DETAIL 2/D6)TALL SLOPE PREP(SEE DETAIL 2/D6)LOG SILL WITH STONE TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D6)TALL SLOPE PREP(SEE DETAIL 2/D6)LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)
Station=6+37.00elev = 653.6Station=6+57.00elev = 653.0Station=6+77.00elev = 652.7Station=7+40.00elev = 651.3Station=7+50.02elev = 651.0Station=7+77.00elev = 650.4Station=7+97.00elev = 650.2Station=8+17.00elev = 649.6Station=8+37.00elev = 649.3Station=8+57.00elev = 648.7Station=8+77.00elev = 648.5Station=8+97.00elev = 647.9Station=9+17.00elev = 647.6Station=9+37.00elev = 647.0Station=9+57.00elev = 646.8Station=9+77.00elev = 646.2Station=9+97.00elev = 645.9Station=10+17.00elev = 645.3Station=10+37.00elev = 645.1Station=10+57.00elev = 644.5Station=10+77.00elev = 644.2Station=10+97.00elev = 643.6Station=11+17.00elev = 643.4Station=11+30.00elev = 642.4Station=11+43.00elev = 641.4Station=11+56.00elev = 640.4Station=11+69.00elev = 639.4Station=11+82.00elev = 638.4Station=11+95.00elev = 637.4Station=12+08.00elev = 636.4Station=12+21.00elev = 635.4Station=6+86.70elev = 652.5EXISTING GROUNDCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)WW 2.1WW 2.1MATCHLINE TOSHEET S3
GRADING LIMITSTOP OF BANKTHALWEGCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)EASEMENTBOUNDARYLOG SILL WITH STONE TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D6)LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)WW 2.2WW 2.2MATC
H
L
I
N
E

T
O
SHEET

S
5
SCALE: 1IN = 30FTBRUSH TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D3)EXISTINGPONDPROFILE VIEWREACH WW2 - PLAN VIEWPROPOSED ROADTOP ELEV.= 657.00'CHANNEL CULVERTLENGTH: 50 FEETDIAMETER: 36 INCHESMATERIAL: HDPEPROPOSED ROAD(SEE DETAIL 4/D4)REMOVE EXISTING WALLCULVERT PLUNGE POOL(SEE DETAIL 3/D4)HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEETVERTICAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 4 FEETPROPOSEDCONTOUREXISTINGCONTOUR5' MIN GAP BETWEEN EASEMENTBOUNDARY AND END OF CULVERTFeet03060PROPOSEDFLOODPLAIN STORAGEPROPOSED CULVERTLENGTH: 50 FEETDIAMETER: 36 INCHESMATERIAL: HDPEPROPOSED CULVERTLENGTH: 50 FEETDIAMETER: 30 INCHESMATERIAL: HDPETALL SLOPE PREP(SEE DETAIL 2/D6)FLOODPLAIN CULVERTDISSIPATOR PADLENGTH: 6 FEETWIDTH: 4 FEETMATERIAL: NCDOT CLASS 1 STONEFLOODPLAIN CULVERTDISSIPATOR PADLENGTH: 6 FEETWIDTH: 4 FEETMATERIAL: NCDOT CLASS 1 STONELOG SILL WITH STONE TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D6)SMALL BOULDER, TYPPOOLTALL SLOPE PREP(SEE DETAIL 2/D6)LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)
Station=12+34.00elev = 634.4Station=12+47.00elev = 633.4Station=12+59.00elev = 633.3Station=12+84.00elev = 632.3Station=13+11.00elev = 632.0Station=13+28.00elev = 631.0Station=13+73.00elev = 630.6Station=14+12.00elev = 629.6Station=14+53.00elev = 629.1Station=14+70.00elev = 628.1Station=14+87.00elev = 627.1Station=15+04.00elev = 626.1Station=15+21.00elev = 625.1Station=15+38.00elev = 624.1Station=15+55.00elev = 623.1Station=15+89.00elev = 621.1Station=16+06.00elev = 620.1Station=15+72.00elev = 622.1EXISTING GROUNDCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)WW 2.2WW 2.2MATCHLINE TOSHEET S4
GRADING LIMITSTOP OF BANKTHALWEGCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)EASEMENTBOUNDARYLOG SILL WITH STONE TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D6)LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)SCALE: 1IN = 20FTEXISTINGPONDCLIMAX CREEKBRUSH TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D3)Feet02040PROFILE VIEWREACH WW2 - PLAN VIEWTIE-INREMOVE AND DISPOSE OF BRIDGETYPICAL BANK GRADING(SEE DETAIL 2/D2)RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL(SEE DETAIL 1/D4)CLIMAX CREEKTHALWEGHORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEETVERTICAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 4 FEETEXISTINGCONTOURPROPOSEDCONTOURLOG SILL WITH STONE TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D6)REINFORCED STREAM TIE-IN(SEE DETAIL 3/D5)REINFORCED STREAM TIE-IN(SEE DETAIL 3/D5)POOLLOG SILL WITH STONE TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D6)LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)EASEMENTBOUNDARY
LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)REACH WW3CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)WW 3.1WW 3.1MATC
H
LI
N
E
T
O
SHEE
T
S
7BRUSH TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D3)GRADING LIMITSHEADWATER WETLAND(SEE DETAIL 3/D3)EASEMENTBOUNDARYFeet02040THALWEGEXISTINGGROUNDCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)TOP OF BANKPROFILE VIEWREACH WW3 - PLAN VIEWSCALE: 1IN = 20FTEXISTING CONTOURHORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEETVERTICAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 2 FEETPROPOSED CONTOURLOG SILL WITH STONE TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D6)POOL
LOG SILL WITH STONE TOE , TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D6)REACH WW3CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)WW 3.2WW 3.2MAT
C
H
L
I
N
E

T
O
SHE
E
T

S
8 BRUSH TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D3)GRADING LIMITSPROPOSED CULVERTS(SEE DETAIL 2/D4)WW 3.1WW 3.1MATCHLINE TOSHEET S6
PROPOSED ROADTOP ELEV. = 645.00'Feet02040SCALE: 1IN = 20FTTHALWEGEXISTINGGROUNDCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)LOG SILL WITH STONE TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)EXISTING PONDTOP OF BANKPROFILE VIEWREACH WW3 - PLAN VIEWHORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEETVERTICAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 4 FEETPROPOSED CONTOURTALL SLOPE PREP(SEE DETAIL 2/D6)TALL SLOPE PREP(SEE DETAIL 2/D6)NCDOT CLASS 1 STONEEASEMENT BOUNDARYPOOLLOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)
LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)REACH WW3CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)BRUSH TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D3)GRADING LIMITSPROPOSED ROADTOP ELEV. = 645.50'(SEE DETAIL 4/D4)Feet02040THALWEGEXISTINGGROUNDCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)TOP OF BANKWW 3.2 WW 3.2MATCHLINE TOSHEET S7
WW 3.3WW 3.3MAT
C
H
L
I
N
E

T
O
SHE
E
T

S
9 SCALE: 1IN = 20FTPROFILE VIEWREACH WW3 - PLAN VIEWEXISTING CONTOURHORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEETVERTICAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 4 FEETPROPOSED CONTOURREACH WW3THALWEGPROPOSED CULVERTLENGTH: 45 FEETDIAMETER: 36 INCHESMATERIAL: HDPEPROPOSED CULVERTSLENGTH: 45 FEETDIAMETER: 30 INCHESMATERIAL: HDPECHANNEL CULVERTLENGTH: 45 FEETDIAMETER: 36 INCHESMATERIAL: HDPEPROPOSED ROAD(SEE DETAIL 4/D4)CULVERT PLUNGE POOL(SEE DETAIL 3/D4)EASEMENT BOUNDARYFLOODPLAIN CULVERTDISSIPATOR PADLENGTH: 6 FEETWIDTH: 4 FEETMATERIAL: NCDOT CLASS 1 STONEFLOODPLAIN CULVERTDISSIPATOR PADLENGTH: 6 FEETWIDTH: 4 FEETMATERIAL: NCDOT CLASS 1 STONESMALL BOULDER, TYPPOOL5' MIN GAP BETWEENEASEMENT BOUNDARYAND END OF CULVERT
LOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)REACH WW3NCDOT CLASS 1 STONECONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)BRUSH TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D3)GRADING LIMITSTHALWEGEXISTINGGROUNDCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D5)Feet02040TOP OF BANKWW 3.3WW 3.3MATCHLINE TOSHEET S8 SCALE: 1IN = 20FTTIE-INPROFILE VIEWREACH WW3 - PLAN VIEWEXISTING CONTOURHORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEETVERTICAL SCALE: 1 INCH = 2 FEETPROPOSEDCONTOURLOG SILL, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D2)EASEMENT BOUNDARYNCDOT CLASS 1 STONEPOOLLOG SILL WITH STONE TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D6)LOG SILL WITH STONE TOE, TYP(SEE DETAIL 1/D6)
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF BRIDGE.TYPICAL BANK GRADING(SEE DETAIL 2/D2)OUTFALL STABILIZATION(SEE DETAIL 1/D5)BRUSH TOE(SEE DETAIL 4/D3)REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF BRIDGE.TYPICAL BANK GRADING(SEE DETAIL 2/D2)REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF BRIDGETYPICAL BANK GRADING(SEE DETAIL 2/D2)CC 2CC 2MATCHLINE T
O
SHEET S11
Feet03060EASEMENT BOUNDARYENHANCEMENT II(CLIMAX CREEK)CLIMAX CREEKTOP OF BANK
4809627.409GSRIFFLE GRADE CONTROL(SEE DETAIL 1/D4)BRUSH TOE(SEE DETAIL 4/D3)REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF BRIDGE.TYPICAL BANK GRADING(SEE DETAIL 2/D2)BRIDGE TO REMAINREMOVE AND DISPOSE OF BRIDGETYPICAL BANK GRADING(SEE DETAIL 2/D2)CC 3CC 3MATCHLINE
TOSHEET S12CC 2CC 2MATCHLINE TOSHEET S10 Feet03060EASEMENT BOUNDARYENHANCEMENT II(CLIMAX CREEK)CLIMAX CREEKTOP OF BANKPARCEL BOUNDARYREMOVE AND DISPOSE OF BRIDGETYPICAL BANK GRADING(SEE DETAIL 2/D2)
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL(SEE DETAIL 1/D4)LIVE STAKING, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D2)REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF BRIDGETYPICAL BANK GRADING(SEE DETAIL 2/D2)REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF BRIDGETYPICAL BANK GRADING(SEE DETAIL 2/D2)LIVE STAKING, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D2)REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF BRIDGETYPICAL BANK GRADING(SEE DETAIL 2/D2)LIVE STAKING, TYP(SEE DETAIL 4/D2)CC 3CC 3MATCHLINE TOSHEET S11Feet03060EASEMENT BOUNDARYREMOVE AND DISPOSE OF BRIDGETYPICAL BANK GRADING(SEE DETAIL 2D/2)ENHANCEMENT II(CLIMAX CREEK)
3:1 (H:V)5.01.50.5RIFFLE2.5:1 (H:V)1.50POOL RIGHT3:1 (H:V)6.52.20.75RIFFLE10.12.50.753:1 (H:V)8.03.01.0RIFFLE11.62.0WW1 STA:WW2 STA:WW3 STA:8.60POOL RIGHTPOOL RIGHT2.5:1 (H:V)2.5:1 (H:V)HEADWATER SECTIONSTRANSITION SECTIONSDOWNSTREAM SECTIONSHEADWATER SECTIONSTRANSITION SECTIONSDOWNSTREAM SECTIONSREACHTYPICAL STREAM SECTIONS APPLICATION TABLESTA: 0+00 TO 2+83WW1WW2WW3STA: 0+00 TO 5+33STA: 0+00 TO 4+31STA: 5+33 TO 11+07STA: 11+07 TO 16+14STA: 2+83 TO 7+31STA: 7+31 TO 9+86STA: 4+31 TO 10+50STA: 10+50 TO 20+890+00 to 283+000+00 to 533+000+00 to 431+000+00 to 283+000+00 to 533+000+00 to 431+00283+00 to 731+00533+00 to 1107+00431+00 to 1050+00283+00 to 731+00533+00 to 1107+00431+00 to 1050 +00731+00 TO 992+001107+00 TO 1615+001050+00 TO 2105+00731+00 TO 992+001107+00 TO 1615+001050+00 TO 2105+002.5:1 (H:V)1.501.00POOL LEFT8.600+00 to 283+000+00 to 533+000+00 to 431+000.502:1 (H:V)3:1 (H:V)3:1 (H:V)2.5:1 (H:V)0.631.500.250.752.503:1 (H:V)2.510.10.75POOL LEFT2.5:1 (H:V)283+00 to 731+00533+00 to 1107+00431+00 to 1050 +001.003:1 (H:V)1.500.632.252:1 (H:V)3:1 (H:V)2.41.000.250.7511.61.00POOL LEFT2.5:1 (H:V)1.003:1 (H:V)2:1 (H:V)731+00 TO 992+001107+00 TO 1615+001050+00 TO 2105 +001.500.633.000.750.500.25WW1 STA:WW2 STA:WW3 STA:WW1 STA:WW2 STA:WW3 STA:WW1 STA:WW2 STA:WW3 STA:WW1 STA:WW2 STA:WW3 STA:WW1 STA:WW2 STA:WW3 STA:WW1 STA:WW2 STA:WW3 STA:WW1 STA:WW2 STA:WW3 STA:WW1 STA:WW2 STA:WW3 STA:2.02.43:1 (H:V)2.5:1 (H:V)0.750.251.001.001.002.5:1 (H:V)3:1 (H:V)2:1 (H:V)1.503.000.630.751.001.500.632.252.5:1 (H:V)3:1 (H:V)2:1 (H:V)2.52.52.5:1 (H:V)3:1 (H:V)0.750.750.250.501.003:1 (H:V)0.250.750.501.502.501.500.631.502.5:1 (H:V)2:1 (H:V)3:1 (H:V)
LEGENDOXEYE SUNFLOWER (HELIOPSIS HELIANTHOIDES)PARTRIDGE PEA (CHAMAECRISTA FASCICULATA) SWITCHGRASS (PANICUM VIRGATUM)BUR MARIGOLD (BIDENS ARISTOSA)RIPARIANSEED MIX SILKY DOGWOOD (CURNUS AMOMUM)VIRGINIA WILDRYE (ELYMUS VIRGINICUS)QTYPLANTING LISTDEERTONGUE (DICHANTHELIUM CLANDESTINUM)INDIANGRASS (SORGHASTRUM NUTANS)HOP SEDGE (CAREX LUPULINA))BLACK EYED SUSAN (RUDBEKIA HIRTA)LIVE STAKES COMMON NAME (SCIENTIFIC)BLACK WILLOW (SALIX NIGRA)10(%)PERCENT10101015151510103603601080LURID SEDGE (CAREX LURIDA)55 FT5 FTTYPEAPPLY AT 20 LBS/ACRIPARIAN ZONECOTTONWOOD (POPULUS DELTOIDES)BARE ROOT TREE PLANTINGRIVER BIRCH (BETULA NIGRA)AMERICAN SYCAMORE (PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS)WILLOW OAK (QUERCUS PHELLOS)TULIP POPLAR (LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA)PERSIMMON (DIOSPYROS VIRGINIANA)RIPARIAN SEED MIX, LIVE STAKES, BARE ROOTTREESSPACINGLIVE STAKELIVE STAKE5 FTBARE ROOTPAWPAW (ASIMINA TRILOBA)COMMON NAME (SCIENTIFIC)TYPE19871987132413251324SPACING (FT)13259X6QTYQUANTITY ESTIMATEPLANTING NOTES:1.ALL INVASIVE SPECIES TO BE REMOVED FROM ALL ZONES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH PLANTINGS.2.ALL PLANTS SHALL BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. PLANTINGLOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL FOLLOW PLANTING ZONES ON APPROVED PLANS.3.AREAS TO BE PLANTED ARE SHOWN ON THE PLAN. IF UTILITIES ARE ENCOUNTERED, PLANTS MAY BE REPOSITIONEDSLIGHTLY TO AVOID IMPACT.4.PLANTS AND PLANTING SHALL MEET THE STANDARDS OF ANSI Z60.1 AND ANSI A 300 AND BE COMPLETED ACCORDING TOPROJECT SPECIFICATIONS.5.ALL PLANTING SHALL BE DONE IN A SUITABLE SEASONAL TIMEFRAME FOR EACH SPECIES:5.1.WETLAND SEEDING, AND PLUGS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE SPRING PRIOR TO JUNE 1 OR IN THE FALL PRIOR TOOCTOBER 31.5.2.TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED IN THEIR DORMANT SEASON AND PRIOR TO MARCH 1.6.TREES SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE AND HEALTH TO BE STABLE WITHOUT STAKING. STAKING MAY BE ALLOWED WITHAPPROVAL AND INSPECTION OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER.7.PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL NOT CONTAIN ANY FESCUE GRASSES. PLACE SEEDING AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLAN.8.A DENSE STAND OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT VEGETATION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PROJECT COMPLETION. ANYAREAS NOT ESTABLISHED MUST BE RETILLED, RESEEDED, AND PROTECTED WITH COIR MATTING.9.SPREAD SEED UNIFORMLY UNDER COIR FIBER MATTING ALONG CHANNEL BANKS.10.STABILIZE ALL EXPOSED AREAS AT STREAM BANKS WITH THE PERMANENT SEED MIX #1.11.SILKY WILLOW & SILKY DOGWOOD LIVE STAKES PLANTED ALONG OUTSIDE MEANDER BENDS AND SPACED ACCORDING TOTABLE BELOW.12.CONTAINER TREES TO BE PLANTED AT TOP OF BANK AND IN STREAM CORRIDOR/FLOODPLAIN ZONE. CONTAINER TREESTO BE PLANTED AND SPACED ACCORDING TO TABLE BELOW.13.SEE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.14.EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION ISESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSIONCONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.15.DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS.16.UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR ALLDISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EROSIONCONTROL PLAN.17.ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BY DISC OR SPRING-TOOTH CHISELPLOW TO MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSS PLANTING AREASWITH THE IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS.18.BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO TABLE BELOW. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDINGTO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2.19.TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN 6" DBH SHALL BEPERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.20.SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO 6 PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES ARE GROUPEDTOGETHER.21.BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 800 STEMS PER ACRE.22.LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH BANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHESADJACENT TO POOLS. SEE LIVE STAKE DETAIL 4/D223.PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THEFLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR AT A RATE OF 20 LBS/ACRE.24.PERCENT COMPOSITION OF PLANTINGS MAY VARY BASED ON SPECIES AVAILABILITY AT TIME OF PLANTINGFeet0120240Feet0120240WW1 PLANTINGWW2 PLANTINGWW3 PLANTINGBUFFER ZONE - LIVE STAKES, BARE ROOT TREESTEMPORARY SEEDING NOTES:1.RE-SEED ALL SLOPES AND DISTURBED AREAS AS DIRECTED. TEMPORARY TURF SEEDING OF: 120 LBS/ACRE RYEGRAIN - AUGUST THROUGH APRIL 40 LBS/ACRE BROWNTOP MILLET-MAY THROUGH JULY PERMANENT TURF SEEDING (SPRING/SUMMER ONLY) OF: 15 LBS/ACRE KY BLUEGRASS 5LBS/ACRE CENTIPEDE 25 LBS/ACRE BERMUDAGRASS (HULLED).2.APPLY FERTILIZER (10-20-20) AT A RATE OF 500LBS/AC AND LIME AT 2TONS/ACRE WITH 3 TONS/ACRE IN CLAY SOILS..3.SPREAD STRAW MULCH ON ANY DISTURBED AREAS AT A RATE OF 2 TNS /ACRE. ANCHOR STRAW BY TACKING WITHBIODEGRADABLE NETTING OR A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL.4.COVER ALL SLOPES GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 3(H):1(V) WITH COIR MATTING AND SECURE WITH BIODEGRADABLESTAKING. MULCHING SHALL BE PLACED UNDERNEATH COIR MATTING AT A RATE OF 2 TNS/ACRE.Feet0120240BARE ROOTBARE ROOTBARE ROOTBARE ROOT9X69X69X69X69X6BARE ROOTWATER OAK (QUERCUS NIGRA)CHERRYBARK OAK (QUERCUS PAGODA)NORTHERN RED OAK (QUERCUS RUBRA)BARE ROOT9X6BARE ROOT9X6BARE ROOT9X6132413251324Feet0120240CLIMAX CREEKPLANTINGSTREAM ZONE - WETLAND PLUGS, RIPARIAN SEEDMIXQTYWETLAND PLUGS COMMON NAME (SCIENTIFIC)4104104102 FTTYPESPACING2 INCH PLUGSOFT RUSH (JUNCUS EFFUSUS)SEDGE (CAREX LURIDA)SWITCHGRASS (PANICUM VIRGATUM)BLUE FLAG IRIS (IRIS VIRGINICA)2 INCH PLUG2 INCH PLUG2 INCH PLUG410LIVE STAKE2 FT2 FT2 FT
EASEMENT BOUNDARYFeet0120240PARCEL BOUNDARYMAJOR CONTOURMINOR CONTOURPARCEL BOUNDARYEXISTING STREAMCLIMAX CREEK THALWEGEASEMENT BOUNDARYWOVEN WIRE FENCINGNRCS GATEREACH WW1INSTALL 14,250 LF OF WOVEN WIRE FENCE(SEE DETAIL 1/D3)REACH WW2REACH WW3CLIMAX CREEKALAMANCE CHURCH RD.INSTALL NRCS GATE(SEE DETAIL 2/D3)INSTALL NRCS GATE(SEE DETAIL 2/D3)INSTALL NRCS GATE(SEE DETAIL 2/D3)INSTALL NRCS GATE(SEE DETAIL 2/D3)INSTALL NRCS GATE(SEE DETAIL 2/D3)INSTALL NRCS GATE(SEE DETAIL 2/D3)
PUBLIC STREETEXISTING GROUND50' MIN.18' MIN.6" MIN.NCDOT TYPE II FILTER FABRICUNDER 2"-3" COURSE AGGREGATE50' MIN.PUBLIC STREET NOTES:1.A STABILIZED ENTRANCE PAD OF 2"-3" COURSE AGGREGATE SHALL BELOCATED WHERE TRAFFIC WILL ENTER OR LEAVE THE CONSTRUCTION SITEONTO A PUBLIC STREET OR EXISTING GRAVEL/PAVED SURFACE.2.FILTER FABRIC OR COMPACTED CRUSHER RUN STONE SHALL BE USED AS ABASE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.3.THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENTTRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC STREETS OR EXISTINGPAVEMENT. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONALSTONE AS CONDITIONS WARRANT AND REPAIR OR CLEANOUT OF ANYMEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT.4.ANY SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLICSTREETS MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY.5.WHEN APPROPRIATE, WHEELS MUST BE CLEANED TO REMOVE SEDIMENTPRIOR TO ENTERING A PUBLIC STREET. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED, ITSHALL BE DONE IN AN AREA STABILIZED WITH CRUSHED STONE WHICHDRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT BASIN SEE STD. NO. 30.11B.6.NCDOT MAY REQUIRE A STANDARD COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY (STD. 10.24 &10.25) TO ACCESS THE CONSTRUCTION SITE IF THE DRIVEWAY IS ON ATHOROUGHFARE.CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCENOT TO SCALE1D1CROSS-SECTIONFOLLOWING DIMENSIONS:GREEN ECO-STAKE OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH THETHE STAKE SHALL BE THE NORTH AMERICAN12.00 IN (30.48 CM)0.40 IN (1.02 CM)0.60 IN (1.52 CM) (TAPERED TO POINT)0.40 IN (1.02 CM)1.25 IN (3.18 CM)11.00 IN (27.94 CM)TOTAL LENGTHLEG THICKNESSLEG WIDTHHEAD WIDTHLEG LENGTHHEAD THICKNESSTYPICAL TRENCH STAKE2'2"PLAN VIEWEROSION CONTROL MATTING NOTES1.BANKS SHALL BE SEEDED (PERMANENT & TEMPORARY) PRIOR TO PLACEMENTOFMATTING.2. STAKES SHALL BE PLACED IN A DIAMOND SHAPE PATTERN PER THE PLANVIEW.3. TRENCH STAKES AND WOOD STAKES SHALL BE PLACED A MAXIMUM DISTANCEAPART OF 3'.4.EROSION CONTROL MATTING (ECM) SHALL BE USED TO AID PERMANENTVEGETATEDSTABILIZATION OF SLOPES 3:1 OR STEEPER, OR AREAS SPECIFIED IN THEPLANS.5.ECM SHALL BE USED WHEN MULCH CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY TACKED ANDWHEREIMMEDIATE GROUND COVER IS REQUIRED TO PREVENT EROSION DAMAGE.6.PROVIDE A6” MINIMUM OVERLAP IN THE HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.EROSION CONTROL MATTING MAINTENANCE NOTES1.INSPECT ECM AT LEAST WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT (1/2 INCH ORGREATER)RAINFALL EVENT. REPAIR IMMEDIATELY.2.GOOD CONTACT WITH THE GROUND MUST BE MAINTAINED, AND EROSIONMUST NOTOCCUR BENEATH THE ECM.3.ANY AREAS OF THE ECM THAT ARE DAMAGED OR NOT IN CLOSE CONTACTWITH THEGROUND SHALL BE REPAIRED AND STAPLED.4.IF EROSION OCCURS DUE TO POORLY CONTROLLED DRAINAGE, THE PROBLEMSHALLBE FIXED AND THE ERODED AREA PROTECTED.5.MONITOR AND REPAIR THE ECM AS NECESSARY UNTIL GROUND COVER ISESTABLISHED.BOTTOM OF CHANNELEROSION CONTROL MATTING SHALL BEPLACED IN 12 INCH DEEP TRENCH, STAKED,BACKFILLED AND COMPACTEDTOE OF SLOPEBIODEGRADABLE STAKETOP OF STREAMBANKEROSION CONTROL MATTING SHALL BEPLACED IN 12-INCH-DEEP TRENCH, STAKED,BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED2' TRENCHSTAKE WITHNAIL2' TRENCHSTAKE WITHNAILTRENCHTOP OF BANKFIELD STAKETRENCHTOP OF BANKTOE OF SLOPEEROSION CONTROLMATTING TO BE EXTENDEDTO TRENCH AT TOE OF SLOPEEROSION CONTROL MATTINGNOT TO SCALE2D120'F
L
OW
20'WORK AREADOWNSTREAM
WORK AREA LIMIT PLAN VIEWFLOWABBNO. 57 STONEFLOW2' MIN.SECTION B-BSECTION A-APLAN VIEWA4'4'CLASS 1 STONENO. 57 STONESPILLWAY CRESTCLASS 1 STONEW (SPILLWAY) MIN 2/3 STREAM WIDTH1' BELOW LOWEST BANK LEVEL20'20'20'TSS< 50 N.T.U.CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE SEDIMENTSWHEN ACCUMULATION REACHES 12"INSTALL AND MAINTAINTHREE CHECK DAMSALL LOCATIONS INDICATEDON THE PLANS.MAINTENANCE NOTES 1. INSPECT CHECK DAMS AT LEAST WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT(1/2 INCH OR GREATER) RAINFALL EVENT AND REPAIR IMMEDIATELY.2.ANTICIPATE EROSION AROUND THE EDGE OF THE DAM, CORRECT ALLDAMAGE IMMEDIATELY.3.REMOVE SEDIMENT BEHIND DAMS WHEN ACCUMULATION REACHES 12INCHES.TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAMNOT TO SCALE4D11312NOTES:FLOWSEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TYPICAL PUMP AROUNDPUMP AROUND PUMPBASEFLOWIMPERVIOUS SHEETIMPERVIOUS DIKE1. EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY DRY SECTIONS OFCHANNEL.2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHALL BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREASFROM STREAM FLOW.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CANBE STABILIZED IN ONE WORKING DAY.4. THE PUMP AROUND PUMP SHALL ADEQUATELY CONVEY 20 CFSFOR CLIMAX CREEK.5. PROVIDE STABILZED OUTLET TO STREAM.FILTER FABRIC FORDRAINAGE NCDOTTYPE 2(NON-WOVEN)SPECIAL STILLING BASINEXISTINGGROUNDEXISTINGCHANNELTEMPORARYFLEXIBLEHOSESPECIAL STILLING BASIN (SEEPROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS)DEWATERING PUMPIMPERVIOUS DIKE (SEEPROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS)TEMPORARYPIPINGIMPERVIOUS DIKE(SEE PROJECTSPECIALPROVISIONS)SANDBAG/STONEWORKINGAREATOP OF STREAM BANK1. INSTALL SPECIAL STILLING BASINS AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATEDPROJECT WORKING AREA.2. THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARYPIPING THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK SITE.3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FORSTREAM DIVERSION.4. INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND PUMPING APPARATUS IF NEEDEDTO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSESHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA. THIS WATER WILLFLOW INTO A SPECIAL STILLING BASIN.5. THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE PLAN AND FOLLOWING THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.6. THE CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFOREREMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, ANDTEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE/PIPING STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.7. ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE THE STILLING BASINS ANDSTABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS.12" MIN. NCDOT CLASS A STONEFLOWCLASS I RIPRAP SPLASH PADPROVIDE STABILIZEDOUTLET TO STREAM BANKTYPICAL PUMP AROUND OPERATIONNOT TO SCALE3D1
LIVE STAKENOT TO SCALE4D2LIVE STAKE DETAILPLAN VIEWCROSS-SECTIONTOP OF STREAMBANKNOTES1. STAKES SHALL BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SAMEDAY.2. STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT SHALL BE REJECTEDAND NOT USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.3. STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTINGUPWARD.4. STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TOBANK.5. STAKES SHALL BE 0.5" - 2" INCHES IN DIAMETER AND30" IN LENGTH MINIMUM.6. STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH APPROXIMATELY3" OF STAKE REMAINING ABOVE GROUND.STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED &INSTALLED FROM TOP OF BANKTO TOE OF SLOPE1.5'1' MAX3.0'ANGLE CUT TO45 DEGRESSLIVE CUTTING 0.5" - 2" DIABUDS FACING UPWARDSQUARE CUT TOP30" IN LENGTHMINIMUMTOP OFSTREAMBANKTOP OFSTREAMBANKTOE OF SLOPETOE OF SLOPESLOPE BANK PERPLAN SHEETS1' MAXTYPICAL DAM BREACH NOT TO SCALE3D2DAM BREACH NOTES:1.EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN THEDRY.2.PUMP AROUND TO BE UTILIZED PER DETAILAND AT THE DISCRETION OF THECONTRACTOR TO DEWATER PONDS.3.BREACH CHANNEL TO BE STABILIZED WITH ASTONE BASE CONSISTING OF A MIXTURE OFCLASS A, B AND #4 STONE.4.BREACH SIDE SLOPES TO BE STABILIZEDONCE EXCAVATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED.STABILIZATION TO BE ACHIEVED WITH ACOMBINATION OF SEED AND COIR MATTINGPER DETAIL 2/D1.5.EXCAVATED MATERIAL TO BE STOCKPILED ONSITE FOR LATER USE.COIR MATTINGSTONE BASE3:1 (H:V) MINTIE TO EXISTING GRADEMIN. SLOPE 2H:1VINSTALL COIR MATTING(SEE DETAIL 2/D1)INSTALL LIVE STAKE(SEE DETAIL 4/D2)EXISTING CHANNEL BANKEXISTING CHANNEL BED1' MIN.(DESIGNER TO MARK IN FIELDPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION)EXCAVATE/GRADE UPPER BANKTYPICAL BANK GRADINGNOT TO SCALE2D2TYPICAL BANK GRADING NOTES:1.TREES NOT INDICATED TO BEING REMOVED SHALL BEPROTECTED PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION2.SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLINGEROSION CONTROL MATTING. PERMANENT SEED MIX #1SHALL BE USED.STONE TOE.NCDOT CLASS 1 MIN.SECTION A-A' (OPT 1)SECTION B-B'FLOWTYPICAL PLAN VIEWAA'BB'FLOWMIN. 5.0'5.0'MINHIGHLOWHIGHLOWNOTES:1.LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLYHARVESTED.2.COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF #57STONE, SURGE STONE, AND CLASS A RIPRAP.3.HIGH SIDE OF LOG SHALL BE APPROX. 0.2' HIGHER THAN LOW END.4.LOG DIMENSIONS:MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 18'NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5' ALONGTHE LOG.MIN. 4.0'CHANNEL TOPOF BANKCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)CHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKDUCKBILLANCHOR(OR EQUIVALENT) DUCKBILL ANCHORS (OREQUIVALENT) INSTALLEDPER MANUFACTURERSINSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)COIR MATTINGPROPOSEDSTREAM BEDTACK FABRICTO LOGHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (SEE NOTE#2)POOLBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (SEE NOTE#2)NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)BRUSH TOEPROTECTIONLENGTH = BKF WIDTH(UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED ON THE PLANS)SECTION A-A' (OPT 2)FLOWMIN. 5.0'DUCKBILL ANCHOR(OR EQUIVALENT)PROPOSEDSTREAM BEDTACK FABRICTO LOGBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (SEE NOTE#2)SEE PROFILE FORPOOL DEPTHSCOUR POOLNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)SEE PROFILE FORPOOL DEPTH2 - 4%POINT REFERENCEDIN STRUCTURETABLE; TOLERANCE ±0.1'POINT REFERENCEDIN STRUCTURETABLE; TOLERANCE ±0.1'LOG SILL NOT TO SCALE1D2
5'-0"5'-0
"
5'-6"2'-0"3'-6"2'-
0
"Pedestrian walk through(See specifications)PLANELEVATION5" to 7" Dia. x 8'-0"long postWalk through12"-0"3'-6"8'-6"12'-0"12'-0"Normal panel lengthNatural ground3'-0"
8'-0"4" to 5" Dia. polesPEDESTRIAN WALK THROUGH2"-6"
Variable
See Note 2
Variable (See Note 2)4"16"-0"4"3'-0"16'-0" WOODEN GATETYPE B1 x 5" Wrought steel striphinges bolted to gate with2- x galv. bolts"12"38"1237'-0"3'-0"4"16'-0"4"Orig. ground line, typ.2'-6"Variable
See Note 2
(See Note 2)Variable
16'-0" WOODEN GATETYPE ANOTES1. At junctures, members shall be fastened together with 1/4" machine bolts, including nuts and washers.2. Post height dimension shall be the same as required for the adjacent fence.3. Nominal 2"x4" boards may be substituted for the poles.WOOD GATESUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENTDIVISION OF TECHNICAL SERVICESSERVICE CENTERDATESCALE NONESHEET OFDRAWNAPPROVEDDESIGNEDREVIEWEDALWAYS THINKSAFETYDRAWING NO.02835-3OCTOBER 5, 1990by othersNRCS GATE NOT TO SCALE2D3PLAN VIEWSECTION VIEWNOTES1.LOWER AND FLATTEN HEADWATER WETLAND AREA AS POSSIBLE.2.PROVIDE DEEP TILLAGE TO A DEPTH OF 12 INCHES OR GREATER.3.ROUGHEN THE SURFACE TO CREATE COMPLEX TOPOGRAPHY AND A SERIES OF LOW MOUNDS ANDDEPRESSIONAL AREAS.4.COMPLEXITY SHOULD DEVELOP ELEVATION DIFFERENCES OF 6-12 INCHES.5.WOODY DEBRIS AND BRUSH MAYBE BURIED OR SPREAD THINLY IN HEADWATER WETLAND AREA.6.GRADE A SLIGHT SWALE OF MAX DEPTH 6 INCHES TO ROUTE WATER TOWARDS HEADWATERSTREAM.7.FINISH SWALE WITH A LOG SILL (SEE DETAIL).LOWER VALLEY AND ROUGHEN SURFACEHEADWATER WETLANDNOT TO SCALE3D3SINUOUS SWALE IN LOW SPOTEXTEND NATURAL SLOPESINUOUS SWALE6" DEPRESSIONALAREA6" RAISED AREALOG SILLPROPOSED WETLANDEXISTING GRADE6 INCH MIN. DEPTHWOVEN WIREBARBED WIRELINE POST16' MAXWOVEN WIREBARBED WIRELINE POST NOTES:1.LINE POSTS (WOODEN): MIN 4 IN DIAM. OR 4 IN SQUARE. (NOMINALDIMENSIONS)2.LINE POSTS (STEEL): STUDDED OR PUNCHED T, U, OR Y SHAPED, WITHANCHOR PLATES.3.MIN WEIGHT 1.5 LBS/FT (EXCLUDING ANCHOR PLATE). POSTS SHALL BEDRIVEN A MINIMUM OF 24" DEEP AND MUST BE AT LEAST 6 FT IN LENGTH.4.SPECIES AND TREATMENT FOR ALL WOOD: USE UNTREATED DURABLEPOSTS OF SPECIES SUCH AS RED CEDAR, BLACK LOCUST, OR OSAGEORIGANGE WITH BARK REMOVED, OR NON-DURABLE WOOD THAT ISPRESERVATIVE PRESSURE TREATED (0.40 LBS/CUBIC FOOT CCA, OREQUIVALENT NON-CCA TREATMENT). DO NOT USE RED PINE.2.0' MIN.6"32"-42"3" MIN6' MINWOVEN WIRE:ASTM CLASS 3 GALVANIZED.TOP AND BOTTOM WIRES MIN 12 GAUGE.INTERMEDIATE AND STAY WIRES MIN. 12 12 GAUGE.LINE PANELWOVEN WIRE WITH ONE BARB DETAILWOVEN WIRE FENCE (NRCS DETAIL 382A)NOT TO SCALE1D3FLOWAPLAN VIEWACOIR MATTINGTOP OF BANKTOE OF SLOPE8"-18"DIAMETERFOOTER LOGBANKFULLCROSS-SECTION A-AHARDWOOD WOODY DEBRIS MINIMUM4" DIAMETERBRUSH TOENOT TO SCALE4D3BRUSH TOE NOTES:1.OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE OF BENDOF CHANNEL. PLACE APPROPRIATE SIZELOG IN LINE WITH CHANNEL DIRECTION.LOCK IN WITH SMALL AMOUNT OF FILL.2.PLACE SMALLER WOODY MATERIAL ANDBRUSH OVER LOG. LOCK IN WITH SMALLAMOUNT OF FILL.3.PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS ON TOP OFSMALLER WOODY MATERIAL AND BRUSH.LOCK IN WITH SMALL AMOUNT OF FILL.4.BACKFILL AND COMPACT ALL WOODYMATERIAL TO LOCK IN PLACE.5.INSTALL COIR MATTING OVERCOMPACTED SOIL PER DIRECTION OFENGINEER.6.INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKESINTO COIR MATTING ABOVE LIVECUTTINGS. LIVE STAKES SHALL BEINSTALLED PER DETAIL 4/D2.VEGETATED SOIL LIFT5'MIN.LIVE STAKEVEGETATED SOIL LIFT NOTES:1.VEGETATED SOIL LIFT SHALL BECONSTRUCTED OF SOIL SURROUNDED BYBURLAP AND COIR FABRIC.2.LAYOUT COIR FABRIC WITH BURLAP ONTOP AND DRIVE STAKE THROUGH FABRICS,STONE, AND INTO SUBGRADE.3.PLACE SOIL ON FABRIC AND WRAP FABRICOVER SOIL AND HOOK ON STAKE FROMFIRST LAYER.4.VEGETATED SOIL LIFT SHALL BE SEEDEDAND FERTILIZED. SEED AND FERTILIZERSHALL BE EVENLY SPREAD INSIDE OFBURLAP.5.TOP SLOPE ABOVE VEGETATED SOIL LIFTSHALL BE GRADED TO 3:1 AND PROTECTEDWITH MATTING, SEEDED AND FERTILIZED.6.ANY AND ALL PROPOSED CHANGES SHALLBE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER.COIR MATTINGLIVE CUTTINGS
FLOWAPLAN VIEWASMALL POOLNCDOT CLASS 1 STONE/SMALL BOULDER "TYP"ANCHOR BOULDER6"-8" LOGSEQUAL PARTS NCDOT CLASS A,#57, AND #4 STONECROSS-SECTION A-ANCDOT CLASS 1 STONE/SMALL BOULDERTOP OF BANKTOE OF SLOPEEQUAL PARTS NCDOT CLASS A,#57, AND #4 STONEGRADE CONTROL ROCK: EQUAL PARTSNCDOT CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE.SHALL BE A DEPTH OF 2' MINIMUM.6"-8" LOGSANCHOR BOULDER4'TYP.CHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH0.5' MIN.1' MIN.FLOWEQUAL PARTS NCDOT CLASS A,#57 AND #4 STONEBEGIN RIFFLECONTROL POINTPOOLGLIDETOP OF BANKEND RIFFLECONTROL POINTRUNPOOL6"-8" LOGSEQUAL PARTS CLASS A, B,AND 1 STONEPROFILE VIEWVARIESPER PROFILEBRUSH TOE NOTES:1.CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS,AS SPECIFIED IN THE APPROVED PLANS.2.ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OFRIFFLE POINTS TO ESTABLISH PART OF THE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OFCONTROL POINTS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATIONWITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.1'.3.GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE COMPRISED OF EQUAL PARTS OF CLASS A, B, AND 1STONE. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THESPECIFIED THICKNESS OF RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.4.RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ROCKS AND LOGS. THE ROCK MATERIALCOMPOSITION SHALL BE COMPRISED OF EQUAL PARTS CLASS A, #57, AND #4 STONE.RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE-USED FROMABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. ROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL OBTAINED OFFSITE SHALLBE SLIGHTLY ROUNDED, "RIVER-TYPE" ROCK, UNLESS OTHER ROCK CHARACTERISTICSARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHANNEL.5.SPACING AND NUMBER OF LOGS SHOULD BE BASED ON RIFFLE LENGTH AND MAY VARYBASED ON LOG AVAILABILITY. LOGS SHOULD BE SPACED EQUALLY AND ANCHORED TOTHE CHANNEL BED WITH BOULDERS.6.THE PLACEMENT OF GRADE CONTROL ROCK AND/OR RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONEIN 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. THEFINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THESHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOMEVARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALL POOLS ANDLOGS.7.THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER IN-STREAM STRUCTURE(LOG SILL, J-HOOK, ETC.). NO LOGS SHALL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THEPROPOSED STRUCTURE.8.THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM BANKS AND/OR BED ASSPECIFIED IN THE APPROVED PLANS. THE "KEY" SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OFBANK AT THE BEGINNING (CREST) OF THE RIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTINGSTREAM BANK VEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY" MAY NOT BE USED (OR THEDIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.RIFFLE GRADE CONTROLNOT TO SCALE1D4NCDOT CLASS 1 STONE2:1
M
IN ROAD LENGTH VARIESROAD WIDTH VARIESCULVERT INSTALLATION NOTES:1.ALL CULVERTS SHALL BE OF MATERIAL AND SIZE SPECIFIED IN THE CULVERT DETAIL TABLE BELOW. CULVERTS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THEPROJECT ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.2.BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF LOOSELY PLACED APPROVED SUITABLE LOCAL MATERIAL OR NCDOT CLASS 2 SELECT MATERIAL.BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6 INCHES.3.CULVERT TO BE INSTALLED TO PROVIDE A TRUE LINE AND GRADE BETWEEN UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM INVERTS.4.THE TRENCH BOTTOM SHALL PROVIDE A FIRM AND UNIFORM SUPPORT FOR THE CULVERT.5.ALL CULVERT JOINTS SHALL BE WATER TIGHT WITH A GASKET AND WRAPPED IN NCDOT TYPE II FABRIC OR ENGINEER APPROVED ALTERNATIVE6.PROVIDE CONCRETE OR APPROVED PROPRIETARY COLLAR FOR ALL HDPE CULVERTS TO PREVENT PIPING AROUND THE CULVERT.CULVERT DETAILSREACHLOCATIONQUANTITYTYPELENGTH (FT)SIZE (IN)INVERT IN (FT)INVERT OUT (FT)2CHANNEL1HDPE-DUAL WALL5036652.50651.302FLOODPLAIN2HDPE-DUAL WALL5030653.25652.203CHANNEL1HDPE-DUAL WALL4536638.80637.903FLOODPLAIN2HDPE-DUAL WALL4530639.80638.90BEDDINGTO EXTEND TO 1 FT BEYOND EDGEOF FLOODPLAIN CULVERTS MIN.MINIMUM 6" DEPTH BEDDING.INCREASE DEPTH BASED UPON SOIL TYPICAL CULVERT CROSS SECTIONNOT TO SCALE2D42:1 MINCONDITIONS AS DIRECTED BY THEPROJECT ENGINEER.12" MIN.12" MIN.12" MIN.CULVERT PLUNGE POOL NOTES:1.CULVERT PLUNGE POOL TO BE RINGED WITH NCDOT CLASS 1 STONE. SMALL BOULDERS SHALL BE PLACED UNDERNEATH CULVERT AND AT THE HEAD OFTHE NEXT RIFFLE. MIN. BOULDER SIZE IS 2.5'x2.0'x1.5'.2.USE FILTER FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS.3.DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER BOULDERS. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER BOULDERS FIRST AND THEN HEADER BOULDERS.4.INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER BOULDERS AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THEBOTTOM FOOTER BOULDERS. AND THEN UPSTREAM FOR A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.5.USE WELL GRADED MIX OF NCDOT CLASS B STONE AROUND THE TOP AND SIDES OF THE CULVERT.6.USE WELL GRADED MIX OF NCDOT CLASS A, B AND 1 STONE IN POOL BOTTOM.7.PLACE UPSTREAM BOULDERS UNDERNEATH CULVERT OUTLET.8.ANY GAP BETWEEN UPSTREAM BOULDERS AND CULVERT OUTLET SHALL BE FILLED WITH NCDOT CLASS B STONE AND SEALED USING NON-SHRINKGROUT.9.FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE TRIMMED ALONG THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE STONE BACKFILL AND HEADER BOULDERS SO THAT THE FILTER FABRIC DOESNOT OVERLAP THE HEADER BOULDERS.FILTER FABRIC(1 FT MAX)2 FTEQUAL PARTS NCDOT CLASS1, A, AND B STONE.TO BE INSTALLED TOA DEPTH OF 1 FT MIN.CULVERT PLUNGE POOLNOT TO SCALE3D4NCDOT CLASSB STONE10 FTOR AS DIRECTEDPLAN VIEWPROFILE A-A' VIEWAA'EQUAL PARTS NCDOT CLASS1, A, AND B STONE.TO BE INSTALLED TOA DEPTH OF 1 FT MIN.NCDOT CLASS1 STONESMALL BOULDERSMALL BOULDERDROP VARIES15'2.5H:1V MIN.2.5H:1V MIN.PROPOSEDCULVERTCOMPACTED INORGANIC CORETOP WITH 3 INCHESOF ORGANIC TOPSOILNOTES:1.ROAD CORE SHALL EXTEND THROUGH ORGANIC SOILS AND INTO INORGANIC SOIL A MINIMUM OF 1 FOOT. CORE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF INORGANIC SOILEXCAVATED FROM THE RESTORATION AREA. FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE CLEAN AND FREE FROM ROOTS OR DEBRIS > 6 INCHES. FILL SHALL BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOGREATER THAN 6 INCHES THICK AND COMPACTED WITH CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OR ROLLER DEVICES. CORE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO ACHIEVE A DENSITY EQUALTO OR GREATER THAN 90% MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY WITH A MOISTURE CONTENT WITHIN 2% OF OPTIMUM. EACH 6 INCH LAYER SHALL BE COMPACTED AS NECESSARY TOOBTAIN THE REQUIRED DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY AASHTO METHOD T-99 (STANDARD PROCTOR).2.ALL SLOPES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED USING SUITABLE SOILS EXCAVATED FROM THE RESTORATION AREA. SIDE SLOPES SHALL BE 3:1 OR FLATTER.3.ORGANIC SOILS THAT ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR CORE OR SLOPE CREATION SHALL BE STOCKPILED FOR USE AS A TOPPING MATERIAL FOR GRASS ESTABLISHMENT.TYPICAL ROAD CROSS-SECTIONNOT TO SCALE4D41 FT MIN.
OUTFALL STABILIZATIONNOT TO SCALE1D510 FT MIN.NUMBER OFSTEPS VARIES1 FTEXISTING STORMWATER OUTFALLCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE(SLOPE LESS THAN 2%)FILTER FABRICPOOL TO BE LINED WITH STONE(EQUAL PARTS NCDOT A, B AND #4)CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE TO TIE INTO CLIMAXCREEK10' MIN.SMALL BOULDERSSMALL BOULDERSOUTFALL STABILIZATION NOTES:1.OUTFALL STABILIZATION POOL TO BE RINGED WITH SMALL BOULDERS. MIN. BOULDER SIZE IS 2.5'x2.0'x1.5'.2.USE FILTER FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS.3.DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER BOULDERS. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER BOULDERS FIRST AND THE HEADERBOULDERS.4.INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER BOULDERS AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTHOF THE BOTTOM FOOTER BOULDERS. AND THEN UPSTREAM FOR A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET.5.PLACE NCDOT CLASS B STONE ON SIDES AND ABOVE OUTFALL. USE WELL GRADED MIX OF NCDOT CLASS A, B AND #4 STONE IN THE POOLBOTTOM.6.PLACE UPSTREAM BOULDERS UNDERNEATH CULVERT OUTLET.7.FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE TRIMMED ALONG THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE STONE BACKFILL AND HEADER BOULDERS SO THAT THE FILTERFABRIC DOES NOT OVERLAP THE HEADER BOULDERS.OUTFALL STABILIZATION PROFILEBOULDER STEP CROSS-SECTIONNCDOT CLASSB STONEF
I
L
L
S
LOPEFLOWTEMPORARY SILT FENCE NOTES:1.FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 32" IN WIDTH AND SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 6 LINE WIRES WITH 12" STAY SPACING.2.WOVEN FILTER FABRIC TO BE USED WHERE SILT FENCE IS TO REMAIN FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME.3.STEEL POSTS SHALL BE 5'-0" IN HEIGHT AND BE OF THE SELF-FASTENER ANGLE STEEL TYPE.4.TURN SILT FENCE UP SLOPE AT ENDS.5.DRAINAGE AREA CAN NOT BE GREATER THAN 1/4 ACRE PER 100 FT OF FENCE.6.SLOPE LENGTHS CAN NOT EXCEED CRITERIA SHOWN IN TABLE 6.62A NORTH CAROLINA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL.7.DO NOT INSTALL SEDIMENT FENCE ACROSS STREAMS, DITCHES, WATERWAYS OR OTHER AREAS OF CONCENTRATED FLOW.8.INSTALL POSTS WITH THE NIPPLES FACING AWAY FROM THE SILT FENCE.9.ATTACH THE FABRIC TO EACH POST WITH THREE TIES WITH THE TOP TIE WITHIN 8” OF THE TOP OF THE FABRIC.10.WRAP APPROXIMATELY 6 INCHES OF FABRIC AROUND THE END POSTS AND SECURE WITH 3 TIES.11.CONSTRUCT THE FILTER FABRIC FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER 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.TEMPORARY SILT FENCE MAINTENANCE NOTES:1.INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY.2.SHOULD THE FABRIC OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE IT PROMPTLY.3.REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN AND TO REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE FENCE.TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT.4.REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE AND STABILIZE IT AFTER THE CONTRIBUTINGDRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED.WOVENFILTERFABRICSTEEL POST8' MAX2'-0"STEEL POSTWOVEN FILTER FABRIC30" MIN
24" FILTER
FABRIC
ANCHOR SKIRT 8" MINIMUMTEMPORARY SILT FENCENOT TO SCALE2D5APLAN VIEWFLOWPROFILE A-AHEAD OF STRUCTUREELEVATION POINTAHEAD OF STRUCTUREELEVATION POINTGLIDERIFFLESECTION B-BBBTOP OF BANK(TYP)STREAM REACHTIE-IN POINTTOP OFBANK (TYP)TOE OF SLOPE(TYP)TOE OF SLOPESTREAM REACHTIE-IN POINTNCDOT CLASS 1 STONETO TIE INTO CHANNELBANKS 0.5'12" DEPTH OFNCDOT CLASS 1 STONEREINFORCED STREAM TIE-INNOT TO SCALE5' MINLOGLOGMIX IN RECYCLED EXISTINGSUBSTRATE AS POSSIBLE3D5EQUAL PARTS #57, SURGEAND CLASS A STONEFILTERFABRICAPLAN VIEWFLOW
PROFILE A-AHEAD OF RIFFLEELEVATION POINTAHEAD OF RIFFLEELEVATION POINTRIFFLESECTION B-BBBTOP OF BANK(TYP)TAIL OF RIFFLEHEAD OF POOLELEVATIONPOINTTOP OFBANK (TYP)TOE OF SLOPE(TYP)FORM HORSESHOE OF BEDMATERIAL AT UPSTREAMAND DOWNSTREAM RIFFLEEXTENTSNOTEHORSESHOE NOT REQUIREDWHERE RIFFLE TIES INTO DRAINAGESTRUCTURE OR STREAM GRADECONTROL STRUCTURE (I.E. LOG SILL,J-HOOK, CROSS VANE, ETC.)TOE OF SLOPETAIL OF RIFFLEELEVATION POINTRIFFLE STONETO TIE INTO CHANNELBANKS 0.5'12" DEPTH OFEQUAL PARTS NCDOT CLASSA, B, #4, AND #57 STONE.CONSTRUCTED RIFFLENOT TO SCALEMIX IN RECYCLED EXISTINGSUBSTRATE AS POSSIBLE4D5
5' MINAA'5' MINBB'FLOWLOG STEPTOE OF SLOPEELEVATION CALLOUT (TYP)SEE PROFILE FORELEVATIONPROFILE B-B'GRADEDCHANNEL BEDTOP OF BANKAT BANKFULLFLOWARMOR PLUNGE POOL WITHNCDOT CLASS A, B, AND #4STONEELEVATION CALLOUT (TYP)SEE PROFILE FOR ELEVATIONELEVATION CALLOUT (TYP)SEE PROFILE FORELEVATIONHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGEMBED LOG5' MIN BEYOND TOE OF SLOPESEE LANDSCAPING PLAN ANDDETAIL FOR BANK TREATMENTTIE TOP OF BANK INTOEXISTING GRADESECTION A - A'FOOTER LOGHEADER LOGNOTES1.LOGS SHALL BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.2.TOP OF HEADER LOG SHALL BE SET AT SAME ELEVATION AS THE STREAMBED.3.NCDOT TYPE II FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE NAILED USING 3" 10d GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL ATTWO-FOOT SPACING ALONG THE LOG.4.STONE ALONG TOE OF SLOPE TO BE NCDOT CLASS 1 STONE MIN.INSTALL MIX OF NCDOT CLASS 1, AND BSTONE 5' DOWNSTREAM (MIN)EXCAVATE SCOURPOOL PER PLANSSINGLE ROW OF AMIX OF NCDOTCLASS 1, AND BSTONE AT TOE OFSLOPE4' MINPLAN VIEWLOG SILL WITH STONE TOENOT TO SCALE1D61' MINNCDOT TYPE IIFILTER FABRICEQUAL PARTS NCDOT CLASS A, B, #4 AND #57 STONETALL SLOPE PREPNOT TO SCALE2D615'5'STRAW WATTLEWOODEN STAKERIDGES FORMED BYEXCAVATOR BUCKET TEETHWOODEN STAKERIDGES FORMED BYEXCAVATOR BUCKET TEETHSTRAW WATTLESTRAW WATTLEAA'SECTION A - A'NOTES1.ROUGH SLOPE USING EXCAVATOR BUCKET TEETH. ROUGHING SHOULD BE COMPLETED PERPENDICULARTO THE NATURAL FLOW PATH OF THE SLOPE.2.STRAW WATTLE SHALL BE INSTALLED EVERY FIFTEEN FEET ALONG THE SLOPE.3.INSTALL STAKES ON 5' CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL. TOP OF STAKE SHOULD NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.4.EXCAVATE A SHALLOW TRENCH FOR LEVEL PLACEMENT OF EACH STRAW WATTLE.5.STRAW WATTLES SHALL BE 12" DIAMETER AND 10' LONG.6.CONFIRM DIAMETER AND PLACEMENT WITH ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.7.STRAW WATTLE PRODUCTS MUST MEET A WEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF 2.5 LBS/LF AND BE WEED FREESTRAW.8.STRAW WATTLES MAY NOT BE NECESSARY FOR TALL SLOPE PREP IF A DENSE COVER OF PERMANENTVEGETATION CAN BE ESTABLISHED WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER SLOPE GRADING IS COMPLETED.9.PROVIDE PRODUCT DATA FOR APPROVAL BY ENGINEER.