20181442 Ver 1_Draft Mitigation Plan_20200904

ID#* 20201139 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 09/04/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 9/4/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* C Yes C No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream rJ Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Company/owner:* Resource Environmental Solutions
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Kasey Carrere [e-mail]
Project Information
Project Type: Q DMS C Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Project
County: Cumberland
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Dugout _ Mitigation Plan_DRAFT_Combined.pdf 83.97MB
Rease upload only one PDF cf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Kasey Carrere
Signature:*

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
USACE Action ID: SAW-2018-01883
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030005
Prepared by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1052
August 2020
"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). -

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 4
1.1 Project Components................................................................................................................4
1.2 Project Outcomes....................................................................................................................4
2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION...............................................................
6
2.1 Site Selection..........................................................................................................................
6
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS..............................................................................
8
3.1 Watershed Summary Information..........................................................................................
8
3.2 Landscape Characteristics......................................................................................................
8
3.3 Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future.............................................................................10
3.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints..........................................................11
3.5 Existing Stream Reach Conditions.......................................................................................13
3.6 Existing Wetland Conditions................................................................................................18
3.7 Existing Hydric Soil Area Conditions..................................................................................
20
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL.......................................................................................
21
4.1 Stream Functional Uplift......................................................................................................
21
4.2 Wetland Functional Uplift....................................................................................................
23
5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................
24
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN.....................................................................................................
26
6.1 Reference Stream.................................................................................................................
26
6.2 Design Parameters................................................................................................................
27
6.3 Sediment Control Measures.................................................................................................
33
6.4 Vegetation and Planting Plan ...............................................................................................
33
6.5 Mitigation Summary.............................................................................................................
36
6.6 Determination of Credits......................................................................................................
37
7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................................40
7.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria.....................................................................................
40
7.2 Wetland Restoration Success Criteria..................................................................................
40
7.3 Vegetation Success Criteria..................................................................................................41
8 MONITORING PLAN.................................................................................................................41
8.1 As -Built Survey....................................................................................................................
41
8.2 Visual Monitoring................................................................................................................
41
8.3 Stream Hydrology Events.....................................................................................................
42
8.4 Cross Sections......................................................................................................................
42
8.5 Wetland Hydrology..............................................................................................................
42
8.6 Vegetation Monitoring.........................................................................................................
42
8.7 Scheduling/Reporting...........................................................................................................
42
9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.........................................................................................
45
10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN.....................................................................................
46
11 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE...............................................................................................
47
11.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits..................................................................................
47
11.2 Subsequent Credit Releases..................................................................................................47
12 MAINTENANCE PLAN.............................................................................................................
49
13 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES......................................................................................................
50
14 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................51
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan ii August 2020

List of Tables
Table 1. Dugout Stream and Wetland Project Components Summary..................................................5
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information..............................................................................6
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information................................................................................8
Table4. Mapped Soil Series...................................................................................................................9
Table 5. Regulatory Considerations.....................................................................................................13
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics.......................................................................13
Table 7. Summary of Stream Parameters.............................................................................................17
Table 8. Existing Wetland Summary Information................................................................................19
Table 9. Function -Based Goals and Objectives....................................................................................25
Table 10. Peak Flow Comparison........................................................................................................
30
Table 11. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses......................................................
31
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities.............................................................
31
Table13. Proposed Plant List...............................................................................................................
34
Table14. Mitigation Credits.................................................................................................................38
Table 15. Monitoring Requirements.....................................................................................................44
Table 16. Credit Release Schedule.......................................................................................................
48
Table17. Maintenance Plan .................................................................................................................
49
Table 18. Financial Assurances............................................................................................................50
List of Figures
Figure 1 —
Project Vicinity
Figure 2 —
USGS Quadrangle
Figure 3 —
Landowner Parcels
Figure 4 —
Landuse
Figure 5 —
Mapped Soils
Figure 6 —
Existing Conditions
Figure 7 —
Historical Conditions
Figure 8 —
National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 9 —
Conceptual Design Plan
Figure 10
— Buffer Width Zones
Figure 11
— Monitoring Plan
Appendices
Appendix A - Site Protection Instrument
Appendix B - Baseline Information and Correspondence
Appendix C - Data, Analysis, and Supplementary Information
Appendix D - Design Plan Sheets
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan iii August 2020

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Components
The Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project ("Project") is located within Cumberland County,
approximately 7 miles south of Fayetteville. The Project lies within the Cape Fear River Basin, North
Carolina Department of Water Resources ("NCDWW') sub -basin 03-06-15 and United States
Geological Survey ("USGS") 12-digit hydrologic unit code (11UC") 030300050102 (Willis Creek
Watershed) (Figure 1). The Project is being designed to help meet compensatory mitigation
requirements for stream and wetland impacts in the 11UC 03030005. The Project proposes to restore
5,173 linear feet ("LF"), enhance 971 LF, and preserve 1,226 LF of stream as well as restore 4.490
acres ("ac"), enhance 6.125 ac, and preserve 4.566 ac of wetlands that will ultimately provide water
quality benefits and ecosystem uplift for the Project's 8.31 mil drainage area.
The Project is comprised of a 41.66-acre easement located upstream of the Cape Fear River,
encompassing a portion of the Grays Creek floodplain. The Project involves Grays Greek, two of its
unnamed tributaries, and riparian wetlands that all ultimately drain a few miles southeast to the Cape
Fear River. The stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized in Table 1. The upstream
extent of the Project begins where Grays Creek flows under NC-87, and the site is easily accessible
from Upton Tyson Road. Coordinates for the Project are as follows: 34.927960 N, 78.846780 W.
1.2 Project Outcomes
The entire floodplain system within the Project has been manipulated by agricultural practices over
time, thereby adversely impacting both streams and wetlands. Significantly degraded streams will be
restored or enhanced to attain higher function, while less degraded streams will be preserved. Non -
jurisdictional areas of hydric soil within riparian areas will be restored via re-establishment to improve
both hydrologic and vegetative functions. Forested jurisdictional riparian wetland areas will be
enhanced to improve hydrologic function while non -forested jurisdictional riparian wetlands will be
enhanced to improve functions related to vegetation. The remaining jurisdictional wetlands within the
easement area will be preserved. Proposed improvements to the Project will help meet the river basin
needs expressed in the Division of Mitigation Services' (DMS) 2009 Cape Fear RiverBasin Restoration
Priorities ("RBRP").
Through stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation, the Project presents 7,370 LF of proposed
stream, generating 5,942.993 base Warm Stream Mitigation Units ("SMU") (Table 1). By
incorporating wider buffers, the total adjusted SMUs for the Project amount to 6,545.283. Additionally,
the Project presents 15.181 acres of wetland re-establishment, enhancement, and preservation,
generating 6.222 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units ("WMU") (Table 1). IRT Meeting Minutes were
carefully considered in the preparation of this Mitigation Plan. (Appendix B).
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 4 August 2020

Table 1. Dugout Stream and Wetland Project Components Summary
Mitigation Type
Proposed Length (LF)
Mitigation Ratio
Warm SMUs
Restoration
5,173
1:1
5,173.000
Enhancement I
971
1.5:1
647.333
Preservation
1,226
10:1
122.600
Total
7,370
5,942.933
Adjusted Total*
6,545.283
* Credit adjustments were calculated in accordance with Non-standard buffer width guidance published in the October 2016
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Mitigation Type
Proposed Area (ac)
Mitigation Ratio
Riparian
WMUs
Re-establishment
4.490
1:1
4.490
Enhancement (High)
0.167
2:1
0.084
Enhancement (Low)
5.958
5:1
1.192
Preservation
4.566
10:1
0.457
Total**
15.181
6.222
* * Areas generating wetland credit are within the proposed 50 foot stream buffer area or are wholly outside of the Non-
standard buffer width areas generating additional stream credit (>I50 ft.); therefore, additional stream credit areas and
wetland credit areas do not overlap.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 5 August 2020

2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The DMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP identified restoration needs for each 8-digit IIUC within the Cape
Fear River Basin. Specifically, goals for I UC 03030005 include creating a Local Watershed Plan for
the lower portion of the watershed, focus on reducing non -point source pollution - especially fecal
coliform, and limiting urban stormwater pollution.
Current and future population growth leading to habitat conversion is the primary stressor in this basin
leading to water quality impairment and habitat degradation. The Project will help address the identified
stressor and reduce non -point source pollution as described in Section 2.1.
2.1 Site Selection
The Project was identified as a stream and wetland 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 forestry practices.
Project streams, especially Grays Creek, have historically been diverted, straightened, and dredged,
leading to unstable channels with poor hydraulic function and wetlands with decreased hydrology.
Also, networks of surface ditches further alter the natural hydrology of the stream -wetland complex.
Additionally, much of the Project's existing forest was most recently logged approximately eight years
ago. Further, active livestock pasture and row crop fields abut portions of Project streams where riparian
buffers are either very narrow or absent. Therefore, the Project presents a great opportunity to address
the RBRP goal of reducing non -point source pollution, especially fecal coliform, while also providing
tremendous additional uplift to a degraded stream -wetland floodplain system. The Project will directly
and indirectly address stressors by reconstructing natural channels within the Grays Creek floodplain;
stabilizing eroding stream banks and establishing floodplain connectivity; reducing sediment and
nutrient loads; restoring, enhancing, and preserving wetlands; restoring and enhancing riparian buffers;
and protecting aquatic resources in perpetuity. Project -specific goals and objectives will be addressed
further in Section 5. Watershed planning priority boundaries are shown on Figure 1, and the Project's
drainage areas are shown on Figure 2.
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes parcels
in Cumberland County with the following ownership: (Table 2 & Figure 3). The Wilmington District
Conservation Easement model template will be utilized to draft the site protection instrument. Once
finalized, a copy of the land protection instrument(s) will be included in Appendix A.
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Owner of Record
Tax Parcel ID# (PIN)
0442-37-1627
0442-37-1967
0442-38-2137
Vance U. Tyson Jr.
0442-78-7881
0442-46-1787
0442-57-8598
0442-77-0886
(Cumberland County)
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX), acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a
Conservation Easement, and will monitor the Project for a minimum of seven years. This Mitigation
Plan provides detailed information regarding bank operation, including long term management and
annual monitoring activities, for review and approval by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). Upon
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 6 August 2020

approval of the Project by the IRT, the Project will be transferred to Unique Places to Save (UP2S).
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. Endowment funds required
to uphold easement and deed restrictions will be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the Conservation Easement will allow for the implementation of an
initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during the design phase and conducted by the Bank
Sponsor. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring and, if necessary, maintenance
of the Project during the initial monitoring phase. These activities will be conducted in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the approved Mitigation Plan for the Dugout Mitigation Project. The Dugout
Project will be authorized under the RES Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank made and entered
into by EBX, US Army Corps of Engineers, and NC Division of Water Resources.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 7 August 2020

3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Watershed Summary Information
3, 1.1 Drainage Area and Land Cover
The Project area is comprised of Grays Creek and two of its unnamed tributaries that flow east and
eventually drain into the Cape Fear River. The total drainage area for the Project is 5,320 acres (8.31
mi2). Drainage areas for each Project reach are: GC1, 4,980 acres (7.78 mi2); GC2, 5,084 acres (7.95
mi2); GC3, 5,283 acres (8.25 mi2); GC4, 5,320 acres (8.31 mi2); TV1, 7 acres (0.01 mi2); and TVS, 2
acres (0.004 mi2). The Project drainage area originates at I-95/1-IWY 301, with primary land uses of
approximately 32% forest, 31% residential, and 15% agricultural land, while impervious area covers
about 3%. The residential areas are distributed throughout the drainage area; however, the majority of
channels within the drainage area appear to have forested corridors (Table 3 & Figure 4). Much of the
land immediately adjacent to the Project is used for agricultural production, and include cow pastures
and row crops, which have ultimately contributed to the degradation of Project streams and wetlands.
Additionally, logging of the floodplain forest has further degraded wetland function in some of the
Project's wetlands.
3.1.2 Surface Water Classification
The segment of Grays Creek within the Project area has been classified by NCDWR as Class C, which
are waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic
life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where
such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.
Also, notably, less than one mile downstream of the end of the Project, Grays Creek is classified as
Water Supply IV (WS-IV), which are used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes.
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information
Watershed Feature
Designation
Level IV Ecoregion
Atlantic Southern Loam Plains
Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03030005
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03030005010010
DWR Sub -basin
03-06-15
Project Drainage Area (acres)
5,320
Percent Impervious Area
—3%
Surface Water Classification
Class C
3.2 Landscape Characteristics
3.2.1 Physiography and Topography
The Project resides on the edge of two ecoregions: the Atlantic Southern Loam Plains and the
Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces. The Atlantic Southern Loam Plains ecoregion is a major
agricultural zone. It has more a variety of soil conditions but is generally more mesic than the Sand
Hills region and more xeric than the Carolina Flatwoods. The region has the highest concentration of
Carolina bay wetlands, which often contain rare or endangered species when they haven't been drained
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 8 August 2020

for agricultural uses. Several historic mapped Carolina bays are depicted outside and inside the project
drainage area (Figure 2a). The Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces ecoregion is comprised of
alluvium and terrace deposits of sand, clay, and gravel. The region includes low gradient streams,
oxbow lakes, ponds, and swamps. Natural communities usually consist of floodplain forests, including
bottomland hardwood forests (bottomland oaks, red maple, sweetgum, green ash, bitternut hickory) and
cypress -gum swamps (water tupelo, swamp tupelo, bald cypress, pond cypress).
The specific landscape characteristics of the Dugout site are very much representative of the
Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces with a large swath of wet, floodplain forest containing
Grays Creek, a large, historically low -gradient stream, and its wide floodplain with some swamp
characteristics and evidence of relic braided features. Surrounding the floodplain is rolling topography
with a relatively steep hillslope dropping into the Grays Creek floodplain from the pastures on the
northside.
3.2.2 Soils
Existing soil information from the Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS"), from Web Soil
Survey, shows four map units across the project (NRCS, 2019). Map units include four soil series across
the Project and are summarized in Table 4. Project soils are mapped as Blaney loamy sand, 8 to 15
percent slopes, Deloss loam, Gilead loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes, and Johnston loam (Figure 5).
However, Johnston loam and Deloss loam make up almost all of the Project area and are hydric and
predominantly hydric, respectively.
Table 4. Mapped Soil Series
Map Unit
Map Unit
Percent
Drainage Class
Hydrologic Soil
Landscape Setting
Name
Hydric
Group
BaD
Blaney loamy
0
Well Drained
C
Low hills
sand, 8 to 15
percent slopes
De
Deloss loam
90
Very poorly
B/D
Depressions, flats
drained
GdB
Gilead loamy
5
Moderately well
C
Low hills
sand, 2 to 8
drained
percent slopes
JT
Johnston loam
100
Very poorly
A/D
Floodplains
drained
A detailed hydric soil evaluation was also conducted to describe and delineate the extent of hydric soils
that are potentially suitable for wetland re-establishment for wetland mitigation. Therefore, more
detailed soils information is included in the report and included in Appendix C.
3.2.3 Vegetation
Although alterations to the landscape, hydrology, and vegetation have disturbed the local natural
communities over time, typical vegetation communities throughout the Project consist of closed -
canopy wetland forest; logged, regenerating, wetland forest; logged, regenerating, drained, non -wetland
forest; disturbed upland forest; pasture; and cropland (Figure 6).
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 9 August 2020

The closed -canopy wetland forest makes up most of the western half of the Project area and is least
disturbed. The area most closely resembles a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Schafale, 2012), as
some of it is still within the active floodplain of Grays Creek and influenced by flooding and sediment
deposition. However, with the relocation of Grays Creek to the edge of the floodplain to the north, the
forest gradually loses the active floodplain to the east and functions more as a Brownwater Bottomland
Hardwood Forest (Schafale, 2012). With that said, these areas are dominated by trees of red maple
(Acer rubrum), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), willow oak (Quercus phellos),
water oak (Quercus nigra) and interspersed with yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Shrubs
include mostly swamp doghobble (Eubotrys racemosa) and the invasive Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense). The herbaceous stratum is dominated by common rush (Juncus effuses), cinnamon fern
(Osmunda cinnamomea), netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus),
and the invasive Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum). Vines are locally dense and dominated
by laurel greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia), roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and muscadine
(Vitis rotundifolia).
The logged, regenerating, wetland forest and logged, regenerating, drained, non -wetland forest make
up the majority of the eastern half of the Project and were logged in 2012. The difference in vegetation
between these wetland and drained, non -wetland forests are indiscernible, whereas hydrology is the
distinguishing factor between the two. Due to the relocation of Grays Creek to the edge of the floodplain
to the north and its deep incision, the forest has completely lost its active floodplain, making these
regenerating areas more so resemble Brownwater Bottomland Hardwood Forests. Therefore, dominant
vegetation in these logged forests include saplings such as red maple, sweetgum, willow oak, and water
oak; shrubs such as American holly (Illex opaca) and sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus); and vines
such as roundleaf and laurel greenbriers.
The remaining forested upland areas, mainly located along a middle portion of the channelized Gray's
Creek, are composed of a few dominant species. Trees include yellow poplar, loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), and some American holly. The shrub and herbaceous strata are almost exclusively composed
of invasive species, namely Chinese privet and Japanese stiltgrass.
Pasture adjacent to the Project is a mix of grasses while the row crop field further downstream appears
to be on a rotation of corn and soybeans.
3.3 Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future
Historic aerial imagery indicates that the western portion of the Project has always been forested since
at least 1951 while the eastern portion was mostly cleared or sparsely wooded during that time. Between
then and 1972, the eastern portion appeared to regenerate, making it forested, until approximately eight
years ago, when the eastern portion was again clear-cut for logging purposes. Adjacent to the Project,
to the north, most of the land has been maintained for agricultural purposes since at least 1951. It is
unknown exactly when the channelization of Grays Creek began; however, it is evident in the 1951
aerial imagery that the eastern segment of Grays Creek, within the Project boundary, was already
heavily manipulated: the stream was obviously channelized and partially diverted by a major ditch,
dissecting the floodplain, diagonally (Figure 7).
Currently, within the proposed easement boundary, the western portion of the Project is closed -canopy
forest, while the eastern portion is regenerating after the somewhat recent clear-cut and is very scrubby.
The areas adjacent to the project streams have been cleared for agriculture to the north, while remaining
densely wooded to the south. The majority of Grays Creek remains unnaturally located and channelized,
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 10 August 2020

and the major diagonal ditch diversion, mentioned above, remains active. Additionally, other active
ditches are also present throughout (Figure 6).
The future land use for the Project will include an established 41.66-acre conservation easement that
will be protected in perpetuity. The conservation easement will encompass 7,370 linear feet of high
functioning streams with minimum 50-foot riparian buffers, though most buffers will be much wider,
and at least 15.181 acres of credit -generating riparian wetlands, though the actual protected wetland
area will be much greater. Outside the Project, the area will likely remain in agricultural use to the north
and forested to the south.
3.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
Regulatory considerations and potential constraints of the Project are discussed below, and Table 5 is
a summary of regulatory considerations. All supporting documentation can be found in Appendix B.
3.4.1 Property, Boundary, and Utilities
The proposed Project easement is bound on the west and east by parcel boundaries. Notably, the
property boundary to the west abuts the NC-87 DOT right-of-way; therefore, the Project will begin at
this property boundary and will not encroach on the right-of-way. There is one existing utility, an
overhead powerline, that intersects Grays Creek in the middle of the Project (reach GC3). Therefore,
the proposed easement will have one easement break to accommodate the existing utility easement.
Otherwise, there are no other easement breaks or crossings associated with the Project.
3.4.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (" FEMA ")/Hydrologic Trespass
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, the Project is not within any
flood hazard zones. 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 0442
(map number 3720044200J), effective date January 5, 2007.
3.4.3 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 six Federally listed species that may occur in proximity to the Project: red -cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Saint Francis' satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii francisci),
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), pondberry (Lindera
melissifolia), rough -leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia). American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis) is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance and is not subject to Section 7
consultation. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) prohibits take of bald and golden
eagles.
In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database was
consulted to determine whether previously catalogued occurrences of protected species were mapped
within one mile of the project site. Results from NHP indicate that there is one historic population of
federally endangered rough -leaved loosestrife to the north of the project area, but there has not been an
observation since 1957. There are otherwise no known occurrences of federally threatened or
endangered species within a one -mile radius of the project area. Two state significantly rare species,
the Sandhills spiny crayfish (Cambarus hystricosus) and banded sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus), both
occur in Grays Creek approximately one mile downstream of the Project.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 11 August 2020

During the Project's public notice comment period, a letter was received from the USFWS, dated
November 15, 2018, that stated the "the action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed
species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA" and "...that the requirements under Section 7
(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project" (Appendix B). Notably, however, RES still
suspected potential habitat for pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) within the Project's forested wetlands,
but upon field investigations it was determined that there is, in fact, no suitable habitat for the species.
3.4.4 Cultural Resources
A review of North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office ("SHPO") GIS Web Service (accessed
November 27, 2019) database revealed one historic resource on the Project property, the McCoy House
(SD: CD0819); however, it is listed as gone. There are no anticipated impacts from Project activities to
state surveyed properties as there are none remaining in the proposed project vicinity. A letter was
received from the SHPO on November 8, 2018 that confirmed that no historic resources would be
affected by the project and no additional surveys were necessary (Appendix B).
3.4.5 Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
A survey of potential jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. was performed in April 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).
A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) request was sent to the USACE on August 2, 2019
and a site visit was conducted on October 10, 2019. Following the site visit and upon additional findings
of aquatic resources, revised materials were submitted on February 19, 2020. Ultimately, the confirmed
RID package will be issued at the time of the mitigation plan approval; however, email verification of
jurisdictional waters at the Project was implied through email correspondence with USACE in February
2020. All of these documents and correspondence can be found in Appendix B.
The delineation concludes the presence of jurisdictional streams, wetlands, and open water in and
adjacent to the Project (Appendix B & Figure 6). Existing stream and wetland conditions will be
discussed in detail in Sections 3.5 and 3.6.
3.4.6 Clean Water Act -Section 4011404
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 and
wetland treatment will result in an overall functional uplift of the stream and wetland system, as
described in Section 4. In general, reaches proposed for preservation, GC1, TV1-A and TV5-A will
not have any stream, wetland, or open water impacts. One reach, GC4, proposed for Enhancement I,
will have temporary impacts due to construction activities such as floodplain benching. Furthermore,
restoration reaches, GC2, GC3, TV1-B, and TV5-13, will have permanent impacts, due to stream
restoration and stream realignment. Wetlands WA and WD will have permanent and temporary impacts
due to stream restoration that will include stream construction and relocation. Other temporary impacts
in these wetlands will be due to construction haul routes where equipment will be mobile and where
tree clearing is necessary for stream restoration efforts. All stream and wetland impacts will be
accounted for in the Pre -Construction Notification form, to be submitted after Final Mitigation Plan
approval.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 12 August 2020

Table 5. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes
No
Appendix B"
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes
No
Appendix B`
Endangered Species Act Yes
Yes
Appendix B
National Historic Preservation Act Yes
No
Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) No
N/A
N/A
/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No
N/A
N/A
Magnuson -Stevens Act - Essential Fisheries No
N/A
N/A
Habitat
PCNwill be submitted after the Final Mitigation Plan is approved
3.5 Existing Stream Reach Conditions
The Project streams consist of Grays Creek and two of its
unnamed
tributaries (Figure 6). These
streams are split into reaches based on existing conditions
and proposed mitigation treatment: Grays
Creek is split into GC1, GC2, GC3, and GC4; one tributary is split into TV1-A, TV1-13, and TV1-C;
and the other tributary is split into TV5-A and TV5-13. Existing
reach
conditions and characteristics
based on data collection are discussed in detail in this section and
are summarized in Table 6.
Morphological parameters can be found in Appendix C.
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach Drainage ABxF Width Mean
Bank
W/D Sinuosity Slope
Area (acres) (ft2) (ft) Depth (ft)
Height
Ratio (ft/ft)
Ratio
GC1 4,980 39.7 16.1 2.5
1.2
6.5 -1.12 0.006
GC2 5,085 46.0 15.7 2.9
1.2
5.4 -1.02 0.003
GC3 5,283 29.7-58.9 11.8-18.5 1.6-3.7
1.2-1.3
4.2-11.6 -1.26 0.003
GC4 5,320 26.3 27.2 1.0
1.3
28 -1.07 0.001
TV1 7 2.7 8.2 0.3
1.0
24.8 -1.16 0.027
TV5 2 1.2 4.0 0.3
1.0
13.6 -1.20 0.023
3.5.1 Reach Conditions and Channel Morphology
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 13 August 2020

Grays Creek
GO
Reach GCI is 526 linear feet and begins after an open water area below an existing culvert crossing
on NC Highway 87 on the western end of the project and flows east through an unconfined
floodplain. This channel appears to exhibit minimal historic manipulation as the reach has a
meandering pattern and a lower cross -sectional area as compared to reaches downstream. The reach
is well vegetated with native tree species but does contain some Chinese privet throughout. The
average channel width is approximately 16 ft with an average depth of around 2.5 ft. The drainage
area for the reach is approximately 4,980 acres (7.8 sgmi).
Looking upstream along Reach GCI
Looking downstream along Reach GCI
GC2
Reach GC2 is 591 linear feet and originates from GCI and flows east to the reach break with GC3,
a 90 degree bend to the north. This reach has been historically straightened and subsequently dredged
as evident by spoil piles located intermittently along each top of bank. This reach lacks much
bedform diversity, and average bankfull depths range from 2.5 to 3 ft while bank heights range from
4.5 to 6 ft. The riparian buffer is forested with native species with minimal invasives located
throughout. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 5,085 acres.
Looking upstream along reach GC2
Looking downstream along reach GC2
GC3
Reach GC3 is 4,303 linear feet, 2,493 linear feet within the easement, and has been rerouted by a 90
degree turn north from GC2, away from its historic, natural path through the floodplain. The reach
then takes another sharp, 90 degree turn east at its confluence with TV1 and TV5. It then flows in a
straight line along the toe of the valley before regaining pattern briefly after it intercepts another
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 14 August 2020

lateral drainage feature from the north before straightening once again. The reach has clearly been
relocated from its historic path for most of its length, and spoil piles from historic channel
straightening and dredging are common along both top of banks. A relic channel is also still
discernable through the floodplain from the break between GC2 and GO to the point where the
channel briefly regains pattern. The reach flows through forested buffer for the upper half of its
length. Just downstream of its turn north from GC2, the channel borders a residential lot on its left
bank. Towards its downstream end, it is bordered along the left bank by agricultural fields and
scrubby, regenerating forest along the right bank. The reach incises dramatically as it flows eastward,
likely a result from past dredging. Approximate channel widths increase from about 15 ft at the
upstream end to 20 to 25 ft at the downstream end, and bank heights range from 4.5 to 6 ft at the
upstream and downstream ends as compared to heights of 7 to 8 ft along the middle of the reach. The
drainage area for the reach is approximately 5,283 acres.
Looking upstream along reach GO
Looking downstream along reach GO
GC4
Reach GC4 is 971 linear feet and transitions from GO at the proposed reach tie-in and continues to
flow east to the eastern end of the project. The reach is buffered by scrubby, regenerating forest along
its right bank and agricultural fields along the left bank. The channel has historically been
straightened and relocated to the valley edge. The channel is fairly incised and shows little pattern
or bedform. The average channel width is approximately 27 ft with bank heights ranging from 6 to
8 ft. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 5,320 acres.
Looking upstream along reach GC4
Looking downstream along reach GC4
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 15 August 2020

TVI
Reach TVI originates within an old, breached impoundment and flows south 516 linear feet to
confluence with GC3. This perennial reach flows from a confined valley to the less confined valley
of the Grays Creek floodplain. A large headcut in the reach right before the confluence with GO
drops the bed elevation down to level with the incised channel of Grays Creek. Within the old
impoundment, there is no woody buffer, but downstream of the dam the buffer is intact; however,
the understory is primarily Chinese privet. The average channel width is approximately 6-7 ft with
an average depth of around 0.5 ft. The drainage area for this reach is approximately 7 acres.
Looking upstream along reach TVI
Looking downstream along reach TV 1
TV5
Reach TV5 is an intermittent stream originating from strong hillslope seepage. It is 352 linear feet
and flows southeast, almost parallel to reach TVI. This reach flows through forested buffer and
drains to a ditch that runs along the border of a residential lot just before the ditch's confluence with
GC3. The reach is appropriately sized before a dramatic head cut at the confluence with the ditch
that drains to GC3. The average channel width is approximately 4 ft with an average depth of around
4 in. The drainage area for this reach is approximately 2 acres.
Looking upstream along reach TV5
Looking downstream along reach TV5
3.5.2 Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as perennial and intermittent streams using the NCDWR Stream
Identification Form version 4.11 and are E, G and F-stream types as classified using the Rosgen
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 16 August 2020

stream classification (Rosgen, 1996). Stream determinations have been verified by the USACE.
Additionally, streams were rated using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
("NCWAM"). Table 7 summarizes the stream parameters and corresponding forms are included in
Appendix C.
Table 7. Summary of Stream Parameters
Reach
Reach Length
(LF)
Hydrology
Status
Stream Determination
Score
NCSAM
Rating
Rosgen Stream
Classification
GC1
526
Perennial
38
High
E
GC2
591
Perennial
N/A
High
E
GC3
4,303
Perennial
N/A
Medium
E to G
GC4
971
Perennial
N/A
Medium
F
TV1
616
Perennial
30.75
High
C
TV5
352
Intermittent
27
High
C
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 17 August 2020

3.6 Existing Wetland Conditions
3.6.1 Existing Wetlands
Wetland delineation confirmed the presence of three jurisdictional wetland areas within the Project and
are labeled as WA (Wetland A), WC (Wetland C), and WD (Wetland D) in Existing Conditions, Figure
6 & Appendix B. There are approximately 23.849 acres of wetlands within the proposed easement
area: WA is approximately 21.619 acres in size; WC is approximately 0.277 acres; and WD is
approximately 1.953 acres. Note that for the purpose of describing these wetland areas appropriately,
WA has been divided into WA-1, WA-2, and WA-3. Wetlands were rated using the North Carolina
Wetland Assessment Method ("NCWAM") (Appendix Q. Existing conditions of each wetland are
described below and summarized in Table 8.
Wetland A
WA is a generally wide floodplain wetland system that contains Grays Creek and has varying levels of
disturbance that impact both hydrology and vegetation. In general, hydrology is driven by groundwater,
runoff from surrounding landscape, and historically, flooding of Grays Creek.
WA-1 is the least disturbed, with the channel of Grays Creek being appropriately sized and still
contributing many flood events and sandy deposition throughout. There is a ditch running along the
south, parallel to Grays Creek and another lateral ditch draining into Grays Creek in this wetland area;
however, they do not appear to be altering hydrology much. The vegetation is mature and diverse, with
a closed -canopy forest with a moderately -developed understory.
WA-2 is very similar to WA-1, except that the natural hydrology has been altered due to the relocation
and straightening of Grays Creek and its subsequent channel incision. However, groundwater is still
sufficient to maintain jurisdictional wetland status. The area, most likely classified as a Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swamp, historically, now functions more like a Brownwater Bottomland Hardwood
Forest with the loss of an active floodplain. Notably, however, a relic channel and some braided features
and depressional areas are evident throughout this wide, "bottomland" floodplain that demonstrates the
historic nature of the system that existed prior to anthropogenic disturbance.
WA-3 is similar to WA-2, except that hydrology seems to be diminishing to borderline jurisdictional
status due to its proximity to a ditch network, and its entire forest was clear-cut approximately eight
years ago. The regenerating vegetation lacks diversity and vigor and is dominated by saplings of
sweetgum and red maple.
Wetland C
WC is a small headwater wetland just below the origin of reach TV1 that is contained within the
footprint of an old, breached impoundment. There is mostly only herbaceous vegetation present in the
old pond bed with some black willow (Salix nigra) and blackberry along the edges. This wetland area
is essentially part of the same system as WD but is not contiguous due to the impoundment dam.
Wetland D
WD is indicative of a headwater wetland system in regard to its landscape position and contains stream
reaches TV1-A and TV5. A heavy draw of groundwater discharges out of the hillslope and then
conjoins with the Grays Creek floodplain wetland system. Canopy tree composition is similar to WA
but contains more yellow poplar and pine. Also, the understory is less developed, consisting of mostly
Chinese privet while the herbaceous stratum contains mostly Japanese stiltgrass.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 18 August 2020

Table S. Existing Wetland Summary Information
Wetland
NCWAM Rating
Wetland
Area Vegetation
ID
Type
-
(ac)
WA-1
Hydrology:
High
Bottomland
4.117 Tree Stratum:
Hardwood
Red maple, swamp tupelo, sweetgum, bald cypress,
Water Quality:
High
Forest
willow oak, water oak
Sapling Stratum.
Habitat:
High
Sweetgum, sweetbay, willow oak, water oak
Overall:
High
Shrub Stratum:
Swamp doghobble, Chinese privet
WA-2
Hydrology:
Medium
Bottomland
14.578 Herb Stratum:
Hardwood
Water Quality:
Low
Forest
Common rush, lizard's tail, netted chainfern,
cinnamon fern, Japanese stiltgrass
Habitat:
High
Woody Vine Stratum:
Laurel greenbrier, roundleaf greenbrier, muscadine
Overall:
Medium
WA-3 Hydrology:
Medium
Bottomland
2.925 Tree Stratum:
Hardwood
None
Water Quality:
Low
Forest
Sapling Stratum:
Red maple, sweetgum, willow oak, water oak
Habitat:
Medium
Shrub Stratum:
Overall:
Medium
American holly, sawtooth blackberry
Herb Stratum:
None
Woody Vine Stratum:
Laurel greenbrier, roundleaf greenbrier
WC Hydrology:
Low
Headwater
0.277 Tree Stratum:
Forest
None
Water Quality:
Low
Sapling Stratum:
Black willow
Habitat:
Low
Shrub Stratum:
Overall:
Low
Sawtooth blackberry
Herb Stratum:
Pennsylvania smartweed, common rush
WD Hydrology:
High
Headwater 1.953 Tree Stratum:
Forest Red maple, swamp tupelo, sweetgum, bald cypress,
Water Quality:
High
willow oak, water oak, yellow poplar, loblolly pine
Sapling Stratum.
Habitat:
High
Sweetgum, sweetbay, willow oak, water oak
Overall:
High
Shrub Stratum:
Chinese privet
Herb Stratum:
Japanese stiltgrass
Woody Vine Stratum:
Laurel greenbrier, roundleaf greenbrier, muscadine
3.6.2 National Wetland Inventory
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts three areas of wetlands within the project
limits. The primary wetland area is PFOIC (Palustrine, Forested, Broad -Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally
Flooded). Adjacent to that, to the south, is a smaller area of PF03/4C (Palustrine, Forested, Broad -
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 19 August 2020

Leaved Evergreen/Needle-Leaved Evergreen, Seasonally Flooded) and to the east, is an area of PFO I
(Palustrine, Forested, Broad -Leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded) (Figure 8).
3.7 Existing Hydric Soil Area Conditions
The entire Project area east of the WA jurisdictional wetland boundary has been highly manipulated by
human alterations that has contributed to the loss of natural hydrology and a disturbed natural
community within the Grays Creek floodplain. It is evident that the area was historically wetland, once
contiguous with the rest of the wetland to the west but has since been drained and logged extensively.
For this area, NCWAM was also performed and resulted "Low" ratings for all functions (Appendix
C).
Upon a detailed hydric soil study conducted by a licensed soil scientist, it was determined that this
entire area contains hydric soils but lacks sufficient wetland hydrology due to human alterations. Some
of the findings from the study are discussed below, and the detailed hydric soil report can be found in
Appendix C.
3.7.1 Hydric Soil Indicators
The soil evaluation confirmed the presence of hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface
throughout site. The most common hydric soil indicators based on recorded profiles are AI-Histosol,
A2-Histic Epipedon, A3-Black Histic, Al2-1hick Dark Surface, FI-Loamy Mucky Mineral, and F3-
Depleted Matrix, and F13-Umbric Surface. Other indicators that were found include AS -Stratified
Layers and F8-Redox Depressions. All but three of these indicators do not require a dark gray to black
surface but does not exclude a black surface. The indicators present reflect a very wet historical
condition in this floodplain resulting in the accumulation of organic materials throughout (Appendix
C).
3.7.2 Hydrology
Grays Creek is located close to the northern edge of the floodplain and toe slope, allowing the
interception of ground water seepage along this slope. The deep incision of Grays Creek effectively
lowers the floodplain groundwater elevation by limiting overbank flooding and providing drainage of
the surrounding sandy soils. To the south edge of the floodplain, the toe slope ditch intercepts seepage
before it can recharge the floodplain water table and provides additional surface drainage in the
backwater area of the floodplain. The ditch across the floodplain helps remove surface waters and acts
to lower shallow groundwater within the floodplain itself.
Observations with visible groundwater were limited and only found in the general area downstream of
the jurisdictional wetland and near the floodplain constriction. Below the constriction, observations of
the water table were found near the center of the floodplain away from Grays Creek. Depth to the water
table was deeper with distance from the wetland and closer to Grays Creek. This pattern suggest that
the incised Grays Creek is effectively lowering local groundwater to the north of the floodplain, and to
the south, the slope ditch is limiting recharge and preventing ponding in the backwater (Appendix Q.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 20 August 2020

4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
4.1 Stream Functional Uplift
In order to thoroughly examine the potential functional uplift to stream systems proposed for restoration
and enhancement, the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Framework) (Harman et. al. 2012) serves
as a useful concept to understand streams and their ecological functions. The Framework presents a
logical, holistic view of streams that describes the interrelatedness of fundamental stream functions.
The Framework defines five stream function categories, ordered into a hierarchy, that demonstrates 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. Further justifying this hierarchical concept, Fischenich (2006) found that the most
critical restoration activities are those that address stream functions related to hydrodynamic processes,
sediment transport processes, stream stability, and riparian buffers.
Therefore, principles of the Framework are utilized to discuss and communicate the potential functional
uplift to streams at the Dugout project and to propose realistic, attainable goals and objectives.
However, the determination of credits and performance standards for the Project follow guidance put
forth by the USACE Wilmington District.
The Dugout Stream and Wetland 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 hydrology,
hydraulic, and geomorphology functions of the system and is assumed to ultimately benefit the upper -
level functions (physicochemical and biology) over time, and in combination with other projects within
the watershed. Within the Project area, functional benefits and improvements related to the Function -
Based Pyramid Framework are anticipated by realizing site -specific functional goals and objectives
These goals and objectives, as they relate to the Framework, are outlined in Table 9.
4.1.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
Hydrology
The Project will locally address several historic hydrologic disturbances, especially drainage alterations
including stream relocation, channelization, and ditching. However, it is not anticipated that the Project
will have a significant effect on hydrology at the large watershed scale.
Hydraulic
The greatest potential uplift at the Project will be achieved through establishing healthy floodplain
connectivity. By constructing stream channels back within the natural low of the valley and sizing them
to have low bank height ratios and high entrenchment ratios, bankfull events can occur and subsequent
flooding will reinvigorate the entire floodplain system. Also, by locating the stream channels back to
its natural position within the floodplain and raising the channel bed, groundwater/surface water
exchange will be rejuvenated and maintained, further benefitting the stream -wetland floodplain
complex. Additionally, these stream channels will be designed and constructed with adequate energy
dissipation and grade control to achieve and maintain stable flow dynamics.
Geomorphology
Sediment transport will be improved by designing and constructing sinuous channels back within the
natural low of the valley-floodplain that maintain stable dimension, plan, and profile to allow for
healthy transport of sediment within the channel and floodplain. Channel stability and bedform
diversity will be improved by installing a log structures to promote a natural riffle -pool sequence, while
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 21 August 2020

brush toe bank protection and livestake plantings will further protect stream banks. Transport and
storage of woody debris will be improved by direct installation of woody structures such as log vanes,
brush bed sills, and brush toes, while increasing channel roughness through plantings and riffle creation
will promote storage of woody debris. Furthermore, riparian vegetation condition will be improved by
planting trees along reaches that are currently lacking sufficient forested buffer. This will promote
riparian buffer processes that will limit sediment to channels, protect stream banks, and contribute
woody debris that will ultimately contribute to dynamic equilibrium of the system. All of these
functional parameters are interconnected and depend on each other; therefore, improving this wide
range of parameters will result in long-term functional geomorphic uplift.
Physicochemical
Although this project would support the overarching goal in the Cape Fear River Basin Priorities 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,
many of the restoration and enhancement activities intended to improve the hydraulic and
geomorphology parameters will also directly and indirectly affect the physicochemical parameters of
the Project streams over time. The primary activities that will directly affect physicochemical functions
are stabilizing banks, planting riparian buffers, eliminating agricultural practices from riparian buffer
areas, and restoring and enhancing hydrology to riparian wetlands. These activities will reduce
sediment input by reducing erosion of stream banks and increase physical filtration of sediment through
forested riparian buffers, decrease nutrient sources by converting farmland to forest, and increase
nutrient processing through denitrification and nutrient uptake. Activities that will indirectly benefit
physicochemical functions are as follows: Temperature regulation will improve by introducing canopy
tree species to riparian buffers that will shade the stream. Oxygen regulation will improve through two
actions: first, the temperature of the water directly impacts the amount of gas held by the water;
therefore, by planting trees to shade the channel, water temperature will decrease, and dissolved oxygen
will increase. Second, by constructing stable channels that include drop structures, mixing zones will
form where oxygen dissolves much faster than the current exchange rate. Organic matter processing
will improve once restored riffles are able to catch twigs and branches that then retain leaves and other
particulate organic matter. Many of these physicochemical benefits will occur slowly 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 compare existing conditions with ongoing monitoring outcomes using the established stream and
wetland performance standards to demonstrate the positive correlation of hydraulic and geomorphic
parameters with physicochemical parameters. For example, as riparian buffer trees grow, as represented
in annual monitoring reports, it is anticipated that canopy cover is actively shading the stream channel
and reducing water temperature. This is not a substitute for direct physicochemical monitoring, but it
is a useful tool to help project the long-term benefits of the Project in terms of its functional uplift.
Ultimately, any uplift to physicochemical functions at the Project can only be assumed.
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 the lower -level functions, the functional uplift from the hydraulic and geomorphic levels would
likely have a positive effect on the 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 hydraulic and geomorphology parameters will be directly
measured during the seven-year monitoring period. Ultimately, any functional uplift to biology at the
Project can only be assumed.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 22 August 2020

4.2 Wetland Functional Uplift
The stream restoration activities discussed above that will provide stream -related functional uplift will
also provide functional uplift to riparian wetlands within the Project. Especially, by constructing an
appropriately sized, meandering channel back through the natural low of the floodplain, hydrologic
restoration and enhancement can be attained that will provide numerous water quality and soil -related
functional uplifts. These include, reestablishment of natural oxidation-reduction cycling, improved
nutrient and chemical transformations (especially nitrates), and potential immobilization of
phosphorus. Potential sources of these pollutants are present in the watershed. Other benefits include a
lower soil and surface water temperature after vegetative establishment, increased organic carbon
sequestration, and increases in diversity of beneficial microbial and fungal populations important for
soil health. Healthy microbial populations in wetlands are primarily responsible for biochemical
transformations of complex organic substances such as ammonia, molecular nitrogen, nitrite and
nitrate. Large scale benefits should include peak flood control, an increase of diverse wildlife habitat,
and greater connectivity to the natural aquatic communities along Grays Creek (Appendix Q.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 23 August 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 input from non -point source
pollution in the watershed and promote long-term resilience to the inevitable, spiking population growth
that were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2009 Cape Fear River RBRP. The Project will
address these stressors and support RBRP goals (discussed in Section 2).
The Project goals are:
• Re-establish or improve hydrology to a historical stream -wetland complex that has been
manipulated by agricultural practices for over 70 years.
• Improve water transport from watershed to channels in a non -erosive manner and improve and
maintain a stable water table in riparian floodplain wetlands;
• Improve water quality within the restored and enhanced stream channels and downstream
watercourses by reducing sediment and nutrient loads;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbanks flows and
connection to the active floodplain;
• Create diverse bedforms and stable channels that achieve healthy dynamic equilibrium and
provide suitable habitat for life;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Restore and enhance wetland hydrology and soils;
• Restore, enhance, and preserve native wetland and riparian vegetative communities; and
• Support the life histories of aquatic and riparian plants and animals through stream and wetland
restoration activities.
The Project objectives to address the goals are:
• Design and reconstruct stream channels that will convey bankfull flows while maintaining
stable dimension, profile, and planform based on modeling, watershed conditions, and
reference reach conditions;
• Maintain regular, seasonal flow in restored, intermittent stream reaches;
• Permanently exclude livestock from all stream channels, their associated buffers, and wetlands;
• Add in -stream structures and bank stabilization measures to improve bedform diversity and
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;
• Reduce bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios in restored stream channels;
• Relocate stream channels back within the low of the existing floodplain, raise stream bed
elevations, and plug and/or fill surface ditches to restore and enhance wetland hydrology and
maintain appropriate hydroperiod for Johnston and Deloss soil series;
• Plant wetland areas and increase forested riparian buffers to at least 50 feet on both sides of the
channel along Project streams with a native, hardwood plant community;
• Treat exotic invasive species; and
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project that will perpetually protect
streams, wetlands, and their associated buffers.
Project goals and objectives, as they relate to the Function Based Pyramid Framework, are outlined in
Table 9.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 24 August 2020

Table 9. Function -Based Goals and Objectives
Function
Goal
Objective
Hydro lopy
To transport water from the watershed
Convert land -use of riparian areas to forest
Transport of water from the
to the channel in a non -erosive manner
watershed to the channel
and improve wetland hydrology in
Maintain appropriate hydropenod for Johnston
riparian wetlands
and Deloss soil series
Improve flood bank connectivity by reducing
Hydrau&c
To transport water within streams and
bank height ratios and increasing
Transport of water in the
floodplains in a stable, non -erosive
entrenchment ratios
channel, on the floodplain,
and through the sediments
manner
Maintain regular, seasonal flow in restored,
intermittent streams
Limit erosion rates and increase channel
GeomornholoEy
To create a diverse bedform and stable
stability to reference reach conditions
Transport of wood and
channels that achieve healthy dynamic
sediment to create diverse
equilibrium and provide suitable
Improve bedform diversity (pool spacing,
bedforms and dynamic
habitat for life
percent riffles, etc.)
equilibrium
Increase buffer width to at least 50 feet
Establish native hardwood riparian buffer to
To promote healthier levels for water
provide canopy shade and absorb nutrients
Physicochemical
temperature, dissolved oxygen
Temperature and oxygen
concentration, and other important
Install in -stream structures to created aeration
regulation; processing of
nutrients including but not limited to
zones
organic matter and nutrients
Nitrogen and Phosphorus through
buffer/wetland planting and excluding
Promote sediment filtration, nutrient cycling,
cattle
and organic accumulation through natural
wetland biogeochemical processes
Biolo
to achieve functionality in levels 1-4 to
Biodiversity and life
support the life histories of aquatic and
Improve aquatic habitat by installing habitat
histories of aquatic life
riparian plants and animals through
features, constructing pools of varying depths,
histories and riparian life
stream and wetland
and planting the riparian buffer and wetlands
restoration/enhancement activities
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 25 August 2020

6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
6.1 Reference Stream
The restoration portions of the Project are characterized by historic agricultural production and past
channel straightening and relocation resulting in poorly functioning stream channels. Physical
parameters of the Project were used, as well as other reference materials, to determine the target stream
type. The "Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina" was also used to narrow the
potential community types that would have existed at the Project (Schafale, 2012).
Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the Physiographic Region and ecoregion,
• Similar watershed size,
• Similar land use on site and in the watershed,
• Similar soil types on site and in the watershed,
• Ideal, undisturbed habitat — several types of woody debris present,
• Similar topography,
• Similar slope,
• Pattern common among Coastal Plain streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.
Obtaining property owner information and owner authorization for access was another factor in locating
suitable reference sites for the Project. There was no predetermined amount of reference sites needed
as long as the site was suitable and met the parameters. Many streams in this watershed are impacted
by cattle and agricultural practices and development activities, making it difficult to find an ideal
reference for the Project site. The preservation portion of Grays Creek (Reach GC1) and the
preservation portion of UT to Grays Creek (Reach TV1-A), associated with this Project, were selected
as the reference reaches for use in developing design parameters.
6.1.1 Reference Watershed Characterization
The reference streams are the most upstream portion of Grays Creek and the upstream portion of Reach
TV 1 in the Project which are located in the Cape Fear River Basin. The reaches that were surveyed and
analyzed are approximately 526 feet long and 550 feet long, respectively, with drainage areas of 7.78
square miles (4980 acres) and 0.01 square miles (7 acres), respectively. The land -use in the watershed
is not dominated by any one land -use, but has major components of forest, developed area, and
agriculture, with minor components of open space, brush, and open water. Site photographs of the
reference streams are located in Appendix C.
6.1.2 Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge for these reference
reaches. Existing drainage area, land use, slope, roughness, and cross -sectional area were all factors
considered when performing the calculations. Using a combination of Coastal Regional Curves, in-
house spreadsheet tools, and a project specific regional flood frequency analysis, the existing discharge
for Grays Creek was found to be around 90-150 cubic feet per second (ft3/s), and the existing discharge
for UT to Grays Creek was found to be 3-6 ft3/s. See Section 6.2 for a more detailed description of the
hydrologic analyses performed for this project.
6.1.3 Reference Channel Morphology
The Grays Creek and UT to Grays Creek references were both used in the design of their continuations
downstream. As such, Grays Creek and UT to Grays Creek are approximately the same size as the
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 26 August 2020

design reaches when comparing pattern, dimension, and profile. The only exception is the design reach
TV5-13, which is smaller than UT to Grays creek, and required a scaling factor in its design. The scaling
factor is based on the difference in bankfull width of the reference channel and design channel. Grays
Creek was typically 16 to 18 feet wide and 3 to 4 feet deep, and UT to Grays Creek was typically 6 to
8 feet wide and 0.6 feet deep. The cross -sectional areas were typically around 39 square feet for Grays
Creek and 2 to 3 square feet for UT to Grays Creek with width to depth ratios of around 6 to 7 and 18
to 20, respectively.
6.2 Design Parameters
6.2.1 Stream Treatment and Design Approach
The stream treatment plan and design approach were developed based on the existing conditions,
project goals, and objectives outlined in Sections 3 and 5. The Project will include Preservation, Priority
I Restoration and Enhancement Level L Stream restoration will incorporate the design of a single -
thread, meandering channel with parameters based on data taken from reference reaches, published
empirical relationships, regional curves developed from existing project streams, and NC and VA
Regional Curves. Analytical design techniques will also be a crucial element of the project and will be
used to determine the design discharge and to verify the overall design. The Conceptual plan is provided
in Figure 9 and Appendix D.
The detailed treatment plan and design approach is as follows:
Reach GC1
A preservation approach is proposed for this reach to protect the reach in perpetuity. Preservation
activities will include:
- Protecting the reach in a conservation easement,
- Invasive vegetation treatment and supplemental planting as needed.
Reach GC2
An offline restoration approach is proposed for this reach to address historic channel realignment, areas
of bed instability, and bank erosion and incision. Restoration activities will include:
- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
- Installing log structures to provide grade control and habitat,
- Establishing a riffle -pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via live -staking,
- Filling the existing channel,
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive vegetation treatment.
Reach GC3
An offline restoration approach is proposed for this reach to address channelization, channel diversion,
areas of bed instability, bank erosion and incision, and buffer impacts. The proposed channel will be
relocated back to the south and through the middle of the valley, starting at the upstream end of the
reach. The existing portion of Grays Creek that flows to the north and along the eastern edge of an
adjacent landowner's property will not be abandoned, but partially filled instead. This section (Swale
A, Sheet S15) will remain open and will be re -graded as a swale and to redirect flow to the south and
into proposed Reach GC3. The construction of the swale is necessary to prevent hydrologic trespass on
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 27 August 2020

the adjacent property regarding stormwater runoff and to avoid impacts to their septic field located on
the west of the proposed swale/existing Grays Creek.
In addition to Swale A, Swale B will be constructed to address an existing ditch that enters the proposed
reach near STA 26+50. The swale will involve filling and flattening the ditch such that flow will be
diffused through the floodplain before reaching proposed GC3. An engineered sediment pack (ESP)
and small depression will be installed along the swale just inside the easement. The ESP will act as a
stormwater control measure to filter concentrated flows received from the ditch. Restoration activities
will include:
- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain and through a relic channel
between stations 22+25 and 26+50,
- Installing log structures to provide grade control and habitat,
- Establishing a riffle -pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via live -staking,
- Filling and plugging the existing channel,
- Livestock exclusion,
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive vegetation treatment.
Reach GC4
An enhancement I approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bank erosion and incision,
and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Cutting a floodplain bench along the left bank for its entire length,
- Cutting a floodplain bench along the right bank to approximately STA 58+30,
- Installing habitat structures in the form of brush beds or log sills,
- Stabilizing banks via live -staking,
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive vegetation treatment.
Reach TVl-A
A preservation approach is proposed for this reach to protect the reach in perpetuity. Preservation
activities will include:
Widening the breach of the drained impoundment to provide floodplain access through the old
dam,
Riparian planting, and
Protecting the reach in a conservation easement.
Reach TVl-B
A mix of offline and inline restoration is proposed for this reach to address a headcut in the channel
and to tie the reach back into the Grays Creek floodplain. Reach TV1-B will transition to TV1-C (the
floodplain of Grays Creek), to mimic other features near the Project and in the greater coastal region
and encourage the formation of the multithread system of TV1-C. Restoration activities will include:
- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
- Establishing a riffle -pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via live -staking,
- Riparian planting,
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 28 August 2020

- Invasive vegetation treatment.
Reach TVl-C
A hydrologic restoration approach is proposed for this reach to encourage the formation of a natural,
multithread stream and wetland complex in the low gradient floodplain of Grays Creek between TV 1-
B and GC3. The existing location of Grays Creek in this area being on the edge of the floodplain, and
the existing, large headcut that drops TV1 into the incised Grays Creek, indicate that TV1 was
disconnected from the Grays Creek floodplain and thus effectively lost a functioning confluence with
Grays Creek and the greater stream -wetland complex. Therefore, through the restoration of TV1-B and
Grays Creek, it is anticipated that a natural, braided stream will result, and the hydrologic connection
of these features will be restored. Hydrologic restoration activities will include:
- Spreading out flows from TV1-B in the floodplain of GC3,
- Invasive vegetation treatment.
Notably, due to the nature of this feature, TV1-C will be credited as a straight-line length through a
100-foot corridor and will not be pursued for any additional type of credit. Therefore, the reach is not
included in any additional credit for wider buffers (see Section 6.6.1 & Figure 10) nor will any wetland
credit be generated within the 100-foot corridor (Figure 9).
Reach TV5-A
A preservation approach is proposed for this reach to protect the reach in perpetuity. Preservation
activities will include:
- Protecting the reach in a conservation easement.
Reach TV5-B
A mix of offline and inline restoration is proposed for this reach to tie the reach to TV1. Restoration
activities will include:
- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
- Establishing a riffle -pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via live -staking,
- Filling the existing channel,
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive vegetation treatment.
6.2.2 Data Analysis
Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to determine
and validate the design bankfull discharge and channel geometry required to provide regular floodplain
inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a
single model. Peak flows (Table 10) and corresponding channel cross sectional areas were determined
for comparison to design parameters using the following methods:
• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• NC and VA Regional Curves
Regional Flood Analysis
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby
USGS gauges with drainage areas ranging from 0.56 to 10.2 mil which passed the Dalrymple
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 29 August 2020

homogeneity test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations.
Regional flood frequency equations were developed for the 1.1 and 1.5-year peak discharges based on
the gauge data. Discharges were then computed for the design reaches. These discharges were
compared to those predicted by the discharge regional curve and the reference reach discharges.
Regional Curve Regression Equations
The Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain regional curves by Doll et al. (2003) and the Maryland/Virginia
Non -Urban Non -Tidal Coastal Plain regional curves by Krstolic and Chaplin (2007) for discharge were
used in part to determine the bankfull discharge for the Project. The NC regional curve predicted flows
that are similar to those predicted by the 1.1-year flood frequency. The MD/VA regional curve predicted
flows between the 1.1- and 1.5-year flood frequency for the larger drainage area of GC2/GC3 but
predicted flows below the 1.1-year flood frequency for the smaller tributaries. The regional curve
discharge equations used for the analysis are:
(1) Qb� 16.56*(DA)°'2 (Doll et al., 2003)
(2) Qbkj=28.3076*(DA)o.59834 (Krstolic and Chaplin 2007)
Where Ql kf=bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mi').
Table 10. Peak Flow Comparison
Drainage Area
Reach (Ac) FFQ Qi.i
NC Regional
FFQ Qis
Curve Q (1)
M DNA Regional
Curve Q (2)
Design/
Calculated Q
GC2/GC3 5283 75
142 76
100
90
TVl-B 10 3
7 1
2
3-6
TV5-B 2 2
4 0
1
1-3
Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a
stable sand and/or gravel bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically, sediment
transport is assessed to determine a stream's ability to move a specific grain size at specified flows.
Various sediment transport equations are applied when estimating entrainment for sand and gravel bed
streams found in the piedmont. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) report, Stability Thresholds
for Stream Restoration Materials (Fischenich, 2001), was used to obtain permissible shear stresses and
velocities. Data found in this document was obtained from multiple sources using different testing
conditions. The following methods and published documents were utilized during the sediment
transport analysis:
Permissible Shear Stress Approach, and
Permissible Velocity Approach.
Shear Stress Approach
Shear stress is a commonly used tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear stresses
are a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size, and gradation),
cohesiveness of bank materials, vegetative cover, and incoming sediment load. The shear stress
approach compares calculated shear stresses to those found in the literature.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 30 August 2020

Critical shear stress is the shear stress required to initiate motion of the channels median particle size
(D5o)-
Table 11. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Proposed Shear Existing
Reach Stress at Bankfull Critical Shear Sand
Stage Obs/ftZ) Stress (lbs/ft') Obs/ftz)
Allowable Shear Stress'
Fine Gravel Medium/Coarse Vegetation
Obs/ftz) GravelObs/ftz) Obs/ftz)
GC2/GC3 0.21 0.02 0.02 to 0.075 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67 0.7 to 1.7
TVl-B 0.53 0.02 0.02 to 0.075 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67 0.7 to 1.7
TV5-13 0.44 0.02 0.02 to 0.075 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67 0.7 to 1.7
'(Fischenich, 2001)
Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Project design reaches fall
between the critical shear stress (shear stress required to initiate motion) and the allowable limits.
Therefore, the proposed channel should remain stable with native materials.
VelocitApproach
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank
materials. A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method to
aid in the verification of channel stability. Table 12 compares the proposed velocities calculated using
Manning's equation with the permissible velocities.
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities
Permissible
Reach Manning's "n" Value' Design Velocity (ft/s) Bed Material Velocity,
(ft/sec)
GC2/GC3 0.045 2.0 Sand/Fine Gravel 1.75 - 2.5
TVl-B 0.05 2.4 Sand/Fine Gravel 1.75 - 2.5
TV5-13 0.05 2.1 Sand/Fine Gravel 1.75 - 2.5
'(Chow, 1959)
2(Fischenich, 2001)
Sediment Supply
In addition to the stability assessment, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply was performed by
characterizing watershed conditions. A combination of field reconnaissance and windshield surveys,
existing land use data, and historical aerial photography were analyzed to assess existing and past
watershed conditions to determine if any changes occurred that would significantly impact sediment
supply. There is significant instability and erosion along the channels, which appear to be a result of
historic channel realignment and straightening, as well as watershed development. It is anticipated that
sediment supply from agricultural land adjacent to the project will decrease as channels are stabilized
and realigned away from agricultural fields, and sediment supply from the channel itself will decrease
as channel entrenchment and stability is improved.
6.2.3 Wetland Treatment and Approach
The Dugout Project offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity that will revitalize a highly
manipulated floodplain forest community. As such, the wetland restoration and enhancement are
closely tied to the stream restoration. Wetland restoration aims to re-establish hydrology and
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 31 August 2020

hydrophytic vegetation to currently non -wetland areas that exhibit hydric soil indicators and drained
hydrology, while enhancement areas aim to improve hydrology or vegetation in already jurisdictional
wetland areas. The Project will provide 6.222 Riparian WMUs through a combination of wetland re-
establishment, enhancement, and preservation. Notably, areas generating wetland credit are either
within the proposed 50-foot stream buffer area of proposed stream channels or are wholly outside of
the non-standard buffer width areas generating additional stream credit (greater than 150 feet).
Therefore, wide buffer areas utilized for additional stream credit and wetland credit areas do not overlap
(Figure 9 & Figure 10).
Re-establishment
Wetland re-establishment with a credit ratio of 1:1 is proposed in the area east of the current
jurisdictional wetland boundary of WA. This re-established wetland area will be referred to as "WE"
(Wetland E) (Figure 9). This area contains hydric soils but lacks sufficient wetland hydrology and a
lowered water table due to an altered landscape and drainage modifications, including the relocated and
incised Grays Creek, presence of highly permeable soils, and the location of drainage ditches
intercepting groundwater discharges onto the floodplain. As mentioned above, the hydrologic
restoration of this area will be directly related to the stream restoration activities. Reconstructing Grays
Creek (specifically reach GC3), with an appropriately sized channel back within the low of the existing
floodplain, and plugging and filling the incised, abandoned channel, will raise the local groundwater
elevation that will allow frequent flooding. Also, plugging and filling nearby ditches will redirect
seepage back onto the floodplain and limit surface drainage. Additionally, the re-established wetland
area will be planted with bare root hardwood trees representative of a Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp community; however, due to the high organic matter of existing soil and existing natural surface
topography, ripping is not required. However, where construction equipment is utilized, limited surface
roughening may be necessary due to the structure of high organic soil that may be destroyed by
equipment.
In order to document existing hydrology and establish baseline conditions for proposed wetland re-
establishment area WE, three groundwater hydrology wells were installed within the area. In addition,
one well was installed within existing, jurisdictional wetland WA near the top of the Project area to
serve as a reference and document less disturbed hydrologic conditions. These wells were installed in
April 2019 and automatic pressure transducers within the wells are currently recording data twice per
day. Data from these wells will be presented in the Final Mitigation Plan and should include
hydrographs for each well.
There will be two additional, small areas of re-establishment within the Project. One area along reach
GC2 will consist of a portion of the existing Grays Creek and a large berm associated with it. For this
area, the existing channel will be abandoned and backfilled, while the berm material will be removed
to match the surrounding floodplain elevation. This patch of re-establishment will be referred to as
"WF" (Wetland F) (Figure 9). The other small area of re-establishment will occur near the start of
restoration on TV 1-B. Similar to WF, this area will consist of a portion of the existing Grays Creek and
berm that will be abandoned, backfilled, and leveled in order to connect the existing jurisdictional
wetlands WD and WA. This patch of re-establishment will be referred to as "WG" (Wetland G) (Figure
9). Like the rest of the wetland re-establishment, these areas will be planted with bare root hardwood
trees.
Enhancement (High)
Wetland enhancement with a credit ratio of 2:1 is proposed within the existing jurisdictional wetland
WC (Figure 9). This wetland is natural fed by groundwater; however, the former impoundment has
created unfavorable conditions for regeneration of woody wetland vegetation. Therefore, the primary
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 32 August 2020

approach to enhance this wetland is to plant native bare root trees in order to establish a wetland
hardwood forest community.
Enhancement (Low)
Wetland enhancement with a credit ratio of 5:1 is proposed within the existing jurisdictional wetland
WA where stream restoration is also proposed (Figure 9). These areas currently support jurisdictional
wetland hydrology and are fully forested; however, the relocation of Grays Creek away from the natural
floodplain position along with its incision has undoubtedly altered the natural hydrology of the wetland
areas. Therefore, by reconstructing Grays Creek (specifically reach GC2 and GC3), with an
appropriately sized channel back within the low of the existing floodplain, and plugging and filling the
incised, abandoned channel, the local groundwater elevation will rise and more frequent flooding will
occur, ultimately improving hydrology to the entire system. A low, 5:1 credit ratio is proposed because
although restoring Grays Creek will improve wetland hydrology, the wetland is already jurisdictional,
and groundwater hydrology will not be directly monitored. Additionally, any forested area that is
impacted within the stream restoration corridor will be replanted with bare root hardwood trees
representative of a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp.
Preservation
Wetland preservation with a credit ratio of 10:1 is proposed for the remaining jurisdictional wetland
areas within WA and WD that will not be directly enhanced by stream restoration efforts (Figure 9).
These areas will remain forested and protected in perpetuity.
6.3 Sediment Control Measures
A suite of sediment control measures will be utilized for the Project to reduce direct effluent inputs,
pollutant contamination, and sediment loading. The combination of the following sediment control
measures: riparian buffer planting, bank stabilization, stream restoration, engineered sediment packs
and livestock exclusion, will ultimately lead to the functional uplift of the site, while still allowing
livestock production to persist.
The riparian buffer will be restored along all restoration and enhancement reaches. Restored riparian
buffers are established adjacent to and up -gradient from watercourses of water bodies to improve water
quality. Buffers will be protected from livestock by installing fencing along livestock -adjacent project
boundaries.
6.4 Vegetation and Planting Plan
6A.1 Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration Project. The selection
of plant species is based on what was observed in the forest surrounding the restoration Project and
what is typically native to the area. Specifically, species identified in the preservation area of the Project
along with species described in the 2012 Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximation (Schafale, 2012) for coastal plain wetland -type communities were used to determine
the most appropriate species for the restoration project.
A Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Schafale, 2012) will be the target community along the Project
reaches and wetlands. This community type represents a diverse community where wet -tolerant
hardwoods can establish throughout while very wet species (e.g. Cypress and Gums) can thrive in the
sloughs, depressions, and more swampy areas. The target community will be used for the planting areas
within the Project, shown in Figure 11 and Appendix D. Due to the uniform site characteristics,
including soil types, wetland extent, and existing vegetation, there will be one planting zone where a
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 33 August 2020

mix of all proposed tree species will be planted throughout the planting areas. The tree species list has
been developed and can be found in Table 13.
In order to maintain integrity of the mature forested wetland areas within the proposed stream
restoration construction corridors, tree clearing will be limited to the greatest extent practicable.
Therefore, where possible, some mature trees may remain within the proposed planting area depicted
in Figure 11 and Appendix D. Additionally, it is anticipated that tree clearing outside the depicted
planting area, and possibly outside the easement area, will occur to accommodate construction access.
These areas will also be replanted along with the rest of the site.
The restoration of plant communities along the Project will provide stabilization and diversity. For
rapid stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), black willow (Salix nigra), eastern
cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) were chosen for live
stakes along the restored channel because of their rapid growth patterns and high success rates. Willows
grow at a faster rate than the species planted around them, and they stabilize the stream banks. Willows
will also be quicker to contribute organic matter to the channel. When the other planted tree species
grow bigger, the black willows will slowly stop growing or die out as they are effectively shaded out
and outcompeted. The live stake species will be planted along the outside of the meander bends three
feet from the top of bank, creating a three-foot section along the top of bank. The live stakes will be
spaced one per three linear feet with alternate spacing, vertically.
It is anticipated that the vegetation planting/replanting will be conducted between November 15 and
March 15, per the October 2016 USACE/NCIRT monitoring guidance. Furthermore, there will be at
least 180 days until the initiation of the first year of monitoring.
Table 13. Proposed Plant List
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Species
Wetland
Common Name Indicator
Status*
Spacing (ft)
Unit Type
% of Total
Species
Composition
Taxodium distichum
Bald cypress OBL
9X6
Bare Root
10
Nyssa biflora
Swamp tupelo OBL
9X6
Bare Root
10
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush OBL
9X6
Bare Root
10
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore FACW
9X6
Bare Root
10
Betula nigra
River birch FACW
9X6
Bare Root
10
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel oak FACW
9X6
Bare Root
10
Quercus lyrata
Overcup oak OBL
9X6
Bare Root
10
Quercus michauxxi
Swamp chestnut oak FACW
9X6
Bare Root
10
Quercus phellos
Willow oak FACW
9X6
Bare Root
10
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak FACW
9X6
Bare Root
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash FACW
9X6
Bare Root
5
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Species
Common Name
% of Total Species Composition
Salix nigra
Black willow
40
Populus deltoides
Eastern cottonwood
30
Dugout Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Plan 34
August 2020

Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 30
* Based on NRCS- USDA Wetland Indicator Status for Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 35 August 2020

6.4.2 On Site Invasive Species Management
Treatment for invasive species will be required within the entire easement area. Invasive species will
require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant phenology and the location of the
species being treated; however, based on observed existing conditions, the only known exotic invasive
species that would require treatment is Chinese privet. 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.
6.4.3 Soil Restoration
Due to the high organic matter of existing soil and existing natural surface topography typical of the
Project area, soil scarification may not be necessary or appropriate in all areas. However, where
construction equipment compacts or destroys structure of high organic soil, limited surface roughening
may be necessary. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be stockpiled and placed over
the Project during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil conditions for plant
growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the Project.
6.5 Mitigation Summary
The entire floodplain forest ecosystem, within the Project limits, will be restored and revitalized through
stream and wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation.
Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the restoration designs described in this
document. The combination of the analog and analytical design methods was determined to be
appropriate for this project because the watershed is more rural than urban, the causes of disturbance
are known and have been abated, and there are minimal infrastructure constraints. The original design
parameters were developed from the measured analog/reference reach data and applied to the subject
stream. The parameters were then analyzed and adjusted through an iterative process using analytical
tools and numerical simulations of fluvial processes. The designs presented in this report provide for
the restoration of natural non -tidal coastal plan silt/loam/gravel-bed channel features and stream bed
diversity to improve benthic habitat. The proposed design will allow flows that exceed the design
bankfull stage to spread out over the floodplain, restoring a portion of the hydrology for the existing
wetlands.
A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the restoration
channel. However, many segments will be left partially filled to provide habitat diversity and flood
storage. Native woody material will be installed throughout the restored reach to reduce bank stress,
provide grade control, and increase habitat diversity.
Forested riparian buffers of at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the
project reaches. An appropriate riparian wetland plant community (Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp)
will be established to include a diverse mix of species. The plant species list has been developed and
can be found in Table 13. Replanting of native species will occur where the existing buffer is impacted
during construction.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 36 August 2020

Wetland restoration via wetland re-establishment aims to re-establish hydrology and hydrophytic
vegetation to currently non -wetland areas that exhibit hydric soil indicators and drained hydrology,
while enhancement areas aim to improve hydrology or vegetation in already jurisdictional wetland
areas. The primary mechanism to re-establish and enhance wetland hydrology is through stream
restoration efforts that will re-establish surface -groundwater connections, increasing retention and
storage, and permit flood events. All restored wetland areas will be planted with native, wetland -
tolerant hardwood vegetation. The remaining functional, jurisdictional wetlands will be preserved.
A combination of sediment control measures will be used on site; riparian buffer planting, bank
stabilization, stream restoration, and livestock exclusions. This combination of sediment control
measures will ultimately lead to the functional uplift of the site by minimizing sedimentation, nutrient
input, and fecal coliform input from ongoing livestock and agricultural production outside of the
conservation easement.
Due to the nature of the project, complete avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is not possible.
However, the construction approach and sequencing will be adjusted to minimize impacts and tracking
within the existing wetlands to avoid compaction to the extent possible. To achieve this, haul routes
will be located and accessed outside of the existing wetlands, and timber mats will be utilized when
working within the wetland areas to construct the new channel. Please refer to Section 3.4.6 for a
discussion of Project impacts. Ultimately, the impacts associated with the Project are integral to provide
functional uplift to aquatic resources on -site. Furthermore, all impacts will be accounted for in the Pre -
Construction Notification (PCN) form.
6.6 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 14 are projections based upon site design (Figure 9). If upon
Project completion, there is a large discrepancy between design and as -built conditions an updated plan
will be submitted to the District for approval as a project modification. Any deviation from the
mitigation plan post approval, including adjustments to credits, will require a request for modification.
This will be approved by the USACE.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 37 August 2020

Table 14. Mitigation Credits
The Dugout Stream and Wetland Site Mitigation Credits
Warm Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Totals 6,545.283
6.222
NA
Stream Components
Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Stationing
Existing
Length
(LF)
Proposed
Length (U)
Mitigation
Ratio
SMUs
GC1 Preservation
1+94 to 7+20
526
526
10:1
52.600
GC2 Restoration
7+20 to 13+80
591
660
1:1
660.000
GC3 Restoration
13+80 to 35+28
2,137
2,148
1:1
2,148.000
Restoration
35+99 to 53+15
356
1,716
1:1
1,716.000
GC4 Enhancement I
53+15 to 62+86
971
971
1.5:1
647.333
TVI-A Preservation
1+00 to 5+50
550
550
10:1
45.000
TVI-B Restoration
5+50 to 8+90
66
340
1:1
340.000
TV1-C Hydrologic
Restoration
8+90 to 11+05
0
215
1:1
215.000
TV5-A Preservation
0+00 to 2+50
250
250
10:1
25.000
TV5-B Restoration
2+50 to 3+44
102
94
1:1
94.000
Total
5,448
7,370
5,942.933
Non -Standard Buffer Width Adjustment*
602.340
Total Adjusted SMUs
6,545.283
* SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section U(C)- "Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator", supplied to
Providers in the January 2018, from the USACE. A detailed description of the methodology and calculations is described
below in Section 6.6.1 and in Figure 10.
Wetland Components
Wetland ID
Mitigation
Area (ac)
Ratio
WMU
WA
Enhancement (Low)
Preservation
5.745
3.284
5:1
10:1
1.149
0.328
WC
Enhancement (High)
0.167
2:1
0.084
WD
Enhancement (Low)
Preservation
0.213
1.282
5:1
10:1
0.043
0.128
WE
Re-establishment
4.127
1:1
4.127
WF
Re-establishment
0.271
1:1
0.271
WG
Re-establishment
0.092
1:1
0.092
Total**
15.181
6.222
* * Areas generating wetland credit are within the proposed 50 foot stream buffer area or are wholly outside of the Non-
standard buffer width areas generating additional stream credit (>I50 ft.); therefore, additional stream credit areas and
wetland credit areas do not overlap.
6.6.1 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths
To calculate functional uplift credit adjustments, the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit
Calculator from the USACE in January 2018 was utilized. To perform this calculation, GIS analysis
was performed to determine the area (in square feet) of ideal buffer zones and actual buffer zones
around all streams within the project. Minimum standard buffer widths are measured from the top of
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 38 August 2020

bank (50 feet in Piedmont and Coastal Plain counties or 30 feet in Mountain counties). The ideal buffers
are the maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable
stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The actual buffer is the
square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non -forested areas, all other credit type
(e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the
vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas
within the easement that are more than 150 feet from creditable streams were not included in this
measurement. Non -creditable stream reaches within the easement are removed prior to calculating this
area with GIS (for both ideal and actual). The stream lengths, mitigation type, ideal buffer, and actual
buffer are all entered into the calculator. This data is processed, and the resulting credit amounts are
totaled for the whole project (Table 14 & Figure 10).
Specifically, stream reach TV1-C, being credited as a straight-line length through a 100-foot corridor,
was not included in any additional credit for wider buffers. Furthermore, the 100-foot corridor
associated with this reach was included as an ineligible area (Figure 10) to ensure no additional credit
was generated within this corridor. The other ineligible area is the jurisdictional open water at the
upstream extent of the Project, just below the road culvert. Also, as mentioned earlier, areas generating
wetland credit are within the proposed 50-foot stream buffer area or are wholly outside of the Non-
standard buffer width areas generating additional stream credit (greater than 150 feet); therefore,
additional stream credit areas and wetland credit areas do not overlap.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 39 August 2020

7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Project will follow the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update and subsequent agency guidance. Specific success criteria
components are presented below.
7.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
7.1.1 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.
7.1.2 Surface Flow
Intermittent stream reaches being restored will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal
surface flow. This will be accomplished through direct observation and the use of automatic -logging
pressure transducers with data loggers (flow gauge). Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30
consecutive days of flow.
7.1.3 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 no less than 2.2 within restored riffle cross
sections.
7.1.4 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 development of 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.
7.2 Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
7.2.1 Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) has a current WETS table (1990-2019) for
Cumberland County upon which to base a normal rainfall amount and average growing season. The
closest comparable data station was determined to be the WETS station at Fayetteville Regional Airport
in Grannis Field, NC. This station determines the growing season to be 259 days long, extending from
March 12 to November 26, and is based on a daily minimum temperature greater than 28 degrees
Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years.
Based upon field observation across the site, the NRCS mapping units show a good correlation to actual
site conditions in areas of the site. Mitigation guidance for soils in the Coastal Plain suggests a
hydroperiod for both the Johnston and Deloss soil series of 12 to 16 percent of the growing season.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 40 August 2020

Therefore, hydrology success criterion for the Project is to restore the water table so that it will remain
continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12 percent of the growing season
(approximately 31 days) at each groundwater gauge location. However, due to the current drainage and
permeable soils, it may take at least a year for the site to become completely saturated and reach the
target hydroperiod.
7.3 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
7 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 10 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 according to NC IRT monitoring guidance. 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 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 15 outlines the links between
project objectives and treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and performance standards.
Figure 11 depicts the proposed monitoring plan, including approximate numbers and locations of
monitoring devices for the Project.
8.1 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank
to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by USACE.
8.2 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species,
and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete
streamwalk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to
record each monitoring event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Fixed image
locations will exist at each cross section, each vegetation plot, each stage recorder, and each flow gauge.
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
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 41 August 2020

maturation of riparian vegetation. Specifically, photos will be taken at each cross section, stage
recorder, flow gauge, vegetation plot, and groundwater well location.
8.3 Stream Hydrology Events
Continuous stage recorders, devices that utilize automatic -logging pressure transducers that are capable
of documenting the height, frequency, and duration of bankfull events, will be installed on Restoration
reaches of Grays Creek. Specifically, stage recorders will be installed on reaches GC2 and GC3.
Where restoration activities are proposed for intermittent streams, monitoring flow gauges should be
installed to track the frequency and duration of stream flow events. Specifically, one flow gauge,
consisting of an automatic -logging pressure transducer, will be installed on reach TV5-13.
8.4 Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in
pools and half in riffle on all Restoration and Enhancement I reaches. Morphological data will be
measured and recorded for all cross -sections; however, only riffle cross sections will include bank
height ratio and entrenchment ratio measurements. A total of 21 cross sections are proposed across the
Project. These cross sections will be monitored in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
8.5 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydrologic conditions in the wetland restoration
areas. This will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges installed in
representative locations across the restoration areas as well as the preservation wetland areas for
reference conditions. These gauges will be installed in accordance with USACE guidelines. The gauges
will be downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be calculated during the growing season.
Gauge installation will follow current NCIRT guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary
wetland hydrology indicators will also be recorded during quarterly site visits. A total of eight
groundwater gauges are proposed across the Project; six in re-established wetlands and two in
preserved, jurisdictional wetlands, serving as references.
8.6 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.0247 acres in size and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be 20 plots within the planted area (24.3 acres). Plots will be a
mixture of fixed and random plots, with 14 fixed plots and six 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
July 1st 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.
8.7 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 elevations,
photographs and sampling plot locations, gauge locations, cross section locations, and a description of
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 42 August 2020

initial species composition by community type. Baseline vegetation monitoring will include species,
height, date of planting, and grid location of each stem. The report will also include a list of the species
planted and the associated densities. In addition to the as -built drawings, a redline version of the as -
built drawings will be developed to identify any significant deviations between design and as -built
conditions. The baseline report will follow USACE guidelines and the October 2017 Mitigation Credit
Calculation Memo.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the
success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final
success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to the IRT.
The monitoring reports will include all information and be in the format required by USACE.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 43 August 2020

Table 15. Monitoring Requirements
Objective
Treatment
Monitoring Metric
Success Criteria
Improve the transport of
Convert land -use of some
water from the
Project reaches from
watershed to the Project
Pasture and cropland to
reaches in a non -erosive
riparian forest.
Groundwater wells with
Water table within 12 inches of
way and maintain
pressure transducers:
the ground surface for 12% of
appropriate wetland
Restore and enhance
Downloaded quarterly
growing season (z 31 days)
hydrology for Johnston
Wetland hydrology through
and Deloss soil series
stream restoration activities
and ditch nluaaina
Improve flood -bank
Stage recorders:
Four bankfull events occurring
connectivity by
Inspected quarterly
in separate years
reducing bank height
ratios and increase
Reduce bank height ratios
Flow gauges:
30+ days of continuous flow
entrenchment ratios
and increase entrenchment
Inspected quarterly
each year
ratios by reconstructing
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
Maintain regular,
channels to mimic reference
Cross sections: Surveyed
less than 2.2 within restored
seasonal flow in
reach conditions
in
reaches
Bank height ratio shall not
restored, intermittent
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
streams
exceed 1.2
As -built stream profile
NA
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
Limit erosion rates and
Establish a riparian buffer
Cross sections: Surveyed
less than 2.2 within restored
reaches
maintain channel
to reduce erosion and
in
Bank height ratio shall not
stability
sediment transport into
ears 1235 and 7
y, , ,
exceed
Improve bedform
project streams.
1.2
Identify and document
diversity (pool spacing,
percent riffles, etc.
Establish stable banks with
Visual monitoring:
significant
livestakes, erosion control
Performed at least
stream problem areas; i.e.
Increase buffer width to
matting, and other in stream
semiannual) y
erosion, degradation,
50 feet
structures.
aggradation, etc.
Vegetation plots:
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
Surveyed in
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
Promote sediment
filtration, nutrient
cycling, and organic
Groundwater wells with
Water table within 12 inches of
accumulation through
pressure transducers:
the o
ground surface for 12 /o
natural wetland
Restore and enhance
Downloaded quarterly
growing season (� 31 days)
biogeochemical
wetland hydrology
processes
Vegetation plots:
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
Establish native
Plant a riparian buffer
hardwood riparian
Surveyed in
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
buffer
Establish permanent
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
conservation easement
Visual assessment of
Inspect signage.
Protect aquatic
established conservation
Identify and document any
resources in perpetuity
signage: Performed at
damaged or missing
least semiannually
signs
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 44 August 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.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 45 August 2020

10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval of the Project by the IRT, the Project will be transferred to Unique Places to Save
(UP2S):
Unique Places to Save
[phone]
PO Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
[e-mail]
UP2S will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Easements will be stewarded in
general accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land Trust Alliance. Specific
responsibilities include:
• Monitoring of site is conducted on an annual basis.
• An on -site inspection is conducted once per year.
• Visits to the site are coordinated with landowner when possible.
• Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible.
• Signage for the easement boundary is maintained.
• Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are promptly
communicated to the landowner.
A model conservation easement and engagement letter from UP2S are included in Appendix A. The
engagement letter includes itemized annual cost accounting of long-term management, total amount of
funding, and the manner in which the funding will be provided.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 46 August 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 16.
11.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the IRT
with written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a) Execution of the 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.
g) Documentation of the establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow account.
11.2 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.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 47 August 2020

Table 16. Credit Release Schedule
Stream Credit Release Schedule
Release
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total Released
Milestone
Release
1
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
15%
15%
stated above)
2
Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey
15%
30%
3
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
40%
performance standards are being met.
4
Second year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
50%
performance standards are being met.
(60%*)
5
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
60%
performance standards are being met.
6
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
65%
performance standards are being met.
(75%*)
7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
75%
performance standards are being met.
(85%*)
8
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
80%
performance standards are being met.
(90%*)
9
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
90%
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
(100%*)
has received close-out approval.
* 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Release
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total Released
Milestone
Release
1
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
15%
15%
stated above)
2
Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey
15%
30%
3
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
40%
performance standards are being met.
4
Second year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
50%
performance standards are being met.
5
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
15%
65%
performance standards are being met.
6
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
70%
performance standards are being met.
7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
15%
85%
performance standards are being met.
8
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
90%
performance standards are being met.
9
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
100%
has received close-out approval.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 48
August 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 17. 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.
Wetland Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir
matting, channel plug maintenance, and supplemental installations of live stakes and
other target vegetation within the wetland.
Vegetation Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant
species shall be treated by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation
control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. Vegetation maintenance
activities will be documented and reported in annual monitoring reports. Vegetation
maintenance will continue through the monitoring period.
Site Boundary Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be marked with signs
identifying the property as a mitigation site and will include the name of the long-
term steward and a contact number. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be
repaired and/or replaced on an as -needed basis. Easement monitoring and
staking/signage maintenance will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Road Crossing N/A
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.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 49 August 2020

13 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $1,246,223 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 $1.246,223 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 $200,615
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 $200,615 amount includes
contingency and estimated monitoring costs from the Engineer. The Monitoring Performance Bond
will be reduced by $28,660 following approval of each annual monitoring report. The Monitoring
Performance Bond will be retired in total following official notice of site close-out from the IRT.
Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby trust or other designee at the direction of the obligee.
Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Bank
Sponsor are not acceptable. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the USACE
receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation. The Performance
Bonds will be provided by a surety listed with the U.S. Treasury and has an A.M. Best Rating of B or
above. All Performance Bonds will be submitted to the USACE in draft form for approval prior to
execution. In the event of Sponsor default, UP2S has agreed to receive the funds and ensure the work
is successfully completed.
Table 18. Financial Assurances
Construction Costs
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc.)
$262,824
Sitework
$420,288
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs, logs, rocks, coir, etc.)
$310,030
Crossings
$47,200
Vegetation
$133,579
Miscellaneous/Admin Fees
$72,302
Total $1,246,223
Monitoring Costs
Annual Monitoring and Reports
$42,500
Maintenance and Contingency
$158,115
Total $200,615
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 50 August 2020

14 REFERENCES
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open -Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood Frequency Analyses. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1543-
A.
Doll, Barbara A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton and D.A. Bidelspach, 2003, Hydraulic
Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams, NC Stream
Restoration Institute, Report to N.C. Division of Water Quality for 319 Grant Project No.
EW20011, www.ncsu.edu/sri. 11 pp.
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
hltp://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr52.pd
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.
Krstolic, J.L., and Chaplin, J.J., 2007, Bankfull regional curves for streams in the non -urban, non -
tidal Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5162, 48 p.
NCDENR 2012a. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water
Quality hltp://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wg/home. (Accessed August 2020).
NCDENR 2012b. "2012 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5." Water Quality Section.
hltp://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wg/home. (Accessed August 2020).
NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2011. A Guide to Surface Freshwater
Classifications in North Carolina. Raleigh. hiip://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document—rar/ lib
getfile?p 1 id=1169848&folderld=2209568&name=DLFE-35732.pdf, (Accessed August 2020).
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). "Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2010."
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 51 August 2020

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). N.C. Natural Heritage Data Explorer.
https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/. (Accessed July 2019).
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2"d edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO
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 (MRCS).
1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.
USDA NRCS. 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH 654), USDA
USDA NRCS. 1977. Soil Survey of Cumberland 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.nres.usda.gov (December 2019).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. EPA Manual. Quantifying Physical
Habitat in Wadeable Streams.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPAC). has://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. (Accessed December 2019).
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 52 August 2020

Figures
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
Figures 2a & 2b: USGS Quadrangle
Figure 3: Landowner Parcels
Figure 4: Land -use
Figure 5: Mapped Soils
Figure 6: Existing Conditions
Figure 7: Historic Conditions
Figure 8: National Wetland Inventory
Figure 8: Conceptual
Figure 9: Buffer Width Zones
Figure 10: Monitoring Plan

Smith Rd
v° Q Tractor Supply Co
o�
Grays Creek /nob,leB]
Home Corn
K
Sher od Qan C urchDayCare9SandSoFood Lion ® byRd Upton Tyson Rd
_ McDonald's©
C,."k
R C Auto Salvage Q
M
Immaiwel Dr
Immanuel Dr
E
Legend
Proposed Easement
12-digit HUC - Willis Creek - 030300050102
Blossom Rd
UVton IVS,, Rd
Coinstar9
I I I< I ,. i""N' i
Whiteville
O
Wa�lafc:
Dugout Project
W
Wiltoington
11474 C,=rol-i
�Uthpj-
Cape Fear River Basin - 03030005 North Myrtle Oak Wand °
" Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Date: 8/14/2020
w E Drawn by: SCF
Dugout res
5 Mitigation Project Checked by: BPB
Vgwo 500 1,000
Feet Cumberland County, North Carolina 1 inch= 1,000 feet

- •
•
f '
Ch\ J
. l1
/ r,r
TV 1-B o
IJ1-A o' r
- — TV5-A J
TV5-B
GC3 (DS)
Legend - - — - j • •• • • ) %1 �`
Proposed Easement Reach Area (ac)
Primary Watershed: �•� GC1 4980
1.
® GC4 �'� / GC2 5085
TV1-B . GO (US) 5092
• • • •'! •- ' GO (MS) 5163
TV5-B —'
GO (DS) 5283
Subwatershed within: • GC4 5320
GC4 TV1-A 7
TV1_B TV1-B 10
E TV5-A
TV5-A 2
- TV5-B 2
" Figure 2b - USGS Quadrangle Date: 8/31/2020
Cedar Creek (1988)
wE rLs
Drawn by: SCF
Dugout
s Mitigation Project Checked by: BPB
0 500 ,,000
1 inch 1,000 feet
Feet Cumberland County, North Carolina

TYSON, VANCE U JR s
,E U JR 0442-78-7881
137
FANCE U JR rd
37-1967,
— TYSON, VANCE U JR
N, VANCE U JR 0442-77-0886
.42-37-1627
TYSON, VANCE U JR
0442-57-8598 P
TYSON, VANCE U JR r �� I I I I I I I I I
0442-46-1787
Ah

% -*Nn
Aw
;lb
AZAq
'100

1951

.>e, A�7' AP
J
We
WD
"W
Dugout Stream Credits
Reach
Mitigation Type
Proposed Length (LF)
Mitiation Ratio
Warm SMUs
GC1
Preservation
526
10.1
52.600
GC2
Restoration
Restoration
660
2,148
1 1
1 1
660.000000
2,148.000
GC3
Restoration
1,716
1 1
1,716.000
GC4
Enhancement 1
971
21
647.333
ra
T V1
Preservation
450
101
45.000
-A
TV1 -13
Restoration
340
1 1
340.000
II
TV1 -C
Hydrologic Restoration
215
1 1
215.000
TV5-A
Preservation
250
101
25.000
T\/5-13
Restoration
94
1 1:1
94.000
Total
7,370
1
5,942.933
Credit Loss in Required Buffer -151230
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
753.580
Total Adjusted SMUs
6,545.283
Dugout Wetland Credits
Proposed Wetland
Mitigation Type
Total Acres
Mitigation Ratio
Riparian WMUs
WA
Enhancement (Low)
5.745
51
1.149
Preservation
3.284
101
0.328
WC
Enhancement (High)
0.167
21
0.084
WD
Enhancement (Low)
0.213
51
0.043
Preservation
1.282
101
0.128
WE
Re-establishment
4.127
1 1
4.127
WF
Re-establishment
0.271
1 1
0.271
WG
Re-establishment
0.092
1 1
0.092
Total
15.181
6.222
N.-
res
0 175 350
Feet
Figure 9 - Conceptual
Dugout
Mitigation Project
Cumberland County,
North Carolina
Date 8/18/2020 Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB 1 in = 400 feet
Legend
Proposed Easement (41.66 ac)
Wetland Approach
Re-establishment
Enhancement (High)
Enhancement (Low)
Preservation
Stream Approach
Restoration
Hydrologic Restoration
Enhancement I
Preservation
Proposed Swale
Proposed Fencing
6011 011W, WO 11 P -1
%

tsurrer cones
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)
Ideal Buffer (square feet)
Actual Buffer (square feet)
Zone Multiplier
Buffer Credit Equivalent
Percent of Ideal Buffer
Credit Adjustment
Total Baseline Credit
5,942.93
;s than 15 feet
>15 to 20 feet
>20 to 25 fe
221,100.00
73,700.00
73,700.00
218,945.51
73,369.90
73,609.08
216,149.72
71,782.56
71 ,581.94
50%
10%
10%
2,971.47
594.29
594.29
99%
98%
97%
-37.94
-12.86
-16.37
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-151.2 3
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
25 to 30 feet
>30 to 35 feet
>35 to 40 feet
>40 to 45 feet
>45 to 50 feet
>50 to 75 feet
>75 to 100 feet
>100 to 125 fe
73,700.00
73,700.00
73,700.00
73,700.00
73,700.00
368,500.00
368,500.00
368,500.00
73,828.95
73,604.00
72,640.30
71 ,771 .43
71,145.94
355,502.49
356,953.03
353,922.30
71 ,157.92
70,137.08
69,038.78
67,879.17
66,903.09
312,934.78
247,993.32
169,121 .18
10%
5%
5%
5%
5%
7%
5%
4%
594.29
297.15
297.15
297.15
297.15
416.01
297.15
237.72
96%
95%
95%
95%
94%
88%
69%
48%
-21.50
-14.00
-14.73
-16.11
-17.72
366.19
206.44
113.59
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
Total Credit
753.58
602.34
6,545.28
fires
,off
0 300 600
Feet
Figure 10 - Buffer Width Zones
Dugout
Mitigation Project
Cumberland County,
North Carolina
Date: 8/13/2020 Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB 1 in = 600 feet
Legend
Proposed Easement
® Ineligible Area
Buffer Zone (ft)
_ 0-15
_ 16-20
21-25
_ 26-30
31-35
_ 36-40
41-45
_ 46-50
51-75
_ 76-100
t >125 to 150 feet 101-125
368,500.00
353,320.27 126-150
100,097.56
4%
237.72
28% n
67.35

'T� I
#
WC
C fWD
Ty N
11
11
Monitoring Devices" �� ,� . �;_
...iAr
Q Fixed Vegetation Plot -41
Note: Depicted monitoring device locations are proposed
Cross-section locations. Device locations are subject to change based on as-
(i) Stage Recorder built conditions and best professional judgement in the field.
O Flow Gauge Fixed image locations will exist at each cross section, vegetation
Wetland Gauge plot, stage recorder, flow gauge, and wetland gauge.
�
Reference Wetland Gauge In addition to the 14 fixed vegetation plots there will be 6 random
vegetation plots, for a total of 20 plots utilized for vegetative
® Existing Wetland Gauge success. The random plots will vary in location from year-to-year.
m• wk �'
�
•� � w
✓ r
• 200 400
Feet
�A 'Y Zl
• • •
Dugout
Mitigation Project
CuNorth Carolina
mberland
Date: 8/18/2020 Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB 1 in = 400 feet
Project Features
Proposed Easement (41.66 ac)
® Existing Wetland
® Existing Open Water
® Planting Area (24.3 ac)
Wetland Approach
= Re-establishment
Enhancement (High)
Enhancement (Low)
® Preservation
Stream Approach
Restoration
Hydrologic Restoration
Enhancement I
Preservation
Proposed Swale
X X Proposed Fencing

Appendix A —
Site Protection Instrument

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S
USE
PERMANENT CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") made
this day of , 202 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
1

the Internal Revenue Code, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq., the
purposes or powers of which include one or more of the purposes (a) — (d)
listed below;
(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -space aspects of
real property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational,
educational, or open -space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic,
natural, or aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes
the following natural communities: [add or delete as appropriate: coastal
wetlands, non -riparian wetlands, riparian wetlands, perennial and intermittent
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", entered into by and between [enter Sponsor name] 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, Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District ("Third -
Parties," to include any successor agencies), 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 NCDWR Project ID # and
Department of the Army instrument number SAW -
("Mitigation Banking Instrument"), or any permit or certification issued by the
Third -Parties.
2

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
3

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.
Mowing of invasive and herbaceous vegetation for purposes of enhancing
planted or volunteer trees and shrubs approved in the Mitigation Plan 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
[enter Sponsor name] 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,
[enter Sponsor name] 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
M

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.
[Not required, but may be added if Grantor and Grantee agree:]
L. Subdivision. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the Conservation
Easement Area currently consists of within
separate parcels. The Grantor may not further subdivide the
Conservation Easement Area, except with the prior written consent of the
Grantee. If Grantor elects to further subdivide any portion of the Conservation
Easement Area, Grantor must provide the Grantee the name, address, and
telephone number of new owner(s) of all property within the Conservation
Easement Area, if different from Grantor. No subdivision of the Conservation
Easement Area shall limit the right of ingress and egress over and across the
Property for the purposes set forth herein. Further, in the event of any
subdivision of the Property (whether inside or outside of the Conservation
Easement Area) provision shall be made to preserve not only Grantee's
perpetual rights of access to the Conservation Easement Area, as defined
herein, but also Grantee's right of perpetual access to any conservation
easements on properties adjacent to the Property which form a part of or are
included in the Mitigation Plan. Creation of a condominium or any de facto
division of the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. Lot line adjustments
or lot consolidation without the prior written consent of the Grantee is
prohibited. The Grantor may convey undivided interests in the real property
underlying the Conservation Easement Area. The Grantor shall notify the
Grantee immediately of the name, address, and telephone number of any
grantee of an undivided interest in any property within the Conservation
Easement Area.
M. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not
limited to, motorcycles, dirt bikes, all -terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is
prohibited otherthan 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. The
use of mechanized vehicles for monitoring purposes is limited to only
existing roads and trails as shown in the approved in the mitigation plan.
N. 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.
5

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 [enter Sponsor name] 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, and the Mitigation Banking Instrument
described in the Recitals of this Conservation Easement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, the following rights in the areas labeled as "Internal
Crossing" on the plat [insert plat name and recorded plat book page number] in
the Conservation Easement Area: vehicular access, livestock access, irrigation
piping and piping of livestock waste. All Internal Crossings that allow livestock
access will be bounded by fencing and will be over a culvert.
ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE'S RIGHTS
The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns,
and the Corps, 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, and the Corps 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
R

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

interests in the Property which have not been expressly subordinated to this
Conservation Easement. Grantor further warrants that Grantee shall have the
use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and arising out of this
Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the
Property against the claims of all persons.
B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms
of this Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that
transfers any interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area.
The Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60)
days prior to the date of the transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the
terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee and
easement interests in the Conservation Easement Area or any portion thereof
and shall not be amended, modified or terminated without the prior written
consent and approval of the Corps.
C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of
this Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however
that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or
assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will
be a qualified holder pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34
et seq. and § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the
Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or
assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to
continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The Mitigation Banking
Instrument: MBI with corresponding Mitigation Plan, 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, except those incurred after the date hereof, which are
expressly subject and subordinate to the Conservation Easement. Grantee shall
not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the ownership,
operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as
expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits
that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
F. Long -Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term
management activities associated with fencing. These activities include the

maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic
resource functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are
sustained.
G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render
impossible the continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the
conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement may only be extinguished,
in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.
H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation
Easement Area is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to
substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this Conservation
Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time of
such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and direct
damages due to the taking.
I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property
interest immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the
Conservation Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted
following an extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall
be entitled to thefair 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 the Corps.
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
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]
10

Dugout Mitigation Easement - CONFIDENTIAL
Units
Hours
Cost/Unit Frequency
Annual Cost
Annual Monitoring
Staff time to monitor mitigation easement, including file review,
travel time, on site time, post visit report production
27.58 ac
9
$60.00 Annual
$540.00
Staff time needed to address minor violations or issues
N/A
10
$600.00 Once every 10 yrs.
$60.00
Mileage
180
N/A
$0.580 Annual
$104.40
Lodging Costs
0
N/A
$0.00 Annual
$0.00
Meal Costs
1
N/A
$20.00 Annual
$20.00
Sign Replacement
10
N/A
$2.00 Annual
$20.00
Insurance
N/A
N/A
$100.00 N/A
$100.00
Total Annual Funding Amount
$844.40
Capitalization Rate
3.50%
—.M.-Monitoring EndowmentF$24,125.71
Acceptingandd D= ingthe Easement in Perpetuity
nna
Staff time for major violations
N/A
807_
$60.00 N/A
$4,800.00
Legal Counsel
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
$10,000.00
Other Incidentals
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
$5,000.00
Stewardship Complexities
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
$0.00
Monitoring Endowment
$19,800.00
,Rounded $43,926

DocuSign Envelope ID: OFAFAEDA-E6FB-4E4D-9EOA-EO3075A7658D
Unique Places
To Save
August 10, 2020
Kasey Carrere
RES
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Ms. Carrere,
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 Dugout Mitigation Project ("Site") located in the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030005) in
Cumberland County, North Carolina. The Site consists of an approximate 41.9-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 Deed are enforced and maintained into perpetuity. Specific responsibilities include:
• The 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 are maintained.
• Violations and potential violations of the Conservation Easement Deed are addressed following the
Conservation Easement Deed and protocols within the UP2S Conservation Easement Violations Policy.
UP2S shall receive a stewardship endowment from Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC ("EBX"), the Site
sponsor, to ensure annual Site inspections occur and the terms of the Conservation Easement Deed are legally
defended into perpetuity. UP2S shall also act as bond monitoring and construction bond obligee for the Site
and require an administrative fee upon execution of a Stewardship Agreement between UP2S and EBX.
DocuSigned by:
e f'Pigibf,lffiard Member
Unique Places To Save
Representative Signature
EBX/RES
Kasey Carrere
Printed Name
08/10/2020
Date
PO Box 1183 • Chapel Hill, NC 27514 919-428-2040 info�uniqueplacestosave.orq

Appendix B —
Baseline Info and Correspondence

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
February 21, 2019
Regulatory Division
SUBJECT: Action ID. SAW-2018-01883
RES
Attn: Mr. Brad Breslow
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Dear Mr, Breslow:
This letter confirms the initial Interagency Review Team's (IRT) evaluation and
comments received during the October 16, 2018 Public Notice of your prospectus
detailing the proposed establishment of a wetland mitigation bank, known as RES Cape
Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank), within an approximately 41.3-acre tract
referred to as Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site. The tract is located at the
southeast corner of Hwy 87 and Upton Tyson Road, adjacent to Grays Creek, south of
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina. Also, please reference our October
23, 2018 onsite meeting with attendees: Ms. Frazier Mullens and Mr. David Godley of
RES, Mr. Mac Haupt of NC Division of Water Resources, and Mr. Todd Tugwell of our
office.
Pursuant to 33 CFR Part 332.8(d)(5) Compensatory Mitigation For Losses of Aquatic
Resources, our office is providing our initial evaluation as to the potential of your
proposed Bank for providing appropriate compensatory mitigation for activities
authorized by Department of the Army (DA) permits. Comments (copies enclosed)
were received from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service during the commenting period of the Public Notice and subsequently forwarded
to you by e-mail for consideration. Based on our review, coordination with the IRT, and
the onsite inspection, it is our position that the proposed Bank has potential for
appropriately providing compensatory mitigation for DA authorizations. Consequently,
our office confirms proceeding with the development of a mitigation plan and the
Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). This mitigation plan and MBI must be approved
prior to the release of any credits.
With respect to the development of the mitigation plan, several of the following items
of the bank proposal were discussed during the October 23rd onsite meeting. First, the
proposed GSA is the entire 03030005 Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) of the Cape Fear
River Basin. It was brought to your attention that the lower end of this HUC (vicinity of

New Hanover/Columbus/Pender County lines intersection) has been historically
excluded from GSA limits of several existing banks located in the upper part of the
HUC. In a subsequent email, you requested the addition of the 12-Digit HUCs
030300050405 and 030300050303 to coincide with N.C. Department of
Transportation's May 31, 2018 Request for Proposal. Upon review of the information,
our office agrees to extend the GSA to include these two 12-Digit RUCs. The
expansion of the GSA to encompass the entire lower end of the 03030005 remains a
discussion within the NC IRT and plans are to finalize the GSA in this, and other, HUCs
in the near future. At this time, it is advisable for your planning purposes to presume
that the lower end of the 8-digit HUC will continue to be excluded from your Bank's GSA
until a final determination is made.
Other meeting topics of discussion included the need for mapping soil types,
identifying reference sites, reassessment of site being in a FEMA Floodway/100-year
floodplain and providing a map, designation of targeted wetland types and map of these
areas, additional justification of ratios and thoroughly documenting current functions
being provided (i.e., evidence or absence of overbank flooding), identification of NC
DWQ Stream ID Forms location, inclusion of NCSAM and NCWAM functional
assessment forms and locations, removal of TV2 from stream credit potential, and the
need to provide additional information for TV1 as stream credits and discussion on how
GC3 reach construction may or may not affect those potential credits.
Other components were also covered during the meeting and all discussed topics
should be considered and incorporated in your bank planning and development of the
mitigation plan. Also, please use the October 24, 2016 version of the Wilmington
District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update guidance in the
preparation of the plan.
If you have any questions regarding the banking process or moving forward with the
establishment of your proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me at the Wilmington
Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Mickey 'fhief
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office

-3-
Copies w/o enclosures:
Mr. Vance Tyson
4925 S NC 87 Hwy
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28306
Honorable Richard Hudson
House of Representatives
225 Green Street, Suite 202
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301
Copies furnished via email (w/o enclosures):
Mr. Fritz Rohde, National Marine Fisheries Service
Ms. Twyla Cheatwood, National Marine Fisheries Service
Ms. Kathy Matthews, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Todd Bowers, US EPA
Mr. Chad Turlington, North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Mr, Mac Haupt, North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Mr. Chad Coburn, North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Mr. Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resource Commission
Ms. Gabriela Garrison, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Ms. Karen Higgins, North Carolina Division of Water Resources

Memorandum to the Record
November 6, 2018
Agency Comments for the Public Notice and Prospectus to establish the RES
Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (SAW-2018-01883) and Dugout
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site in Cumberland County, NC
Mickey,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the Public Notice (SAW-
2018-01883) and final prospectus to establish the RES Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
(UMB) and the Dugout Stream and Wetland Site as the primary component of the UMB. RES
and EBX-Neuse I, LLC (the Bank Sponsor) have presented a potentially viable plan to provide
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable jurisdictional stream impacts associated with the US
Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program. The site, as presented in
the prospectus, is expected to provide approximately 6,496 warm temperature stream mitigation
units (SMU) and 5.78 wetland mitigation units (WMU) through a combination of stream and
wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation of non -tidal streams in the Cape Fear River
05 watershed (HUC 03030005). The chosen mitigation site will also provide an excellent
opportunity for the restoration, enhancement and preservation of forested riparian buffers of the
streams within the project conservation easements. SMU credit also includes that generated by
non-standard buffer widths per the October 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update.
The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch offers the following project -
specific comments as they pertain to the RES Cape Fear 05 UMB Final Prospectus and Public
Notice dated September 2018 and October 16, 2018 respectively.
• Section 1/Page 2:
o Excellent goals and objectives to achieve functional lift, stability and protection of
the aquatic resources on -site.
o Recommend investigating the possibility of hydrologic trespass to adjacent
properties in detail during the development of the site mitigation plan. Gray's
Creek appears to have a wide and substantial floodplain with an extensive ditch
network that may be obfuscating a damaging flood potential.
• Section 3.2/Page 5:
o Gray's Creek flows from west to east.
• Section 3.6/Page 8:
o The FEMA Regulatory Floodway and 100-year floodplain map appear on Figure
9 (instead of 8). This area of Gray's Creek seems to contain a large area of NWI
wetlands and I recommend another check of the FEMA mapping to ensure
accuracy of the location of the 100-year floodplain. Noting the distance to the
nearest 100-year floodplain may be helpful in this situation.

• Section 4.1/Page 9:
o Recommend denoting the SMU type (warm) and WMU type (riparian).
• Section 4.1.1/Page 10:
o For reach TV1-A be sure to include a description of the breached pond at the head
of the stream and its potential use as a BMP feature to capture adjacent runoff
from the farm. Recommend expanding the conservation easement around this
feature to include a 50-foot upland buffer.
• Section 4.1.3.3/Page 12:
o Recommend defining "little change" such as a percentage of change in a
parameter such as BHR (10% for example) or migration distance to or from a
bank pin.
• Section 4.1.3.5/Page 12:
o Recommend the exact size of the vegetation monitoring plot in order to correctly
assess the number of monitoring plots in the planted areas. If the plot size is 0.024
acres, this should be included in the description.
• Tables 9 and 10/Page 14:
o Recommend adding "baseline monitoring report and submission of as -built
survey" to the stream and wetland release milestone 92.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback, comments and concerns with the Public
Notice and final prospectus for the RES Cape Fear 05 UMB and Dugout site. I believe the
sponsor has provided a potentially viable plan to offset permitted impacts that will be incurred
within the Cape Fear 05 watershed geographic service area. If you or the sponsor have any
questions or need clarification on any of the comments stated above, please contact me at 404-
562-9225 or at [e-mail].
Best Regards,
Todd Bowers
Comments submitted to Mickey Sugg (SAW -PM) and NCIRT Chair via email on November 6,
2018

fires
August 1, 2019
Mickey Sugg
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dear Mr. Sugg,
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) is pleased to present this Request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination for the Dugout Mitigation Site located in Cumberland County, North Carolina (34.9255 ON
and-78.8488 °W). This project will be part of the RES Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank and will
provide mitigation credits to offset unavoidable impacts to stream resources within the Cape Fear River
Basin (8-digit USGS HUC 03030005). 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 Dugout Mitigation Site (the "Site") is contained in seven parcels totaling 41-acres of proposed
easement in Cumberland County, NC. The Site will involve the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of Grays Creek, which begins at the western part of the project area and drains in an easterly
direction across the Site, eventually draining to the Cape Fear River. The site is primarily characterized by
agricultural use, forest, and very low -intensity residential areas. Land use at the site is characterized by
pasture, row crop, and disturbed riparian forest.
The proposed site will provide improvements to water quality, hydrologic function, and habitat. The
projects will address stressors identified in the watershed through nutrient removal, sediment removal,
runoff filtration, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
res.us

0
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 I 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

From: Jeremy Schmid
To: Jessoo. Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 3:25:00 PM
Jordan, thanks for sending.
Here is Vance's email: [e-mail]
Can you please copy Judson [e-mail] when you send to Vance? He is our main point of contact
with Vance.
Thanks again,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 10:47 AM
To: Jeremy Schmid <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Hey Jeremy, I am about ready to send the PJD out, can you give me Vance Tyson's email address, so I
can CC him electronically? I couldn't find it in the file.
Thanks!
From: Jeremy Schmid <ischmid(a)res.us>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 2:57 PM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Jordan.E.Jessop(@usace.army.mil>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks!
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message -----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<Jordan.E.JessopPusace.army.mil>

Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 1:58 PM
To: Jeremy Schmid <ischmidPres.us>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Great, thanks Jeremy. That looks good. I can't get to it today, but I will get you the PJD by the end of
the week.
-----Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 9:29 AM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Jordan.E.Jessopco�usace.army.mil>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Hey Jordan,
Thanks for following up and sorry I missed you earlier. Those changes shouldn't be an issue as we've
updated the proposed easement during the design process. I've updated the study area to reflect
the new easement which excludes all of those features. I've attached the updated aquatic resources
table and figure. Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message -----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Jordan.E.Jessopco�usace.army.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 8:21 AM
To: Jeremy Schmid <ischmidPres.us>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hey Jeremy,
I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I just left you a voicemail. I am good with the wetland
line, you supplied plenty of data to support it, and seeing it on the ground, I agree with the call. One
of the things I had notes on from the site visit, and perhaps I didn't communicate it clearly, it was my
understanding we were taking off TV2 and the channel that leads to WF wetland, since it was an old
ditch with saplings and other veg in it, I would call it a conveyance, but not an aquatic resource, and

then a small wetland seep at the top of TV4. Other than that, it looks good. Feel free to call me to
discuss.
Thanks,
Jordan
-----Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:ischmidPres.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 2:28 PM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<Jordan.E.Jessoppusace.army.mil>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Hey, I wanted to mention that an email confirming the wetland line is sufficient for our purposes if
you don't have the capacity to send out the official PJD. We will just need the PJD before submitting
the mitigation plan. We are trying to finalize the design and the call on the cutover area will dictate
our approach. If we decide to go for wetland rehabilitation/reestablishment in those cutover areas
then we will need to install groundwater gauges and get a soil scientist out there asap.
Thanks,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message -----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Jordan.E.Jessoplo�usace.army.mil>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:30 PM
To: Jeremy Schmid <jschmidPres.us>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hey Jeremy,
I apologize for the slow response, I was out all last week and a bunch over the holidays. I will look
through everything again and get back to you next week.
Thanks,
Jordan

-----Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 3:51 PM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Jordan,
Wanted to check in with you after the holiday break. We are prepping the draft mitigation plan and
will need the JD soon. Please let me know if you need anything else.
Have a great weekend!
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Schmid
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 11:34 AM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Jordan.E.JessoplcDusace.army.mil>
Subject: RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Jordan,
We had a crew out last week collecting survey data and they came across another stream that we
had previously missed. It apparently starts out of the hillside as a seep and starts to gain stream
characteristics shortly after. It flows parallel to TV1 so it might've been confused with that while
walking through the wetland there. I've included a photo and added it to the WOTUS figure. I'm
open to taking a look if you'd like and potentially re -visit the clearcut area and WA line break if
needed. Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message-

From: Jeremy Schmid
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 4:13 PM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Jordan.E.JessoplcDusace.army.mil>
Subject: RE: Preliminary JD Request- Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Jordan,
My apologies for sending this a week late. I was able to get data from the surveyors and have
updated the stream and wetland WA lines based on centerline and top of bank shots along Gray's
Creek. The proposed stream centerline is attached but this was from early in the prospectus phase
and will likely have some updates once our designers take a look at the survey data. The concept
map from the prospectus is also attached for reference. I also adjusted the study area to exclude the
headcut/erosional feature that starts in the pasture just upstream from "the beach". Lastly, I
digitized some of the ditches near the wetland WA line that run just outside of the study area to
show where they are draining (east and southeast). Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message -----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<Jordan.E.Jessoppusace.army.mil>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 11:58 AM
To: Jeremy Schmid <ischmidPres.us>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request- Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Sounds good, see you then!
-----Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:ischmidPres.us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 11:52 AM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
That's sounds good to me. I think the easiest place would be at the BP gas station across the street.
We can look at maps and figure out a game plan from there.
5014 NC-87, Fayetteville, NC 28306

Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message -----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 11:40 AM
To: Jeremy Schmid <ischmid(@res.us>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hi Jeremy,
Does 10:30 am on Oct 10 (Thursday) work for you? What is the preferred meeting spot?
Thanks,
Jordan
-----Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:ischmidPres.us]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 11:34 AM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<Jordan.E.Jessoppusace.army.mil>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Hey, no problem. I'm available all 3 of those dates. If you want to coordinate with Mickey and pick
one if he's available let me know.
The upland data sheets are in the submittal as DP-3b and DP-11. I also attached a table of soil
borings at the end to try and show what we were seeing in the "upland" but didn't take a full on data
point at each. I can send shapefiles from the map this afternoon when I get back in the office. Would
you like just the wetland polygon and stream lines?
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]

-----Original Message -----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Jordan.E.JessoplcDusace.army.mil>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 12:37 PM
To: Jeremy Schmid <ischmid(@res.us>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hi Jeremy,
When you get a chance, could you also please send the shapefiles from the JD map? And the upland
data sheets?
Thanks,
Jordan
-----Original Message -----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 8:58 AM
To: Jeremy Schmid <ischmidPres.us>
Subject: RE: Preliminary JD Request- Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hi Jeremy,
I apologize for the delay, I have been out of the office, or away from my desk most of the last three
weeks, I'm still catching up on emails. I will review the submittal and get back to you with any
questions.
Regarding a site visit, are you available Oct 8, 9, or 10?
Thanks,
Jordan

-----Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:ischmidCcDres.us]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 2:06 PM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Jordan.E.JessoplcDusace.army.mil>
Cc: Kasey Carrere <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout
Jordan,
I was in the field all last week but left a voicemail. Let me know if you have any questions about the
submittal. I should have most of October open if you want to schedule a site visit then.
Thanks,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message -----
From: Sugg, MickeyTCIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Mickey.T.Suggpusace.army.mil>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 4:48 PM
To: Jeremy Schmid <ischmidCcDres.us>
Cc: Kasey Carrere <kcarrereCcDres.us>; Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<Jordan.E.JessopCcDusace.army.mil>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request- Dugout
Good afternoon Jeremy,
My apologies for overseeing your email (was out 2 weeks in August), it just got by me. With that said,
Jordan Jessop (cc) is replacing me as the Wilmington Regulatory Field Office POC for bank proposals
in our office. He will be the person you need to connect with to verify this PJD. His # is (910) 251-
4810 if you would like to call him directly. If I'm available, I might try to tag along.
Again, sorry about the late response.
-mickey
Mickey Sugg, Chief
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone] (direct line)

[phone] (fax)
"The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help
us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at:
"Blocked BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.miI/cm_apex/f?
p=136:4:0 "
-----Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 9:25 AM
To: Sugg, MickeyT CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kasey Carrere <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Preliminary JD Request - Dugout
Dear Mr. Sugg,
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) is pleased to submit a Preliminary JD Request for the Dugout
Mitigation Project. The Site, located in Cumberland County, contains approximately 7,800 linear feet
of stream mitigation and 12 acres of wetland mitigation. The purpose of the site is to generate
mitigation and ecological benefit in the Cape Fear River Basin.
The attached JD Package includes: preliminary JD form, landowner authorization form, supporting
figures, and wetland/upland data forms. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important
project and please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES I res.us<Blocked Blocked Blocked Blocked Blocked Blocked Blocked Blocked http:Hwww. res. us/>
Mobile: [phone]

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

I
WC
W)
A 77.
71
'I-J p,
01
Al
'At'iti
'n
� �� r s%' , � � � _ it _ 1
17�
or
13 2
14
15a
i
/' aFMAr .0 ,
4 Vo
Waters Name
owl
WA
WC
WD
GC
Tvi
TV5
Type Area/Length
Open Water 0.30 ac
Wetland 33.03 ac ���
Wetland 0.28 ac
Wetland 2.33 ac
Stream 6,562 ft ti
Stream 619 ft
Stream 423 ft
0 200 400
Feet
1 in = 400 feet
Potential
Wetland or Non -Wetland Wate
of the U.S. Map
...... ...... Dugout
Mitigation Project
Cumberland County,
North Carolina
Date: 2i19/9090 Drawn by: MDE
Revisions: 2 Checked by: JLS
Legend
Study
Potential Wetland
Waters of the US
Potential Open Waters
of the US
Potential Non-weltand
Waters of the US
Ditch
Upland Datapoint
Wetland Datapoint
REFERENCE
1) Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Zone 17N.
2) Map Projection is NAD_1983 StatePlane_
North Carolina—FIPS 3200—Feet

urisdictional Determination Reauest
US Army Corps
of Engineers.
Wilmington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
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.aimy.mil/Missions/Re ul�atoiyPermitProi4ram/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]
INSTRUCTIONS:
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]
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.
Version: May 2017 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: 5235 S NC-87 Highway
City, State: Fayetteville, NC 28306
County: Cumberland
Parcel Index Number(s) (PM): 0442.37.1627, 0442.37.1967, 0442.39.2137, 0442.79.7991, 0442A6.1797, 0442.57.8598 0442.77.0996
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Jeremv Schmid
Mailing Address: 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Telephone Number:
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-345-3034
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
❑ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultanti
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Vance U. Tyson Jr.
Mailing Address: 4925 S NC-87 Highway
Fayetteville, NC 28306
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).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Landowner Authorization Form
Site: Vance Tvson
Property Legal Description
Deed Book/Page: 10068/811; 10006/306; 10009/887
County: Cumberland
Parcel ID Numbers: 0442-37-1627, 0442-37-1967, 0442-38-2137; 0442-46-1787; 0442-57-8598, 0442-77-0886,
0442-78-7881
Street Address: 5235 S NC-87 Hay, Fayetteville. NC 28306. 1998 Schreiber Drive Fayetteville, NC 28306.5029 S
NC-87 Hwy. Fayetteville, NC 28306
Property Owner: Vance U. Tyson. Jr.
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 permit(s) or
certification(s).
Property Owner Address: 4925 S NC 87 HM, Fayetteville, NC 28306
UWe hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) Date
(Property Owner Printed ame)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
(Property Owner Printed Name)
Date

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERNIINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
0 I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminM 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 89 acres.
❑✓ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude:
34.9255
Longitude:-78.8488
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 1 Ix 17 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. hM2://www.saw.usace.4rmy.mil/Missions/Regulatoly-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F4Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDS• please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'.
Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
F4 USGS Topographic Map
0 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
hJ Other Assessment Forms
' www.saw.usace.4rmy.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/readocs/JD/RGL 08-02_App A Prelim _JD_Form fillable.pdf
8 Please see hM2://www.saw.usace.4M.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 federaljurisdiction 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.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 07/15/19
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Jeremy Schmid
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: CESAW-RG-W
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Cumberland City: Hope Mills
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 34.9255 Long.:-78.8488
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name of nearest waterbody: Grays Creek
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

Waters —Name State owardin_Codl HGM_Code IMeas_Type
WA
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
WC
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
WD
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
WE
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
WF
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
WG
NORTH CAROLINA
PSS
Area
OW1
NORTH CAROLINA
POW
Area
GC3
NORTH CAROLINA
R3
Linear
TV1
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
TV2
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
TV3
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
TV4
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
Amount Units Waters_Type Latitude Longitude Local —Waterway
34.18 ACRE
DELINEATE
34.925
-78.8519
0.2775 ACRE
DELINEATE
34.9275
-78.8531
4.2853 ACRE
DELINEATE
34.9267
-78.8526
0.1164 ACRE
DELINEATE
34.9259
-78.8509
0.0902 ACRE
DELINEATE
34.9266
-78.8496
0.1851 ACRE
DELINEATE
34.9259
-78.848
0.33 ACRE
DELINEATE
34.9251
-78.8568
6320 FOOT
DELINEATE
34.925614
-78.84806
580 FOOT
DELINEATE
34.92697
-78.853011
753 FOOT
DELINEATE
34.926107
-78.85023
497 FOOT
DELINEATE
34.926404
-78.84889
264 FOOT
DELINEATE
34.927233
-78.848415

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 terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there "may be"waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
■❑ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:Vicinity, USGS, NWI, Soil, Existing conditions, WOUS
0 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
■❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 24k Cedar Creek
❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
■❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
G
100-year Floodplain Elevation is:
Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Previous determination (s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Jeremy Schmid o�a�,ao;za,hNdzso;oo°
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' 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.

Hartlo0t°� ¢d
Tom SlarIM9 Rd
pla
Burns p0
g W all °w�aA
GL
Montana Rd
5 rriiih Rd
Gum6erry Gt / f
a°
Gr
p�R c
Cr � Rd _ �.
sa9OJIIIl Rd o pL�11.,
R I ef
�d o
>a
4P
ART
Y
g p
Fwrand Dr $ tJ Tyson Rd
p0��Rlchay Ln
l o`
a
hr
r'rps` � m
LC urge li gYow Canadian Ave
fOgk°cK Ct
tf Yy GOn R.:
r m
n �C e
3
w `Z'
y,
Immanuel Dr � �
.
�t0
C
Blossom Rd
m
Hope Mills a;l
q
Thrower Rd
'kdew Cr °
x
r
1?
c
1
^Or 'w
Y
y
y'
11 0
t
u
r PYfy STokY Can
`l rm a
Dugout Project
Le pen
V\
- - - - -
Study Area-
N
w _ - e
Project Vicinity
Date: 7/2/2019
Drawn by: MDE
res
s
Dugout Mitigation Project
n
Checked by: JLS
0
1,000
2,000
Cumberland County, North Carolina
1 inch= 2,000 feet
Feet

Ah

du
i
De
( MD
Ah

AV
-----------
O
7#0
-Won,
I'M
wilw'4
w ,
14
01
40'
Y. "W
Le-gend
Proposed Easement
Project Parcels
Parcels�- _ -
Date 9/7 2018

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Dugout City/County: Fayetteville/Cumberland Sampling Date: 11-Apr-19
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP-2
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley bottom Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0 °
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 133A in LRR P Lat.: 34.9250 Long.:-78.8461 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Johnston loam NWI classification: PSS
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ❑
Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ❑
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
Area logged within last 5 years. Appears that heribicide was applied in powerline easement with possible drift into surrounding areas. Smilax dominant
in many areas
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑d FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRRT, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes * No ❑
Depth (inches): 2
Yes O No ❑
Saturation Present?
Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
sn 'iow
Sampling Point: DP-2
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8_
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Cover Cover
_ 0
❑
0.0%
_ 0
❑
0.0%
_ 0
❑
0.0%
_ 0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
_ 0
❑
0.0%
_ 0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover: 0 0 = Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 . Quercus nigra
20
2. Acer rubrum
30
3. Liquidambar styraciflua
30
4.
0
5.
0
6.
0
7.
0
8.
0
50% of Total Cover: 40
20% of Total Cover: 16
80
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 . Rubus argutus
20
2. Ilex opaca
10
3.
4.
0
5.
0
6.
0
50% of Total Cover: 15
20% of Total Cover: 6
30
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
1.
0
2.
0
3.
0
4.
0
5.
0
6.
0
7.
0
8.
0
9.
0
10.
0
11.
0
12.
0
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
❑� 25.0% FAC
❑d 37.5% FAC
❑� 37.5% FAC
❑ 0.0% _
❑ 0.0% _
❑ o.o% _
❑ o.o% _
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
❑� 66.7% FAC
❑� 33.3% FAC
❑ 0.0% _
❑ 0.0% _
❑ o.o% _
❑ o.o%
= Total Cover
❑
o.o%
❑
0.0%
❑
0.0%
❑
o.o%
❑
0.0%
❑
o.o%
❑
0.0%
❑
0.0%
❑
0.0%
❑
0.0%
❑
o.o%
❑
0.0%
= Total Cover
1 Smilax laurifolia
30
❑d
100.0% FACW
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
o.o%
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply
by:
OBL species 0
x 1 =
0
FACW species 30
x 2 =
60
FAC species 110
x 3 =
330
FACU species 0
x 4 =
0
UPL species 0
x 5 =
0
Column Totals: 140
(A)
390 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.786
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑� 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
0 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 i
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
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 - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
5. 0 ❑ 0.0% Hydrophytic
- Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 15 20% of Total Cover: 6 30 = Tota I Present? Yes O No ❑
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) 0/0Color (moisll_ 0/0Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-20 10YR 2/1 Silt Loam
20-24+ 10YR 5/1 Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
W Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No ❑
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Dugout City/County: Fayetteville/Cumberland Sampling Date: 11-Apr-19
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP-3a
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley bottom Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0 °
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 133A in LRR P Lat.: 34.9254 Long.:-78.8551 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Johnston loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ❑
Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ❑
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑d FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRRT, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes * No ❑
Depth (inches): 4
Yes O No ❑
Saturation Present?
Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
sn 'iow
Sampling Point: DP-3a
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
) % Cover Cover
1. Acer rubrum
30
❑d 37.59/6
2. Nyssa biflora
20
❑d 25.09/6
3. Taxodium distichum
10
❑ 12.59/6
4. Liquidambar styraciflua
20
❑d 25.0%
5.
0
❑ o.o%
6.
0
❑ o.o%
7.
0
❑ 0.0%
8.
0
❑ 0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 40
20% of Total Cover: 16 80
= Total Cover
Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Status
Number of Dominant Species
FAC That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 10 (A)
OBL
OBL Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 10 (B)
FAC
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 . Magnolia virginiana
10
33.3%
FACW
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
20
❑d
66.7%
FAC
3.
0
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
o.o%
5.
0
❑
o.o%
6.
0
❑
o.o%
7.
0
❑
o.o%
8.
0
❑
0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 15
20% of Total Cover: 6
30
= Total Cover
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 . Eubotrys racemosa
30
100.0%
FACW
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
o.o%
5.
0
❑
o.o%
6.
0
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 15
20% of Total Cover: 6
30
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 . ]uncus effusus
10
❑d
33.3%
OBL
2. Woodwardia areolata
10
❑d
33.3%
OBL
3. Saururus cernuus
10
❑d
33.3%
OBL
4.
0
❑
o.o%
5.
0
❑
o.o%
6.
0
❑
o.o%
7.
0
❑
0.0%
8.
0
❑
0.0%
g.
0
❑
o.o%
10.
0
❑
o.o%
11.
0
❑
o.o%
12.
0
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 15
20% of Total Cover: 6
30
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
1 Smilax laurifolia
10
❑d
100.0% FACW
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
o.o%
5. 0 ❑ o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 5 20% of Total Cover: 2 10 = Total Cover
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply
by:
OBL species 60
x 1 =
60
FACW species 50
x 2 =
100
FAC species 70
x 3 =
210
FACU species 0
x 4 =
0
UPL species 0
x 5 =
0
Column Totals: 180
(A)
370 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.056
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑� 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
0 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 i
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
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 - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes O No O
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-3a
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) 0/0Color (moisll_ 0/0Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-18 10YR 2/1 Silt Loam
18-24+ 10YR 4/1 Clay
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
W Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No ❑
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Dugout City/County: Fayetteville/Cumberland Sampling Date: 11-Apr-19
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP-3b
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley bottom Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0 °
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 133A in LRR P Lat.: 34.9254 Long.:-78.8551 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Johnston loam NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes * No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Yes 0 No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRRT, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Depth (inches):
Yes ❑ No O
Saturation Present?
Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
sn 'iow
Sampling Point: DP-31b
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _
)
% Cover Cover
1. Liriodendron tulipifera
30
❑d 37.59/6
2. Acer rubrum
20
❑d 25.0%
3. Quercus nigra
10
❑ 12.59/6
4. Pinus taeda
20
❑d 25.09/6
5.
0
❑ o.o%
6.
0
❑ o.o%
7.
0
❑ o.o%
8.
0
❑ 0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 40
20% of Total Cover: 16
80
= Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
10
100.0%
2.
0
❑ 0.0%
3.
0
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ o.o%
5.
0
❑ o.o%
6.
0
❑ o.o%
7.
0
❑ o.o%
8.
0
❑ 0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
10
= Total Cover
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1. Rubus argutus
10
100.0%
2.
0
❑ 0.0%
3.
0
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ o.o%
5.
0
❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑ 0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
10
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
FACU
FAC
FAC
FAC
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5 (A)
7 (B)
71.4% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply
by:
OBL species 0
x 1 =
0
FACW species 0
x 2 =
0
FAC species 90
x 3 =
270
FACU species 40
x 4 =
160
UPL species 0
x 5 =
0
Column Totals: 130
(A)
430 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.308
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
V 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 i
FAC ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
1 . Microstegium vimineum
20
❑d 100.0% FAC
2.
0
❑ 0.0%
3.
0
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ o.o%
5.
0
❑ o.o%
6.
0
❑ o.o%
7.
0
❑ 0.0%
8.
0
❑ 0.0%
9.
0
❑ o.o%
10.
0
❑ 0.0%
11.
0
❑ 0.0%
12.
0
❑ 0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 10 20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
1 . Lonicera japonica
2. _
3.
4.
5.
50% of Total Cover: 5 20% of Total Cover: 2
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
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 - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
10 ❑d 100.0% FACU
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
-
Vegetation
Yes O No ❑
10 =Total Cover
Present?
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-3b
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) 0/0Color (moisll_ 0/0Tvoe 1 Locz Texture
0-6 7.5YR 3/3 Sandy Loam
6-14 2.5YR 4/4 Sandy Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Dugout City/County: Fayetteville/Cumberland Sampling Date: 11-Apr-19
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP-11
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley bottom Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0 °
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 133A in LRR P Lat.: 34.9250 Long.:-78.8461 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Deloss loam NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No O
Yes O No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
Area logged within last 5 years. Appears that heribicide was applied in powerline easement with possible drift into surrounding areas. Smilax dominant
in many areas
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑d FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRRT, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
saturation at 18"
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
sn 'iow
Sampling Point: DP-11
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8_
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Cover Cover
_ 0
❑
0.0%
_ 0
❑
0.0%
_ 0
❑
0.0%
_ 0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
_ 0
❑
0.0%
_ 0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover: 0 0 = Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 Acer rubrum
20
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
20
3. Quercus nigra
10
4.
0
5. -
0
6.
0
7.
0
8.
0
50% of Total Cover: 25
20% of Total Cover: 10
50
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1. Ilex opaca
5
2. Rubus argutus
10
3.
0
4.
0
5.
0
6.
0
50% of Total Cover: 7.5
20% of Total Cover: 3
15
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
1.
0
2.
0
3.
0
4.
0
5.
0
6.
0
7.
0
8.
0
9.
0
10.
0
11.
0
12.
0
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
❑� 40.0% FAC
❑d 40.0% FAC
❑� 20.0% FAC
❑ 0.0% _
❑ 0.0% _
❑ o.o% _
❑ o.o% _
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
❑� 33.3% FAC
❑� 66.7% FAC
❑ 0.0% _
❑ 0.0% _
❑ o.o% _
❑ o.o%
= Total Cover
❑
o.o%
❑
0.0%
❑
0.0%
❑
o.o%
❑
0.0%
❑
o.o%
❑
0.0%
❑
0.0%
❑
0.0%
❑
0.0%
❑
o.o%
❑
0.0%
= Total Cover
1 Smilax laurifolia
50
❑d
100.0% FACW
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
o.o%
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply
by:
OBL species 0
x 1 =
0
FACW species 50
x 2 =
100
FAC species 65
x 3 =
195
FACU species 0
x 4 =
0
UPL species 0
x 5 =
0
Column Totals: 115
(A)
295 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.565
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑� 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
0 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 i
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
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 - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
5. 0 ❑ 0.0% Hydrophytic
- Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 25 20% of Total Cover: 10 50 = Tota I Present? Yes O No ❑
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-11
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) 0/0Color (moisll_ 0/0Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 2/1 Silt Loam
12-20+ 10YR 4/1 Clay
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (1`10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
W Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No ❑
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

Soil Borings
Date
Boring
Soil
Saturation depth
Notes
4/11/2019
1
0-20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam
3
4/11/2019
2
0-20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam
2
0-12 10YR 2/1 silt loam
12-16 10YR 2/1 sand 16-
4/11/2019
4
24+ 10YR 4/1 loam
>24
0-20 10YR 2/1 silt loam
4/11/2019
5
20-28 10YR 5/1 clay
14
0-20 10YR 2/1 silt loam
4/11/2019
6
20-28 10YR 5/1 clay
14
4/16/2019
7
0-18 10YR 2/1 silt loam
16
4/16/2019
8
0-24 10YR 2/1 silt loam
18
4/16/2019
9
0-24 10YR 2/1 silt loam
18
0-12 10YR 2/1 silt loam
4/16/2019
10
12-20 10YR 4/1 clay
18
0-12 10YR 2/1 silt loam
4/16/2019
11
12-20 10YR 4/1 clay
18
4/16/2019
12
0-20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam
8
4/16/2019
13
0-20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam
7
4/16/2019
14
0-20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam
8
4/16/2019
15
0-20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam
10
4/16/2019
15a
0-20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam
8
4/16/2019
16
8
4/16/2019
17
16
4/16/2019
18
>20
4/16/2019
19
>20
4/16/2019
20
>20
rapid assessment to
4/16/2019
21
>20
find any areas having
4/29/2019
22
>20
saturation within 12"
4/29/2019
23
>20
of ground surface. Soil
4/29/2019
24
>20
data not recorded for
4/29/2019
25
>20
each but were similar
4/29/2019
26
>20
to previous borings
4/29/2019
27
>20
(minimum 0-8" of 10YR
4/29/2019
28
>20
2/1)
4/29/2019
29
>20
4/29/2019
30
>20
4/29/2019
31
>20
4/29/2019
32
>20

IQ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission IQ
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
August 12, 2019
Mr. Mike DeAngelo
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Subject: Request for Environmental Information for the Dugout Mitigation Project, Cumberland
County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. DeAngelo,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed project description. Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (as amended), 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.).
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC has developed the Dugout Mitigation Project to restore and
enhance unnamed tributaries to Gray's Creek. The proposed project presents the opportunity to restore
7,860 linear feet of stream and 12.61 acres of wetland in the Cape Fear River Basin, thereby providing
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts. Existing conditions in the
watershed include agricultural fields, pastureland and forest. 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.
Please exercise caution during construction as there are records for the following state -significantly rare
species downstream of the site in Gray's Creek: banded sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus) and Sandhills
spiny crayfish (Cambarus hystricosus). The NCWRC recommends the use of biodegradable and wildlife -
friendly sediment and erosion control devices. 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 and similar products that have been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh
should be avoided as they impede 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. Any invasive plant species that are found onsite should
be removed.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
August 12, 2019
Scoping — Dugout Mitigation Proj ect
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or gabriela.garrison&ncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

fires
July 26, 2019
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Sandhills Depot
PO Box 149
Hoffman, NC 28347
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
Subject: Project Scoping for Dugout Mitigation Project in Cumberland County
Dear Ms. Garrison,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to fish and wildlife associated with a potential stream and wetland restoration project on the
attached site (USGS site map with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance
are enclosed). The Dugout Project has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES)
to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts. The proposed project
presents the opportunity to restore/enhance/preserve 7,860 linear feet of sream and enhance and preserve
up to 12.61 acres of wetland in the Cape Fear River Basin. Coordinates for the site are as follows:
35.9255 N,-78.8488 W. The Project's watershed is primarily a mix of row crops, pastureland, and some
forest and has historically been so since before the 1940's.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to my
attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at mdeangelokres.us with any questions that
you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Matt DeAngelo I Ecologist II
Attachments: Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic Map, Existing Conditions Map, Conceptual Plan Map
res.us

United States Department ®f the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office RECEIVE b
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 NOV 2 6 2018
4IL-.0 1001 A# rJ R'
November 15, 2018
Mickey Sugg
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
WilmingtonRegulatoryField Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re: Cape Fear 05 UMBI (Dugout Stream & WetlandMitigation Sitey SAW-2018-01883/ Alamance Co.
Dear Mr. Sugg:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service) has reviewed the information concerning the above
referenced project The project, based on the description inyour letter to our office, and other information,
is expected to have min iinaiadverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 4mended�ESA) and based on the information
provided, and other available information, it appears the action is not likely to adversely affect fedally
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 hformation 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 critickhabitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
For your convenience a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North Carolina
is now available on our website athttp://www.fws.gov/fateigh. Our web page contains a complete and
frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened species protected by the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of
concern' that are known to occur in each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated noifederal representative), in
consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized, funded, or carried out by @b
agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federaiPjEsted endangered or threatened
species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be prepared to fulfill that requirement and in
determining whether additional consultationwith the Service is necessary. In addition to the federally
protected species list. information on the species' life histories and habitats and information on completing
a biological assessment or evaluation and can be found on out web page at littp://wwvfws.gov/raleigh.
1 The term "federai species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be, in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no Iegal protection and theirdesignation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federaily endangered or threatened
species. However, we.recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

Please check the web site often for updated information or changes.
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federallylisted species known to be present within
the county where your project occurs, the proposed ation has the potential to adversely affect those
species, As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence
within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be substked
for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to
adversely affect) a federal lyprotected species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species,
including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that
might affect the species. If you determine thatthe proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or
adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally listed species, then you arc not required to contact our office
for concurrence (unless an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). Howear, you should maintain a
complete record of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified
personnel conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
The Service appreciates the opporhtnity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Kathy Matthews at [phone],
extension 27.
Sin erely,
ete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc: NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. I Ia nilton
November 8, 2018
Mickey Sugg
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, Highway 87 & Upton Tyson Road, Fayetteville,
SAW 2018-01883, Cumberland County, ER 18-3302
Dear Mr. Sugg:
We have received a public notice concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
67,Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

fires
July 26, 2019
Renee Gledhill -Earley
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
Subject: Project Scoping for Dugout Mitigation Project in Cumberland County
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) has identified the Dugout Project to provide
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts. The proposed project presents an
opportunity to restore/enhance/preserve up to 7,860 linear feet of stream and enhance and preserve up to
12.61 acres of wetland in the Cape Fear River Basin.
RES requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential stream and wetland mitigation project on
the Dugout Site. Coordinates for the site are as follows: 35.9255 N,-78.8488 W. A USGS site map with
approximate limits of conservation easement is attached.
A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/; accessed July 9, 2019) was performed as part of the site due diligence
evaluation to reveal any listed or potential eligible historic or archeological resources. The database did
not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or archeological resources on the proposed Project
property. There is one documented structure within a half -mile radius of the Project. There are no
anticipated impacts from Project activities to state surveyed properties as there are none in the proposed
project vicinity. Other land use around the project is pasture, residential land, and some bottomland
hardwood forest.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any
historic properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return
the comment to my attention at the address in the letterhead, or via email. Please feel free to contact me at
mdeangelokres.us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincerely,
a
Matt DeAngelo I Ecologist II
Attachments: Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic Map, Existing Conditions Map, Conceptual Plan Map
res.us

Fay, ttp , il V-
Regional
CL Airport
ID
.b
M
................
Cypress Lakes
Goff Course (081,77
Fort Bragg
03030004 Fayettev to
03030006
Hp. Mill-
Dugout
it Site
03030005
Legend
St paulc
03040203
Proposed Easement
HUC: 030300050102
Ike
N
Date 9/6/2018
Figure 1 -Vicinity Map
_-Ir
W E
Drawn by: MDD
rps
Dugout Mitigation Site
Checked by: BPB
0 0.5 1
Cumberland County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1 mile
Miles

` 16.2 ac
Ft ,
tiieta ..nt;..
TV2
12.2 ac
Grays Creek
5,302.3 ac
C e dr -Creek
i
i
i
i
Legend j
Proposed Easement
® Drainage Area `
USGS 24k Topo Map Boundaries _ s �o0, 5t; -
5'
" Figure 2 - USGS Map Date: 9/6/2018
w E Cedar Creek & Hope Mills Quadrangles (2016)
Drawn by: MDD res
n Dugout Mitigation Site Checked by: BPB
0 1,00s0 2,000
Feet
Cumberland County, North Carolina 1 inch = 2,000 feet

�
r
3mnn Rd-
�' n,.
Ro "ems
t
1
y
a
i
f
a„
o`
sad Nrrr Ry
:.
U lyaon Rd
S
_
y
.
e S r.
�f
y _ I
-
' T
r
�e
Alb ac c
*tea
o m`s.
rg P�
i
m.
�
VV
R
e
p
cµ
.}
y
!f
'4
( ♦r,1 w
C
,:Immanuel
a
Y
'Proposed
Easement
a
g
Existing StreamY{y
J
q
►
- m
�
-

7711,

Appendix C —
Data/Analysis/Supplementary Information

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
fe�o /I q
Project/Site: GrA
-
Latitude:
- -2
Evaluator: IB
1*
County: �L 1�
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (cir
Other
Stream is t Intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
Ephemeral Intermi Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
t
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 'L5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate t
Strogg
18' 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
�'
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
_
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
r1.51
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
QI UIIVIGI 4RW IWO PIC IIVI IQICV, 00C VIOL UOWVIIA III IIIQIIUCI1
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 1 I 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
0
1
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
1.5
C1 .
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 1
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
<Yei " 3--N
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = ' I n )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 I
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
1
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:

TV 1
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:12/12/2O19
Project/Site: Dugout
Latitude:
Evaluator: M. DeAngelo
county: Cumberland
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 30.75
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30`
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
I e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 15 )
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 = 9 )
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
1 0.5
1
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.75
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:

Tv 5
nu li w tl stream taenuncation norm version 4.11
Date: l a m ProjectlSite: a-4q O U Latitude:
Evaluator: np ( County: C u.'rj b U J CAV4 Longitude
Total Points: Stream Deterrryna�ta�circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent a if z 19 or perennial if >_ 30" Ephemeral ntermitten Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
C1}
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o = 0
Yes = 3
R_ Hvriminn►► Mihtntal = 771
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
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
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
eY.es = 3
(- Rinlnnv lSuhtntal = / 1
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
QD
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Dugout- GC1 Date of Evaluation
Stream Category la4 Assessor Name/Organization
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
8/30/2018
Brad Breslow- RES
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport NA
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate NA
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermo regulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Dugout- GC2 Date of Evaluation
Stream Category la4 Assessor Name/Organization
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
8/30/2018
Brad Breslow- RES
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport NA
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate NA
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermo regulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Dugout- GC3 Date of Evaluation
Stream Category la4 Assessor Name/Organization
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
8/30/2018
Brad Breslow- RES
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport NA
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermo regulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Dugout- GC4 Date of Evaluation
Stream Category la4 Assessor Name/Organization
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
8/30/2018
Brad Breslow- RES
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport NA
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermo regulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Dugout- TV5
Stream Category la1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 7/27/2020
Assessor Name/Organization Matt DeAngelo- RES
NO
NO
NO
Intermittent
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
(2) Baseflow
(2) Flood Flow
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NO
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NO
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
(2) In -stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -stream Habitat
(2) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Overall
HIGH

Dugout Morphological Parameters
Reference Reaches
Existing
Greys Creek (GC1)
UT Greys Creek (TV1)
GC1
GC2
GC3
Feature
Riffle
I
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
I
Pool
Riffle
Riffle
I
Riffle
Pool
Drainage Area ac
4980
7
4980
5085
5283
Drainage Area miZ
7.78
0.01
7.78
7.95
8.25
NC Regional Curve Discharge cfs z
73
1
73
74
76
VA Regional Curve Discharge cfs 3
97
2
97
98
100
Design/Calculated Discharge cfs'
122-174
3-6
-
Dimension
BKF Cross Sectional Area ftZ
39.7
39.2
2.4
2.8
39.7
39.2
46.0
48.4
31.7
34.1
29.7
33.1
BKF Width ft
16.1
13.2
6.7
6.7
16.1
13.2
15.7
14.6
11.8
15.3
18.5
12.3
BKF Mean Depth ft
2.5
3.0
0.4
0.4
2.5
3.0
2.9
3.3
2.7
2.2
1.6
2.7
BKF Max Depth ft
3.2
5.4
0.6
0.8
3.2
5.4
3.6
4.5
3.6
2.7
2.1
3.6
Wetted Perimeter ft
18.8
19.6
7.0
6.9
18.8
19.6
19.5
19.3
16.4
17.9
20.0
16.1
Hydraulic Radius ft
2.1
2.0
0.3
0.4
2.1
2.0
2.4
2.5
1.9
1.9
1.5
2.1
Width/Depth Ratio
6.5
4.5
18.7
15.8
6.5
4.5
5.4
4.4
4.4
6.8
11.6
4.6
Floodprone Width ft
>50
>50
>20
>20
>30
>30
>30
>30
>30
25.0
>30
32.5
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
1.6
>2.2
2.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.5
2.2
1.2
1.2
Substrate
Description D50
Sand
Sand/Gravel
Sand
Silt
Sand/Gravel
D16 mm
D50 mm
D84 mm
Pattern
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Min
Channel Beltwidth ft
9
39
6
16
Radius of Curvature ft
15
69
5
25
Radius of Curvature Ratio
1
4
1
4
Meander Wavelength ft
76
120
25
50
Meander Width Ratio
1
2
1 1
2
Profile
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Min
Riffle Length ft
8
20
3
6
Run Length ft
26
32
1
6
Pool Length ft
16
22
3
8
Pool -to-Pool Spacing ft
-
113
11
15
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
401
543
639
575
3409
Channel Length ft
455
630
715
585
4303
Sinuosity
1.13
1.16
1.12
1.02
1.26
Valley Slope ft/ft
0.004
0.031
0.007
0.003
0.003
Channel Slope ft/ft
0.003
0.027
0.006
0.003
0.003
Ros en Classification
I
E5
C4b / C5b
E5
E6
E6 to G4c / G5c
' Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003)
3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Krstolic and Chaplin (2007)

Dugout Morphological Parameters
Existing
Design
GC4
TV1
TV5
GC2 / GC3
TV1-B
TV5-B
Feature
Riffle Riffle
Riffle Pool
Riffle Riffle
Riffle Pool
Riffle
Riffle
Drainage Area ac
5320
7
2
0
10
2
Drainage Area miZ
8.31
0.01
0.004
0.00
0.02
0.00
NC Regional Curve Discharge cfs z
76
1
0
0
1
0
VA Regional Curve Discharge cfs 3
101
2
1
0
2
1
Design/Calculated Discharge cfs'
-
90
3-6
1-3
Dimension
BKF Cross Sectional Area ftZ
26.3
34.2
2.4
2.8
1.2
37.7
52.7
2.6
4.2
1.7
BKF Width ft
27.2
13.5
6.7
6.7
4.0
21.0
23.0
6.0
6.0
4.6
BKF Mean Depth ft
1.0
2.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
1.8
2.3
0.4
0.7
0.4
BKF Max Depth ft
1.9
3.5
0.6
0.8
0.4
2.4
3.9
0.6
1.2
0.5
Wetted Perimeter ft
28.3
17.2
7.0
6.9
4.1
22.0
25.1
6.2
6.6
4.8
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.9
2.0
0.3
0.4
0.3
1.7
2.1
0.4
0.6
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
28.0
5.3
18.7
15.8
13.6
11.7
10.0
1 13.6
1 8.6
12.4
Floodprone Width ft
30.0
25.2
>20
>20
>20
>50
>50
>20
1 >21
>20
Entrenchment Ratio
1.1
1.9
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
1 >2.3
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
2.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Substrate
Description D50
Sand/Silt
Sand/Gravel
Sand
Sand/Fine Gravel
Sand/Fine Gravel
Sand/Fine Gravel
D16 mm
D50 mm
D84 mm
Pattern
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Channel Beltwidth ft
3
43
6
14
5
10
Radius of Curvature ft
27
69
8
17
12
17
Radius of Curvature Ratio
1
3
1
3
3
4
Meander Wavelength ft
75
160
32
47
33
47
Meander Width Ratio
0
1 2
1
2
1
2
Profile
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Riffle Length ft
7
62
Run Length ft
-
-
Pool Length ft
12
78
Pool -to-Pool Spacing ft
10
111
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
977
543
352
4030
509
88
Channel Length ft
1050
630
423
4595
555
94
Sinuosity
1.07
1.16
1.20
1.14
1.09
1.07
Valley Slope ft/ft
0.001
0.031
0.028
0.002
0.022
0.021
Channel Slope ft/ft
0.001
0.027
0.023
0.002
0.02
0.02
Ros en Classification
I F5 / F6 to G5c / G6c
C4 / C5
C5b
C5
C5
C5
' Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003)
3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Krstolic and Chaplin (2007)

Upstream
Downstream
Reach GC1 - XS1 (Pool)
101
100
99
98
97
r
W
96
0
95
94
W
93
92
91
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
+Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

nstream
Downstream
Reach TV1-A - XS3 (Riffle)
100.4
100.2
100
r
99.8
c
0
99.6
v
w 99.4
99.2
99
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Distance (ft)
+Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Reach TV1-A - XS4 (Pool)
100.4
100.2
100
r 99.8
W
99.6
0
r
m
> 99.4
ul
99.2
99
98.8
0 5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
+Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

�@�"4v
Ahv
i
17, , 'tTo
�t

Upstream
Downstream
Reach GC3 - XS8 (Riffle)
104
103
102
r
101
c
0
100
v
w
99
98
97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Distance (ft)
+Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

�
©� \��� y��
\
:�
_. ..� �.
m dam, /� �
�{�� /
� �
��� \\�fty-:
.��»� :.�
,*S�
���\%»°©G
� »§«� \� /.\ »«
v: r� e� »:.� y«J
�����
\�\.a��
.. y��
. > � y . \ y� �
.���
� ~ ^
� �
2 � \»� �
.
� �`
\� � J-.
\ % \� C� � �
.
y���
< � \� � y ,
� «<

104
103
102
101
c
0
R 100
v
ul 99
98
97
0
Upstream
Reach GC4 - XS10 (Riffle)
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
35

�
/�/��m\=
,� =w »�
<\ m���.���w
���
m �
\�±��\�/\��§.
/2>3<�
.
\\ /�
� .�:.
� \ \\�
.. .
� «�� > ? «
:. >y»
.
«. .� .. .
. » » .».«- ��
�� ..._. . ��
.
��
2f.
y§� §�
. :..
�� . .
��_
d « 2 � � � ^ �
��» <
. ,» .
. w
z �
* ate.
. y, ..?
/� \�
. � . .-
.:
�22�\�
\« 2- \�.
» < . . �
. . ,� � «e-
. :.. .
p� .� � �� »-
»: -� \ \� \�
y .� / . \
��
<� � � \22..
� � » ^ � <y
\§.««>,...a.
©.y:�
2 ..
. /\\ 3��?
:�fv� . � .
� � �
� ��� ^©
.:ya< �
. �aw:��:.
��»:w.zm.
... >,:
:, � .
� ^ � ^
_ :
&©\\ »2 .«�
\ \� a:
� 2 z���
.-
�\ z < .
� ©�\ 6 \�_/�
�� �.-�
f�� ��
�\%�/���/�zw,.�.
.>,y 2�»<+�_�
� � \�
.
�� ��
. .:..
\\��� /d\� ��:£
�
.\�^:�
� �«�
>m:
�
� -
. .
��
\� %�
- \\� � �
- - .
.� \.�/
� \ ?: °� \� <
. «.
.z ? d
^.��
/§yy� y\y>y.y(/�.�,
-=
� �>�±.z
�
© ° : �
�: 2«:.� »

Upstream
Downstream
Reach GC2 - XS12 (Pool)
98
97
96
95
r
W
94
0
r
93
v
w 92
91
90
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
+Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach GC2 - XS13 (Riffle)
99
98
97
96
w 95
c
94
r2
y 93
w
92
91
90
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
+Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

.y.,F
_ i...

X*€ ,--
Y
k�

Greys Creek Relic - XS3 (Riffle)
95
94
93
r
92
c
O
91
R
a�
w 90
89
88
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (ft)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

pstream
UT to Grays Creek - XS1 (Riffle)
100.E
100.4
100.2
100
}
p 99.8
r
m
99.6
y
ul
99.4
99.2
99
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Distance (ft)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

UT to Grays Creek - XS2 (Pool)
100.4
100.2
100
r 99.8
99.6
0
.2
99.4
ul
99.2
99
98.8
0 5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WA-1
Date
7/27/2020
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Matt DeAngelo, RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WA-2
Date
7/27/2020
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Matt DeAngelo, RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WA-3
Date
7/27/2020
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Matt DeAngelo, RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WC
Date
7/27/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Matt DeAngelo, RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WD
Date
7/27/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Matt DeAngelo, RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WE (not jurisdictional)
Date
7/27/2020
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Matt DeAngelo, RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

FINAL
Detailed Hydric Soils Study
Dugout Mitigation Bank
Cumberland County NC
Prepared for:
Kasey Carrere
Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Prepared by:
George K Lankford Soil Scientist, LSS 91223
George K Lankford, LLC
238 Shady Grove Rd
Pittsboro, NC 27312
May 2020
Soil Scientist Seal
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Dugout Mitigation Bank in Cumberland County, NC. Any
subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring the complete report, including figures, maps,
appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Dugout Mitigation Site
Study Objectives and Scope
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the site soils and delineate the extent of riparian hydric soils
potentially suitable for hydrologic restoration and mitigation. All boundaries shown are based on the
detailed field evaluation. The potential for hydrologic restoration of hydric soil is evaluated considering
both the historic and existing land use, current conditions, and the sites potential for creating a
hydroperiod suitable for its landscape setting and soils. In addition to the anticipated restoration of the
stream to reestablish natural overbank flooding frequency, the practical modifications suggested generally
take advantage of available natural hydrology and may include, but are not limited to surface drainage
modifications such as plugging drainage ditches, removal of fill materials, and microtopographic
alteration such as surface roughening or enhancing existing depressions. Recommendation for the re-
establishment of wetlands follows the Principles of Wetland Restoration (USEPA 2000) that promote
successful establishment of a functioning wetland community by restoring ecological integrity through
reestablishment of natural structure and function. This site evaluation focuses on evaluating the soils and
the use of practical technical solutions to support reestablishment of natural hydrology. Recommendations
of removing extensive fill material is typically limited by cost and potential negative environmental
impacts. The potential for hydrologic restoration assumes a successful design and ability to construct site
modifications necessary to restore adequate hydrology.
This report presents an evaluation of the subject property based upon a detailed field investigation of this
site for the purpose of confirming the presence of and delineating the extent of hydric soil. The site is
assessed for the suitability of soils for wetland mitigation. The observations and opinions stated in this
report reflect conditions apparent on the subject property at the time of the site evaluation. My findings,
opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on professional experience, soils, drainage
patterns, site conditions, and boundaries of the property as evident in the field.
Project Information and Background
The site is located approximately 9 miles south of Fayetteville NC. It is east of Highway 87 in
Cumberland County. This project in on the floodplain of Grays Creek, a tributary to the Cape Fear River
(Figure 1). The land use of the contributing watershed community is a mix of urban and agricultural land
use with areas of undeveloped forest land (Figure 2). The project has a large watershed with mixed land
use consisting of residential developments, institutional, agricultural, and undeveloped forestland. The
undeveloped forestland appears to be more prevalent along the drainages and in poorly drained
depressional areas. The Dugout project area is approximately 45 acres with approximately 15 acres
evaluated for potential hydric soil. The remaining area consist of mostly jurisdictional wetland.
NRCS Soil Mapping
The NRCS soil mapping unit is an area having similar defined soil properties and physical characteristics
with similar management criteria base upon these properties. Map units across a site are useful for general
planning, but cover larger scales and which typically include smaller areas of dissimilar soils not
discernable without a detailed site evaluation. Properties of the map units provide the background for
interpreting the range of soil properties that may be encountered at the site.
The NRCS soil survey shows two soil map units within the project limits surrounded by three upland soil
units (Table 1). These soils are typical of low elevations along the floodplains of streams and terraces in
this area. The natural water table in these floodplains is expected to be at or near the surface for much of
the year due to the position in a lower elevation, frequent flooding, and slow drainage. These alluvial soils
formed from deposition of erosional material derived surrounding upland soils. Upland soils in this area
formed in marine deposits, typical of the Coastal Plain region (on line NRCS Web Soil Survey 2019).
Alluvial soils are highly variable on these wide floodplains due to differential sedimentation events and
the variability of upland soils eroded.
May 2020
Page 2 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Dugout Mitigation Site
Table 1. NRCS Hydric Soil Map Unit -Summary of General Characteristics - Dugout Mitigation Bank
(map units in order of increasing depth to water table)
Series
Taxonomic
Drainage
Hydric
Landscape setting
Class
Class
(Hydric Rating)
(down across)
Johnston loam (JT) (Consociation)
Not prime farmland — (found on floodplains)
Parent material - sandy and loamy alluvium
Depth to water table — about 0 inches (November to May)
Flooding —firequent Pondin -firequent
Johnston (100%)
Cumulic
very poorly
Yes
concave -linear
Huma ue is
(A/D)
Deloss loam (De) (Consociation)
Prime farmland if drained — (found on depressions, flats)
Parent material - loamy fluviomarine deposits
Depth to water table - 0 to 12 inches (November to April)
Flooding — none Pondin - none
Delos (90%)
Typic
very
Yes
concave -linear
Umbra
oorl
/D
Gilead loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes (GdB) (Consociation)
Prime farmland - (found on low hills, summits, crests)
Parent material - loamy and clayey marine deposits
Depth to water table — more than 80 inches
Gilead (90%)
Aquic
Ha ludults
moderately
well
No
(C)
convex -convex
Bibb (3%)
poorly
Yes
s
concave -linear
Fluvapic
Johnston (2%)
Cumulic
Huma ue is
very poorly
Yes
(A/D)
concave -linear
Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes (BaB) (Consociation)
Farmland ofstatewide importance — (found on low hills, summits, crests)
Parent material — sandy and loamy marine deposits
Depth to water table — more than 80 inches
Blaney (90%)
Ha ludults
well
C°
convex -convex
Candor sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes (CaD) (Consociation)
Not Prime farmland - (found on the backslope and crest of ridges on marine terraces)
Parent material - sandy and loamy marine deposits and/or eolian sands
Depth to water table — more than 80 inches
Candor (80%)
Grossarenic
Kandiudults
somewhat
excessive)
No
(A)
convex- convex
Source-NRCS Web Soil Survey (2020 04 14)
The project area is limited to the floodplain of Grays Creek containing two NRCS mapping units,
Johnston loam mapped upstream to the west, and Deloss loam mapped primarily across the area
evaluated. Found on floodplains, terraces, and depressions, both soils typically have a surface layer that
is high in organic content and relatively thick, and is not massive (umbric epipedon). A Deloss soil has
the umbric horizon to 10 inches thick and a clayey horizon within the subsoil. A Johnston soil has an
May 2020
Page 3 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Dugout Mitigation Site
umbric layer that may be up to 30 inches thick and lacks the clayey subsoil horizon. A Johnston is subject
to frequent flooding and ponding. The Deloss soils do not normally flood and rarely pond. Both soil map
units are considered to be very poorly drained soils are classified as hydric by the NRCS.
The foot slopes adjacent to the floodplain contains the Gilead, Blaney, and Candor map units. A Gilead
soil has a sandy textured surface over a slowly permeable clayey subsoil. This map unit may contain
small inclusions of poorly or very poorly drained soil. A Blaney soil has a thick sandy surface and the
Candor soil is a deep, sandy, excessively drained soil.
Project Approach
The approach to mitigation of hydric soil is to restore a functional, natural hydrology on the floodplain
that will sustain wetland hydroperiods appropriate for this landscape. A soil evaluation found this site
exhibits hydric soil characteristics typical wetland soils and the map units. The upstream portion of the
mitigation site is jurisdictional wetlands with Corps of Engineer concurrence and the area evaluated was
determined to be not be a jurisdictional wetland (Figure 2). The past land management, stream channel
incision, and ditching appear to have removed the natural wetland hydrology. The area downstream of the
jurisdictional wetland is the area evaluated for this report (Figure 2).
Methodology
A detailed hydric soil investigation for Dugout Mitigation Bank was completed in April of 2020. A series
of approximately 50 soil borings were performed across the site to described and verify the presence and
estimate the extent of hydric soil, including soils that appear to exhibit relict or historic hydric indicators
(Figure 2). Soils were evaluated using morphologic characteristics to determine hydric indicators and
evaluate current hydrology and using criteria based on "Field Indicators ofHydric Soils in the United
States" (USDA, NRCS, 2018, Version 8.2). The boring observations do not contain adequate detail to
classify these soils to a series. Hydric soil indicators used are valid for the Regional Supplement to the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Version 2.0
within Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 133A (Southern Coastal Plain) - Southern Piedmont and
Land Resource Region (LRR) P- South Atlantic and Gulf Slope Cash Crops, Forest, and Livestock
Region. A hydroperiod success criteria is proposed based upon Corps mitigation guidelines (US Army
Corps of Engineers 2016). Soil boring locations were approximately located using the Terrain Navigator
Pro smart phone application by Trimble and figures were produced from the same software.
The soil was assessed for current hydrology by evaluating existing drainage modifications (both natural
and anthropogenic), the pattern and presentation of soil color and mottles, existing vegetation, and the
current water table where observed. The interpterion of hydric soil indicators does not assume current
hydrology. Hand auger soil borings, some greater than 40 inches, were used to described current soil
characteristics, observe current hydrologic conditions, and evaluate the extent of soil suitable for
reestablishment. In some areas, borings were placed beyond the proposed easement boundaries to
evaluate the wider range of floodplain conditions. Representative profiles are described to document the
range of characteristics observed (Appendix A). Constraints on stream restoration may limit the extent of
potential hydrologic restoration. General conditions and patterns representative of this floodplain were
noted.
General conditions and patterns representative of this floodplain were noted. This report describes these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation for wetland reestablishment at the Dugout Mitigation Bank.
The current hydrology, management, and existing modifications with relevant soil characteristics that
may affect potential hydrology are discussed.
May 2020
Page 4 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Dugout Mitigation Site
Results and Discussion
Landscape Setting
This project site is within the Southern Coastal Plain on a wide, low gradient floodplain of Grays Creek, a
higher order channel within a moderately developed watershed. The watershed is characterized by low
broad, nearly level to gently rolling hills. The project lies along the transitional boundary between two
eco-regions, upstream is the Atlantic Southern Loam Plains, and downstream is the Southeastern
Floodplains and Low Terraces. The site appears more closely to reflect the Southeastern Floodplains and
Low Terraces ecoregion. The Cape Fear River is located approximately 2 miles east of the project.
Geologically the project lies in the Cape Fear formation where parent material may be composed of
hardened sandstone and sandy mudstone. Portions of the watershed also fall within the Black Creek
formation with materials composed of clays with find grained lenses of sand. These geologic formations
are the source material in which soil develops on uplands with the patterns of erosion and deposition
heavily influencing the alluvial floodplain soils.
The site historically supported a very wet to swampy riparian community similar to the community
upstream of Highway 87 to the west of the project. This community would have extended downstream,
possibly to the Cape Fear River. Downstream of this site, Grays Creek and the receiving waters of the
Cape Fear River is classified as Water Supply Watershed -VI (WS-IV) waters. This classification is for
water used as sources for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes and are generally in moderately
to highly developed watersheds. The downstream watershed classification makes water quality important
for this stream.
Site Conditions
The area evaluated appears to have been clear-cut in spring of 2012. Surface disturbance from the clear -
cutting were not readily apparent and evidence of old windrows or slash were not visible. The area
evaluated contains early successional dominated by young sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua) and red
maple (Acer rubrum) with a thick ground cover of greenbrier (Smilax sp.) present over large areas where
regeneration of trees is poor.
Grays Creek is deeply incised and located along the northern edge of the floodplain. No evidence of
recent flooding from Grays Creek was observed. Near the upper end of the area evaluated an electric
utility easement crosses the floodplain. In February of 2020, the Corps concurred with a jurisdictional
wetland boundary upstream of the study area. This boundary is the upstream limit of the study area
evaluated. The upstream portion the study area is approximately 600 feet wide, narrowing to about 350
feet at a natural constriction downstream of the wetland boundary, before widening to more than 700 feet.
Along the south edge of the floodplain a ditch along the toe of slope intercepts upland runoff and captures
potential seepage. Another ditch transects the floodplain extending from Grays Creek to the toe slope,
providing surface drainage within the floodplain and a high-water outlet for Grays Creek. East of the
project, these two ditches join and flow southeast away from the site before entering Grays Creek.
Within the floodplain, local topography is highly variable with low hummocks and shallow, irregular
shaped, depressions and low swales throughout. Low linear features extend along the floodplain
suggestive of an abandoned channel. Other low areas are reminiscent of old sloughs. A few areas
exhibited a uniformly level surface and appear to be slightly elevated.
Site Soils
Soils of the floodplain landscape formed in sandy and loamy alluvium originating in sediments from
upland soils of the water shed. Where very poorly drained, soils accumulate high organic content in the
surface horizons resulting in dark gray to black colors.
May 2020
Page 5 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Dugout Mitigation Site
Soils at this site predominantly have a black surface of muck or mucky sandy loam. The subsoils vary
from sandy clay and silt clay to sand, a normal range for the depositional environments of larger
floodplains. The soils appear to have high to very high permeability due to their sandy and high organic
nature. Where present, the clayey subsoils likely have limited effect on the water table due to the extent of
sandy textured subsoil observed. The sandy textured soils indicate soils are saturated throughout the
profile and historically supported by the high stream bed and absence of drainage ditches. The typically
thin sediment layers (4 to 8 inches) differ texturally from the surrounding surface soils, with a silt loam or
loam, but are underlain by the black horizon found elsewhere. In the sediment layers hydric indicators
have formed within 6 inches. Adjacent to the drainage ditches are spoil berms that are also underlain by a
black horizon. Outside of the areas with sediment or spoil, the variability in surface elevation has little
effect on the presence of this dark surface horizon. The field evaluation of the soils and landscape indicate
a high potential for wetland rehabilitation at this site.
Hydric Soil Indicators
The soil evaluation confirmed the presence of hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface
throughout site. The most common hydric soil indicators based on recorded profiles are AI-Histosol, A2-
Histic Epipedon, A3-Black Histic, Al2-1hick Dark Surface, FI -Loamy Mucky Mineral, and F3-Depleted
Matrix, and F13-Umbric Surface. Other indicators that were found include AS -Stratified Layers and F8-
Redox Depressions. All but three of these indicators do not require a dark gray to black surface but does
not exclude a black surface. The indicators present reflect a very wet historical condition in this
floodplain resulting in the accumulation of organic materials throughout.
Current Hydrologic Alterations
Grays Creek is located close to the northern edge of the floodplain and toe slope, allowing the
interception of ground water seepage along this slope. The deep incision of Grays Creek effectively
lowers the floodplain groundwater elevation by limiting overbank flooding and providing drainage of the
surrounding sandy soils. To the south edge of the floodplain, the toe slope ditch intercepts seepage before
it can recharge the floodplain water table and provides additional surface drainage in the backwater area
of the floodplain. The ditch across the floodplain helps remove surface waters and acts to lower shallow
groundwater within the floodplain itself.
Observations with visible groundwater were limited and only found in the general area downstream of the
jurisdictional wetland and near the floodplain constriction. Below the constriction observations of the
water table were found near the center of the floodplain away from Grays Creek. Depth to the water table
was deeper with distance from the wetland and closer to Grays Creek. This pattern suggest that the
incised Grays Creek is effectively lowering local groundwater to the north of the floodplain and to the
south the slope ditch is limiting recharge and preventing ponding in the backwater.
Potential Hydroperiod for Restored Soils
The soils present in the floodplain of this project appear to be very similar to the NRCS map units. Based
on mitigation guidance for Coastal Plain soils (US Army Corps of Engineers 2016), both the Johnston
(Cumulic Humaquepts) and Deloss series (Typic Umbraquults) are suggested to have a natural
hydroperiod of between 12 and 16 percent where the water table is within 12 inches of the surface during
the growing season (Table 2). Soil similar to the surrounding upland soil map units was not located within
the floodplain. Because of natural variation of local topography and internal drainage found across this
site, a local hydroperiod slightly higher or lower than this guidance may be expected. Near the
downstream end where the stream design "steps down" to meet the existing channel, drainage will likely
reduce the expected hydroperiod. Depressional areas and areas underlain by a clayey subsoil may exhibit
longer hydroperiods exceeding 16 percent, depending on local topography.
May 2020
Page 6of10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Dugout Mitigation Site
Because of the high permeability of soils, for the first year after construction, it is practical to expect a
hydroperiod of less than 12 percent as the site becomes wet and a higher groundwater table becomes
establishes. These suggested hydroperiods depend on the factors related to stream design and frequency
of flooding, construction accuracy, local topography, and local drainage after construction.
Table 2. Guidance for Hydroperiod Success Criteria at Dugout Mitigation Bank
Mapping
Taxonomic
Topographic Slope
Flooding/Ponding
Hydroperiod
Unit/Series
Classification
Setting
Frequency
Range*
(do cross)
Johnston
Cumulic
concave -linear-
frequent/ frequent
(12-16%)
loam
Huma ue is
Deloss
Typic
concave -linear-
rare/none
(12-16%)
loam
Umbra uults
*Hydroperiod follows US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016
No guidance on upland soils — Blaney, Candor, and Gilead soils —soils typically expected to lack significant hydroperiod.
Functional Uplift from Hydric Soil Reestablishment
Successful construction and wetland reestablishment along Grays Creek and its floodplain wetland system
has the potential to provide numerous benefits to water quality. Grays Creek has a substantial watershed
with moderate development capable of discharging sediments, nutrients, and pollutants into this stream,
allowing a direct, unprocessed flows to pass on to the Cape Fear River. Upstream of the evaluation area
are jurisdictional wetlands. Groundwater elevations were found to decrease within distance from the
wetland boundary and proximity to the deeply incised Grays Creek.
The wetland reestablishment proposed will be the result of raising the local groundwater and restoring a
more natural hydrologic cycle with the associated functional uplift. Successful hydrologic restoration can
provide numerous functional uplifts related to soils and water quality. These include, reestablishment of
natural oxidation-reduction cycling, improved nutrient and chemical transformations (especially nitrates),
and potential immobilization of phosphorus. Potential sources of these pollutants are present in the
watershed.
Other benefits include a lower soil and surface water temperature after vegetative establishment,
increased organic carbon sequestration, and increases in diversity of beneficial microbial and fungal
populations important for soil health. Healthy microbial populations in wetlands are primarily responsible
for biochemical transformations of complex organic substances such as ammonia, molecular nitrogen,
nitrite and nitrate. Large scale benefits should include peak flood control, an increase of diverse wildlife
habitat, and greater connectivity to the natural aquatic communities along Grays Creek.
Summary Conclusions and Recommendations
The Dugout project lies along Grays Creek, a higher order tributary to the Cape Fear River. The project
site is within a suitable landscape position and soils exhibit numerous hydric indicators consisting of a
wide floodplain in a large, moderately developed watershed. Land use of the project site is currently in
drier, early successional, woody trees and vines with little of an appropriate natural vegetation present.
Based upon this detailed study of soils and current conditions at this site, the natural hydrology has been
significantly altered, resulting in a lower groundwater table. The altered hydrology results from the deeply
incised stream, presence of highly permeable soils, and the location of drainage features intercepting
groundwater discharges onto the floodplain. These changes to the natural hydrology and drainage limit
groundwater elevation across the floodplain.
May 2020
Page 7 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Dugout Mitigation Site
The NRCS soil survey indicate the site contains two similar map units, Johnston and Deloss loams. These
soils area expected to have surface horizons high in organic matter. Although highly permeable, unless
drained the natural water table should be at or near the surface for extended periods. These map units are
classified as hydric.
The floodplain is nearly level with localized topography of depressions and low ridges. Past timber
harvest has removed native tree canopy with unmanaged regeneration resulting in a drier species with low
diversity of dense sweetgum and greenbrier dominating. Grays Creek appears to have once been located
within this wide floodplain, but may have been moved to the left edge of the floodplain. It has become
deeply incised along the toe slope, intercepting any discharges from the surrounding slope. A ditch
constructed along the right edge of the floodplain intercepts groundwater discharges from this slope.
Drainage of the floodplain is due to an incised channel, strategically located ditches, and the presence of
highly permeable soil. With flooding limited and significant sources of hydrology restricted, the
floodplain groundwater has been effectively lowered.
The soil investigation found deep black surface soils high in organic matter suggestive of the NRCS map
units. Much of the surface exhibited highly permeable muck or mucky loams, often underlain by highly
permeable sandy textured soils, also highly permeable. The site historically supported a very wet to
swampy riparian community. Deeper profiles indicated much of the area is underlain by a sand. These
highly permeable soils are expected to respond strongly to drainage modifications.
The common hydric soil indicators reflect this site was historical very wet. The accumulation of organic
materials supports the hydric indicators of A]-Histosol, A2-Histic Epipedon, A3-Black Histic, Al2-1hick
Dark Surface, FI-Loamy Mucky Mineral, and F13-Umbric Surface. Other indicators that were found
include AS -Stratified Layers, F3-Depleted Matrix, and F8-Redox Depressions. The indicators present
reflect a very wet historical condition in this floodplain resulting in the accumulation of organic materials
throughout. With the large, moderately developed watershed, a functional uplift of flood storage, carbon
sequestration, and nutrient and pollutant transformations would provide valuable water quality benefits.
Additional uplift of natural habitat and connectivity would also be anticipated.
Recommendations
Restoration techniques to restore hydrology require a successful stream restoration to raise the local
groundwater elevation that allows frequent flooding. Additionally, plugging and filling of ditches to
redirect seepage back onto the floodplain and limit surface drainage is recommended. Due to the high
organic matter and existing natural surface topography, ripping is not required. Where construction
equipment is utilized, limited surface roughening may be necessary due to the structure of high organic
soil that may be destroyed by equipment. All heavy equipment and construction schedules should be
limited to dryer conditions and tracked equipment to limit loss of soil structure. These efforts to protect
this soil will retain natural structure, reduce erosion, and allow quicker vegetative reestablishment.
The hydric soils at this site can be expected to have a hydro period of 12 to 16 percent with small, more
pronounced depressional areas ponding for short periods and having potentially greater than 16 percent
hydroperiods. The channel reconnects downstream to the incised stream below the project, groundwater
will reflect a slope in the groundwater toward the channel bed. Due to the current drainage and permeable
soils, it may take at least a year for the site to become completely saturated and reach the target
hydroperiods. For at least the first year after construction, it may be reasonable to expect a hydroperiod
less than 12 percent, depending on final construction timing and rainfall.
Conclusions
The topographic setting and hydric soil are appropriate for a successful hydrologic reestablishment at the
Dugout mitigation site. This floodplain on Grays Creek reflects historically wetland conditions. The soils
May 2020
Page 8 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Dugout Mitigation Site
exhibit hydric indicators with high organic accumulation found in environments saturated for extended
periods. Restoration of the stream should raise the groundwater to within 12 inches of the surface for 12
to 16 percent of the growing season. Stream restoration will provide opportunities for multiple overbank
flooding events to support this hydrology.
This project will reestablish natural functions to these degraded aquatic resources by providing a stable
and unique wetland habitat to compliment the restored streams. Upon successful construction, the
restored wetland will be able to provide functional benefits of sediment removal, soil chemical and
biological transformations of nutrient and chemical pollutants while providing a range of wetland habitat.
Other benefits include increased organic carbon accumulation/capture and increases of natural diversity in
beneficial microbial and fungal populations important for soil health. Given the observed soil
characteristics and presence of hydric soil indicators within a favorable landscape position, this site
appears suitable for hydrologic wetland reestablishment. Because of the historically wet nature of this
site, correct landscape position, the appropriate soils, and potential for restoration of adequate hydrology,
this site is suitable for wetland reestablishment.
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Dugout Mitigation Site in
Cumberland County, NC. Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring
the complete report, including figures, maps, appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.
References
NTCHS. 2003. Technical Note 13: Altered Hydric Soils. Deliberation of National Technical Committee
for Hydric Soils.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Web Soil Survey. Available online at the following link: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
Accessed [November/2019].
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016. SAW-2013-00668-PN
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W.
Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.
USDA 1984. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Soil
Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties North Carolina. October 1984)
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators
of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.).
USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
Vepraskas, M. J. 1994. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. Tech. Bulletin 301.
North Carolina Ag. Research Service, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina.
USEPA. 2000. Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Resources. EPA841-F-00-003.
Office of Water (4501F). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 4 pp.
(https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/principles-wetland-restoration).
USDA, NRCS. 2008. Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, or Creation. NEH Part 650.13 Engineering
Field Handbook. Washington, DC.
May 2020
Page 9 of 10

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Dugout Mitigation Site
Figures
APPENDICES
Appendix A Soil Boring Log
Appendix B Photos
Appendix C NRCS Web Soil Survey Report
May 2020
Page 10 of 10

Dunn r ,�
i•
a f
i ii gins o
5
CD
Fayettevil_e ry \� CIO
burg u p h y .S Q uTT J+
�W S'l n�th:Roa
Lumberton 0
erry Coin �. _� • y,
o Co - a
Ferr o�� •.o a. lr ady
oRich D Tyson_Road
e
NN is ,\ - — `-� +� - _ —Ca
- Ie a
0.
;off i1` \S J11� v :1�7 Golf
O� .w
� Q, r,8 • �:� lowing Ro , Coin I oaks pc�
e of
a -A S�tee� ~ 1 2z"a �i c .Imrrmanuel Drive �CD
corico,rn Drive I
Declination �� �Blossom
� • �.� i' r/ � '``-� �� .:� �-..._�� - �- II ova ( i
5
1, Dewop Drive��'- _
Legend o
GN 1.23' E Project Area - Proposed Conservation Easement
MN 8.97' VV \. CD.?
-s G (C) C61,yr
ig hfk 16,"Trimble Nav
Map Name: CEDAR CREEK Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft.
Figure 1. USGS Vicinity Map SCALE 1:24000
Dugout Mitigation Bank 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
CumberlandCounty, NC 0 Feet 1

Appendix A
Dugout Mitigation Site, Cumberland County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Table Representative Soil Profiles at the Dugout Site
Depth
Color
Mottle Percentage
(Location*)Texture
Notes
(inches)
Matrix
Mottle
SB 01
Hydric Indicators No WT (no saturation)
F1-Loamy Mucky Mineral
March 12 2020
F13-Umbric Surface
0-28
N 2.5/-
mucky L
28-32
10 YR 3/1
LS
32-40
10 YR 3/1
10 YR 6/2
15% (UCSG)
S
SB 03
Hydric Indicators No WT (no saturation)
March 12, 2020
Al-Histosol
Al2- Thick Dark Surface
0-33
N 2.5/-
muck
<1% sand
33-42
10 YR 511
7.5 YR 4/6
10%
SC
massive - restrictive
SB 06
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
March 12, 2020
F3-Depleted Matrix
F8-Redox Depressions
0-6
10 YR 5/8
7.5 YR 6/4
20% (PL)
SiL
6-18
7.5 YR 6/2
10 YR 5/8
20% PL
SiL
18-24
N 2.5/-
SiCL
24-28
7.5 YR 2.5/1
7.5 YR 3/4
5% (M)
SCL
28-34
7.5 YR 511
7.5 YR 4/6
15% (PL)
Sc
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
SB 17
A2-Histic Epipedon
A3-131ack Histic
March 12, 2020
Al2-Thick Dark Surface
F13-Umbric Surface
0-10
N 2.5/-
muck
10-29
7.5 YR 2.5/1
SiL
29-34
7.5 YR 511
7.5 YR 4/6
10% (PL)
Sc
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
SB 31
F1-Loamy Mucky Mineral
March 12, 2020
F3-Depleted Matrix
F13-Umbric Surface
0-2
7.5 YR 2.5/1
mucky L
thin hemic/sa ric above
2-5
7.5 YR 4/6
7.5 YR 6/4
25% PL
SiL
5-6
7.5 YR 6/2
SiL
colors variegated
7.5 YR 4/6
6-19
N 2.5/-
SiL
Appendix A
Page 1 of 3
April 2020

Appendix A
Dugout Mitigation Site, Cumberland County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
19-26
10 YR 3/1
LS
—10% uncoated sand
rains
26-43
10 YR 4/2
cS
SB 37
April 2, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
AI-Histosol
0-23
N 2.5/-
muck
23-32
N 2.5/-
muck S
32-44
10 YR 3/2
10 YR 2/1
%
5%
0
S
SB 38
April 2, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
A3-131ack Histic
A5-Stratified Layers
0-2
10 YR 2/1
ea /hemic
2-7
10 YR 6/1
7.5 YR 4/6
30%
Si
7-12
N 2.5/-
muck
12-16
N 2.5/-
SiL
16-19
10 YR 2/1
7.5 YR 3/3
SiL
19-30
7.5 YR 5/2
7.5 YR 4/6
5% PL
SCL
SB 39
April 2, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
A2-Histic E i edon
0-4
10 YR 2/1
peaty?
4-12
N 2.5/-
muck
12-16
10 YR 3/1
SL
16-22
10 YR 3/1
SiL
22-25
1 10 YR 511
SCL
SB 41
April 2, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
AI-Histosol
0-20
N 2.5/-
muck
20-30
10 YR 3/1
20% (M)
SL
30-38
10 YR 3/1
SCL
SB 42
April 2, 2020
Hydric Indicators WT -15"
A3-131ack Histic
F3-De leted Matrix
0-2
10 YR 2/1
L
2-5
10 YR 6/1
7.5 YR 4/6
40% PL
SiL
5-10
N 2.5/-
muck
10-14
N 2.5/-
SCL
14-20
7.5 YR 5/2
S
20-26
7.5 YR 511
SL
massive -restrictive
Appendix A
Page 2 of 3
April 2020

Appendix A
Dugout Mitigation Site, Cumberland County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
SB 48
April 2, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
Al-Histosol
0-20
N 2.5/-
muck
20-27
10 YR 3/1
SCL
saturated at -25"
27-34
10 YR 4/1
SCL
»Indicators valid for NRCS Land Resource Region 133A (Southern Coastal Plain) and Land Resource Region P.
WT = observed apparent water table
*PL more lining, M = matrix, UCSG = uncoated sand grains
**Texture (follows USDA textural classification)
S = sand, L = loam, Si = silt, C = clay
f = fine, c = coarse (textural modifiers for sandy soils)
Appendix A
Page 3 of 3
Soil Scientist Seal
April 2020

` �., � x'-'Y ¢.� •�.�' � r� ll��S�!�� `' �C � a„ I` "`E�, `. 1 is r �er��' 'b 4
til�-k
r� dy
T ! M
t1r„ �

Appendix B
Dugout Branch Mitigation Site — Cumberland County, NC
Photo Log
April 2020
3. Hydric profile. Meets the F1-Loamy Mucky Mineral, F3-Depleted Matrix, and F13-Umbric Surface
indicators. SB#31.
4. Landscape looking across floodplain with dense sapling. SB#31.
2
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Soil Map —Cumberland County, North Carolina
(Dugout)
695500 695700 695900 696100 696300 696500 696700 696900
34o 55' 53" N Q
g
g
g
34o 552" N
695500 695700 695900 696100 696300 696500 696700
Map Scale: 1:11,100 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Milers
N 0 150 300 E00 900
Feet
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: lfrM Zone 17N WGS84
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
697100 697300 697500
697700
Q 34o 55' 53" N
u'S
g
g
g
34o 552" N
696900 697100 6973M 697500 697700
4/14/2020
Pagel of 3

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
0
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special
Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
0
Landfill
A.
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
o
Sodic Spot
Soil Map —Cumberland County, North Carolina
(Dugout)
MAP INFORMATION
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Stony Spot
th
Very Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Wet Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
4�
Other
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
Special Line Features
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Transportation
—
Rails
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
. 0
Interstate Highways
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
US Routes
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Major Roads
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Local Roads
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
Background
Aerial Photography
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Cumberland County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 16, 2019
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 15, 2015—Jul
31, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/14/2020
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Soil Map —Cumberland County, North Carolina
Dugout
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
BaB
Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8
percent slopes
17.2
7.6%
BaD
Blaney loamy sand, 8 to 15
percent slopes
1.7
0.7%
CaD
Candor sand, 8 to 15 percent
slopes
3.0
1.3%
De
Deloss loam
129.0
56.8%
GdB
Gilead loamy sand, 2 to 8
percent slopes
2.6
1.1 %
JT
Johnston loam
73.8
32.5%
TR
Torhunta and Lynn Haven soils
0.0
0.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
227.2
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/14/2020
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

Appendix D —
Design Plan Sheets

a�
N
ca
T
m
0
w
Q
Ir
LLI
0
U
ray�-,tte V I li
Pib
Va nrieT
CAN HILL
DEN
��ers
CEr}AR FA.I I G
b-mch
Judson
Fayetteville
Regional F�
A irparl �k /
. c�11�11
PROJECT LOCATION
t 53
m
a
Grays Creek
GRAYS CREEK
VICINITY MAP
NTS
Ui
Know what's below.
Call before you dig
NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DIGGING, OR EXCAVATION THE
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE) THAT MAY EXIST AND CROSS THROUGH
THE AREA(S) OF CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER INDICATED ON THE PLANS
OR NOT. CALL "8 1 1 " A MINIMUM OF 72 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING OR
EXCAVATING. REPAIRS TO ANY UTILITY DAMAGED RESULTING FROM
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONTRACTOR.
PROJECT DIRECTORY
DESIGNED BY:
RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC
3000 GLENWOOD AVE, SUITE 100
RALEIGH, NC 27G 1 2
SURVEYED BY:
WSP USA INC.
128 TALBERT RD, SUITE A
MOORESVILLE, NC 281 17
USACE ACTION ID #: SAW-201 8-0 1 883
PROJECT TOPOGRAPHY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
PLANIMETRICS SURVEY WAS PROVIDED BY WSP USA,
INC. (NC FIRM LICENSE NUMBER F-089 1, J. BRANDON
HICKS, NC PLS L-5290), DATED FEBRUARY 07, 2020
A
REAC
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN: HUC 03030005
AUGUST 2020
RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC
302 JEFFERSON ST, SUITE 110
RALEIGH, NC 27605
f— ITC h A A M
Sheet Li5t Table
Sheet Number
Sheet Title
-
COVED
A I
OVERALL AERIAL
E I
NOTES AND LEGEND
E2
EX15TING CONDITIONS
51
LEACH GC
52
LEACH GC
53
LEACH GC
54
LEACH GC
55
LEACH GC
5G
LEACH GC
57
LEACH GC
56
LEACH GC
59
LEACH GC
5 1 0
LEACH GC
51 1
LEACH GC
5 1 2
REACH TV
5 1 3
REACH TV 1
514
REACH TV 5
5 1 5
5WALE (A)
5 1 G
5WALE (B)
F I
FENCING * IMPROVEMENT5
P I
PLANTING PLAN
WI
WETLAND PLAN
D I
DETAI L5
D 2
D ETAI L5
D 3
D ETA I L5
D4
DETAI L5
D 5
D ETAI L5
DG
DETAI L5
pres
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
www. res . us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler Environmental LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
w
Q o
N
O
F— N
0 N
o_ 00
z
0
U
U)
z
0
0
LL
1—
z
}
o
Q
z
z
0
o
U)
U)
W J
w
W
w
Iz
Iz 0-
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:

It
a�
ro
N
m
0
w
Q
0
W
{
LEACH GC
: A
_•� :f.. � � ` �,,, dew ' `� ,; s. ',�,,1= �+. �% ,
40
LEACH TV5
-Ill
SWALE (A) LCE
- rg � \fll�\ \\ -ai � �&'\\ / ti if "" ♦_-`� �-
a
�v � o� Pam`v vv v�v IC,F rt ' v�v�j �jl iI
Reach
Mitigation Type
Proposed Length (LF)
Mitiation Ratio
Warm SMUs
GC1
Preservation
526
10:1
52.600
GC2
Restoration
660
1:1
660.000
GC3
Restoration
27148
1:1
2,148.000
Restoration
17716
1:1
17716.000
GC4
Enhancement 1
971
2:1
647.333
TV1-A
Preservation
450
10:1
45.000
TV1-B
Restoration
340
1:1
340.000
TV1-C
Hydrologic Restoration
215
1:1
215.000
TV5-A
Preservation
250
10:1
25.000
TV5-B
Restoration
94
1:1
94.000
Total
71370
5,942.933
SWALE (B)
1 �
�j� e
Zj� \ \\ LCE \�
_ \ LCE e \�
ACC\1
m\
/ \ \ \\ '
/ a
Ir
'°0
�'ANI Nil _ 14N'
�►'��
asr,, � �!7
y \
IV
��.LCE
LCE
r
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 200
0
200 400
2
FULL SCALE
I`
1"
= HALF SCALE
w
Q0
o
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
ILL
O
Q
0
z
o
Q
2
w
w
w
w
Iz
r
a
W
Q
~
Z
E75
J
Z
p
O
Q
a
U
U
~
�
J
Q
o
O
0�
W
Q
Q
~
W
J
�
Q
0�
06
O
Lu
�
U
W
0
O
z
Of
Q
~
J
Lu
Lu
Q
z H
W
�
mm
Z_
w O
G
Ir �
0
in
U
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
A 1

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 AROUND OPERATIONS
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 UNLESS OTHERWISE 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 PUMP APPARATUS IS MAINTAINED AND
MONITORED CONTINUOUSLY.
3. CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE CHANNEL FIRST, WORKING IN AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
4. 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.
5. STRUCTURES ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN SHEETS (AS INDICATED ON THE
STRUCTURE TABLES) USING METHODS DESCRIBED IN THE DETAIL SHEETS. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING,
OBTAIN APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER ON INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.
G. SUBSTRATE MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE BED OF ALL PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS. SEE
TYPICAL RIFFLE DETAIL SHEET D4.
7. UPON COMPLETION OF FINE GRADING, INSTALL STREAM BANK STABILIZATION INCLUDING, EROSION
CONTROL MATTING OR SOD MATS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS.
8. FILL AND STABILIZE ABANDONED SEGMENTS OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL PER DIRECTION OF THE
ENGINEER.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR 50
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR — — — —4G— — — —
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR 50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR 42
EXISTING WETLAND W W W
—____ee_____ee—
EXISTI NG STREAM
EXISTING TOP OF BANK-----TB-----TB—
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK — — — — — BB----- BB
—
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITY LINE
PROPERTY LINE — —
EXISTING FENCELINE —X X X X X—
EXISTING UNDERSTORY/BRUSH
EXISTING TREELINE
EXISTING TREE
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK — —
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF CHANNEL —
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT LCE
PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG
(SEE DETAIL D3)
BRUSH TOE PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL D3) WRWM
ENGINEERED SEDIMENT PACK ° o
(SEE DETAIL D4) ° o
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL D5)
BRUSH BED �` 1
DETAIL D5)
WOODY RIFFLE
(SEE DETAIL D5)
LOG STRUCTURE
(PROFI LE)
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite
100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler Environmental,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
6i
H
Q o
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
Z
O
U
H
U)
Z
O
0-1
IL
1--
0
Z
OC
�
O
Q
Z
0
ZLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
>
J
W
W
IY
W
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
OO
a
�
=
p
z
w
p
O
CD
z
z
w
a
J
J
0
u1
z
z
=)
Q
06
0
(n
CU
W
~
w
�
O
z
�
Q
2 �
J
ui
J
H
H
ED
0
mm
O
Z_
W
G
Ir
Ir
0-=
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
El

�J
RONNIE E C;z
0442— 37—
5WALE (A)
REACH TV 5
k_ fC (��\p��Ty�<<'<�y�-��� d k k k O �\/• `k f ♦a�\\ \\
k k C/l•<v� f k k` f< Gj X k 4♦/k\ Of `k\ f La fjf k/ �.,L f •11 \t\VA
VANCE U TYSON JR
0442— 46-1787
REACH TV
LEACH GC
(GRAYS CREEK)
\ < k k < t . < k < < • k f��•� [��•� \ v�l
k k < k k < k k k f k < k f f ',•
x/�f<©����f
044 kk.7tk<(k ✓V�k<kk k<k`kk f<k<f <k kf 1�C7rcJ
(
kk` -14
/
VANCE U TKSON JR
0442— 78— 7881
< o�S
1�
5
VANCE U TKSON ✓R
0442-77-0886
97
o S
LC
` f LCE
L
ROTHCHILD ASSETS LLC
0442-85-8250
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 200
0
200
400
2"
FULL SCALE
I`
1"
= HALF SCALE
Lu
Qcl
Do
� N
O
J N
o_ 00
z
O
U
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
0-1
z
0
p
Lu
Sz
G
U)
¢
>
Lu
J
Lu
Lu
L 1_
fY
rr
Q_
W
tz
z
Cf)
J
z
O
o
�
�
Q
�
U
�
z
O
p
O
^
z
J
O
w
z
U
0s
O
z
U
a
p
�
LU
Of
Q
w
U)
JLu
Z
w
H
m
z
w O
Ir ZD
D
o
in
U
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
E2

N
W
0
C7
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
(D
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
z
Oz
U
U
w
�
z
LU
w
O
I1/
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S 1

N
W
0
C7
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
z
Oz
U
U
w
�
z
LU
w
O
I1/
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S2

N
W
0
C7
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
z
Oz
U
U
w
�
z
LU
w
O
I1/
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S3

N
W
0
C7
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
z
Oz
U
U
w
�
z
LU
w
O
I1/
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S4

N
W
0
C7
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
z
Oz
U
U
w
�
z
LU
w
O
I1/
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S5

N
W
0
C7
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
(D
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
z
Oz
U
U
w
�
z
LU
w
O
I1/
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S6

N
W
0
C7
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
z
Oz
U
U
w
�
z
LU
w
O
I1/
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S7

N
W
0
C7
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
(D
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
z
Oz
U
U
w
�
z
LU
w
O
I1/
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S8

N
W
0
C7
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
z
Oz
U
U
w
�
z
LU
w
O
I1/
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S9

N
W
0
C7
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
z
Oz
U
U
w
�
z
LU
w
O
I1/
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S10

N
W
0
C7
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
(D
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
z
Oz
U
U
w
�
z
LU
w
O
I1/
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S 11

N
(i3
T
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C)
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
00
z
>
Q
J
�
_
w
z
U
3:
=)
Q
w
oZ5
O
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S12

N
(i3
T
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C)
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
00
z
>
Q
J
�
_
w
z
U
3:
=)
Q
w
oZ5
O
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S13

N
(i3
T
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q o
0 N
O
N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
(D
_
N�
I..L
z
zz
i
J
~
�
w
z
U
3:
=)
Q
w
oZ5
O
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z0
W
(D_
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-�
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S14

w
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C)
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q O
0 N
O
� N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
OO
a
�
V
�N
I..L
p
Of
.C/-.
Z
z
W
W
Z
Q
3:
z:)
oZ5
O
(n
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
mm
O
z_
W
G
Ir
D
Ir
I
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S15

N
W
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30 60
2"
FULL SCALE
I\
1"
= HALF SCALE
6i
Q o
0 N
O
N
O
J N
0_ 00
z
O
U
H
z
O
U
0-1
ILL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
Z
0
zLU
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
IY
IY
Q_
tz
Z
C/)
J
O
�
a
�
V
�N
I..L
p0
10-1 1
z
zLU
W
a
�
�
J
j
Q
?
oZ5
O
V�
U
w
p
z
�
Q
2 �
J
iLi
J
H
H D
ED
0
O
z_
W
Cm
G
Ir
D
Ir
I
U
0p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S16

a�
N
m
0
w
w
C/),
E E E REACH TV 5
f f
< \ f f f f
f E f f\ f E f f
< f E f k
® f f E
f f
\ k `
�� ^ 1 1
5 WALE (A) / / f k k` E f,E ` ��II� REACH TV
f f fl� f s� f k \ �. / �^f �.
(E `i� � k /< k k / "\\ � \ f / � Ut- \\l f E \
'4
V \ E f E \
.� �\ ffb��ffj f\•<�, .,��.�1 ��f i�EEmkE�k p \ \\\�) I\ > �\
.pE < °.A
Zt,
0.
LEACH GC I
� f f f f f C< f � E f f �`� - f ' \ � ' k E � \ � !i 1• <�i ` I
\ f f E f E E f f f EVP tr�� �o�c O, �l �</Eil< \\ \ J �✓{�f k kL a .�-FJ�kv<\ �\
E f E f f •>< � -� h�l/' }-?�f � I< k � f♦ kG� •✓ E E f kl} e `k E < �\ \ /
f< E f f E k E k E E f k0 vE 1C`-_'f•� f E �f �k E� <'k�/� <�3�J<` k_O �/�\4 f k E\ \\ // 5 WALE (B)
' f f f f E < �F�� � 1 �E �i^✓ _ k ` k <� F E i `S k.� f f E f E < E� l \ �\
// < k < f f k E f ° EO f � � tnJ k V°�� f� F�/��`k� �E1\ Ok fJ�,� k la<tt < / `a_ �'f (.<E��.•\O\\p \
f f f f k f� < k, �F E Q 71-� f' k�ir �l\\i� f22)) ♦/�< f[ 'k < E k°���t��E\ E E E < E f E k <1f f Sf f f E O �zt
\495\a4\k`0
< f E E E E E k •f < f k�C�f f f elf E.E N ��`1�< - k f k!k E` }�O Dk a s\E\f kl� r \
f < < f k ke i f f ® < k,�y OE ♦ l Q� fff\ k < \J \ //�-/1k ` `-Y\
[F
f f E f E f E f " ®(•V f e \� k{`�k E(k(\ f E'F �\ O f f t \E...$-.\ \ J
f k E < < E E � n< °-Evf f Of 1L1 kq .f ` t�\/k� o�\k J�� < ��<< �(f J ♦ �. ``tea \ �\ �� � �� � \
E E � ELL E a E< •� E E f ` (1/[\
E`vf f fff+-f
��O U.) Z
f<<kfE tfk•f knff�i ,t ]��\• ffE E �•<EfDff �.Fl� \\ ff
fff <ffkf ff ff \ .�ff �k'�<.f jfu n
IN5TALL APPROXIMATELY I G00
LF OF WOVEN WIRE FENCE
f f kfkEk ffkf kEkEkE kE •�� � �<h�LY'�' E V O0 / \�T(/ S ^'/� f �j�� I� �\� \ `�� j
ffkf<ffEfffffkfkfE f IVYJ<��}f E ��yf<~gyp\ �(/ ��� 5EE DETAIL 5HT D3
E Ef EE<<f ff ff EE EE ffE f<kEE. Cf<�`(f �(�®E• f I� //
'\4 az a f E k f< f E E t I (\
REACH GC2/3 fEff ff ff fE <E fE fE <fk ff fff�fflAf �i/e��l�<�°ffO<af ff f°n t �\V\
f f
f f E f f < k f f f f k f E < f f f <i �f • k f� • �� /"�/• � \�� \ \�
/ f E fff f f f f f f<fEf fEf E eSf fl e�<V f�/f/I��Q LE ,, ^\ `�-✓
/ f f f f f f k E • f f < f f iJ kr < E f \7f ©®f ' I• \ ��
<f ffff fk fk fE f<f ff f<ff ff fff ff<�J' f����/r E`E lk� � �-if r�jY �
E E E E E f f f< f E E E f E E f E f f < E f E f < f E J/,C f ♦ f ?
`(S
1
\ < f f f f E E f E < E k E E E E f E f E f f < E f E f< E ����✓'j�f E l k 1��_ � � % � !'�l\
/ \ f << f f f f f f f < f f < f f f f f-i J f\ f �� � G. �� ��,�, '\. (� � 1 •l �
\ E f E f f f f f E f< f f f f f f f f E f k f E f }. f S�Q� �� / /}♦� a D� J .� i
L d
!
\
/ \\ / f f < Efff f f E f ff < f f �O �� �, d �y(0\\ � I� n.ia •��% ��'v��-. .. .`)
/ \ f < f f f < f f f E f f f < E E '� J7 '�/((�/, ` , \r'� \^T y\. > . /�J �(� 2 \ �Q L•i\`' o � ° j f \`_ i o
<��/ C� ��1� \ l\ \� `/ `\ a O C� �O� •/
/ / / f f E f f E < f E f f E < f v �� rl_Fi �/ �-- [J�(���\ \\ %� `C\ � o f � `a ) `` `�- �� • �V � � 1
n
\z6 ^Do
MZ
FENCING NOTES:
I . CONTRACTOR TO TIE PROPOSED FENCE
INTO EXISTING FENCE WHERE APPLICABLE
TO MAINTAIN CATTLE EXCLUSION.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL FENCING
LOCATED WITHIN LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT.
i C= /"', C=N 1 r-�
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT LCE
EXISTING FENCELINE
PROPOSED FENCELINE
REACH GC4
\ v \
o �
LCE
�k� f LCE
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1,,=200
0
200
400
2"
FULL SCALE
I`
1"
= HALF SCALE
w
0
CN
� N
0
J N
o_ 00
Z
0
U
//L.1_
C/ /
Z
0
0-1
ILL
—
Z
0
NNNI
z
0
Z
Lu
U)
Lu
w
1..i
w
1u
L 1�
fY
rr
Q_
W
Q
Z
U)
J
z
0
0
rn
v
Q
v
�
=
W
Lu
0
0
>
Q
z
O
J
�
�
H
W
z
3:
=)
06
O
06
CD
Q
0
z
Q
z
JLu
W
Q
LL.
Z
W
�
m
z
w 0
Ir
D
0-in
p
U
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
F 1

f
k
t k REACH TV 5
f k
k f \ < E t
k f k E\ < k k
® E k
k k < G= f<k k k f t (
f�y
'[
/ n`��f�fif�k kkfk`kEkE kkft fkkEkEkkEkyk/ 5WALE (A) LEACH TV v � ` ` c Q tL1'1`� e < /<t f \ t f�e'~ t � � f t ,\\•� �� _ / / �<y�- "~�I � �A. '
o, t /F f �f ��F \ \ -. `4'1 < fT {✓) I��✓f � \�� I I � \ QI �fi' < `�( ` � L
11 f f`� �E/-Ij f f/�h•�_l/ \ � �� �CLfmf t'Jk 1 `\ \ �\ 1 �{/II- \\
LEACH GC I
5WALE (B)
kAi \
t k k </ Flk Y ♦ f,L f. kQk t�< 1< f R t `4 I
t <.t• �, k .� �
E k < k E E E t ' 9 k t o E f �O O'1f ♦ fk't /\
k k k k f E k� E� ` f$\k <0E f k f Q \J t,�t f E k/T` <ik `f k T I � ✓\
tA`ko ` �tka \ — �` 11(<
f f I
t'
t b \
t E
—
f Ek E < k f k k E < � C�E• k, �\ \ \ \ \� � ��
<E Ek tk fffk<EkE ftr 1_�\I •Jf E< �/� \I— y\ _ m \`\ 1\ \ ''
�<) �m�./f� eta\\ � ✓ \'< / I 1
k f k E f E k k < k k IE E
f k k t k k iE Jk
f t k kEEE E k k fE•j�1k�bl \\ // 1 \\ �.� k k E E k E E k < t � t �� \ � 01 .�.�' -��� /`•
k k E E k k k< k k E k E k k k C t \ I
REACH GC 2/3
f
k
<
k E < f k k E k k k k < < k f k 9
/ \ ` k E E f k k t f E k k k<< E k k k t E k t k k k E E E k� �\ D• �O
// \\ E`< E f kkk k E f k E k k t E f f k << k` k` °< k E k k� C� • j
f
PLANTING TABLE PLANTING NOTES
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Riverbank Wild Rye
Elymus riparius
2507o
Deertongue
Dichanthehum clandestinum
2007o
Bur Marigold
Bidene aristosa
1507o
Fox Sedge
Carex vulpmoidea
1 0%
Redtop Fanicgraae
Panicum rigidulum
1007o
Soft Rush
Juncus effusus
1 Oo7o
Lurie Sedge
Carex lurida
507o
Hop Sedge
Carex lupulina
307o
River Oats
Chasmanthium latifolium
207o
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentahe
3007o
Eastern cottonwood
Populus deltoides
3007o
Black willow
Salix nigra
4007o
Bare Root Tree Planting Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Bald cypress
Taxodium dishchum
1 0%
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
1 Oo7o
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentahe
1 Oo7o
American sycamore
Platanus occidentahe
1 Oo7o
River birch
Betula mgra
1 0%
Laurel oak
Quercus laurifolia
1 0%
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
1 0%
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxxi
1 0%
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
1 0%
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagoda
507o
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
507o
ALL PLANTING AREAS
I . EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT
VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH
WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.
2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN /
10 WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION
SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS.
SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN. /
3. DUE TO THE HIGH ORGANIC MATTER OF EXISTING SOIL AND EXISTING NATURAL
SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY, SOIL SCARIFICATION MAY NOT BE NECESSARY IN ALL AREAS.
HOWEVER, IN AREAS COMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, SOIL SHALL BE
PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BY DISC OR SPRING -TOOTH CHISEL PLOW TO A
MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSS
PLANTING AREAS WITH THE IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOW
TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS.
4. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET
D2. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2.
5. BARE ROOT AND LIVE STAKE TREE SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO THE
TABLE SHOWN TO THE LEFT, BUT SPECIES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BASED ON
AVAILABILITY.
G. TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN G"
DBH SHALL BE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.
7. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO G PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES
ARE GROUPED TOGETHER.
8. BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 800 STEMS PER ACRE.
9. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG
BOTH BANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.
10. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALL
DISTURBED AREAS WITH SLOPES EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3: 1.
1 1. PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN
THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
12. PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BREAKS AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
LEACH GC4
PLANTING LEGEND
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT LCE
EXISTING TREELINE
PROPERTY LINE — — — —
RIPARIAN PLANTING
(TOTAL AREA: 24.3 AC)
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,
INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www. res . us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler
Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 200
0
200 400
2"
FULL SCALE
I`
1"
= HALF SCALE
W
0
CN
0 0
� N
O
J N
a- co
Z
O
U
�
0-1N
Z
O
0-1
ILL
1—
Z
0
NNE
Z
0
LU
S
L
VZ
/p
e
¢
LU
W
1.. i
LLI
LU
0-N
IY
rr
Q_
W
Q
~
z
E75
J
z
p
O
Q
a
U
U
z
Q
i
z
LU
z
W
O
U
/�^
L1J
Ofz
Q
�
J
LU
Z
w
H
mm
W O
Z_
G
Ir
D
Ir
0-ZD
U
0in
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
P 1

WETLAND LEGEND
REACH TV 5
<kf
k e
pres
f e \ f k k e y
< f e < \ k k e k
WETLAND PRESERVATION: 4.567 AC y
f k I I
f f k f�k f e k k k f
'e 5WALE (A)
� / I�j
e e f e
f k` ` k we WETLAND RE-ESTABLISHMENT: 4.504 AC + + + +
e f � e e e e � /{\/1
)fe "\ '-�ky e e k•F` eke of ffk \ fkk � V
REACH TV
��/,�$C'`V`u ` 91 .ily��� < ` e /< f ` < / \ / ` k f e�k —ice ,�/ • + + + +
✓✓iC_5 �9 f kf 7' i �kf� 0` f fe k k 1\�\� ` VV kkk < WD
C� \ 1 f f t P, k f k f\ /� k � \� <\k
\ ` \ WETLAND ENHANCEMENT: G. 152 AC
LEACH GC I
f e �� \ \♦ f e V k � � `�
k f f e e O b
f k e f /((( `
r
e k f k f` k k f t c f k vJ f k f f k \ \
5WAf
L V (R)
ID
/ e f k ` k ` k f k f f f k � fC/ /� k•k f k O �. < f\ Ok ' k < / � E dA , \ �a \�-\
k f f k f k <� k < e f � < `t.Z k� ♦L e e < f oe '�V f/-< I
f ` k k k �f `e � f Le Q k e o e\ ` f e < k f {y�♦`\ f k[[[y���k` k 1.6/ T� .
k ` f a1R�q\ ✓ � � f r¢� II � ''
e< k` k e e f® a -!-• + /k e f k .k f k � ° �'t. $ f� f y \ C l (1
/� J
✓`k�x/�•F
Wf`kkfkkff-k�jw-l;f�®k�f \ to—=l`— e<l� \\�`\� \j ✓
e f kf ke k•k Of ea.k •/ I / \ \n\
ekek of ff ekek e f�e�`a�r e °f W7�<; \ L —
�-
`e<k
CN
`Q
`fkk fff kf kkk f kknklk((7 L<� 1 \ f b� 1I I�// �7
co
f k < f k k k k k TJ�f !\� \ C Z \� ✓ �/1 I \\ ` / `- -/
`�\
Z r
J
e < e k e f < e
f e k k e e k k` e • f . f � f // �1
f f f f k f e e k< k f k e k e < e B k
f t
f
REACH GC 2/3 `< < f k f f fQ f fk (�
k
0-1
f ke kk kk</f ek<ke kf kkfV�fJ®f k ` k aGf f k 1 �i'� fffk ek kf kf kf kkfkk kk fffk �k� F e fkk � \ � \\ ^-
/ f f f f k f k f k k e k k k k k< k k i .� k + \ /-�� \\ \` � \ •.
/ k k k k k f k k k k e f k k k k k k f k f.> \\\je"'I J �✓/ �Y
0-1
k k k k k k k k k < f k k k k f 0 0 +\y\ P / _ 9✓_/_ e\ 1/�� / !l
k <kf kf kk fkkkf ff kk kk tkffkk kk kf /k�k gf ek T �\i/ _` O` 1\\\ G� -/lia l
\ k f f f f k < f f ! k k k f k < k ! e E`� �✓k k +n\ �+ C O �� \\ - O� / O
f e e k k f e e k` e f�\-1 k `f•�'�-F-'<\.�+ /,� ~ �A[• 1 �\
of ff fkkkf of of fk kf tkf kf kk kf�lk ./_+� Or { /Ir� ��4 \O Y ? i� 1\\
e \k ll \ \
�\ <kekefkk fkk <ke kf kekkk kk fe ke kekkkk dJ �3�+( p�C�(1
<e a <keke ke of f e< ekf kke e f t
fffk k`kkeke fete ff ek eke of ke ek`� +���`�
f a < k e f�J ��/e(J/�
ekekf ke fek of +�
+��1 �y\ J\�\°O n
f e ` e v ` C\ '� L-\ �'\ L I �\Q `` L y. �✓ /
rD
j\ e + + J+L.4
/ \ +\
� u 1
/ cr
+
+ g \
+
r'+ LEACH GC4
/ \
01 r
J \
o � LcE
/ `\� .�' c SCE //
�^
1
Dugout Wetland Credits
Proposed Wetland Mitigation Type Total Acres Mitigation Ratio Riparian WMUs
WA Enhancement (Low) 5.745 5:1 1.149
Z
Preservation 3.284 10:1 0.328
1/UC Enhancement (High) 0.167 2:1 0.084
VVD Enhancement (Low) 0.213 5:1 0.043
Preservation 1.282 10:1 0.128
WE Re-establishment 4.127 1:1 4.127
WF Re-establishment 0.271 1:1 0.271
VVG Re-establishment 0.092 1:1 0.092
Tota 1 15.181 6.222
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 200
p 200 400
2" FULL SCALE
1" =HALF SCALE I`
W
O
� O
� N
O
^J N
LL
Z
0
U
Z
O
O
I—
Z
NNI
0
CZ
0 � G
w w
LL
~ z
U) J
z O
O
a Q
U U
� N
� � J
w z z
� J
0Of
6
O �
� U W
a o �
w z
Q
Z � w H
W O m z
in U
PROJECT NUMBER: 0711
PROJECT MANAGER: KMC
DESIGNED: AFM
DRAWN: TRS
CHECKED: BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
w 1
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 200
p 200 400
2" FULL SCALE
1" =HALF SCALE I`
W
O
� O
� N
O
^J N
LL
Z
0
U
Z
O
O
I—
Z
NNI
0
CZ
0 � G
w w
LL
~ z
U) J
z O
O
a Q
U U
� N
� � J
w z z
� J
0Of
6
O �
� U W
a o �
w z
Q
Z � w H
W O m z
in U
PROJECT NUMBER: 0711
PROJECT MANAGER: KMC
DESIGNED: AFM
DRAWN: TRS
CHECKED: BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
w 1

N
ca
m
n
w
Q
J
Q
w
WHEN AND WHERE TO USE IT
SILT FENCE IS APPLICABLE IN AREAS:
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SHEET OR OVERLAND FLOW PATH LENGTH TO THE FENCE IS 100-FEET.
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SLOPE STEEPNESS (NORMAL [PERPENDICULAR] TO FENCE LINE) IS 2H: I V.
THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CONCENTRATED FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 CFS.
DO NOT PLACE SILT FENCE ACROSS CHANNELS OR USE IT AS A VELOCITY CONTROL BMP.
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:
I . USE A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC OF AT LEAST 9507o BY WEIGHT OF POLYOLEFINS OR POLYESTER, WHICH IS
CERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER AS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM D G4G I .
SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE A
MINIMUM OF G MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF O° TO 1 20° F.
2. ENSURE THAT POSTS FOR SEDIMENT FENCES ARE 1.33 LB/LINEAR FT STEEL WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 5 FEET.
MAKE SURE THAT STEEL POSTS HAVE PROJECTIONS TO FACILITATE FASTENING THE FABRIC.
CONSTRUCTION:
I . CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENT BARRIER OF EXTRA STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRICS.
2. ENSURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND SURFACE.
(HIGHER FENCES MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE OF THE STRUCTURE.)
3. 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.
4. EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC WITH G FEET POST SPACING DOES NOT REQUIRE WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE.
SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC DIRECTLY TO POSTS. WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES SHOULD HAVE MINIMUM 50
POUND TENSILE STRENGTH.
5. EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES WIDE AND 8 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE PROPOSED LINE OF POSTS
AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER.
G. PLACE 12 INCHES OF THE FABRIC ALONG THE BOTTOM AND SIDE OF THE TRENCH.
7. BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH SOIL PLACED OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT. THOROUGH COMPACTION OF
THE BACKFIILL IS CRITICAL TO SILT FENCE PERFORMANCE.
8. DO NOT ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES.
MAINTENANCE:
I . INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS
IMMEDIATELY.
2. SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A 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 CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED.
STEEL F
WIRE FENCING
IF APPLICABLE
WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
I 1
-1 I
I
1.25 LB./LINEAR FT. STEEL POSTS
EXTRA STRENGTH
FILTER FABRIC
BACKFILL TRENCH WITH
COMPACTED EARTH
USE EITHER FLAT -BOTTOM
OR V-BOTTOM TRENCH
SHOWN BELOW
� MTh
STAND
SILT FENCE INSTALLATION
FILTER FABRIC
FILTER FABRIC
COMPACTED
COMPACTED
EARTH
EARTH
NO
0
0
RUNOFF
co
-11-
RUNOFF
co
co
co
v
N
HEAVY DUTY PLASTIC TIE
FOR STEEL POSTS
BURY FABRIC
FILTER J
FABRIC 4 FILTER FABRIC
FLAT -BOTTOM TRENCH DETAIL V-SHAPED TRENCH DETAIL
�y F
of
GENERAL NOTES:
I . SEDIMENT FILTER OUTLET AND HARDWARE CLOTH SHALL BE I G INCHES HIGH BUT NO TALLER
THAN 18INCHES.
2. HARDWARE CLOTH SHALL BE ANCHORED TO THE STEEL POSTS SECURELY USING APPROPRIATE
ANCHORS. HARDWARE CLOTH SHALL BE KEYED IN A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES IN LENGTH AND
BACKFILLED PROPERLY AS SHOWN IN ABOVE DETAIL. HARDWARE CLOTH TO BE SAME AS STD.
#30.09 (1 9 GAUGE, 1/4" SPACING).
3. POSTS SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 4 FEET APART.
4. SITE OUTLETS AT ANY POINT SMALL CONCENTRATED FLOWS ARE ANTICIPATED AND AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE INSPECTOR.
5. ONE ACRE MAXIMUM DRAINAGE AREA PER OUTLET.
INSTALLATION NOTES:
SITE PREPARATION
1 . GRADE AND COMPACT AREA.
2. REMOVE ALL ROCKS, CLODS, VEGETATION, AND OBSTRUCTIONS SO THAT MATTING WILL
HAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL.
3. PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL ABOVE FINAL GRADE.
4. TEST SOILS FOR ANY NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND SUBMIT SOIL TEST RESULTS TO THE
ENGINEER. APPLY ANY TREATMENT SUCH AS LIME OR FERTILIZERS TO THE SOIL IF NEEDED.
SEEDING
I . SEE PLANTING SHEETS FOR SEEDING REQUIREMENTS.
2. APPLY SEED TO SOIL BEFORE PLACING MATTING.
INSTALLATION - STREAM BANK
I . SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND DETAIL SHEETS FOR
INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE COIR MATTING.
2. OVERLAP ADJACENT MATS G" (IN DIRECTION PARALLEL TO FLOW) AND ANCHOR EVERY 1 2"
ACROSS THE OVERLAP. THE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE DOWNSTREAM
MAT.
3. EDGES SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER.
4. LAY MAT LOOSE TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT.
5. ANCHOR MAT USING BIODEGRADABLE STAKES.
G. EXTEND MAT 2 TO 3 FEET PAST TOP OF BANK.
7. PLACE ADJACENT ROLLS IN THE ANCHOR TRENCH WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" OVERLAP.
SECURE WITH BIODEGRADABLE STAKES, BACKFILL ANCHOR TRENCH, AND COMPACT SOIL.
8. STAKE AT 1 2" INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP.
9. IF MORE THAN ROLL IS REQUIRED TO COVER THE CHANNEL FROM THE TOP OF BANK DOWN
TO THE TOE, THEN OVERLAP MATTING BY A MINIMUM OF 1'.
EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
• 100 % COCONUT FIBER (COIR) TWINE WOVEN INTO A
HIGH STRENGTH MATRIX. -
THICKNESS - 0.35 IN. MINIMUM.
SHEAR STRESS - 5 LBS/SQFT
FLOW VELOCITY- OBSERVED I G FT/SEC
WEIGHT - 29 OZ/SY
• OPEN AREA - 3897o
SLOPES - UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 1: 1
SILT FENCE OUTLET
NT5
COI R MATTING
NTS
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
NTS
STEEL POST
HARDWARE CLOTH
WASHED STONE
NCDOT #5 OR #57
J
FLOW
4"
\-ANCHOR SKIRT;
EXCAVATE TRENCH AND
COMPACT BACKFILL
FLOW
B
A A
SECTION A -A
MAINTENANCE:
1. PERIODICALLY INSPECT SANDBAG DIKE FOR
DAMAGE AND LEAKS AND REPAIR AS NEEDED
2. REMOVE IMPOUNDED TRASH AND SEDIMENT
MIDDLE LAYER TOP LAYER
BOTTOM LAYER
EARTH SURFACE
TRENCH 0.25' DEEP
ENDS OF BAGS IN ONLY WHEN PLACED ON
ADJACENT ROWS BUTTED EARTH SURFACE
SLIGHTLY TOGETHER
GROUND LEVEL SECTION B-B
EARTH SURFACE NOTES:
I . END OF DIKE AT GROUND LEVEL TO BE HIGHER THAN THE LOWEST
POINT OF FLOW CHECK
2. SUFFICIENT SANDBAGS ARE TO BE PLACED TO PREVENT SCOURING
3. SANDBAG BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THREE LAYERS OF
SANDBAGS. THE BOTTOM LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 3 ROWS OF
BAGS, THE MIDDLE LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 2 ROWS OF BAGS AND
THE TOP LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF I ROW OF BAGS
4. THE RECOMMENDED DIMENSION OF A FILLED SANDBAG SHALL BE
APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT X 0.5 FT X 1 .5 FT
SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS DIKE
� � I NTS
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
I . FILTER OUTLETS SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY OR
HIS AGENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING
PROLONGED RAINFALL. ANY REPAIRS NEEDED SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY.
2. THE STONE SHALL BE REPLACED PROMPTLY AFTER ANY EVENT THAT HAS CLOGGED
OR REMOVED IT.
3. SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN DEPOSITS REACH HALF THE
HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER THE
SILT FENCE OUTLET IS REMOVED SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM TO THE EXISTING
GRADE, PREPARED AND SEEDED.
KEY -IN MATTING
AKE MATTING JU:
iOVE CHANNEL T(
AN D BACKFILL W/
RIFFLE MATERIAL
PURPOSE:
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE USED AT ALL POINTS WHERE TRAFFIC WILL BE LEAVING A
CONSTRUCTION SITE AND MOVING DIRECTLY ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD. INSTALL A CULVERT PIPE ACROSS THE ENTRANCE
WHEN NEEDED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE.
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:
1. CLEAR THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AREA OF ALL VEGETATION, ROOTS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL AND
PROPERLY GRADE IT.
2. PLACE THE GRAVEL TO THE SPECIFIC GRADE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DETAIL, AND SMOOTH IT.
3. PROVIDE DRAINAGE TO CARRY WATER TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET.
4. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRICS BECAUSE THEY IMPROVE STABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION IN LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO
SEEPAGE OR HIGH WATER TABLE.
MAINTENANCE:
I . MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION
SITE. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2-INCH STONE.
2. AFTER EACH RAINFALL, INSPECT ANY STRUCTURE USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS NECESSARY.
3. IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS SPILLED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC
ROADWAYS, OR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS.
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
NTS
NOTES:
FLOW
B�
1. CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDENR EROSION CONTROL MANUAL
2. RIPRAP SHALL BE CLASS I
3. PLACE ROCK DAM AS SHOWN ON PLANS. EXTEND CLASS B RIP RAP ROCK
APRON 2 FEET DOWNSTREAM FROM TOE OF ROCK DAM
MAINTENANCE:
A
I . INSPECT CHECK DAM PERIODICALLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT
RAINFALL EVENT FOR DAMAGE AND SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION
2. AT A MINIMUM, REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN ACCUMULATIONS REACH
ONE-HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE 1 .0' THICK CLASS
3. REPLACE OR CLEAN SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE AS NEEDED TO B ROCK APRON
ALLOW WATER TO DRAIN THROUGH THE DEVICE BETWEEN RAINFALL
B
EVENTS
PLAN
W (SPILLWAY)
MIN. 2/3 STREAM WIDTH
SPILLWAY CREST
CLASS B RIP RAP
1 .0' THICK CLASS
B ROCK APRON
CUTOFF TRENCH
PMINOF#5
WASHED STONE
FLOW
� N
FILTER FABRIC
SECTION B-B
RIP RAP
TEMPORARY BOCK CHECK DAM
NTS
'WASHED STONE
A
NOTES:
I . EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY IN DRY AND/OR ISOLATED SECTIONS OF CHANNEL.
2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAM FLOW.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED IN ONE
WORKING DAY. A MAXIMUM OF 200 FEET MAY BE DISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING PUMP SIZE SUFFICIENT TO
PUMP BASE FLOW.
5. DIKE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON -ERODIBLE MATERIALS SUCH AS SANDBAGS.
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION:
I . INSTALL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTFALL USING CLASS A RIP RAP AT THE
DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY PIPING
THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK AREA TO THE
STABILIZED OUTFALL.
3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM
DIVERSION.
4. INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND DEWATERING PUMPING APPARATUS IF
NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE
SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA. THIS WATER WILL ALSO BE
PUMPED TO AN OUTFALL STABILIZED WITH CLASS A RIP RAP.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE
REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE. WHEN DEWATERING AREA ALL DIRTY WATER MUST BE
PUMPED THROUGH A SILT BAG. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND TEMPORARY
FLEXIBLE HOSE/PIPING STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.
G. ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE ALL RIP RAP AND IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND
STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH.
7. ALL WORK IN CHANNEL MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE REMOVING IMPERVIOUS DIKE.
DE-WATERIN(
PUMI
IMPERVIOUS
DIKE
SI LT BAC
LOCATI OIL
STABI
CLASS A STONE
FILTER FABRIC
STABILIZED OUTFALL
CLASS A STONE
EXISTING
GROUND
1 5' TO 20'
EXISTING
CHANNEL
SILT BAG PROFILE
HOSE
PUMP AROUND
PUMP
JS DIKE
),GE HOSE
LD BE
,NO RK
DISCHARGE
HOSE
8" OF CLASS A
STONE
PUMP ABOUND DEWATERING DETAIL
NTS
ores
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
W
H
Q
o
N
O
N
O
J
N
0_
00
Z
O
U
I-
Z
O
0-1
z
O
O
IL
oc
O
�
Z
w
0
0
0-1
Q
Lu
Z
z
O
�
Lu
U)
Q
_
J
W
oc
>
0=
0=
0-
Z
U
J
z
0
Q
U
0
tz
0
O
z
Q
�
Q
w
z
E)
w
C4S
O
0
U
Q
w
z
Ii.i
J
LU
Q
~
Z
w
z_
w 0
ff nn
Cm
G
I V
D
IY
p
U
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
D1

LINE POST
BARBED OR
ELECTRIC WIRE
4" TO
WOVEN WIRE
GROUND LINE
I G' MAX.
)b I
WOVEN WIRE WITH ONE BARB DETAIL
LINE POST
WOVEN WIRE:
ASTM CLASS 3 GALVANIZED.
TOP AND BOTTOM WIRES MIN. 12 GAUGE.
INTERMEDIATE AND STAY WIRES MIN.
12 112 GAUGE.
NOTES:
I . LINE POSTS (WOODEN): MIN. 4 IN. DIAM. OR 4 IN. SQUARE.
2. LINE POSTS (STEEL): STUDDED OR PUNCHED T, U, OR Y SHAPED, WITH ANCHOR PLATES.
3. MIN. WEIGHT 1.3 LBS./FT. (EXCLUDING ANCHOR PLATE). POSTS SHALL BE DRIVEN A MINIMUM
OF 1 8" DEEP AND MUST BE AT LEAST 5.5 FT IN LENGTH
4. SPECIES AND TREATMENT FOR ALL WOOD: USE UNTREATED DURABLE POSTS OF SPECIES
SUCH AS RED CEDAR, BLACK LOCUST OR OSAGE-ORANGE WITH BARK REMOVED, OR
NON -DURABLE WOOD THAT IS PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE TREATED (0.40 LBS./CUBIC FOOT
CCA, OR EQUIVALENT NON-CCA TREATMENT). DO NOT USE RED PINE.
WOVEN WIRE PENCE (NRCS DETAIL 382A)
NTS
F
CLASS B RIP RAF
1BER MAT INSTALLED
�ALLEL
MIN 1 2.0'
EXISTING EROSION CONTROL
GRADE WATTLE/ SILT FENCE
NEW CHANNEL TO BE
SLOPE CONSTRUCTED O
\%7\�\\�\.\ \ \ EXISTING
GRADE
NOTES
1. MAINTAIN HAUL ROAD DURING CONSTRUCTION
2. RETURN TO ORIGINAL GRADE AT THE COMPLETION OF WORK
3. VEGETATE ALL DISTURBED AREAS
4. REMOVE COMPOST FILTER SOCK UPON ESTABLISHMENT OF VEGETATION
TYPICAL HAUL ROAD
NTS
2" x 2" X 2' WOODEN
STAKE ON 2' CENTERS
EXISTING
GRADE
7- SLOPE /� T7�xxx
MINIMUM 9" EROSION J INSTALL WATTLE IN
CONTROL COIR WATTLE/LOG 2" TO 3" TRENCH
NOTES: MAINTENANCE:
I . EROSION CONTROL WATTLES OR COIR LOGS/WATTLES 1. INSPECT WATTLE PERIODICALLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT
MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF SILT FENCE RAINFALL EVENT FOR DAMAGE AND SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION
2. INSTILL A MINIMUM OF 2 UPSLOPE STAKES AND 4 2. REPLACE OR CLEAN WATTLE AS NEEDED TO ALLOW WATER TO
DOWNSLOPE STAKES AT AN ANGLE TO WEDGE DRAIN THROUGH THE NATURAL FIBERS BETWEEN RAINFALL EVENTS
WATTLE IN PLACE
EROSION CONTROL WATTLE
NTS
DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD
USING THE KBC PLANTING BAR
v
OLD CHA
DIVERTED OR F
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
1 .5' MINIMUM
COMPACTED BACKFILL
(1 2" LIFTS)
IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL
(PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER)
BANKFULL ELEVATION
EXISTING CHANNEL
BOTTOM
il1f�mmille
BANKFULL ELEVATION
30' MIN
FINISHED GRADE NEW CHANNEL BANK SHALL
BE TREATED AS SPECIFIED
IN PLANS
I O' MIN
PROPOSED
CHANNEL INVERT
TYPICAL SECTION
TOE PROTECTION
CHANNEL PLUG
NTS
MIN. 25'
U
Ia U
1. INSERT 2.
a
PLA TING BAR AS PLANTINOGVBAR
PLANTINGTBAR 2
SHOWN AND PULL AND PLACE
INCHES TOWARD
CARRIAGE BOLT
HANDLE TOWARD SEEDING AT
PLANTER FROM
a
a
PLANTER. CORRECT DEPTH.
SEEDING.
a
a
COMPACTED BACKFILL
(I 2" TO 18" LIFTS)
r� �~
1
TYPICAL SECTION
B N F LV
Z_
a
TIMBER MAT
rrh
(TYP)
TIMBER MAT INSTALLED
T T
E T %
PERPENDICULAR
NOTES:
4. PULL HANDLE OF 5. PUSH
G. LEAVE
UL
BAR TOWARD HANDLE
COMPACTION
:E
NOTES:
PLAN VIEW
I .
TIMBER MATS SHALL BE USED FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
PLANTER, FIRMING FORWARD
HOLE OPEN.
I . IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING CHANNEL IS TO BE ABANDONED, FILL EXISTING
TO TRAVERSE WET AND/OR MUDDY ARES ADJACENT TO THE STREAM AND
SOIL AT BOTTOM. FIRMING SOIL
WATER
TO CROSS THE STREAM AND OTHER CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS.
AT TOP.
THOROUGHLY.
CHANNEL TO BANKFULL ELEVATION WHEN POSSIBLE.
2. CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED IN 1 2" TO 18" LIFTS AND COMPACTED ACCORDINGLY.
SEDIMENT RAIL
2.
THE STREAM CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A DRY CONDITION WHEN
3. WHEN SPOIL DOES NOT EXIST IN ORDER TO COMPLETELY FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
MIN HEIGHT = 4"
FLOW IS LOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO DISTURBANCE OF THE
EXISTING TO BANKFULL ELEVATION, FILL CHANNEL TO AN ELEVATION G" ABOVE BANKFULL
CARRIAGE BOLT
CHANNEL BED AND BANKS AS A RESULT OF INSTALLING THE APPROACHES
CHANNEL HEIGHT FOR AT LEAST 25 LF OUT OF EVERY 100 LF SEGMENT. REMAINING
(T P)
TIMBER MAT INSTALLED
OR CROSSING
CHANNEL SECTIONS ARE TO BE FILLED TO A DEPTH OF NO LESS THAN 70% OF
PERPENDICULAR
.
PLANTING NOTES:
NOTES:
BANKFULL ELEVATION.
CLASS B RIP RAP
TIMBER MAT
TOP OF BANK INSTALLED PARALLEL
3.
THE LENGTH OF TIMBER MAT REQUIRED TO CROSS THE STREAM OR
PLANTING BAG
tA
4. IN AREAS WHERE THE EXISTING CHANNEL IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE
CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE TIMBER MAT
DURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALL
BARE ROOTS SHALL BE PLANTED G
CONSERVATION EASEMENT, THE CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED COMPLETELY IN 12"
EXTENDS PAST THE TOP OF BANK ON EACH SIDE OF THE CROSSING A
BE KEPT IN A MOIST CANVAS BAG OR
N CENTER,
LIFTS.
0
0 0 o 111I
SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO SUPPORT THE MAXIMUM EQUIPMENT SIZE USING
SIMILAR CONTAINER TO PREVENT THE
RA TOM SPACOING AVERAGING 8
/
THE CROSSING.
ROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING.
FT. ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY
G80PLANTS PERACRE.
PLAN VIEW
KBC PLANTING BARPLANTING
/
4.
STREAM CROSSINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT LENGTHS
ORIENTED PERPENDICULAR TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS. TIMBER
BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADE
WITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION,
\//\//\//\//\//\//\//
AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4
MAT STREAM APPROACHES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT
INCHES WIDE AND I INCH THICK AT
CHANNEL ABANDONMENT AND BAC KI=ILL
LENGTHS ORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS.
CENTER.
FILTER FABRIC TOE
TOE OF BANK
5.
TIMBER MATS SHALL HAVE A SOLID DECK WITH NO GAPS OR SPACES
ROOT PRUNING
NTS
(T'P)
APPROXIMATE BASE FLOW
ALLOWED BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL BOARDS/TIMBERS.
ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOT
PRUNED, IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NO
WATER SURFACE
G.
A 4" MINIMUM HEIGHT SEDIMENT RAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED AT STREAM
ROOTS EXTEND MORE THAN 10
p "
CROSSINGS TO PREVENT TRACKED SEDIMENT FROM FALLING INTO THE
INCHES BELOW THE ROOT COLLAR.
STREAM BED.
SECTION VIEW
7.
STREAM CROSSING APPROACHES FROM DRY AREAS SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED USING CLASS B RIP RAP PLACED OVER FILTER FABRIC.
8.
ALL TIMBER MATS, FILTER FABRIC, AND RIP RAP SHALL BE COMPLETELY
REMOVED FROM THE SITE WHEN THE CROSSING IS REMOVED.
DARE BOOT PLANTING
NTS
TIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CROSSING
NTS
ores
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
W
H
Q
o
N
O
�
N
O
J
N
0_
co
Z
O
0-1
Z
O
IY
z
O
O
IL
0-
1--
oc
O
�
Z
w
0
0-1
Q
Z
z
O
�Q
Lu
U)
Q
Lu
J
W
oc
Q
>
W
-
W
0-'
IY
IY
Q_
Z
w
J
z
L
Q
U
V
C�
0
O
z
Q
�
Q
w
z
5
w
045
O
0
U
0
w
z
Ii.i
J
J
Q
Ld_
~
Z
w
IF—
z_
w 0
ff nn
Cm
G
� V
IY
0- p
U
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
D2

m
n
w
Q
J
a
w
INSTALL LIVE5TAKE5
AROUND OUTSIDE OF
MEANDER BENDS INSTALL LIVE5TAKE5
+ + AROUND STRUCTURES +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + +
+++ ++++ + 0.75" TO 2"
\ FLAT TOP ENDvo ® —
— / + + LATERAL BUD
+ O
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + SIDE BRANCH
REMOVED AT
SLIGHT ANGLE z
PLAN VIEW I co
WATER TABLE
LARGE CHANNEL
5PACI N G
COIR FIBER
MATTI N G
TYPICAL SECTION
NOTES:
I . SEE TABLE ON PLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE SPECIES AND COMPOSITION.
2. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE 2 TO 3 FEET LONG AND 0.75 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER.
3. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ON 1 .5' ALTERNATING SPACING ON LARGE
CHANNELS (POOL DEPTH > 2FT) AND 1.01 ALTERNATING SPACING ON SMALL
CHANNELS (POOL DEPTH < 2FT).
4. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ON ALL RESTORATION REACHES AND ALONG ALL
ENHANCEMENT REACHES A5 SHOWN ON LIVE STAKE SHEETS.
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK
CHANNEL L
OF BANK
KEY COIR MATTING
INTO BANK
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
INSTALL COIR
MATTING PER DETAIL
ALIVE STAKES
LIVE STAKING
COIR FIBER
MATTI N G
DETAIL �— 45 DEGREE
TAPERED BUTT END
LI VE5TAKE
COIF FIBER
MATTI N G
NW5
NTS
LIVESTAKE SPACING
SMALL CHANNEL
TTING
COMPACTED SOIL LIFT
LIVE CUTTINGS
�HAY BALE SHALL BE EVEN WITH DESIGNED BANK
5LOPE. AVOID EXCE551VE PROTU510N FROM STOP OF BANK
SECTION A -A
HAY BALE TOE
NT5
we]
LI V CS 1 AKC
COIF FIBER
MATTING
LIVESTAKE SPACING
NOTES:
I . HAY BALES SHALL BE APPROXIMATLY 1 4" X 1 8" X 3G" STANDARD 2 STRAND
(BIODEGADABLE TWINE) BALES.
2. OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. INSTALL HAY BALE,
BACKFIILL AND COMPACT TO LOCK IN PLACE.
3. HAY BALES SHOULD BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT THE TOP OF THE BALE 15 AT THE
SAME ELEVATION A5 THE HEAD OF THE DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE.
4. PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE HAY BALE. SEE TABLE ON PLANTING SHEET FOR
ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTING AND LIVE STAKE SPECIES AND COMPOSITION.
CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.
G. LIVE CUTTINGS SHOULD NOT EXTEND PAST/3 OF CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH.
7. INSTALL COMPACTED 501L LIFT. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE WRAPED UNDER
501L LIFT AND KEYED INTO TOP OF BANK.
8. INSTALL I TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYER PER
DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
KEY COIR MATTING
INTO BANK
MIN 2.0'
i A
114 MAX POOL DEPTH \\\�
INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAIL
SEE DWG D I
COMPACTED 501L LIFT
LIVE STAKES
114 MAX POOL DEPTH Xx\'`
X��;'V// X
SMALL LOGS AND/OR /
LARGE BRANCHES WITH A MIN
MIN DIAMETER OF 4" 5.0'
KEY COIF MATTING
INTO BANK
SECTION A -A
BRUSH TOE
(CHANNEL DEPTH > 1 .5')
MIN 2.0'
NTS
/
114 MAX POOL DEPTHXx
\ \
MIN
5.0'
TOP OF BANK
LIVE CUTTINGS
—SMALL BRANCHES \
AND BRUSH
TOE PROTECTION
(LARGER CHANNELS)
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK
CHANNEL L
OF BANK
INSTALL COIF MATTING PER DETAIL
SEE DWG D I
COMPACTED 501L LIFT
ALIVE STAKES
SECTION A -A
BRUSH TOE
(CHANNEL DEPTH < 1 .5')
NT5
TOP OF BANK
LIVE CUTTINGS
SMALL BRANCHES \
AND BRUSH \\
N W5
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK
CHANNEL ,—
Of BANK
N OTE5:
I . OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACE LARGER
BRANCHES AND LOGS IN A CRI55-CRO55 PATTERN. LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL
COVERING G IN TO 12 IN OF THE LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS.
2. PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL
LOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) AND COMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER.
BACKFIILL AND COMPACT TO LOCK IN PLACE.
3. PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE SMALL BRANCHES AND BRUSH. SEE TABLE
ON PLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTING AND LIVE STAKE SPECIES
AND COMPOSITION. CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO
ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.
4. INSTALL ER05ION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTED SOIL PER
DIRECTION OF ENGINEER. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE KEYED INTO TOP OF
BANK.
5. INSTALL I TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYER PER
DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
G. LIVE CUTTINGS SHOULD NOT EXTEND PA5T/3 OF CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH.
TTING
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
NOTES:
I . OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. INSTALL SMALLER
BRANCHES AND BRUSH AND COMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL AND
COMPACT TO LOCK IN PLACE.
2. PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE SMALL BRANCHES AND BRUSH. SEE
TABLE ON PLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTING AND LIVE
STAKE SPECIES AND COMPOSITION. CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT
CUTTING POINT TO ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.
3. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIF) MATTING OVER COMPACTED 501L PER
DIRECTION OF ENGINEER. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE KEYED INTO TOP OF
BAN K.
4. INSTALL I TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYER
PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
TTING
ores
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
w
R—
Q
o
N
0
N
O
J
N
0_
00
Z
O
U
U)
Z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
0
oc
O
�
Z
w
0
0-1
LU
Q
Lu
Z
z
O
�
Lu
U
Q
-
J
W
oc
>
0=
0=
0-
Z
J
Z
0
Q
U
U
=
0
O
z
Q
�
Q
w
z
5
w
06
O
0
�
U
0
w
Z
6i
J
J
z
LLJ
CID
w 0
° U
0
Ir
0_ p
U
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
D3

STREAM T(
OF BAI
STREAM BG 11-11,
OF BANK
H
m
w
Q
J
Q
W
0
A
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
NCA Lb:
1. SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLING
COIR MATTING.
WUUUY UE
BRANCHES,
COMPACTED V
PROPC
BANK
JNEL BANK
STING
IANNEL BED
SEE PLAN SHEETS
FOR WIDTH
TYPICAL BANK GRADING
NTS
STREAM BED C F(-Tinm Q-Q
PROFILE VIEW
S,
BKANCHES, ANU BRUSH)
COMPACTED WITH SOIL
TO PROPOSED GRADE
CHANNEL BOTTOM
OF BANK
O
t
•
MINIMUM
DIAMETER 12"
z_
m REBAR
FLOW
A
BAN KFUILL LIMITS OF
PROPOSED CHANNEL
PLAN VIEW
LIVE STAKES
LOGS
N OTES:
REBAR (112" MINIMUM DIAMETER 3' MIN. LENGTH
TYPICAL) SHOULD BE PLACED PTO 3' FROM END OF
LOG. ADDITIONAL REBAR TO BE PLACED AT G'
OFFSETS. LAST REBAR SHOULD BE PLACED PTO 3'
FROM END OF LOG. DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BE
USED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR REBAR, 2 PER LOG.
ADDITIONALLY, APPROPRIATELY SIZED BOULDERS
MAY BE USED TO ANCHOR LOG SILLS AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
PLOODPLAI N SILL
NTS
SECTION B-B
SMALL BRANCHES
AND BRUSH
LIVE STAKES
PROPOSED
STREAM BED
FLOW
z
O
N
JE3
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK
0 1 U LIVE STAKES
Lm—
ENGINEERED SEDIMENT PACK (ESP)
NTS
BRUSH BED
NTS
�FLAI N
SECTIONAL VIEW A - A'
BANKFULL
0
51
Im SMALL LOGS AND/OR
LARGE BRANCHES WITH A
MIN DIAMETER OF 4"
SECTION A -A
NOTES:
I . DRIVE 2 ROWS OF 4" CEDAR POSTS ON MINIMUN 3'
CENTERS PAST MINIMUM DEPTH AS SHOWN.
2. FILL THE VOID BETWEEN POST ROWS W/ AN EVEN MIX
OF HARDWOOD LOGS, LIMBS, AND BRUSH AS SHOWN.
3. REDUCE POST SPACING AS NEEDED TO IMPROVE
STRUCTURE STABILITY.
ores
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
w
Q
o
N
O
�
N
O
J
N
0_
00
Z
O
U
Z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
0
oc
O
�
Z
L
0
0-1
Q
Z
z
O
�Q
Lu
U)
Q
Lu
J
W
oc
Q
>
W
-
W
IY
IY
Q_
Z
C/)
J
Z
0
Q
a
U
U
LZ
0
O
z
Q
cl)
~
Q
W
5
W
06
O
0
2
U
w
0
Ofz
Ii.i
J
J
Q
Ld_
~
Z
W
�
m
z
w 0
p
U
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
D4

CHANNEL BC--" "
OF
COARSE AGGRE
BACKFILL (SEE NOl
NON-W
GEOTEXTILE Fi
(NCDOT T
REFERENCED
ZUCTURE TABLE;
:ANCE±0.P
PROPOSED
STREAM BED
FLOW
BACKFILL WITH COARSE
AGGREGATE (SEE NOTE #2)
NON -WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
(NCDOT TYPE 11)
MIN. 5.0'
DUCKBILL ANCHOR
(OR EQUIVALENT)
SCOUR POOL
SEE PROFILE FOR
POOL DEPTH
TABLE I -STONE COMPOSITION
REACH
STONE SIZE
07
GC2/GC3
NATIVE
50
PEA GRAVEL
30
#5
20
TV I /TV5
NATIVE
30
#5
40
SURGE
30
BRUSH TOE PROTECTION TOF Of BANK
LENGTH = BKF WIDTH
(UNLESS OTHERWISE MIN TACK FABRIC SECTION A -A'
MIN NOTED ON THE PLANS) TO LOG
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK
POOL
LARGE COBBLE/
SMALL BOULDERS
FLOW
l
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
COIR MATTIN
HEADER LO
FOOTER LO
DUCKBILL ANCHORS (0„
EQUIVALENT) INSTALLED
PER MANUFACTURERS
INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
LOG S 1 LL
NT5
CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH
LARGE COBBLE/51MALL
BOULDERS, TYP
✓��. I Iviv V-V
NOTES
I . LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED
2. COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL SHALL CON515T OF AN EQUAL MIX OF #57 STONE, SURGE
STONE, AND CLA55 A RIPRAP
3. ANCHORS ARE ONLY NECESSARY IF CONSTRUCTING SILLS WITHIN FEMA FLOOD ZONE
4. NAIL FILTER FABRIC U51NG 3" 1 OD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1 .5' ALONG THE LOG
5. HIGH SIDE OF LOG SHALL BE APPROX. 0.2' HIGHER THAN LOW END
G. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIAM. = 12"
MIN LENGTH = 18'
TOP OF BANK
\///\//i�
0.7 5' MIN
N
PROPOSED
A >>/j //\/ TOE OF BANK
RIFFLE MATERIAL;
SEE TABLE I
CROSS SECTION A -A'
BEGIN RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
RIFFLE MATERIAL;
SEE TABLE I
V LIVL \
POOL
MAX 2"-3" —
BRANCHES
VARIES PER PROFILE
PROFILE
TYPICAL RIPPLE
NT5
PROPOSED TOP
OF BANK
—END RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
RUN
POOL
NOTES:
1. TYPICAL RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL NEWLY GRADED
CHANNEL SECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT UNLESS
OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON PLAN SHEETS.
2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE
BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TO ESTABLISH FART OF
THE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS
SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE
INSTALLATION WITMIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.
3. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF 70% SAND/GRAVEL
AND 30% WOODY MATERIAL. WOODY MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST
OF LOGS, BRANCHES, AND BRUSH NO GREATER THAN 3" IN
DIAMETER. THE SAND/GRAVEL MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF
NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL WHEN POSSIBLE. NATIVE
MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE -USED
FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. IF A SUITABLE
QUANTITY OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL CANNOT BE
HARVESTED, CONTRACTOR MAY SUBSTITUTE THE RIFFLE
MATERIAL WITH ROCK MATCHING THE COMPOSITION IN TABLE 1.
4. THE PLACEMENT OF RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A
MANNER TO CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT
"JUMP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM POOL -GLIDE
AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT "DROP"
(TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND THE DOWNSTREAM
RUN -POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE
MATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND
DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH
SOME VARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF
THE SMALL POOLS AND LOGS.
5. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER
IN -STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL, J-HOOK, ETC.). NO LOGS
SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE
PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
TABLE I - STONE COMPOSITION
REACH
STONE SIZE
GC2/GC3
NATIVE
50
PEA GRAVEL
30
#5
20
TV I /TV5
NATIVE
30
#5
4C
SU R G E
30
TOE OF BANK
FLOW
1
PLAN VIEW
CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH
)F BANK
-LE MATERIAL
TOP OF BANK
PROPOOf BANK
\/\/\/\/\//
0\5' MIN /\//
RIFFLE MATERIAL; MIX OF WOODY
DEBRIS (BRANCHES AND BRUSH) AT
DNATIVE SUBSTRATE
MATERIAL AT 40%
RIFFLE MATERIAL; MIX OF
WOODY DEBRIS (BRANCHES AND
BRUSH) AT GO%, AND NATIVE
SUBSTRATE MATERIAL AT 4007o
BEGIN RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
FLOW
THALWEG
CROSS SECTION A -A'
PROFILE
PROPOSED TOP
OF BANK
END RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
THALWEG
NOTES:
1. WOODY RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TO ESTABLISH FART OF THE PROFILE
OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A
TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.
3. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A GO/40 MIX OF WOODY MATERIAL AND ROCKS. WOODY MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF LOGS,
BRANCHES, AND BRUSH NO GREATER THAN 4" IN DIAMETER. THE ROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL WHEN
POSSIBLE. NATIVE MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE -USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. IF A SUITABLE
QUANTITY OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL CANNOT BE HARVESTED, CONTRACTOR MAY SUBSTITUTE THE RIFFLE MATERIAL WITH ROCK
MATCHING THE COMPOSITION IN TABLE 1.
4. THE PLACEMENT OF RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TO CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT "JUMP"
(TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM POOL -GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT "DROP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE
RIFFLE AND THE DOWNSTREAM RUN -POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE
AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION.
5. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER IN -STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL OR J-HOOK).
G. THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM BANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED BY THE DESIGNER. THE "KEY" SHALL
EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK AT THE BEGINNING (CREST) OF THE RIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANK
VEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY" MAY NOT BE USED (OR THE DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.
WOODY RIPPLE
NT5
ores
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
6i
Q
o
N
O
N
0
r—
J
N
0_
co
Z
0
0
Z
0
0-1
z
0
O
ILL
oc
0
�
Z
o
o0-1
LU
LL-
Q
Lu
Z
C]
z
0
—
Lu
U
Q
_
J
W
oc
Q
>
W
W
Ir
Ir
0-
z
J
z
0
Q
U
0
z
Q
�
w
5
W
C4S
O
0
2
U
w
z
6i
J
J
Q0�
I-__
Z
I­__w
z_
LU O
Cm
G
U
0
0- p
U
PROJECT NUMBER:
0711
PROJECT MANAGER:
KMC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
D5