20190862 Ver 1_MP (DRAFT_REV)_2020_20201201

ID#* 20190862 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 12/01/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/1/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream rJ Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Kelly Phillips
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20190862
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Nesbit Site
Union
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Nesbit _100121_MP (DRAFT_REV)_2020.pdf 37.5MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Kelly Phillips
Signature:*
x�l P6fll�s

MITIGATION PLAN
REVISED DRAFT FOR IRT REVIEW
NESBIT SITE
Union County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100121
Full Delivery Contract No. 7868 USACE Action ID No.
SAW-2019-01470 DWR Project No. 2019-0862
RFP No. 16-007704 (Issued: 9/6/2018)
Catawba River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03050103
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
November 2020

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
Response to DMS Comments
Nesbit, Project ID #100121, DIMS Contract #7868
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01470
DWR Project No. 2019-0862
Catawba River Basin 03050103, Union County
DMS comments received and in black text, and Restoration Systems' responses are provided in blue text
General
Cover Pages: Please also provide the date of issuance with the RFP #: RFP# 16-007704 (Issued: 9/6/2018).
The date of issuance has been added to the Cover.
Figures: If contours are included on maps; please note contour interval in the legend.
The contour interval has been added to the legend of subject figures.
Section 1.4 - Project Components and Structure: Recommend removing "In its current state" from the first
paragraph.
The requested text has been removed.
Table 2: Please add the Institution Date (4/18/2019).
The institution date has been updated to read April 18, 2019.
Table 4: Please include the stream thermal regime (warm) in the table.
The stream thermal regime has been added to the table.
Table 4: Valley classification and confinement is defined as alluvial/confined. Is this characterization accurate given
the proposed C/E channels and low surface water slopes? Or is the description indicating the range of confinement
across all streams? Please be specific and clarify.
The valley classification and confinement are relative descriptions for the Site. Given the Site is in a sloped portion
of the Piedmont, as compared to Coastal unconfined valleys, we feel the description is accurate.
Table 4: The Section 404 Permit and Section 401 Certification have not been resolved yet. Please update the table
cells accordingly.
Although for the draft document, these items have not been resolved, for the final document they will be resolved.
To reduce the opportunity for error, we request to have these items remain resolved.
Table 4 & Figure 4: Table 4 and Figure 4 note 2.46 acres of existing wetlands within the project area. The PJD
documentation and mapping reports 2.45 acres of existing wetlands. Please make sure the existing wetland acreage
is correct and consistent throughout the revised document.
Figure 4, Table 4, and the document have been updated to show 2.45 acres of existing wetland.
The proposed asset table (table 1) reports 2.46 acres of existing wetland acreage (1.789 mitigation plan acreage) for
the wetland rehabilitation component. Based on the acreages provided, it appears that the proposed stream
restoration will impact existing wetlands. In the report text, please describe how you will ensure that no functional
loss/loss of wetlands will occur. This has been an IRT comment during past DMS mitigation plan reviews.
Text has been added to Section 8.3 (Wetland Restoration) the document to include the following "It should be noted
that existing wetlands have been avoided to the maximum extent feasible. Wetland functional uplift has increased
wetland acreage at the Site from 2.45 acres (based on the PJD documentation, including some acreage of existing
wetland outside the Site boundary) to 7.127 acres. In addition, the functional uplift to wetlands within the Site
boundaries has been documented in Section 6.0 (Functional Uplift and Project Goals)."
For the electronic PCN application (post IRT approval); please make sure to include a wetland impact map showing
the location of the impacts and the sizes of the impacts (noted on the map) that match the associated impact table.
Understood.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

Section 3 - Baseline and Existing Conditions: Bedrock is referenced in several reach locations in the document and
could be a factor during construction. Consider adding a section for geology to include discussion of geological
occurrence and controls present at the site.
A section (Section 3.2 Geology) has been added concerning the geology of the area and the presence of bedrock at
the Site.
Section 3.2 — Sediment Model, Table 6 (page 7): The Proposed Mitigation Treatments in Table 6 — BEHI and NBS
Modeling Summary do not follow the reach breaks indicated in mitigation asset table; the reaches in Table 6 have
combined restoration and enhancement II lengths. If the objective of the table is to validate reduction in sediment
inputs into system, no restoration/enhancement levels are necessary. If the objective is to validate levels proposed;
combing restoration and enhancement II confounds interpretation.
The proposed mitigation treatments have been updated to match Figure 6 (Restoration Plan). The level of
enhancement has been used to correlate to the amount of sediment reduction within the Site.
Section 3.2 — Sediment Model: This section indicates that data forms used for the analysis are available upon
request. Please provide the data forms, sediment data and summary information to inform the reader. Supporting
sediment data should be added to Appendix B, summarized in Section 3.2 and added to the Channel Stability
Assessment in Section 5.1.
BEHI field data forms have been added to Appendix B. The data has been summarized in Section 3.2 and Section 5.1.
3.5.1 Hydrological Characterization: Four pre -construction groundwater gages were installed as requested during
the post contract IRT site visit for the purpose of determining suitability for wetland rehabilitation. Please interpret
the groundwater gage data for suitability of the proposed wetland work and functional improvement.
A paragraph has been added to the discussion that summarizes preconstruction groundwater gauge data.
Section 4.1.3 — Channel Morphology: Substrate description is not consistent with statement in section 1.3, please
update.
Section 1.3 deals with Physiography and Land Use. Section 4.1.3 deals with Reference Channels. Substrate was
changed in Section 4.1.3 to match Table 7.
Table 7: Please be consistent in sediment distribution. This table conflicts with previously stated descriptions. Sand
and gravel? Gravel? Boulder, cobble gravel? Clarify and Revise.
Table 7 has been updated to match Table 131 in Appendix A.
Section 5.1— Channel Stability Assessment: Please include capacity and competence calculations for the bedload.
Stream capacity and competence calculations are not typically conducted for incised and impacted streams.
Calculations on incised/impacted channels would lead to elevated values that are not useful for channel design.
Stream power and shear stress have been used instead to compare the impacted streams with reference and
proposed stream channels.
Section 7 - Site Design and Implementation Constraints/Section 9.2 Contingency: DMS has addressed minor
encroachment (scalloping) on other mitigation projects where row crops remain adjacent to the conservation
easement post construction. Some of these previous project encroachments involved the same landowner (Howey).
In either Section 7 or Section 9.2, please describe the proposed site -specific easement marking and provide a
proposed resolution to address encroachment if it becomes an issue during the monitoring term.
Section 9.2 has been updated.
Page 2 of 5

Section 7.1- Threatened and Endangered Species & Table 15: Although a footnote is included referencing Appendix
E, DMS recommends a brief paragraph noting the surveys conducted on the site and the USFWS concurrence of
"May affect, not likely to adversely affect" for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). In addition, the
biological conclusion should be updated to "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" in Table 15.
The biological conclusion has been updated.
Section 7.2 - Cultural Resources: This section notes; "...coordination with SHPO will occur prior to construction
activities to determine if any significant cultural resources are present." SHPO has already been consulted as part of
the categorical exclusion/ ERTR. Per the June 21, 2019 letter from SHPO; "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." Please update this section accordingly.
The Cultural Resources section of the document has been updated to indicate concurrence from SHPO.
Section 7 Site Design and Implementation Constraints: Does RS believe there is a risk of hydrologic trespass outside
of the conservation easement post construction? Please respond and address in the report text accordingly.
A paragraph was added to the document indicating the following. "Given the sloping nature of the Site, relatively
confined valleys, and the landowner's possession of land adjacent to and immediately upstream of the project
boundary, the risk of hydrologic trespass is relatively small. The Site's lower reaches will be modeled using a HEC
RAS analysis for the CLOMAR, during which adjustments may be made to reduce hydrologic trespass, if necessary;
however, these adjustments are not expected.
Section 8.1.1- Stream Restoration (In -Stream Structures): In the report text, in -stream log structures are proposed
as part of the stream restoration efforts. Based a review of the construction plans, numerous rock cross vanes (Cross -
Vane (Typ)) appear to be proposed along with several log vanes (typ). Will rock cross vanes or log cross vanes be
utilized for the project? As this project is located in the slate belt (Union County), is there any concern about the
deterioration/ rotting of instream log structures during dry and low flow summer conditions? Please review,
comment and update the report and verbiage accordingly.
Text has been added to the document, including the following. "Log or rock cross vanes are expected to be
interchangeable, depending upon the availability of materials. This will largely be a field decision based on the
contractor. Given the availability of logs and the expense of rock, it is expected that logs will be primarily used for
vane construction. Log vanes are used extensively in intermittent channels with success. They are designed to
stabilize the stream banks until suitable vegetation has been established, which will reduce erosion."
Section 8.1.1 - Forded Channel Crossing: In the report text, please note that a Permanent Channel Ford Detail is
available in Appendix M (sheet 02D). Please also note that the two fords proposed are located outside of the
conservation easement and the landowner will be responsible for the maintenance of both ford stream crossings.
The above text has been added to the document.
Table 16: If the project site is currently row crops, how is Fecal Coliform an identified stressor? Please review the
table and update accordingly.
A note was added to Table 16 indicating the following. "*Fecal Coliform has been included in the functional uplift
stressor category based on the land application of manure to row crops."
Section 8.5.1 — Planting Plan and Design Sheets: Please use uniform nomenclature for planting plan documents;
Bottomland Hardwood and Piedmont Low Mountain Alluvial are described in the planting plan text and planting
plan design sheet respectively.
Figure 9 Legend and Sheet P1 have been changed to Bottomland Forest.
Table 17 and Plan Sheet P01: Green ash is currently listed as 5% of the total planted species. The IRT has requested
that Green Ash account for no more than 5% of the planted species on the site. Please keep this in mind if species
are unavailable or substitutions are made during planting.
Understood.
Page 3 of 5

8.5.2 - Nuisance Species Management: Table 16 notes that young pines will be removed/ cleared as part of the
mitigation efforts. Does IRS believe that additional control of pine species will be required as part of the project
monitoring and invasive treatment? Please update this section as necessary.
We do not believe additional control of pine species will be required beyond the initial effort during construction.
Section 9 - Monitoring and Success Criteria: Per RFP 16-007704; "Each annual monitoring report must be submitted
to the DMS by December 1st of the year during which the monitoring was conducted." Please update this section
text accordingly.
Text has been updated.
Section 9 - Monitoring and Success Criteria: Please consider utilizing the most recent DMS templates and guidance
for the as -built survey; record drawings; MYO report and future monitoring reports (MY1-MY7). These templates
and guidance were updated in October 2020 and are available on the DMS website here:
https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms- vendors/rfp-forms-templates Please update the
report text and references accordingly.
We are happy to use the requested template.
Section 9.1- Monitoring Summary, Table 20 (page 24): The 2016 USACE Guidance states "Additionally, this method
should also be corroborated with vegetative indicators, including bud burst and leaf drop" in regards to measuring
soil temperature; suggesting proactively adding this to the table.
A note has been added to the table that includes the following text. "The growing season will not be initiated prior
to March 1 based on confirmed soil temperature unless evidence of vegetative indicators such as bud burst is present
and documented by more than two species (excluding red maple and sambucus)."
Section 9.1 - Success Criteria & Table 20: The 2016 IRT guidelines specify that a combination of permanent fixed
plots and random plots should be used to demonstrate vegetation coverage. Random plots should not make up
more than 50% of the total required plots. Please review 2016 IRT guidance and update the mitigation plan and
proposed monitoring accordingly.
Understood. As indicated in Table 20, sixteen (16) fixed plots will be installed. Random plots will only be used if
additional plots are needed to better characterize site conditions.
Section 9.1 - Success Criteria & Table 20: The 2016 IRT guidelines for macroinvertebrate monitoring specify that a
reference location should also be sampled for comparison purposes. A reference location should be identified and
proposed in the revised document. Please review the 2016 IRT guidelines for macroinvertebrate monitoring and
confirm that the revised mitigation plan complies with the guidance and required number of sampling points.
As macroinvertebrate monitoring is not proposed to have success criteria, we propose a modified version of the
2016 protocol that compares pre and post benthic sampling results. Therefore reference macroinvertebrate
sampling is not proposed at this time.
Project Monitoring -Table 20 & Figure 10: UT1A and UT2 are identified as Perennial/ Intermittent. A flow gauge is
currently only proposed for UT1 (Reach 1). Does IRS believe that flow gauges are warranted for UT1A and UT2 to
confirm 30 days of consecutive stream flow? Please comment and update the report as necessary.
IRT members did not request a flow gauge on UT 2 or UT 1A during the Site walkthrough.
Appendix G — Financial Assurance: The following language should be included in the appendix; "Pursuant to Section
IV H and Appendix III of the NCDEQ DMS (formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated
July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) has provided the USACE-Wilmington
District with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by NCDEQ DMS. This
commitment provides financial assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program." The RFP
performance bonding language can be removed.
The RFP performance bond language was replaced with the text provided above.
Appendix E: DMS recommends deleting non critical portions of the EDR report to reduce the document size. The
maps and finding summaries of the EDR report should be sufficient.
Non -critical portions deleted as requested.
Page 4 of 5

Figures and Plan Sheets:
Figure 4: Soil boring profiles should be labeled to correspond to the soil boring logs presented in Appendix B.
Soil profile labels have been added to Figure 4.
Figure 8B & Appendix M — Construction Plans: The drop structure detail shown on Figure 8b does not match the
drop structure detail shown in the construction plans. Per the construction plans, drop structures are proposed at
the downstream ends of UT1, UT2, and Glen Br. Please update the report and note which drop structure detail will
be utilized at the proposed locations. Please also confirm that the report verbiage regarding the drop structure/s is
correct in the revised report.
The drop structure detail has been removed from Figure 8B.
Sheet 02: In the channel plan view notes, the layout method specified appears to be for conventional stakeout
only. If gps is allowable, please indicate in the note.
A note has been added stating that gps use is acceptable for stakeout.
Sheet 02B: Please provide a length specification for the distance the sills must be keyed into the streambank.
A detail call out has been changed to state that the sill will be keyed in 4-ft from the bankfull width (both sides).
Sheet 02C: The vane arm backfill is specified as #57 stone. Consider adding a coarser size fraction to reduce the
potential for scour.
#57 stone has been replaced with surge stone.
Sheet 12: Please add the floodplain tie-in to the graphic to show the toe of slope where the floodplain/bench ties
to the existing surface.
Floodplains included with the drop structure will tie into natural ground with a 3:1 from the bankfull. The tie-in
graphic has been added to sheet 12.
Digital Support File Review:
• The data included in the "OnsiteDimension.xlsx" spreadsheet is not accessible. Please verify that the
spreadsheet is not corrupted, and resubmit.
The Onsite Dimension Sheet works on our end. We will reload a second copy for your use.
• Please provide groundwater gauge data used to create groundwater gauge figures (if it is not included in the
"OnsiteDimension.xlsx" spreadsheet).
Groundwater gauge data has been included for the digital submittal.
• Please provide asset table (Table 1) and project attribute table (Table 4) in excel format.
Table 1 and Table 4 have been provided in Excel format.
Page 5 of 5

MITIGATION PLAN
NESBIT SITE
Union County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100121
Full Delivery Contract No. 7868
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01470
DWR Project No. 2019-0862
RFP No. 16-007704 (Issued: 9/6/2018)
Catawba River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03050103
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Contact: Raymond Holz
919-755-9490 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)
Prepared by:
And
November 2020
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Grant Lewis
919-215-1693 (phone)
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).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010
These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation
This document was assembled using the June 2017 DMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template
and Guidance and the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
PROJECT INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
1.1
DIRECTIONS TO SITE.......................................................................................................................................1
1.2
USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE AND NCDWR RIVER BASIN DESIGNATION.............................................................1
1.3
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND LAND USE........................................................................................................................1
1.4
PROJECT COMPONENTS AND STRUCTURE...........................................................................................................1
2
WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION..........................................................................................5
3
BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS......................................................................................................6
3.1
SOILS AND LAND FORM..................................................................................................................................6
3.2
GEOLOGY....................................................................................................................................................7
3.3
SEDIMENT MODEL........................................................................................................................................7
3.4
NUTRIENT MODEL.........................................................................................................................................8
3.5
PROJECT SITE STREAMS..................................................................................................................................8
3.5.1 Existing Conditions Survey................................................................................................................8
3.5.2 Channel Classification and Morphology...........................................................................................8
3.5.3 Channel Evolution.............................................................................................................................8
3.5.4 Valley Classification...........................................................................................................................8
3.5.5 Discharge........................................................................................................................................10
3.6
PROJECT SITE WETLANDS.............................................................................................................................10
3.6.1 Hydrological Characterization.........................................................................................................10
3.6.2 Soil Characterization.......................................................................................................................11
4
REFERENCE STUDIES................................................................................................................................11
4.1
REFERENCE STREAMS.............................................................................................................................11
4.1.1 Channel Classification.....................................................................................................................11
4.1,2 Discharge........................................................................................................................................12
4.1.3 Channel Morphology......................................................................................................................12
4.2
REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM.....................................................................................................................12
5
CHANNEL ASSESSMENTS.........................................................................................................................13
5.1
CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT...................................................................................................................13
5.2
BANKFULL VERIFICATION..............................................................................................................................14
6
FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT AND PROJECT GOALS/OBJECTIVES..........................................................................14
7
SITE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION CONSTRAINTS...............................................................................18
7.1
THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES............................................................................................................18
7.2
CULTURAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................................................19
7.3
NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE ELEMENTS............................................................................................19
7.4
FEMA AND HYDROLOGIC TRESPASS...............................................................................................................19
7.5
UTILITIES...................................................................................................................................................19
7.5
AIR TRANSPORT FACILITIES............................................................................................................................19
8
DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN................................................................................19
8.1
STREAM DESIGN.........................................................................................................................................19
8.1.1 Stream Restoration.........................................................................................................................20
8.1.2 Stream Enhancement (Level 1)........................................................................................................21
8.1.3 Stream Enhancement (Level II).......................................................................................................21
8.2
INDIVIDUAL REACH DISCUSSIONS....................................................................................................................21
8.3
WETLAND RESTORATION..............................................................................................................................22
8.4
SOIL RESTORATION......................................................................................................................................23
8.5
NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION...................................................................................................23
8.5.1 Planting Plan...................................................................................................................................23
8.5.2 Nuisance Species Management......................................................................................................24
9
MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA....................................................................................................
24
9.1
SUCCESS CRITERIA.......................................................................................................................................25
9.2
CONTINGENCY............................................................................................................................................27
9.2.1 Stream Contingency........................................................................................................................27
9.2.2 Wetland Contingency......................................................................................................................27
9.2.3 Vegetation Contingency..................................................................................................................27
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Table of Contents page i
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

9.2.4 Boundary Marking and Site Protection Contingency......................................................................28
9•3 COMPATIBILITY WITH PROJECT GOALS.............................................................................................................28
10 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN..............................................................................................................28
11 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................................................................................... 28
12 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................ 30
TABLES
Table 1—
Project Components and Mitigation Credits..................................................................................................2
Table 2 —
Project Activity and Reporting History...........................................................................................................3
Table3 —
Project Contacts Table...................................................................................................................................3
Table 4 —
Project Attribute Table...................................................................................................................................4
Table 5 —
Web Soil Survey Soils Mapped within the Site...............................................................................................6
Table 6—
BEHI and NBS Modeling Summary.................................................................................................................7
Table 7 —
Essential Morphology Parameters.................................................................................................................9
Table8 —Profile
Description........................................................................................................................................11
Table 9 —
Reference Forest Ecosystem........................................................................................................................12
Table 10
— Stream Power (Q) and Shear Stress (i) Values..........................................................................................13
Table 11—
Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis............................................................................................14
Table12—
NC SAM Summary......................................................................................................................................15
Table 13
— Nesbit NC WAM Summary.........................................................................................................................16
Table 14—Targeted
Functions, Goals, Objectives, and Uplift Evaluation...................................................................17
Table 15
— Endangered Species Act Determinations...................................................................................................18
Table 16
— Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift.................................................................................21
Table17
— Planting Plan..............................................................................................................................................24
Table18
— Monitoring Schedule..................................................................................................................................25
Table19
— Success Criteria..........................................................................................................................................25
Table20—
Monitoring Summary.................................................................................................................................26
Table 21—
Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives....................................................29
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures
Appendix C. Flood Frequency Analysis Data
Figure 1. Site Location
Appendix D. Jurisdictional Determination Information
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Topography and Drainage Area
Appendix E. NC NHP Letter and Categorical Exclusion
Figure 4. Existing Conditions and Soils
Document
Figure 5. Uwharrie Reference Reach Dimension, Pattern, and
Appendix F. FEMA Coordination
Profile
Figure 6. Restoration Plan
Appendix G. Financial Assurance
Figure 7. Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Appendix H. Site Protection Instrument
Figures 8A-B. Typical Structure Details
Figure 9. Planting Plan
Appendix I. Credit Release Schedule
Figures 10. Monitoring Plan
Appendix J. Maintenance Plan
Appendix B. Existing Stream & Wetland Data
Appendix K. Preconstruction Groundwater Gauges
Table B1. Nesbit Morphological Stream Characteristics
Appendix L. IRT Site Visit Notes
Existing Stream Cross-section Data
NC SAM Forms
Appendix M. Construction Plans
NC WAM Forms
NCDWQ Stream Forms
BEHI/NBS Data
Nutrient Model
Soil Boring Log
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Table of Contents page ii
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses 18.0 acres
of agricultural row crops along warm waters of Glen Branch and unnamed tributaries to Glen Branch. The
Site is located seven miles southwest of Monroe and five miles southeast of Waxhaw in the southwest
corner of Union County near the North Carolina and South Carolina border (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A).
1.1 Directions to Site
Directions to the Site from Raleigh, North Carolina.
- Head south on US-1 for 43 miles,
- Merge onto US-15/US-501 South and travel 17.5 miles,
- Turn left onto NC-73 West and travel 19 miles,
- Turn left to merge onto 1-74, which becomes US-220 South,
- After 14 miles, turn right onto US-74 Bus West, which becomes US-74 West,
- After 42 miles, turn right onto East Franklin Street, then left onto Sunset Drive,
- After 2 miles, turn right onto Griffith Road, then left onto South Bragg Street,
- After 0.2 mile, turn left onto Lancaster Avenue,
- After 8 miles, turn right onto Nesbit Road,
- The Site is on the right after approximately 1.1 miles.
o Site Latitude, Longitude
34.893600,-80.654400 (WGS84)
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWR River Basin Designation
The Site is located within the Catawba River Basin in 14-digit United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03050103030030 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (North
Carolina Division of Water Resources [NCDWR] subbasin number 03-08-38) [Figures 1 and 2, Appendix
A]). Site hydrology drains to warm waters of Glen Branch and unnamed tributaries to Glen Branch (Stream
Index Number 11-139-1), which has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C (NCDWR 2013). Glen
Branch is not listed on the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
draft 2018 or final 2016 303(d) lists (NCDEQ 2018a, NCDEQ 2018b).
1.3 Physiography and Land Use
The Site is in the Carolina Slate Belt portion of the Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina. Regional
physiography is characterized by dissected, irregular plains with moderate to steep slopes and low to
moderate gradient streams over boulder and cobble -dominated substrate (Griffith et al. 2002). Onsite
elevations range from a high of 640 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at the upper reaches
to a low of approximately 620 feet NGVD at the Site outfall (USGS Waxhaw, North Carolina 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle) (Figures 1 and 3, Appendix A).
The Site provides water quality functions to an approximately 1.25-square mile (798.8-acre) watershed at
the outfall; Site tributary watershed sizes range from 0.07 to 0.28 square miles (45.6 to 176.2 acres)
(Figure 3, Appendix A). The watershed is dominated by pasture, agricultural land, forest, and sparse
residential development. Impervious surfaces account for less than 2 percent of the upstream watershed
land surface. Land use at the Site is characterized by agricultural row crops.
1.4 Project Components and Structure
The Site encompasses 18.0 acres of agricultural row crops along the warm waters of Glen Branch and
unnamed tributaries to Glen Branch. The Site includes 5124 linear feet of degraded stream channel (based
on the approved PJD), 2.45 acres of degraded wetland, 6.57 acres of drained hydric soil (Figure 4, Appendix
A).
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 1
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Site restoration activities include the construction of a meandering E/C-type stream channel, resulting in
4801 linear feet of Priority I stream restoration, 316 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level 1), 541 linear
feet of stream enhancement (Level 11), 5.338 acres of riparian wetland re-establishment, and 1.789 acres
of riparian wetland rehabilitation (Table 1) (Figure 6, Appendix A).
Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background
information are summarized in Tables 1-4.
Table 1— Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Nesbit Site
Mitigation
Existing
Plan
Mitigation
Restoration
Mitigation
Mitigation
Project Segment
Footage/
Comment
Footage/
Category
Level
Ratio
Credits
Acreage
Acreage
Glen Br Reach 1
1195
1275
Warm
R
1.000
1275.000
Glen Br Reach 2
63
63
Warm
El
1.500
42.000
Glen Br Reach 3
2555
2777
Warm
R
1.000
2777.000
Reach is Ell; however, is
UT 1A
311
314
Warm
Ell
5.000
62.800
generating a 5:1 credit
ratio.
Reach is El; however, is
UT 1 Reach 1
253
253
Warm
El
2.500
101.200
generating a 2.5:1
credit ratio.
UT 1 Reach 2
373
382
Warm
R
1.000
382.000
UT 1 Reach 3
110
115
Warm
Ell
2.500
46.000
UT 1 Reach 4
169
170
Warm
R
1.000
170.000
UT 2 Reach 1
112
112
Warm
Ell
2.500
44.800
UT 2 Reach 2
243
197
Warm
R
1.000
197.000
Wetland
Re -
5.338
NA
1.000
5.338
Reestablishment
establishment
Wetland
2.46
1.789
NA
Rehabilitation
1.500
1.193
Rehabilitation
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 2
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Table 1— Project Components and Mitigation Credits (Continued)
Nesbit Site
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riverine
Nonriverine
Restoration
4801.000
--
Re-establishment
5.338
--
Rehabilitation
1.193
--
Enhancement 1
143.200
--
Enhancement II
153.600
--
Benthics 2%
101.956
--
Totals
5199.756
--
--
6.531
--
--
--
Table 2 — Project Activity and Reporting History
Nesbit Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal
January 2019
January 2019
Institution Date
April 18, 2019
Mitigation Plan
June 2020
Nov 2020
Construction Plans
Nov 2020
Table 3 — Project Contacts Table
Nesbit Site
Role
Firm
Full Delivery Provider,
Restoration Systems
Planting Contractor,
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
General Contractor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Raymond Holz: 919-755-9490
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Designer & Monitoring
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis: 919-215-1693
Sungate Design Group, P.A.
Engineer
905 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
Josh Dalton: 919-859-2243
k2 Design Group -John Rudolph (L-4194)
Surveyor
5688 U.S. Hwy. 70 East
Goldsboro, NC 27534
919-394-2547
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 3
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Table 4 — Project Attribute Table
Nesbit Site
Project Information
Project Name
Nesbit Site
Project County
Union County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
18.0
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
34.8936,-80.6544
Planted Area (acres)
16.0
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Project River Basin
Catawba
USGS HUC for Project (14-digit)
03050103030030
NCDWR Sub -basin for Project
03-08-38
Project Drainage Area (acres)
798.8
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is Impervious
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Managed Herbaceous Cover
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Glen Br
Upstream
Glen Br
Downstream
UT 1A
UT1
UT 2
Length of reach (linear feet)
1487
2326
311
905
355
Valley Classification & Confinement
Alluvial, confined
Drainage Area (acres)
494.6
798.8
152.6
176.7
45.6
NCDWR Stream ID Score
--
28
33
30
Stream Thermal Regime
Warm
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial/
Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial/
Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Existing Morphological Description
(Rosgen 1996)
Cg4
Eg 4
-----
Eg 4
Eg 6
Proposed Stream Classification (Rosgen
1996)
Ce 3/4
Ce 3/4
-----
Ce 3/4
Ce 3/4
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and
Hupp 1986)
III/IV
III/IV
III
II/III
II/III
Underlying Mapped Soils
Secrest Cid complex
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status
Nonhydric (may contain hydric inclusions)
Valley Slope
0.0077
0.0048
0.0204
0.0086
0.0147
FEMA Classification
AE floodway
AE floodway
NA
NA
AE floodway
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Site)
30% forest, 65% ag. land, 5% low density residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover
(Uwharrie Reference Channel)
100% forest
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive
Vegetation
15%
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 4
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Table 4 — Project Attribute Table
Nesbit Site (continued)
Wetland
Summary Information
Parameters
Wetlands
Wetland acreage
6.57 acre drained & 2.45 acre degraded
Wetland Type
Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Secrest Cid Complex
Drainage Class
Somewhat Poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status
Nonhydric (may contain hydric inclusions)
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater, stream overbank
Hydrologic Impairment
Incised streams, compacted soils, agriculture
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
% Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Restoration Method
Hydrologic and vegetative
Enhancement Method
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States -Section 401
Yes
Yes
Section 401 Certification
Waters of the United States -Section 404
Yes
Yes
Section 404 Permit
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
CE Document (App E)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
CE Document (App E)
Coastal Zone Management Act
No
NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
DMS FEMA Checklist (App E)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
--
NA
2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
Primary considerations for Site selection included the potential for water quality improvement within a
region of North Carolina under livestock/agricultural pressure. More specifically, considerations included:
desired aquatic resource functions; hydrologic conditions; soil characteristics; aquatic habitat diversity;
habitat connectivity; compatibility with adjacent land uses; reasonably foreseeable effects the mitigation
project will have on ecologically important aquatic and terrestrial resources; and potential development
trends and land use changes.
Currently, the proposed Site is characterized by agricultural row crops. A summary of existing Site
characteristics in favor of proposed stream and wetland activities includes the following.
• Streams and wetlands have been cleared of forest vegetation
• The Site receives nonpoint source inputs, including agricultural chemicals
• Wetland soils have been compacted by agricultural equipment
• Wetland hydrology has been removed by stream channel entrenchment
In addition to the opportunity for ecological improvements at the Site, the use of the particular mitigation
activities and methods proposed in the Design Approach & Mitigation Work Plan (Section 8.0) are
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 5
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

expected to produce naturalized stream and wetland resources that will be ecologically self-sustaining,
requiring minimal long-term management (Long-term Management Plan [Section 11.0]).
The Lower Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP 2007) documents that the
main goal in urbanized watersheds of this river basin is to better manage stormwater runoff. The Waxhaw
Creek watershed, which includes the Site, is a priority for land preservation because it faces development
pressures from the Charlotte Metro area. The hydrologic unit (HU) is the only one in the Catawba Basin
that supports a population of the federally endangered Carolina heel-splitter mussel (one of only six
populations in the world). Stream water quality is critical to its survival and requires the use of forested
buffers and the prevention of siltation and other pollution sources.
Site -specific mitigation goals and objectives have been developed by using the North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) and the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM). Both are
discussed further in Section 6.0 (Functional Uplift and Project Goals/Objectives).
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Soils and Land Form
Soils that occur within the Site, according to the Web Soil Survey (USDA 2020), are described in Table 5.
Table 5 — Web Soil Survey Soils Mapped within the Site
Map Unit
Map Unit Name
Hydric Status
Description
Symbol
(Classification)
This series consists of moderately eroded, well -drained soils
Badin channery silty clay
found on interfluves with 2-8 percent slopes. The parent
BdB2
loam
Non-hydric
material is residuum weathered from metavolcanics and/or
(Typic Hapludults)
argillite. Depth to the water table is more than 80 inches.
Depth to restrictive features is 20-40 inches to paralithic
bedrock and 40-80 inches to lithic bedrock.
This series consists of moderately well -drained soils found on
Cid channery silt loam
interfluves with 1-5 percent slopes. The parent material is
CmB
loam
Non-hydric
residuum weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite.
(Aquic Hapludults)
Depth to the water table 12-30 inches. Depth to restrictive
features is 20-40 inches to paralithic bedrock and 40-80
inches to lithic bedrock.
This series consists of moderately well -drained soils found on
Secrest-Cid complex
Non-hydric,
interfluves with 0-3 percent slopes. The parent material is
ScA
(Aeric Epiaquults/Aquic
but may
residuum weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite.
Hapludults)
contain hydric
Depth to the water table 12-30 inches. Depth to restrictive
inclusions
features is 40-60 inches to paralithic bedrock and 60-80
inches to lithic bedrock.
This series consists of well -drained soils found on interfluves
TaB, TaC,
Tarrus gravelly silt loam
with 2-15 percent slopes. The parent material is residuum
TaB2
(Typic Kanhapludults)
Non-hydric
weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite. Depth to the
water table more than 80 inches. Depth to restrictive
features is 40-60 inches to paralithic bedrock.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 6
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

3.2 Geology
The Site is located within the Carolina Slate Belt which consists of heated and deformed (metamorphic)
volcanic rocks, specifically metamudstone and Meta-Argillite. It was the Site of a series of oceanic volcanic
islands about 650-550 million years ago. Ash and rock from these volcanoes formed the Carolina Slate
Belt's parent material that, through extensive metamorphism, change the sediments into slates, phyllites,
schists, and quartzites.
Specifically, the Site is in a Cid Formation, which is composed of shale that is mostly even grained, and
consequently, splits along bedding planes. The Cid Formation is named for the community of Cid near the
Town of Denton. The mudstone of the Cid Formation contains felsic lavas that did not extend far from
their sources and were associated with the eruption of andesitic basalt.
Several areas of the Site exhibit bedrock contact; however, contact is confined to incised stream channels
that will be backfilled. The proposed stream channels will be tied into the bedrock were feasible to hinder
headcut migration through the Site. The Site is an alluvial valley that is characterized by relatively deep
deposits; therefore, bedrock is not expected to pose as a hindrance to channel excavation.
3.3 Sediment Model
Sediment load modeling was performed using methodologies outlined in A Practical Method of
Computing Streambank Erosion Rate (Rosgen 2009) and Estimating Sediment Loads using the Bank
Assessment of Non -point Sources Consequences of Sediment (Rosgen 2011). These models provide a
quantitative prediction of streambank erosions by calculating Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near -
Bank Stress (NBS) along each reach of the Site. The resulting BEHI and NBS values are then compared to
streambank erodibility graphs prepared for North Carolina by the NC Stream Restoration Institute and NC
Sea Grant.
Streambank characteristics involve measurements of bank height, angles, materials, presence of layers,
rooting depth, rooting density, and percent of the bank protected by rocks, logs, roots, or vegetation. Site
reaches have been measured for each BEHI and NBS characteristic and predicted lateral erosion rate,
height, and length to calculate a cubic volume of sediment contributed per year by each reach. Data forms
for the analysis are available upon request, and the data output is presented in Appendix B. Results of the
model are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 — BEHI and NBS Modeling Summary
Stream Reach
Proposed Mitigation Treatment
Predicted Sediment
Contribution (tons/year)
Glen Branch
Restoration and Enhancement (Level 1)
223.8
UT 1
Restoration and Enhancement (Level 11)
3.9
UT 2
Restoration and Enhancement (Level 11)
4.8
Total Sediment Contribution (tons/year)
232.5
Based on this analysis, mitigation of Site streams will reduce streambank erosion and subsequent
pollution of receiving waters.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 7
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

3.4 Nutrient Model
A preliminary land use nutrient model was developed to estimate nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from
row crops adjacent to the Site. Model inputs include area, percent land use, rainfall, and row -crop type.
Using published values of nitrogen and phosphorus, the model predicts the nutrient input of fertilizer
associated with land uses (USDA 2015, USDA 1992, NC State 2016, SMRC 2016). A copy of the model input
and output is presented in Appendix B.
Based on the land use nutrient model, cessation of land use activities at the Site will result in a direct
reduction of 360 pounds of phosphorus per year and 360 pounds of nitrogen per year.
3.5 Project Site Streams
Streams targeted for restoration include Glen Branch and unnamed tributaries to Glen Branch, which have
been cleared, straightened, plowed for row crop production, and have eroded vertically and laterally.
Approximately 35 percent of the existing stream channel has been degraded, contributing to sediment
export from the Site. In addition, streamside wetlands have been cleared and drained by channel
downcutting and land uses. Current Site conditions have resulted in degraded water quality, a loss of
aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention, and unstable channel characteristics (loss of
horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an increase in erosive forces to channel bed and banks).
Site restoration activities will restore riffle -pool morphology, aid in energy dissipation, increase aquatic
habitat, stabilize channel banks, and significantly reduce channel bank sediment loss.
3.5.1 Existing Conditions Survey
Site stream dimension, pattern, and profile were measured to characterize existing channel conditions.
Stream geometry measurements under existing conditions are summarized in Table 7 (Essential
Morphology Parameters) and presented in detail in Table B1 (Appendix B).
3.5.2 Channel Classification and Morphology
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to classify existing stream conditions based on
a classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). Existing Site reaches are classified as
unstable, slightly entrenched Cg- and Eg-type streams with variable sinuosity. Existing Site reaches are
characterized by variable substrate ranging from sand and gravel substrate due to channel impacts,
including channel straightening, adjacent agriculture, and riparian vegetation removal.
3.5.3 Channel Evolution
Site streams targeted for restoration have been channelized and are continually eroding. As such,
channels are primarily classified as channelized (Class II), degraded (Class III), and degraded and widened
(Class IV) channels throughout the Site (Simon and Hupp 1986).
3.$.4 Valley Classification
Site Streams are characterized by a small stream, headwater, moderately confined to confined, alluvial
valleys with approximately 50- to 100-foot floodplain valley widths. Valley slopes are typical for the
Piedmont region and range from 0.0048 on Glen Branch to 0.0147 on UT2. Typical streams in this region
include C- and E-type streams with slightly entrenched, meandering channels with a riffle -pool sequence.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 8
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Table 7 - Essential Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing
Reference
Proposed
Glen Br
(Upstream)
Glen Br
(Downstream)
UT1
UT2
Uwharrie
Glen Br
(Upstream)
Glen Br
(Downstream)
UT1
UT2
Valley Width (ft)
75
100
75
50
50
75
100
75
50
Contributing Drainage Area (sq.
mi.)
0.77
1.25
0.28
0.07
0.60
0.77
1.25
0.28
0.07
Channel/Reach Classification
Cg4
Eg4
Eg4
Eg6
E 4
Ce %
Ce %
Ce %
Ce
Design Discharge Width (ft)
15.1
15.7
8.7
4.7
12.1
15.3
18.0
10.8
6.7
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.6-1.5
1.2-1.4
0.9-1.2
0.4-0.9
1.2
1.1
1.3
0.8
0.5
Design Discharge Area (ft')
16.7
23.2
8.4
3.2
14.2
16.7
23.2
8.4
3.2
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.7
4.1
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.7
Design Discharge Discharge (cfs)
68.7
97.3
32.9
11.8
57.6
68.7
97.3
32.9
11.8
Water Surface Slope
0.0075
0.0047
0.0081
0.0143
0.0042
0.0067
0.0042
0.0075
0.0128
Sinuosity
1.03
1.03
1.06
1.03
1.14
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
Width/Depth Ratio
7.3-43.3
5.3-14.0
5.9-10.6
3.8-19.8
10.1
14.0
14.0
14.0
14
Bank Height Ratio
1.0-2.2
1.3-2.1
1.4-1.8
1.6-8.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4-6.5
1.4-8.9
2.5-7.0
1.5-14.7
4.2
4.9
5.5
6.9
7.5
Substrate
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
tGravell
Gravel
Gravel/cobble
Gravel/cobble
Gravel/cobble
Gravel/cobble
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 9
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

3.5.5 Discharge
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall, with precipitation averaging
approximately 46.7 inches per year (USDA 1996). Drainage basin sizes range from 0.07- to 0.28-square
miles on UT1-UT2 and 1.25 square miles for Glen Branch.
The Site's discharge is dominated by a combination of upstream basin catchment, groundwater flow, and
precipitation. Based on indicators of bankfull at the reference reach and onsite, the designed channel will
equal approximately 93 percent of the channel size indicated by Piedmont regional curves (Harman et al.
1999); this is discussed in Section 5.2 (Bankfull Verification). Based on bankfull studies, the bankfull
discharge ranges from 11.8-32.9 cubic feet per second for UT1-UT2 and is 97.3 cubic feet per second for
Glen Branch.
3.6 Project Site Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands/hydric soils within the Site were delineated in the field following guidelines
outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent regional supplements,
and located using GPS technology with reported submeter accuracy (Environmental Laboratory 1987). A
jurisdictional wetland delineation was completed and approved by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) representative Bryan Roden Reynolds during a field meeting on October 30, 2019.
Documentation of the delineation is included in Appendix D. Existing jurisdictional wetlands are depicted
in orange crosshatch, and drained hydric soils are shown in blue crosshatch in Figure 4 (Appendix A).
3.6.1 Hydrological Characterization
Construction activities are expected to reestablish approximately 5.338 acres of drained riparian hydric
soils and rehabilitate 1.789 acres of hydrologically affected riparian wetlands. Areas of the Site targeted
for riparian wetlands will receive hydrological inputs from periodic overbank flooding of restored
tributaries, groundwater migration into wetlands, upland/stormwater runoff, and, to a lesser extent,
direct precipitation. Hydrological impairment in drained soils has resulted from lateral draw -down of the
water table adjacent to existing, incised stream channels.
Wetlands impacted by drainage features (incised channels or ditches) were monitored by groundwater
gauges before mitigation alterations. Four groundwater gauges were installed at the Site to catalog the
existing hydrology of these wetland areas. The preconstruction gauge locations are depicted in Figure 4,
and the data is provided in Appendix K.
Overall, the gauges appeared to have water within 12 inches of the ground surface for between 15 days
and 101 days of the growing season. For this analysis, the growing season is defined as occurring between
March 1 and October 22. Although no ground temperature data was collected, the March 1 growing
season start is being used for consistency with requested annual monitoring growing season length,
verified by soil temperatures and bud burst.
It should be noted that during preconstruction groundwater monitoring, the growing season was
unusually wet. Using the USACE Antecedent Precipitation Tool, it appears the period of monitoring is
wetter than normal, particularly immediately before the March 1 growing season initiation and the
months of May -June. The Antecedent Precipitation Tool output is included in Appendix K.
Groundwater gauge data indicates that the downstream portion of the Site (gauges 1 and 2) are
significantly wetter than the upstream gauges (gauges 3 and 4). Downstream gauges were saturated
within 1 foot of the soil surface for 101 and 95 consecutive days and upstream gauges for 15 and 29
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 10
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

consecutive days. This is mostly the result of beaver activity in the lower reaches. The removal of beavers
and subsequent dams is ongoing and additional data will be collected in the spring of 2021 for comparison
with post -construction groundwater gauges.
3.6.2 Soil Characterization
Detailed soil mapping conducted by a North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist (NCLSS) in May 2020
determined the Site is underlain by hydric soils of the Wehadkee series (Figure 4, Appendix A). Wetlands
have been cleared of vegetation and plowed for agriculture. Hydric soils have been affected by stream
channel incision or relocation of stream channels to the floodplain margins.
Onsite hydric soils are grey to gley in color and are leveled by agriculture plowing. Plowing has resulted in
an herbaceous vegetative community. Groundwater springs and surface runoff contribute hydrology to
these areas. However, the dominant hydrological influence is the lateral draw -down of the water table
adjacent to incised stream channels or streams relocated to the floodplain margins. A detailed soil profile
conducted by a NCLSS is as follows; the location is depicted in Figure 4 (Appendix A).
Table 8 — Profile Description
Depth (inches)
Color
Texture
0-4
10 YR 3/3
Silty clay loam
4-10
10 YR 3/3
Silt clay loam
Y Y
10 YR 5/2 mottles 40%
10 - 12
10 YR 5/2
Silt clay loam
Y Y
10 YR 5/3 mottles 30%
10 YR 6/3
12+
10 YR 6/2 mottles 25%
Silty clay loam
10 YR 4/6 mottles 5%
The Web Soil Survey (USDA 2020) indicates the Site is mapped as a Secrest Cid complex. Secrest Cid
complex is listed as a non-hydric soil series with hydric inclusion of the Wehadkee soil series. Detailed soil
mapping confirms the mapped soil series, with some inclusions matching a Worsham soil series profile.
However, disturbance from past timber, agriculture, and beaver activity has made a direct profile
correlation difficult. Therefore, hydric soil indicators such as F3 (Depleted Matrix), F8 (Redox Depressions),
and F19 (Piedmont Floodplain Soils) have been used to delineate soil mapping boundaries in the field.
4 REFERENCE STUDIES
4.1 REFERENCE STREAMS
A reference reaches was identified for the Site that is in the same physiographic region and geology. The
reference stream is located approximately 54 miles north-northeast of the Site in the Uwharrie
Mountains. The Site is situated along Horsepen Creek, a tributary to the Uwharrie River. Horsepen Creek
exhibits a similar slope, size, geology, and substrate that is expected to occur in Site streams. The stream
was measured and classified by stream type (Rosgen 1996).
4.1.1 Channel Classification
The reference reach is characterized as an E-type stream with a moderately sinuous (1.14) channel,
dominated by gravel substrate.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 11
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

4.1.2 Discharge
Field indicators of bankfull indicate an average discharge of 57.6 cfs, which is 93 percent of that predicted
by the regional curves.
4.1.3 Channel Morphology
Dimension: Data collected indicate a bankfull cross -sectional area of 14.2 square feet, slightly smaller than
predicted by regional curves (15.3 square feet). The reference site exhibits a bankfull width of 12.1, a
bankfull depth of 1.2 feet, and width -to -depth ratios of 10.1 (see Table B1, Morphological Stream
Characteristics). Figure 5 (Appendix A) provides a plan view and cross -sectional data for the reference
reach. The reference reach exhibits a bank -height ratio of 1.0.
Pattern and Profile: In -field measurements of the reference reach yields an average sinuosity of 1.14
(thalweg distance/straight-line distance). Water surface slope measures 0.0168, slightly higher than the
Site; however, this appears to result from several debris jams in the reach that inflate the slope
measurement. The reference reach has a suitable pattern (similar sinuosity) with no shoot cutoffs, eroding
outer bends, or excessively tight radius of curvatures, in addition to appropriate pool -to -pool spacing and
meander wavelengths.
Substrate: Reference channels are characterized by substrate dominated by gravel sized particles.
4.2 Reference Forest Ecosystem
A Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) is a forested area to model restoration efforts at the Site in relation
to soils and vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically stable climax communities and should represent the
area as it likely existed before human disturbances. Data describing plant community composition and
structure should be collected at the RFEs and subsequently applied as reference data to emulate a natural
climax community.
The RIFE for this project is located immediately upstream of the Site in forests adjacent to Glen Branch.
The RIFE supports plant community and landform characteristics that restoration efforts will attempt to
emulate. Tree and shrub species identified within the reference forest and outlined in Table 9 will be used,
in addition to other relevant species listed in appropriate Schafale and Weakley (1990) and Schafale (2012)
community descriptions.
Table 9 — Reference Forest Ecosystem
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
Red maple (Acerrubrum)
Sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua)
Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis)
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
White oak (Quercus alba)
Mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa)
Slippery elm (Ulmus rubra)
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121)
Nesbit Site
Union County, North Carolina
page 12
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2020

5 CHANNEL ASSESSMENTS
5.1 Channel Stability Assessment
Stream power and shear stress were estimated for 1) existing dredged and straightened reaches, 2) the
reference reaches, and 3) proposed Site conditions. Important input values and output results (including
stream power, shear stress, and per unit shear power and shear stress) are presented in Table 10. Average
stream velocity and bankfull discharge values were calculated for the existing Site stream reaches, the
reference reach, and proposed conditions.
The proposed channel should exhibit stream power and shear stress values to maintain sediment
transport functions of a stable stream system, so the channel is neither aggrading nor degrading. The
analysis indicates the proposed channel reaches are expected to maintain stream power as a function of
width values of approximately 1.41-1.88 and shear stress values of approximately 0.32-0.40 (Table 10).
Table 10 - Stream Power (SZ) and Shear Stress (ti) Values
Bankfull
Discharge
(ft3/s)
Water
surface
Slope (ft/ft)
Total
Stream
Power (Q
�W
Hydraulic
Radius
Shear
Stress (ti)
Velocity
(v)
ti v
'Lmax
Existing Conditions
Glen Br -Upstream
68.7
0.0075
32.15
1.79
2.08
0.98
1.63
1.59
1.46
Glen Br -Downstream
97.3
0.0047
28.54
1.82
2.52
0.74
2.07
1.53
1.11
UT 1
32.9
0.0081
16.63
1.91
2.00
1.01
1.54
1.55
1.52
UT 2
11.8
0.0143
10.53
1.57
1.27
1.14
1.20
1.37
1.70
Reference Conditions
Uwharrie Ref
57.6
0.0168
60.38
1 4.99
0.98
1.03
4.06
4.16
1.54
Proposed Conditions
Glen Br -Upstream
68.7
0.0067
28.72
1.88
0.95
0.40
4.11
1.64
0.60
Glen Br -Downstream
97.3
0.0042
25.50
1.62
0.96
0.25
5.41
1.36
0.38
UT 1
32.9
0.0075
15.40
1.43
0.68
0.32
3.92
1.24
0.48
UT 2
11.8
0.0128
9.42
1.41
0.42
0.33
3.69
1.22
0.50
The Uwharrie reference reach values for stream power are elevated due to steeper valley/water surface
slopes and narrow width -to -depth ratios. Shear stress values for the reference reach are also slightly
elevated due to higher slopes; however, they appear similar to the measurement of the existing condition,
as expected for the incised onsite reaches.
Existing, Site streams are characterized by a wide range of water surface slopes and varying degrees of
degradation. In general, stream power values of existing streams are not significantly high due to several
dams attenuating erosive stormwater pulses. Onsite channels have been straightened and are slightly
incised, however, the channels do not receive excessive erosive forces that may lead to mass wasting.
Overall, the proposed channel stream power and shear stress values are slightly high than the proposed
values. Proposed stream power and shear stress values appear adequate to mobilize and transport
sediment through the Site, without aggradation or erosion on proposed stream banks. The reduction in
stream power and shear stress should normalize erosion across the Site and result in the direct reduction
of 232.5 tons of sediment per year (see Section 3.3 Sediment Model).
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 13
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

5.2 Bankfull Verification
Discharge estimates for the Site utilize an assumed definition of "bankfull" and the return interval
associated with that bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined as the channel
dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or "dominant" discharge (Gordon et al. 1992).
Based on available Piedmont regional curves, the predicted bankfull discharge for the reference reach
averages approximately 61.9 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Harmen et al. 1999). The Piedmont region's USGS
regional regression equation indicates that bankfull discharge for the reference reach at a 1.3-1.5-year
return interval averages approximately 63-73 cfs (USGS 2006).
Field indicators of bankfull, primarily topographic breaks identified on the banks, and riffle cross -sections
were utilized to obtain an average bankfull cross -sectional area for the reference reach. The Piedmont
regional curves were then utilized to plot the watershed area and discharge for the reference reach cross -
sectional area. Field indicators of bankfull approximate an average discharge of 57.6 for the reference
reach, which is 93 percent of that predicted by the regional curves; which is verified by the range
approximated by the USGS regional regression equation.
Based on the above analysis of methods to determine bankfull discharge, proposed conditions at the Site
will be based on reference reaches and indicators of bankfull on cross -sections located at the Site. The
designed onsite channel restoration area will equal approximately 93 percent of the channel size indicated
by Piedmont regional curves. Table 11 summarizes all methods analyzed for estimating bankfull discharge.
Table 11— Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analvsis
Watershed Area
Return Interval
Discharge
Method
(square miles)
(years)
(cfs)
Uwharrie Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
(Harman et al. 1999)
0.6
1.3 1.5
61.9
Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2004)
0.6
1.3 1.5
63-73
Field Indicators of Bankfull
0.6
1.3-1.5
57.6
6 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT AND PROJECT GOALS/OBJECTIVES
Site -specific mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the use of the North Carolina
Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) and the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM)
analyses of existing and reference stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010). These
methodologies rate functional metrics for streams and wetlands as high, medium, or low based on field
data collected on forms and transferred into a rating calculator. Using Boolean logic, the rating calculator
assigns a high, medium, or low value for each metric and overall function. Site functional assessment data
forms are available upon request, and model output is included in Appendix B.
Tables 12 — 14 summarize NC SAM and NC WAM metrics targeted for functional uplift and the
corresponding mitigation activities proposed to provide functional uplift. Metrics targeted to meet the
Site's goals and objectives are depicted in bold.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 14
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Table 12 — NC SAM Summary
NC SAM Function Class Rating Summary
SAM 1-UT 1
SAM 2-
Glen Br Upper
SAM 3-
Glen Br Lower
(1) HYDROLOGY
HIGH
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
LOW
LOW
(1) WATER QUALITY
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
LOW
LOW
(1) HABITAT
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
LOW
LOW
(3) In -Stream Habitat
HIGH
LOW
LOW
(2) Streamside Habitat
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Habitat
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
LOW
OVERALL
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
Based on NC SAM output, all three primary stream functional metrics (Hydrology, Water Quality, and
Habitat), as well as 16 sub -metrics are under -performing as exhibited by a LOW metric rating (see Figure
4, Appendix A for NC SAM data reaches). LOW performing metrics are to be targeted for functional uplift
through mitigation activities, goals, objectives, monitoring, and success criteria.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121)
Nesbit Site
Union County, North Carolina
page 15
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2020

Table 13 — Nesbit NC WAM Summary
NC WAM Sub -function Rating Summary
WAM1
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
(1) HYDROLOGY
MEDIUM
(2) Surface Storage & Retention
MEDIUM
(2) Sub -surface Storage and Retention
MEDIUM
(1) WATER QUALITY
MEDIUM
(2) Pathogen change
MEDIUM
(2) Particulate Change
LOW
(2) Soluble change
MEDIUM
(2) Physical Change
MEDIUM
(1) HABITAT
LOW
(2) Physical Structure
LOW
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
LOW
(2) Vegetative Composition
LOW
OVERALL
MEDIUM
Based on NC WAM output, one of the primary wetland functional metrics (Habitat) and 4 sub -metrics are
under -performing as exhibited by a LOW metric rating. LOW performing metrics are to be targeted for
functional uplift through mitigation activities, goals, objectives, monitoring, and success criteria.
The following table outlines stream and wetland functions targeted for functional uplift, goals that are
tied to the specific functions, and objectives to be completed to achieve the proposed goals.
Space purposefully left blank
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 16
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Table 14—Targeted Functions, Goals, Objectives, and Uplift Evaluation
DMS Functional Uplift Evaluations
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
Functional Stressor (Uplift Potential)
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow
Minimize downstream flooding to the maximum
- extent possible.
- Construct a new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore
overbank flows and restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands
- Plant woody riparian buffer
- Install marsh treatment areas
- Remove agricultural row crops
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
- Connect streams to functioning wetland systems.
- Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil
(4) Microtopography
surface roughness
- Peak Flows
- Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
- Artificial Barriers
- Ditching/Draining
(3) Stream Stability
- Increase stream stability within the Site so that
- Construct channels with a proper pattern, dimension, and
longitudinal profile
- Remove agricultural row crops
(4) Channel Stability
channels are neither aggrading nor degrading.
- Construct stable channels with the appropriate substrate
(4) Stream Geomorphology
- Upgrade forded crossings
- Plant woody riparian buffer
- Stabilize stream banks
(1) WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
- Remove direct nutrient and pollutant inputs from
the Site and reduce contributions to downstream
- Remove agricultural row crops and reduce agricultural land/inputs
- Install marsh treatment areas
Plant woody riparian buffer-
Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
Provide surface roughness and reduce compaction through deep
- Non-functioning Riparian Buffer/Wetland Vegetation
- Sediment
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
waters.
ripping/plowing.
- Nutrients
Wetland Particulate Change
- Restore overbank flooding by constructing channels at historic
floodplain elevation.
(1) HABITAT
(2) In -stream Habitat
- Construct stable channels with the appropriate substrate
- Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -Stream Habitat
- Construct a new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore
(2) Streamside Habitat
- Improve instream and streamside habitat.
overbank flows
- Upgrade forded crossings
- Habitat Fragmentation
- Limited Bedform Diversity
(3) Streamside Habitat
- Plant woody riparian buffer
- Absence of Large Woody Debris
(3) Thermoregulation
- Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
- Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
Wetland Physical Structure
- Stabilize stream banks
Wetland Landscape Patch Structure
- Install in -stream structures
Vegetation Composition
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 17
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

7 SITE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION CONSTRAINTS
The presence of conditions or characteristics that could hinder restoration activities on the Site was
evaluated. The evaluation focused primarily on the presence of hazardous materials, utilities, restrictive
easements, rare/threatened/endangered species or critical habitats, and the potential for hydrologic
trespass. Existing information regarding Site constraints was acquired and reviewed. In addition, any Site
conditions that could restrict the restoration design and implementation were documented during the
field investigation.
No known Site constraints that may hinder proposed mitigation activities were identified during field
surveys. Potential constraints reviewed include the following.
7.1 Threatened & Endangered Species
Three federally protected species is listed as occurring in Union County (USFWS 2018); the following table
summarizes potential habitat and a preliminary biological conclusion.
Table 15 — Endangered Species Act Determinations
Species -Status
Habitat
Potential
Biological
Habitat at Site
Conclusion
In North Carolina, the species is now known only from a handful of streams in
the Pee Dee and Catawba River systems. The species exists in very low
Carolina
abundances, usually within 6 feet of shorelines, throughout its known range.
May effect, not
heelsplitter
The general habitat requirements for the Carolina heelsplitter are shaded areas
likely to
(Lasmigona
in large rivers to small streams, often burrowed into clay banks between the
No
adversely
decorata)
root systems of trees, or in runs along steep banks with moderate current. The
effect
Endangered
more recent habitat where the Carolina heelsplitter has been found is in
sections of streams containing bedrock with perpendicular crevices filled with
sand and gravel, and with wide riparian buffers.
Grows in sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well -
drained sands or sandy loam soils with low cation exchange capacities. The
species is also found on sandy or submesic loamy swales and depressions in the
fall line Sandhills region as well as in openings along the rim of Carolina bays;
Michaux's sumac
maintained railroad, roadside, power line, and utility rights -of way; areas
(Rhus michauxii)
where forest canopies have been opened up by blowdowns and/or storm
Yes
No effect*
Endangered
damage; small wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to
moderately dense pine or pine/hardwood canopies; and in and along edges of
other artificially maintained clearings undergoing natural succession. In the
central Piedmont, it occurs on clayey soils derived from mafic rocks. The plant
is shade intolerant and, therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g.,
mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains its open habitat.
This species is found along roadside rights -of -way, maintained power lines and
other utility rights -of -way, edges of thickets and old pastures, clearings and
Schweinitz's
edges of upland oak -pine -hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests,
sunflower
and other sunny or semi -sunny habitats where disturbances (e.g., mowing,
(Helianthus
clearing, grazing, blow downs, storms, frequent fire) help create open or
Yes
No effect*
schweinitzii)
partially open areas for sunlight. It is intolerant of full shade and excessive
Endangered
competition from other vegetation. Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in a variety
of soil series; it is generally found growing on shallow sandy soils with high
gravel content; shallow, poor, clayey hardpans; or shallow rocky soils,
especially those derived from mafic rocks.
* See the approved Categorical Exclusion document in Appendix E for species survey information.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 18
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

7.2 Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or artifact
deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or potentially eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of site significance are made with
reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (36 CFR 60) and in consultation with the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Field visits were conducted at the Site in December 2018, October 2019, and May 2020 to ascertain the
presence of structures or other features that may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places. No structures were identified within proposed easement boundaries. SHPO concurrence
for the project has been received and is included in Appendix E (Categorical Exclusion).
7.3 North Carolina Natural Heritage Elements
A query of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database indicates there are no records
for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within
the proposed project boundary. Within a one -mile radius of the Site, NCNHP lists the Eastern creekshell
(Villoso delumbis) and the Waxhaw Creek Aquatic Habitat (Appendix Q.
7.4 FEMA and Hydrologic Trespass
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps 3710540000J, Panel 5400, effective October 16, 2008,
indicates that the lower reaches of the Site are located within a Zone AE flood area. Therefore, a HEC-RAS
analysis will be completed on the existing and proposed conditions of Glen Branch and its tributaries to
assess hydraulic performance. As per North Carolina Floodplain Mapping requirements, a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) may need to be prepared for the Site.
Given the sloping nature of the Site, relatively confined valleys, and the landowner's possession of land
adjacent to and immediately upstream of the project boundary, the risk of hydrologic trespass is relatively
small. The Site's lower reaches will be modeled using a HEC RAS analysis for the CLOMAR, during which
adjustments may be made to reduce hydrologic trespass, if necessary; however, these adjustments are
not expected.
7.5 Utilities
No utilities are located on the Site.
7.6 Air Transport Facilities
No air transport facility is located within 5 miles of the Site; however, a landing field is located
approximately 2 miles southeast of the Site.
8 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
8.1 Stream Design
Onsite streams targeted for restoration have endured significant disturbance from land use activities such
as land clearing, straightening/rerouting of channels, ditching within the floodplain, plowing, row crop
production, and other anthropogenic maintenance. Site streams will be restored to emulate historical
conditions at the Site utilizing parameters from relatively undisturbed reference streams (see Section 4.1
Reference Streams).
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 19
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Primary activities designed to restore Site streams include 1) stream restoration, 2) stream enhancement
(Level 1), 3) stream enhancement (Level 11), 4) wetland re-establishment, 5) wetland rehabilitation, 6)
construction of marsh treatment areas, and 7) vegetation planting (Figure 6, Appendix A).
8.1.1 Stream Restoration
Stream restoration efforts are designed to restore a stable stream that approximates hydrodynamics,
stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. Restoration at the Site will
be Priority I restoration; therefore, bankfull elevations will be raised to meet the adjacent valley floodplain
elevation.
Stream restoration is expected to entail 1) channel excavation, 2) channel stabilization, 3) channel
diversion, and 4) channel backfill.
In -stream Structures
In -stream structures will be used for grade control, habitat, and to elevate local water surface profiles in
the channel, flattening the water energy slope or gradient and directing stream energy into the center of
the channel and away from banks. The structures will consist of log cross -vanes or log j-hook vanes;
however, rock cross -vanes or rock j-hook vanes may be substituted if dictated by field conditions at the
engineer's discretion. In addition, the structures will be placed in relatively straight reaches to provide
secondary (perpendicular) flow cells during bankfull events.
Log or rock cross vanes are expected to be interchangeable, depending upon the availability of materials.
This will largely be a field decision based on the contractor. Given the availability of logs and the expense
of rock, it is expected that logs will be primarily used for vane construction. Log vanes are used extensively
in intermittent channels with success. They are designed to stabilize the stream banks until suitable
vegetation has been established, which will reduce erosion.
Forded Channel Crossing
Landowner constraints will necessitate installing two forded channel crossings within breaks in the
easement to allow access to portions of the property isolated by stream restoration activities Figure 6
(Appendix A). The crossings will be constructed with suitable sized material to allow for stormwater flows
(See Sheet 02D in Appendix M). Materials will include hydraulically stable rip -rap or suitable rock. The
crossings will be large enough to handle anticipated vehicular traffic. Approach grades to the crossings
will be at an approximate 10:1 slope and constructed of hard, scour -resistant crushed rock or other
permeable material, which is free of fines. The two proposed fords are located outside of the conservation
easement, and the landowner will be responsible for the maintenance of all stream crossings.
Marsh Treatment Area
Seven shallow wetland marsh treatment areas will be excavated in the floodplain to intercept surface
waters draining through agricultural areas before discharging into Site tributaries. Marsh treatment areas
are intended to improve the mitigation project and are not generating mitigation credit. The proposed
marsh treatment area locations are depicted in Figure 6 (Appendix A). They will consist of shallow
depressions that will provide treatment and attenuation of initial stormwater pulses (Figure 813, Appendix
A). The outfall will be constructed of hydraulically stable rip -rap or other suitable material to protect
against headcut migration into the constructed depression. It is expected that the treatment area will fill
with sediment and organic matter over time.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 20
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Drop Structure
A drop structure is proposed on Glen Branch at the transition from restoration to the historic channel at
the Site outfall. The drop structure may be constructed out of large cobble depending upon anticipated
scour from the restored stream channels. The structure will be built to resist erosive forces associated
with hydraulic drops proposed at the Site.
8.1.2 Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
Stream enhancement (level 1) will entail stream dimension restoration, installation of habitat and grade
control structures, easement markers, and planting riparian buffers with native forest vegetation to
facilitate stream recovery and prevent further stream degradation.
8.1.3 Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
Stream enhancement (level 11) will entail installing easement markers and planting riparian buffers with
native forest vegetation to facilitate stream recovery and prevent further degradation of the stream.
8.2 Individual Reach Discussions
Mitigation strategies proposed for each reach are presented in Table 16.
Table 16 — Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift
Individual
Mitigation Activities
Functional Uplift Provided for
Reach
Identified Stressors
- Install forded channel crossing upstream of Site easement
boundary.
- Tie into upstream property boundary and elevate the stream
- Non-functioning riparian
bed with grade control/habitat structures and contour the
buffer/wetland vegetation
channel banks to the appropriate dimension.
Move the channel across the floodplain using Priority 1 stream
- Sediment
Glen Branch
restoration on a new location.
- Nutrients
(Upstream)
- Tie to bedrock grade control at a short reach of Enhancement
Fecal Coliform*
(Level 1) and reinitiate restoration measures.
_ Peak Flows
- Add two marsh treatment areas in agriculture swales.
- Limited rm Diversity
- Control discharge from marsh treatment areas by directing
- Absence oof f Large Woody Debris
flow to floodplain interceptors.
- Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
- Tie to upstream restoration measures and continue Priority 1
- Non-functioning riparianbuffer/wetland
stream restoration on a new location.
vegetation
Add four marsh treatment areas.
- Sediment
Glen Branch
Control discharge from marsh treatment areas by directing
- Nutrients
(Downstream)
flow to floodplain interceptors.
- Fecal Coliform
- Tie to downstream elevations with a drop structure.
- Peak Flows
- Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
- Limited Bedform Diversity
- Absence of Large Woody Debris
- Clear undesirable species (invasive species and young pines)
- Non-functioning riparian
and replant with native hardwood forest (credited at a 5:1
buffer/wetland vegetation
UT-1A
ratio).
- Sediment
- Tie into UT 1 at the lower reaches.
- Nutrients
- Fecal Coliform*
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 21
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Table 16 — Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift (Continued)
Individual
Reach
Mitigation Activities
Functional Uplift Provided for
Identified Stressors
In the upper reaches of UT 1, clear undesirable species
(invasive species and young pines) and replant with native
hardwood forest.
- As UT 1 descends toward restoration reaches begin Enhance
(Level I) measures including installing habitat/grade control
Non-functioning riparian
structures, excavate channel to proper dimension, and install
buffer/wetland vegetation
cobble material. Enhancement (Level I) measures will be
- Sediment
credited at a 2.5:1 ratio in this reach.
UT-1
- Restore the lower reaches of the stream through Priority 1
Nutrients
excavation of a channel on a new location.
- Fecal Coliform *
- A short reach will be credited as Enhancement (Level II) and
- Peak Flows
will include planting and bank stabilization.
- Limited Bedform Diversity
- Installation of a forded channel crossing.
- Absence of Large Woody Debris
- Tie into the forded channel crossing and restore the channel
as it ties into Glen Branch.
- Install a marsh treatment area in an agriculture swale.
- Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
- Install a marsh treatment area above the stream origination
Non-functioning riparian
point.
buffer/wetland vegetation
- Plant vegetation along the upper reaches and stabilize stream
- Sediment
banks using Enhancement (Level II) measures.
- Nutrients
UT-2
- In the lower restoration reaches, excavate the channel and tie
- Fecal Coliform
into Glen Branch.
- Peak Flows
- Install grade control/habitat structures.
- Limited Bedform Diversity
- Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
- Absence of Large Woody Debris
*Fecal Coliform has been included in the functional uplift stressor category based on the land application of manure
to row crops.
8.3 Wetland Restoration
Alternatives for wetland re-establishment are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system,
provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, remove imported elements and compounds, and create
a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat.
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soils have been impacted by stream dredging, vegetative clearing,
agriculture plowing, and other land disturbances associated with land use management. Wetland re-
establishment/rehabilitation options will focus on the restoration of vegetative communities, stream
corridors, historic groundwater tables, soil structure, and microtopographic variations. In addition, the
construction of (or provisions for) surface water storage depressions (ephemeral pools) will also add an
essential component to groundwater restoration activities. These activities will result in the re-
establishment/rehabilitation of approximately 7.127 acres of jurisdictional riparian riverine wetlands.
It should be noted that existing wetlands have been avoided to the maximum extent feasible. Wetland
functional uplift has increased wetland acreage at the Site from 2.45 acres (based on the PJD
documentation, including some acreage of existing wetland outside the Site boundary) to 7.127 acres. In
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 22
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

addition, the functional uplift to wetlands within the Site boundaries has been documented in Section 6.0
(Functional Uplift and Project Goals).
8.4 Soil Restoration
Soil grading will occur during stream restoration activities. Topsoils will be stockpiled during construction
activities and spread across the Site's surface once critical subgrade has been established. The replaced
topsoil will serve as a viable growing medium for community restoration to provide nutrients and aid in
the survival of planted species.
8.5 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forest and streamside habitat allows for the development and expansion of
characteristic species across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to
the diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for
mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife. Reference Forest Ecosystem (RIFE) data, onsite
observations, and community descriptions from Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) were used to develop the primary plant community associations
that will be promoted during community restoration activities.
8.5.1 Planting Plan
Streamside trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid growth rate,
and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull flow and overbank flood events.
Streamside trees and shrubs will be planted within 15 feet of the channel top of bank throughout the
meander belt -width. Shrub elements will be planted along the reconstructed stream banks, concentrated
along outer bends. Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest is the target community for Site floodplains,
and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest is the target community for upland side -slopes.
Bare -root seedlings within the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forests will
be planted at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Shrub species in the
streamside assemblage will be planted at a density of 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers.
Table 17 depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation association
(Figure 9, Appendix A). Planting will be performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to
stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring season.
Space purposefully left blank
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 23
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Table 17 — Planting Plan
Vegetation Association
Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest*
Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest*
Stream -side
Assemblage**
TOTAL
Area (acres)
7.2
5.0
3.8
16.0
Species
# planted*
% of total
# planted*
% of total
# planted**
% of total
# planted
River birch (Betula nigra)
245
5
1550
15
1795
Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis)
490
10
--
--
--
490
American elm (Ulmus americana)
245
5
170
5
--
--
415
Red bud (Cercis canadensis)
--
--
510
15
--
--
510
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
245
5
--
2067
20
2312
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
--
--
510
15
--
--
510
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)
490
10
--
517
5
1006
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
245
5
--
517
5
762
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
245
5
170
5
517
5
932
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
245
5
170
5
1550
15
1965
Red mulberry (Morus rubra)
170
5
517
5
687
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
734
15
680
20
--
--
1414
White oak (Quercus alba))
490
10
680
20
1034
10
2203
Red oak (Quercus rubra)
340
10
--
340
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
490
10
1034
10
1523
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
245
5
--
1034
10
1278
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii)
490
10
--
-
--
490
TOTAL
4896
100
3400
100
10336
100
18632
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
8.5.2 Nuisance Species Management
Invasive plant species will be observed and controlled mechanically and/or chemically as part of this
project. No other nuisance species controls are proposed at this time. Inspections for beaver and other
potential nuisance species will occur throughout the monitoring period. Appropriate actions may be taken
to ameliorate any negative impacts regarding vegetation development and/or water management on an
as -needed basis. The presence of nuisance species will be monitored over the course of the monitoring
period. Appropriate actions will be taken to ameliorate any negative impacts regarding vegetation
development and/or water management on an as -needed basis.
9 MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc based on the schedule in Table 18. A summary
of monitoring is outlined in Table 20 (Figure 10, Appendix A). Annual monitoring reports will be submitted
to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 1 of each monitoring year data is collected.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 24
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Table 18 — Monitoring Schedule
Resource
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Streams
x
x
x
x
x
Wetlands
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Vegetation
x
x
x
x
x
Macroinvertebrates
x
x
x
Visual Assessment
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Report Submittal
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
9.1 Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives
identified from onsite NC SAM and NC WAM data collection. From a mitigation perspective, several of the
goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct
measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving success criteria.
Table 19 summarizes Site success criteria.
Table 19 — Success Criteria
Streams
- All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
- A continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
- Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
- BHR at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline condition during
any given monitoring period.
- The stream project shall remain stable, and all other performance standards shall be met through four
separate bankfull events, occurring in individual years, during the monitoring years 1-7.
Wetland Hydrology
- Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 12 percent of the
growing season during average climatic conditions.
Vegetation
- Within planted portions of the Site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum
of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at
year 7.
- Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5 and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
- Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the
Site; natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case basis.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 25
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Table 20 — Monitoring Summary
Stream Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Stream Profile
Full longitudinal survey
As -built (unless otherwise
All restored stream channels
Graphic and tabular data.
required)
Stream Dimension
Cross -sections
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Total of 12 cross -sections on
Graphic and tabular data.
restored channels
Areas of concern will be depicted on a plan
Visual Assessments
Yearly
All restored stream channels
view figure with a written assessment and
Channel Stability
photographs
Additional Cross -sections
Yearly
Only if instability is documented
Graphic and tabular data.
during monitoring
Stream Hydrology
Continuous monitoring of surface water
Continuous recording through
1 surface water gauge on UT1
Surface water data for each monitoring
gauges and/or trail camera
the monitoring period
period
Continuous monitoring of surface water
Continuous recording through
1 surface water gauges on Glen
Surface water data for each monitoring
gauges and/or trail camera
the monitoring period
Branch
period
Bankfull Events
Visual/Physical Evidence
Continuous through the
All restored stream channels
Visual evidence, photo documentation,
monitoring period
and/or rain data.
Preconstruction, Years 3, 5,
2 stations (on Glen Br lower reaches
Results* will be presented on a site -by -site
"Qual 4" method described in Standard
and 7 during the "index
and UT 1 lower reaches); however,
basis and will include a list of taxa collected,
Benthic
Operating Procedures for Collection and
period" referenced in Small
the exact locations will be
an enumeration of Ephemeroptera,
Macroinvertebrates
Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates,
Streams Biocriteria
determined at the time
Plecoptera, and Tricopetera taxa as well as
Version 5.0 (NCDWR 2016)
Development (NCDWQ 2009)
preconstruction benthics are
Biotic Index values.
collected
Wetland Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
Soil temperature at the beginning of each
Wetland Restoration
Groundwater gauges
throughout the year with the
9 gauges spread throughout
monitoring period to verify the start of the
growing season defined as
restored wetlands
growing season, groundwater and rain data
March 1-October 22
for each monitoring period**
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247
acre (100 square meters) in size; CVS-
As -built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
16 plots spread across the Site
Species, height, planted vs. volunteer,
Vegetation establishment
EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
stems/acre
and vigor
Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008)
Annual random vegetation plots,
As -built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Only if poor vegetation grow is
Species and height
0.0247 acre (100 square meters) in size
documented during monitoring
*Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling data will not be tied to success criteria; however, the data may be used as a tool to observe positive gains to in -stream habitat.
**The growing season will not be initiated prior to March 1 based on confirmed soil temperature unless evidence of vegetative indicators such as bud burst is present and
documented by more than two species (excluding red maple and sambucus).
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 26
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

9.2 Contingency
If stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will be implemented.
9.2.1 Stream Contingency
Stream contingency may include, but may not be limited to, 1) structure repair and/or installation; 2)
repair of dimension, pattern, and/or profile variables; and 3) bank stabilization. The contingency method
is expected to be dependent upon stream variables that are not in compliance with success criteria.
Primary concerns, which mayjeopardize stream success, include 1) structure failure, 2) headcut migration
through the Site, and/or 3) bank erosion.
Structure Failure
In the event that structures are compromised, the affected structure will be repaired, maintained, or
replaced. Once the structure is repaired or replaced, it must function to stabilize adjacent stream banks
and/or maintain grade control within the channel. Structures that remain intact but exhibit flow around
(beneath or through the header/footer) will be repaired by excavating a trench on the structure's
upstream side and reinstalling filter fabric in front of the sills. Structures that have been compromised,
resulting in shifting or collapse of a header/footer, will be removed and replaced with a structure suitable
for Site flows.
Headcut Migration Through the Site
In the event that a headcut occurs within the Site (identified visually or through measurements [i.e., bank -
height ratios exceeding 1.4]), provisions for impeding headcut migration and repairing damage caused by
the headcut will be implemented. Headcut migration may be impeded by installing in -stream grade
control structures (rip -rap sill and/or log cross -vane weir) and/or restoring stream geometry variables
until channel stability is achieved. Channel repairs to stream geometry may include channel backfill with
coarse material and stabilizing the material with erosion control matting, vegetative transplants, and/or
willow stakes.
Bank Erosion
In the event that severe bank erosion occurs within the Site, resulting in incision, lateral instability, and/or
elevated width -to -depth ratios locally or systemically, contingency measures to reduce bank erosion and
width -to -depth ratio will be implemented. Bank erosion contingency measures may include the
installation of log -vane weirs and/or other bank stabilization measures. If the resultant bank erosion
induces shoot cutoffs or channel abandonment, a channel may be excavated to reduce shear stress to
stable values.
9.2.2 Wetland Contingency
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies if wetland
hydrology enhancement is not achieved. Floodplain surface modifications, including the construction of
ephemeral pools, represent a likely mechanism to increase the floodplain area in support of jurisdictional
wetlands. Recommendations for a contingency to establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and
monitored until Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved.
9.2.3 Vegetation Contingency
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved, supplemental planting may be performed with tree species
approved by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be completed as needed until the
achievement of vegetation success criteria.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 27
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

9.2.4 Boundary Marking and Site Protection Contingency
Easement corners will be marked with treated wooden posts (minimum 5" diameter, minimum 5' height)
to facilitate installation of signage. The top 12" of each post will be painted with yellow boundary marking
paint. In the event that easement corners are more than 200' apart a post will be added in the gap. If
encroachment is detected during the monitoring period, including scalloping by agricultural equipment,
additional posts will be added as needed in problem areas.
9.3 Compatibility with Project Goals
The following table (See Table 21) outlines the compatibility of Site performance criteria described above
to Site goals and objectives that will be utilized to evaluate if Site goals and objectives are achieved.
10 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
If the mitigation Site or a specific component of the Site fails to achieve the necessary performance
standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the Sponsor shall notify the members of the IRT and work
with the IRT to develop contingency plans for remedial action.
11 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as the conservation
easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the Site
to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by
the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is established. The NCDEQ
Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the non -reverting, interest -bearing
Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account will be
governed by North Carolina General Statute GS 113A-232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund
may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land
transaction costs, if applicable.
Space Purposefully Left Blank
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 28
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Table Z1 — Compatibility of Pertormance Criteria to Project Goals and Ubjectives
Goals Objectives Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
- Construct a new channel at historic floodplain elevation to
restore overbank flows and restore/enhance jurisdictional
Minimize downstream flooding to wetlands BHR not to exceed 1.2
the maximum extent possible. Plant woody riparian buffer Document four overbank events in separate monitoring years
Connect streams to functioning Install marsh treatment areas Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
wetland systems. Remove agricultural row crops Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil Conservation Easement recorded
surface roughness
Protect riparian buffers with a DerDetual conservation easement
- Increase stream stability within
the Site so that channels are
neither aggrading nor degrading.
(1) WATER QUALITY
- Remove direct nutrient and
pollutant inputs from the Site and
reduce contributions to
downstream waters.
(1) HABITAT
- Improve instream and streamside
habitat.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121)
Nesbit Site
Union County, North Carolina
Construct channels with a proper pattern, dimension, and
longitudinal profile
Remove agricultural row crops
Construct stable channels with the appropriate substrate
Upgrade forded crossings
Plant woody riparian buffer
Stabilize stream banks
Remove agricultural row crops and reduce agricultural
land/inputs
Install marsh treatment areas
Plant woody riparian buffer
Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
Provide surface roughness and reduce compaction through deep
ripping/plowing
Restore overbank flooding by constructing channels at historic
floodplain elevation
Construct stable channels with the appropriate substrate
Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
Construct a new channel at historic floodplain elevation to
restore overbank flows
Plant woody riparian buffer
Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
Stabilize stream banks
Install in -stream structures
Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel with the
appropriate substrate
Visual documentation of stable channels and structures
BHR not to exceed 1.2
< 10% change in BHR in any given year
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
Cross-section measurement indicates a stable channel with the
appropriate substrate
Visual documentation of stable channels and in -stream
structures
Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
Conservation Easement recorded
page 29
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2020

12 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an Introduction for Ecologists.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson, J.B.
Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart. 1999.
Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2018a. Final 2016 Category 5
Assessments-303(d) List (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TM DL/303d/2016/2016_NC_Category_5
_303d_list.pdf (December 14, 2018).
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2018b. Draft 2018 North Carolina 303(d)
List (online). Available:
https://fi les.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water% 20Quality/Planning/TM DL/303d/2018/2018-DRAFT-NC-303-
d--ListwCover.pdf (December 14, 2018).
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2013. River Basin Classification Schedule: French
Broad (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water/20Quality/Planning/CSU/Surface/2OWater/River/2OBasin/
20Water% 2OQuality%20CIassifications% 20as% 20of%2ODec% 209% 202013/FrenchBroad_Hydro_
order.pdf (December 14, 2018).
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP 2007). Lower Catawba River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2007 (online). Available:
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation`/`20Services/Watershed — Plan n i ng/Catawba_River_Basi n/R
BRP_2007%20Lower%20CAT_032013%20Final.pdf. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh (December 18, 2018).
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 30
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

North Carolina State University (NC State 2016). NC State University and A&T State University
Cooperative Extension Resources. 2016 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual. Available:
http://content.ces.ncsu.edu/north-carolina-agricultural-chemicals-manual
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs, Colorado
Rosgen, D. 2009. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate (online). Available:
http://www.u-s-c.org/html/documents/Erosion rates.pdf.
Rosgen, D. 2011. Estimating Sediment Loads using the Bank Assessment of Non -point source
Consequences of Sediment (BANCS). Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment
Supply (WARSSS). Hagerstown, Maryland.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee
Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and
Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Publ.167.
Stormwater Manager's Resource Center (SMRC). 2016. The Simple Method to Calculate Urban
Stormwater Loads. Available:
http://www.stormwatercenter. net/monitoring% 20a nd % 20assessment/simple% 20meth/simple.
htm
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Agricultural Waste Management Handbook. Available at
http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/technical/nra/dma/?cid=nresl43_01
4211.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1996. Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina. Soil
Conservation Service.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 31
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2015. Animal Manure Management (NRCS) available at
http://www. n res. usda.gov/wps/po rta l/n res/detail/n hj/technical/c p/cta/?
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2020. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [April 21, 2020].
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal
Species of Concern, and Candidate Species, Union County, North Carolina (online). Available:
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/union.html [June 13, 2019].
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in
Rural Basins of North Carolina — Recompiled. USGS Water -Resources Investigations Report 01-
4207. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) page 32
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

APPENDIX A: Figures
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions and Soils
Figure 5. Uwharrie Reference Reach Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figure 6. Restoration Plan
Figure 7. Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figures 8A-B. Typical Structure Details
Figure 9. Planting Plan
Figures 10. Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

•
N
Axiom Enwronmenial, Inc,
may, Prepared for:
# Parkwood School ,RoadRESTORATION
C rg t:E MWaLfiI gra hi 4rAi
Soci t iMUM 15- d h {'
Project:
Monroe o'
NESBIT SITE
75 { ,,. 1 Union County, NC
A , r
-
Nesbit _ ,{ Title:
f r #. ¢ f Roan , { _ /=
_ k SITE
LOCATION
200
011
200
Drawn by:
Legend KRJ
Cf
Nesbit Easement Date:
NCDOT Roads APR 2020
Scale:
FUSGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Ma Waxhaw and Unitp� Y, NC Quads) 1:20,000
622
Sri
L
67
Copyrjght:@201-3-Natii nal Geogiraphic
'Socitety; Abed
Protect No..
20-007
FIGURE
1

N W Has
-: ou Ain nt ry
ka
I �9 Aicr4eli ills _
� ff
Y C 411LO:TE;t.Ju '
1 I
4b S
ats 5
rHowling C�ilen —'- 5
�M1 ' 274
55'OW.# Y
2dd
�� rtvuell ff �
f�
Locus#
4
f
field
fMInt Hill _ -
a0 1 ^, x
ZVI
.. F
�indian bail
Foil Mill ,.
Y49�4 ROCK COOWMIFT
I k
Axiom En-miumnial, Inc,
Prepared for:
G
Project:
NESBIT SITE
Union County, NC
Title:
HYDROLOGIC
UNIT MAP
$Ts smn3ie
- - --- -
4 { -w
r L '
274 Drawn by:
KRJ
J Date:
:lack Flili wahhavv ' ! APR 2020
121 g t
Legend
r �
Nesbit Easement
USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050103 C�4w#a' Vyn wyck
14 Digit Hydrologic Unit Boundaries
Targeted Local Watersheds Y I�"
0 2.5 5 10 15
Miles
# _ Scale:
1:240,000
# Project No.:
V. 20-007
Location of Nesbit Mitigation FIGURE
Site within USGS Hydrologic
_ Unit and Targeted Local
Watershed 03050103030030 rf'
r
� Copyright:(c) 2018 Garmin

, � i4 '4 � • F*,
Legend r
+� Q Nesbit Easement
Glen Branch Drainage Area = 1.25 sq mi (798.8 ac)
y` 4 UT-1 Drainage Area = 0.28 sq mi (176.2 ac)
0
} —
'� UT-2 Drainage - 0.07 s mi 45.6 ac
1 9 q ( )
Axiom Enwrorumniall inc.
Prepared for:
1RESTORATION
*'
V, Project:
• NESBIT SITE
Union County, NC
•`� Title:
db
- ' TOPOGRAPHY
'�Xl
AND
DRAINAGE AREA
u
Drawn by:
KRJ
- I Date:
APR 2020
Scale:
r1_ ` 1:13,000
5
_ Project No.:
20-00�
N - ,� �r�
to
.�.r FIGURE
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000
Feet-
*_ N GIA copyrig t:© 2013 National Ge'ogra6h S ciety, i-cubed
i11�.

50
25
00 50
Referenr_e Pattern
Lp-p = 52 (37 - 64) It
Lm = 86 (60 - 97) ft
Wbelt = 28 (24 - 33) ft
Rc=21 (12-28)ft
Lp-pfWbkf = 4.2 (3.0 - 5.3)
Lm/Wbkf = 7.1 (5.0 - &0)
Wbelt/Wbkf = 2.3 (2.0 - 2.7)
Rc/Wbkf = 1.7 (1.0 - 2.3)
SIN = 1.14
104
1❑3
'82
7-
IN
99
SB
97
95
Iwharri Reference Reach
Ba kf it
"S
21
•x
100 150 200
Pattern Legend 106
Tap of Bank
105
- - Thalweg
Crass Section 104
103
102
101
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Cross Section 1 - Ri#fle 1os
IopoeAe
Abkf = 12.0 ft
Dave = 1.1 ft
Wbkf = 11.2 ft
Dmax = 1.6 ft Balk ul
Bank Height = 1,6 ft
Bank Height Ratio = 1.0 Ice
W!D = 10.6
w FPA = 50
ENT = 4.4 10s wwo
Stream Type = E
102 1 1 ----ill I 14i III --III
a 1 10 15 20 25 30 35
❑ 57 - 37 - I M _-D 307 357 457 450
Profile [Reference Reach
Cross Section 2 - Pool
Abkf = 16.9 ft
Wbkf = 13,3 ft
Dmax = 2.0 ft
Cross Section 3 - Pool
Abkf = 15.4 ft
Wbkf = 12.0 ft
Dmax = 2.2 ft
Cross Section 4 - Riffle
Abkf = 16.3 ft
Dave =1.3ft
Wbkf = 13.0 ft
Dmax = 1.7 ft
Bank Height = 1.7 ft
Bank Height Ratio = 1,0
W!D = 10A
FPA = 50
ENT = 3.8
Stream Type = E
Save = 0.0168 rise/run
Svalley = 0.0192 rise/run
Sriffle = 0.0283 (0.0096 - 0.0846) riselrun
Spool = 0,0013 (0 - 0.0082) rise/run
Srun = 0 (0 - 0.0091) rise/run
Sglide = 0.0027 (0 - 0.0102) rise/run
Water Surface
Channel Bed
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Nesbit
Mitigation Site
Union County
North Carolina
Title:
Uwharn
Reference Reach
Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile
Scale: NA FIGURE NO.
Date: 5
March 2020
Project No.:
20-007

LEGEND
Easement Boundary = -18-0 ac
5 ft Major Topography Line
1 ft Minor Topography Line
— —
Stream Restoration = 4801 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) = 316 It
Stream Enhancement (Level Il) = 541 ft
Wetland Reestablishment = 5.338 ac
~M�_
Wetland Rehabilitation = 1-789 ac
oft
Forded Crossing
q
Marsh Treatment Area
l
Drop Structure
i
Floodplain Intercepter
C
Log Cross Vane
Log Vane
Glen Branch (Reach 1 ) = 1275 ft
Restoration
Mitigation Activities
Install forded channel crossing in upper reaches.
Initiate stream restoration by bringing the channel
up to the historic floodplain elevation.
Install habitat/grade control structures.
Contour the design channel to the proper dimension.
Backfill the historic channel.
Add a marsh treatment area in agriculture swale.
Plant with native forest vegetation -
Glen Branch (Reach 2) = 63 ft
Enhancement (Level 1)
Mitigation Activities
Tie the channel into the bedrock outcrop -
Install habitat/grade control structures.
Contour the design channel to the proper dimension.
Plant with native forest vegetation.
LIT 2 (Reach 1) = 112 ft
Enhancement (Level 11)
Mitigation Activities
- Install a marsh treatement area at the initiation point
of the stream.
- Plant with native forest vegetation.
UT 2 (Reach 2) = 197 ft
Restoration
Mitigation Activities
Tie into upstream Enhancement reach elevations
and begin shallowing the channel to historic floodplain
elevation.
Install habitatlgrade control structures.
Contour the design channel to the proper dimension.
Backfill the historic channel.
Tie to Glen Branch across and inner meander bend.
W Plant with native forest vegetation.
Glen Branch (Reach 3) = 2777 It
Restoration
Mitigation Activities
- Tie to bedrosck grade control at the upper ends of the reach.
- Continue Priority 1 stream restoration at the historic floodplain elevation.
- Install habitat/grade control structures.
- Add 4 marsh treatmet areas in agriculture swales.
- Backfill the historic channel.
- Tie to the historic channel elevation at the Site outfall with a drop structure.
Plant with native forest vegetation.
j
UT 1 (Reach 1 ) = 253 ft
Enhancement (Level 1)'
Mitigation Activities
- Tie to upstream elevation at property boundary.
- Step channel up to the historic floodplain
prior to downstream restoration reaches.
- Install habitatigrade control structures.
- Contour design channel to the proper dimension.
- Plant with native forest vegetation.
" Note: This reach is credited at a 2.5:1 ratio.
UT 1 (Reach 2) = 382 ft
Restoration
M ligation Activities
Install habitat/grade control structures.
Contour design channel to the proper dimension.
Backfill the historic channel.
Add a marsh treatment area.
Plant with native forest vegetation.
j
UT1A=314ft
Enhancement (Level Il)"
Mitigation Activities
- Plant with native forest vegetation.
"Note: This reach is credited at a 5:1 ratio.
UT 1 (Reach 3) = 115 ft
Enhancement (Level II)
Mitigation Activities
- Install a forded channel crossing.
Plant with native forest vegetation.
(Reach 4) = 170 ft
gyration
Mitigation Activities
Tie to the upstream channel crossing.
Excavate a channel at the historic floodplam elevation
Install habitat/grade control structures -
Tie to Glen Branch across an inner meander bend.
Plant with native forest vegetation.
9L �.
r
0 200 400
SCALE IN FEET
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Nesbit Site
Union County
North Carolina
Title:
RESTORATION
PLAN
Scale: FIGURE NO.
AS SHOWN
Date: 6
May 2020
Project No-:
20-007

FOOL -I O-FOOL SPACING 0.)
(VARIES - SEE NOTE 1)
TYPICAL CHANNEL PROFILE
NOTES:
1. POOL -TO -POOL SPACING IS MEASURED FROM
CENTER OF POOL BEND TO CENTER OF POOL BEND.
TAIL OF
RIFFLE
DESIGN
CHANN
POOLLENGTH
TYPICAL CHANNEL PLAN VIEW
CHANNEL PLAN VIEW NOTES:
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT THE CHANNEL ALIGNMENT BY LOCATING
THE RADII AND SCRIBING THE CENTER LINE FOR EACH POOL BEND. THE
CONNECTING TANGENT SECTIONS SHALL COMPLETE THE LAYOUT OF THE CHANNEL.
2. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF THE ALIGNMENT MAY BE REQUIRED TO SAVE TREES
OR AVOID OBSTACLES. THE STAKE -OUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNEL.
3. GPS EQUIPMENT ACCEPTABLE FOR USE TO PERFORM CHANNEL ALIGNMENT LAYOUT.
15' MIN.
VALLEY
SIDE SLOPE
ll III 3
- Im Im - 1
2:1
BANKSLOPE
EXTEND STONE
BED MATERIAL UP
CHANNELBANK
TO 1 /3 D riffs
W hkf
COIR FIBER
EROSION
CONTROL MATTING
Rip Rap' and
E Coh61e S[art, a
W
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION
LIVE WILLOW
STAKES
PROPOSED
FLOODPLAIN
COIR FIBER
EROSION LIVE WILLOW
CONTROL MATTING STAKES
SEE NOTE PROPOSED
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN
FLOODPLAIN 11. W
MAX. 1:1 SLOPE
TYPICAL POOL CROSS-SECTION
CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
1. MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE
USED TO BACKFILL EXISTING CHANNEL.
2. BANK PROTECTION SHALL CONSIST OF NATURAL COIR FIBER MATTING.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY BED MATERIAL FOR THE ENTIRE BED
LENGTH OF EACH RIFFLE SECTION. THE BED MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF
A MIX OF RIP RAP` AND SMALLER STONE.
��\11111 11j/
\ C
��I 1111111
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
* Riffle Rip Rap
REACH
RIP RAP
CLASS
GLEN (upstream and downstream)
B
UT 1
A
UT 2
A
CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS
REACH
Wbkf ft.
Wbot (ft.)
Driff (ft.)
Dthal (ft.)
Dpool (ft.)
Wpool (ft.)
Wthal (ft.)
Glen Br Upstream (0+00 to 16+55)
15.3
9.7
1.3
0.1
1.9
18.3
6.9
Glen Br Downstream (16+55 to 41+92)
18.0
11.2
1.6
0.1
2.2
21.6
8.4
UT
10.8
6.8
0.9
0.1
1.3
13.0
5.2
UT 2
6.7
4.3
0.5
0.1
0.8
8.0
3.2
d o'o
O - w
z �m�
aw
U:) �¢ w
W
0
W
z • `'�
� .
CIS
U
Z '^
F J
m Z a
in o U
w C.) a
Z Z F-
PROJECT +�
DRAWING NAME:
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c1
z
c1
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
02
O

LOG CROSS VANE
SCALE:NTS
PLAN VIEW
FLOW \
#57 STONE AND ¢ ¢ \
CLASS W RIP RAP/ NOTES: A A
FILTER FABRIC CHANNEL
NATIVE CHANNEL A 1. HEADER AND FOOTER LOGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 18" \ \ BANK
MATERIAL O o 00 O o o —LOG SILL KEYED IN DIAMETER AND SHALL BE A HARDWOOD SPECIES. \
4FT FROM BANKFULL (FOOTER LOG MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH PINE) \
--- (BOTH SIDES) 2, A DOUBLE FOOTER LOG MAY BE REQUIRED IN SAND BED \
STREAMS.
FILTER FABRIC 3. ALL STONES ARE TO BE STRUCTURE STONES. A \ A
/ 4. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE
/ \ HEADER LOG OF THE STRUCTURE TO PREVENT WASHOUT OF SEDIMENT
THROUGH LOG GAPS. FILTER FABRIC SHALL EXTEND CHANNEL
FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTER TO THE FINISHED GRADE BANK
ELEVATION AND SHALL BE PLACED THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE
40B
o FOOTER STRUCTURE.
5. PERPENDICULAR ROOTWAD LOGS ARE REQUIRED IF THE LOG
LOG = B VANE ARM DOES NOT HAVE A FOOTBALL TO TIE INTO THE BANK. LARGE
STONE
PLO\2
LOG VANE
FILTER
HEADER LOG _ � FABRIC
SCOUR \\
A COIF LOG— TOP OF BANK HOLE / / / LARGE
CLASS W RIP RAP I FLOW (BANKFULL) / / / ) STONE
NATIVE CHANNEL
MATERIAL
#57 STONE /NATIVE_ SCOUR ( / // ,\ V /
EXISTING TOP OF BANK EXISTING CHANNEL MATERIAL =TV=�jA POOL
GROUND HEADER LOG (BANKFULL) _;GROUND /V_'�
V_/A_/_ A/
O COIR LOG o STREAMBED
m
BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED POOL FILTER FABRIC ELEVATION Footer Lo 9
WITH #57 STONE AND T -�
CLASS W RIP RAP I NATIVE G FOOTER LOG NOTE:
CHANNEL MATERIAL PLAN VIEW
FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
STREAMBED FILTER FABRIC SECTION A -A ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
PRIOR TO BAC KFILL. SCALE: N.T.S.
ELEVATION FOOTER LOG
REACH
ARM LENGTH (FT.)
CHANNEL DEPTH (FT.)
Glen Br Upstream
(0+00 to 16+55)
14
1.3 - 1.8
Glen Br Downstream
(16+55 to 41+92)
17
1.5 - 2.1
UT 1
10
0.9 - 1.3
UT
6
0.6-0.8
NOTE:
HEADER AND FOOTER STONES ARE LARGE, ANGULAR BOULDERS
MEASURING A MINIMUM OF 24" ALONG THE SHORTEST DIMENSION.
5 EXIST. 5
CHANNEL
i
\ HEADER /
CHANNEL CHANNEL STONE i
BANK BANK O� = 03
— FILTER
FABRIC 00 J)
AA3U2
A
FOOTER
ELEVATION A -A STONE
0'
ARM LENGTH
EADER STONE
0.5' HEADER STONE BACK FILL
5. �� TO GRADE
CHANNEL
MAXSLOPE 7% DEPTH FLOW
®+ _ © EXIST.
GROUND
a
�2 1�2
ROCK FILL FOOTER STONE
J FILTER FABRIC
(#57 STONE)
PLAN VIED/ WHERE NEEDED PROFILE B-B
TYPICAL CROSS -VANE
LARGE
TOP OF BANK
CROSS-SECTION A -A
SCALE: N.T.S.
LARGE
TOP OF BANK STONE
BANKFULL
----------N — — 10-15`// -- ——
FLOW
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
/ /H EAD ERER LOG
Footer Log
FILTER
FABRIC
NOTE:
FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
PROFILE B-B ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
SCALE: N.T.S. PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
TYPICAL LOG VANE
LL\11111 ///LFT
\ C
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
OF
d o'er
=o
O - w
z �m�
aw
U3 ¢ w
W
0
W
z • `'�
� .
CIS
PROJECT +�
Q
DRAWING NAME:
2
c�
z DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
z
c�
u
Q
2
C SHEET NO.
02A
0

WATER SURFACE SECTION A -A
ELEVATION
LOG SILL — — — — 4" DROP MAX. 18" LOG CROSS VANE
(SEE LOG CROSS VANE DETAIL)
Q
O -
o
a0O oaOO O O Oo ---_
0 00 0 0 0
a00
Varies (see table) O
DROP STRUCTURE
457 STONE AND
CLASS'A' RIP R,
NATIVE CHANNI
MATERIAL
CLASS T R
18" CLASS 'I' RIP RAP
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC —
TYPE2 DROP STRUCTURE ENLARGEMENT
HEADER LOG
COIR LOG TOP OF BANK
CLASS'A' �
RIP RAP I FLOW (BANKFULL)
\
NATIVE CHANNEL
MATERIAL
STRUCTURE NOTES:
#57 STONE / NATIVE O SCOUR
CHANNEL MATERIAL � POOL 4"DROP MAX.
1. FILL CLASS'1' RIP RAP VOIDS WITH CLASS'A' O QOO g�0 O O(D
RIP RAP/ #57 STONE/ NATIVE CHANNEL MATERIAL MIXTURE. v _
FILTER O 2O
FABRIC
OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC STREAMBED
FOOTER LOG ELEVATION
CLASS T RIP RAP
Wetland
PROFILE
SECTION A -A
Side Slope at 8 to 1
Stormwater
Wetland
RIP RAP OUTLET
MARSH TREATMENT AREA
PLAN VIEW
Wbkf = SEE TABLE
P
Exislin Grade — — — —
� / 1
� � I
SILL KEYED IN
FROM BANKFULL
rH SIDES)
3RIC
OG
��111111 11j� Q
= o
c) _
OOi r = CD S2 W
CO aw.LL
W �� w
Lu
0 M
� .
CII)
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED —
xa ¢
CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS
REACH
Wbkf ft.
Distance
between Drops
GLEN
18.0
20'
UT 1
10.8
10'
UT 2
6.7
10'
DITCH OR
PPE INLET
— -- — — — — — — — — —
ROR ROR Rr�°
RIP RAP
BASIN
U
Z
'z PROJECT +�
a
z
DRAWING NAME:
c1
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
F JRH
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
z
c1
u
0
z SHEET NO.
02B
O

Vegetation Association
PiedniontlMount is
Suttoml:tnd Forest*
Dry-MesieOak-
Hickory Forest"`
Stream -side
ASS emhlapr'
AL
TOTAL
Area (acres)
7.2
5
3.8
16
Species
# planted*
% of total
# planted*
% of total
# planted**
% of tot:d
# planted
ltiver birch (Betrrla rrigr a)
245
--
1550
15
1795
Biiterimi hickory (Carta cardiformis)
490
1 (1
--
490
Americati elm (Clhnrrs arnericana }
245
5
170
5
415
Red bud (Cer•cis canadensis)
-
510
15
--
510
Silky dogwood (Caroms amoinum }
245
--
2067
2{1
2312
Persimmon (Diospyras virginiana }
] (1
]
510
Ilac kberry (Celtis occiclenlalis )
490
] I1
517
5
1006
Green ash ffraximrs pennsvlvanica)
245
517
z;
762
TJip poplar (Liriodendrorr Irrlipifera)
245
170
5
517
932
Sycamore (Plaranns occidenlalis }
245
170
] 551]
1
1965
Red mulberry (Morns rrrbra)
170
1
687
Water oak (OrercrrrWgra}
734
]
680
20
1414
White oak (Qrrercrrs alba ))
490
11 ]
680
20
] { 0, 4
pi I
2203
Red oak (Querctrs rrrbra)
340
10
340
Blackgum(Nvssasylvarica}
490
10
--
1034
10
)523
Willow oak (Quercvs phellos)
245
5
1034
10
1278
Shumard oak (C)nercrrs shumeirdil)
490
10
--
490
TOTAL.
4896
1 100
1 34110
100
10336
100
18632
" Planted at a density of 680 stems: acre.
* Planted at it density of 2720 stemslacre.
A
LEGEND
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project
rr!
V �L
N. #" '
Easement Boundary = -18 ac
Streamside Assemblage
Piedmont/Low Mountain Bottomland Forest
Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest
Nesbit Site
Union County
North Carolina
Title'
PLANTING
PLAN
Scale: FIGURE NO.
AS SHOWN
Date:
May 2020
0 200 400 project Ala.:
20-007
SCALE IN FEET

LEGEND
Easement Boundary = -18.0 ac
— -
5 It Major Contour
1 ft Minor Contour
Stream Restoration = 4801 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) = 316 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 11) = 541 ft
Wetland Reestablishment = 5.338 ac
-
Wetland Rehabilitation = 1.789 ac
Permanent Monumented Cross Section
Vegetation Plot
Groundwater Gauge
Flow Gauge
Q
Crest Gauge
Q
Rain GaugelSoil Temperature Probe
r
AW
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
--�
0A ►wrr
y iA
ilk
Title:
A.
" MONITORING
PLAN
►;
01
0 200 400
SCALE IN FEET
Scale.-
FIGURE NO.
AS SHOWN
Date:
May 2020
1 I
0
Project No_
20-007

Appendix B: Existing Stream & Wetland Data
Table B1. Nesbit Morphological Stream Characteristics
Existing Stream Cross-section Data
NC SAM Forms
NC WAM Forms
NCDWQ Stream Forms
BEHI/NBS Data
Soil Boring Log
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Table 131. Nesbit Site Morphological Stream Characteristics
Variables
REFERENCE - UWHARRIE
Stream Type
E 4
Drainage Area (mil)
0.60
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
57.6
Dimension Variables
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (Abkf)
14.2
Existing Cross -Sectional Area (Aex;st;n9)
14.2
Bankfull Width (°bkf)
Mean:
12.1
Range:
11.2 - 13.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf)
Mean:
1.2
Range:
1.1 -1.3
Mean:
1.7
Bankfull Maximum Depth (Dmex)
Range:
1.6 - 1.7
Pool Width (°pool)
Mean:
12.7
Range:
12.0 - 13.3
Maximum Pool Depth (Dpool)
Mean:
2.1
Range:
2.0-2.2
Mean:
50
Width of Floodprone Area (Wfpa)
Range:
Dimension Ratios
Entrenchment Ratio (V
\° ° fpa/Wbkf)
Mean:
4.2
Range:
3.8 - 4.5
Width / Depth Ratio (Wbkf/Dbkf)
Mean:
10.1
Range:
10.0 - 10.2
Max. Dbkf/ Dbkf Ratio
Mean:
1.4
Range:
1.3 - 1.5
Low Bank Height / Max. Dbkf Ratio
Mean:
1.0
Range:
Maximum Pool Depth / Bankfull
Mean:
1.8
Mean Depth (Dpool/Dbkf)
Range:
1.7 - 1.8
Pool Width/ Bankfull
Mean:
1.0
Width (Wpool/Wbkf)
Range:
1.0 - 1.1
Pool Area / Bankfull
Mean:
1.1
Cross Sectional Area
Range:
1.1 -1.2
Variables
REFERENCE - UWHARRIE
Pattern Variables
Pool to Pool Spacing (Lp_p)
Med:
Range:
51.2
36.7 - 64.3
Meander Length (Lm)
Med:
Range:
85.9
60.2 - 97.1
Belt Width (Wbelt)
Med:
Range:
27.8
24.0 - 32.6
Radius of Curvature (R.)
Med:
Range:
20.5
11.9 - 27.7
Sinuosity (Sin)
1
1.14
Pattern Ratios
Pool to Pool Spacing/
Med:
4.2
Bankfull Width (Lp_p/Wbkf)
Range:
3.0 - 5.3
Meander Length/
Med:
7.1
Bankfull Width (LmMbkf)
Range:
5.0 - 8.0
Meander Width Ratio
Med:
2.3
( ° beltMbkf)
Range:
2.0 - 2.7
Radius of Curvature/
Med:
1.7
Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf)
Range:
1.0 - 2.3
Profile Variables
Average Water Surface Slope (Sage)
0.0168
Valley Slope (Salley)
0.0192
Riffle Slope (Sr;ffie)
Mean:
0.0283
Range:
0.0096 - 0.0846
Pool Slope (Spool)
Mean:
0.0013
Range:
0 - 0.0082
Run Slope (Sinn)
Mean:
0.0000
Range:
0 - 0.0091
Glide Slope (Sgl;de)
Mean:
0.0027
Range:
0 - 0.0102
Profile Ratios
Riffle Slope/ Water Surface
Mean:
1.7
Slope (Sr;ffie/Sage)
Range:
0.6 - 5.0
Pool Slope/Water Surface
Mean:
0.1
Slope (Spool/Sage)
Range:
0 - 0.49
Run Slope/Water Surface
Mean:
0.00
Slope (Srnn/Sage)
Range:
0 - .55
Glide Slope/Water Surface
Mean:
0.16
Slope (Sgl;de/Sage)
Range:
0 - 0.61
Existing (Glen Branch
Proposed (Glen Branch
Existing (Glen Branch
Proposed (Glen Branch
Upstream)
Upstream)
Downstream)
Downstream)
Cg 4
Ce 3/4
Eg 4
Ce 3/4
0.77
0.77
1.25
1.25
68.7
68.7
97.3
97.3
Dimension Variables
16.7
16.7
23.2
23.2
16.7-67.8
16.7
34.8-59.5
23.2
Mean: 15.1
Mean:
15.3
Mean: 15.7
Mean:
18.0
Range: 11.0 to 26.0
Range:
14.2
to
16.3
Range: 11.2 to 18.2
Range:
16.7
to
19.3
Mean: 1.1
Mean:
1.1
Mean: 1.5
Mean:
1.3
Range: 0.6 to 1.5
Range:
1.0
to
1.2
Range: 1.3 to 2.1
Range:
1.2
to
1.4
Mean: 2.0
Mean:
1.4
Mean: 2.4
Mean:
1.7
Range: 1.3 to 2.2
Range:
1.3
to
1.8
Range: 1.6 to 2.8
Range:
1.5
to
2.1
Mean:
18.3
Mean:
21.6
No distinct repetitive pattern of
Range:
15.3
to
21.4
No distinct repetitive pattern of
Range:
18.0
to
25.2
riffles and pools due to
riffles and pools due to
Mean:
1.9
Mean:
2.2
staightening activities
staightening activities
Range:
1.6
to
2.2
Range:
1.9
to
2.6
Mean: 50
Mean:
75
Mean: 100
Mean:
100
Range: 16 to 100
Range:
50
to
100
Range: 25 to 100
Range:
50
to
150
Dimension Ratios
Mean: 2.8
Mean:
4.9
Mean: 5.9
Mean:
5.5
Range: 1.4 to 6.5
Range:
3.5
to
6.1
Range: 1.4 to 8.9
Range:
3.0
to
7.8
Mean: 13.7
Mean:
14.0
Mean: 10.5
Mean:
14.0
Range: 7.3 to 43.3
Range:
12.0
to
16.0
Range: 5.3 to 14.0
Range:
12.0
to
16.0
Mean: 1.5
Mean:
1.3
Mean: 1.3
Mean:
1.3
Range: 1.4 to 2.2
Range:
1.2
to
1.5
Range: 1.2 to 1.7
Range:
1.2
to
1.5
Mean: 1.8
Mean:
1.0
Mean: 1.7
Mean:
1.0
Range: 1.0 to 2.2
Range:
1.0
to
1.3
Range: 1.3 to 2.1
Range:
1.0
to
1.3
Mean:
1.7
Mean:
1.7
Range:
1.5
to
2.0
Range:
1.5
to
2.0
No distinct repetitive pattern of
No distinct repetitive pattern of
Mean: 1.2
Mean:
1.2
riffles and pools due to
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Range:
1.0
to
1.4
staightening activities
Range:
1.0
to
1.4
Mean:
1.2
Mean:
1.2
Range:
1.0
to
1.4
Range:
1.0
to
1.4
Existing (Glen Branch
Proposed (Glen Branch
Existing (Glen Branch
Proposed (Glen Branch
Upstream)
Upstream)
Downstream)
Downstream)
Pattern Variables
Med:
61.2
Med:
72.1
Range:
45.9 to 91.7
Range:
54.1 to 144.2
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
Med: 130.0
Range: 91.7 to 152.9
Med:
Range:
153.2
108.1 to 216.3
Med:
30.6
Med:
36.0
staightening activities
staightening activities
Range:
22.9 to 45.9
Range:
27.0 to 54.1
Med:
45.9
Med:
54.1
Range:
30.6 to 76.5
1
lRange:
36.0 to 90.1
1.03
1
1.15
1 1.03
1
1.15
Pattern Ratios
Med: 4.0
Med: 4.0
Range: 3.0 to 6.0
Range: 3.0 to 8.0
Med: 8.5
Med: 8.5
No distinct repetitive pattern of
Range: 6.0 to 10.0
No distinct repetitive pattern of
Range: 6.0 to 12.0
riffles and pools due to
riffles and pools due to
Med: 2.0
Med: 2.0
staightening activities
staightening activities
Range: 1.5 to 3.0
Range: 1.5 to 3.0
Med: 3.0
Med: 3.0
Range: 2.0 to 5.0
1
lRange: 2.0 to 5.0
Profile Variables
0.0075
0.0067
0.0047
0.0042
0.0077
0.0077
0.0048
0.0048
Mean:
0.0107
Mean:
0.0067
Range:
0.0080 to
0.0121
Range:
0.0050 to 0.0075
Mean:
0.0007
Mean:
0.0004
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to channel
incision
Range:
0.0000 to
0.0047
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to channel
incision
Range:
Mean:
Range:
0.0000 to 0.0029
0.0017
0.0000 to 0.0033
Mean: 0.0027
Range: 0.0000 to 0.0054
Mean:
0.0007
Mean:
0.0005
Range:
0.0000 to
0.0054
Range:
0.0000 to 0.0033
Profile Ratios
Mean:
1.60
Mean:
1.60
Range:
1.2
to
1.8
Range:
1.2
to
1.8
Mean:
0.10
Mean:
0.10
No distinct repetitive pattern of
Range:
0.0
to
0.7
No distinct repetitive pattern of
Range:
0.0
to
0.7
riffles and pools due to channel
riffles and pools due to channel
Mean:
0.40
incision
incision
Mean:
0.40
Range:
0.0
to
0.8
Range:
0.0
to
0.8
Mean:
0.11
Mean:
0.11
Range:
0.0
to
0.8
1
lRange:
0.0
to
0.8

Table 131 continuted. Nesbit Site Morphological Stream Characteristics
Variables
REFERENCE - UWHARRIE
Stream Type
E 4
Drainage Area (mil)
0.60
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
57.6
Dimension Variables
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (Abkf)
14.2
Existing Cross -Sectional Area (Aex;st;n9)
14.2
Bankfull Width (°bkf)
Mean:
12.1
Range:
11.2 - 13.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf)
Mean:
1.2
Range:
1.1 -1.3
Mean:
1.7
Bankfull Maximum Depth (Dmex)
Range:
1.6 - 1.7
Pool Width (°pool)
Mean:
12.7
Range:
12.0 - 13.3
Maximum Pool Depth (Dpool)
Mean:
2.1
Range:
2.0 - 2.2
Mean:
50
Width of Floodprone Area (Wfpa)
Range:
Dimension Ratios
Entrenchment Ratio (V
\° ° fpa/Wbkf)
Mean:
4.2
Range:
3.8 - 4.5
Width / Depth Ratio (Wbkf/Dbkf)
Mean:
10.1
Range:
10.0 - 10.2
Max. Dbkf/ Dbkf Ratio
Mean:
1.4
Range:
1.3 - 1.5
Low Bank Height / Max. Dbkf Ratio
Mean:
1.0
Range:
Maximum Pool Depth / Bankfull
Mean:
1.8
Mean Depth (Dpool/Dbkf)
Range:
1.7 - 1.8
Pool Width/ Bankfull
Mean:
1.0
Width (Wpool bkf)
Range:
1.0 - 1.1
Pool Area / Bankfull
Mean:
1.1
Cross Sectional Area
Range:
1.1 -1.2
Variables
REFERENCE - UWHARRIE
Pattern Variables
Pool to Pool Spacing (Lp_p)
Med:
Range:
51.2
36.7 - 64.3
Meander Length (Lm)
Med:
Range:
85.9
60.2 - 97.1
Belt Width (Wbelt)
Med:
Range:
27.8
24.0 - 32.6
Radius of Curvature (R.)
Med:
Range:
20.5
11.9 - 27.7
Sinuosity (Sin)
1
1.14
Pattern Ratios
Pool to Pool Spacing/
Med:
4.2
Bankfull Width (Lp_p/Wbkf)
Range:
3.0 - 5.3
Meander Length/
Med:
7.1
Bankfull Width (LmMbkf)
Range:
5.0-8.0
Meander Width Ratio
Med:
2.3
( ° beltMbkf)
Range:
2.0 - 2.7
Radius of Curvature/
Med:
1.7
Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf)
Range:
1.0 - 2.3
Profile Variables
Average Water Surface Slope (Sage)
0.0168
Valley Slope (Salley)
0.0192
Riffle Slope (Sr;ffie)
Mean:
0.0283
Range:
0.0096 - 0.0846
Pool Slope (Spool)
Mean:
0.0013
Range:
0 - 0.0082
Run Slope (Sinn)
Mean:
0.0000
Range:
0 - 0.0091
Glide Slope (Sgl;de)
Mean:
0.0027
Range:
0-0.0102
Profile Ratios
Riffle Slope/ Water Surface
Mean:
1.7
Slope (Sr;ffie/Sage)
Range:
0.6-5.0
Pool Slope/Water Surface
Mean:
0.1
Slope (Spool/Sage)
Range:
0 - 0.49
Run Slope/Water Surface
Mean:
0.00
Slope (Srun/Sage)
Range:
0 - .55
Glide Slope/Water Surface
Mean:
0.16
Slope (Sgl;de/Sage)
Range:
0 - 0.61
Existing (UT 1)
Proposed (UT 1)
Existing (UT 2)
Proposed (UT 2)
Eg 4
Ce 3/4
Eg 6
Ce 3/4
0.28
0.28
0.07
0.07
32.9
32.9
11.8
11.8
Dimension Variables
8.4
8.4
3.2
3.2
12.8-29.9
8.4
5.1-14.5
3.2
Mean: 8.7
Range: 7.1 to 9.5
Mean:
Range:
10.0
10.8
to
11.6
Mean: 4.7
Range: 3.4 to 7.9
Mean:
Range:
6.2
6.7
to
7.2
Mean: 1.0
Range: 0.9 to 1.2
Mean:
Range:
0.7
0.8
to
0.8
Mean: 0.7
Range: 0.4 to 0.9
Mean:
Range:
0.4
0.5
to
0.5
Mean: 1.4
Range: 1.2 to 1.6
Mean:
Range:
0.9
1.0
to
1.3
Mean: 1.1
Range: 0.6 to 1.5
Mean:
Range:
0.6
0.6
to
0.8
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Mean:
Range:
10.8
13.0
to
15.2
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Mean:
Range:
6.7
8.0
to
9.4
Mean: 1.3
Range: 1.2 to 1.5
Mean: 0.8
Range: 0.7 to
1.0
Mean: 29
Range: 20.0 to 50
Mean:
Range:
50
75
to
100
Mean: 30
Range: 7 to 50
Mean:
Range:
25
50
to
75
Dimension Ratios
Mean: 3.2
Range: 2.5 to 7.0
Mean:
Range:
5.0
6.9
to
8.6
Mean: 3.8
Range: 1.5 to 14.7
Mean:
Range:
4.0
7.5
to
10.5
Mean: 8.7
Range: 5.9 to 10.6
Mean:
Range:
12.0
14.0
to
16.0
Mean: 6.7
Range: 3.8 to 19.8
Mean:
Range:
12.0
14.0
to
16.0
Mean: 1.4
Range: 1.2 to 1.8
Mean:
Range:
1.2
1.3
to
1.5
Mean: 1.6
Range: 1.5 to 1.7
Mean:
Range:
1.2
1.3
to
1.5
Mean: 1.7
Range: 1.4 to 1.8
Mean:
Range:
1.0
1.0
to
1.3
Mean: 2.5
Range: 1.6 to 8.7
Mean:
Range:
1.0
1.0
to
1.3
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Mean:
Range:
1.5
1.7
to
2.0
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Mean:
Range:
1.5
1.7
to
2.0
Mean: 1.2
Range: 1.0 to 1.4
Mean: 1.2
Range: 1.0 to
1.4
Mean: 1.2
Range: 1.0 to 1.4
Mean: 1.2
Range: 1.0 to
1.4
Existing (UT 1)
Proposed (UT 1)
Existing (UT 2)
Proposed (UT 2)
Pattern
Variables
Med:
43.4
Med:
26.8
Range:
32.5
to 86.8
Range:
20.1
to 53.5
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
Med: 92.2
Range: 65.1 to 130.1
Med:
Range:
40.2
56.9
to 80.3
Med:
21.7
Med:
13.4
staightening activities
staightening activities
Range:
16.3
to 32.5
Range:
10.0
to 20.1
Med:
32.5
Med:
20.1
Range:
21.7
to 54.2
1
lRange:
13.4
to 33.5
1.06
1
1.15
1 1.03
1
1.15
Pattern Ratios
Med: 4.0
Med: 4.0
Range: 3.0 to 8.0
Range: 3.0 to 8.0
Med: 8.5
Med: 8.5
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Range: 6.0 to 12.0
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Range: 6.0 to 12.0
Med: 2.0
Med: 2.0
Range: 1.5 to 3.0
Range: 1.5 to 3.0
Med: 3.0
Med: 3.0
Range: 2.0 to 5.0
1
lRange: 2.0 to 5.0
Profile Variables
0.0081
0.0075
0.0143
0.0128
0.0086
0.0086
0.0147
0.0147
Mean:
0.0120
Mean:
0.0205
Range:
0.0090 to 0.0135
Range:
0.0153 to
0.0230
Mean:
0.0007
Mean:
0.0013
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Range:
0.0000 to 0.0052
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Range:
0.0000 to
0.0089
Mean: 0.0030
Range: 0.0000 to 0.0060
Mean: 0.0051
Range: 0.0000 to
0.0102
Mean:
0.0008
Mean:
0.0014
Range:
0.0000 to 0.0060
Range:
0.0000 to
0.0102
Profile Ratios
Mean:
1.60
Mean:
1.60
Range:
1.2
to
1.8
Range:
1.2
to
1.8
Mean:
0.10
Mean:
0.10
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Range:
0.0
to
0.7
No distinct repetitive pattern of
riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Range:
0.0
to
0.7
Mean: 0.40
Mean: 0.40
Range:
0.0
to
0.8
Range:
0.0
to
0.8
Mean:
0.11
Mean:
0.11
Range:
0.0
to
0.8
1
lRange:
0.0
to
0.8

615
614
613
- 612
w 611
610
609
Nesbit Site -XS 1 Riffle--
0 10 20 30 40
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
50 60
Riffle
description:
height of instrument (ft):
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes Dt (ftl (ft) elevation bankfull too of bank (ft) slope (% 1 "n"
dimensions
23.2
12.2
x-section area
width
1.9
14.0
d mean
wet P
2.6
d max
1.7
h d radi
3.5
100.0
bank ht
W flood prone area
6.4
8.2
w/d ratio
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
Icheck from channel ma ena
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
Mannin 's n from channel material
Nesbit Site - XS 2 Riffle --
Riffle
height of instrument (ft): maw
r r
omit distance FS FS
notes Dt. (ft) (ftl elevation bankfull
60 70
„n„
dimensions
23.2
11.2
x-section area
width
2.1
13.6
d mean
wet P
2.8
4.2
d max
bank ht
1.7
5.4
h d radi
w/d ratio
100.0
W flood prone area
9.0
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
B:0
threshold grain size mm
cheCK from c anne ma ena
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

618
617.5
617
616.5
616
g615.5
w 615
614.5
614
613.5
0
notes
of instrument
Nesbit Site -XS 3 Riffle --
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
elevation I I bankfull ItoD of
„n„
dimensions
23.2
17.0
x-section area
width
1.4
17.9
ean
P
1.9
d max
1.3
radi
Fent
3.4
100.0
bank ht
W flood prone area
12.4
5.9
ratio
ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
Icheck from c anneI material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
Mannin 's n from channel material
620
619.5
619
618.5
618
617.5
_ 617
w 616.5
616
615.5
615
Nesbit Site - XS 7 Riffle --
0 20 40 Width from RivePPeft to Right (ft) 80
sectio
Riffle
height of instrument (ft):
OM'
t distance FS FS Fl
notes Dt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull too of
100 120
„n„
dimensions
23.2
15.8
2.0
3.4
80.0
x-section area
width
1.5
17.1
1.4
10.8
5.1
d mean
wet P
d max
bank ht
h d radi
w/d ratio
W flood prone area
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
c ec rom c anne material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

622.5
622
621.5
621
c 20.5
0 620
A619.5
w 619
618.5
618
617.5
617
0
notes
Nesbit Site - XS 8 Riffle --
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
of instrument
elevation I I bankfull ItoD of
„n„
dimensions
23.2
18.2
x-section area
width
1.3
19.2
ean
P
1.6
d max
1.2
radi
Fent
3.4
25.0
bank ht
W flood prone area
14.3
1.4
ratio
ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
Icheck from c anneI material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
Mannin 's n from channel material
622
621
620
619
w 618
617
616
notes
Nesbit Site - XS 9 Riffle --
0 10 20 30 40
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
section:
Riffle
description:
height of instrument (ft):
elevation I I bankfull ItoD of
50
„n„
i
dimensions
23.2
12.4
2.4
4.3
40.0
x-section area
width
1.9
14.4
1.6
6.7
3.2
d mean
wet P
d max
bank ht
h d radi
w/d ratio
W flood prone area
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
&0
threshold rain size mm
c ec rom channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

Nesbit Site - XS 10 Riffle --
of instrument
notes I Dt. I (ft) I (ft) I elevation I I bankfull ItoD of bank) (ft) I slope l%1 I "n"
dimensions
23.2
15.7
x-section area
width
1.5
17.5
Id mean
wet P
2.6
3.8
d max
bank ht
1.3
10.6
h d radi
w/d ratio
100.0
W floodprone area
6.4
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
from channel material
0
1 measured D84 mm
reck
0.0
relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
Manmn 's n from channel material

Nesbit Site - XS 11 Riffle -- Nesbit Site - XS 12 Riffle --
626
625
624 -_
- 623
w 622
621 __ - - - - _-
620 -- - - - - --
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
section: -- -
Riffle
description:
height of instrument (ft):
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes Dt. (ftl (ftl elevation bankfull too of bank (ftl slope (% 1 "n"
dimensions
16.7
15.1
1 x-section area
width
1.1
16.1
Id mean
wet P
1.6
d max
1.0
h d radi
2.9
25.0
1 bank ht
W flood prone area
13.6
1.7
w/d ratio
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
[heck
0.0
relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
Mannin 's n from channel material
Riffle
of instrument
notes I Dt. I (f) I (f) I elevation I I bankfull
„n„
dimensions
16.7
26.0
x-section area
width
0.6
26.1
d mean
wet P
1.3
1.3
d max
bank ht
0.6
40.3
h d radi
w/d ratio
100.0
W flood prone area
3.9
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
B:0
threshold grain size mm
c ec rom c anne material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
Mannin 's n from channel material

Nesbit Site - XS 13 Riffle --
of instrument
notes I Dt. I (ffl I (ffl I elevation I I bankfull ItoD of bank) (ffl I slope (%) I "n"
dimensions
16.7
11.3
x-section area
width
1.5
12.6
Id mean
wet P
2.2
d max
1.3
h d radi
4.4
16.0
bank ht
W flood rove area
7.7
1.4
w/d ratio
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
from charm I material
0
measured D84 mm
reck
0.0
relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
Mannin 's n from channel material
Riffle
of instrument
Nesbit Site - XS 14 Riffle --
notes I Dt. I (ffl I (ffl I elevation I I bankfull ItoD of bank) (ffl I slope (%) I "n"
dimensions
16.7
11.8
2.0
3.4
50.0
x-section area
width
1.4
13.0
1.3
8.3
4.2
d mean
wet P
d max
bank ht
h d radi
w/d ratio
W flood prone area
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
c ec rom c anne material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

632
631
630
o 629
w 628
627
626
0
notes
Nesbit Site - XS 15 Riffle --
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
of instrument (ft) mama
ance I FS FS F
ft) (ft) I elevation bankfull too of
„n„
dimensions
16.7
11.0
x-section area
width
1.5
12.2
ean
P
2.2
d max
1.4
radi
Fent
4.0
31.0
bank ht
W flood prone area
7.3
2.8
ratio
ratio
hydraulics
0.0 velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
Icheck from c anneI material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
Mannin 's n from channel material
637
636
635
634
> 633
w 632
631
630
0
Nesbit Site - XS 16 Riffle --
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Riffle
height of instrument (ft):
OD
distance FS FS Fl
notes Dt. (ft) (ft) I elevation bankfull ItOD of
„n„
dimensions
16.7
15.5
2.2
3.1
100.0
x-section area
width
1.1
17.2
1.0
14.3
6.5
d mean
wet P
d max
bank ht
h d radi
w/d ratio
W flood prone area
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
&0
threshold rain size mm
Icheck from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

Nesbit Site - XS 17 Riffle --
of instrument
notes I Dt. I (ft) I (ft) I elevation I I bankfull ItoD of bank) (ft) I slope l%1 I "n"
dimensions
16.7
20.6
x-section area
width
0.8
20.9
Id mean
wet P
1.3
2.8
d max
bank ht
0.8
25.6
h d radi
w/d ratio
50.0
W floodprone area
2.4
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
Icheck from channel material
0
1 measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

Riffle
description:111111111
height of instrument (ft): r�r r r
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes Dt (ftl (ft) elevation bankfull too of bank (ft) slope (% 1 "n"
dimensions
8.4
9.0
x-section area
width
0.9
10.0
Id mean
wet P
1.6
d max
0.8
h d radi
2.9
29.0
bank ht
W flood prone area
9.6
3.2
w/d ratio
lent ratio
hydraulics
0.0 velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
Icheck from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
Mannin 's n from channel material
Nesbit Site, UT 1 -XS 19 Riffle --
Riffle
height of instrument (ft): r r r r
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Mannir
notes Dt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull too of ban (ft) slope (% 1 "n"
dimensions
8.4
7.6
x-section area
width
1.1
8.8
d mean
wet P
1.5
2.6
d max
bank ht
1.0
6.8
h d radi
w/d ratio
20.0
W flood prone area
2.6
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
c ec rom c anne material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

633.5
633
632.5
632
�631.5
A 631
w630.5
630
629.5
629
0
notes
Nesbit Site, UT 1 - XS 20 Riffle--
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width from River Leftto Right (ft)
of instrument (ft): mama
r r
ance I FS FS F
ft) (ft) I elevation bankfull too of
„n„
dimensions
8.4
7.1
x-section area
width
1.2
8.6
ean
P
1.4
d max
1.0
radi
Fent
1.9
50.0
bank ht
W flood prone area
5.9
7.1
ratio
ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
Icheck from c anneI material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
Mannin 's n from channel material
627.5
627
626.5
626
625.5
625
u 624.5
624
623.5
623
Nesbit Site, UT 1 - XS 21 Riffle --
0 10 20 Width A River Left to Qht M) 50
sectio
Riffle
height of instrument (ft):PUMM
OD
distance FS FS F:
notes Dt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull toD of
60 70
„n„
dimensions
8.4
9.5
1.3
2.3
32.0
x-section area
width
0.9
10.2
0.8
10.7
3.4
d mean
wet P
d max
bank ht
h d radi
w/d ratio
W flood prone area
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
&0
threshold grain size mm
hannel material c ec rom c
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

633
632
631
c 630
o 629
628
w 627
626
625
0
notes
Nesbit Site, UT 1 - XS 22 Riffle --
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width from River Leftto Right (ft)
of instrument (ft) mama
ance I FS FS F
ft) (ft) I elevation bankfull too of
„n„
dimensions
8.4
8.7
x-section area
width
1.0
9.5
d mean
wet P
1.2
d max
0.9
h d radi
2.0
22.0
bank ht
W flood rone area
9.0
2.5
w/d ratio
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity (ft/sec)
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
Icheck from c anneI material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
Mannin 's n from channel material
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
w 0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Riffle --
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Riffle
height of instrument (ft):
OD
distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Mannii
notes Dt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull too of bank (ft) slope (% 1 "n"
dimensions
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
x-section area
width
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
d mean
wet P
d max
bank ht
h d radi
w/d ratio
W flood prone area
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity (ft/sec)
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
Icheck from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

619
618.5
618
617.5
617
w 616.5
616
615.5
Nesbit Site, UT2-XS 4 Riffle--
0 10 20 30 40
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Riffle
description:
height of instrument (ft):
omit distance FS FS FS
notes Dt. (ft)(ft) elevation bankfull too of b
50 60
„n„
dimensions
3.2
3.4
x-section area
width
0.9
4.7
ean
P
1.5
d max
0.7
radi
Fent
2.4
50.0
bank ht
W flood prone area
3.7
14.7
ratio
ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity (ft/sec)
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
Icheck from channel ma ena
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
Mannin 's n from channel material
Nesbit Site, UT 2 -XS 5 Riffle --
•,r r
$P
• r r r r .r r .r
Nesbit Site, UT 2 - XS 5
UT2-XS5
heiqht of instrument (ft):
notes
elevation I I bankfull
„n„
dimensions
3.2
4.7
x-section area
width
0.7
5.3
d mean
wet P
1.1
2.7
d max
bank ht
0.6
6.8
h d radi
w/d ratio
7.0
W flood prone area
1.5
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/fts
0.00
shear velocity (ft/sec)
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
B:0
threshold grain size mm
cheCK from c anne ma ena
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

Nesbit Site, UT2-XS 6 Riffle--
MMMMMMMMMM
of instrument
notes I Dt. I (ft) I (ft) I elevation I I bankfull ItoD of bank) (ft) I slope l%1 I ..n..
dimensions
3.2
7.9
x-section area
width
0.4
8.0
Id mean
wet P
0.6
0.9
d max
bank ht
0.4
19.1
h d radi
w/d ratio
30.0
W floodprone area
3.8
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u'
"
threshold grain size mm
from channel material
0
1 measured D84 mm
reck
0.0
1 relative rou hness 0.0 fnc. factor
0.000
Manning's n from channel material

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version
2.1
Stream Site Name Nesbit Site - UT1 Date of Assessment
8/18/18
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization
AXE/WGL
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(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
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(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
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version
2.1
Stream Site Name Nesbit Site - Glen Br Upper Date of Assessment
8/18/18
Stream Category Pa3 Assessor Name/Organization
AXE/WGL
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(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
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(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
NA
Overall
LOW

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version
2.1
Stream Site Name Nesbit Site - Glen Br lower Date of Assessment
8/18/18
Stream Category Pa3 Assessor Name/Organization
AXE/WGL
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(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
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(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
NA
Overall
LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WAM #1 Date of Assessment 12/18/18
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan/Axiom
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
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) YES
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
tr- ! (t ee-,L)
Date: �2��$l l$
Project/Site: QtSbi,4 r,+njr_'
Latitude: 3H '5gy8
Evaluator: lie fvVj,I^n AA i6.K
County: urtiovl
Longitude: _go, 4,6" 42&2
Total Points:
Stream Determination cir
�
Other LJ
W °� X � °�
Stream is at least intermittent
St r a i perennial ite intermittent
if -3 3
Ephemeral Intermittent eren
e.g. Quad Name:
f ll�,S
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = (+`
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1]
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
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
r 1
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
' 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 4 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = ?.& )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
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: I 9+40k" !A vim
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
r"rei -0 S
Date: I Z f
14
ProjectlSite: Oe,6.+ U'�.2,
Latitude: 3,y, g�z 95S
Evaluator: ,�,�ph A oa4
County: OniO4
Longitude:-SC).losspr-
Total Points:
?j0
Stream Deter ' n (circle one)
Other W o\ X 4 A W
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30*
Ephemeral nterm itte Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_ 15 k S _]
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
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
0
1
1
M
2
3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
W
1
2
3
9. Grade control
C.0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.
11. Second or greater order channel
No r0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions m manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = q )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.
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
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 7:�,'; )
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
f-V
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: �Q., .RI W c 50-i r 4- lep"6 0)
r+lv i5 G%ttssivE 17� a
sly inFLrM�'�'f?en�t'"
Sketch:

- V
Worksheet 20. BEHI variable worksheet
Strearr(: j Cross Section: C%'r,A Date: 18 Observers;
` Qsn4 laninh IM— n—fh Pt—Waill rr`1
Study Bank
3
Bankfull Height
ALB = 2
Height (ft) .A
(ft) I i� B
C
n—# nnnfh/RenI, Noinhi /Fl
Root Depth (ft)
I
Study Bank 3
Height (ft)
D/A = 0,
D
A
E
wet nten Koot uensa
Root Density
N F
Bank Angie (H) _
Bank Angle
(Degrees) -1 d i.
Surface Protection I
Surface
Protection % (D [
F"E = 3 ,,
G
Bank Sketch
la
NwlLonlW WNnee (Iq
Root
Depth
Y
Bank Angle
Bankfull — — — — — — —
R Surface
yi'
J Protection
m
Start of
Bank
'Ift...

6M
9
Worksheet 21. Summary of bank erosion hazard index (BEHI)
Bank Erosion Hazard Rating Guide
Stream � a6 b 6 `a , '.rc— Reach Cs L GA Date A / !? t Crew
Bank Height (ft):
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Bankfull Ht
Root Depth/
Bank Height
Root
Density %
Bank Angle
(Degrees)
Surface
Protection%
Value
VERY LOW Index
Choice
1.0-1.1
1.0-0.9
100-80
0-20
100-80
1.0-1.9
1.0-1.9
1.0-1.9
1.0-1.9
1.0-1.9
V. I:
V. 1:
V: I:
1:
V: I:
ea
Value
LOW Index
Choice
1.11-1.19
0.89-0.5
79-55
21-60
79-55
2.0-3.9
2.0-3.9
2.0-3.9
2.0-3.9
2.0-3.9
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
I:
V: I:
+;
tl
C
0
Value
MODERATE Index
Choice
1.2-1.5
0.4970.3
54-30
61-80
54-30
4.0-6.9
4.0-6.9
4.0-6.9
4.0-5.9
4.0-5.9
V: 1:
V:043 1: j.3
V: 1:
V: 1:
V: 1:
iA
WHIGH
Value
Index
Choice
1.6-2. `
0.29-0.15
29-15
81-0J
29-15
6.0-7.9
6.0-7.9
6.0-7.9
6.0-7.9
6.0-7.9
V: I:
V: 1:
V:
" I:.,q
V: I:
m
Value
VERY HIGH Index
Choice
2.1-2.8
0.14-0.06
•14-5.
91-119
14-10
8.0-9.0
8.0-9.0
8.0-9.0
8.0-9.0
8.0-9.0
V: is
V: I:
10 is 9'.3
V: I:
V: I:
Value
EXTREME Index
Choice
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
10
10
10
10
10
V: 2 I:
V:.9 1:
V; 11D I:
: -IPo I: 4
V:'4 I::
V = value, I = Index SUB -TOTAL
(Sum one index from each column)
` ti
Bank Material Description:
Bank Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 60% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 paints)
Slit Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Stratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers In relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMEN
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH S VEfRY ;71&7 EXTREME
5-9.5 10-19.5 20-29.5 30-39.5 40-45 46-50
Bank location description (circle one) GRAND TOTAL pf
Straight Reach Outside of Bend BEHI RATING

r
LA 7
M
u A
Worksheet 22A. Various field methods of estimating Near -Bank Stress risk ratings for the
calculation of erosion rate.
Estimating Near -Bank Stress (NBS)
1
Stream: !y ¢5 e " 40- Location: G l e.1A ?f Date: t7. 18 19 Cre w:
1
rq,'
Methods for Estimating No ar-Bank Stress
(1) Trans vets a bar or split channellcentral bar creating NBS/high velocity gradient: Level I- Reconnaissance.
(2) Channel pattern (Rc/W): Level 11- General Prediction.
(3) Ratio of pool slope to average water surface slope (Sp/S): Level II - General Prediction.
(4) Ratio of pool slope to riffle slope (Sp/Snd: Level II - General Prediction.
(5) Ratio of near -bank ma:anmmdepth to bankfull swan depth (dnAMMd: Level Ili - Detailed Prediction.
(6) Ratio of near -bank shear styes a to bankfull shear stres s (tnb/tbkr): Level Ill - Detailed Prediction.
(7) Velocity profiles/Is ovels /Velocity gradient: Level 1V - Validation.
Trans verse and/or central bars - short and/or discontinuous. NBS = High/Very High
(1) {Extensive deposition (continuous, cross channel). NBS = Extreme
Chute cutoffs, down -valley meander migration, converging flow (Figure )q. NBS = Extreme
Radius of Bankfull Ratio Near -Bank
Curvature Width Stress
(2) Rc (feet) Wbkr (feet) Rc1W
Pool Slope Average Ratio Near -Bank
Slope
' > Stress
(3) S S SalS Dominant Near -Bank
Stress
L- C>
Pool Slope Riffle Slope Ratio Near -Bank
(4) SP Sot Sp/Sdr Stress
Near -Bank Mean Depth Ratio Near -Bank
Max Depth
(8) dab (feet) d (feet) dny/d Stress
(,2 bra
>>
Near -Bank
Near -Bank
Near-Bank
Average
Shear
Max Depth
Slope
Shear
Mean Depth
Slope
Stress
Ratio
Near -Bank
(8)
Stress
Stress
dnb (fit)
SO
tnb (lb/ft)
d (feet)
S
t (lb/ft2)
Tnb/t
I
ar-Bank
Velocity Gradient (ft/s/ft) N
Stress
(T)
>
Converting Values to a No ar-Bank Stress Rating
Near -Bank Stress
Method Number
Rating
(1)
2
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Very Low
N/A
>3.0
< 0.20
< 0.4
<1.0
<0.8
0.0
Low
2.21 - 3.0
0.20 - 0.40
0.41 - 0.60
1.0 - 1.5
0.8 - 1.05
1.0 . 1.2
Moderate
2.01 - 2.2
0.41 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.80
1.51 - 1.8
1.06 - 1.14
1.21 - 1.6
High
See (1)
Above
1.81 - 2.0
0.61 - 0.80
0.81 - 1.0
1.81 - 2.5
1.15 - 1.19
1.61 - 2.0
Very High
1.5 - 1.8
0.81 -1.0
1.01 - 1.2
2.51 - 3.0
1.20 - 1.60
2.01 - 2.3
ExtremeL
<1.b
1 >1.0
1 > 1.2
j >3.0
>1.6
>2.3
Overall Near -Bank
Stress Rating

�._
Worksheet 23. Total Bank Erosion Calculation
Stream: ; ss R ;- S
Total Bank Length:
Stream Type:
Observers:
Date: l2 j $ , 8
Graph Used:
Station
BEHI
Near Bank Stress
Erosion Length of
Bank Height Erosit
(ft)
(adjective)*
(adjective)
Rate r * Bank fty
ftTotal
8©
1
8a
Low
L
�O
2
V t• -
S,1 �—
3
3
Z O
t<�
4
L o uJ
1 7-0
6
L. o ..J
2 3 5
Z
7
8
9
Nr
10
11
12
13
14
15
1. Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS combination
11. Divide total erosion (feet3) by 27
Total Erosion
Total Erosion
Total Erosion
III. Multiely Total Erosion (yard') by 1.3(converelonofyd310tong for average matedaltype) (tonslyear)
Calculate erosion per unit length: divide total erosion (ton/year) by total length Total Erosion
IV. of stream (ft) surveyed (tons/yr/ft)
"Use numerical category spread to predict rates. (i.e. 21 = Moderate but at start of category, where as 28 is on
upper end of relation - use prediction values appropriate to numerical rating).

tA40-
r
u.W �
Worksheet 22A. Various field methods of estimating Near -Bank Stress risk ratings for the
calculation of erosion rate.
Estimating Near -Bank Stress (NBS)
iStream:
Location: Date: Cre w:
Methods for Estimating No or -Bank Stress
(1) Trans vets a bar or split channellcentralbar creating NBS/high velocity gradient: Level I- Reconnaissance.
(2) Channel pattern (Rc/W): Level If - General Prediction.
(3) Ratio of pool slope to average water surface slope (Sp/S): Level If - General Prediction.
(4) Ratio of pool slope to ritllo slope (Sp/Sn d: Level If - General Prediction.
(5) Ratio of near -bank maxitnum depth to bankfull rneon depth (dnh/dbkd: Level III - Detailed Prediction.
(6) Ratio of near -bank shear stros s to banldull shear stros s (tnb/tbkr): Level III - Detailed Prediction.
(7) Velocity protilcs/Is ovels /Velocity gradient: Level 1V - Validation.
Transverse and/or central bars - short and/or discontinuous. NBS = High/Very High
(1) Extensive deposition (continuous, cross channel). NBS = Extreme
Chute cutoffs, down -valley meander migration, converging Now (Figure )9. NBS = Extreme
Radius of Bankft, I Ratio Near -Bank
Curvature Width Stress
(2) Rc (feet) Wbkf (feet) Rc/W
Pool Slope Average Ratio Near -Bank '
Slope
S(3) S S s'/S Stress Dominant Near -Bank
Stress
Pool Slope Riffle Slope Ratio Near -Bank
(4) sp sdf sp/sdr Stress
Near -Bank Mean Depth Ratio Near-Bamk
Max Depth
(5) dnb (feet) d (feet) dnb/d Stress
Near -Bank
Near -Bank
Near -Bank
Average
Shear
Max Depth
Slope
Shear
Mean Depth
Slope
Stress
Ratio
Near -Bank
(6)
Stress
Stress
dnb (feet)
Snb
TO (Ib/112)
d (feet)
S
T (lb/ft2)
'rnb/'c
i
Velocity Gradient (ft/s/ft) Near -Bank
sa
Converting Values to a No ar-Bank Stress Rating
Near -Bank Stress
Method Number
Rating
7)
2)
(3)
4
(5)
(6)
(7)
Ve ry Low
>3.0
< 0.20
< 0.4
<1.0
<0.8
<1.0
N/A
Low
2.21 - 3.0
0.20 - 0.40
0.41 - 0.50
1.0 - 1.5
0.8 - 1.05
1.0 - 1.2
Moderate
2.01 - 2.2
0.41 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.80
1.51 - 1.8
1.06 - 1.14
1.21 - 1.6
High
See (1)
1.81 - 2.0
0.81 - 0.80
0.81 - 1.0
1.81 - 2.5
1.15 - 1.19
1.81 - 2.0
Ve ry High
1.5 - 1.8
0.81 - 1.0
1.01 - 1.2
2.51 - 3.0
1,20 - 1.60
2.01 - 2.3
Above
Extreme
41.5
1 >1.0
> 1.2
>3.0
>1.8
>2.3
Overall Near -Bank
Stress
Rating

tjZ
0-1
rIP
Worksheet 23. Total Bank Erosion Calculation
Stream: Nlsl' S,'r-:
Ur. Z
Total Bank Length:
Stream Type:
Observers: A Xr
Date:
Graph Used:
Station BEHI
(ft) *
Near Bank Stress
Erosion I Length of
Bank Height jErosion Sub-
ad ective
(adjective)
Rate r * Bank (ft)
(ftTotal ft'I r
2 ��
za
3
ba -
3
L
Z'O
8¢
4 zoo
1 Z©
3
5
6
7
8
6 —
9 o i`
' 1
L'/O
Z
12
13
14
15
Total Erosion
I. Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS combination
(ft3/yr)
II. Divide total erosion (feet3) by
27 feet'/yard'
Total Erosion
(yd3/yr)
III. Multiply Total Erosion (yard') by 1.3(oonversionofyd3totons for everage matedattype)
Total Erosion
(tons/year)
Calculate erosion per unit length: divide total erosion (ton/year) by total length I Total Erosion
IV. of stream (ft} surveyed- (tons/yr/ft)
*Use numerical category spread to predict rates. ( I.e. 21 = Moderate but at start of category, where as 28 is on
upper end of relation - use prediction values appropriate to numerical rating).

Site
Nesbit Steam Mitigation Site
Stream
Glen Br
Bank Length
8370
Observers
WGL
Date
18-Dec-18
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
80
left
Low
Low
0
80
2.5
0.0
2
675
left
VH
Low
0.6
595
3
1071.0
3
885
left
Low
Low
0
210
1.5
0.0
4
1555
left
VH
Low
0.6
670
3
1206.0
5
1815
left
Low
Low
0
260
3
0.0
6
2050
left
High
Low
0.1
235
2
47.0
7
4185
left
Low
Low
0
2135
2
0.0
8
9
80
right
Low
Low
0
80
2.5
0.0
10
675
right
VH
Low
0.6
595
3
1071.0
11
885
right
Low
Low
0
210
1.5
0.0
12
1555
right
VH
Low
0.6
670
3
1206.0
13
1815
right
Low
Low
0
260
3
0.0
14
2050
right
High
Low
0.1
235
2
47.0
15
4185
right
Low
Low
0
2135
2
0.0
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
4648.0
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
172.1
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
223.8
Erosion per unit length
Total Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.027

Site
Nesbit Steam Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 1
Bank Length
1802
Observers
WGL
Date
18-Dec-18
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
741
right
Low
Low
0
741
2
0.0
2
901
right
High
Low
0.1
160
2.5
40.0
3
4
741
left
Low
Low
0
741
2
0.0
5
901
left
High
Low
0.1
160
2.5
40.0
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
80.0
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
3.0
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
3.9
Erosion per unit length
Total Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.002

Site
Nesbit Steam Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 2
Bank Length
400
Observers
WGL
Date
18-Dec-18
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
40
left
High
Mod
0.15
40
2
12.0
2
60
left
High
High
0.2
20
3
12.0
3
80
left
Low
Low
0
20
1
0.0
4
200
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
120
3
18.0
5
6
40
right
High
Mod
0.15
40
2
12.0
7
80
right
Mod
Low
0.02
40
1.5
1.2
8
200
right
High
Mod
0.15
120
2.5
45.0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
100.2
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
3.7
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
4.8
Erosion per unit length
jTotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
1 0.012

BEHIMBS Summary
Stream Reach
Erosion Rate
(tons/year)
Glen Br
223.8
UT 1
3.9
UT 2
4.8
Total
232.5

Nesbit
Land Use Nutrient Model
Stream Length
Site Buffer Width
Site Area (ft sq) I784080
Land Use Characteristics
Pasture
Beef
Dairy
Pig
Horse
fert/ac
Land Use %
Pasture
Woods
Row Crop
Urban
must total 100 100
Number N inputs P inputs
Rainfall
Annual
Total Total
of Animals Ibs/au/yr
Ibs/au/yr
N (Ibs)
P (Ibs)
113
40
0
0
164
26
0
0
153
58
0
0
102
40
0
0
60 45 0 0
0 0 Total Pasture Nand P
%
N inputs
P inputs
Total
Total
Row Crop Area
Ibs/ac/yr
Ibs/ac/yr
N
P
Row Crop Corn
100
20
20
360
360
Cotton
20
20
0
0
Soybeans
0
15
0
0
Hay Fescue
50
45
0
0
Hay Bermuda
70
45
0
0
must total 100 100
360
1 360 Total Row Crop N and P
Woods Minimal Nutrients
Concentration
Concentration
Total
Total
%Area
Runnoff
N (mg/1)
P (mg/1)
N (Ibs)
P (Ibs)
Urban Residential
0
2.2
0.4
0
0
Commercial/Industrialr�j
0
2.3
0.3
0
0
Roadway
0
3.0
0.5
0
0
0.0 1
0.0 Total Urban N and P
Notes: Residential Assumes 25 % Impervious Surfac
Commercial/Industrial Assumes 75% Impervous Surface
Roadway Assumes 100% Impervious Surface
Annual Load (Ibs) = 0.226*Annual Runoff (inches)*Concentration (mg/I)*Acres
Total Nutrients Removed within Easement
Total N Removed (Ibs/yr) 360
Total P Removed (Ibs/yr) 360

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 5/7/2020
Project/Site: Nesbit Mitigation Site
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile A (34.89455,-80.653434)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location is shown on
Figure 4.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-4
10 YR 3/3
100
Silty clay loam
4-10
10 YR 3/3
60
10 YR 5/2
40
D
M
Silty clay loam
10-12
10 YR 5/2
70
10 YR 5/3
30
C
M
Silty clay loam
12+
10 YR 6/3
70
10 YR 6/2
25
D
M
Silty clay loam
10 YR 4/6
5
C
M
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 5/7/2020
Project/Site: Nesbit Mitigation Site
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile B (34.894549,-80.651711)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location is shown on
Figure 4.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-6
10 YR 3/3
80
10 YR 6/2
15
D
M
Silty clay loam
10 YR 5/6
5
C
M
6-12
10 YR 6/2
80
10 YR 7/1
10
D
M
Silty clay loam
10 YR 5/6
10
C
M
12+
10 YR 7/1
85
10 YR 6/2
10
C
M
Silty clay loam
10 YR 5/6
5
C
M
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 5/7/2020
Project/Site: Nesbit Mitigation Site
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile C (34.898151,-80.652095)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location is shown on
Figure 4.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-3
10 YR 5/3
80
10 YR 6/2
15
D
M
Silty clay loam
10 YR 5/6
5
C
M
3-9
10 YR 5/3
80
10 YR 7/1
15
D
M
Silty clay loam
10 YR 4/4
5
C
M
9-14
10 YR 5/2
95
10 YR 4/4
5
C
M
Silty clay loam
14+
10 YR 6/1
90
10 YR 5/8
5
C
M
Silty clay loam
10 YR 4/4
5
C
M
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 5/7/2020
Project/Site: Nesbit Mitigation Site
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile D (34.891243,-80.657263)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location is shown on
Figure 4.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-8
10 YR 5/3
85
10 YR 5/6
10
C
M
Silty clay loam
10 YR 4/4
5
C
M
8+
10 YR 5/3
80
10 YR 6/2
10
D
M
Silty clay loam
10 YR 4/4
10
C
M
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 12/18/2018
Project/Site: Nesbit Mitigation Site
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile E (34.89201,-80.65613)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location is shown on
Figure 4.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-9
10 YR 5/3
90
10 YR 4/6
5
C
M
fine sandy loam
10 YR 6/4
5
C
M
9-11
10 YR 6/1
100
fine sandy loam
11+
2.5 YR 6/2
70
2.5 YR 6/3
20
C
M
sandy clay
10 YR 5/8
10
C
M
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

Appendix C: Flood Frequency Analysis Data
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Reference Reaches
Flood Frequency Analaysis-Regional Regression Equation (USGS 2004)
McRae Land Reference Reach
Return
Interval
(years)
Discharge
(cfs)
1.3
63
1.5
73
2
94.3
5
171
10
238
25
342
50
435
100
541
200
663
500
852
600
500
s 400
U
0
300
0111
i[fIt,
Uwharrie Reference Reach
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Return interval (years)

Appendix D: Jurisdictional Determination Info
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2019-01470 County: Union U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Waxhaw
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Current Landowner: Allison and Franklin Howev
Address: 4321 Nesbit Road
Monroe, NC 28112
Telephone Number: 704-975-2200
E-mail: franklinhowevnaol.com
Size (acres) —28 Nearest Town Waxhaw
Nearest Waterway Glen Branch River Basin Santee
USGS HUC 03050103 Coordinates Latitude: 34.8936
Longitude:-80.6544
Location description: The review area is located between the north side of Nesbit Road and the south side of Parkwood School
Road. PIN: 04335001. Reference review area descriution shown in Jurisdictional Determination Request uackage entitled
"Figure 1, Site Location" and Printed Date of August 2019.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated October 2019.
Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining
compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource
protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be
affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part
331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further
instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

SAW-2019-01470
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Brvan Roden-Revnolds at 704-510-1440 or
b ry an. ro den-reyno ld s(d u s ace. army. mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 10/30/2019.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination 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 request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room IOM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.
RODENREYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574 Digitally signed by RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574
Corps Regulatory Official: Date: 2019.10.3008:08:42-04'00'
Date of JD: 10/30/2019 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

SAW-2019-01470
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
http://corpsmapu.usace.anny.mil/cm_apex/Vp=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Agent: Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Grant Lewis
Address: 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone Number: 919-215-1693
E-mail: dewisnaxiomenvironmental.org
Agent: Restoration Svstems, LLC
Matthew Harrell
Address: 1101 Havnes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Telephone Number: 919-755-9490
E-mail: mharrell(drestorationsystems.com

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Allison and Franklin Howev File Number: SAW-2019-01470
Date: 10/10/2019
Attached
is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
®
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.anny.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatorvProgramandPennits.asl)x
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Bryan Roden -Reynolds
CESAD-PDO
Charlotte Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Bryan Roden -Reynolds, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 10/10/2019
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Allison and Franklin Howey, 4321 Nesbit Road,
Monroe, NC 28112
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Nesbit Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site, SAW-2019-01470
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area is located between the
north side of Nesbit Road and the south side of Parkwood School Road. PIN:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Union City: Waxhaw
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 34.8936 Longitude:-80.6544
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Glen Branch
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 10/24/2019
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Estimated amount of
Geographic authority to
Type of aquatic
aquatic resources in
which the aquatic resource
Latitude (decimal
Longitude (decimal
resources (i.e.,
Feature
review area (acreage
'may be" subject (i.e.,
degrees)
degrees)
wetland vs. non -
and linear feet, if
Section 404 or Section
wetland waters)
applicable
10/404)
Glen
34.8963
-80.6532
3,834 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
Branch
Stream
34.8948
-80.6522
982 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
UT1
Stream
34.8937
-80.6514
308 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
UT1A
Stream
34.8929
-80.6558
299 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
UT2
Wetland
34.8906
-80.6577
0.27 acre
Wetland
404
JA
Wetland
34.8928
-80.6543
0.65 acre
Wetland
404
Jc
Wetland
34.8941
-80.6538
0.01 acre
Wetland
404
JD
Wetland
34.8972
-80.6535
0.04 acre
Wetland
404
JE

Estimated amount of
Geographic authority to
Type of aquatic
aquatic resources in
which the aquatic resource
Latitude (decimal
Longitude (decimal
resources (i.e.,
Feature
review area (acreage
'may be" subject (i.e.,
degrees)
degrees)
wetland vs. non -
and linear feet, if
Section 404 or Section
wetland waters)
applicable
10/404)
Wetland
34.8972
-80.6525
049 acre
Wetland
404
JF
Wetland
34.8908
-80.6587
0.40 acre
Wetland
404
KA
Wetland
34.8915
-80.6566
0.36 acre
Wetland
404
KB
Wetland
34.8934
-80.6543
0.01 acre
Wetland
404
KC
Wetland
34.8941
-80.6541
0.07 acre
Wetland
404
KID
Wetland
34.8952
-80.6535
0.07 acre
Wetland
404
KE
Wetland
34.8958
-80.6535
0.06 acre
Wetland
404
KF
Wetland
34.8982
-80.6522
0.01 acre
Wetland
404
KI
Wetland
34.8984
-80.6521
0.01 acre
Wetland
404
KJ
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 7D (AID) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the
various types of 7Ds 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 AID 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 AID
before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AID 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 AID
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 AID
or a PJD, the 7D will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AID, 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 AID 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: Figures 1-3 and 3A-3B
® 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: Figure 1, Site Location (1:24,000 Waxhaw, NC)
® Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Figure 2, Project Mapping (Soil Survey of Union
County)
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMAIFIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ®Aerial (Name & Date): Figure 3, Jurisdictional Area Overview (Dated August 2019) and Figures 3A
and 3B, Jurisdictional Areas (Dated October 2019)
or ❑Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
® Other information (please specify): NCWAM Field Assessment Results (Dated 12/18/2018), NCWAM Wetland
Rating Sheets (Dated 12/18/2018), NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms (Version 4.11) Dated 12/18/2018,
NCSAM Field Assessment Results (Dated 08/18/2018), and NCSAM Stream Rating Sheets (Dated 08/18/2018)
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been
verified by the Corus and should not be relied uuon for later iurisdictional determinations.
RODEN Digitally signed by RODEN
REYNOLDS.BRYAN.K REYNOLDS.13RYAN.KENNETH.126
3385574
ENNETHA 263385574 Date: 2019.10.30 08:08:19 -04'00'
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing PJD
10/30/2019
Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable)'
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester 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.

Appendix E: NC NHP Letter and Categorical Exclusion Document
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

a ■■N Roy Cooper. Governor
00 i NC DEPARTMENT OF Susi Hamilton, Secretary
notan NATUPAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
E sow Walter Clark, Director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-7778
December 20, 2018
Phillip Perkinson
Axiom Environmental Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612
RE. Nesbit, 18-002.08
Dear Phillip Perkinson:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database, indicates
that there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence, the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund
easement, or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodnev.butlerWncdcr.aov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
1:1 W. JONES STREET, PALE01_ P<_ 27603 - 16S1 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEiGH. NC 276"
OFC !J19 707.9120 • FAX [phone]

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Nesbit
Project No. 18-002.08
December 20, 2018
NCNHDE-7778
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observa Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Freshwater 29553 Villosa delumbis Eastern Creekshell 2011-06-08 E 3-Medium --- Significantly G4 S4
Bivalve
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
jr Na Rep'Ventational Rating
CTB/Waxhaw Creek Aquatic Habitat R1 (Exceptional)
No Managed Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Collective Rating
C4 (Moderate)
Rare
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httr)s://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/content/heir). Data query generated on December 20, 2018; source: NCNHP, Q4 Oct
2018. Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3

i�
Y
4
4K
*N'a�
N =.
W+L
S
December 20, 2018
❑ Project Boundary
❑ Suffered Project Boundary
NHP Natural Area {NHNA)
NCNHDE-7778: Nesbit
[V o"
'a
°F
,Y
1:25,712
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi
0 0.35 0.7 14 km
Sources: Esd, HERE, Garrnln. Inl—p, in"—1 P Corp., GE6CO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, Gea w. IGN, ,cads r N,. Ordnance Survey, E..Japan,
MET,_ Esri China iHwq "). 5vA55topp, p Qpe 1melMap p r$npylor5, and
the GIs Vser con nity
Page 3 of 3
1:25,712
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi
0 0.35 0.7 14 km
Sources: Esd, HERE, Garrnln. Inl—p, in"—1 P Corp., GE6CO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, Gea w. IGN, ,cads r N,. Ordnance Survey, E..Japan,
MET,_ Esri China iHwq "). 5vA55topp, p Qpe 1melMap p r$npylor5, and
the GIs Vser con nity
Page 3 of 3

Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Task 1b: Categorical Exclusion
NC DMS Project # 100121 NC DMS Contract # 7868 RFP # 16-007704
Union County, NC
Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Task lb: Catesorical Exclusion
Contents:
Summary
Appendix A: CE Form for DMS V2
Appendix B: Supporting Documents
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
2/3/2020

Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Task 1b: Categorical Exclusion
NC DMS Project # 100121 NC DMS Contract # 7868 RFP # 16-007704
Union County, NC
Summary of Part 2 - Categorical Exclusion Form V. 2
All Projects Regulation/Questions
Coastal Zone Management Act: Not applicable; Not located within a CAMA county.
CERCLA
No Issue — please see the report from a Limited Phase 1 Site Assessment performed by
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. on July 1st, 2019.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
No Issue — please see attached letter from Ramona M. Bartos - State of the Historic
Preservation Office.
Inifnrm Art
Please see the attached letter, sent to the landowners June 5th, 2019.
Summary of Part 3 - Categorical Exclusion Form V. 2
Ground -Disturbing Activities Regulation/Questions
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA): No Issue; Not within a claimed county.
Antiquities Act (AA): Not applicable; Not located on Federal land.
Archaeological (ARPA): Not applicable —the project is not located on federal or Indian lands.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Three federally protected species were identified by USFWS through the online project review
(Online Species List/ IPac). Multiple site surveys of the Property have been conducted and the
best available science reviewed. Table 1 below provides a detailed summary of the review for
each species. Appendix B includes Mussel Survey Report & USFWS Concurrence letter.
Table 1. Threatened and Endangered Species
Common Name
Federal
Habitat at
Biological
Summary
(Scientific Name)
Status
Site
Conclusion
While no individuals were found during
May affect,
the survey, and the habitat appears
Carolina Heelsplitter
Endangered
Unlikely
not likely to
unsuitable, a downstream population
(Lasmigona decorate)
Clam
but
adversely
may benefit from the project through
Potentially
affect
improved water quality. USFWS
Asheville Field office concurred. See
Appendix B.
Suitable habitat is present at site;
Michaux's Sumac
Endangered
Yes; No
however, during multiple site visits and
(Rhus michauxii)
Plant
individuals
No Effect
field surveys (10/2018- 7/2019) no
found
individuals were found. Therefore, no
effect is concluded.
Suitable habitat is present at site;
Schweinitz's Sunflower
Endangered
Yes; No
however, during multiple site visits and
(Helianthus schweinitzii)
Plant
individuals
No Effect
field surveys (10/2018- 7/2019) no
found
individuals were found. Therefore, no
effect is concluded.

Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Task 1b: Categorical Exclusion
NC DMS Project # 100121 NC DMS Contract # 7868 RFP # 16-007704
Union County, NC
Summary of Part 3 - Categorical Exclusion Form V. 2 CONTINUED
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites): No Issue; Not within a claimed county.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
See Appendix B; Email response and Form AD-1006 completed by Milton Cortes of the NRCS on
6/23/2019.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA
USFWS and NCWRC have been consulted. See Appendix B: USFWS (Claire Ellwanger, Asheville Field
Office) was contacted via email on 9/1/2019 with a scoping letter, but no response was received.
NCWRC (Shannon Deaton, Habitat Conservation Program Manager) was contacted via email on
4/26/2019 but did not respond; however, an NCWRC member (Olivia Munzer) was present at the
IRT site visit and provided comment at that time. Those comments were integrated into the IRT
Meeting Notes.
Land & Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f)): Not applicable
Magnuson -Stevens (Essential Fish Habitat): Not applicable; Not within an estuarine system
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
USFWS has no recommendation with the project relative to the MBTA, other than general
guidelines regarding Bald Eagle breeding. No Bald Eagles have been observed during site visits, and
the lack of open water and mature trees on the site make it an unsuitable nesting location.
Wilderness Act: Not applicable; Not located within a Wilderness area.

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Division of Mitigation Services Projects
Version 2
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the environmental
document.
Part
1: General Project
Project Name:
Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
County Name:
Union County
DMS Number:
100121
Project Sponsor:
Restoration Systems, LLC
Project Contact Name:
Matthew Harrell
Project Contact Address:
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211, Raleigh, NC 27604
Project Contact E-mail:
[e-mail]
DMS Project Manager: Kelly Phillips
Project Description
The Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site is located in Target Local Watershed
03050103030030 near Waxhaw and includes a portion of Glen Branch and several unnamed
tributaries. It is proposed to include 4,895 If of stream restoration, 1,446 If of stream
enhancement, 2.8 acres of riparian riverine wetland restoration, and 3.8 acres of riparian
riverine enhancement. Site alterations include cessation of agriculture, restoration of streams
& wetlands, and planting native woody vegetation. Mitigation will result in net gains in
hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions, and will provide 5,264 stream mitigation units
and 4.7 riparian riverine wetland mitigation units. The proposed conservation easement will
be +/- 18 acres. The total site impact will be —19 acres during construction.
The Area of Potential Effect evaluated in the Categorical Exclusion Form includes all
anticipated haul roads and staging areas that will be necessary for project construction.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
11/21/2019 16;10 /�
Date DMS Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date77 For Division Administrator
FHWA

Part 2: All
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Manaciement Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project involve ground -disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
0 N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
0 Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
❑ N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
❑ N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
❑ No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
❑ Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A

3: Ground -Disturbing Activities
Regulation/QuestionPart
..
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of
❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians?
❑ No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
0 Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
R1 Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the specie and/or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
❑ N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
❑ No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
❑ N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
❑ Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
❑ Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
❑ No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
❑ N/A

Appendix B: Supporting Documents

- �•"sue' - �"`�- �; -
Y N
Axiom Enwonmenla+, Prrc.
Yy Prepared for:
o .
. •
RESTORATION
1— _-
Project:
NESBIT
:-J MITIGATION SITE
Add
t; . , f o �. 5t' ,� Union County, NC
ZbitIx
R I Title:
oaC1
BANK SITE
LOCATION
,fig I � (� '°'''r f �i ',��� �� � ►� � I�
Site Loca$io
so
r I r Drawn by:
J Legend KRJ
- -fir - - . ` -- 1 -•- � � �
Q Nesbit Easement = 18.1 ac Date:
�t uatfi _ /\/�)� ► • L ��_ ��� NCDOT Roads DEC 2018
Scale:
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Waxhaw and Unity, NC Quads) 1:20,000
- 522 �•
lf
f - Mpgright:©�203-N�alGeographic �.. __ •f ��f_
r s y ^ ,
rSoci)ty,:i-cubed
x 7 -Id] - _ '010
c -
- Q L
Parkwood School Road
J
Monroe O o°
rojec o..
18-002.08
FIGURE
1

�l]allas�
cer
- - • _ 1 au taln _ M nt lly ,
Capps Hill
85
b r. Creek
is -
- McAtlr rile eS5
5 29 Imo
- merto VI-,
Lkson
1-
` "4 _ J.
Knvh Gastonia i�krniripa r
r
,Bowling Green
321 Y
Ckrew
ork F6ndt Hill Y Cd
21 77
ti} Hock Nil
21B
Legend
Nesbit Easement = 18.1 ac S
USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050103
14 Digit Hydrologic Unit Boundaries
Targeted Local Watersheds
0 2.5 5 10 15
Miles
-'`A
Harrisf'
.Ha
' �`
Reed (dine tate
ewel! Historic S
F �
4
_ Locusly "-
24-
f
�* `s ld
Midland z`
W! arK
485
Mint Hill �+
801 _
Ma S '
h For Cr 1 it
.74
Indian trail
L i
�1 Red Hill
UY :'
1 ,
--- � is
Il- •. r
Axipm Enwonmenlal, Inc,
Prepared for:
c
Project:
I
i
NESBIT
:i
MITIGATION SITE
Union County, NC
Title:
J
Cr:
HYDROLOGIC
UNIT MAP
.✓ :.MO Wings rshville..
Drawn by:
KRJ
_ - - a s gs � Date:
DEC 2018
e
`_��yVaxhaw � -
3 t�� Scale:
-o . `A 1:240,000
- Project No.:
Ila�� 18-002.08
Van vvyck
catawba ' rl Location of Nesbit Mitigation FIGURE
Site within USGS Hydrologic
5 Unit and Targeted Local
�.V Watershed 03050103030030
1?
'" - Copyright:© 2014 DeLorme

f 1�
Legend
QNesbit Easement = 18.1 ac f�
l`� J
QGlen Branch Drainage Area = 1.25 sq mi (798.8 ac)
_ UT-1 Drainage Area = 0.28 sq mi (176.2 ac) f
_ UT-2 Drainage Area = 0.07 sq mi (45.6 ac)
UT-3 Drainage Area = 0.03 sq mi (21.0 ac)
Jill,(
Axic- Enwon-enia+. Inc,
Prepared for:
x 7 �. 700
RESTORATION
Project:
NESBIT
r '----- • MITIGATION SITE
r �9
Union County, NC
ALc.� ■ ////// I 't� Title:
WAR
J
N h X.
y
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000
Feet
TOPOGRAPHY
AND
DRAINAGE AREA
700
Drawn by:
r KRJ
Date:
DEC 2018
�■ Scale:
ti,i i r 1:13,000
Project No.:
fr - 18-002.08
r
FIGURE
'A
IA r 1 J Copyright: 2 13 N ti +a6 Geo�c A N iiety, i-cubed

Soil Map Unit
Soil Series
BdB2
Badin channery silt clay loam
CmB
Cid channery silt loam 7
ScA
Seacrest Cid com lex
TaB, TbB2
Tatum Eavesflt clay loam
99
Cross Section 1
98
DA-0.27sq mi
97
Abkf = 8.7 sq ft
Abkf
Aexisting = 16.5 sq ft
97
W bkf = 8.5 ft
Dbkf = 1.0 ft
96
Dmax = 1.7 ft
Wbkf/Dbkf = 8.2
FPA = 50 ft
96
ENT = 5.9
LBH = 2.5 ft
95
—
BHR = 1.47
Eg-type
95
0
5 10 15 20
25
100
Cross Section 2
99
DA = 0.74 sq mi
98
Abkf = 17.5 sq ft
Aexisting = 18.7 sq ft
98
W bkf = 9.3 ft
Dbkf = 1.9 ft
97
Dmax = 2.8 ft
W bkf/Dbkf = 4.9
97
TPA =50ft
ENT = 5.4
96
LBH = 3.0 ft
96
'
BHR = 1.07
E-type
95
0
5 10 15
20 25
T
m
NCDWR Form #3
Score: 30
. F"
NCSAM Form #2 !
Score: Low
XS-2
Tb
N
r
Axiom Env"nmenlsl: Iric,
Pre ared for:
p
- Project:
NZ
..� NCDWR Form #1 CmB
Score: 33 NESBIT
MITIGATION SITE
_ - NCSAM Form #1
Score: Medium
G�
Union County, NC
XS 1 <: Title:
NCDWR Form A EXISTING
TbB2 G� Score: 28 CONDITIONS
ScA Zng > AND SOILS
NCWAM Form #1
Score: Medium 'f y
p� Legend
NNesbit Easement = 18.1 ac Drawn by: KRJ
TbB2' Existing Streams = 5854 ft
® Existing Wetlands = 3.8 ac
Date:
DEC 2018
® Existing Drained Hydric Soils = 2.8 ac
Scale:
_
NCSAM Form #3
Cross Sections
1:3700
W
Score: Low{
NCSAM Form Locations
Project No.:
NCWAM Form Locations
18-002.08
' NCDWR Form Locations
Soil Profile
FIGURE
Powerline
'•!
Soil Boundary
TbB2
4 •, �
cep
2-foot Lidar Contours
i
0 300
600 1,200
- b
Feet

N
AV 'Vk
Axiom Ertv"nmenlal, PK.
Prepared for:
Project:
NESBIT
MITIGATION SITE
Of
Union County, NC
Title:
for
PROPOSED
CONDITIONS
Ilk
I- —
n by: Draw
KRJ
Date:
Legend
DEC 2018
it Easement 18.1 ac
NesbGlen
Scale:
Branch
1:3700
PoweHine
Stream Restoration = 4895 ft
Project No.: 18-002.08
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) = 171 ft
ti
Stream Enhancement (Level 11) = 1275 ft
Wetlands Enhancement = 3.8 ac
FIGURE
Wetland Restoration = 2.8 ac
Marsh Treatment Area
U
300
600 1,200
Feet

btu. STATE,,
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
June 21, 2019
Matthew Harrell
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re Nesbit Stream and Wetland Mitigation, Union County, ER 19-1767
Dear Mr. Harrell:
Thank you for email of May 21, 2019, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
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,
6"KRamona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Free and Fair Purchase Notice
April 25, 2019
Buford Township Farms, LLC
c/o Frank Howey
PO Box 429
Monroe, NC 28111
Dear Landowner,
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Restoration Systems, LLC, in offering to purchase an easement
on your property in Union County, North Carolina, does not have the power to acquire it by eminent domain.
Furthermore, the contracted price for the easement on your property is based on what we believe to be its fair
market value.
If you have any questions please contact me at 919.755.9490.
Sincerely,
;eY6.`.
Matthew Harrell
Sr. Project Manager

liFFMAKIIN
Union County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species
Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern,
and Candidate Species,
Union County, North Carolina
Updated: 06-27-2018
Critical Habitat Designations:
Carolina heelsplitter - Lasmigona decorata - The main stem of Goose Creek (Pee Dee River system), from the
N.C. Highway 218 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with the Rocky River, and the main stem of Duck
Creek, from the Mecklenburg/Union County line, downstream to its confluence with Goose Creek; the main
stem of Waxhaw Creek (Catawba River system), from the N.C.Highway 200 Bridge, downstream to the North
Carolina/South Carolina State line; and the main stem of Flat Creek (Pee Dee River system), Lancaster County,
South Carolina, from the S.C. Route 204 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with the Lynches River, and the
main stem of the Lynches River, Lancaster and Chesterfield Counties, South Carolina, from the confluence of
Belk Branch, Lancaster County, northeast (upstream) of the U.S.Highway 601 Bridge, downstream to the S.C.
Highway 903 Bridge in Kershaw County, South Carolina. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements
include: (i)Permanent, flowing, cool, clean water; (ii)Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and
banks; (iii)Pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel; (iv)Stable substrates with no more than low
amounts of fine sediment; (v)Moderate stream gradient; (vi)Periodic natural flooding; and (vii)Fish hosts, with
adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Federal Register Reference: July 2, 2002, Federal Register, 67:44501-44522.
Common Name
Scientific name
Federal
Record Status
Status
Vertebrate:
Carolina darter
Etheostoma collis collis
FSC
Current
Invertebrate:
Atlantic pigtoe Range by Basin
Fusconaia masoni
ARS
Current
Carolina creekshell
Fillosa vaughaniana
FSC
Current
Carolina heelsplitter
Lasmigona decorata
E
Current
Savannah lilliput
Toxolasma pullus
FSC
Current
Yellow lampmussel
Lampsilis cariosa
FSC
Probable/potential
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/union.html 1 /3

liFFMAKIIN
Union County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species
Vascular Plant:
Georgia aster
Michaux's sumac
Piedmont aster
Ravine Sedge
Schweinitz's sunflower
Virginia quillwort
Nonvascular Plant:
Lichen:
Symphyotrichum georgianum
C
Current
Rhus michauxii
E
Historic
Eurybia mirabilis
FSC
Current
Carex impressinervia
FSC
Current
Helianthus schweinitzii
E
Current
Isoetes virginica
FSC
Historic
Definitions of Federal Status Codes:
E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
C = candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to support
listing. (Formerly "Cl" candidate species.)
BGPA =Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. See below.
ARS = At Risk Species. Species that are Petitioned, Candidates or Proposed for Listing under the Endangered
Species Act. Consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA is not required for Candidate or Proposed species;
although a Conference, as described under Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA is recommended for actions affecting
species proposed for listing.
FSC=Federal Species of Concern. FSC is an informal term. It is not defined in the federal Endangered Species
Act. In North Carolina, the Asheville and Raleigh Field Offices of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
define Federal Species of Concern as those species that appear to be in decline or otherwise in need of
conservation and are under consideration for listing or for which there is insufficient information to support
listing at this time.Subsumed under the term "FSC" are all species petitioned by outside parties and other
selected focal species identified in Service strategic plans, State Wildlife Action Plans, or Natural Heritage
Program Lists.
T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A taxon that is threatened due to similarity of appearance
with another listed species and is listed for its protection. Taxa listed as T(S/A) are not biologically endangered
or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. See below.
EXP = experimental population. A taxon listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential). Experimental,
nonessential populations of endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened species on public land,
for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.
P = proposed. Taxa proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened will be noted as "PE" or "PT",
respectively.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)_
In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register( 72:37346-37372), the bald eagle was declared recovered, and removed (de-
listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife. This delisting took effect August 8,2007.
After delisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) becomes the
primary law protecting bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides a
statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb". The USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines to provide guidance to land managers, landowners, and others as to how to avoid
disturbing bald eagles. For mor information, visit http://www.fws.goyzmigratorybirds/baldeagle.htm
Threatened due to similarity of appearance(T(S/A))_
In the November 4, 1997 Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to
Georgia) was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/union.html 2/3

11/21/2019 Union County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The
T(S/A) designation has no effect on land management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of
the southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
Definitions of Record Status:
Current - the species has been observed in the county within the last 50 years.
Historic - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Obscure - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Incidental/migrant - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
Probable/potential - the species is considered likely to occur in this county based on the proximity of known
records (in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or both.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/union.html 3/3

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
http://www.fws.2ov/nc-es/es/cog fr
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2019-SLI-0280
Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-00736
Project Name: Nesbit
April 24, 2019
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The attached species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. Although not required by
section 7, many agencies request species lists to start the informal consultation process and begin
their fulfillment of the requirements under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
This list, along with other helpful resources, is also available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) Asheville Field Office's (AFO) website: htips://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/
cntylist/nc_counties.html. The AFO website list includes "species of concern" species that could
potentially be placed on the federal list of threatened and endangered species in the future. Also
available are:
Design and Construction Recommendations
htlps://www.fws.Gov/asheville/htmls/Troject review/Recommendations.html
Optimal Survey Times for Federally Listed Plants
htlps://www.fws.gov/nc-es/Tlant�/plant survey
Northern long-eared bat Guidance
hLtps://www.fws.lzov/asheville/htmls/Troject reviewNLEB in WNC.htmI
Predictive Habitat Model for Aquatic Species
htlps://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/Maxent/Maxent.html

04/24/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-00736
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could require modifications of these lists.
Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act,
the accuracy of the species lists should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website or the AFO website (the AFO website dates each
county list with the day of the most recent update/change) at regular intervals during project
planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be
requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the
enclosed list or by going to the AFO website.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a Biological
Evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12 and on our office's website
at https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project_review/assessment_guidance.html.
If a Federal agency (or their non-federal representative) determines, based on the Biological
Assessment or Biological Evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be
affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to
50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and
proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the
regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license
applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://
www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-librgI3L/Vdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF.
Though the bald eagle is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, please be aware
that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16
U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require additional consultation (see
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/our-services/permits/eagles/). Wind energy projects should follow
the wind energy guidelines(http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to
migratory birds (including bald and golden eagles) and bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://

04/24/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-00736 3
www.fws. o� rg atorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;
http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws. omi rg atorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/
towers/comtow.html.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office.
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List
• Migratory Birds
• Wetlands

04/24/2019 Event Code: 04EN 1 000-2019-E-00736
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
[phone]

04/24/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-00736
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2019-SLI-0280
Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-00736
Project Name: Nesbit
Project Type: STREAM / WATERBODY / CANALS / LEVEES / DIKES
Project Description: This proposal describes the Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
(Site) and is designed specifically to assist in fulfilling North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division
of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) mitigation goals. The Site is located
within 14-digit Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed
03050103030030, approximately 7 miles southwest of Monroe and 5
miles southeast of Waxhaw in the southwest corner of Union County near
the North Carolina and South Carolina border. The Site is not located
within a Regional or Local Watershed Planning area. The Site is situated
along warm water, Glen Branch and unnamed tributaries to Glen Branch.
The Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site is proposed to include 4895
linear feet of stream restoration, 171 linear feet of stream enhancement
(level I), 1275 linear feet of stream enhancement (level II), 2.8 acres of
riparian riverine wetland restoration, and 3.8 acres of riparian riverine
wetland enhancement. Site alterations include cessation of agriculture,
restoration of streams and wetlands, and planting native, woody
vegetation. Mitigation outlined in this report will result in net gains in
hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions, and are designed to
provide 5264 Stream Mitigation Units and 4.7 Riparian Riverine Wetland
Mitigation Units, as calculated in accordance with the requirements
stipulated in RFP #16-007704
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.goo�le.com/mgps/Tlace/34.8944289929299N80.65151406245305W

04/24/2019 Event Code: 04EN 1 000-2019-E-00736
L.
Counties: Union, NC

04/24/2019
Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-00736
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Clams
NAME STATUS
Carolina Heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws. og v/ecp/species/3534
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws. og v/ecp/species/5217
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws. og v/ecp/species/3849
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

04/24/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-00736
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Acts.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location.
To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see
the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that
every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders
and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data
mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For
projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative
occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional
information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory
bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found
below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME
BREEDING SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention Jul 31
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws. og v/eo/species/1626
Probability Of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project

04/24/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-00736
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence (■)
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 1 Okm grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the IOkm grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

04/24/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-00736 3
■ probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bond Eaglnlnerable -dill 111161111111 L-0.... ..........1111111111
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds -of -conservation -concern. nhn
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.lzov/birds/
mana e�project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation -measures.
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws. o� rg atorybirds/pdf/
management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or
permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCQ and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AIM. The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the I0km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.

04/24/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-00736
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the E-bird Explore Data Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my
project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab
of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of
interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your
migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects

04/24/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-00736 5
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam LOI ng.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

04/24/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-00736
Wetlands
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Armorps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine
the actual extent of wetlands on site.
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
• PFOIA
• PSSIA
FRESHWATER POND
• PUBHh
RIVERINE
• R4SBC
• R5UBH

Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Nesbit Stream Mitigation Bank
Glen Branch
Union County, North Carolina
Glen Branch during the survey effort
Prepared For:
1102 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh NC 27604
Contact:
Matthew Harrell
mharrell@restorationsystems. com
October 18, 2019

Prepared by:
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
Contact:
Tim Savidge
tim.savid e(cr�,threeoaksengineering.com
919-732-1300

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 0
2.0
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................. 0
3.0
RESULTS............................................................................................................................ 1
3.1
Stream Conditions............................................................................................................ 1
3.2
Mussel Surveys................................................................................................................ 2
4.0
CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................2

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) is pursuing the Nesbit Stream Mitigation Bank (Nesbit Site),
which involves restoration of a portion of Glen Branch, a tributary to Waxhaw Creek of the
Catawba River Basin in Union County (Figure 1). The proposed proj ect involves in -channel
stream restoration work within an approximately 3,823 if section of Glen Branch southeast of the
town of Waxhaw.
The federally Endangered Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) is known to occur in
Waxhaw Creek downstream of the project in Union County, North Carolina and Lancaster
County, South Carolina. Other rare freshwater mussel species are also known to occur in Union
County, including the Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), which is proposed for federal listing
as a Threatened species, as well as the NC Endangered Savannah Liliput (Toxolasma pullus) and
Carolina Creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) and the NC listed Special Concern Notched Rainbow
(Villosa constricta). Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) was retained by RS to conduct
surveys for freshwater mussels in the proposed restoration reach, plus an approximately 2,043 if
downstream buffer.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The project site was visited on September 26, 2019, by Three Oaks personnel Tim Savidge
(Permit # 19-ES0034) and Wade Biltoft. Mussel surveys began at the most downstream limits of
the reach, approximately 2,043 if downstream of the Nesbit Road crossing of the stream and
proceeded upstream through the project parcel, for a total survey reach of 5,8661f (Figure 1).
Areas of appropriate habitat were searched, concentrating on the habitats preferred by the target
species. Visual surveys were conducted using bathyscopes. Tactile methods were employed,
particularly in streambanks under submerged rootmats. If encountered, all freshwater bivalves
were to be recorded and returned to the substrate and timed survey efforts would provide Catch
Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data for each mussel species encountered. Additionally, relative
abundances for freshwater snails and freshwater clam species were estimated using the following
criteria:
➢ (VA) Very abundant > 30 per square meter
➢ (A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter
➢ (C) Common 6-15 per square meter
➢ (U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter
➢ (R) Rare 1-2 per square meter
➢ (P-) Ancillary adjective "Patchy" indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the
sampled site.
Nesbit Mitigation Site Freshwater Mussel Survey Report October 2019
Job# 19-324 Page 0

3.0 RESULTS
Large sections of Glen Branch within the survey reach were totally dry and there was no
discernable flow in areas where water was present. No live freshwater mussels were found
during the surveys; however, an individual relict shell of one species, the Eastern Elliptio
(Elliptio complanata), was found within the project site. The two target mussel species are
unlikely to be present. The details of the survey are provided below.
3.1 Stream Conditions
The survey reach was divided into two segments of unequal length: Segments A and B which
occur downstream and within the project site, respectively (Figure 1). Habitat conditions varied
widely between and within the segments and were influenced primarily by geology, Beaver
(Castor canadensis) dams, and surrounding land use.
Segment A
Segment A extends from a point approximately 2,043 if downstream of the Nesbit Road crossing
upstream to the culvert. The channel ranges from approximately 12 to 16 feet wide, with banks
two to six feet high. The stream is bordered by cropland, with generally narrow (0-20 feet wide)
forested riparian buffers. The right descending side of the channel is bordered by woodland in
the lower 300 feet of the segment. The substrate consists of a mixture of cobble, and sand, with
occasional bedrock outcrops oriented perpendicular to the channel. With the exception of a few
short (10-60 feet in length), stagnant pools, that were created either by log j ams or Beaver dams,
the streambed was dry. There is a wide (15-20 feet) scour pool immediately below the road
crossing with more incised banks than the rest of the segment.
Segment B
Segment B extends from the Nesbit Road crossing upstream through the project site
(approximately 3,823 If). From the crossing to a point approximately 350 feet upstream, the
channel is relatively narrow (8-10 feet wide) and incised (banks 8-10 feet high). The substrate
consists of compact clay. The water appears to be ponded because of the culvert and ranges
from six to eight inches deep; there was no discernable flow. Immediately above this, there is a
relatively short (50 feet) rocky section that was totally dry. In the remaining portion of the
segment, the channel widens to about 12 to 15 feet, with banks up to six feet high that are
moderately to severely eroded. It gradually becomes narrower, but less incised. The substrate
alternates between sand and pebble, cobble and bedrock, and muddy clay, with sandy clay banks.
A number of small Beaver dams occurred periodically within the channel. Water was ponded up
to two feet deep behind the dams for varying distances. Large amounts of duckweed
(Lemnoideae) covered the water surface in these wetted areas and the substrate was covered with
detritus and other organic material. There were long stretches of the streambed between dams
Nesbit Mitigation Site Freshwater Mussel Survey Report October 2019
Job# 19-324 Page 1

that were totally dry. In the uppermost 250-350 feet of the reach, water was present, but now
was not discernable and much of the channel was choked with emergent aquatic vegetation such
as Water Primrose (Ludwigia sp.), Arrowleaf Tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum) and
Smartweed (Polygonum sp.). The stream is bordered by a narrow (<20 feet) strip of vegetation,
consisting largely of Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense), Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora), and
saplings and small sized native trees. Large corn fields occur beyond the narrow buffer.
3.2 Mussel Surveys
A total of 6.0 person -hours of survey time were spent in the reach and one relict shell of the
Eastern Elliptio was the only freshwater mussel species found. Other mollusk species found
include Fingernail Clams (Sphariidae), which were common with a patchy distribution and the
Pointed Campeloma (Campeloma decisum), an aquatic snail that was uncommon.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Neither the Carolina Heelsplitter nor Atlantic Pigtoe were observed in the evaluated portion of
Glen Branch and both are very unlikely to currently occur within the stream. At least one
freshwater mussel species, the Eastern Elliptio, occurs in very low numbers within the surveyed
reach of Glen Branch. This is a common and widespread species that is considered stable
throughout its range and has been shown to persist in streams that are subject to periodic
cessation of flow (Tim Savidge, personal observations). Project conclusions on potential effects
to the targeted species are provided below.
4.1 Biological Conclusion: Carolina Heelsplitter
Although Glen Branch flows into Waxhaw Creek, which is currently occupied by the Carolina
Heelsplitter, it is apparent that the surveyed portion of the stream is subject to periods of
interrupted flow. Being a rather thin -shelled species, the Carolina Heelsplitter is very susceptible
to desiccation during drought. Although it is unlikely to occur within the surveyed portion of
Glen Branch, given the connectivity to an extant population downstream in Waxhaw Creek, its
presence within the project area cannot be totally discounted based on a one-time survey.
As such, it can be concluded that the project construction "May Affect/Not Likely to Adversely
Affect" the Carolina Heelsplitter. The proposed restoration of Glen Branch may result in a
"Beneficial Affect" to the species, by improving water quality in Glen Branch, which ultimately
flows into Waxhaw Creek, as well as allow for future colonization of the species once habitat
conditions improve (See Section 5.0).
Nesbit Mitigation Site Freshwater Mussel Survey Report October 2019
Job# 19-324 Page 2

4.2 Atlantic Pigtoe
While the Atlantic Pigtoe is a thicker -shelled species, it typically occurs in relatively swift
streams and rivers with a substrate that often has gravel as a major component. This type of
habitat is not present in Glen Branch, and there are no know populations of the species in this
general portion of the Catawba River Basin.
Given the habitat conditions in Glen Branch and the lack of any known populations with
connectivity to the stream, it can be concluded that the project construction will have "No
Effect" on the Atlantic Pigtoe.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Adverse effects to the Carolina Heelsplitter and Atlantic Pigtoe are unlikely to occur. As
mentioned in Section 4.1 project construction may actually result in a `Beneficial Affect" to the
Carolina Heelsplitter by improving water quality. Additionally, improved habitat conditions in
Glen Branch may allow for the Waxhaw Creek population to expand its range into Glen Branch.
Considerations should be taken into account to incorporate a component of the project that
involves stocking mussels, such as the Eastern Elliptio, or other associate species like creekshells
(Villosa spp.) into the restored reach. If stocking these non -protected species proves successful,
resource managers may then consider establishing Carolina Heelsplitter in the stream.
Nesbit Mitigation Site Freshwater Mussel Survey Report October 2019
Job# 19-324 Page 3

Nesbit Mitigation Site Freshwater Mussel Survey Report October 2019
Job# 19-324 Page 4

Freshwater Mussel Survey
Nesbit Mitigation Site
Vicinity Map
Union County, North Carolina
Hate: October 2019
Scab_
100 200 M.te <
Job No.:
19-324
�raLn b:
CheTm
Figure

QPP��ENT OF FISHE ILD IFE
2A United States Department of the Interior
o
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE�o
�gRCH 3,'%a Asheville Field Officeot,.=,F.
160 Zillicoa Street Suite #B
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
November 18, 2019
Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Subject: 20-056, Section 7 Concurrence for NC DMS stream/Wetland mitigation project
on Glen Branch in Union County, NC
Dear Mr. Brew,
On October 21, 2019, we received your email requesting section 7 concurrence on effects the
subject project may have on the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata). The following comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Freshwater mussel surveys in Glen Branch on September 26, 2019 were negative for Carolina
heelsplitter or any alive mussels. However, although very unlikely, presence in the project area
cannot be completely discounted due to intermittent connectively to an extant population
downstream in Waxhaw Creek. Accordingly, we concur with your determination that the
proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Carolina heelsplitter.
Therefore, we believe the requirements under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 15 31 - 1543), are fulfilled. Obligations under Section 7
of the ESA must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
If you have questions about these comments please contact Ms. Claire Ellwanger of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 42235. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference our Log Number 20-056.
Sincerely,
-original signed -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request 6/3/19
Name Of Project Nesbit Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Federal Agency Involved Federal Highway Administration
Proposed Land Use Stream and Wetland Restoration County And State Union County, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS 6/3/19
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). 0 ❑
Acres Irrigated
none
Average Farm Size
190 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 384,651 acres % 94
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 291,581 acres %77
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Union County, NC LESA
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
N/A
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
June 23, 2019 by eMail
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
18.1
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0.0
C. Total Acres In Site
18.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
0.1
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
18.0
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0062
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
49.0
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
15
14
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
10
10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
20
10
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20
20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
15
15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
15
10
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
10
10
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
10
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
5
5
10. On -Farm Investments
20
10
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
10
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
10
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
260
185
0
0
0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ❑ No ❑
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

From:
Cortes. Milton - NRCS. Raleigh, NC
To:
Matthew Harrell
Subject:
RE: Nesbit Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Union County, NC: Form AD-1006
Date:
Sunday, June 23, 2019 5:01:50 PM
Attachments:
NRCS Form AD-1006 Nesbit.odf
Importance:
High
Mathew:
Please find attached the AD1006 form for the Nesbit Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Project, Union County, NC
If I can be of further assistance please let me know
Best Regards
State Soil Scientist
USDA NRCS
4407 Bland Rd., Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Desk: 919-873-2171
From: Matthew Harrell<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 3:06 PM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nesbit Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Union County, NC: Form AD-1006
Hi Milton,
Please review the attached documents regarding our farmland impact evaluation for the Nesbit
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project. This is the first one of these I've sent your way, so please let
me know if I am missing something or if you prefer a different format in the future.
Thanks,
Matthew Harrell
Sr. Project Manager I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. ISuite 2111 Raleigh, NC 27604
c: 252.299.1655 1 p: 919.755.9490
www.restorationsystems.com
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended

recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the
information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal
penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and
delete the email immediately.

From: Matthew Harrell
To: Claire ellwanaerCabfws.aov
Cc: Phillips. Kelly D
Subject: FHA Review Request: NC DMS Project "Nesbit", Union County, NC
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:12:00 PM
Attachments: Nesbit USFWSScooinaLetter.odf
Nesbit USGS Mao.odf
Nesbit ExistinaConditions.odf
Ms. Ellwanger,
Please review the attached letter and figures relating to our proposed stream and wetland
mitigation project in Union County, NC near Mineral Springs. I look forward to any comment USFWS
staff may have to offer.
Thank you,
Matthew Harrell
Sr. Project Manager I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. I Suite 2111 Raleigh, NC 27604
c: 252.299.1655 1 p: 919.755.9490
www.restorationsystems.com

September 17, 2019
Claire Ellwanger
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
[e-mail]
Federal -Aid project (FHWA lead federal agency) administered by NC DMS Stream/Wetland mitigation
project in Union County
Nesbit Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery Project ID #: 100121
To US FWS Staff:
The Nesbit site has been identified for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and/or wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been
identified as significantly degraded including Glen Branch and several tributaries.
The Site is proposed to include 6,341 feet of combined restored and enhanced stream channel
along with 6.6 acres of reestablished and enhanced riparian wetlands. Site alterations include
cessation of agriculture, restoration of streams and wetlands, and planting native, woody
vegetation within the easement. Mitigation outlined in this report will result in net gains in
hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions, and are designed to provide 5,264 Stream
Mitigation Units and 4.7 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units.
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt portion of the Piedmont ecoregion of North
Carolina. Regional physiography is characterized by dissected, irregular plains with moderate to
steep slopes and low to moderate gradient streams over boulder and cobble -dominated
substrate (Griffith et al. 2002). Onsite elevations range from a high of 640 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at the upper reaches to a low of approximately 620 feet NGVD
at the Site outfall (USGS Waxhaw, NC 7.5 minute topo_quad).
We have already obtained an updated species list for Union County from your web site
(https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc counties.html). The threatened or
endangered species for this county are:
Common Name (Scientific Name)
Federal Status
Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
Endangered Clam
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)
ARS (Listing coming soon?)
Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Endangered Plant
Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Endangered Plant

We are requesting that you please provide any known information for each species in the
county. The USFWS will be contacted if we determine that the project may affect one or more
federally listed species, or designated critical habitat.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a wetland and/or
stream restoration project on the subject property. A USGS map showing the approximate
property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance is enclosed.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our species list is correct, that you
do not have any comments regarding associated laws, and that you do not have any
information relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated
with this project.
Yours truly,
Restoration Systems, LLC
iviattnew Harrell
Sr. Project Manager
[e-mail]
919-755-9490
Attachments: Location and USGS Map
CC: DMS Project Manager (Kelly Phillips)

From:
Matthew Harrell
To:
sha nnon. deaton(ab ncwild life. ora
Subject:
Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project: Concurrence Request and Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act review
Date:
Tuesday, May 21, 2019 5:13:00 PM
Attachments:
Nesbit NCWRC Letter.pdf
Nesbit ExistinaConditions.pdf
Nesbit USGS Mao.odf
Ms. Deaton,
Please review the attached letter and figures relating to our proposed Stream & Wetland Mitigation
Project in Union County near Mineral Springs. I look forward to any comment your staff may offer.
Thank you,
Matthew Harrell
Sr. Project Manager I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. I Suite 2111 Raleigh, NC 27604
c: 252.299.1655 1 p: 919.755.9490
www.restorationsystems.com

April 261", 2019
Shannon Deaton
Habitat Conservation Program Manager
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
[e-mail]
Re: Nesbit Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Union County, INC
Dear Ms. Deaton:
The purpose of this letter is to request concurrence from NCWRC concerning a stream and wetland
restoration project located in Union County for the N.C. Division of Mitigation Services. The project will
restore stream channels and riparian wetlands through an agricultural field and young forest area. Please
review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act from the potential project. Attached is a USGS base map with the projects 18.1 acre
footprint identified. The Site is located approximately 3 miles south of Mineral Springs. Site land use consists
of a row crops, and disturbed forest and riparian buffer areas. All Site hydrology drains to Glen Branch.
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt portion of the Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina. Regional
physiography is characterized by dissected, irregular plains with moderate to steep slopes and low to
moderate gradient streams over boulder and cobble -dominated substrate (Griffith et al. 2002). Onsite
elevations range from a high of 640 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at the upper reaches to a
low of approximately 620 feet NGVD at the Site outfall (USGS Waxhaw, NC 7.5 minute topo_quad).
The Site is proposed to include 6,341 feet of combined restored and enhanced stream channel along with
6.6 acres of reestablished and enhanced riparian wetlands. Site alterations include cessation of agriculture,
restoration of streams and wetlands, and planting native, woody vegetation within the easement.
Mitigation outlined in this report will result in net gains in hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions,
and are designed to provide 5,264 Stream Mitigation Units and 4.7 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact the below
referenced Project Manager with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project. If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will assume you have no
comments on the project. Your valuable time and cooperation are much appreciated.
Yours truly,
Restoration Systems, LLC
Matthew Harrell
Sr. Project Manager
[e-mail]
919-755-9490
Attachments: Location and USGS Map

Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Post Contract Award IRT Site Visit: 7-22-2019
NC DMS Project # 100121 NC DMS Contract # 7868 RFP # 16-007704
Task 1 a.) Inter -Agency Post Contract Site Visit: Site Visit Notes
As specified within RFP #16-007704, an on -site meeting with regulatory agencies and DMS staff was
conducted on July 22t", 2019. Below is a list of attendees and general site visit notes.
Attendees:
USACE:
- Todd Tugwell
- Kim Browning
NC WRC:
- Olivia Munzer
NC DMS:
- Kelly Phillips (PM)
- Paul Wiesner
- Matthew Reid
- Periann Russell
- Kirsten Ullman
NC DWR:
- Mac Haupt
- Erin Davis
Restoration Systems:
- Matthew Harrell (PM)
- Raymond Holz
- Alex Baldwin
Axiom Environmental
- Grant Lewis
- Kenan Jernigan
Site Visit Notes:
- Members of the IRT evaluated this site for wetland and stream restoration potential and
assessed credit ratios outlined in the Technical Proposal.
- IRT would like to see historic aerials included in future technical proposals to better illustrate in
recent changes in land use, including tree clearing.
- IRS noted history of beavers on the site and continuing landowner management activities
relating to beaver removal.
- IRS noted heavy presence of invasive species (mainly privet) and plan to treat those species
beginning before construction.
Stream Notes:
- Main Channel (Glen Branch): The proposed credit ratios were accepted as proposed with little
comment.
- UT 1: Proposed approach included Level II Enhancement (2.5:1) and Restoration (1:1). IRT stated
the portion above the confluence with UT1A should be treated as Level I Enhancement for
design purposes but still credited at 2.5:1. The IRT requested a gauge be installed in the upper
reaches of UT 1 to determine the flow regime, particularly if the channel bed elevation is raised.
- UT1A: Proposed approach was Level II Enhancement at 2.5:1 credit ratio. IRT is willing to accept
Level II enhancement at 5:1 credit ratio.
- UT 2: Proposed credit ratios were accepted as proposed, pending the official JD call for origin
location.

Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Post Contract Award IRT Site Visit: 7-22-2019
NC DMS Project # 100121 NC DMS Contract # 7868 RFP # 16-007704
UT 3: It appeared this reach may not be considered jurisdictional. If it is not jurisdictional, the
favored option is to install a BMP as the valley enters the buffer of Glen Branch. If it is
jurisdictional, flow gauges will be required.
Wetland Notes:
- IRT had questions about tree clearing within existing wetlands circa 2012 and the potential for a
violation. T. Tugwell stated that given the current condition of the project area he did not see a
reason to hold up the project, but that he would pass the information along to the Charlotte
USACE office for their review.
- Some areas of Wetland Enhancement depicted on Figure 5 of the Technical Proposal may be
suitable for Wetland Rehabilitation. Wetland Rehabilitation may be suitable for portions of the
Site currently characterized by hydric soils and jurisdictional hydrology that have been cleared of
woody vegetation and are affected by groundwater table alterations from the adjacent, incised
stream channel. Gauges must be installed and monitored to verify the hydrologic modifications
prior to mitigation activities.
- The extent of wetland potential on the site as shown in the figures was difficult to assess during
the visit due to lush vegetation and dry conditions. Axiom explained that the extent shown in
the technical proposal figures is based on soil hydrology observed in December 2018 as well as
elevation data derived from the latest NC Lidar data. The JD process is expected to clarify any
questions about extent of wetland potential on the site. The delineation process will begin this
month.
- IRT requested that more comprehensive soil borings be taken in each of the primary wetland
areas and included at the Draft Mitigation Plan stage at a minimum. This will be addressed by
including logs of the soil borings taken during the JD process.

From: Matthew Harrell
To: Tuawell. Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Wiesner. Paul
Cc: Jones. M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Roden Reynolds. Bryan K CIV (US); Phillips. Kelly D; Ray
Holz; Lewis. Grant; Worth Creech
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NC DMS Site: Nesbit- Question about wetlands
Date: Thursday, January 30, 2020 4:09:00 PM
Attachments: NRCS Email.pdf
NRCS Map.pdf
Soi lBorinaLoa Nesbit. pdf
Nesbit Fia5 Updated.pdf
Todd:
Thanks for seeing things through with the landowner and the Charlotte office. I want to make sure we address your
concerns both with the history of the site and the planned mitigation approach.
Regarding site history: In June 2019, with authorization from the landowner, I visited the NRCS office. I have
attached an email and tract map related to that visit. This map was the only record NRCS was able to provide for the
project site, as no active NRCS programs were being implemented which might have required a more detailed file.
As you can see in those documents, NRCS did not identify any wetlands on the site. From my conversation with the
Soil Conservationist I gathered that they did not examine soil profiles but instead made basic observations of USGS
mapped soil type and the lack of obvious hydrology to draw their map.
Regarding site mitigation approach: (Existing Wetlands, Drained Hydric Soils, Other)
The completed and approved PJD delineated all areas of jurisdictional wetland in the project footprint. These
existing wetland areas have been considered for wetland preservation, wetland enhancement, and wetland
rehabilitation credit. We will be proposing wetland rehabilitation credit in our mitigation plan, based on restoring an
appropriate plant community and elevating the water table by reducing stream incision. Groundwater gauges
installed prior to construction will help demonstrate the functional uplift provided by our project warrants this credit
type.
Hydric soils outside of the jurisdictional wetland boundaries established in the PJD are considered drained hydric
soils and will be proposed as wetland re-establishment. There may have been some confusion about the extent of
these areas simply because they have been mapped and approximated on figures (mapping via Lidar, Aerials, etc)
but not field delineated. Once delineated (with appropriate soil boring locations and logs), the figures and acreage
totals will be revised and included in the mitigation plan. The attached soil boring log is an example of the type of
profile we expect in these areas. Wetland re-establishment will only be proposed within areas clearly delineated as
having drained hydric soils.
Other areas situated outside the hydric soil boundary (and therefore by default beyond the jurisdictional wetland
boundary) may considered wetland creation if they become jurisdictional through the construction of the Site. As
you can see from our attached figure, we have not explicitly mapped any such areas in our preliminary mitigation
plan, and at this time do not expect to have any such areas detailed in our draft mitigation plan.
In conclusion:
Please find attached an updated mitigation approach figure which accounts for IRT feedback during the Post -
Contract Site Visit as well as the approved PJD. Further refinement of the wetland mitigation approach will occur
before submission of the Draft Mitigation Plan after the full hydric soil delineation and a detailed topographic
survey have been completed.
Thanks,
Matthew Harrell
Sr. Project Manager Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St.1Suite 211IRaleigh, NC 27604
c: 252.299.1655 1p: 919.755.9490

www.restorationsystems.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 12:08 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Matthew Harrell<[e-mail]>
Cc: Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Roden Reynolds, Bryan
K CIV (US) <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Ray
Holz <[e-mail]>; Lewis, Grant<[e-mail]>; Worth Creech
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NC DMS Site: Nesbit- Question about wetlands
Paul, normally I would say we could review at the draft mit plan stage, but in this case it may make sense for us to
get on the same page before that. My concern is that there were areas on the site that had marginal soils (i.e., soils
that did not meet necessary hydric indicators), which is one reason why we did not view logging/clearing in these
areas to be a potential unauthorized activity, but if these same areas are proposed for reestablishment, that would
seem to be an inconsistent approach. It would be more appropriate to view these areas as creation. Also, I think
there were areas that were previously identified as either enhancement or rehabilitation that are not currently
jurisdictional based on the JD, so these areas may potentially be either reestablishment or creation (again, depending
on the soils). Because of this I think it would be good to look at a revised approach map in case there might be
changes to credit ratios that could affect the viability of the site. I think the final map may also need some further
refining to capture hydric inclusions within the soils to get a better idea of the appropriate approach.
I'm happy to discuss more with you or RS/Grant, if that would help.
Thanks,
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Wiesner, Paul[mailto:paul.wiesner(c�ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 10:26 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Matthew Harrell
<mharrell @re storationsystems. com>
Cc: Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Roden Reynolds, Bryan
K CIV (US) <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>;
Raymond Holz <[e-mail]>; Lewis, Grant<[e-mail]>; Worth Creech
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: NC DMS Site: Nesbit- Question about wetlands
Thanks Todd;
The draft mitigation plan will include the PJD documentation and the proposed mitigation approaches will be
reassessed based on that determination.
Do you all want to see a revised conceptual map and asset table before IRT submittal of the draft mitigation plan or
do you want to review any potential revisions at the draft mitigation plan stage?
I just want to make sure we are all on the same page.
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services

828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail]
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:Todd.J.Tugwell(c�usace.army roil]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 5:16 PM
To: Matthew Harrell<[e-mail]>
Cc: Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Roden Reynolds, Bryan
K CIV (US) <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: NC DMS Site: Nesbit- Question about wetlands
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:report.spamWnc.gov>
Matthew,
Scott Jones, Bryan Roden Reynolds, and I met with Mr. Howey at the Nesbit site today to look at the past clearing
activities. Based on that review, we found no evidence that activities were conducted within jurisdictional areas that
would have required prior authorization during the land clearing and pond removal conducted by Mr. Howey. As a
result, we can continue to coordinate with you and DMS on the development of the mitigation site. I appreciate
your patience during this process.
Mr. Howey mentioned during the meeting that when he cleared the land he coordinated with NRCS, which means
that there should be some documentation that NRCS concurred that the work would be consistent with federal
regulations at the time. Do you happen to have any paperwork from NRCS, or would it be possible for you to
contact the local NRCS office to see about getting a copy of any relevant materials? It would help complete our file
and add fiuther verification that Mr. Howey's work on the site complied with federal regulations.
With regard to the mitigation plan for the site, I would also like to see any revisions that may have been made to the
approach following the JD review that Bryan conducted, especially within the wetland areas. I think it's important
to make sure that the findings of the JD and today's review of the site are consistent with the mitigation approaches
being proposed (i.e., enhancement or rehabilitation within currently jurisdictional areas, reestablishment within areas
that were previously wetland, and establishment within areas that were not wetland before).
Thanks,
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Matthew Harrell [mailto:mharrell(&restorationsystems.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 3:53 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: NC DMS Site: Nesbit- Question about wetlands
Ok, thanks for letting me know.
-MH
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>

Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 5:01 PM
To: Matthew Harrell <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: NC DMS Site: Nesbit- Question about wetlands
Matthew, I got your message today and have reached out to Scott again. I'll let you know as soon as I hear
something from him. I know you're waiting so I'm trying to push for an answer.
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Matthew Harrell [mailto:mharrell c&restorationsystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 11:43 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ray Holz <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: NC DMS Site: Nesbit- Question about wetlands
Ok, thanks for the update.
Sent from my Whone
> On Dec 12, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Matthew, sorry, no word yet. I think Scott (Asheville/Charlotte office chief) is waiting to hear from Wilmington
on some answers related to age of projects we may pursue as potential unauthorized activities. I will let you know
as soon as I hear anything.
> Todd
> -----Original Message -----
> From: Matthew Harrell [mailto:mharrell(&Xestorationsystems.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 10:48 AM
> To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: NC DMS Site: Nesbit- Question about
> wetlands
> Hey Todd,
> Just following up on this again. If you haven't heard anything back from Charlotte I'll try contacting them directly
so I can keep the project timeline from slipping too much.
> Thanks,
> Matthew
> -----Original Message -----
> From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 12:19 PM
> To: Matthew Harrell <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: NC DMS Site: Nesbit- Question about wetlands
> I've contacted the Charlotte office again to see how they want to proceed. Sorry for the delay, but sometimes it
can take a bit of time before they make a decision on these sites as it could mean contacting the landowner.
> I'll let you know as soon as I hear something.

> Todd
> -----Original Message -----
> From: Matthew Harrell [mailto:mharrell(&restorationsystems.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 11:37 AM
> To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: NC DMS Site: Nesbit- Question about
> wetlands
> Hi Todd- just following up on this again. Have you heard back from the Charlotte office? Also, is this something
you would prefer for us to go directly to them about?
> Thanks,
> Matthew
> -----Original Message -----
> From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 8:30 AM
> To: Matthew Harrell <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: NC DMS Site: Nesbit- Question about wetlands
> Matthew,
> I got the message and I'm checking with the Charlotte office now. By any chance, were our concerns about the
site history mentioned at the time of the JD?
> Thanks,
> Todd
> -----Original Message -----
> From: Matthew Harrell [mailto:mharrell(&Xestorationsystems.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 2:18 PM
> To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Ray Holz
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] NC DMS Site: Nesbit- Question about wetlands
> Hi Todd,
> I left you a voicemail about this, but wanted to follow up in writing.
> During the IRT site visit to this Union County site you mentioned a concern about potential historic wetland
violations on site due to land use change(See attached notes). At that time you indicated it was not an issue for you,
but that you would be notifying the Charlotte USACE office of the potential issue and allowing them to address it.
> Since that time we have been through the JD process with the Charlotte office (See attached signed PJD). During
that process there was no further mention of any past or ongoing wetland violations.

> As we proceed with our contract tasks for DMS on this project, I'd like to be certain that we have laid this issue to
rest. Does the signed PJD satisfy the issue and clear the site to proceed, or do I need to get an additional letter from
you or the Charlotte office?
> Thanks for guiding me through this.
> Matthew Harrell
> Sr. Project Manager IRestoration Systems, LLC
> 1101 Haynes St. ISuite 211IRaleigh, NC 27604
> c: 252.299.1655 1p: 919.755.9490
> BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedwww.restorationsystems.com
><BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedhttp://www.restorationsyste
> ms.com>

From:
Britt, Shauntae - NRCS, Monroe, NC
To:
Matthew Harrell
Subject:
RE: Frank Howey - Nesbit Rd Stream Restoration
Date:
Tuesday, June 4, 2019 3:16:14 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.ona
NC179 F9126 T54385.odf
Matthew, upon review of the Farm 9126 T54385 as authorized by Mr. Frank Howey; there are no
active NRCS programs being implemented on this Tract. Further more this tract is actively applying a
conservation system based on records (not based on a current field visit) and is in compliance with
Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Provisions. As outlined on the Tract Map Provided there are no
wetlands identified on the Tract.
If you need further information please feel free to contact our office.
Regards,
Shauntae Britt
USDA/NRCS
Supervisory Soil Conservationist
Team 11
704-233-1621 x 3
704-694-3516 x3
Team-1 i
NgFtlr Camp him
Natilral $ Ottrcexcua •rvaliollService
Uviscvi'StHLes I)oIrartrne11t of zkgriculturc
Heilaing Peoikle Heip TTkr. bu d
From: Matthew Harrell<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 10:40 AM
To: Britt, Shauntae - NRCS, Monroe, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: Frank Howey - Nesbit Rd Stream Restoration
Hi Shauntae,
It was nice to meet you yesterday. I just wanted to get our email chain started and let you know I
appreciate your help finding any records that might relate to our stream restoration project on
parcel owned by the Howey's on Nesbit Road.
Hope you have a great weekend!
Matthew Harrell
Sr. Project Manager I Restoration Systems, LLC

1101 Haynes St. I Suite 2111 Raleigh, NC 27604
c: 252.299.1655 1 p: 919.755.9490
www.restorationsystems.com
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended
recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the
information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal
penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and
delete the email immediately.

USDA United States
Depart
Agrricult fetof Union County, North Carolina
Union
3
2 � •
t
,1
4 5
6
ir41 i
;i dr + �
0 235 470 jr;40
W E
s
- Feet
Farm 9126
Tract 54385
2017 Program Year
CLU
Acres
HEL
Crop
1
33.23
HEL
2
31.0
HEL
3
21.3
HEL
4
5.39
HEL
5
120.86
1 HEL
6
8.36
HEL
7
28.07
HEL
8
1.03
HEL
Page Cropland Total: 149.24 acres
Map Created August 21, 2017
Base Image Layer flown in 2016
Common Land Unit
Cropland
CMITract Boundary
Wetland Determination Identifiers
• Restricted Use
0 Limited Restrictions
Exempt from Conservation
Compliance Provisions
USDA FSA maps are for FSA Program administration only. This map does not represent a legal survey or reflect actual ownership; rather it depicts the information provided directly from the producer and/or the NAIP imagery. The producer
accepts the data 'as is' and assumes all risks associated with its use. The USDA Farm Service Agency assumes no responsibility for actual or consequential damage incurred as a result of any user's reliance on this data outside FSA Programs.
Wetland identifiers do not represent the size, shape, or specific determination of the area. Referto your original determination (CPA-026 and attached maps) for exact boundaries and determinations or contact NRCS.

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 12/18/2018
Project/Site: Nesbit Mitigation Site
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile (35.892134,-80.655905)
Investigator:
Soil Series:
W. Grant Lewis
Worsham
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location is shown on
Figure 4.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
0-9
10 YR 5/3
90
10 YR 4/6
5
fine sandy loam
10 YR 6/4
5
9-11
10 YR 6/1
100
fine sandy loam
11+
2.5 YR 6/2
70
2.5 YR 6/3
20
sandy clay
10 YR 5/8
10
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
liltza
Signature: '-"
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

Nesbit
4321 Nesbit Rd.
Monroe, NC 28112
Inquiry Number: 5704558.2s
July 01, 2019
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
(rEDR . Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
FORM-PBA-CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary-------------------------------------------------------
ES1
Overview Map
2
Detail Map
3
Map Findings Summary----------------------------------------------------
4
Map Findings
8
Orphan Summary---------------------------------------------------------
9
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking
GRA
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum------------------------------------------
A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary
A-2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map-------------------------------------------
A-5
Physical Setting Source Map
A-14
Physical Setting Source Map Findings----------------------------------------
A-16
Physical Setting Source Records Searched------------------------------------.
PSGR-1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2019 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC5704558.2s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited
Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process (E 1528-14) or custom requirements developed
for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
4321 NESBIT RD.
MONROE, NC 28112
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
34.8936000 - 34' 53' 36.96"
80.6544000 - 80' 39' 15.84"
Zone 17
531578.1
3861101.0
655 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 5946503 WAXHAW, NC
Version Date: 2013
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
Portions of Photo from: 20140517
Source: USDA
TC5704558.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

F- MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
4321 NESBIT RD.
MONROE, NC 28112
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS
NO MAPPED SITES FOUND
DATABASE ACRONYMS
RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ELEVATION DIRECTION
5704558.2s Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL___________________________ National Priority List
Proposed NPL________________ Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS -------------------- Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL__________________ National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY__________ Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS_________________________ Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE-------------- Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS------------------ Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF------------------ RCRA- Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG------------------- RCRA- Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG------------------- RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG---------------- RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS_________________________ Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Engineering Controls Sites List
TC5704558.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US INST CONTROL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS_________________________ Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS_____________________ Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS------------------------- Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF_______________________ List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI____________________________ Old Landfill Inventory
DEBRIS_______________________ Solid Waste Active Disaster Debris Sites Listing
LCID__________________________ Land -Clearing and Inert Debris (LCID) Landfill Notifications
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST -------------------------- Regional UST Database
LAST__________________________ Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
INDIAN LUST_________________ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST_________________ State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST____________________ Underground Storage Tank Listing
UST___________________________ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST___________________________ AST Database
INDIAN UST__________________ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP__________________ Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
VCP___________________________ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS______________ Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS----------- A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY_______________________ Recycling Center Listing
TC5704558.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HIST LF_______________________ Solid Waste Facility Listing
INDIAN ODI___________________ Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9----------- Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI___________________________ Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS___________ Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL_________________ Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL_______________________ National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2_______________________ CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS________________________
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS________________________
Spills Incident Listing
IMD___________________________
Incident Management Database
SPILLS 90____________________
SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80____________________
SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
FUDS_________________________
Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD__________________________
Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS_______
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR_______________
Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST____________
EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA_________________________
Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS__________________________
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS--------------------------
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD__________________________
Records Of Decision
RMP__________________________
Risk Management Plans
RAATS________________________
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP___________________________
Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS_________________________
PCB Activity Database System
ICIS___________________________
Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS__________________________
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS_________________________
Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA______________
Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER _ _ _ _
_ _ _ PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO ---------------------
Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS____________________
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS_____________________
Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT____________________
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV_____________
Indian Reservations
FUSRAP______________________
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA_______________________
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS____________
Lead Smelter Sites
TC5704558.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US AIRS______________________
Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES____________________
Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES ---------
Abandoned Mines
FINDS -------------------------
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
ECHO -------------------------
Enforcement & Compliance History Information
UXO ---------------------------
Unexploded Ordnance Sites
DOCKET HWC----------------
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
FUELS PROGRAM___________
EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
AIRS__________________________
Air Quality Permit Listing
ASBESTOS___________________
ASBESTOS
COAL ASH____________________
Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS______________
Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance -----------
Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES------------------------
NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC----------------------------
Underground Injection Wells Listing
AOP---------------------------
Animal Operation Permits Listing
PCSRP------------------------
Petroleum -Contaminated Soil Remediation Permits
SEPT HAULERS______________
Permitted Septage Haulers Listing
CCB___________________________
Coal Ash Structural Fills (CCB) Listing
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP_____________________ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto ----------------- EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner_____________ EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS____________________ Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF_______________________ Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST____________________ Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC5704558.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
TC5704558.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

OVERVIEW MAP - 5704558.2S
Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/4 1/2 1 Mlles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Power transmission lines Disposal Sites
ioo-year flood zone
5oo-year flood zone
■ National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Nesbit CLIENT: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS: 4321 Nesbit Rd. CONTACT: JD Hamby
Monroe INC 28112 INQUIRY #: 5704558.2s
LAT/LONG: 34.8936 / 80.6544 DATE: July 01, 2019 4:50 pm
Copyright �o 2019 EDR, Inc. (,) 2015 TonnTom Rai. 2015.

DETAIL MAP - 5704558.2S
Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
t
Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1 /16 1 /9 1 /4 Mlles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
ioo-year flood zone Disposal Sites
5oo-year flood zone
National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Nesbit CLIENT: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS: 4321 Nesbit Rd. CONTACT: JD Hamby
Monroe INC 28112 INQUIRY #: 5704558.2s
LAT/LONG: 34.8936 / 80.6544 DATE: July 01, 2019 4:51 pm
Copyright �o 2019 EDR, Inc. (,) 2015 TonnTom Rai. 2015.

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database (Miles) Property
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2 - 1
> 1
Plotted
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Proposed NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
NPL LIENS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
SEMS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-SQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-CESQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Federal institutional controls /
engineering controls registries
LUCIS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US INST CONTROL 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal ERNS list
ERNS TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State and tribal landfill and/or
solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
OLI 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
DEBRIS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LCID 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
TC5704558.2s Page 4

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database (Miles) Property
< 1 /8
1/8- 1 /4
1/4- 1 /2
1/2- 1
> 1
Plotted
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LAST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
INDIAN LUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LUST TRUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
AST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
INDIAN UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
State and tribal institutional
control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
VCP 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS
0.500
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY
0.500
HIST LF
0.500
INDIAN ODI
0.500
DEBRIS REGION 9
0.500
ODI
0.500
IHS OPEN DUMPS
0.500
Local Lists of Hazardous waste /
Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL
TP
US CDL
TP
Local Land Records
LIENS 2
TP
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS
TP
SPILLS
TP
IMD
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
TC5704558.2s Page 5

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database
(Miles) Property
< 1 /8
1/8- 1 /4
1/4- 1 /2
1/2- 1
> 1
Plotted
SPILLS 90
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
SPILLS 80
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
FUDS
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
DOD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US FIN ASSUR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
EPA WATCH LIST
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
2020 COR ACTION
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
TSCA
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
TRIS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
SSTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ROD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
RMP
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RAATS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PRP
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PADS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ICIS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FTTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
MLTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH DOE
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH EPA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
PCB TRANSFORMER
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RADINFO
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
HIST FTTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
DOT OPS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
CONSENT
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
INDIAN RESERV
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
FUSRAP
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
UMTRA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LEAD SMELTERS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
US AIRS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
US MINES
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
ABANDONED MINES
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
FINDS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ECHO
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
UXO
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
DOCKET HWC
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FUELS PROGRAM
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
AIRS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ASBESTOS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
DRYCLEANERS
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Financial Assurance
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
NPDES
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
UIC
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
AOP
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PCSRP
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
SEPT HAULERS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
TC5704558.2s Page 6

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target Total
Database (Miles) Property < 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
CCB 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
EDR Hist Auto 0.125 0 NR NR NR NR 0
EDR Hist Cleaner 0.125 0 NR NR NR NR 0
4 Q:111111 N x9011Y =I N =I eZrZeP/ =I N . hy, I =I .11 &1:N :111r/ �:
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
RGA LF TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
RGA LUST TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
- Totals -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC5704558.2s Page 7

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation Site
•10-A19:.y7.11P1.]
MAP FINDINGS
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
TC5704558.2s Page 8

Count: 0 records.
ORPHAN SUMMARY
City EDR ID Site Name Site Address Zip Database(s)
NO SITES FOUND
TC5704558.2s Page 9

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS
NESBIT
4321 NESBIT RD.
MONROE, NC 28112
Ira:zC]=1192:z•»a:4WK90191NQI,Fit 9*1
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Target Property Map:
Version Date:
34.8936 - 34' 53' 36.96"
80.6544 - 80' 39' 15.84"
Zone 17
531578.1
3861101.0
655 ft. above sea level
5946503 WAXHAW, NC
2013
EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in
forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration.
Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components:
1. Groundwater flow direction, and
2. Groundwater flow velocity.
Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics
of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the
geologic strata.
TC5704558.2s Page A-1

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION
Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site -specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other
sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data
collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers).
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to
assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or,
should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY
General Topographic Gradient: General WSW
SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES
V
N
O
O
T
A
d
\W
A
N
A
N v
W.
_ . _ . _
North
TIP
West
TIP
0
Target Property Elevation: 655 ft.
South
V
A T 0�0 0�0 j
A
East
1/2 1 Miles
Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated
on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified.
TC5704558.2s Page A-2

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist
the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways
and bodies of water).
FEMA FLOOD ZONE
Flood Plain Panel at Target Property
3710540200J
Additional Panels in search area:
3710449200J
3710540000J
3710448000J
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
NWI Quad at Target Property
WAXHAW
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
FEMA Source Type
FEMA FIRM Flood data
FEMA Source Type
FEMA FIRM Flood data
FEMA FIRM Flood data
FEMA FIRM Flood data
NWI Electronic
Data Coverage
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map
Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator
of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the
environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
AQUIFLOW®
Search Radius: 1.000 Mile.
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory
authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined
hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table.
LOCATION GENERAL DIRECTION
MAP ID FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW
Not Reported
TC5704558.2s Page A-3

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION
Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary
to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil
characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes
move more quickly through sandy -gravelly types of soils than silty -clayey types of soils.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed
at which contaminant migration may be occurring.
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT
GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION
Era: Paleozoic Category: Eugeosynclinal Deposits
System: Cambrian
Series: Cambrian
Code: Ce (decoded above as Era, System & Series)
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology
of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman
Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
TC5704558.2s Page A-4

SSURGO SOIL MAP - 5704558.2s
6
* Target Property
N SSURGO Soil
N Water
2
2
PA
7
4
2
0 1/16 1/8 114 Mile
SITE NAME: Nesbit CLIENT: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS: 4321 Nesbit Rd. CONTACT: JD Hamby
Monroe NC 28112 INQUIRY #: 5704558.2s
LAT/LONG: 34.8936 / 80.6544 DATE: July 01, 2019 4:51 pm
Copyright �o 2019 EDR, Inc. v 2015 TonnTom Rai. 2015.

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil
Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information
for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns
in a landscape. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service SSURGO data.
Soil Map ID: 1
Soil Component Name: Secrest
Soil Surface Texture: silt loam
Hydrologic Group: Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downward
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Moderately well drained
Hydric Status: Partially hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Moderate
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 77 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 61 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1
0 inches
11 inches
silt loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
2
11 inches
42 inches
silty clay loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
3
42 inches
53 inches
silty clay loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
4
53 inches
61 inches
weathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
TC5704558.2s Page A-6

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
5
61 inches
66 inches
unweathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
Soil Map ID: 2
Soil Component Name: Tatum
Soil Surface Texture: gravelly silty clay loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: High
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1
0 inches
5 inches
gravelly silty
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
clay loam
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.
2
5 inches
44 inches
silty clay
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.
TC5704558.2s Page A-7

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
3
44 inches
53 inches
weathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.
Soil Map ID: 3
Soil Component Name: Zion
Soil Surface Texture: gravelly loam
Hydrologic Group: Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downward
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: High
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 77 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1
0 inches
7 inches
gravelly loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 0.07
Max: Min:
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
2
7 inches
25 inches
gravelly clay
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 0.07
Max: Min:
loam
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
TC5704558.2s Page A-8

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
3
25 inches
29 inches
gravelly clay
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 0.07
Max: Min:
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
4
29 inches
33 inches
unweathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 0.07
Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
Soil Map ID: 4
Soil Component Name: Cid
Soil Surface Texture: channery silt loam
Hydrologic Group: Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downward
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Moderately well drained
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: High
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 77 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 61 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1
0 inches
9 inches
channery silt
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
loam
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
TC5704558.2s Page A-9

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
2
9 inches
22 inches
silty clay loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
3
22 inches
27 inches
channery silty
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
clay
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
4
27 inches
31 inches
weathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
5
31 inches
35 inches
unweathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
Soil Map ID: 5
Soil Component Name: Water
Soil Surface Texture: channery silt loam
Hydrologic Group: Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downward
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
Soil Drainage Class:
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Not Reported
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
No Layer Information available.
TC5704558.2s Page A-10

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 6
Soil Component Name: Badin
Soil Surface Texture: silty clay loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: High
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1
0 inches
5 inches
silty clay loam
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
Min: 3.5
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Clayey
50%), silt.
Soils.
2
5 inches
19 inches
silty clay
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
Min: 3.5
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Clayey
50%), silt.
Soils.
3
27 inches
42 inches
weathered
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
bedrock
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
Min: 3.5
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Clayey
50%), silt.
Soils.
4
42 inches
59 inches
unweathered
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
bedrock
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
Min: 3.5
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Clayey
50%), silt.
Soils.
5
19 inches
27 inches
channery silty
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
clay loam
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
Min: 3.5
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Clayey
50%), silt.
Soils.
TC5704558.2s Page A-11

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 7
Soil Component Name: Tatum
Soil Surface Texture:
gravelly silt loam
Hydrologic Group:
Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class:
Well drained
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel:
High
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1
0 inches
7 inches
gravelly silt
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
loam
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
2
7 inches
42 inches
silty clay loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
3
42 inches
53 inches
weathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
Soil Map ID: 8
Soil Component Name: Tatum
Soil Surface Texture: gravelly silt loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained
TC5704558.2s Page A-12

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: High
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1
0 inches
7 inches
gravelly silt
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
loam
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
2
7 inches
42 inches
silty clay loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
3
42 inches
53 inches
weathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max: 14
Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min: 0
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
11919Y9 I FM N XC] [0] lk VA NIVITIAN 9 =I:viim 4 lk Ewa N *Ole] N 11.1
EDR Local/Regional Water Agency records provide water well information to assist the environmental
professional in assessing sources that may impact ground water flow direction, and in forming an
opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells.
WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION
DATABASE
SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)
Federal USGS
1.000
Federal FRDS PWS
Nearest PWS within 1 mile
State Database
1.000
FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION
MAP ID
WELL ID
LOCATION
FROM TP
TC5704558.2s Page A-13

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No Wells Found
FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No PWS System Found
Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location.
STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No Wells Found
OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
TC5704558.2s Page A-14

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 5704558.2s
County Boundary
N Major Roads
N Contour Lines
OO Earthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater
® Water Wells
© Public Water Supply Wells
® Cluster of Multiple Icons
0 1/4 1/2 1 Miles
Groundwater Flow Direction Wildlife Areas
e I Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location Natural Areas
c v Groundwater Flow Varies at Location o Rare & Endangered Species
SITE NAME: Nesbit CLIENT: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS: 4321 Nesbit Rd. CONTACT: JD Hamby
Monroe INC 28112 INQUIRY #: 5704558.2s
LAT/LONG: 34.8936 / 80.6544 DATE: July 01, 2019 4:51 pm
Copyright �o 2019 EDR, Inc. v 2015 TonnTom Rel. 2015.

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Database EDR ID Number
Elclass:
Eostat:
Edr id:
I
E
NC50003029
Precision1:
Gisid:
NC_NHEO NC50003029
S
22499
NC_NHEO NC50022774
Elclass:
I
Precision1:
S
Eostat:
E
Gisid:
22499
Edr id:
NC50022774
NC_SNHA NC10001560
Acres:
50.5
Sitename:
WAXHAW CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT
Quality type:
Not Reported
Sig:
A
Site id:
1560
Edr id:
NC10001560
TC5704558.2s Page A-16

Appendix F: FEMA Coordination
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

From: Grant Lewis
To: brian.hawkinsCai)unioncountvnc.aov
Cc: Matthew Harrell
Subject: Nesbit Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Floodplain Mapping Coordination
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2020 3:21:00 PM
Attachments: Nesbit FEMA Coordination.odf
Hello Brian;
I am doing a stream and wetland restoration project in Union County and need to coordinate with
you all concerning floodplain mapping. The project is being conducted with the NC Division of
Mitigation Services. Part of the due diligence is getting a DIMS floodplain checklist signed by the local
floodplain administrator. I looked on the Union County website and believe you are the proper
person to coordinate with. If not, can you please forward this to the proper authority?
For my coordination, can you please review the attached information and sign/fill out the last page
of the NCDMS floodplain checklist and return to my attention?
Thank you for your time.
Grant Lewis
Grant Lewis
Senior Project Manager
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
alewisOaxiomenvironmental.ora
[phone] (cell)

1
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
May 14, 2020
Brian Hawkins, PE, CFM
Union County Stormwater Engineer
500 N Main Street, Suite 70
Monroe, NC 28112
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 919-215-1693
Re: Nesbit Stream and Wetland mitigation project
Union County
FEMA Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Dear Mr. Hawkins:
20-007
The purpose of this letter is to request concurrence from the Union County concerning a stream and
wetland restoration site located in Union County. The Site encompasses approximately 18.0 acres of
agriculture land used for row crops along Glen Branch and unnamed tributaries to Glen Branch.
Proposed activities at the Site include the restoration of perennial stream channels and riparian
wetlands.
Stream reaches are depicted on the attached figures and lengths/priority are as follows:
Reach
Length
Priority
Glen Branch
4115
Restoration and Enhancement Level I
UT IA
314
Enhancement Level II
UT 1
917
Restoration and Enhancement Level I and II
UT 2
309
Restoration and Enhancement Level II
FEMA mapping was reviewed to determine if the project is located in a FEMA study area (DFIRM
panel numbers 5402 and 5400). Based on existing floodplain mapping, Glen Branch and its
floodplain are characterized as a Zone AE Flood Zone. We request guidance from your organization
as to how to mover forward with the project.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact the
below referenced NC DMS Project Manager with any questions that you may have concerning the
extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Yours truly,
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL
W. Grant Lewis
Senior Project Manager
Attachments
Figure 1 Site Location
Figure 2 Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3 Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4 Existing Conditions
Figure 5 Reference Reach
Figure 6 Proposed Conditions
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Cc Matthew Harrel

r�
Fcos stem
E ai ement
PROGRAM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of
the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with
three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Nesbit Site
Name if stream or feature:
Glen Branch
County:
Union
Name of river basin:
Catawba
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:
Monroe/Union
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
5402 and 5400
Consultant name:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Phone number:
919-215-1693
Address:
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
FEMA_Floodplain Checklist.docx Page 1 of 3

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500". (See Attached)
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority.
(See Attached)
Example
Reach
Len th
Priority
Example: Reach A
1000
One (Restoration)
Exam le: Reach B
2000
Three (Enhancement)
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
E Yes U No
The lower reaches
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
T Redelineation
r- Detailed Study
r Limited Detail Study
F- Approximate Study
W Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
W AE Zone
Floodway
Non -Encroachment
None
F- A Zone
Local Setbacks Required
No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setb acks?
C Yes E No
FEMA_Floodplain Checklist.docx Page 2 of 3

Land Acquisition (Check)
F State owned (fee simple)
r- Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
F Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed
to the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
[phone])
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
E Yes E No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (attn: State NFIP Engineer, [phone]
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Brian Hawkins
Phone Number: 704-283-3942
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
F No Action
F No Rise
F Letter of Map Revision
Conditional Letter of Map Revision
F Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Name: W. Grant Lewis Signature:
Title: President Date:
FEMA_Floodplain Checklist.docx Page 3 of 3

•
N
Axiom Enwronmenial, Inc,
may, Prepared for:
# Parkwood School ,RoadRESTORATION
C rg t:E MWaLfiI gra hi 4rAi
Soci t iMUM 15- d h {'
Project:
Monroe o'
NESBIT SITE
75 { ,,. 1 Union County, NC
A , r
-
Nesbit _ ,{ Title:
f r #. ¢ f Roan , { _ /=
_ k SITE
LOCATION
200
011
200
Drawn by:
Legend KRJ
Cf
Nesbit Easement Date:
NCDOT Roads APR 2020
Scale:
FUSGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Ma Waxhaw and Unitp� Y, NC Quads) 1:20,000
622
Sri
L
67
Copyrjght:@201-3-Natii nal Geogiraphic
'Socitety; Abed
Protect No..
20-007
FIGURE
1

N W Has
-: ou Ain nt ry
ka
I �9 Aicr4eli ills _
� ff
Y C 411LO:TE;t.Ju '
1 I
4b S
ats 5
rHowling C�ilen —'- 5
�M1 ' 274
55'OW.# Y
2dd
�� rtvuell ff �
f�
Locus#
4
f
field
fMInt Hill _ -
a0 1 ^, x
ZVI
.. F
�indian bail
Foil Mill ,.
Y49�4 ROCK COOWMIFT
I k
Axiom En-miumnial, Inc,
Prepared for:
G
Project:
NESBIT SITE
Union County, NC
Title:
HYDROLOGIC
UNIT MAP
$Ts smn3ie
- - --- -
4 { -w
r L '
274 Drawn by:
KRJ
J Date:
:lack Flili wahhavv ' ! APR 2020
121 g t
Legend
r �
Nesbit Easement
USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050103 C�4w#a' Vyn wyck
14 Digit Hydrologic Unit Boundaries
Targeted Local Watersheds Y I�"
0 2.5 5 10 15
Miles
# _ Scale:
1:240,000
# Project No.:
V. 20-007
Location of Nesbit Mitigation FIGURE
Site within USGS Hydrologic
_ Unit and Targeted Local
Watershed 03050103030030 rf'
r
� Copyright:(c) 2018 Garmin

, � i4 '4 � • F*,
Legend r
+� Q Nesbit Easement
Glen Branch Drainage Area = 1.25 sq mi (798.8 ac)
y` 4 UT-1 Drainage Area = 0.28 sq mi (176.2 ac)
0
} —
'� UT-2 Drainage - 0.07 s mi 45.6 ac
1 9 q ( )
Axiom Enwrorumniall inc.
Prepared for:
1RESTORATION
*'
V, Project:
• NESBIT SITE
Union County, NC
•`� Title:
db
- ' TOPOGRAPHY
'�Xl
AND
DRAINAGE AREA
u
Drawn by:
KRJ
- I Date:
APR 2020
Scale:
r1_ ` 1:13,000
5
_ Project No.:
20-00�
N - ,� �r�
to
.�.r FIGURE
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000
Feet-
*_ N GIA copyrig t:© 2013 National Ge'ogra6h S ciety, i-cubed
i11�.

50
25
00 50
Referenr_e Pattern
Lp-p = 52 (37 - 64) It
Lm = 86 (60 - 97) ft
Wbelt = 28 (24 - 33) ft
Rc=21 (12-28)ft
Lp-pfWbkf = 4.2 (3.0 - 5.3)
Lm/Wbkf = 7.1 (5.0 - &0)
Wbelt/Wbkf = 2.3 (2.0 - 2.7)
Rc/Wbkf = 1.7 (1.0 - 2.3)
SIN = 1.14
104
1❑3
'82
7-
IN
99
SB
97
95
Iwharri Reference Reach
Ba kf it
"S
21
•x
100 150 200
Pattern Legend 106
Tap of Bank
105
- - Thalweg
Crass Section 104
103
102
101
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Cross Section 1 - Ri#fle 1os
IopoeAe
Abkf = 12.0 ft
Dave = 1.1 ft
Wbkf = 11.2 ft
Dmax = 1.6 ft Balk ul
Bank Height = 1,6 ft
Bank Height Ratio = 1.0 Ice
W!D = 10.6
w FPA = 50
ENT = 4.4 10s wwo
Stream Type = E
102 1 1 ----ill I 14i III --III
a 1 10 15 20 25 30 35
❑ 57 - 37 - I M _-D 307 357 457 450
Profile [Reference Reach
Cross Section 2 - Pool
Abkf = 16.9 ft
Wbkf = 13,3 ft
Dmax = 2.0 ft
Cross Section 3 - Pool
Abkf = 15.4 ft
Wbkf = 12.0 ft
Dmax = 2.2 ft
Cross Section 4 - Riffle
Abkf = 16.3 ft
Dave =1.3ft
Wbkf = 13.0 ft
Dmax = 1.7 ft
Bank Height = 1.7 ft
Bank Height Ratio = 1,0
W!D = 10A
FPA = 50
ENT = 3.8
Stream Type = E
Save = 0.0168 rise/run
Svalley = 0.0192 rise/run
Sriffle = 0.0283 (0.0096 - 0.0846) riselrun
Spool = 0,0013 (0 - 0.0082) rise/run
Srun = 0 (0 - 0.0091) rise/run
Sglide = 0.0027 (0 - 0.0102) rise/run
Water Surface
Channel Bed
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Nesbit
Mitigation Site
Union County
North Carolina
Title:
Uwharn
Reference Reach
Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile
Scale: NA FIGURE NO.
Date: 5
March 2020
Project No.:
20-007

LEGEND
Easement Boundary = -18.0 ac
Major Topography Line
Minor Topography Line
— —
Stream Restoration = 4803 ft
Stream Enhancement ( Level iy = 316 ft
Stream Enhancement { Level 10 = 536 ft
Wetland Reestablishment = 5.338 ac
Wetland Rehabilitation = 2-065 ac
Piped Crossing
q
Marsh Treatment Area
Drop Structure
Floodplain Intercepter
C
Log Cross Vane
Log Vane
UT 2 (Reach 2) = 197 ft
Restoration
Mitigation Activities
- Tie into upstream Enhancement reach ele
and begin shailowing the channel to his'
elevation.
- install habitaVgrade control structures.
- Contour the design channel to the proper
- Backfill the historic channel.
- Tie to Glen Branch across and inner meal
- Plant with native forest vegetation.
Glen Branch (Reach 3) = 2777 ft
Restoration
Mitigation Activities
- Tie to bedrosck grade control at the upper ends of the reach.
- Continue Priority 1 stream restoration at the historic fioodplain elevation.
- Install habitaVgrade control structures.
- Add 4 marsh treatmet areas in agriculture swales.
- Backfill the historic channel.
- Tie to the historic channel elevation at the Site outfall with a drop structure.
Plant with native forest vegetation.
Glen Branch (Reach 1) = 1275 ft
Restoration
Mitigation Activities
Install piped channel crossing in upper reaches.
Initiate stream restoration by bringing the channel
up to the historic floodplain elevation.
Install habitat/grade control structures.
Contour the design channel to the proper dimension.
Backfill the historic channel.
Add a marsh treatment area in agriculture swale.
Plant with native forest vegetation.
UT 1 (Reach 1) = 253 ft
Enhancement (Level I)'
i
Mitigation Activities
Tie to upstream elevation at property boundary.
- Step channel up to the historic floodplain
prior to downstream restoration reaches.
- Install habitatgrade control structures.
Contour design channel to the proper dimension.
Plant with native Forest vegetation.
" Note: This reach is credited at a 2.5:1 ratio.
UT 1 (Reach 2) = 382 ft
Restoration
Mitigation Activities
Install habitat/grade control structures.
Contour design channel to the proper dimension
Backfill the historic channel.
Add a marsh treatment area.
Plant with native forest vegetation.
UT1A=314ft
Enhancement (Level II)"
Mitigation Activities
- Plant with native forest vegetation.
"Note: This reach is credited at a 5.1 ratio.
UT 1 (Reach 3) = 110 ft
Enhancement (Level 11)
Mitigation Activities
- Install a piped channel crossing.
- Plant with native forest vegetation.
UT 2 (Reach 4) = 172 ft:
Restoration .rF
Mitigation Activities '+
Tie to the upstream channel crossing.
Excavate a channel at the historic floodplain elevation.
Install habitaVgrade control structures -
Tie to Glen Branch across an inner meander bend. R
Plant with native Forest vegetation.
Pt�
r
0 200 400
SCALE IN FEET
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Nesbit Site
Union County
North Carolina
Title:
RESTORATION
PLAN
Scale-.
FIGURE NO.
AS SHOWN
Date:
May 2020
6
Project No.:
20-007

Appendix G: Financial Assurances
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the NCDEQ DMS (formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program)
In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) has provided the USACE-Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to
satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by NCDEQ DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance
for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Appendix H: Site Protection Instrument
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Excise Tax: $1,080.00
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
UNION COUNTY
SPO File Number: 90-BM
DMS Project Number: 100121
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
FILED
UNION COUNTY, NC
CRYSTAL D. GILLIARD
REGISTER OF DEEDS
FILED Aug 28, 2020
AT 08:12 am
BOOK 07788
START PAGE 0883
END PAGE 0895
INSTRUMENT # 33657
EXCISE TAX $1,080.00
JT
DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this 27th day of August , 2020, by Buford Township Farms, LLC, a North
Carolina limited liability company ("Grantor"), whose mailing address is P.O. Box 429,
Monroe, NC 28111, to the State of North Carolina, ("Grantee"), whose mailing address is State
of North Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. The designations of 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.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et seQ., the State
of North Carolina has established the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the
3250959v3.J13B.26275.T29053
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 1 of 13

protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Restoration Systems,
LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company, 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211, Raleigh, NC
27604-1499 and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, to provide stream,
wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality Purchase and Services Contract Number 7868.
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, (MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU
recognized that the Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory
mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring,
enhancing and preserving the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) is to provide for compensatory mitigation by
effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing
and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service entered into an agreement to continue the In -Lieu Fee operations of the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources' Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem
Enhancement Program) with an effective date of 28 July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces
the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8t' day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environmental
Quality, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and Council of State
to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument; and
3250959v3.JBB.26275.T29053
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 2 of 13

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Jackson and Buford Townships, Union County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being
more particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 151.54 acres
and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 7279 at Page 643 of the
Union County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the
areas of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and
purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights.
The Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of Glen Branch
and several unnamed tributaries to Glen Branch.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.
The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:
Conservation Easement Area 1 and Conservation Easement Area 2 containing a total of
approximately 18.00 acres as shown on the plats of survey titled "Conservation Easement
Survey for the State of North Carolina, Division of Mitigation Services, DMS Project ID No.
100121, SPO File Number 90-BM, of Nesbit Mitigation Site over and across the Lands of
Buford Township Farms, LLC per DB 7279, Pg. 643 (a Portion of Parcel # 04335001), Buford
Township, Union County, North Carolina" dated June 15, 2020, by John A. Rudolph, PLS
Number L-4194 and recorded in the Union County, North Carolina Register of Deeds at Plat
Book P, Pages 248 through 249.
See attached "Exhibit A", Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
"Conservation Easement Area"
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the
Conservation Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to
prevent any use of the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these
purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
3250959v3.JBB.26275.T29053
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 3 of 13

use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area
by the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units,
derived from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong
to the Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation
Easement Area for the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey
plat.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this
Conservation Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such
purposes including organized educational activities such as site visits and observations.
Educational uses of the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded
survey plat and as related to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or
vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.
3250959v3.JBB.26275.T29053
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 4 of 13

H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement.
All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat.
I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except
interpretive signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values . of the
Conservation Easement Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the
Conservation Easement, signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the
use of the Conservation Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
rock, peat, minerals, or other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering
or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or
shortage of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may
temporarily be withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the
Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ("fee") that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non-transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
3250959v3.JBB.26275.T29053
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 5 of 13

The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities on the property to restore,
construct, manage, maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities
or a long-term management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation
Easement, the rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in -stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C, Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock within conservations easements damages the
investment and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which
would cause financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are
required to restrict livestock access to the Conservation Easement area. Repeated failure to do so
may result in the State (Grantee) repairing or installing livestock exclusion devices (fences)
within the conservation area for the purpose of restricting livestock access. In such cases, the
landowner (Grantor) must provide access to the State (Grantee) to make repairs.
E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or
features in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized
activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the
3250959v3.JBB.26275.T29053
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 6 of 13

Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the
Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by
such breach. If the breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may
enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an
action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
power and authority, consistent with its statutory. authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Conservation Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages
from any appropriate person or entity. 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 is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the
benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee
acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law 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.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at
reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying
with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. 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 caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from
any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument 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 invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
3250959v3.JBB.26275.T29053
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 7 of 13

B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. 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. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. 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.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if 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 purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing
sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any
request to void or modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification
requests shall be addressed to:
Division of Mitigation Services Program Manager
NC State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. 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
3250959v3.JBB.26275.T29053
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 8 of 13

interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. 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.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet
enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
3250959v3.JBB.26275.T29053
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 9 of 13

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
Buford Township Farms, LLC,
a North Carolina limited liability company
By:
Name: Franklin W. CRY _,dr.
Title: Manager
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF UNION
I, Connie H . Manger a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that Franklin W. Howey, Jr. , ftm=, personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument., in the capacity
of Manager of Buford Township Farms, LLC, as indicated above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the 27th
day of August , 2020.
ota�Publ
My Commission expires: May g, 2023
325095903E 8.2G275, T29053
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 10 of 13

Exhibit A
Legal Description
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
OF THE NESBIT NIITIGATION SITE
Conservation Easement Area 1
BEING ALL OF Conservation Easement Area 1 of the Nesbit Mitigation Site over a portion of
the land of Buford Township Farms, LLC with Parcel No. 04335001, lying and being situated in
Buford Township, Union County, North Carolina and particularly described as follows (all
distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):
Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 1 and being the
Southwestern most corner of the Conservation Easement Area 1 and being located South
71°47'17" West 1349.30 feet from an iron stake with a blue cap (Point No. 101) with N.C. Grid
Coordinates N=419,781.0117', E=1,503,901.5078' (NAD '83, 2011).
Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No. 1), North 61°00'28" East 80.29' to an iron stake;
thence South 71°22'49" East 48.23' to an iron stake; thence North 75°47'07" East 160.43' to an
iron stake; thence North 48°23'14" East 82.98' to an iron stake; thence North 19°18'10" East
63.60' to an iron stake; thence North 54°26'41" East 34.41' to an iron stake; thence South
79°00'41" East 29.80' to an iron stake; thence North 59°13'42" East 141.00' to an iron stake;
thence North 50°31'00" East 238.79' to an iron stake; thence North 51°13'30" East 189.50' to an
iron stake; thence North 08°38'49" West 63.84' to an iron stake; thence North 01°20'30" East
58.55' to an iron stake; thence North 19°42'52" West 85.02' to an iron stake; thence North
35°04'36" East 62.29' to an iron stake; thence North 72°53'13" East 21.76' to an iron stake;
thence South 69°43'20" East 55.42' to an iron stake; thence South 17°59'36" East 100.98' to an
iron stake; thence South 23°56'06" East 87.42' to an iron stake; thence North 59°04'31" East
113.43' to an iron stake; thence North 86°42'51" East 148.03' to an iron stake; thence North
11°33'24" East 197.50' to an iron stake; thence North 25°43'46" East 86.63' to an iron stake;
thence North 11'37'31" West 151.26' to an iron stake; thence North 03°34'26" East 36.66' to an
iron stake; thence North 20°30'04" East 71.77' to an iron stake; thence North 50°45'51" East
51.34' to an iron stake; thence North 63°41'08" East 118.27' to an iron stake; thence North
37036'03" East 89.58' to an iron stake; thence North 02°17'45" West 126.68' to an iron stake;
thence North 32°57'05" West 104.77to an iron stake; thence North 53°08'12" East 32.92' to an
iron stake; thence North 04004'38" East 151.78' to an iron stake; thence North 18°27'59" East
146.00' to an iron stake; thence North 34024'40" East 226.07' to an iron stake; thence North
19°58'10" East 64.61' to an iron stake; thence North 38°06'44" East 33.28' to an iron stake;
thence North 26°06'57" East 180.37' to an iron stake; thence North 36°50'44" East 112.46' to an
iron stake; thence North 12059'41" East 108.76' to an iron stake; thence North 21042'33" East
148.80' to an iron stake; thence North 09044'35" East 90.86' to an iron stake; thence South
86°55'46" East 116.99' to an iron stake; thence South 07°51'22" East 72.47' to an iron stake;
325095M.M.26275=9053
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 11 of 13

thence South 12°39'58" West 230.01' to an iron stake; thence South 03°11'34" West 96.13' to an
iron stake; thence South 34°35'56" West 78.32' to an iron stake; thence South 48°47'05" West
123.46' to an iron stake; thence South 25°02'16" West 297.06' to an iron stake; thence South
48°36'02" West 124.81' to an iron stake; thence South 13°19'48" West 63.98' to an iron stake;
thence South 04°3243" West 225.88' to an iron stake; thence South 84°48'12" East 57.27to an
iron stake; thence South 22°10'40" East 123.57' to -an iron stake; thence South 28°20'43" West
201.00' to an iron stake; thence South 37°27'21" West 95.58' to an iron stake; thence South
69°58'39" West 127.85' to an iron stake; thence South 02°49'46" East 405.06' to an iron stake;
thence South 19°37'34" West 125.46' to an iron stake; thence South 22°46'09" East 43.40' to an
iron stake; thence South 23°56'55" West 23.64' to an iron stake; thence South 86°20'07" West
57.07' to an iron stake; thence North 79°11'44" West 38.64' to an iron stake; thence South
68°55'38" West 81.12' to an iron stake; thence South 78°03'46" West 105.76' to an iron stake;
thence South 70°11'07" West 216.59' to an iron stake; thence South 57°06'14" West 71.86' to an
iron stake; thence South 24°39'51" West 86.18' to an iron stake; thence South 62°56'58" West
73.30' to an iron stake; thence South 16°26'55" West 76.03' to an iron stake; thence South
50°34'36" West 65.57' to an iron stake; thence North 84°55'11" West 55.67' to an iron stake;
thence South 59°15'12" West 59.50' to an iron stake; thence South 63°41'12" West 138.02' to an
iron stake; thence South 55'04'11" West 200.62' to an iron stake; thence South 27°45'32" West
81.30' to an iron stake; thence South 71°06'46" West 54.61' to an iron stake; thence North
62°11'36" West 60.12' to an iron stake; thence North 62°11.'36" West 198.20' to an iron stake;
thence North 66°41'51" West 31.10' to an iron stake, which is the Point of Beginning (Point No.
1), having an area of approximately 14.83 acres.
Conservation Easement Area 2
BEING ALL OF Conservation Easement Area 2 of the Nesbit Mitigation Site over a portion of
the land of Buford Township Farms, LLC with Parcel No. 04335001, lying and being situated in
Buford Township, Union County, North Carolina and particularly described as follows (all
distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):
Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 79 and being a
Southwestern corner of the Conservation Easement Area 2 and being located North 2295'21"
East 1227.91 feet from an iron stake with a blue cap (Point No. 101) with N.C. Grid Coordinates
N=419,781.0117', E=1,503,901.5078' (NAD '83, 2011).
Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No.79), North 68° 16' 11 " East 100.62' to an iron
stake; thence South 85°19'31" East 77.60' to an iron stake; thence South 43°18'55" East 311.78'
to an iron stake; thence North 84°52'49" East 44.89' to an iron stake; thence North 55°55'22"
East 106.90' to an iron stake; thence North 73°32'24" East 59.74' to an iron stake;
thence North 89°36'27" East 60.93' to an iron stake; thence South 20°02'31" West 523.83' to an
iron stake; thence North 50°19'35" West 70.18' to an iron stake; thence North 27°16'48" West
130.68' to an iron stake; thence North 06°31'22" West 134.90' to an iron stake; thence North
50°49'35" West 226.75' to an iron stake; thence North 21 °08' 14" West 78.83' to an iron stake;
thence South 82°45'51" West 80.94' to an iron stake; thence North 22'10'40" West 113.66' to an
iron stake, which is the Point of Beginning (Point No. 79), having an area of approximately 3.17
acres.
3250959O.M.26275.T29053
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 12 of 13

ALL OF THE FOREGOING CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREAS as shown on plat of survey titled
"Conservation Easement Survey for the State of North Carolina, Division of Mitigation Services, DMS
Project ID No. 100121, SPO File Number 90-13M, of Nesbit Mitigation Site over and across the Lands of
Buford Township Farms, LLC per DB 7279, Pg. 643 (a Portion of Parcel # 04335001), Buford Township,
Union County, North Carolina" dated June 15, 2020, by John A. Rudolph, PLS Number L-4194, K2
Design Group, and recorded in Plat Book P, Pages 248 through 249, Union County Register of Deeds.
ALL SUCH CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREAS TOGETHER WITH that certain new
sixty (60) foot -wide non-exclusive access easement labeled as Access Easement 1 and that
certain new sixty (60) foot -wide non-exclusive access easement labeled as Access Easement 2,
as well as any other access easements shown on the plat hereinafter referenced, all for ingress,
egress, and regress and all as shown on the foregoing described plat of survey recorded in Plat
Book P, Pages 248 through 249, Union County Register of Deeds.
3250959v3.JBB.26275.T29053
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 13 of 13

Appendix I: Credit Release Schedule
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

The schedules below list the updated credit release schedules for stream and wetland mitigation projects
developed by bank and ILF sites in North Carolina:
Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Wetlands
Credit
Banks
ILF/NCDMS
Release
Release Activity
Interim
Total
Interim
Total
Milestone
Release
Released
Release
Released
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
1
15%
15%
0%
0%
stated above)
Completion of all initial physical and biological
2
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation
15%
30%
30%
30%
Plan
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that
3
10%
40%
10%
40%
interim performance standards have been met
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that
4
°
10 /°
°
50 /°
°
10 /°
°
50/°
interim performance standards have been met
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that
::5::l
15%
65%
15%
65%
interim performance standards have been met
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that
6.
interim performance standards have been met
5%
70%
5%
70%
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that
7
°
15 /°
°
85 /°
°
15 /°
°
85/°
interim performance standards have been met
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that
8
°
5 /°
°
90 /°
°
5 /°
°
90/°
interim performance standards have been met
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that
9
10%
100%
10%
100%
performance standards have been met
*Please note that vegetation plot data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during
these monitoring years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
30

Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Streams
Credit
Banks
ILF/NCDMS
Release
Release Activity
Interim
Total
Interim
Total
Milestone
Release
Released
Release
Released
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
1
15%
15%
0%
0%
stated above)
Completion of all initial physical and biological
2
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation
15%
30%
30%
30%
Plan
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that
3
channels are stable and interim performance
10%
40%
10%
40%
standards have been met
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that
4
channels are stable and interim performance
10%
50%
10%
50%
standards have been met
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that
5
channels are stable and interim performance
10%
60%
10%
60%
standards have been met
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that
6*
channels are stable and interim performance
5%
5%
(75%--)
(75%--)
standards have been met
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that
7
channels are stable and interim performance
10%
10%
(85%--)
(85%--)
standards have been met
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that
8*
channels are stable and interim performance
5%
o
5%
0
(90%--)
(90%--)
standards have been met
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that
9
channels are stable, performance standards
10%
10%
(100%--)
(100%--)
have been met
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring
years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NORT.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
31

Appendix J: Maintenance Plan
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Maintenance Plan
The Site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall 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:
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose
coir matting and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target
Stream
vegetation along the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows
intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and
head -cutting.
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
Vegetation
plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any
vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Beaver and associated dams are to be removed as they colonize and until the
Beaver
project is closed.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between
the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by
Site Boundary
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.
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Road Crossing
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or
corridor agreements.
Routine maintenance and repair activities may include removal of debris and
Drop
supplemental installation of live stakes and other target vegetation along the
Structure
channel. Undermining of the structure may require repair or replacement.

Appendix K: Preconstruction Groundwater Gauges
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

W
15
March 1
13
Growing
Seaso
11
Sta rt
9
I
7
5
I
3
1
-1
-3
I
-5
-7
I
-9
11
13
15
N
W
W A
\
\
\ N
N
O
N
O
N O
O
Nesbit Groundwater Gauge 1
Preconstruction (2020 Data)
A In U1 01 01 m V V 00 00 ID ID
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N U, F+ N F-� W F, N F-� N N \ \ 00
O A 00 U1 \ N D1 N
\ N \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \
N O N O N N N N N N O N N \
O O O O O O O O O O N
O
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5 7
0
E
m
2.0
m
z
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Nesbit Groundwater Gauge 2
Preconstruction (2020 Data)
15
I
March
1
October
21
4.0
13
Growing
Season
Growing
Season
11
Start
End
3.5
9
3.0
c 7
I
c
> 5
a
J
2.5
3
0
E
3
1
c
2.0 c
1
l7
-3
1.5
-5
1.0
-9
95
ay
-11
0.5
-13
1
Id
-15
0.0
N
W
W
W
W
W
A
A
A
A
U1
U1
U1
U1
c1
m
m
m
m
V
V
V
V
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
F
I
F
\
N
\
W
\
F+
\
F-�
\
N
\
W
\
V
\
F-�
\
N
\
N
\
Ln
\
\
\
N
\
N
\
W
\
\
N
\
W
\
V
\
\
N
\
N
\
A
\
\
\
N
\
\
W
\
\
\
O
O
O
Ln
\
N
\
N
O
O
\
N
V
\
N
AAW
\
N
\
N
N
O
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
O
N
\
N
W
\
N
M
\
N
\
N
O
\
N
O
M
\
N
W
\
N
O
\
N
\
N
O
A
\
N
N
\
N
w
\
N
\
N
O
N
\
N
w
\
N
Ln
\
N
\
N
O
\
N
O
Ln
\
N
N
\
N
w
\
N
m
\
N
N
W
\
N
p
\
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
N
O

15
13
11
9
c 7
v
a 5
J
m
3
3
c 1
0
-3
-5
-7
-9
-11
-13
-15
Ln
N
O
O
Nesbit Groundwater Gauge 3
Preconstruction (2020 Data)
W W A A Ln U1 m m m V V 00 00 tO tO
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N N V N U1 W 00
O N \ \
A A O \ N \ t0 \ 01 00 N N \ N 01 N
\ \ N \ N \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \
N N O N O N O N N N N N N O N N \
O O N O N O N O O O O O O N O O N
N N O N O N O N N N N N N O N N O
O O O O O O O O O O O O N
O
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
c
2.5 a
E
m
2.0
z
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

15
13
11
9
c 7
a
a 5
J
m
3
3
c 1
0
-3
-5
-7
-9
-11
-13
-15
NJ
Ln
O
Nesbit Groundwater Gauge 4
Preconstruction (2020 Data)
W W A A In U1 C1 m m V V 00 00 tO tO
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
0 N V N lP NJ- W 4-- 00 F-� NJ 00 \ \
O A \ N \ tFO 0 \ C1 O 00 N N \ N 01 N
\ \ N \ N \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \
N N O N O N O N N N N N N O N N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O N
O
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
c
2.5 0
E
m
2.0
z
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Appendix L: Post Contract IRT Visit Minutes
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Post Contract Award IRT Site Visit: 7-22-2019
NC DMS Project # 100121 NC DMS Contract # 7868 RFP # 16-007704
Task 1 a.) Inter -Agency Post Contract Site Visit: Site Visit Notes
As specified within RFP #16-007704, an on -site meeting with regulatory agencies and DMS staff was
conducted on July 22t", 2019. Below is a list of attendees and general site visit notes.
Attendees:
USACE:
- Todd Tugwell
- Kim Browning
NC WRC:
- Olivia Munzer
NC DMS:
- Kelly Phillips (PM)
- Paul Wiesner
- Matthew Reid
- Periann Russell
- Kirsten Ullman
NC DWR:
- Mac Haupt
- Erin Davis
Restoration Systems:
- Matthew Harrell (PM)
- Raymond Holz
- Alex Baldwin
Axiom Environmental
- Grant Lewis
- Kenan Jernigan
Site Visit Notes:
- Members of the IRT evaluated this site for wetland and stream restoration potential and
assessed credit ratios outlined in the Technical Proposal.
- IRT would like to see historic aerials included in future technical proposals to better illustrate in
recent changes in land use, including tree clearing.
- IRS noted history of beavers on the site and continuing landowner management activities
relating to beaver removal.
- IRS noted heavy presence of invasive species (mainly privet) and plan to treat those species
beginning before construction.
Stream Notes:
- Main Channel (Glen Branch): The proposed credit ratios were accepted as proposed with little
comment.
- UT 1: Proposed approach included Level II Enhancement (2.5:1) and Restoration (1:1). IRT stated
the portion above the confluence with UT1A should be treated as Level I Enhancement for
design purposes but still credited at 2.5:1. The IRT requested a gauge be installed in the upper
reaches of UT 1 to determine the flow regime, particularly if the channel bed elevation is raised.
- UT1A: Proposed approach was Level II Enhancement at 2.5:1 credit ratio. IRT is willing to accept
Level II enhancement at 5:1 credit ratio.
- UT 2: Proposed credit ratios were accepted as proposed, pending the official JD call for origin
location.

Nesbit Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Post Contract Award IRT Site Visit: 7-22-2019
NC DMS Project # 100121 NC DMS Contract # 7868 RFP # 16-007704
UT 3: It appeared this reach may not be considered jurisdictional. If it is not jurisdictional, the
favored option is to install a BMP as the valley enters the buffer of Glen Branch. If it is
jurisdictional, flow gauges will be required.
Wetland Notes:
- IRT had questions about tree clearing within existing wetlands circa 2012 and the potential for a
violation. T. Tugwell stated that given the current condition of the project area he did not see a
reason to hold up the project, but that he would pass the information along to the Charlotte
USACE office for their review.
- Some areas of Wetland Enhancement depicted on Figure 5 of the Technical Proposal may be
suitable for Wetland Rehabilitation. Wetland Rehabilitation may be suitable for portions of the
Site currently characterized by hydric soils and jurisdictional hydrology that have been cleared of
woody vegetation and are affected by groundwater table alterations from the adjacent, incised
stream channel. Gauges must be installed and monitored to verify the hydrologic modifications
prior to mitigation activities.
- The extent of wetland potential on the site as shown in the figures was difficult to assess during
the visit due to lush vegetation and dry conditions. Axiom explained that the extent shown in
the technical proposal figures is based on soil hydrology observed in December 2018 as well as
elevation data derived from the latest NC Lidar data. The JD process is expected to clarify any
questions about extent of wetland potential on the site. The delineation process will begin this
month.
- IRT requested that more comprehensive soil borings be taken in each of the primary wetland
areas and included at the Draft Mitigation Plan stage at a minimum. This will be addressed by
including logs of the soil borings taken during the JD process.

Appendix M: Construction Plans
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina November 2020

VICINITY MAP
Not to Scale
NC DEPARTMENT OF EN VIR ONMENTAL QUALITY �o� �����p�E S �T
ITE
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
NESBIT SITE
LOCATION: UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TYPE OF WORK: STREAM RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT (CLEARING,
GRUBBING, GRADING, EROSION CONTROL AND PLANTING)
Parkwood School Rd 1146
NOTE. GLEN BRANCH IS LOCATED IN A FEMA
LIMITED DETAILED STUDY AREA. PROJECT TO
BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO
APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. ANY
DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLANS WILL
REOUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER
AND FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR
Nesbit Site
Site #100121
Catawba 03030030;
Union County
Contract #00077868
Latitude: 34.8936
Longitude:-80.6544(WGS84)
GRAPHIC SCALES
50 25 0 50 100
PLANS
50 25 0 50 100
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
10 5 0 10 5
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
ru I
START -GLEN-
STA 0+77
Ivu -Vil-
ST A 9+80
UTl 2
i
END � UT2-
STA, 3+09 /
12
oO
END -UTIA-
Q51` ST A 3+I4
GLEN
M
60% SUBMITTAL PLANS
�Q
l �
/
GLEN
i
UT 1
14HSTART -UTI-
PSH ST A 0+00
1131
UT 1A10
5
a
o
�y
I
rn
_3
=
l31
START -UTIA-
ST A 0+00
PROPOSED LENGTH OF -GLEN-=
PROPOSED LENGTH OF -UT 1-=980
4140
PROPOSED LENGTH OF -UT 1A- =
314
—
PROPOSED LENGTH OF -UT 2-=309
TOTAL STREAM LENGTHS (LF) =
5743
RESTORATION LEVEL
STREAM(linearfootage)
RIPARIAN WETLAND (acreage)
NONRIPARIAN WETLAND (acreage)
RESTORATION
4801
5.338(Reestablishment)
0.000
ENHANCEMENT 1
316
1.789 (Rehabilitation)
0.000
ENHANCEMENT 11
541
0.000
0.000
PRESERVATION
0
0.000
0.000
TOTALS
5658
7.127
0.000
MITIGATION UNITS
5199.756SMUs
6.531 RIPARIAN WMUs
NONRIPARIAN WMUs
INDEX OF SHEETS
SHEET NUMBER
SHEET
01
Title Sheet
01 A
Symbology
02
Typicals
02ATHRU 02E
Details
03
Control Points and Location Map
03A
Easement
04 THRU 16
Plan and Profile Sheets
E02 THRU E02A
Construction Sequence
E03 THRU E03D
Erosion Control Details
E03E
Haul Roads
E04 THRU E16
Erosion Control Plans
Pot
Planting Plan
Prepared in the Office of.
Axiom Environmental SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
218 Snow Ave
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
Rolelgh NC 27603 . RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
TEL [phone]
Axiom EnvimnmentaL Inc. GRANT LEWIS r _\ /_ ENc FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
PROJECT DESIGNER
Restoration Systems
1 101 Haynes St.
Suite 211 JOSHUA G. DALTON, P.E.
Roleigh, NC 27604 PROJECT ENGINEER
WORTH CREECH
SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
INCOMPLETE PLANS
W NOT USE FOR R/ W ACQUISITION
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

CONVENTIONAL
PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
o
0—
0
Note: Not to Scale
*S.
U.E. = Subsurface Utility Engineering
c
5 z
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY-
o
zQ
State Line
— -
Exist Permanent Easment Pin and Cap
Pipe Culvert
p
*
SS Forced Main Line LOS D (S.U.E.)
Fss
z
-
County Line
New Permanent Easement Pin and Cap
O
Footbridge
- - - - - - - -�
t�
o w
TownshipLine
Vertical Benchmark
m
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB
CB
❑
MISCELLANEOUS:
W
o
City Line
Existing Right of Way Marker
0
Paved Ditch Gutter
Utility Pole
�
L
Reservation Line
Existing Right of Way Line
-
Storm Sewer Manhole
OO
Utility Pole with Base
0
c_C
z �
Property Line
New Right of Way Line
Storm Sewer
Utility Located Object
o
cn
Existing Iron Pin
Utility Traffic Signal Box
0
New Right of Way Line with Pin and Cap R
��
UTILITIES.-
Utility Unknown U/G Line LOS B (S.U.E.*)
Computed Property Corner
Property Monument
El
Right of Way Line with
POWER:
U/G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
Parcel/Se Number
ECM
123
Concrete or Granite RM/ Marker
Existing Power Pole
i
Underground Storage Tank, Approx. Loc.
a
q uence
New Control of Access Line with
��
Proposed Power Pole
b
Existing Fence Line
-X X X-
Concrete C/A Marker
A/G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
w
Proposed Fence Gate
H
Existin Control of Access
g
cT
Existing Joint Use Pole
Geoenvironmental Boring
E
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence
New Control of Access
c�
Proposed Joint Use Pole
U/G Test Hole LOS A (S.U.E.*)
©
a
z
Existing Wetland Boundary
- - - —B- - - -
Existing Easement Line
E
Power Manhole
©
Abandoned According to Utility Records
AATUR
o
Proposed Wetland Boundary
a
New Conservation Easement
E
Power Line Tower
❑
End of Information
E.O.I.
o
z
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary
a
New Tem ora Drainage Easement
Temporary g
rDE
Power Transformer
Existing Contour Major
g
o
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary
a
New Permanent Drainage Easement
g
PDE
U/G Power Cable Hand Hole
Existing Contour Minor
g
Existing Historic Property Boundary
a
New Permanent Drainage / Utility Easement
DUE
H-Frame Pole
~•
Contour Interval = 1 ft
5
New Permanent UtilityEasement
PUE
U/G Power Line LOS B (S.U.E.*)
- - - -P- - - -
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE.
New Temporary Utility Easement
P rY Y
TUE
U/G Power Line LOS C (S.U.E.*)
--,--
Riffle Rip Ra❑gib$°oa000&
p p
oog�oog�oog�oog�c
F
a
Gas Pump Vent or U/G Tank Cap
O
New Aerial Utility Easement
AUE
U/G Power Line LOS D (S.U.E.*)
P
Log Vane
TELEPHONE:
Log Cross Vane
Sign
Well
°
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES.
a
Existing Telephone Pole
f
u
Small Mine
Existing Edge of Pavement
Foundation
0
Existing Curb -----
WATER:
Step Pool Structure
0
o
a
F
Area Outline
0
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut - -
- - - -
Water Manhole
®
Begin End
z
o
U
}
Cemetery
0
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill - -
- - - -
Water Meter
o
Stream Plug
/// j������ / j
Z
r
Proposed Curb Ramp
CR
Water Valve
a
m Z
J
Building
F-17Existing
Metal Guardrail
Water Hydrant
Floodplain Interceptor
o
W
m
School
Proposed Guardrail T
T T T
*
U/G Water Line LOS B (S.U.E)
- - - -w- - -
Proposed Fence
p
e
a
Z O
Church
Existing Cable Guiderail
U/G Water Line LOS C (S.U.E*)
- _w- -
Limits of Disturbance
LOD
a
z
Dam
HYDROLOGY-
Proposed Cable Guiderail I
n o
U/Ci Water Line LOS D (S.U.E*)
a
Stream or Body of Water
Equality Symbol
Above Ground Water Line
A+c wa+e
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir
F__
J
Pavement Removal
Jurisdictional Stream
�s
VEGETATION.-
GAS:
F
Buffer Zone 1
BZ
Single Tree
Gas Valve
a
Buffer Zone 2
BZ z
Single Shrub
Gas Meter
o
Flow Arrow
E
U/G Gas Line LOS B (S.U.E.*)
- - - -
u
Hedge
Disappearing Stream
Woods Line -
U/G Gas Line LOS C (S.U.E.*)
- - - -
PROECT
--
O�- ��
Orchard
U/G Gas Line LOS D (S.U.E.*)
a
°
DRAWING NAME:
Spring
Wetland
Vineyard
A°evaFd
0
Above Ground Gas Line
A+c c°s
DATE:
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch
EXISTING STRUCTURES.
SANITARY SEWER:
o
DRAWN Br -
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
O
F
JRH
REVIEWED BY:
RIGHT OF WAY & PROJECT CONTROL:
MAJOR:
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout
o
SecondaryHoriz and Vert Control Point
♦
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert cowc
U/G Sanitary Sewer Line
a
REvzszoNS:
Primary Horiz Control Point
0
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall - cowc
ww
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer
rY
�c sa°I+aFA sewer
z
Primary Horiz and Vert Control Point
/
MINOR:
Head dand End Wall owc Hw
SS Forced Main Line LOS B (S.U.E.*)
- - - -Fss- - -
SS Forced Main Line LOS C (S.U.E.*)
- -F s- -
5
711,
SHEET NO.
01A

FOOL -I O-FOOL SPACING 0.)
(VARIES - SEE NOTE 1)
TYPICAL CHANNEL PROFILE
NOTES:
1. POOL -TO -POOL SPACING IS MEASURED FROM
CENTER OF POOL BEND TO CENTER OF POOL BEND.
TAIL OF
RIFFLE
DESIGN
CHANN
POOLLENGTH
TYPICAL CHANNEL PLAN VIEW
CHANNEL PLAN VIEW NOTES:
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT THE CHANNEL ALIGNMENT BY LOCATING
THE RADII AND SCRIBING THE CENTER LINE FOR EACH POOL BEND. THE
CONNECTING TANGENT SECTIONS SHALL COMPLETE THE LAYOUT OF THE CHANNEL.
2. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF THE ALIGNMENT MAY BE REQUIRED TO SAVE TREES
OR AVOID OBSTACLES. THE STAKE -OUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNEL.
3. GPS EQUIPMENT ACCEPTABLE FOR USE TO PERFORM CHANNEL ALIGNMENT LAYOUT.
15' MIN.
VALLEY
SIDE SLOPE
ll III 3
- Im Im - 1
2:1
BANKSLOPE
EXTEND STONE
BED MATERIAL UP
CHANNELBANK
TO 1 /3 D riffs
W hkf
COIR FIBER
EROSION
CONTROL MATTING
Rip Rap' and
E Coh61e S[art, a
W
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION
LIVE WILLOW
STAKES
PROPOSED
FLOODPLAIN
COIR FIBER
EROSION LIVE WILLOW
CONTROL MATTING STAKES
SEE NOTE PROPOSED
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN
FLOODPLAIN 11. W
MAX. 1:1 SLOPE
TYPICAL POOL CROSS-SECTION
CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
1. MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE
USED TO BACKFILL EXISTING CHANNEL.
2. BANK PROTECTION SHALL CONSIST OF NATURAL COIR FIBER MATTING.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY BED MATERIAL FOR THE ENTIRE BED
LENGTH OF EACH RIFFLE SECTION. THE BED MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF
A MIX OF RIP RAP` AND SMALLER STONE.
��\11111 11j/
\ C
��I 1111111
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
* Riffle Rip Rap
REACH
RIP RAP
CLASS
GLEN (upstream and downstream)
B
UT 1
A
UT 2
A
CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS
REACH
Wbkf ft.
Wbot (ft.)
Driff (ft.)
Dthal (ft.)
Dpool (ft.)
Wpool (ft.)
Wthal (ft.)
Glen Br Upstream (0+00 to 16+55)
15.3
9.7
1.3
0.1
1.9
18.3
6.9
Glen Br Downstream (16+55 to 41+92)
18.0
11.2
1.6
0.1
2.2
21.6
8.4
UT
10.8
6.8
0.9
0.1
1.3
13.0
5.2
UT 2
6.7
4.3
0.5
0.1
0.8
8.0
3.2
d o'o
O - w
z �m�
aw
U:) �¢ w
W
0
W
z • `'�
� .
CIS
U
Z '^
F J
m Z a
in o U
w C.) a
Z Z F-
PROJECT +�
DRAWING NAME:
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c1
z
c1
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
02
O

LOG CROSS VANE
SCALE:NTS
PLAN VIEW
FLOW \
#57 STONE AND ¢ ¢ \
CLASS W RIP RAP/ NOTES: A A
FILTER FABRIC CHANNEL
NATIVE CHANNEL A 1. HEADER AND FOOTER LOGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 18" \ \ BANK
MATERIAL O o 00 O o o —LOG SILL KEYED IN DIAMETER AND SHALL BE A HARDWOOD SPECIES. \
4FT FROM BANKFULL (FOOTER LOG MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH PINE) \
--- (BOTH SIDES) 2, A DOUBLE FOOTER LOG MAY BE REQUIRED IN SAND BED \
STREAMS.
FILTER FABRIC 3. ALL STONES ARE TO BE STRUCTURE STONES. A \ A
/ 4. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE
/ \ HEADER LOG OF THE STRUCTURE TO PREVENT WASHOUT OF SEDIMENT
THROUGH LOG GAPS. FILTER FABRIC SHALL EXTEND CHANNEL
FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTER TO THE FINISHED GRADE BANK
ELEVATION AND SHALL BE PLACED THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE
40B
o FOOTER STRUCTURE.
5. PERPENDICULAR ROOTWAD LOGS ARE REQUIRED IF THE LOG
LOG = B VANE ARM DOES NOT HAVE A FOOTBALL TO TIE INTO THE BANK. LARGE
STONE
PLO\2
LOG VANE
FILTER
HEADER LOG _ � FABRIC
SCOUR \\
A COIF LOG— TOP OF BANK HOLE / / / LARGE
CLASS W RIP RAP I FLOW (BANKFULL) / / / ) STONE
NATIVE CHANNEL
MATERIAL
#57 STONE /NATIVE_ SCOUR ( / // ,\ V /
EXISTING TOP OF BANK EXISTING CHANNEL MATERIAL =TV=�jA POOL
GROUND HEADER LOG (BANKFULL) _;GROUND /V_'�
V_/A_/_ A/
O COIR LOG o STREAMBED
m
BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED POOL FILTER FABRIC ELEVATION Footer Lo 9
WITH #57 STONE AND T -�
CLASS W RIP RAP I NATIVE G FOOTER LOG NOTE:
CHANNEL MATERIAL PLAN VIEW
FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
STREAMBED FILTER FABRIC SECTION A -A ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
PRIOR TO BAC KFILL. SCALE: N.T.S.
ELEVATION FOOTER LOG
REACH
ARM LENGTH (FT.)
CHANNEL DEPTH (FT.)
Glen Br Upstream
(0+00 to 16+55)
14
1.3 - 1.8
Glen Br Downstream
(16+55 to 41+92)
17
1.5 - 2.1
UT 1
10
0.9 - 1.3
UT
6
0.6-0.8
NOTE:
HEADER AND FOOTER STONES ARE LARGE, ANGULAR BOULDERS
MEASURING A MINIMUM OF 24" ALONG THE SHORTEST DIMENSION.
5 EXIST. 5
CHANNEL
i
\ HEADER /
CHANNEL CHANNEL STONE i
BANK BANK O� = 03
— FILTER
FABRIC 00 J)
AA3U2
A
FOOTER
ELEVATION A -A STONE
0'
ARM LENGTH
EADER STONE
0.5' HEADER STONE BACK FILL
5. �� TO GRADE
CHANNEL
MAXSLOPE 7% DEPTH FLOW
®+ _ © EXIST.
GROUND
a
�2 1�2
ROCK FILL FOOTER STONE
J FILTER FABRIC
(#57 STONE)
PLAN VIED/ WHERE NEEDED PROFILE B-B
TYPICAL CROSS -VANE
LARGE
TOP OF BANK
CROSS-SECTION A -A
SCALE: N.T.S.
LARGE
TOP OF BANK STONE
BANKFULL
----------N — — 10-15`// -- ——
FLOW
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
/ /H EAD ERER LOG
Footer Log
FILTER
FABRIC
NOTE:
FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
PROFILE B-B ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
SCALE: N.T.S. PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
TYPICAL LOG VANE
LL\11111 ///LFT
\ C
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
OF
d o'er
=o
O - w
z �m�
aw
U3 ¢ w
W
0
W
z • `'�
� .
CIS
PROJECT +�
Q
DRAWING NAME:
2
c�
z DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
z
c�
u
Q
2
C SHEET NO.
02A
0

WATER SURFACE SECTION A -A
ELEVATION
LOG SILL — — — — 4" DROP MAX. 18" LOG CROSS VANE
(SEE LOG CROSS VANE DETAIL)
Q
O -
o
a0O oaOO O O Oo ---_
0 00 0 0 0
a00
Varies (see table) O
DROP STRUCTURE
457 STONE AND
CLASS'A' RIP R,
NATIVE CHANNI
MATERIAL
CLASS T R
18" CLASS 'I' RIP RAP
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC —
TYPE2 DROP STRUCTURE ENLARGEMENT
HEADER LOG
COIR LOG TOP OF BANK
CLASS'A' �
RIP RAP I FLOW (BANKFULL)
\
NATIVE CHANNEL
MATERIAL
STRUCTURE NOTES:
#57 STONE / NATIVE O SCOUR
CHANNEL MATERIAL � POOL 4"DROP MAX.
1. FILL CLASS'1' RIP RAP VOIDS WITH CLASS'A' O QOO g�0 O O(D
RIP RAP/ #57 STONE/ NATIVE CHANNEL MATERIAL MIXTURE. v _
FILTER O 2O
FABRIC
OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC STREAMBED
FOOTER LOG ELEVATION
CLASS T RIP RAP
Wetland
PROFILE
SECTION A -A
Side Slope at 8 to 1
Stormwater
Wetland
RIP RAP OUTLET
MARSH TREATMENT AREA
PLAN VIEW
Wbkf = SEE TABLE
P
Exislin Grade — — — —
� / 1
� � I
SILL KEYED IN
FROM BANKFULL
rH SIDES)
3RIC
OG
��111111 11j� Q
= o
c) _
OOi r = CD S2 W
CO aw.LL
W �� w
Lu
0 M
� .
CII)
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED —
xa ¢
CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS
REACH
Wbkf ft.
Distance
between Drops
GLEN
18.0
20'
UT 1
10.8
10'
UT 2
6.7
10'
DITCH OR
PPE INLET
— -- — — — — — — — — —
ROR ROR Rr�°
RIP RAP
BASIN
U
Z
'z PROJECT +�
a
z
DRAWING NAME:
c1
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
F JRH
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
z
c1
u
0
z SHEET NO.
02B
O

CHANNEL
VAN
BE CC
OF LO
5 TO 7 % SLOPE \
UP TO TOP OF
BANK
SILL STEP
�I I� CHANNEL
BANK
I I
FILTER CLOTH AND SURGE
STONE OR COMPARABLE)
ON UPSTREAM OF
VANE ARMS
5 TO 7 % SLOPE
UP TO TOP OF
BANK
CHANNEL
BANK
VANE
BE GO
OF LO,
LARGE
STONE
REINFORCED RIFFLE STEP
STEP POOL STRUCTURE T
CHANNEL
BANK
3 CLOTH AND
E STONE (OR
ERABLE)CN
2EAM OF VANE
L��11111 ))�L Q
9vT)l r _ z WS2
C� aw.LL
w ..
oLu
M
CIS
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED —
w
z
K ¢
U
Z
i F— }' ()
i m Z J
in o
W Z W
i Z p
Z
'z PROJECT +�
a
a
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
02C
O

PERMANENT CHANNEL FORD DETAIL
SCALE: N.T.S.
FINISHED
FLOODPLAIN
ELEV.
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
TYPE 2
BASE COURSE CLASS A STONE
CLASS A STONE LL
CHANNEL BOTTOM
STONE
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
FINISHED
FLOODPLAIN
ELEV.
NOTES:
1) KEEP FORD CROSS FALL WITHIN 1-2% OF STREAM GRADIENT.
�) FILL VOIDS BETWEEN CLASS 1 STONE WITH AGGREGATE BASE
COURSE CLASS A TO CREATE DRIVEABLE SURFACE.
R.
=o
O - w
z �m�
aw
LL_I n
o �
LL_1
CC
—
■
cn
U
Z
F-
F
m Z J
in O
Z 0 Q
Z
'z PROJECT +�
a
a
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
Q
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
02D
0

--t 0*
EXTEND CHANNEL BLOCK
MIN. OF BEYOND LIMITS
OF EXISTING CHANNEL
PLAN VIEW
FLOODPLAIN
LIMITS
PLAN VIEW
NEW STREAMBANK SHALL
BE TREATED AS
SPECIFIED IN PLANS
EXTEND CHANNEL BLOCK
IN. OF BEYOND INVERT
F EXISTING CHANNEL FLOW
CHANNEL
INVERT
MIN.
LENGTH
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
UNCOMPACTED
BACKFILL
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
SECTION B-B
STREAM PLUG
NOT TO SCALE
6" MIN.
FLOW n
---
UNCOMPACTED
BACKFILL
5' Min. 10'
SECTION A -A
1.5'
FINISH GRADE
I
T-- COMPACTED
BACKFILL
IMPERVIOUS SELECT
MATERIAL (SEE PROJECT
SPECIAL PROVISIONS)
NOTES:
1) CHANNEL BLOCK SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS.
2) BLOCK SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT THE INTERFACE BETWEEN EXISTING
CHANNEL AND PROPOSED CHANNEL.
3) BOTTOM OF BLOCK SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF BELOW THE INVERT
OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL.
4) BLOCK SHOULD EXTEND A MINIMUM OF BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE
EXISTING STREAM CHANNEL.
5) INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND SEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS IMMEDIATELY AFTER GRADING.
6) COMPACT BACKFILL TO EXTENT POSSIBLE OR AT THE DIRECTION OF
THE ENGINEER.
3'
MINIMUM
ArAT T A\1 A A
SECTION B-B
BANKFULL BENCH/
FLOODPLAIN
NORMAL
WATER SURFACE
EXTEND PSRM DOWN BANK
SLOPE TO EDGE OF WATER
A MINIMUM OF 6"
FLOODPLAIN INTERCEPTOR DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R.
=o
O - w
Z �m�
aw -
C1j w
w
0 �
Lu
CD
U
Z
F-
F
m Z J
cn o
Z 0 Q
'z PROJECT +�
a
a
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
Q
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
a
z
u
Q
F
Q
SHEET NO.
02E
O

e
II
l
I
SURVEY INFORMATION PROPERTY/
EASEMENT PROVIDED BY:
K2 DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
5688 U.S. HIGHWAY 70 EAST
GOLDSBORO, NC 27534
Nesbit Control Points
Pt##
Northing
Easting
Elevation
Type
CP 1
419478.54
1503571.09
627.37
ISS CAP
CP 2
419781.01
1503901.51
633.30
ISS CAP
CP 3
420252.14
1504153.82
636.00
ISS CAP
CP 4
420776.09
1504428.38
637.75
ISS CAP
CP 5
420502.41
1504708.94
644.26
ISS CAP
C P 6
420810.70
1504819.91
643.66
ISS CAP
CP 7
421152.72
1504364.48
640.81
ISS CAP
CP 8
421997.43
1504822.70
650.55
ISS CAP
CP 9
422002.44
1504476.33
647.14
ISS CAP
CP 10
421468.39
1504222.05
638.98
ISS CAP
CP 11
420728.13
1504016.29
639.78
ISS CAP
CP 12
1 420195.31
1503774.43
1 634.09
1 ISS CAP
CP 13
419864.27
1503362.07
629.61
ISS CAP
CP 14
419509.84
1502776.80
628.47
ISS CAP
Qj
Parkwood School Rd
1146 200' 100' 0 200' 400'
SCALE: 1" = 400'
Q �
�� HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
�VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
CC 9
CC 00
■ CC
CC 4
CP 8
GLEN
i
UT 1
C P 6
UT 1A
CP 5■
CP 3
CP 12 -�
0
UT 2 3
0)
c
CP 3 �� cc
■ NC GRID COORDINATE
C P 2 E=1 503 901 5078'
CC 14
CC
GLEN
Nesbit
1131
M
Co
0
Q
Z
i
f
cn
U)
F-
L) Z
z
~ a
m z
o J
LV c.) O
Z zz
O
U
PROJECT +�
Q
DRAWING NAME:
2
C7
z DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
C�7
z
Q
F
2
z SHEET NO.
r
03
0

i
i
I
�I
r�
�I
Parkwood School Rd
SURVEY INFORMATION PROPERTY/ 1146
EASEMENT PROVIDED BY:
K2 DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
5688 U.S. HIGHWAY 70 EAST
GOLDSBORO, NC 27534
1131
200' 100' 0 200' 400'
SCALE: 1" = 400'
14AD 83 (2011)
JAVD 1988
i
i
i
i
c
J
a
0
0
3
0)
_c
0
cc
M
00
0
z
i
ph
0
C) - w
aw
V5 w
w
o �
W
cn
�i
U
Z F—
~ ~ W
in O w
W L) W
Z o a
j W
'z PROJECT +�
a
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
Q
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
Q
F
Q
z SHEET NO.
r
03A

DENOTES WETLAND DENOTES WETLAND
REHABILITATION REESTABLISHMENT
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: V = 50'
i r START RESTORATION-
r -- �4�S �7-Z LEN, , - -
4S T LIE� -Lu E7ASEMEN-r LINE _ -
i�r C?C�l _-- �t-�A�
rCD r � -- o ��� LIMITS OF _ �39--
��''� CONSTRUCTION ----_ -
yo R R
G7 3 -----
rti� M — — /
' g _ �o E ELu
z
_ / x
�3fl > — _ - --_R — — ��35 R R
E E
a oo �A R
o Ln
Lu
W
R R oo o �a o�. 0�0 8000� ao° Q I
R�o�� - __� - _ - - U
Lu
R R z
r r — moo
Alo
J
j' U
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
OH�AR9SON JAMIES A
_ -- --- ----� ��� —SE99—
R
LIMIT-S-01��9- _ -� ��------- -� - � ����,
---CONSTRUCTION-� ----,
- — -g
RIFFLE BED MATERIAL IS REQUIRED
IN ALL RESTORATION AND
�V
_�
�9 ---- ��
�`�
EASEMENT LINE
-�
ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL I) REACHES
B_11E9RO-TOWNS-NIP CROSS-- _
FARMS LLC -` ��
�� WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS DERIVED FROM
A
g B�e7�79 PGA 3 -,\ ,\ YAN (��P —
APPROVED PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
s
`
,-PROP �
BANKFUtL,
P€-RMAN E NT-
CHANNEL FORD�� -��� �� ��
-GLEN-STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
cc g
0 + 50 01 + 50 02 + 50 03 + 50
STR. TYPE
CROSS VANE
CROSS VANE
04
421,701.08 1 1,504,569.32 1 631.00
+50 05
i
ph
=o
C - w
aw LL
c:) w
w
o
w
u �I
cn
W
J
tU LL
z O
H F �
m Z a
cn o 0
z o a
z z
d
'z PROJECT +�
a
a
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
04

DENOTES MARSH
DENOTES WETLAND DENOTES WETLAND
TREATMENT REHABILITATION REESTABLISHMENT
SHMENT
LIMITS OF ___------
. _C_O NSSTRUCTION - - _
635— _ CSC}Ss — _ - - -634-
VANE�ZYp)-- - - EASEMENT LINE
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: V=50'
R
_00-0
63
4.,j�
y E R
R
E E E
�
Z
E
R R R
_- -
E E
E
E E
/t
R
�ioo
chi �
E E
E E E
E
E
Q)�
� +
E
o�
E
E �
; = %
o0 °uoo�d
o go R/
�
0 o R
,off �
E E
E - - =
_ _ _
-o —� —
_ -
o
°� ��`
�oo�o�
�Booms°0'
��
w
o
�� Roy
R R
—
���
-- — —
,oO o0
�goOPo
00 /
��
\
_-
Z
�On r
R
JO�O� o0°n R
o
R
R R
�
R -
-
I R
- R -
%
,
R
R R
— —
„
-_
R
R ---
,--
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -- -
---
PROP - MARSH TREATMENT —�3� -LIMITS OF`
---BANKFULL ---- -- tOPISTRUCZON _
_ AREA --
-- - - - -- ------ BUFORD-M*9S ]P \$Fl€STvf SLUG --
EASEMENT LINE-- E9- FARMS L�-----__-
--�:72_79 P �3 ---__
fLLEXISTING
-----CHANNEL---
��ioz
=o z
(D
_
2c �%v)1 r _
CO
.LL
awWS2
w
LLu
�� w
1
u:)
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED —
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988 c
a a
RIFFLE BED MATERIAL IS REQUIRED
IN ALL RESTORATION AND
ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 1) REACHES
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS DERIVED FROM
APPROVED PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
-GLEN-STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
CROSSVANE
421,649.30
1,504,531.06
630.52
CROSSVANE
421,548.54
1,504,443.25
629.65
CROSSVANE
421,445.17
1,504,395.08
628.88
CROSSVANE
421,395.15
1,504,354.34
628.33
CROSS VANE
421,338.52
1,504,345.58
628.05
05 + 50 06 + 50 07 + 50 08 + 50 19 + 50 10
W
J
tU ILL
z O
r
m Z a
cn W o Z
Z Z a
0
z Z
J
11
'z PROJECT +�
a
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
OS

-GLEN- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
LOG VANE
421,288.32
1,504,286.87
627.51
CROSSVANE
421,244.86
1,504,257.11
627.26
CROSSVANE
421,210.94
1,504,223.69
626.70
CROSSVANE
421,154.68
1,504,216.66
626.43
CROSS VANE
421,021.64
1,504,200.78
625.46
CROSSVANE
420,974.54
1,504,199.01
625.20
AT
� BORDI TOWNSHIP
t FARMS LLCM
B�:72�9 PGe64'3\
r
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: V = 50'
$ O_
C P 7 �N1 RIFFLE BED MATERIAL IS REQUIRED
IN ALL RESTORATION AND
ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 1) REACHES
i
ph
6
(D - w
aw
u:) �� w
w
0 �
LL_I
CC
=) 4 >�
u:)
' WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS DERIVED FROM
_ LIMITS OF - �ND ENHANCEMENT I � APPROVED PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION DATE:
_ CONSTRUCTION (D DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL _
_ NLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
EASEMENT LINE
�' � � � STA 14+15 -G L_FA1= / o
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)0.2
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988 w
ti
�Q)� �,i �Fti �_00' ,PREP - /� ,��'�-' �' ���� a <1
Q) �ly��� BANKFULL;
00 ♦ — ­i.� / _ � ��r —.1 R /SX
629-
� o V
z
o
� R -000R / R
o � R R i
R R R R R
oRgo, R °no R R R R
41
R` R -
---- 100
�JC-�
fig_ CROSS
- - - - _LCr6 - - _ - - - VANE (TYP)
--__ - VANE ( TYP) — — `—EASEMENT LINE --END RESTORATION
--_ FILL -EXISTING -LIMITS OF START ENHANCEMENT I
-- _ -CHANNEL 9 CONSTRUCTION STA 13+52 -GLEN-
10 +50 11 +50 12 +50 13 +50 14 +50 15
DENOTES WETLAND
REHABILITATION
DENOTES WETLAND
REESTABLISHMENT
W
J
tU ILL
Z Q
� F
m Z a
W o Z
Z Z a
0
z Z
J
tL
'z PROJECT +�
a
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
06
0

-UT 1- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
DROP STRUCTURE
420,738.10
1,504,243.50
624.08
DROP STRUCTURE
420,724.87
1,504,226.51
622.92
--------- ---- ENDpSTr)DATlE?N
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE:1"=50' O�
6a
J
w
LIMITS OF
- STA 9+80 -UT1-
----__-- o -----
--�
-STPr F6+ LEN=
c?— --CONSTRUCTION
♦�_
_START - DROP —
��-62S``fRUCTURE--------
--6 0 ���----
P27��.��
o-- -__
CROSS
�p -- -.��
a
-AND
STRUCTUR �__
--
-VANE (TYP)
Z�J
YR
__--����
EASEMENT
Z�� ��
-- --- _--
—
-- --_
��, ♦� FENCE LINE
c, O,
'vco a
--- R --
,-
-
R
---�
625�t� 1��♦
�w
>.I
R
_
R
R
R
4
PROP BANKFULL to
i
EASEMENT �^
FENCE LINE 1 T,
C3 ii� i �W
x"
, °� R
�
/ C /K f o o�
o
0
0 q`
R
F S6F IS,
R
00
06
C<
-UT 1- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
CROSS VANE
420,825.34
1,504,316.94
625.32
CROSS VANE
420,812.27
1,504,290.44
624.93
CROSS VANE
420,786.94
1,504,262.35
624.51
15
'Z40 - elpip
A
C R
00O_
i— — — — — W
LIMITS OF 77 E
- - - CONSTRUCTION - ,
PROP BANJ,CFGLL
Z' ---- EASEMENT LINE
Q�i B�LJFBRD TOWNS-NtP� �� �� ♦�0�
FARMS
BK.7279 PGe&43� \
+50 16 +50 17 +50 18
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
DENOTES WETLAND
REHABILITATION
DENOTES WETLAND
'AA D- REESTABLISHMENT
A
RIFFLE BED MATERIAL IS REQUIRED
IN ALL RESTORATION AND
ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 1) REACHES
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS DERIVED FROM
APPROVED PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
-GLEN- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
CROSS VANE
CROSS VANE
CROSS VANE
CROSS VANE
CROSS VANE
CROSS VANE
CROSS VANE
+50
NORTHING
420,858.18
420,811.13
420,777.11
420,698.11
420,646.00
420,594.61
420,545.73
I
EASTING
1,504,193.38
1,504,206.43
1,504,223.41
1,504,206.85
1,504,206.84
1,504,183.26
1,504,062.30
+50
1 Elevation
624.35
623.79
623.56
622.92
622.65
622.10
621.19
W
R
=o
Occ-
- w
r
z �m�
CD aw
w
o
w
cn
U
z
H �
m z
W oL)
Z z
O
z
D
'z PROJECT +�
a
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAW BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO. ^�
0/

vzzzz,/,,00111
-GLEN-STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
CROSS VANE
420,527.20
1,504,014.02
620.61
LOG VAN E
420,090.67
1,504,039.62
618.74
0 ,OMEN /
20+
E E E
v R R vv o R
o
R o� o�� �° R
v YOT
v v v v v Q
` vv v vv R R
ea
\ /\
R R
v v v8��---- ---- ���
STREAM Pib- G- ---- - �� R
EASEMENT - - - -LIMITS OF
FENCE-LTNE9-_ - - - - -- -CONSTRUCTION
�'� `� 1 `-1 _ 9�9- FA�M�LL> -,-- FILL EXISTING
PC-64, - �00
CHANNEL \
r \ _ cn
DENOTES WETLAND DENOTES WETLAND 25�2.s o is' so'
REHABILITATION REESTABLISHMENT
SCALE: 1"= 50'
C9 OVN
v
cp
--
\
LOB- VANE- -------
��
2 LIMITS OF
o
EASEMENT--------
FENCE LINE------ru
__-
(TYPE_-632---
-- --'-
��� CONSSTRUCILON--
------ -
-631-� --- — — — — —
E -- -
PROP BANKFULt----
_ -� _ —630 -
- ----
/-'c _-
- - -
-- ---
_-_-
p,-_627--
-
i�R���
—_ — —
--
_ —
— --
-
----- ----- --�
_�
--
�-<- -- o
/E�
-37
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
D I
RIFFLE BED MATERIAL IS REQUIRED
IN ALL RESTORATION AND
ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 1) REACHES
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS DERIVED FROM
APPROVED PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
20 +50 21 +50 22 +50 23 +50 24 +50 25
R.
R.
=o
C) - w
z �m�
V5 �� w
w
0
w
CC ■
cn
U
z
H �
m z
o
W L)
Z z
0
z
I PROJECT u :
I DRAWING NAME:
I DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
08

RIFFLE BED MATERIAL IS REQUIRED
IN ALL RESTORATION AND
ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 1) REACHES
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS DERIVED FROM
APPROVED PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
-GLEN- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
CROSS VANE
419,962.76
1,503,860.41
618.01
CROSS VANE
419,907.35
1,503,702.20
617.26
CROSS VANE
419,878.66
1 1,503,624.97
616.63
MARSH TREATMENT / F EASEMENT __ �-FILLXISTING---_
AREA /
/
25
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
�j
I" SCALE:=50' �
w°i
FENCE LINE
LIMITS OF
�"��---- ---- -CONSTRUCTION
R o R R-- R
R & R R R R R
R R R/ R R R
r�
RR
R- -R R R -
e C�
R R R R- R 6
C9 - - o
°R R �o R R R �;� - -7 o�
Eo ,. _moo„ 57o ii ,i hoo a o 8 ov z� +
01
LLJ
E 0 E \�� / i� // ��a`ov �/ a�� ��/ ������^eo S
/ ,o oar _—
'�of i Q(n
E E R / /�/ — °off°oa R
LnLL]
�D E E I // ,'% — w w
R PROP15
�
R / -- -----BANKFULL
CROSS- v
----VANS LIMITS OF v �N v
'� CONSTRUCTION Q ��
EASEMENT i
FENCE UNE
FILL EXISTING -BUFORD TOWNSHIP w v
F� / FARMS LLB---- v >
CHANNEL BK:7279 PG:643 v >
+50 26 +50 27 +50 28 +50 29 +50
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
I
30
DENOTES WETLAND
REHABILITATION
DENOTES MARSH
TREATMENT
DENOTES WETLAND
REESTABLISHMENT
i
ph
� =o
� - w
aw
c:) w
w
o
w
z ■ ���
cn
U
z
H
m D
Wo�
Z z
0
z
D
I PROJECT u :
I DRAWING NAME:
I DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
09

-GLEN -STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
CROSS VANE
419,844.28
1,503,581.33
616.38
CROSS VANE
419,743.25
1,503,399.45
615.16
CROSS VANE
419,636.42
1,503,318.18
614.35
DENOTES WETLAND
REESTABLISHMENT
DENOTES WETLAND
REHABILITATION
DENOTES MARSH
TREATMENT
TgASHIP
IBGFORD
�F�AR )- bl,��-
�itK,7-279 PG:693- � i0
23 i
LIMITS OF"�� FENCEMENT LINE
CONSTRUCTION
i PROP
BAN KFU LL R
-,H 2EXISTIN6
'CHANiNTEL,-<--�- R
624--� i� o �♦
---- - - 21
_ R R> R R R�
_-620� -, R -- -R - -'R o R R
WW START DROP ----� �� F
TRUCTURE
CROSS
VANE /
J�
PROP --
i
BANKFUL wo--
F
16 Z9 —
02 +50 03 30
1-71/'
i
'�Idti RE3TORAT761�''--
STA3+49--UT2- - - - - CROSS-
STA,30+89 =GLEW VANE (TYP)
END DROP STRUCTUR-E - --yzg _EdNSTRU-CTION_
+50 31 +50 32 +50
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
a/ SCALE:1"=50'
# # #
R_
R
� D W
w�
MARSH ,
TREATMENT
AREA -a'"'
Y�
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
P� VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
RIFFLE BED MATERIAL IS REQUIRED
IN ALL RESTORATION AND
ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 1) REACHES
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS DERIVED FROM
APPROVED PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
I
-UT2- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
CROSS VANE
419,943.76
1,503,533.96
617.83
CROSS VANE
419,920.55
1,503,546.20
617.46
CROSS VANE
419,893.06
1,503,549.12
617.09
CROSS VANE
419,871.59
1,503,553.93
616.69
DROP STRUCTURE
419,861.22
1,503,552.69
616.39
DROP STRUCTURE
419,842.67
1,503,543.17
615.82
33 +50 34 +50 35
i
ph
=0
C - w
z
c:) w
w
o
Lu
cn
W
J
tU ILL
z O
r
m Z a
cn o 0
z
o a
z Z
d
'z PROJECT +�
a
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
10

DENOTES WETLAND
REHABILITATION
DENOTES WETLAND 25 12.5 0 2L
So
REESTABLISHMENT
DENOTES MARSH
SCALE: 1"= 50'
w� j
TREATMENT
�EibIAx
BUF0R[3-T(3VJiNS4F--------_
FARMS LLC
/,,,a j�� YR 8�2_7�9 PG 643_------,
�0
���
---- —�_--� ��FEMA
/��20
EASEMENT
FENCE LINE
--START DROP
STRUCTURE E
LIMITS OF
CONSTRUCTION
-----'�' -- -----)-
co
M
o E
E
o
M
,
R
¢_
����,
1
o
c�
zS2
W
aw.�LL
w
�� w
Lu
u:)
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
E — — �� E� HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
E - o E ROP - - - - - - -16' / E VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
BANKFULL �/ R R R
R/ R R ��
1� CROSS
----- VANE (TYP) ------
3 LIMITS OF
--------------CO44-STRUCTION
`-- Z9----- FENCE LINE - - - -- MARSH TREATMENT
- - - - - - - - - - AREA
LOG VANE
(Ty�l
_ �-
i\ o ��v
_� <v� RIFFLE BED MATERIAL IS REQUIRED
E ' E E - - E IN ALL RESTORATION AND
ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 1) REACHES
E ✓ E E E Q WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS DERIVED FROM
E E E I APPROVED PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
/ E
100 y
i/ r
-GLEN- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
CROSSVANE
419,568.41
1,503,191.67
613.69
LOGVANE
419,441.39
1,503,030.54
612.96
CROSS VANE
419,400.14
1,502,957.46
612.68
DROP STRUCTURE
419,327.09
1,502,880.74
612.37
35 +50 36 +50 37 +50 38 +50 39 +50 40
U
Z
F
m Z
W oC.)
Z z
0
Z
I PROJECT u :
I DRAWING NAME:
I DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
11
W
J
Q
a
0
Z
Z
J
d

DENOTES WETLAND DENOTES WETLAND
REHABILITATION REESTABLISHMENT
— 625-9
LIMITS OF vr> >�
C_@AISTRUCTION--- ���, v �i i�i
\ fTo�1
_ , f \1
18
E E _
z E E - KTAIf
5 _
cn rn
FT1R R
`i
_r 1 /-1 9 =
�
O
- o
E
F- - - - - - __
E E
z / ____ _ ---__ /
E / E - - - --% ----- --- 0 i��- -r- -�
ZOG VA
-END DROP
STRUCTURE ��� -PROP------------
�� BANKFULL _------ END RE_S-TORATI N-
LIMITS OF - - - - - BUFORD TOWNSHIP _ _ - — - - - -ST +92 -GLEN,
CONSTRUCTION FABIVS-L-LE - - - _ _ — — —
EASEMENT LINE - - - - - - - - BK.7279 PG.643
40 + 50 41 + 50 42 + 50 43 + 50
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
Z
SCALE: 1"=50' >�H C
00
ci
/ �Q7
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
i
RIFFLE BED MATERIAL IS REQUIRED
IN ALL RESTORATION AND
ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 1) REACHES
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS DERIVED FROM
APPROVED PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
-GLEN-STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
DROP STRUCTURE
419,319.49
1,502,740.15
609.99
LOGVANE
419,332.39
1,502,698.02
610.37
44
i
ph
�icn
U
z
H �
m z
Wo�
Z z
0
z
D
I PROJECT u :
I DRAWING NAME:
I DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
12

-UT 1- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
CROSS VANE
420,726.60
1,504,929.62
629.04
CROSS VANE
420,696.78
1,504,879.08
628.92
CROSS VANE
420,658.38
1,504,831.71
628.79
CROSS VANE
420,646.52
1,504,764.22
628.65
CROSS VANE
420,671.66
1,504,705.11
628.52
CROSS VANE
420,731.32
1,504,654.49
628.35
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: V = 50' Z
END ENHANCEMENT II
-STA+14T1A- r
N A EASEMENT
� � FENCE LINE
1�UY 19�
—
�OIy ER,-BILLY�s3 �i i �f - 3� Px ——
L-6RET1A I� �� s �� 7 �/ fdpx' �, �_ �6�
PROP R
-1 —' �o��� ���r���rr �RX'NKFULL _ R �
3g
`,
A V� \ X
� I A (�
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
EASEMENT RIFFLE BED MATERIAL IS REQUIRED
--- FENCE ������C IN ALL RESTORATION AND
�� �� ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 1) REACHES
— WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS DERIVED FROM
�— CROSS_ END ENHANCEMENT
— � APPROVED PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
VAN_E_(,TYP) START RESTORATION
�9 LIMITS OF �
/ SSA 2 53 -UT1-� DENOTES WETLAND
�5 )RAHTES, LORI A 1 CONSTRUCTION i REHABILITATION
BKe7378 PGe0773 64 CC �� ` ` ` `
STTART ENHANCEMENT I 3�'�--i �� �� ��
s rr e DENOTES WETLAND
a / ✓ i STA 0+00 -UT1- _ BLJFORD TOVSHIP
FARMSv LL\� �� �� REESTABLISHMENT
BK:7279 PG:6 3 ��
+50 03 +50 0 +50 01 +50 02 +50 03 +50 04 +50 05
i
ph
=o
O - w
u:) �� w
w
o
w
CC =.11
�icn
'z PROJECT +�
a
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
13
0
W
J

-UT 1- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
CROSS VANE
420,845.31
1,504,339.96
625.70
CROSSVANE
420,788.20
1,504,570.84
628.11
CROSS VANE
420,853.55
1,504,541.68
627.63
CROSS VANE
j 420,877.08
j 1,504,526.39
627.25
CROSS VANE
1,504,440.70
626.69
_4420,871.67
CROSS VANE
420,864.90
1,504,402.19
626.25
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: V = 50'
Z
a
W
1
STq q C
SFF s x�S� qe
— -- Z
— - PROP
---- -- --- BANKFULL-
MARSH - - - ---
TREATMENT
AREA
ENT
FENCE NE --qc9—IMI LT��P-_ ---- - -- - —
_ CONSTRUCTK3t
BUFORD TOWNSHIP --- END-REORATCCrN- —
� —-FAR-MS STLAC START ENHANCEMENT II
BK:7279 PC,643------__----------_
STA 6+34 -UT1-
a,
PER
NENT�
CHANN FORD
I �
Y Yi'
fl
\ F I I
END ENHXI ENT II
START RESTORATkONf'
STA 7+45 -UT1- X
J LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ,
o�
i
Q
VANE (TYP
& /
0X
05 + 50 06 + 50 07 + 50 08
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
RIFFLE BED MATERIAL IS REQUIRED
IN ALL RESTORATION AND
ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 1) REACHES
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS DERIVED FROM
APPROVED PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
+50
DENOTES MARSH
TREATMENT
DENOTES WETLAND
REESTABLISHMENT
i
ph
=0
O - w
z wom�
u5 �� w
w
o
w
CC
u
C.l:)
W
J
tU ILL
z O
H F
m Z a
W o Z
Z Z a
0
z Z
J
d
'z PROJECT +�
a
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
14
0

W//X/ DENOTES WETLAND
REESTABLISHMENT
f
EASEMENT 66�Q
FENCE LINE �
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: V = 50'
�Vq\
3
CP 5
-644- -
/ C<�
/
' _ — ___---� �A �/Tl
n
1 Fn N
1C
� D
9TAF�T E N HANLEM RFT -fl—s g
J
�, �o
—Ll9
�
�(
`f IN,NNDER, BILL\�,-dOE
8-LIRETTA H "-- -t
Qx)� i
PONDER(, BILLY JOF;- �� r ✓ i
Z59� & L C RAF T A H v _
0 + 50 01 + 50 02 + 50
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
i
RIFFLE BED MATERIAL IS REQUIRED
IN ALL RESTORATION AND
ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 1) REACHES
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS DERIVED FROM
APPROVED PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
i
ph
u 1
cry
U
z
H �
m Z
o
W L)
Z z
O
z
I PROJECT u :
I DRAWING NAME:
I DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
15
W
J
u—
w
a-
n
z
z
J
d

25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE:1"=50' H C , e
i
ph
t
1
1
� I
LIMITS OF
r CONSTRUCTIcc
ON
B LJ F 2 D Tp N S- ITP-
/FARMS L C o /
/ BK.72, PG° 43 �� - 0
/ f
�� 626_�Q /
+ — — PROP-
V, i BANKFULL
- - - -
EASEMENT LINE
��
-_------- \ l9 - CHOW
�� z ------ --� FEMA 100 �Q W
/�
START ENHANCE'MENT1I
,STA 0+00 r UT2-
END ENHANCEMENT II 9�9
J START RESTORATION
STA 1 +12 -UT2-
LIMITS OF
TO °� CONSTRUCTION
UT2
0 + 50 01 + 50 02
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
RIFFLE BED MATERIAL IS REQUIRED
IN ALL RESTORATION AND
ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 1) REACHES
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS DERIVED FROM
APPROVED PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
=6 o
o - w
z �m�
c:) w
w
o
w
Q ■
cn
�i
W
J
tU LL
z O
r
m Z a
cA o
z
o a
z Z
d
'z PROJECT +�
a
a
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
16
0

RIP RAP I
DISSIPATION PAD
PD4-1 I/ SEDIMENT BAG
I (SEE DETAIL)
\ I
DEWATERING
\\ PUMP
\ I
IMPERVIOUS DIKE \
(SEE DETAIL) \\
\
I
I
I
TEMPORARY \\
FLEXIBLE HOSE \
EXISTING CHANNEL
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FOR TYPICAL PUMP -AROUND:
I. INSTALL UPSTREAM PUMP AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE.
2. PLACE UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE, DOWNSTREAM RIP RAP DISSIPATION PAD, AND
BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION.
3. PLACE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE.
4. INSTALL SEDIMENT BAG AND ASSOCIATED PUMP. DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED
AREA.
5. PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS.
6.EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL OF
IMPERVIOUS DIKES. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE,
AND DISSIPATION PAD (BEGIN WITH DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE FIRST).
7. ALL GRADING AND STABILIZATION MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE PUMP
AROUND AREAS BETWEEN THE IMPERVIOUS DIKES. THE IMPERVIOUS LOCATIONS AS
SHOWN ON THIS SHEET ONLY REPRESENT THE UPPER AND LOWER EXTENT OF
WORK FOR EACH STREAM SEGMENT. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
DETERMINING THE LOCATION OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKES.
I
8. REMOVE SEDIMENT BAG(S) AND BACKFILL. STABILIZE DISTURBED AREA WITH SEED
AND MULCH.
\ GO�Oi
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(SEE DETAIL)
PUMP -AROUND PUMP
op -
NOTES:
I. ALL EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY DRY OR ISOLATED
SECTIONS OF CHANNEL
2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES ARE TO BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK FROM
STREAM FLOW WHEN NECESSARY
3. ALL GRADED STREAM BANKS SHALL BE SEEDED, MULCHED, AND
MATTED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY. ALL OTHER GRADED
AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS.
4. MAINTENANCE OF STREAM FLOW OPERATIONS SHALL BE INCIDENTAL
TO THE WORK, THIS INCLUDES POLYETHYLENE SHEETING,
DIVERSION PIPES, PUMPS, AND HOSES.
5. PUMPS AND HOSES SHALL BE OF A SUFFICIENT SIZE AND NUMBER
TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA.
6. RIP RAP DISSIPATION PAD TO BE INSTALLED DOWNSTREAM OF LOWER
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
TYPICAL PUMP —AROUND OPERATION
RIPRAP DISSIPATION PAD
4.0 FT--j
JtL I IUN A -A
1XI MILT
T= 12" f
TER
OLANKET
I. La IS THE LENGTH OF THE RIPRAP APRON.
2. T = THICKNESS
3. IN A WELL-DEFINED CHANNEL EXTEND THE APRON
UP THE CHANNEL BANKS TO THE TOP OF THE BANK.
4. A FILTER BLANKET OR FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE
INSTALLED BETWEEN THE RIPRAP AND SOIL FOUNDATION,
PI ANI \/1P_\N
�o XoDo�
Y101111 ol�
Q
� ��A1�1
df
w.LL
w
L
�� w
Lu
1
u:)
44,
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
RIP RAP DISIPATION PAD SPECIFICATIONS
ASSUMED
PERMANENT
LENGTH
WIDTH
STONE SIZE
STONE CLASS
THICKNESS
HOSE SIZE
(IN)
(Y/N)
La (FT)
Wo (FT)
d50 (IN)
(IN)
4"
N
4.0
1.0
3
A
12
U
Z
H F
m D
il) o
w u
Z z
0
z
I PROJECT u :
I DRAWING NAME:
I DATE:
a 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
Q
u
F
2
z SHEET NO.
E03

IMPERVIOUS DIKE
SEDIMENT
CONTROL STONE
1'- 6" MIN.
2
1� 1 O�Q �O�O 3'MAX,
IMPERVIOUS
GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC STRUCTURAL
STONE
CROSS SECTION VIEW
NOTES-
1, USE CLASS B STONE FOR
STRUCTURAL STONE,
2, USE NO. 5 OR NO. 57
STONE FOR SEDIMENT CONTROL
3. CONSTRUCT DAM A MAXIMUM
OF I FT, ABOVE NORMAL FLOW
DEPTH,
4, TOE IN IMPERVIOUS
MATERIAL
5, LINE BANKS WITH CLASS B
CThIJC C, IIOCTOCAAA ANIFI 101
� BANKv�
BASE OF STREAM —�l I
2' MIN,
FRONT VIEW
TnD MEW
■r...:.N�. �'
SEDIMENT BAG
SEDIMENT BAG
EXISTING GROUND
R-- PUMP HOSE
CLASS B STONE /
( 12" THICK) 15' MINIMUM
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
INSTALLATION:
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
I, INSTALL SEDIMENT BAG ON A SLOPE SO INCOMING WATER FLOWS
DOWNHILL THROUGH BAG WITHOUT CREATING MORE EROSION. TO INCREASE
THE EFFICIENCY OF FILTRATION, PLACE THE BAG ON A GRAVEL BED IN
ORDER TO MAXIMIZE WATER FLOW THROUGH THE SURFACE AREA OF THE
BAG.
2. BAG IS FULL WHEN IT NO LONGER CAN EFFICIENTLY FILTER SEDIMENT
OR ALLOW WATER TO PASS AT A REASONABLE RATE, FLOW RATES WILL
VARY DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF SEDIMENT BAG, THE TYPE AND AMOUNT
OF SEDIMENT DISCHARGED INTO THE BAG, THE TYPE OF GROUND, ROCK OR
OTHER SUBSTANCE UNDER THE BAG AND THE DEGREE OF THE SLOPE ON
WHICH THE BAG LIES. UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES THE SEDIMENT BAG
WILL ACCOMMODATE FLOW RATES OF 1 100 GALLONS PER MINUTE, USE OF
EXCESSIVE FLOW RATES OR OVERFILLING WITH SEDIMENT WILL CAUSE THE
BAG TO RUPTURE OR FAILURE OF THE HOSE ATTACHMENT STRAPS.
3. DISPOSE OF SEDIMENT BAG AS DIRECTED BY THE SITE DESIGNER. IF
ALLOWED, BAG MAY BE CUT OPEN AND THE CONTENTS SEEDED AFTER
REMOVING VISIBLE FABRIC.
4, REFER TO DETAIL REGARDING GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ATTRIBUTES,
STREAM
R.
=o
O - w
z �m�
aw
LL_I n
o �
LL_1
Q ■
cn
U
Z
H F
m D
cn o
W c.)
Z z
0
z
D
'z PROJECT +�
a
a
a
DRAWING NAME:
z DATE:
s
a zozo
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
a
u
Q
F
a
z SHEET NO.
E03A

NOTES-
I. USE CLASS 'A' STONE ON PAD, PAD TO BE MINIMUM 100' LONG x 12' WIDE x 6" DEEP.
2. TURNING RADIUS SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMODATE LARGE TRUCKS,
3. ENTRANCE(S) SHOULD BE LOCATED AS TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM UTILITY BY ALL
CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES,
4. ENTRANCE(S) MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT
TRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD ONTO ADJACENT ROADWAYS, PERIODIC
TOP DRESSING WITH STONE MAY BE NECESSARY,
5. ANY MATERIAL WHICH FINDS ITS WAY ONTO THE ADJACENT ROADWAY MUST
BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY.
X
VLV I LA I ILL F HUr IK,
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT
4' MAX,
r IL I LR F HOIRI L
FILTER FABRIC
COMPACTED FILL
FLOW
I, FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE A MINIMUM
OF 36" IN WIDTH AND SHALL BE
FASTENED SECURELY TO THE POSTS.
2, STEEL POST SHALL BE 5'-0" IN HEIGHT AND BE OF THE SELF -FASTENER ANGLE —
STEEL TYPE,
3, WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY
FASTEN THE FABRIC AT A SUPPORT POST
WITH OVERLAP TO THE NEXT POST,
4, FILTER FABRIC TO BE NYLON, POLYESTER,
PROPYLENE, OR ETHYLENE YARN WITH EXTRA
STRENGTH (50 LB/LIN. INCH MINIMUM) AND
WITH A MINIMUM FLOW RATE OF 0.3 GAL/FT/MIN,
FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY
INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS, SILT FENCE
Y��11111 ��
Q
i
�z
C��A1�1
,vLL
awLLI
(=1Lu
M
CD
u:)
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
4' MAX.
�f" ���
0
01 I
q STEEL POST - 2'-0" DEf
�I I
— 1
EXTENSION OF FABRIC
INTO TRENCH
U
Z
H F
m D
il) 0
w c.)
Z z
0
z
I PROJECT u :
I DRAWING NAME:
I DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
a
z
Q
F
a
z SHEET NO.
E03B

3"
GI
F,
TEMPORARY CULVERTED
STREAM CROSSING
NOTE. FOR USE IN EXISTING CHANNELS ONLY,
NOT FOR USE IN RESTORED STREAMS,
I,F HIV IN LL
PLAN VIEW
/2 DIAMETER OF PIPE
OR 18 IN. WHICHEVER
IC (`DF A TFD
METALvWr
PROFILE VIEW
TOP
12'xl2' +,-
ROUGH CUT TIMBER
LENGTH VARIES
Y��11111 ��
Q
i
�z
C��A1�1
,vLL
awLLI
(=1Lu
M
CD
U:)
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
LOG MAT BRIDGE
NOTE:
DETAIL PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES. USE OF LOG MAT BRIDGE
IS AT CONTRACTORS DISCRETION.
BOLTED TOGETHER 12'xl2" /-
APPROPRIATEROUGH
LENGTH VARIES
.• OF BANK
PLAN VIEW
5' MIN
—�{ 5' MIN 12' MAX -{ ROUGH
LENGTHCUT VARIES TIMBER
CROSS SECTION VIEW
SECTION THROUGH
LOG MAT BRIDGE
U
Z
I PROJECT u :
I DRAWING NAME:
I DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
a
C7
z
u
0
z SHEET NO.
E03C
cn
J
a
W
NJ
LPL
z
0
U
z
0
0
w
w

TYPICAL
MATTING LOCATION
COIR FIBER MATTING
FROM TOE OF CHANNEL
TO MINIMUM I FT,
o
BEYOND BANKFULL
PROPOSED BANKFULL
ELEVATION
PROPOSED�������
:J
WATER SURFACE
ELEVATION
NOTES-
-MEDIUM WEIGHT WOVEN COIR FIBER MATTING SHALL BE
PLACED ALONG THE OUTSIDE BANK OF ALL BENDS
AND ALONG BOTH SIDES OFTHE CHANNEL IN TANGENT AREAS.
-FIELD ADJUSTMENTS TO MATTING LOCATION MAY
BE MADE AT THE DESIGNERS OR CONTRACTORS DISCRETION
AS NECESSARY.
COIR MATTING CROSS SECTION
COIR FIBER MATTING —\ BANKFULL
ELEVATION
NORMAL WATER \
------� _lz--
BED MATERIAL 6" MIN
OVERLAP
6"
STRAW MULCH
NOTES:
I, SECURE TOE OF MATTING WITH 24" WOODEN STAKES
WITH GALVANIZED NAIL BENT TO PROHIBIT MATTING
FROM WORKING OFF OF STAKE,
2, USE 12" WOODEN STAKES ON 5' CENTERS OR AS
DIRECTED BY MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
3, MINIMUM I' WIDE, 6" DEEP TRENCH OVER TOP OF BANK
WITH MATTING LAID FLAT AND STAKED, TRENCH TO BE
BACKFILLED WITH EXCAVATED MATERIAL.
STRAW WATTLE
STRAW WATTLE
EXISTING
GROUND
- - - Qo) �(Lo - r_
\ / /
STRAW WATTLE CHANNEL
\ /
EXISTING I' MIN
GROUND
z
0
NOTES:
I. STRAW WATTLE TO BE INSTALLED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CONTRACTOR OR DESIGNER IN AREAS THAT
MAY NEED ADDITIONAL RUNOFF PROTECTION.
2. INSTALL STRAW WATTLE ALONG TOP
OF BANKFULL CHANNEL.
3. SECURE STRAW WATTLE WITH I'x2"xl8' WOODEN
STAKES, SPACE AT 5' MAXIMUM.
4. STRAW SHALL BE CERTIFIED WEED FREE.
Y��11111 ��
Q
i
�z
C��A1�1
aw,vLL
(=1Lu
M
U:)
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
SPECIAL SEDIMENT CONTROL FENCE BREAK
VARIABLE i
DIMENSION
2 fit
NOTE: IIIElIIElIIElIIElIIBIIE� 111811E
-INSTALL 9 FT SECTION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL
FENCE AS A BREAK IN TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
TO RELIEVE ACCUMULATION OF RUNOFF AS
DIRECTED ON PLANS AND AS DEEMED NECESSARY
BY CONTRACTOR OR DESIGNER.
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
1. USE NO. 5 OR NO. 57 STONE
FOR SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE.
2. USE HARDWARE CLOTH 24 GAUGE WIRE
MESH WITH 1/4 INCH MESH OPENINGS.
3. INSTALL 5 FT. SELF FASTENER ANGLE
STEEL POST 2 FT. DEEP MINIMUM.
4. SPACE POST A MAXIMUM OF 3 FT.
3 ft
1/4 WIRE MESH
SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE
1 ft min
1/4 WIRE MESH
SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE
1 ft min
WATER FLOW ---w— V_
1/4 WIRE MESH
2 ft
STEEL POST -
2 ft DEPTH
U
Z
H F
m Z
�o
W c.)
Z z
0
z
I PROJECT u :
I DRAWING NAME:
I DATE:
a 2020
G DRAWN BY:
T JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
a
Q
a
z SHEET NO.
E03D
cn
J
a
H
W
J
H
Z
O
U
Z
cn
w
W

Parkwood School Rd
200
���
' 100' 0 200' 400'
1146 -
SCALE: I"=400' p = = z
000 w
u:) 1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL _
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
W
a
z
c�
0
0
z
z
z
\�—— GLEN � F
/ 5
j
UT
m 0
% rS
F
F*.
/ O
u
a
u
1A—
a U
� Z Q
0 F—_ F O
/ m a Z
a U) 0
IA W J
m C Q Z Z
O
W a
U 2 3
Cm
u
_ u
� � 6
Qi Q
0
3
u
� PROJECT +�
Q
0 DRAWING NAME:
z
Q
c�
z DATE:
2020
E a
GLEN
DRAWN Br -
GLEN JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
m v
REVISIONS:
0
Nesbit Rd 1131
�-
u
0
Q
SHEET NO.
E03E
0

— LOD —
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
L--------
HAUL ROAD
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
y�
CONTROL FENCE
BREAK
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: 1"= 50'
___-
656'J� V - _ - -----�---64-
/ _ _ 345
-643 -mot
— �645-
- START RESTORATION
�4CA-S -G+77 -GLEF
�-3ksT tKE� r' _j------ IMPERVIOUS -EASEMENT LINE
��
- -' o _ - - _ o DIKE - _ i� LIMITS OF
o�� , CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS
3B Z, DIKE --
c Q) !O SOD _
) r� — - , _635� _ - -
— !— 636- - �� LOD
�N _ 00
w
6,3 a
Ln
-_( _ /� -'� ow
Ln
w
Lu
__-----
s w w
_ _zw
ti�� r� r- i �, --- ------ ----- / �v
ti2�CH�ARS_SON DAMPS A --��(3-0-� S99� _ _ ���, ��— u
LIMTS ]I69407
,---CONSTRUCTION-
EASEM-E- 1T_LI
�- _ - - � _RLtF9R0-T-GW4SNIP � � CROSS-- - - - - �
69� FARMS LLC _YAN�(L(PL
ti-BKe7279 PGZ3
--359- /--- --- PROP
55 RERMAN€NT
CHANNEL FORD��
� S9,
� C
4
�7
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
i
ph
=o
O - w
z �m�
CD a w
V5 w
w
a �
w
CC ■
cn
J
U w
Z F—
r Z
m z O
D U
Lu U
O
Z o 0
z (n
0
W
PROJECT +�
Q
DRAWING NAME:
2
C7
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
E04

25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
� C
i
ph
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
--- — __--- _ — — —640—
UNANNtL
=0
O - w
z �m�
aw
LL_I
o
1_L_1
CC ■
cn
U
Z
F F
m j
cA o
w c)
Z z
0
z
D
I PROJECT u :
I DRAWING NAME:
I DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
E05
J
O
Z
O
U
Z
O
N
O
Ix
w

LOD — LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
I!! TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
L-------
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
y� CONTROL FENCE
BREAK
BOFORD� TOWKSHIF
IFARf S LLC/
B�e72�i9 PGe64�
�� /
y° P 7
LIMITS -OF /END-tNHANCEMENT-I
_ �CC?NSTRUCTIO_ y ART REST9RfCTION
EASEMENT LANE '
�33 STA 1�+15 -GLEN= o
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: 1"= 50'
o�o�ob "-PREP
BANKFULL
S-
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
­77_ -��� _"MONT�
Q07
a01
901 ao�- _ .'/
(707
--� —p `- '- / •
-- 0 0 Y � ---__ zc9'-_��-= - `� __ --- �� 3\� �\ 639
—33g IMPERVIOUS �� �--- _ ZR SS DIKE 3,
�9---- VANE (`P)
--__ --- - - --- -_-__ -- --END RESTORATION LIMITS -OF EASEMENT -LINE
FILL -STING START ENHANCEMENTh`-
-CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION �-STA13+52=GLEN-
/
/
i
ph
cn
J
U w
z F-
F r Z
m z 0
D U
W o Z
Z z 0
0
N
0
w
W
PROJECT +�
a
DRAWING NAME:
2
C7
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
E06

LOD — LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
L-------
�7 SPECIAL SEDIMENT
SLY CONTROL FENCE
BREAK
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: 1"=50�8 0i
I
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
- 3 ------
__-€R1DR�STORATI-
- €-- -=---------
w
_ TA9+80-UT1- �' w
LIMITS OF /
--CONSTRUC_TION 63O 4
F —START-DROP
- ---62 ----
--
-� - -_�' web - -
ti
- CROSS
VANE TYP \
��� � )
J0� -_ S`��RCJ----
_->��
STRUCTUR�27_
�L
_
��`-.� ��_ EASEMENT
-Ti� LOD----,-
LOQ_--
_kOD-
— Oa
- ��, '�FEN6E LINE '
IMPERVIOUS
DIKE _
-629
t
POP BANKFU�.
-qiASEMENT
FENCE LINE
To
Cys �F P-5
FF tiq S' /
FFT X0
Fob �� F
4OD
P-a-3
CIO \ \
J/ (7O7v
LIME Ol�, �' �� �` O
O - 'Co N��TJCTION-, A ` X��4�
' PLOP BAI�(f�LZ
8 1 IMPERVIOUS
CD
-EASEM-ENT
IMPERVI �
' ��efD T0WNS-NFL �� �� DIKE
IMPERVIOUS FA MS-LLC- \ �
DIKE 61 -7279 �Ge643� \
i
ph
0
o - w
z �m�
aw
c:) w
w
a �
w
CC ■
cn
J
U w
Z F—
} Z
m z O
D U
Lu U
O
Z o O
z N
O
m
w
PROJECT +�
Q
DRAWING NAME:
2
C7
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
E07
0

— LOD —
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
SLY
CONTROL FENCE
BREAK
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: 1"= 50'
£8 GVN
� C
4
_ 2
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
— — — — — — Ib
V �6 ------ —`--
----- ����-------634 ------ --- LO-G-VAN-E-------- -
c--------EASEMENT-------- TYP
---- _-----
_FENCE LINE------r? ---632--- __--
2 LIMITS OF --- -- -
_ — —
CON-M-UCILON - ------ N ---- 631-ca ----
63 PROP BA-NKR�LL-- --_ _ —63� -----
2�_ E 62= iCr2 ---- -- �oe — E�_----
7 - -
ov
�'-------------- _-*APA
L � '� ; � � � _ ----_ _ -— -- -- � '�w-ft-- __- 0 0
ENE S� PEE �o I39: - - -
N� SN N
6' 2 i (/)2
V A \ GO
IMPERVIOUS Z ,� -1
DIKE
\79
_ __ �O'Y__ = QOT--` \00
—
` `OR, 1744E€RVIOUS \` 2�
'- ---- �� �� KE
- - -
- -
-FENC- — — L SITS OR
EAN 9� - - - - - CONSTRUCTION
CTION �6Z9 Zz9,
5Q9- ��—B�ORD TOWNSHP
9- FiRMS-LLC�- ,FELL €XISTING
BK.72�,� PU?64�3 -CFiANNIL
_ ,
R `
i
ph
=o
C - w
z �m�
c2 aw
c:) w
w
o
w
CC ■
cn
U
z
H �
o� z
w °
Z z
0
z
D
I PROJECT u :
I DRAWING NAME:
I DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
E08

— LOD —
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
!!
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
�7
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
�L1L
CONTROL FENCE
BREAK
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
�j
SCALE:I"=50' �
C
_EAS�M€NT - -- -FILL--EXISTING--
NI _
A S �TREA �N�Y / --- FENCE_ LINE --- �H�Nf L�
/AREP, // / -. --------
40N 3�-
7SV 3- - - _ _ 6�NSTRUtT
IMPERVIOUS ��� - - C2 x - �� �� - - _ DIKE
RVIOUS
DIKE f � I
61
LLJ
CD
{00
Nx CD
w
ON Ld
S�q EL� �� �� a =
�� / f �
T F� O P-16 6 j9, `\ w' \ ✓�� O, P-18 w w
00 7 v\ 0
s - - PRO\ 9 1
/�/ -- -----�AN_KFULL - - ��
�^ —J
,
/
CROSS
----VANE-(TYPj- LIMITS Of
EASEMENT CO
NSTRUCTION �Q
FENCE UN
F!,LL -E)aSTING -BUEORD TOWNSHIP
-'CHANNEL FARMS -LLB-----
/ - 3K-7279 PGe643
---------
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
i
ph
o
(D - w
z �m�
c2 aw
c:) w
w
a �
w
CC ■
co
�i
J
U w
z F-
F- F Z
m z O
U
Lu U
O
Z z O
z N
O
w
W
PROJECT +�
a
DRAWING NAME:
2
C7
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
E09

— LOD —
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
�7
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
�L1L
CONTROL FENCE
BREAK
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
lr
w1�
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
BUFORD TgASHIP i MARSH UNLESS;LL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
.F'AR�. L �� - — - - - --TREATM€NTH
",etK,7279 PG693- �� I�f�pERVIOUS AREA
Z�
DIKE 00
EASEMENT
LIMITS OF i FENCE LINE-
COt-iSTRUCTIbN - -
MKERVIOUS 1-1�' �t PR 'c`" ii ��
f 1 iui
BASK ULL
FiL"� XI�TiNG , ��2�• �' / �� �� CD
CHAN-NEL
624- i� o �� �� ' �1�� 40O
--- __-- 21�i / �
QD
fi€�Gt,q 7 - 0a6 ------ --- �o O� �
o m
L,J� START PROP ---- -- - _ �>
C/) TRUCTURE MONT
C OSS �iC � / � - -- rl`
ANE
0�� IMPERVIOUS - - - - - _
�O DIKE _ _-c]Ol--
S i� PROP dOl - a0l- _ - (301 --Gol 8I9-- (301
S T��q BANKFUL -----_ ,� �— — — -- --------
_ 3-
'EfND-RE5 TORAT761- -' ` �: - - - - MA-100 y -
Sti� �3TA 3+09--UT2- - - - - CROSS - - - - - - E__R
FT�i�� 29! ��� � '� r�j3D+89=GL€M_VANE
LTYPr----LIMIT�Sz�FF--
6' /FC , - SEND -DR TRUCTURE - - ��Zg _EC+NSTRILCTION_ _ - _
i
ph
=0
o - w
z �m�
c2 aw
c:) w
w
o
w
cn
�i
J
U
z F-
F- r Z
m z O
cn o v
U
Z z O
z cn
O
w
W
PROJECT +�
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
Q
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
E10

25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE:1"=50'
w�
LOD — LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
L-------
�/ SPECIAL SEDIMENT
SLY CONTROL FENCE
BREAK
� C
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
—�'-_ �������y� BTJFOR M�(�WW --- 6
LLC
4-�, A�60Y�.,8r:7;N PGe643_----- ------ �rFEMA�10�
o _ R - ��� YR
EASEME�fT- ���20 z =—START DROP
--------FENCE LINE—�-619_ �♦ — 2 STRtJCfURE�� E
LIMITS OF
--GONISTRUCTION
------ z ,------Go
�-----
J �-
s o E o f ROP-------- 16�
CATION
BANOULL / Z
00 �— —2 4
� LOD LOD LOD
X zOt) LOD LOG VANE _ _ O
LOD
_ _— ----_ --_
------ - _--==---
J
aoI-- _ _ aoi
Q0� CROSS —
-- -VANE JTM---------- --- '--
-------- 3 <r� p
_LPAT OF _ _ Oj
----- CONSTRUCTION---- _ _
-0z f��1vTEN
------- --_ — — FENCE -LINE ------- MARSH LR AtMEN\T\ — —
€ _ �
----
------------------------------- _ AREA
-------- --
i-2 3
ylk7
WEER US PERVIOUS
►IKE DIKE
i
cn
U
Z
F
m z
w °
Z z
0
Z
PROJECT +�
a
DRAWING NAME:
2
C7
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
Ell
J
w
F—
z
O
Z
N
w
w

— LOD —
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
!!
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
CONTROL FENCE
BREAK
-_
Co/ 1 ,
—625 ii� �' t�
LIMITS OF �� �� �� �r��r
CONSTRUCTION
1
NL
F-
rm
z
-. -,V% /
STRUCTURE
CONSTRUCTION -�
� EASEMENT LINE
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: 1"= 50'
> ili / /-
00
�Q7
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R.
R.
=o
o - w
z �m�
CD a w
c:) w
w
o
w
CC ■
cn
U
Z
H F
m j
WoL)
Z z
0
z
D
I PROJECT u :
I DRAWING NAME:
I DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
E12

— LOD —
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
I!!
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
SLY
CONTROL FENCE
BREAK
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE:1"=50' Z
v
w
I
gyp.'
�g-
o IMPERVIOUS
M DIKE
C�-
�Gvhxiv EMENT II
`STA,+ - T1A-� �r
J li
p O A EASEMENT
FENCE LINE
BOO1 3+o tOD�
'--e4�_
(ROWER BILLY J
_ & L RETiTA I� / ��= S �! / I���Cf�> - ���� � �� i� = P-8 `V_
f !� '' ���r ! =ly �� PRbP� J� — —' ,- C) IMPERVIOUS _v
v ! ! J = �o i' =ill N&,'NKFULL( vi _ - �3 v \ DIKE b ,
Ada
1 IMPERVIOUS �= r , �' j✓ i - - _ -' v�
DIKE ' ii!' �.=� _ �% - �- _ 9 v
OO
op-
�C)
OD,\ G�x `C/
�_ --- __ � - �/ EA ENT _ �� v ��� v��
-��3--� FENCE INE_--- ��9�, A \p
O 8 0j ���� )qOl
j - ----------- �9,
_
END ENHA EMVP NTI
d / VAN_E_(,TYP) _ START RESTORA Io \
LIMITS- OF= STA 2453 `UT1`-
RAHTES, LORI A `� r� �—� � Ck7NSTRUCTfiON,��
�> �)BKe7378 PGe0773 1 �� �� IMPERVIOUS
i 4 % STA T ENHA C ENT f
'643_ CP C DIKE
STA O+00 -UTl - - _
T � � —!�� __�4 iBIJFORD 'TOWMHIP\
FARMS! LL
BKe7279 PGe6
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
i
ph
=) 4 >�
co
J
U X
z F-
r Z
m z O
D U
Lu U
O
Z z O
z N
O
X
w
PROJECT +�
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
EB
0

— LOD —
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
!!
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
HAUL ROAD
�7
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
�L1L
CONTROL FENCE
BREAK
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: 1"= 50'
2
0
w
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
PE ANEN�T
CHANP4 FORD r
i
END E HA ENT II
START RESTORJ
STA47+45 -UT1-
J LIMITS OF CONS-TRL-JCTIO I 4 4
Cy
T
e
-C�ROSZSb
VAY�IlE (T,Yt
BOO: �1•Qy�♦
— _ -----
�O - - - BANKF� YLL
MARSHY -� �Z�9--- --
`� TRtk4TMCtNT -------- -
IMPERVIOUS
6 FENCE IN —Sc9—LIMITS�1 - - - - DIKE
CONSTRUCTIO-Nt
BUFORD TOWNSP --- END�ESTO�ATCC?fd
`--FAR-MS HI-LLC START ENHANCEMENT II
t BKe7279 PGe643------__ _g ----STA6+34-UT1-------
N _ _
i
ph
J
U w
Z F—
F- F Z
m z O
U
Lu U
O
Z o O
z N
O
w
w
PROJECT +�
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
E14
0

— LOD —
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
I
HAUL ROAD
�7
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
�L1L
CONTROL FENCE
BREAK
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: 1"= 50'
Nq\
3
1\ sti �s ,h� r� 1` i EA�SNIENT ti s
\j CH -FENCE LINE
1' �J CP 5`�" i
o —�
A 644----____--_�
63C1
m m
Fn
r 9TAWT ENHXN-CE I'EN-TA—s 9,.
----� — ---
To 17
��o �, -��- �� ��� T
r �r 1�109g',PgNDER, BILLY�JOE
8�-LgRETTA H����c
(,r ��
,a A- / 1 —
9 00NDER�, BIL Y
�_ & L(R,FTA H
1pX
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
i
ph
U
Z
H F
m Z
W oL)
Z Z
O
Z
I PROJECT u :
I DRAWING NAME:
I DATE:
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
E15
J
z
O
z
cn
Ix
W

— LOD —
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
!!
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
I
HAUL ROAD
SPECIAL SEDIMENT
SLY
CONTROL FENCE
BREAK
— LIMITS —OF
CONSTRUCTION
BUFQ'RD T/0' NSHWP �� -- --'
TFARM5 L C c�
BKe72�T9 PG• 43
c) — — — — — —
-PROS
BANKFULL 23'
�o
-------- -goo ,s
EASEMEI�T TINE
- -- F Op
l /
/ ---- -, - -_-_
I / �1 / / ���_ - - - - - U o fit/
oo
to
r'
Co
Lo
To
START E--NH"AIyGE'MENT-1I—
-STA 0+AO s U`T2= _ IMPERVIOUS
--__ DIKE
END ENHANCEMENT —II
START RESTORATION z9 A
----- — '— �� �- STA 1+12 -UT2-
—� — ��--LIMITS OF
M.(-o 4� CGt4STRI�CTION
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
SCALE: 1"= 50'
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
i
ph
=0
o - w
z �m�
CD a w
c� w
w
o
w
=) 4 >�
co
J
U
Z F—
F r Z
m Z O
D U
w ° Z
Z Z O
0
z N
0
w
W
'z PROJECT +�
a
a
Q
z
DRAWING NAME:
Q
c�
z DATE:
s
z 2020
G DRAWN BY:
x JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
i REVISIONS:
0
a
c�
z
c�
u
0
F
z SHEET NO.
E16

Vegetation Association
Piechnont/Mountain
Bo
Dry-Mesic Oak-
Stream -side
TOTAL
a
\� 150' 75' 0 150' 300' oz
� �0
�Q SCALE:1"=300' aN
z o
aw
Cl) L U
00 p
Z (D • `
cry
W t
a
a
GLEN z
a
0
F
u
z
z
5
UT 1
a
3
/ x
Q
F
Q
u
UT 1A u
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre. a
a
— — z U
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre. F Z
o F— F Z
_ il) O Z
o LU cJ Q
Z o J
a
a
2 a
N UT 2
u
O
0
o u
� PROJECT +�
4
� DRAWING NAME:
C7
z DATE:
z 2020
STREAMSIDE ASSEMBLAGE DRAWN JRH
F
REVIEWED BY:
a JGD
GLEN DRY—MESIC OAK HICKORY FOREST REvzszoNs:
P z
PIEDMONT/MOUNTAIN
BOTTOMLAND FOREST z SHEET No.
r Pal
0
tLU
t