20181442 Ver 1_Meeting Request Review_20210317

ID#* 20181442
Version* 1
Regional Office* Central Office - [phone]
Reviewer List* Erin Davis
Pre -Filing Meeting Request submitted 3/17/2021
Contact Name * Kasey Carrere
Contact Email Address* [e-mail]
Project Name* Dugout
Project Owner* Kasey Carrere
Project County* Cumberland
Owner Address: Street Address
3600 Glenwood Ave.
Address Line 2
Suite 100
aty State / Province / Fegion
Raleigh NC
Fbstal / Zip Code Country
27612 United States
Is this a transportation project? * r Yes r No
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - F 401 Water Quality Certification -
Regular Express
r- Individual Permit F Modification
r- Shoreline Stabilization
Does this project have an existing project ID#?*
r Yes r No
Please list all existing project ID's associated with this projects.*
DWR# 20181442
Do you know the name of the staff member you would like to request a meeting with?
Erin Davis
Please give a brief project description below.*

The Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project ("Project") is located
within Cumberland County, approximately 7 miles south of Fayetteville.
The Project lies within the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina
Department of Water Resources ("NCDWR") sub -basin 03-06-15 and
United States Geological Survey ("USGS") 12-digit hydrologic unit code
("HUC") 030300050102 (Willis Creek Watershed) (Figure 1). The Project
is being designed to help meet compensatory mitigation requirements for
stream and wetland impacts in the HUC 03030005. The site is easily
accessible from Upton Tyson Road. Coordinates for the Project are as
follows: 34.927960 N, 78.846780 W.
Additionally, an IRT site visit occurred on December 1st, 2020 and a draft
mitigation plan submitted in September 2020. Comments have been
provided by the IRT and are currently being addressed in preparation for
the Final Mitigation Plan submittal.
Please give a couple of dates you are available for a meeting.
3/24/2021
3/31 /2021
3/30/2021
Please attach the documentation you would like to have the meeting about.
Dugout_MitigationPlan_DRAFT_Combined.pdf 84.32MB
pdf only
By digitally signing below, I certify that I have read and understood that per the Federal Clean Water Act Section
401 Certification Rule the following statements:
• This form completes the requirement of the Pre -Filing Meeting Request in the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification
Rule.
• I understand by signing this form that I cannot submit my application until 30 calendar days after this pre -filing
meeting request.
• I also understand that DWR is not required to respond or grant the meeting request.
Your project's thirty -day clock started upon receipt of this application. You will receive notification regarding meeting location
and time if a meeting is necessary. You will receive notification when the thirty -day clock has expired, and you can submit an
application.
Signature
Submittal Date 3/17/2021
Reviewer Meeting Request Decision
Has a meeting been scheduled?* r Yes r No
Comment for Email: A pre -filing meeting is not needed for this project. DWR visited the site on
12/1/2020 and has already reviewed the draft mitigation site plan.

3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters 6575 West Loop South, Suite 300 Bellaire, TX 77401 Main: 713.520.5400
res.us
August 31, 2020

Jordan Jessop Kathy Matthews
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
Post Office Box 33726 Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-372 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

Todd Tugwell &
Kimberly Browning Todd Bowers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USEPA, Region 4
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Ste 105 61 Forsyth Street, SW
Wake Forest, NC 27587 Atlanta, GA 30303

Erin Davis Travis Wilson
NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources NC Wildlife Resource Commission
PO Box 29535 1718 Highway 56 West
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 Creedmor, NC 27522

Re: Dugout Draft Mitigation Plan Submittal (SAW-2018-01883)

Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) & Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (a RES affiliate), I
am pleased to submit the Draft Mitigation Plan for the Dugout Site, with the RES Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation
Bank. A prospectus was submitted in September 2018, put on public notice on October 16, 2018, and issued an initial
evaluation letter on February 21, 2019.

The attached plan includes minor modifications from the prospectus to incorporate suggestions from the IRT site visit
in October 23, 2018 and comments from the evaluation letter. The minor alterations and updates are detailed below:

• The draft mitigation plan presents 6,545.283 SMUs and 6.222 WMUs (6,496.000 SMUs and 5.780 WMUs
in the prospectus);
• An additional reach has been included in the draft mitigation plan (TV5), as this was confirmed as a
jurisdictional stream in the PJD;
• Reach TV2 was removed after it was unconfirmed as a jurisdictional stream in the PJD;
• GC2 was updated to restoration to address historic re-alignment and channel incision. Updating this short
reach to restoration allows us to raise the bed elevation by two feet, avoiding the need for any Priority 2
restoration through the jurisdictional wetland areas.
• Upon a detailed hydric soil investigation by a licensed soil scientist, riparian wetland re-establishment has
been proposed in the draft mitigation plan to restore wetland hydrology to areas of drained hydric soil. Total
protected added wetland area is now at 15.181 acres, with a total of wetland re-establishment now at 4.490
acres; and
• Credit adjustments were calculated in accordance with the non-standard buffer width guidance for this Site.

We look forward to discussing this project with you in more detail as your review progresses.

Sincerely,

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

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
USACE Action ID: SAW-2018-01883

Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030005

Prepared by:

Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC

3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1052

August 2020
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan ii August 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 4
Project Components ................................................................................................................ 4
Project Outcomes .................................................................................................................... 4
2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION ............................................................... 6
Site Selection .......................................................................................................................... 6
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 8
Watershed Summary Information .......................................................................................... 8
Landscape Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 8
Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future ............................................................................. 10
Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints .......................................................... 11
Existing Stream Reach Conditions ....................................................................................... 13
Existing Wetland Conditions ................................................................................................ 18
Existing Hydric Soil Area Conditions .................................................................................. 20
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL ....................................................................................... 21
Stream Functional Uplift ...................................................................................................... 21
Wetland Functional Uplift .................................................................................................... 23
5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................ 24
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ..................................................................................................... 26
Reference Stream ................................................................................................................. 26
Design Parameters ................................................................................................................ 27
Sediment Control Measures ................................................................................................. 33
Vegetation and Planting Plan ............................................................................................... 33
Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................. 36
Determination of Credits ...................................................................................................... 37
7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................................ 40
Stream Restoration Success Criteria..................................................................................... 40
Wetland Restoration Success Criteria .................................................................................. 40
Vegetation Success Criteria .................................................................................................. 41
8 MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................. 41
As-Built Survey .................................................................................................................... 41
Visual Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 41
Stream Hydrology Events ..................................................................................................... 42
Cross Sections ...................................................................................................................... 42
Wetland Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 42
Vegetation Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 42
Scheduling/Reporting ........................................................................................................... 42
9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................... 45
10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................................................... 46
11 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ............................................................................................... 47
Initial Allocation of Released Credits .................................................................................. 47
Subsequent Credit Releases .................................................................................................. 47
12 MAINTENANCE PLAN ............................................................................................................. 49
13 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ...................................................................................................... 50
14 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 51

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan iii August 2020

List of Tables
Table 1. Dugout Stream and Wetland Project Components Summary .................................................. 5
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information .............................................................................. 6
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information ................................................................................ 8
Table 4. Mapped Soil Series ................................................................................................................... 9
Table 5. Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................... 13
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics ....................................................................... 13
Table 7. Summary of Stream Parameters ............................................................................................. 17
Table 8. Existing Wetland Summary Information ................................................................................ 19
Table 9. Function-Based Goals and Objectives .................................................................................... 25
Table 10. Peak Flow Comparison ........................................................................................................ 30
Table 11. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses ...................................................... 31
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities ............................................................. 31
Table 13. Proposed Plant List ............................................................................................................... 34
Table 14. Mitigation Credits ................................................................................................................. 38
Table 15. Monitoring Requirements ..................................................................................................... 44
Table 16. Credit Release Schedule ....................................................................................................... 48
Table 17. Maintenance Plan ................................................................................................................. 49
Table 18. Financial Assurances ............................................................................................................ 50

List of Figures
Figure 1 – Project Vicinity
Figure 2 – USGS Quadrangle
Figure 3 – Landowner Parcels
Figure 4 – Landuse
Figure 5 – Mapped Soils
Figure 6 – Existing Conditions
Figure 7 – Historical Conditions
Figure 8 – National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 9 – Conceptual Design Plan
Figure 10 – Buffer Width Zones
Figure 11 – Monitoring Plan

Appendices
Appendix A - Site Protection Instrument
Appendix B - Baseline Information and Correspondence
Appendix C - Data, Analysis, and Supplementary Information
Appendix D - Design Plan Sheets
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 4 August 2020

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Project Components
The Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project (“Project”) is located within Cumberland County,
approximately 7 miles south of Fayetteville. The Project lies within the Cape Fear River Basin, North
Carolina Department of Water Resources (“NCDWR”) sub-basin 03-06-15 and United States
Geological Survey (“USGS”) 12-digit hydrologic unit code (“HUC”) 030300050102 (Willis Creek
Watershed) (Figure 1). The Project is being designed to help meet compensatory mitigation
requirements for stream and wetland impacts in the HUC 03030005. The Project proposes to restore
5,173 linear feet (“LF”), enhance 971 LF, and preserve 1,226 LF of stream as well as restore 4.490
acres (“ac”), enhance 6.125 ac, and preserve 4.566 ac of wetlands that will ultimately provide water
quality benefits and ecosystem uplift for the Project’s 8.31 mi2 drainage area.

The Project is comprised of a 41.66-acre easement located upstream of the Cape Fear River,
encompassing a portion of the Grays Creek floodplain. The Project involves Grays Greek, two of its
unnamed tributaries, and riparian wetlands that all ultimately drain a few miles southeast to the Cape
Fear River. The stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized in Table 1. The upstream
extent of the Project begins where Grays Creek flows under NC-87, and the site is easily accessible
from Upton Tyson Road. Coordinates for the Project are as follows: 34.927960 N, 78.846780 W.
Project Outcomes
The entire floodplain system within the Project has been manipulated by agricultural practices over
time, thereby adversely impacting both streams and wetlands. Significantly degraded streams will be
restored or enhanced to attain higher function, while less degraded streams will be preserved. Non-
jurisdictional areas of hydric soil within riparian areas will be restored via re-establishment to improve
both hydrologic and vegetative functions. Forested jurisdictional riparian wetland areas will be
enhanced to improve hydrologic function while non-forested jurisdictional riparian wetlands will be
enhanced to improve functions related to vegetation. The remaining jurisdictional wetlands within the
easement area will be preserved. Proposed improvements to the Project will help meet the river basin
needs expressed in the Division of Mitigation Services’ (DMS) 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities (“RBRP”).

Through stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation, the Project presents 7,370 LF of proposed
stream, generating 5,942.993 base Warm Stream Mitigation Units (“SMU”) (Table 1). By
incorporating wider buffers, the total adjusted SMUs for the Project amount to 6,545.283. Additionally,
the Project presents 15.181 acres of wetland re-establishment, enhancement, and preservation,
generating 6.222 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (“WMU”) (Table 1). IRT Meeting Minutes were
carefully considered in the preparation of this Mitigation Plan. (Appendix B).
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 5 August 2020

Table 1. Dugout Stream and Wetland Project Components Summary
Mitigation Type Proposed Length (LF) Mitigation Ratio Warm SMUs
Restoration 5,173 1:1 5,173.000
Enhancement I 971 1.5:1 647.333
Preservation 1,226 10:1 122.600
Total 7,370 5,942.933
Adjusted Total* 6,545.283
* Credit adjustments were calculated in accordance with Non-standard buffer width guidance published in the October 2016
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.

Mitigation Type Proposed Area (ac) Mitigation Ratio Riparian
WMUs
Re-establishment 4.490 1:1 4.490
Enhancement (High) 0.167 2:1 0.084
Enhancement (Low) 5.958 5:1 1.192
Preservation 4.566 10:1 0.457
Total** 15.181 6.222
** Areas generating wetland credit are within the proposed 50-foot stream buffer area or are wholly outside of the Non-
standard buffer width areas generating additional stream credit (>150 ft.); therefore, additional stream credit areas and
wetland credit areas do not overlap.

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 6 August 2020

2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The DMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP identified restoration needs for each 8-digit HUC within the Cape
Fear River Basin. Specifically, goals for HUC 03030005 include creating a Local Watershed Plan for
the lower portion of the watershed, focus on reducing non-point source pollution - especially fecal
coliform, and limiting urban stormwater pollution.

Current and future population growth leading to habitat conversion is the primary stressor in this basin
leading to water quality impairment and habitat degradation. The Project will help address the identified
stressor and reduce non-point source pollution as described in Section 2.1.
Site Selection
The Project was identified as a stream and wetland mitigation opportunity to improve water quality,
habitat, and hydrology within the Cape Fear River Basin. The aquatic resources associated with the
Project have been highly manipulated and degraded over time due to agriculture and forestry practices.
Project streams, especially Grays Creek, have historically been diverted, straightened, and dredged,
leading to unstable channels with poor hydraulic function and wetlands with decreased hydrology.
Also, networks of surface ditches further alter the natural hydrology of the stream -wetland complex.
Additionally, much of the Project’s existing forest was most recently logged approximately eight years
ago. Further, active livestock pasture and row crop fields abut portions of Project streams where riparian
buffers are either very narrow or absent. Therefore, the Project presents a great opportunity to address
the RBRP goal of reducing non-point source pollution, especially fecal coliform, while also providing
tremendous additional uplift to a degraded stream-wetland floodplain system. The Project will directly
and indirectly address stressors by reconstructing natural channels within the Grays Creek floodplain;
stabilizing eroding stream banks and establishing floodplain connectivity; reducing sediment and
nutrient loads; restoring, enhancing, and preserving wetlands; restoring and enhancing riparian buffers;
and protecting aquatic resources in perpetuity. Project-specific goals and objectives will be addressed
further in Section 5. Watershed planning priority boundaries are shown on Figure 1, and the Project’s
drainage areas are shown on Figure 2.

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

Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Owner of Record Tax Parcel ID# (PIN)
Vance U. Tyson Jr.
0442-37-1627
0442-37-1967
0442-38-2137
0442-78-7881
0442-46-1787
0442-57-8598
0442-77-0886
(Cumberland County)

Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX), acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a
Conservation Easement, and will monitor the Project for a minimum of seven years. This Mitigation
Plan provides detailed information regarding bank operation, including long term management and
annual monitoring activities, for review and approval by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). Upon
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 7 August 2020

approval of the Project by the IRT, the Project will be transferred to Unique Places to Save (UP2S).
UP2S will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Project to ensure that restrictions required in
the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required
to uphold easement and deed restrictions will be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.

The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the Conservation Easement will allow for the implementation of an
initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during the design phase and conducted by the Bank
Sponsor. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring and, if necessary, maintenance
of the Project during the initial monitoring phase. These activities will be conducted in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the approved Mitigation Plan for the Dugout Mitigation Project. The Dugout
Project will be authorized under the RES Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank made and entered
into by EBX, US Army Corps of Engineers, and NC Division of Water Resources.

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 8 August 2020

3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Watershed Summary Information
Drainage Area and Land Cover
The Project area is comprised of Grays Creek and two of its unnamed tributaries that flow east and
eventually drain into the Cape Fear River. The total drainage area for the Project is 5,320 acres (8.31
mi2). Drainage areas for each Project reach are: GC1, 4,980 acres (7.78 mi2); GC2, 5,084 acres (7.95
mi2); GC3, 5,283 acres (8.25 mi2); GC4, 5,320 acres (8.31 mi2); TV1, 7 acres (0.01 mi2); and TV5, 2
acres (0.004 mi2). The Project drainage area originates at I-95/HWY 301, with primary land uses of
approximately 32% forest, 31% residential, and 15% agricultural land, while impervious area covers
about 3%. The residential areas are distributed throughout the drainage area; however, the majority of
channels within the drainage area appear to have forested corridors (Table 3 & Figure 4). Much of the
land immediately adjacent to the Project is used for agricultural production, and include cow pastures
and row crops, which have ultimately contributed to the degradation of Project streams and wetlands.
Additionally, logging of the floodplain forest has further degraded wetland function in some of the
Project’s wetlands.
Surface Water Classification
The segment of Grays Creek within the Project area has been classified by NCDWR as Class C, which
are waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic
life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where
such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.

Also, notably, less than one mile downstream of the end of the Project, Grays Creek is classified as
Water Supply IV (WS-IV), which are used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes.

Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information
Watershed Feature Designation
Level IV Ecoregion Atlantic Southern Loam Plains
Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces
River Basin Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03030005
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03030005010010
DWR Sub-basin 03-06-15
Project Drainage Area (acres) 5,320
Percent Impervious Area ~3%
Surface Water Classification Class C
Landscape Characteristics
Physiography and Topography
The Project resides on the edge of two ecoregions: the Atlantic Southern Loam Plains and the
Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces. The Atlantic Southern Loam Plains ecoregion is a major
agricultural zone. It has more a variety of soil conditions but is generally more mesic than the Sand
Hills region and more xeric than the Carolina Flatwoods. The region has the highest concentration of
Carolina bay wetlands, which often contain rare or endangered species when they haven’t been drained
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 9 August 2020

for agricultural uses. Several historic mapped Carolina bays are depicted outside and inside the project
drainage area (Figure 2a). The Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces ecoregion is comprised of
alluvium and terrace deposits of sand, clay, and gravel. The region includes low gradient streams,
oxbow lakes, ponds, and swamps. Natural communities usually consist of floodplain forests, including
bottomland hardwood forests (bottomland oaks, red maple, sweetgum, green ash, bitternut hickory) and
cypress-gum swamps (water tupelo, swamp tupelo, bald cypress, pond cypress).

The specific landscape characteristics of the Dugout site are very much representative of the
Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces with a large swath of wet, floodplain forest containing
Grays Creek, a large, historically low-gradient stream, and its wide floodplain with some swamp
characteristics and evidence of relic braided features. Surrounding the floodplain is rolling topography
with a relatively steep hillslope dropping into the Grays Creek floodplain from the pastures on the
northside.
Soils
Existing soil information from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (“NRCS”), from Web Soil
Survey, shows four map units across the project (NRCS, 2019). Map units include four soil series across
the Project and are summarized in Table 4. Project soils are mapped as Blaney loamy sand, 8 to 15
percent slopes, Deloss loam, Gilead loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes, and Johnston loam (Figure 5).
However, Johnston loam and Deloss loam make up almost all of the Project area and are hydric and
predominantly hydric, respectively.

Table 4. Mapped Soil Series
Map Unit Map Unit
Name
Percent
Hydric
Drainage Class Hydrologic Soil
Group
Landscape Setting
BaD Blaney loamy
sand, 8 to 15
percent slopes
0 Well Drained C Low hills
De Deloss loam 90 Very poorly
drained
B/D Depressions, flats
GdB Gilead loamy
sand, 2 to 8
percent slopes
5 Moderately well
drained
C Low hills
JT Johnston loam 100 Very poorly
drained
A/D Floodplains

A detailed hydric soil evaluation was also conducted to describe and delineate the extent of hydric soils
that are potentially suitable for wetland re-establishment for wetland mitigation. Therefore, more
detailed soils information is included in the report and included in Appendix C.
Vegetation
Although alterations to the landscape, hydrology, and vegetation have disturbed the local natural
communities over time, typical vegetation communities throughout the Project consist of closed-
canopy wetland forest; logged, regenerating, wetland forest; logged, regenerating, drained, non-wetland
forest; disturbed upland forest; pasture; and cropland (Figure 6).
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 10 August 2020

The closed-canopy wetland forest makes up most of the western half of the Project area and is least
disturbed. The area most closely resembles a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Schafale, 2012), as
some of it is still within the active floodplain of Grays Creek and influenced by flooding and sediment
deposition. However, with the relocation of Grays Creek to the edge of the floodplain to the north, the
forest gradually loses the active floodplain to the east and functions more as a Brownwater Bottomland
Hardwood Forest (Schafale, 2012). With that said, these areas are dominated by trees of red maple
(Acer rubrum), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), willow oak (Quercus phellos),
water oak (Quercus nigra) and interspersed with yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Shrubs
include mostly swamp doghobble (Eubotrys racemosa) and the invasive Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense). The herbaceous stratum is dominated by common rush (Juncus effuses), cinnamon fern
(Osmunda cinnamomea), netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus),
and the invasive Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum). Vines are locally dense and dominated
by laurel greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia), roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and muscadine
(Vitis rotundifolia).

The logged, regenerating, wetland forest and logged, regenerating, drained, non-wetland forest make
up the majority of the eastern half of the Project and were logged in 2012. The difference in vegetation
between these wetland and drained, non-wetland forests are indiscernible, whereas hydrology is the
distinguishing factor between the two. Due to the relocation of Grays Creek to the edge of the floodplain
to the north and its deep incision, the forest has completely lost its active floodplain, making these
regenerating areas more so resemble Brownwater Bottomland Hardwood Forests. Therefore, dominant
vegetation in these logged forests include saplings such as red maple, sweetgum, willow oak, and water
oak; shrubs such as American holly (Illex opaca) and sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus); and vines
such as roundleaf and laurel greenbriers.

The remaining forested upland areas, mainly located along a middle portion of the channelized Gray’s
Creek, are composed of a few dominant species. Trees include yellow poplar, loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), and some American holly. The shrub and herbaceous strata are almost exclusively composed
of invasive species, namely Chinese privet and Japanese stiltgrass.

Pasture adjacent to the Project is a mix of grasses while the row crop field further downstream appears
to be on a rotation of corn and soybeans.
Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future
Historic aerial imagery indicates that the western portion of the Project has always been forested since
at least 1951 while the eastern portion was mostly cleared or sparsely wooded during that time. Between
then and 1972, the eastern portion appeared to regenerate, making it forested, until approximately eight
years ago, when the eastern portion was again clear-cut for logging purposes. Adjacent to the Project,
to the north, most of the land has been maintained for agricultural purposes since at least 1951. It is
unknown exactly when the channelization of Grays Creek began; however, it is evident in the 1951
aerial imagery that the eastern segment of Grays Creek, within the Project boundary, was already
heavily manipulated: the stream was obviously channelized and partially diverted by a major ditch,
dissecting the floodplain, diagonally (Figure 7).

Currently, within the proposed easement boundary, the western portion of the Project is closed-canopy
forest, while the eastern portion is regenerating after the somewhat recent clear-cut and is very scrubby.
The areas adjacent to the project streams have been cleared for agriculture to the north, while remaining
densely wooded to the south. The majority of Grays Creek remains unnaturally located and channelized,
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 11 August 2020

and the major diagonal ditch diversion, mentioned above, remains active. Additionally, other active
ditches are also present throughout (Figure 6).

The future land use for the Project will include an established 41.66-acre conservation easement that
will be protected in perpetuity. The conservation easement will encompass 7,370 linear feet of high
functioning streams with minimum 50-foot riparian buffers, though most buffers will be much wider,
and at least 15.181 acres of credit-generating riparian wetlands, though the actual protected wetland
area will be much greater. Outside the Project, the area will likely remain in agricultural use to the north
and forested to the south.
Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
Regulatory considerations and potential constraints of the Project are discussed below, and Table 5 is
a summary of regulatory considerations. All supporting documentation can be found in Appendix B.
Property, Boundary, and Utilities
The proposed Project easement is bound on the west and east by parcel boundaries. Notably, the
property boundary to the west abuts the NC-87 DOT right-of-way; therefore, the Project will begin at
this property boundary and will not encroach on the right-of-way. There is one existing utility, an
overhead powerline, that intersects Grays Creek in the middle of the Project (reach GC3). Therefore,
the proposed easement will have one easement break to accommodate the existing utility easement .
Otherwise, there are no other easement breaks or crossings associated with the Project.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”)/ Hydrologic Trespass
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, the Project is not within any
flood hazard zones. No hydrologic trespass will be permitted to adjacent properties upstream or
downstream of the project. The Project can be found on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 0442
(map number 3720044200J), effective date January 5, 2007.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under
provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS
database lists six Federally listed species that may occur in proximity to the Project: red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Saint Francis’ satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii francisci),
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii), pondberry (Lindera
melissifolia), rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia). American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis) is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance and is not subject to Section 7
consultation. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) prohibits take of bald and golden
eagles.

In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS databa se was
consulted to determine whether previously catalogued occurrences of protected species were mapped
within one mile of the project site. Results from NHP indicate that there is one historic population of
federally endangered rough-leaved loosestrife to the north of the project area, but there has not been an
observation since 1957. There are otherwise no known occurrences of federally threatened or
endangered species within a one-mile radius of the project area. Two state significantly rare species,
the Sandhills spiny crayfish (Cambarus hystricosus) and banded sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus), both
occur in Grays Creek approximately one mile downstream of the Project.

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 12 August 2020

During the Project’s public notice comment period, a letter was received from the USFWS, dated
November 15, 2018, that stated the “the action is not likely to adversely affect any federally-listed
species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA” and “…that the requirements under Section 7
(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project” (Appendix B). Notably, however, RES still
suspected potential habitat for pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) within the Project’s forested wetlands,
but upon field investigations it was determined that there is, in fact, no suitable habitat for the species.
Cultural Resources
A review of North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) GIS Web Service (accessed
November 27, 2019) database revealed one historic resource on the Project property, the McCoy House
(SD: CD0819); however, it is listed as gone. There are no anticipated impacts from Project activities to
state surveyed properties as there are none remaining in the proposed project vicinity. A letter was
received from the SHPO on November 8, 2018 that confirmed that no historic resources would be
affected by the project and no additional surveys were necessary (Appendix B).
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
A survey of potential jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. was performed in April of 2019. Wetland
boundaries were delineated using current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Soils were characterized
and classified using the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0 (NRCS, 2010).

A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) request was sent to the USACE on August 2, 2019
and a site visit was conducted on October 10, 2019. Following the site visit and upon additional findings
of aquatic resources, revised materials were submitted on February 19, 2020. Ultimately, the confirmed
PJD package will be issued at the time of the mitigation plan approval; however, email verification of
jurisdictional waters at the Project was implied through email correspondence with USACE in February
2020. All of these documents and correspondence can be found in Appendix B.

The delineation concludes the presence of jurisdictional streams, wetlands, and open water in and
adjacent to the Project (Appendix B & Figure 6). Existing stream and wetland conditions will be
discussed in detail in Sections 3.5 and 3.6.
Clean Water Act - Section 401/404
Impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands will be unavoidable due to the restoration and
enhancement actives proposed. Although these impacts are unavoidable, the proposed stream and
wetland treatment will result in an overall functional uplift of the stream and wetland system, as
described in Section 4. In general, reaches proposed for preservation, GC1, TV1-A and TV5-A will
not have any stream, wetland, or open water impacts. One reach, GC4, proposed for Enhancement I,
will have temporary impacts due to construction activities such as floodplain benching. Furthermore,
restoration reaches, GC2, GC3, TV1-B, and TV5-B, will have permanent impacts, due to stream
restoration and stream realignment. Wetlands WA and WD will have permanent and temporary impacts
due to stream restoration that will include stream construction and relocation. Other temporary impacts
in these wetlands will be due to construction haul routes where equipment will be mobile and where
tree clearing is necessary for stream restoration efforts. All stream and wetland impacts will be
accounted for in the Pre-Construction Notification form, to be submitted after Final Mitigation Plan
approval.

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 13 August 2020

Table 5. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable Resolved Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes No Appendix B*
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes No Appendix B*
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix B
National Historic Preservation Act Yes No Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Act - Essential Fisheries
Habitat No N/A N/A
*PCN will be submitted after the Final Mitigation Plan is approved
Existing Stream Reach Conditions
The Project streams consist of Grays Creek and two of its unnamed tributaries (Figure 6). These
streams are split into reaches based on existing conditions and proposed mitigation treatment: Grays
Creek is split into GC1, GC2, GC3, and GC4; one tributary is split into TV1-A, TV1-B, and TV1-C;
and the other tributary is split into TV5-A and TV5-B. Existing reach conditions and characteristics
based on data collection are discussed in detail in this section and are summarized in Table 6.
Morphological parameters can be found in Appendix C.

Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach Drainage
Area (acres)
ABKF
(ft2)
Width
(ft)
Mean
Depth (ft)
Bank
Height
Ratio
W/D
Ratio
Sinuosity Slope
(ft/ft)
GC1 4,980 39.7 16.1 2.5 1.2 6.5 ~1.12 0.006
GC2 5,085 46.0 15.7 2.9 1.2 5.4 ~1.02 0.003
GC3 5,283 29.7-58.9 11.8-18.5 1.6-3.7 1.2-1.3 4.2-11.6 ~1.26 0.003
GC4 5,320 26.3 27.2 1.0 1.3 28 ~1.07 0.001
TV1 7 2.7 8.2 0.3 1.0 24.8 ~1.16 0.027
TV5 2 1.2 4.0 0.3 1.0 13.6 ~1.20 0.023
Reach Conditions and Channel Morphology
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 14 August 2020

Grays Creek
GC1
Reach GC1 is 526 linear feet and begins after an open water area below an existing culvert crossing
on NC Highway 87 on the western end of the project and flows east through an unconfined
floodplain. This channel appears to exhibit minimal historic manipulation as the reach has a
meandering pattern and a lower cross-sectional area as compared to reaches downstream. The reach
is well vegetated with native tree species but does contain some Chinese privet throughout. The
average channel width is approximately 16 ft with an average depth of around 2.5 ft. The drainage
area for the reach is approximately 4,980 acres (7.8 sqmi).

Looking upstream along Reach GC1 Looking downstream along Reach GC1

GC2
Reach GC2 is 591 linear feet and originates from GC1 and flows east to the reach break with GC3,
a 90 degree bend to the north. This reach has been historically straightened and subsequently dredged
as evident by spoil piles located intermittently along each top of bank. This reach lacks much
bedform diversity, and average bankfull depths range from 2.5 to 3 ft while bank heights range from
4.5 to 6 ft. The riparian buffer is forested with native species with minimal invasives located
throughout. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 5,085 acres.

Looking upstream along reach GC2 Looking downstream along reach GC2

GC3
Reach GC3 is 4,303 linear feet, 2,493 linear feet within the easement, and has been rerouted by a 90
degree turn north from GC2, away from its historic, natural path through the floodplain. The reach
then takes another sharp, 90 degree turn east at its confluence with TV1 and TV5. It then flows in a
straight line along the toe of the valley before regaining pattern briefly after it intercepts another
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 15 August 2020

lateral drainage feature from the north before straightening once again. The reach has clearly been
relocated from its historic path for most of its length, and spoil piles from historic channel
straightening and dredging are common along both top of banks. A relic channel is also still
discernable through the floodplain from the break between GC2 and GC3 to the point where the
channel briefly regains pattern. The reach flows through forested buffer for the upper half of its
length. Just downstream of its turn north from GC2, the channel borders a residential lot on its left
bank. Towards its downstream end, it is bordered along the left bank by agricultural fields and
scrubby, regenerating forest along the right bank. The reach incises dramatically as it flows eastward,
likely a result from past dredging. Approximate channel widths increase from about 15 ft at the
upstream end to 20 to 25 ft at the downstream end, and bank heights range from 4.5 to 6 ft at the
upstream and downstream ends as compared to heights of 7 to 8 ft along the middle of the reach. The
drainage area for the reach is approximately 5,283 acres.

Looking upstream along reach GC3

Looking downstream along reach GC3

GC4
Reach GC4 is 971 linear feet and transitions from GC3 at the proposed reach tie-in and continues to
flow east to the eastern end of the project. The reach is buffered by scrubby, regenerating forest along
its right bank and agricultural fields along the left bank. The channel has historically been
straightened and relocated to the valley edge. The channel is fairly incised and shows little pattern
or bedform. The average channel width is approximately 27 ft with bank heights ranging from 6 to
8 ft. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 5,320 acres.

Looking upstream along reach GC4

Looking downstream along reach GC4

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 16 August 2020

TV1
Reach TV1 originates within an old, breached impoundment and flows south 516 linear feet to
confluence with GC3. This perennial reach flows from a confined valley to the less confined valley
of the Grays Creek floodplain. A large headcut in the reach right before the confluence with GC3
drops the bed elevation down to level with the incised channel of Grays Creek. Within the old
impoundment, there is no woody buffer, but downstream of the dam the buffer is intact; however,
the understory is primarily Chinese privet. The average channel width is approximately 6-7 ft with
an average depth of around 0.5 ft. The drainage area for this reach is approximately 7 acres.

Looking upstream along reach TV1 Looking downstream along reach TV1

TV5
Reach TV5 is an intermittent stream originating from strong hillslope seepage. It is 352 linear feet
and flows southeast, almost parallel to reach TV1. This reach flows through forested buffer and
drains to a ditch that runs along the border of a residential lot just before the ditch’s confluence with
GC3. The reach is appropriately sized before a dramatic head cut at the confluence with the ditch
that drains to GC3. The average channel width is approximately 4 ft with an average depth of around
4 in. The drainage area for this reach is approximately 2 acres.

Looking upstream along reach TV5 Looking downstream along reach TV5
Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as perennial and intermittent streams using the NCDWR Stream
Identification Form version 4.11 and are E, G and F-stream types as classified using the Rosgen
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 17 August 2020

stream classification (Rosgen, 1996). Stream determinations have been verified by the USACE.
Additionally, streams were rated using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
(“NCWAM”). Table 7 summarizes the stream parameters and corresponding forms are included in
Appendix C.

Table 7. Summary of Stream Parameters
Reach Reach Length
(LF)
Hydrology
Status
Stream Determination
Score
NCSAM
Rating
Rosgen Stream
Classification
GC1 526 Perennial 38 High E
GC2 591 Perennial N/A High E
GC3 4,303 Perennial N/A Medium E to G
GC4 971 Perennial N/A Medium F
TV1 616 Perennial 30.75 High C
TV5 352 Intermittent 27 High C

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 18 August 2020

Existing Wetland Conditions
Existing Wetlands
Wetland delineation confirmed the presence of three jurisdictional wetland areas within the Project and
are labeled as WA (Wetland A), WC (Wetland C), and WD (Wetland D) in Existing Conditions, Figure
6 & Appendix B. There are approximately 23.849 acres of wetlands within the proposed easement
area: WA is approximately 21.619 acres in size; WC is approximately 0.277 acres; and WD is
approximately 1.953 acres. Note that for the purpose of describing these wetland areas appropriately,
WA has been divided into WA-1, WA-2, and WA-3. Wetlands were rated using the North Carolina
Wetland Assessment Method (“NCWAM”) (Appendix C). Existing conditions of each wetland are
described below and summarized in Table 8.

Wetland A
WA is a generally wide floodplain wetland system that contains Grays Creek and has varying levels of
disturbance that impact both hydrology and vegetation. In general, hydrology is driven by groundwater,
runoff from surrounding landscape, and historically, flooding of Grays Creek.

WA-1 is the least disturbed, with the channel of Grays Creek being appropriately sized and still
contributing many flood events and sandy deposition throughout. There is a ditch running along the
south, parallel to Grays Creek and another lateral ditch draining into Grays Creek in this wetland area;
however, they do not appear to be altering hydrology much. The vegetation is mature and diverse, with
a closed-canopy forest with a moderately-developed understory.

WA-2 is very similar to WA-1, except that the natural hydrology has been altered due to the relocation
and straightening of Grays Creek and its subsequent channel incision. However, groundwater is still
sufficient to maintain jurisdictional wetland status. The area, most likely classified as a Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swamp, historically, now functions more like a Brownwater Bottomland Hardwood
Forest with the loss of an active floodplain. Notably, however, a relic channel and some braided features
and depressional areas are evident throughout this wide, “bottomland” floodplain that demonstrates the
historic nature of the system that existed prior to anthropogenic disturbance.

WA-3 is similar to WA-2, except that hydrology seems to be diminishing to borderline jurisdictional
status due to its proximity to a ditch network, and its entire forest was clear-cut approximately eight
years ago. The regenerating vegetation lacks diversity and vigor and is dominated by saplings of
sweetgum and red maple.

Wetland C
WC is a small headwater wetland just below the origin of reach TV1 that is contained within the
footprint of an old, breached impoundment. There is mostly only herbaceous vegetation present in the
old pond bed with some black willow (Salix nigra) and blackberry along the edges. This wetland area
is essentially part of the same system as WD but is not contiguous due to the impoundment dam.

Wetland D
WD is indicative of a headwater wetland system in regard to its landscape position and contains stream
reaches TV1-A and TV5. A heavy draw of groundwater discharges out of the hillslope and then
conjoins with the Grays Creek floodplain wetland system. Canopy tree composition is similar to WA
but contains more yellow poplar and pine. Also, the understory is less developed, consisting of mostly
Chinese privet while the herbaceous stratum contains mostly Japanese stiltgrass.

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 19 August 2020

Table 8. Existing Wetland Summary Information
Wetland
ID
NCWAM Rating

Wetland
Type
Area
(ac)
Vegetation
WA-1 Hydrology: High Bottomland
Hardwood
Forest
4.117 Tree Stratum:
Red maple, swamp tupelo, sweetgum, bald cypress,
willow oak, water oak
Sapling Stratum:
Sweetgum, sweetbay, willow oak, water oak
Shrub Stratum:
Swamp doghobble, Chinese privet
Herb Stratum:
Common rush, lizard’s tail, netted chainfern,
cinnamon fern, Japanese stiltgrass
Woody Vine Stratum:
Laurel greenbrier, roundleaf greenbrier, muscadine
Water Quality: High
Habitat: High
Overall: High
WA-2 Hydrology: Medium Bottomland
Hardwood
Forest
14.578
Water Quality: Low
Habitat: High
Overall: Medium

WA-3 Hydrology: Medium Bottomland
Hardwood
Forest
2.925 Tree Stratum:
None
Sapling Stratum:
Red maple, sweetgum, willow oak, water oak
Shrub Stratum:
American holly, sawtooth blackberry
Herb Stratum:
None
Woody Vine Stratum:
Laurel greenbrier, roundleaf greenbrier
Water Quality: Low
Habitat: Medium
Overall: Medium

WC Hydrology: Low Headwater
Forest
0.277 Tree Stratum:
None
Sapling Stratum:
Black willow
Shrub Stratum:
Sawtooth blackberry
Herb Stratum:
Pennsylvania smartweed, common rush
Water Quality: Low
Habitat: Low
Overall: Low

WD Hydrology: High Headwater
Forest
1.953 Tree Stratum:
Red maple, swamp tupelo, sweetgum, bald cypress,
willow oak, water oak, yellow poplar, loblolly pine
Sapling Stratum:
Sweetgum, sweetbay, willow oak, water oak
Shrub Stratum:
Chinese privet
Herb Stratum:
Japanese stiltgrass
Woody Vine Stratum:
Laurel greenbrier, roundleaf greenbrier, muscadine

Water Quality: High
Habitat: High
Overall: High

National Wetland Inventory
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts three areas of wetlands within the project
limits. The primary wetland area is PFO1C (Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally
Flooded). Adjacent to that, to the south, is a smaller area of PFO3/4C (Palustrine, Forested, Broad -
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 20 August 2020

Leaved Evergreen/Needle-Leaved Evergreen, Seasonally Flooded) and to the east, is an area of PFO1A
(Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded) (Figure 8).
Existing Hydric Soil Area Conditions
The entire Project area east of the WA jurisdictional wetland boundary has been highly manipulated by
human alterations that has contributed to the loss of natural hydrology and a disturbed natural
community within the Grays Creek floodplain. It is evident that the area was historically wetland, once
contiguous with the rest of the wetland to the west but has since been drained and logged extensively.
For this area, NCWAM was also performed and resulted “Low” ratings for all functions (Appendix
C).

Upon a detailed hydric soil study conducted by a licensed soil scientist, it was determined that this
entire area contains hydric soils but lacks sufficient wetland hydrology due to human alterations. Some
of the findings from the study are discussed below, and the detailed hydric soil report can be found in
Appendix C.
Hydric Soil Indicators
The soil evaluation confirmed the presence of hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface
throughout site. The most common hydric soil indicators based on recorded profiles are A1-Histosol,
A2-Histic Epipedon, A3-Black Histic, A12-Thick Dark Surface, F1-Loamy Mucky Mineral, and F3-
Depleted Matrix, and F13-Umbric Surface. Other indicators that were found include A5-Stratified
Layers and F8-Redox Depressions. All but three of these indicators do not require a dark gray to black
surface but does not exclude a black surface. The indicators present reflect a very wet historical
condition in this floodplain resulting in the accumulation of organic materials throughout (Appendix
C).
Hydrology
Grays Creek is located close to the northern edge of the floodplain and toe slope, allowing the
interception of ground water seepage along this slope. The deep incision of Grays Creek effectively
lowers the floodplain groundwater elevation by limiting overbank flooding and providing drainage of
the surrounding sandy soils. To the south edge of the floodplain, the toe slope ditch intercepts seepage
before it can recharge the floodplain water table and provides additional surface drainage in the
backwater area of the floodplain. The ditch across the floodplain helps remove surface waters and acts
to lower shallow groundwater within the floodplain itself.

Observations with visible groundwater were limited and only found in the general area downstream of
the jurisdictional wetland and near the floodplain constriction. Below the constriction, observations of
the water table were found near the center of the floodplain away from Grays Creek. Depth to the water
table was deeper with distance from the wetland and closer to Grays Creek. This pattern suggest that
the incised Grays Creek is effectively lowering local groundwater to the north of the floodplain, and to
the south, the slope ditch is limiting recharge and preventing ponding in the backwater (Appendix C).

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 21 August 2020

4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
Stream Functional Uplift
In order to thoroughly examine the potential functional uplift to stream systems proposed for restoration
and enhancement, the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Framework) (Harman et. al. 2012) serves
as a useful concept to understand streams and their ecological functions. The Framework presents a
logical, holistic view of streams that describes the interrelatedness of fundamental stream functions.
The Framework defines five stream function categories, ordered into a hierarchy, that demonstrates the
dependence of higher-level functions (biology, physicochemical, and geomorphology) on lower level
functions (hydrology and hydraulics). Functions that affect the greatest number of other functions are
illustrated at the base of the Pyramid, while functions that have the least effect on other functions are
illustrated at the top. Further justifying this hierarchical concept, Fischenich (2006) found that the most
critical restoration activities are those that address stream functions related to hydrodynamic processes,
sediment transport processes, stream stability, and riparian buffers.

Therefore, principles of the Framework are utilized to discuss and communicate the potential functional
uplift to streams at the Dugout project and to propose realistic, attainable goals and objectives.
However, the determination of credits and performance standards for the Project follow guidance put
forth by the USACE Wilmington District.

The Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project will provide numerous ecological and water quality
benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin by applying an ecosystem restoration approach. The
restoration approach at the reach scale of this project will have the greatest effect on the hydrology,
hydraulic, and geomorphology functions of the system and is assumed to ultimately benefit the upper-
level functions (physicochemical and biology) over time, and in combination with other projects within
the watershed. Within the Project area, functional benefits and improvements related to the Function-
Based Pyramid Framework are anticipated by realizing site-specific functional goals and objectives
These goals and objectives, as they relate to the Framework, are outlined in Table 9.
Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
Hydrology
The Project will locally address several historic hydrologic disturbances, especially drainage alterations
including stream relocation, channelization, and ditching. However, it is not anticipated that the Project
will have a significant effect on hydrology at the large watershed scale.
Hydraulic
The greatest potential uplift at the Project will be achieved through establishing healthy floodplain
connectivity. By constructing stream channels back within the natural low of the valley and sizing them
to have low bank height ratios and high entrenchment ratios, bankfull events can occur and subsequent
flooding will reinvigorate the entire floodplain system. Also, by locating the stream channels back to
its natural position within the floodplain and raising the channel bed, groundwater/surface water
exchange will be rejuvenated and maintained, further benefitting the stream-wetland floodplain
complex. Additionally, these stream channels will be designed and constructed with adequate energy
dissipation and grade control to achieve and maintain stable flow dynamics.
Geomorphology
Sediment transport will be improved by designing and constructing sinuous channels back within the
natural low of the valley-floodplain that maintain stable dimension, plan, and profile to allow for
healthy transport of sediment within the channel and floodplain. Channel stability and bedform
diversity will be improved by installing a log structures to promote a natural riffle-pool sequence, while
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 22 August 2020

brush toe bank protection and livestake plantings will further protect stream banks. Transport and
storage of woody debris will be improved by direct installation of woody structures such as log vanes,
brush bed sills, and brush toes, while increasing channel roughness through plantings and riffle creation
will promote storage of woody debris. Furthermore, riparian vegetation condition will be improved by
planting trees along reaches that are currently lacking sufficient forested buffer. This will promote
riparian buffer processes that will limit sediment to channels, protect stream banks, and contribute
woody debris that will ultimately contribute to dynamic equilibrium of the system. All of these
functional parameters are interconnected and depend on each other; therefore, improving this wide
range of parameters will result in long-term functional geomorphic uplift.
Physicochemical
Although this project would support the overarching goal in the Cape Fear River Basin Priorities to
promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas, it is difficult to measure nutrient and
sediment reduction at this project level because they can be affected by so many variables. However,
many of the restoration and enhancement activities intended to improve the hydraulic and
geomorphology parameters will also directly and indirectly affect the physicochemical parameters of
the Project streams over time. The primary activities that will directly affect physicochemical functions
are stabilizing banks, planting riparian buffers, eliminating agricultural practices from riparian buffer
areas, and restoring and enhancing hydrology to riparian wetlands. These activities will reduce
sediment input by reducing erosion of stream banks and increase physical filtration of sediment through
forested riparian buffers, decrease nutrient sources by converting farmland to forest, and increase
nutrient processing through denitrification and nutrient uptake. Activities that will indirectly benefit
physicochemical functions are as follows: Temperature regulation will improve by introducing canopy
tree species to riparian buffers that will shade the stream. Oxygen regulation will improve through two
actions: first, the temperature of the water directly impacts the amount of gas held by the water;
therefore, by planting trees to shade the channel, water temperature will decrease, and dissolved oxygen
will increase. Second, by constructing stable channels that include drop structures, mixing zones will
form where oxygen dissolves much faster than the current exchange rate. Organic matter processing
will improve once restored riffles are able to catch twigs and branches that then retain leaves and other
particulate organic matter. Many of these physicochemical benefits will occur slowly and are dependent
on multiple variables within the stream ecosystem. Therefore, it is not practical or feasible to directly
measure these parameters within the monitoring time frame of this project. With that said, it is logical
to compare existing conditions with ongoing monitoring outcomes using the established stream and
wetland performance standards to demonstrate the positive correlation of hydraulic and geomorphic
parameters with physicochemical parameters. For example, as riparian buffer trees grow, as represented
in annual monitoring reports, it is anticipated that canopy cover is actively shading the stream channel
and reducing water temperature. This is not a substitute for direct physicochemical monitoring, but it
is a useful tool to help project the long-term benefits of the Project in terms of its functional uplift.
Ultimately, any uplift to physicochemical functions at the Project can only be assumed.
Biology
As mentioned for the physicochemical stream function, it will be difficult to measure the functional
uplift of the biological functions at this site within the monitoring period of the project. However, since
the life histories of many species likely to benefit from stream and wetland restoration are depending
on the lower-level functions, the functional uplift from the hydraulic and geomorphic levels would
likely have a positive effect on the biology over time and in combination with other projects within the
watershed is anticipated. Again, there is no substitute for direct biological monitoring, but it is important
to understand the hierarchy of the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework in order to help project long-
term benefits of the Project though only hydraulic and geomorphology parameters will be directly
measured during the seven-year monitoring period. Ultimately, any functional uplift to biology at the
Project can only be assumed.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 23 August 2020

Wetland Functional Uplift
The stream restoration activities discussed above that will provide stream-related functional uplift will
also provide functional uplift to riparian wetlands within the Project. Especially, by constructing an
appropriately sized, meandering channel back through the natural low of the floodplain, hydrologic
restoration and enhancement can be attained that will provide numerous water quality and soil-related
functional uplifts. These include, reestablishment of natural oxidation-reduction cycling, improved
nutrient and chemical transformations (especially nitrates), and potential immobilization of
phosphorus. Potential sources of these pollutants are present in the watershed. Other benefits include a
lower soil and surface water temperature after vegetative establishment, increased organic carbon
sequestration, and increases in diversity of beneficial microbial and fungal populations important for
soil health. Healthy microbial populations in wetlands are primarily responsible for biochemical
transformations of complex organic substances such as ammonia, molecular nitrogen, nitrite and
nitrate. Large scale benefits should include peak flood control, an increase of diverse wildlife habitat,
and greater connectivity to the natural aquatic communities along Grays Creek (Appendix C).
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 24 August 2020

5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project’s maximum functional uplift using the Stream
Functions Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Project.
These goals clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from non-point source
pollution in the watershed and promote long-term resilience to the inevitable, spiking population growth
that were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2009 Cape Fear River RBRP. The Project will
address these stressors and support RBRP goals (discussed in Section 2).

The Project goals are:
• Re-establish or improve hydrology to a historical stream-wetland complex that has been
manipulated by agricultural practices for over 70 years.
• Improve water transport from watershed to channels in a non-erosive manner and improve and
maintain a stable water table in riparian floodplain wetlands;
• Improve water quality within the restored and enhanced stream channels and downstream
watercourses by reducing sediment and nutrient loads;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbanks flows and
connection to the active floodplain;
• Create diverse bedforms and stable channels that achieve healthy dynamic equilibrium and
provide suitable habitat for life;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Restore and enhance wetland hydrology and soils;
• Restore, enhance, and preserve native wetland and riparian vegetative communities; and
• Support the life histories of aquatic and riparian plants and animals through stream and wetland
restoration activities.

The Project objectives to address the goals are:
• Design and reconstruct stream channels that will convey bankfull flows while maintaining
stable dimension, profile, and planform based on modeling, watershed conditions, and
reference reach conditions;
• Maintain regular, seasonal flow in restored, intermittent stream reaches;
• Permanently exclude livestock from all stream channels, their associated buffers, and wetlands;
• Add in-stream structures and bank stabilization measures to improve bedform diversity and
protect restored and enhanced streams;
• Install habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of
varying depths to restored and enhanced streams;
• Reduce bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios in restored stream channels;
• Relocate stream channels back within the low of the existing floodplain, raise stream bed
elevations, and plug and/or fill surface ditches to restore and enhance wetland hydrology and
maintain appropriate hydroperiod for Johnston and Deloss soil series;
• Plant wetland areas and increase forested riparian buffers to at least 50 feet on both sides of the
channel along Project streams with a native, hardwood plant community;
• Treat exotic invasive species; and
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project that will perpetually protect
streams, wetlands, and their associated buffers.

Project goals and objectives, as they relate to the Function Based Pyramid Framework, are outlined in
Table 9.

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 25 August 2020

Table 9. Function-Based Goals and Objectives
Function Goal Objective
Hydrology
Transport of water from the
watershed to the channel
To transport water from the watershed
to the channel in a non-erosive manner
and improve wetland hydrology in
riparian wetlands
Convert land-use of riparian areas to forest

Maintain appropriate hydroperiod for Johnston
and Deloss soil series
Hydraulic
Transport of water in the
channel, on the floodplain,
and through the sediments
To transport water within streams and
floodplains in a stable, non-erosive
manner
Improve flood bank connectivity by reducing
bank height ratios and increasing
entrenchment ratios

Maintain regular, seasonal flow in restored,
intermittent streams
Geomorphology
Transport of wood and
sediment to create diverse
bedforms and dynamic
equilibrium
To create a diverse bedform and stable
channels that achieve healthy dynamic
equilibrium and provide suitable
habitat for life
Limit erosion rates and increase channel
stability to reference reach conditions

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

Increase buffer width to at least 50 feet
Physicochemical
Temperature and oxygen
regulation; processing of
organic matter and nutrients
To promote healthier levels for water
temperature, dissolved oxygen
concentration, and other important
nutrients including but not limited to
Nitrogen and Phosphorus through
buffer/wetland planting and excluding
cattle
Establish native hardwood riparian buffer to
provide canopy shade and absorb nutrients

Install in-stream structures to created aeration
zones

Promote sediment filtration, nutrient cycling,
and organic accumulation through natural
wetland biogeochemical processes
Biology
Biodiversity and life
histories of aquatic life
histories and riparian life
to achieve functionality in levels 1-4 to
support the life histories of aquatic and
riparian plants and animals through
stream and wetland
restoration/enhancement activities
Improve aquatic habitat by installing habitat
features, constructing pools of varying depths,
and planting the riparian buffer and wetlands

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 26 August 2020

6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
Reference Stream
The restoration portions of the Project are characterized by historic agricultural production and past
channel straightening and relocation resulting in poorly functioning stream channels. Physical
parameters of the Project were used, as well as other reference materials, to determine the target stream
type. The “Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina” was also used to narrow the
potential community types that would have existed at the Project (Schafale, 2012).

Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the Physiographic Region and ecoregion,
• Similar watershed size,
• Similar land use on site and in the watershed,
• Similar soil types on site and in the watershed,
• Ideal, undisturbed habitat – several types of woody debris present,
• Similar topography,
• Similar slope,
• Pattern common among Coastal Plain streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.

Obtaining property owner information and owner authorization for access was another factor in locating
suitable reference sites for the Project. There was no predetermined amount of reference sites needed
as long as the site was suitable and met the parameters. Many streams in this watershed are impacted
by cattle and agricultural practices and development activities, making it difficult to find an ideal
reference for the Project site. The preservation portion of Grays Creek (Reach GC1) and the
preservation portion of UT to Grays Creek (Reach TV1-A), associated with this Project, were selected
as the reference reaches for use in developing design parameters.
Reference Watershed Characterization
The reference streams are the most upstream portion of Grays Creek and the upstream portion of Reach
TV1 in the Project which are located in the Cape Fear River Basin. The reaches that were surveyed and
analyzed are approximately 526 feet long and 550 feet long, respectively, with drainage areas of 7.78
square miles (4980 acres) and 0.01 square miles (7 acres), respectively. The land-use in the watershed
is not dominated by any one land-use, but has major components of forest, developed area, and
agriculture, with minor components of open space, brush, and open water. Site photographs of the
reference streams are located in Appendix C.
Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge for these reference
reaches. Existing drainage area, land use, slope, roughness, and cross-sectional area were all factors
considered when performing the calculations. Using a combination of Coastal Regional Curves, in-
house spreadsheet tools, and a project specific regional flood frequency analysis, the existing discharge
for Grays Creek was found to be around 90-150 cubic feet per second (ft3/s), and the existing discharge
for UT to Grays Creek was found to be 3-6 ft3/s. See Section 6.2 for a more detailed description of the
hydrologic analyses performed for this project.
Reference Channel Morphology
The Grays Creek and UT to Grays Creek references were both used in the design of their continuations
downstream. As such, Grays Creek and UT to Grays Creek are approximately the same size as the
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 27 August 2020

design reaches when comparing pattern, dimension, and profile. The only exception is the design reach
TV5-B, which is smaller than UT to Grays creek, and required a scaling factor in its design. The scaling
factor is based on the difference in bankfull width of the reference channel and design channel. Grays
Creek was typically 16 to 18 feet wide and 3 to 4 feet deep, and UT to Grays Creek was typically 6 to
8 feet wide and 0.6 feet deep. The cross-sectional areas were typically around 39 square feet for Grays
Creek and 2 to 3 square feet for UT to Grays Creek with width to depth ratios of around 6 to 7 and 18
to 20, respectively.
Design Parameters
Stream Treatment and Design Approach
The stream treatment plan and design approach were developed based on the existing conditions,
project goals, and objectives outlined in Sections 3 and 5. The Project will include Preservation, Priority
I Restoration and Enhancement Level I. Stream restoration will incorporate the design of a single-
thread, meandering channel with parameters based on data taken from reference reaches, published
empirical relationships, regional curves developed from existing project streams, and NC and VA
Regional Curves. Analytical design techniques will also be a crucial element of the project and will be
used to determine the design discharge and to verify the overall design. The Conceptual plan is provided
in Figure 9 and Appendix D.

The detailed treatment plan and design approach is as follows:
Reach GC1
A preservation approach is proposed for this reach to protect the reach in perpetuity. Preservation
activities will include:

- Protecting the reach in a conservation easement,
- Invasive vegetation treatment and supplemental planting as needed.
Reach GC2
An offline restoration approach is proposed for this reach to address historic channel realignment, areas
of bed instability, and bank erosion and incision. Restoration activities will include:

- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
- Installing log structures to provide grade control and habitat,
- Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via live-staking,
- Filling the existing channel,
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive vegetation treatment.
Reach GC3
An offline restoration approach is proposed for this reach to address channelization, channel diversion,
areas of bed instability, bank erosion and incision, and buffer impacts. The proposed channel will be
relocated back to the south and through the middle of the valley, starting at the upstream end of the
reach. The existing portion of Grays Creek that flows to the north and along the eastern edge of an
adjacent landowner’s property will not be abandoned, but partially filled instead. This section (Swale
A, Sheet S15) will remain open and will be re-graded as a swale and to redirect flow to the south and
into proposed Reach GC3. The construction of the swale is necessary to prevent hydrologic trespass on
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 28 August 2020

the adjacent property regarding stormwater runoff and to avoid impacts to their septic field located on
the west of the proposed swale/existing Grays Creek.

In addition to Swale A, Swale B will be constructed to address an existing ditch that enters the proposed
reach near STA 26+50. The swale will involve filling and flattening the ditch such that flow will be
diffused through the floodplain before reaching proposed GC3. An engineered sediment pack (ESP)
and small depression will be installed along the swale just inside the easement. The ESP will act as a
stormwater control measure to filter concentrated flows received from the ditch. Restoration activities
will include:

- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain and through a relic channel
between stations 22+25 and 26+50,
- Installing log structures to provide grade control and habitat,
- Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via live-staking,
- Filling and plugging the existing channel,
- Livestock exclusion,
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive vegetation treatment.
Reach GC4
An enhancement I approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bank erosion and incision,
and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:

- Cutting a floodplain bench along the left bank for its entire length,
- Cutting a floodplain bench along the right bank to approximately STA 58+30,
- Installing habitat structures in the form of brush beds or log sills,
- Stabilizing banks via live-staking,
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive vegetation treatment.
Reach TV1-A
A preservation approach is proposed for this reach to protect the reach in perpetuity. Preservation
activities will include:

- Widening the breach of the drained impoundment to provide floodplain access through the old
dam,
- Riparian planting, and
- Protecting the reach in a conservation easement.
Reach TV1-B
A mix of offline and inline restoration is proposed for this reach to address a headcut in the channel
and to tie the reach back into the Grays Creek floodplain. Reach TV1-B will transition to TV1-C (the
floodplain of Grays Creek), to mimic other features near the Project and in the greater coastal region
and encourage the formation of the multithread system of TV1-C. Restoration activities will include:

- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
- Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via live-staking,
- Riparian planting,
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 29 August 2020

- Invasive vegetation treatment.
Reach TV1-C
A hydrologic restoration approach is proposed for this reach to encourage the formation of a natural,
multithread stream and wetland complex in the low gradient floodplain of Grays Creek between TV1-
B and GC3. The existing location of Grays Creek in this area being on the edge of the floodplain, and
the existing, large headcut that drops TV1 into the incised Grays Creek, indicate that TV1 was
disconnected from the Grays Creek floodplain and thus effectively lost a functioning confluence with
Grays Creek and the greater stream-wetland complex. Therefore, through the restoration of TV1-B and
Grays Creek, it is anticipated that a natural, braided stream will result, and the hydrologic connection
of these features will be restored. Hydrologic restoration activities will include:

- Spreading out flows from TV1-B in the floodplain of GC3,
- Invasive vegetation treatment.

Notably, due to the nature of this feature, TV1-C will be credited as a straight-line length through a
100-foot corridor and will not be pursued for any additional type of credit. Therefore, the reach is not
included in any additional credit for wider buffers (see Section 6.6.1 & Figure 10) nor will any wetland
credit be generated within the 100-foot corridor (Figure 9).
Reach TV5-A
A preservation approach is proposed for this reach to protect the reach in perpetuity. Preservation
activities will include:
- Protecting the reach in a conservation easement.
Reach TV5-B
A mix of offline and inline restoration is proposed for this reach to tie the reach to TV1. Restoration
activities will include:
- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
- Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via live-staking,
- Filling the existing channel,
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive vegetation treatment.
Data Analysis
Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to determine
and validate the design bankfull discharge and channel geometry required to provide regular floodplain
inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a
single model. Peak flows (Table 10) and corresponding channel cross sectional areas were determined
for comparison to design parameters using the following methods:

• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• NC and VA Regional Curves

Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby
USGS gauges with drainage areas ranging from 0.56 to 10.2 mi2 which passed the Dalrymple
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 30 August 2020

homogeneity test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations.
Regional flood frequency equations were developed for the 1.1 and 1.5-year peak discharges based on
the gauge data. Discharges were then computed for the design reaches. These discharges were
compared to those predicted by the discharge regional curve and the reference reach discharges.

Regional Curve Regression Equations
The Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain regional curves by Doll et al. (2003) and the Maryland/Virginia
Non-Urban Non-Tidal Coastal Plain regional curves by Krstolic and Chaplin (2007) for discharge were
used in part to determine the bankfull discharge for the Project. The NC regional curve predicted flows
that are similar to those predicted by the 1.1-year flood frequency. The MD/VA regional curve predicted
flows between the 1.1- and 1.5-year flood frequency for the larger drainage area of GC2/GC3 but
predicted flows below the 1.1-year flood frequency for the smaller tributaries. The regional curve
discharge equations used for the analysis are:

(1) Qbkf=16.56*(DA)0.72 (Doll et al., 2003)
(2) Qbkf=28.3076*(DA)0.59834 (Krstolic and Chaplin 2007)

Where Qbkf=bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mi2).

Table 10. Peak Flow Comparison
Reach Drainage Area
(Ac) FFQ Q1.1 FFQ Q1.5 NC Regional
Curve Q (1)
MD/VA Regional
Curve Q (2)
Design/
Calculated Q
GC2/GC3 5283 75 142 76 100 90
TV1-B 10 3 7 1 2 3-6
TV5-B 2 2 4 0 1 1-3
Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a
stable sand and/or gravel bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically, sediment
transport is assessed to determine a stream’s ability to move a specific grain size at specified flows.
Various sediment transport equations are applied when estimating entrainment for sand and gravel bed
streams found in the piedmont. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) report, Stability Thresholds
for Stream Restoration Materials (Fischenich, 2001), was used to obtain permissible shear stresses and
velocities. Data found in this document was obtained from multiple sources using different testing
conditions. The following methods and published documents were utilized during the sediment
transport analysis:

• Permissible Shear Stress Approach, and
• Permissible Velocity Approach.

Shear Stress Approach
Shear stress is a commonly used tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear stresses
are a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size, and gradation),
cohesiveness of bank materials, vegetative cover, and incoming sediment load. The shear stress
approach compares calculated shear stresses to those found in the literature.

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 31 August 2020

Critical shear stress is the shear stress required to initiate motion of the channels median particle size
(D50).

Table 11. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Reach
Proposed Shear
Stress at Bankfull
Stage (lbs/ft2)
Existing
Critical Shear
Stress (lbs/ft2)
Allowable Shear Stress1
Sand
(lbs/ft2)
Fine Gravel
(lbs/ft2)
Medium/Coarse
Gravel (lbs/ft2)
Vegetation
(lbs/ft2)
GC2/GC3 0.21 0.02 0.02 to 0.075 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67 0.7 to 1.7
TV1-B 0.53 0.02 0.02 to 0.075 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67 0.7 to 1.7
TV5-B 0.44 0.02 0.02 to 0.075 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67 0.7 to 1.7
1(Fischenich, 2001)

Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Project design reaches fall
between the critical shear stress (shear stress required to initiate motion) and the allowable limits.
Therefore, the proposed channel should remain stable with native materials.

Velocity Approach
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank
materials. A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method to
aid in the verification of channel stability. Table 12 compares the proposed velocities calculated using
Manning’s equation with the permissible velocities.

Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities
Reach Manning’s “n” Value1 Design Velocity (ft/s) Bed Material
Permissible
Velocity2
(ft/sec)
GC2/GC3 0.045 2.0 Sand/Fine Gravel 1.75 - 2.5
TV1-B 0.05 2.4 Sand/Fine Gravel 1.75 - 2.5
TV5-B 0.05 2.1 Sand/Fine Gravel 1.75 - 2.5
1(Chow, 1959)
2(Fischenich, 2001)

Sediment Supply
In addition to the stability assessment, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply was performed by
characterizing watershed conditions. A combination of field reconnaissance and windshield surveys,
existing land use data, and historical aerial photography were analyzed to assess existing and past
watershed conditions to determine if any changes occurred that would significantly impact sediment
supply. There is significant instability and erosion along the channels, which appear to be a result of
historic channel realignment and straightening, as well as watershed development. It is anticipated that
sediment supply from agricultural land adjacent to the project will decrease as channels are stabilized
and realigned away from agricultural fields, and sediment supply from the channel itself will decrease
as channel entrenchment and stability is improved.
Wetland Treatment and Approach
The Dugout Project offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity that will revitalize a highly
manipulated floodplain forest community. As such, the wetland restoration and enhancement are
closely tied to the stream restoration. Wetland restoration aims to re-establish hydrology and
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 32 August 2020

hydrophytic vegetation to currently non-wetland areas that exhibit hydric soil indicators and drained
hydrology, while enhancement areas aim to improve hydrology or vegetation in already jurisdictional
wetland areas. The Project will provide 6.222 Riparian WMUs through a combination of wetland re-
establishment, enhancement, and preservation. Notably, areas generating wetland credit are either
within the proposed 50-foot stream buffer area of proposed stream channels or are wholly outside of
the non-standard buffer width areas generating additional stream credit (greater than 150 feet).
Therefore, wide buffer areas utilized for additional stream credit and wetland credit areas do not overlap
(Figure 9 & Figure 10).
Re-establishment
Wetland re-establishment with a credit ratio of 1:1 is proposed in the area east of the current
jurisdictional wetland boundary of WA. This re-established wetland area will be referred to as “WE”
(Wetland E) (Figure 9). This area contains hydric soils but lacks sufficient wetland hydrology and a
lowered water table due to an altered landscape and drainage modifications, including the relocated and
incised Grays Creek, presence of highly permeable soils, and the location of drainage ditches
intercepting groundwater discharges onto the floodplain. As mentioned above, the hydrologic
restoration of this area will be directly related to the stream restoration activities. Reconstructing Grays
Creek (specifically reach GC3), with an appropriately sized channel back within the low of the existing
floodplain, and plugging and filling the incised, abandoned channel, will raise the local groundwater
elevation that will allow frequent flooding. Also, plugging and filling nearby ditches will redirect
seepage back onto the floodplain and limit surface drainage. Additionally, the re-established wetland
area will be planted with bare root hardwood trees representative of a Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp community; however, due to the high organic matter of existing soil and existing natural surface
topography, ripping is not required. However, where construction equipment is utilized, limited surface
roughening may be necessary due to the structure of high organic soil that may be destroyed by
equipment.

In order to document existing hydrology and establish baseline conditions for proposed wetland re -
establishment area WE, three groundwater hydrology wells were installed within the area. In addition,
one well was installed within existing, jurisdictional wetland WA near the top of the Project area to
serve as a reference and document less disturbed hydrologic conditions. These wells were installed in
April 2019 and automatic pressure transducers within the wells are currently recording data twice per
day. Data from these wells will be presented in the Final Mitigation Plan and should include
hydrographs for each well.

There will be two additional, small areas of re-establishment within the Project. One area along reach
GC2 will consist of a portion of the existing Grays Creek and a large berm associated with it. For this
area, the existing channel will be abandoned and backfilled, while the berm material will be removed
to match the surrounding floodplain elevation. This patch of re-establishment will be referred to as
“WF” (Wetland F) (Figure 9). The other small area of re-establishment will occur near the start of
restoration on TV1-B. Similar to WF, this area will consist of a portion of the existing Grays Creek and
berm that will be abandoned, backfilled, and leveled in order to connect the existing jurisdictional
wetlands WD and WA. This patch of re-establishment will be referred to as “WG” (Wetland G) (Figure
9). Like the rest of the wetland re-establishment, these areas will be planted with bare root hardwood
trees.
Enhancement (High)
Wetland enhancement with a credit ratio of 2:1 is proposed within the existing jurisdictional wetland
WC (Figure 9). This wetland is natural fed by groundwater; however, the former impoundment has
created unfavorable conditions for regeneration of woody wetland vegetation. Therefore, the primary
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 33 August 2020

approach to enhance this wetland is to plant native bare root trees in order to establish a wetland
hardwood forest community.
Enhancement (Low)
Wetland enhancement with a credit ratio of 5:1 is proposed within the existing jurisdictional wetland
WA where stream restoration is also proposed (Figure 9). These areas currently support jurisdictional
wetland hydrology and are fully forested; however, the relocation of Grays Creek away from the natural
floodplain position along with its incision has undoubtedly altered the natural hydrology of the wetland
areas. Therefore, by reconstructing Grays Creek (specifically reach GC2 and GC3), with an
appropriately sized channel back within the low of the existing floodplain, and plugging and filling the
incised, abandoned channel, the local groundwater elevation will rise and more frequent flooding will
occur, ultimately improving hydrology to the entire system. A low, 5:1 credit ratio is proposed because
although restoring Grays Creek will improve wetland hydrology, the wetland is already jurisdictional,
and groundwater hydrology will not be directly monitored. Additionally, any forested area that is
impacted within the stream restoration corridor will be replanted with bare root hardwood trees
representative of a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp.
Preservation
Wetland preservation with a credit ratio of 10:1 is proposed for the remaining jurisdictional wetland
areas within WA and WD that will not be directly enhanced by stream restoration efforts (Figure 9).
These areas will remain forested and protected in perpetuity.
Sediment Control Measures
A suite of sediment control measures will be utilized for the Project to reduce direct effluent inputs,
pollutant contamination, and sediment loading. The combination of the following sediment control
measures: riparian buffer planting, bank stabilization, stream restoration, engineered sediment packs
and livestock exclusion, will ultimately lead to the functional uplift of the site, while still allowing
livestock production to persist.

The riparian buffer will be restored along all restoration and enhancement reaches. Restored riparian
buffers are established adjacent to and up-gradient from watercourses of water bodies to improve water
quality. Buffers will be protected from livestock by installing fencing along livestock-adjacent project
boundaries.
Vegetation and Planting Plan
Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration Project. The selection
of plant species is based on what was observed in the forest surrounding the restoration Project and
what is typically native to the area. Specifically, species identified in the preservation area of the Project
along with species described in the 2012 Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximation (Schafale, 2012) for coastal plain wetland-type communities were used to determine
the most appropriate species for the restoration project.

A Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Schafale, 2012) will be the target community along the Project
reaches and wetlands. This community type represents a diverse community where wet-tolerant
hardwoods can establish throughout while very wet species (e.g. Cypress and Gums) can thrive in the
sloughs, depressions, and more swampy areas. The target community will be used for the planting areas
within the Project, shown in Figure 11 and Appendix D. Due to the uniform site characteristics,
including soil types, wetland extent, and existing vegetation, there will be one planting zone where a
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 34 August 2020

mix of all proposed tree species will be planted throughout the planting areas. The tree species list has
been developed and can be found in Table 13.

In order to maintain integrity of the mature forested wetland areas within the proposed stream
restoration construction corridors, tree clearing will be limited to the greatest extent practicable.
Therefore, where possible, some mature trees may remain within the proposed planting area depicted
in Figure 11 and Appendix D. Additionally, it is anticipated that tree clearing outside the depicted
planting area, and possibly outside the easement area, will occur to accommodate construction access.
These areas will also be replanted along with the rest of the site.

The restoration of plant communities along the Project will provide stabilization and diversity. For
rapid stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), black willow (Salix nigra), eastern
cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) were chosen for live
stakes along the restored channel because of their rapid growth patterns and high success rates. Willows
grow at a faster rate than the species planted around them, and they stabilize the stream banks. Willows
will also be quicker to contribute organic matter to the channel. When the other planted tree species
grow bigger, the black willows will slowly stop growing or die out as they are effectively shaded out
and outcompeted. The live stake species will be planted along the outside of the meander bends three
feet from the top of bank, creating a three-foot section along the top of bank. The live stakes will be
spaced one per three linear feet with alternate spacing, vertically.

It is anticipated that the vegetation planting/replanting will be conducted between November 15 and
March 15, per the October 2016 USACE/NCIRT monitoring guidance. Furthermore, there will be at
least 180 days until the initiation of the first year of monitoring.

Table 13. Proposed Plant List
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Species Common Name
Wetland
Indicator
Status*
Spacing (ft) Unit Type
% of Total
Species
Composition
Taxodium distichum Bald cypress OBL 9X6 Bare Root 10
Nyssa biflora Swamp tupelo OBL 9X6 Bare Root 10
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush OBL 9X6 Bare Root 10
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore FACW 9X6 Bare Root 10
Betula nigra River birch FACW 9X6 Bare Root 10
Quercus laurifolia Laurel oak FACW 9X6 Bare Root 10
Quercus lyrata Overcup oak OBL 9X6 Bare Root 10
Quercus michauxxi Swamp chestnut oak FACW 9X6 Bare Root 10
Quercus phellos Willow oak FACW 9X6 Bare Root 10
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark oak FACW 9X6 Bare Root 5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash FACW 9X6 Bare Root 5

Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Species Common Name % of Total Species Composition
Salix nigra Black willow 40
Populus deltoides Eastern cottonwood 30
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 35 August 2020

Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 30
* Based on NRCS-USDA Wetland Indicator Status for Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 36 August 2020

On Site Invasive Species Management
Treatment for invasive species will be required within the entire easement area. Inva sive species will
require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant phenology and the location of the
species being treated; however, based on observed existing conditions, the only known exotic invasive
species that would require treatment is Chinese privet. All treatment will be conducted as to maximize
its effectiveness and reduce chances of detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods
will include mechanical (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical (foliar spray, cut
stump, and hack and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds will be removed from
the Project and properly disposed. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a certified ground
pesticide applicator with a North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(NCDA&CS) license and adhere to all legal and safety requirements according to herbicide labels, and
NC and Federal laws. Management records will be kept on the plant species treated, type of treatmen t
employed, type of herbicide used, application technique, and herbicide concentration and quantities
used. These records will be included in all reporting documents.
Soil Restoration
Due to the high organic matter of existing soil and existing natural surface topography typical of the
Project area, soil scarification may not be necessary or appropriate in all areas. However, where
construction equipment compacts or destroys structure of high organic soil, limited surface roughening
may be necessary. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be stockpiled and placed over
the Project during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil conditions for plant
growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the Project.
Mitigation Summary
The entire floodplain forest ecosystem, within the Project limits, will be restored and revitalized through
stream and wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation.

Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the restoration designs described in this
document. The combination of the analog and analytical design methods was determined to be
appropriate for this project because the watershed is more rural than urban, the causes of disturbance
are known and have been abated, and there are minimal infrastructure constraints. The original design
parameters were developed from the measured analog/reference reach data and applied to the subject
stream. The parameters were then analyzed and adjusted through an iterative process using analytical
tools and numerical simulations of fluvial processes. The designs presented in this report provide for
the restoration of natural non-tidal coastal plan silt/loam/gravel-bed channel features and stream bed
diversity to improve benthic habitat. The proposed design will allow flows that exceed the design
bankfull stage to spread out over the floodplain, restoring a portion of the hydrology for the existing
wetlands.

A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the restoration
channel. However, many segments will be left partially filled to provide habitat diversity and flood
storage. Native woody material will be installed throughout the restored reach to reduce bank stress,
provide grade control, and increase habitat diversity.

Forested riparian buffers of at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the
project reaches. An appropriate riparian wetland plant community (Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp)
will be established to include a diverse mix of species. The plant species list has been developed and
can be found in Table 13. Replanting of native species will occur where the existing buffer is impacted
during construction.

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 37 August 2020

Wetland restoration via wetland re-establishment aims to re-establish hydrology and hydrophytic
vegetation to currently non-wetland areas that exhibit hydric soil indicators and drained hydrology,
while enhancement areas aim to improve hydrology or vegetation in already jurisdi ctional wetland
areas. The primary mechanism to re-establish and enhance wetland hydrology is through stream
restoration efforts that will re-establish surface-groundwater connections, increasing retention and
storage, and permit flood events. All restored wetland areas will be planted with native, wetland-
tolerant hardwood vegetation. The remaining functional, jurisdictional wetlands will be preserved.

A combination of sediment control measures will be used on site; riparian buffer planting, bank
stabilization, stream restoration, and livestock exclusions. This combination of sediment control
measures will ultimately lead to the functional uplift of the site by minimizing sedimentation, nutrient
input, and fecal coliform input from ongoing livestock and agricultural production outside of the
conservation easement.

Due to the nature of the project, complete avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is not possible.
However, the construction approach and sequencing will be adjusted to minimize impacts and tracking
within the existing wetlands to avoid compaction to the extent possible. To achieve this, haul routes
will be located and accessed outside of the existing wetlands, and timber mats will be utilized when
working within the wetland areas to construct the new channel. Please refer to Section 3.4.6 for a
discussion of Project impacts. Ultimately, the impacts associated with the Project are integral to provide
functional uplift to aquatic resources on-site. Furthermore, all impacts will be accounted for in the Pre-
Construction Notification (PCN) form.
Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 14 are projections based upon site design (Figure 9). If upon
Project completion, there is a large discrepancy between design and as-built conditions an updated plan
will be submitted to the District for approval as a project modification. Any deviation from the
mitigation plan post approval, including adjustments to credits, will require a request for modification.
This will be approved by the USACE.

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 38 August 2020

Table 14. Mitigation Credits
The Dugout Stream and Wetland Site Mitigation Credits
Warm Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland
Totals 6,545.283 6.222 NA
Stream Components
Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Stationing
Existing
Length
(LF)
Proposed
Length (LF)
Mitigation
Ratio SMUs
GC1 Preservation 1+94 to 7+20 526 526 10:1 52.600
GC2 Restoration 7+20 to 13+80 591 660 1:1 660.000
GC3 Restoration 13+80 to 35+28 2,137 2,148 1:1 2,148.000
Restoration 35+99 to 53+15 356 1,716 1:1 1,716.000
GC4 Enhancement I 53+15 to 62+86 971 971 1.5:1 647.333
TV1-A Preservation 1+00 to 5+50 550 550 10:1 45.000
TV1-B Restoration 5+50 to 8+90 66 340 1:1 340.000
TV1-C Hydrologic
Restoration 8+90 to 11+05 0 215 1:1 215.000
TV5-A Preservation 0+00 to 2+50 250 250 10:1 25.000
TV5-B Restoration 2+50 to 3+44 102 94 1:1 94.000
Total 5,448 7,370 5,942.933
Non-Standard Buffer Width Adjustment* 602.340
Total Adjusted SMUs 6,545.283
* SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- “Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator”, supplied to
Providers in the January 2018, from the USACE. A detailed description of the methodology and calculations is described
below in Section 6.6.1 and in Figure 10.

Wetland Components
Wetland ID Mitigation Area (ac) Ratio WMU
WA Enhancement (Low) 5.745 5:1 1.149
Preservation 3.284 10:1 0.328
WC Enhancement (High) 0.167 2:1 0.084
WD Enhancement (Low) 0.213 5:1 0.043
Preservation 1.282 10:1 0.128
WE Re-establishment 4.127 1:1 4.127
WF Re-establishment 0.271 1:1 0.271
WG Re-establishment 0.092 1:1 0.092
Total** 15.181 6.222
** Areas generating wetland credit are within the proposed 50-foot stream buffer area or are wholly outside of the Non-
standard buffer width areas generating additional stream credit (>150 ft.); therefore, additional stream credit areas and
wetland credit areas do not overlap.
Credit Calculations for Non-Standard Buffer Widths
To calculate functional uplift credit adjustments, the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit
Calculator from the USACE in January 2018 was utilized. To perform this calculation, GIS analysi s
was performed to determine the area (in square feet) of ideal buffer zones and actual buffer zones
around all streams within the project. Minimum standard buffer widths are measured from the top of
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 39 August 2020

bank (50 feet in Piedmont and Coastal Plain counties or 30 feet in Mountain counties). The ideal buffers
are the maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable
stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The actual buffer is the
square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non-forested areas, all other credit type
(e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the
vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas
within the easement that are more than 150 feet from creditable streams were not included in this
measurement. Non-creditable stream reaches within the easement are removed prior to calculating this
area with GIS (for both ideal and actual). The stream lengths, mitigation type, ideal buffer, and actual
buffer are all entered into the calculator. This data is processed, and the resulting credit amounts are
totaled for the whole project (Table 14 & Figure 10).

Specifically, stream reach TV1-C, being credited as a straight-line length through a 100-foot corridor,
was not included in any additional credit for wider buffers. Furthermore, the 100-foot corridor
associated with this reach was included as an ineligible area (Figure 10) to ensure no additional credit
was generated within this corridor. The other ineligible area is the jurisdictional open water at the
upstream extent of the Project, just below the road culvert. Also, as mentioned earlier, areas generating
wetland credit are within the proposed 50-foot stream buffer area or are wholly outside of the Non -
standard buffer width areas generating additional stream credit (greater than 150 feet); therefore,
additional stream credit areas and wetland credit areas do not overlap.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 40 August 2020

7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Project will follow the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update and subsequent agency guidance. Specific success criteria
components are presented below.
Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Bankfull Events
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
Surface Flow
Intermittent stream reaches being restored will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal
surface flow. This will be accomplished through direct observation and the use of automatic-logging
pressure transducers with data loggers (flow gauge). Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30
consecutive days of flow.
Cross Sections
There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down-
cutting or erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in sta bility (for example settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall
be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio
shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored riffle cross
sections.
Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images
should not indicate the development of bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel
depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over
time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has a current WETs table (1990-2019) for
Cumberland County upon which to base a normal rainfall amount and average growing season. The
closest comparable data station was determined to be the WETS station at Fayetteville Regional Airport
in Grannis Field, NC. This station determines the growing season to be 259 days long, extending from
March 12 to November 26, and is based on a daily minimum temperature greater than 28 degrees
Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years.

Based upon field observation across the site, the NRCS mapping units show a good correlation to actual
site conditions in areas of the site. Mitigation guidance for soils in the Coastal Plain suggests a
hydroperiod for both the Johnston and Deloss soil series of 12 to 16 percent of the growing season.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 41 August 2020

Therefore, hydrology success criterion for the Project is to restore the water table so that it will remain
continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12 percent of the growing season
(approximately 31 days) at each groundwater gauge location. However, due to the current drainage and
permeable soils, it may take at least a year for the site to become completely saturated and reach the
target hydroperiod.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project
will follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the
survival of at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, five-year old trees at
7 feet in height at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per acre
with an average height of 10 feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to
species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success
criteria of total planted stems. Moreover, any single species can only account for up to 50 percent of
the required number of stems within any vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50 percent will be
shown in the monitoring table but will not be used to demonstrate success.
8 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported according to NC IRT monitoring guidance. The m onitoring
report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and
trends, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding project close-out. Monitoring of the
Project will adhere to metrics and performance standards established by the USACE’s April 2003
Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the NC IRT’s October 2016 Wilmington
District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Table 15 outlines the links between
project objectives and treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and performance standards.
Figure 11 depicts the proposed monitoring plan, including approximate numbers and locations of
monitoring devices for the Project.
As-Built Survey
An as-built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank
to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by USACE.
Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species,
and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete
streamwalk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to
record each monitoring event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Fixed image
locations will exist at each cross section, each vegetation plot, each stage recorder, and each flow gauge.
Results of visual monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem
areas and digital images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or
degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control
measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an
excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing
degradation of the banks over time. A series of photos over time should indi cate successional
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 42 August 2020

maturation of riparian vegetation. Specifically, photos will be taken at each cross section, stage
recorder, flow gauge, vegetation plot, and groundwater well location.
Stream Hydrology Events
Continuous stage recorders, devices that utilize automatic-logging pressure transducers that are capable
of documenting the height, frequency, and duration of bankfull events, will be installed on Restoration
reaches of Grays Creek. Specifically, stage recorders will be installed on reaches GC2 and GC3.

Where restoration activities are proposed for intermittent streams, monitoring flow gauges should be
installed to track the frequency and duration of stream flow events. Specifically, one flow gauge,
consisting of an automatic-logging pressure transducer, will be installed on reach TV5-B.
Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in
pools and half in riffle on all Restoration and Enhancement I reaches. Morphological data will be
measured and recorded for all cross-sections; however, only riffle cross sections will include bank
height ratio and entrenchment ratio measurements. A total of 21 cross sections are proposed across the
Project. These cross sections will be monitored in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydrologic conditions in the wetland restoration
areas. This will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges installed in
representative locations across the restoration areas as well as the preservation wetland areas for
reference conditions. These gauges will be installed in accordance with USACE guidelines. The gauges
will be downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be calculated during the growing season.
Gauge installation will follow current NCIRT guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary
wetland hydrology indicators will also be recorded during quarterly site visits. A total of eight
groundwater gauges are proposed across the Project; six in re-established wetlands and two in
preserved, jurisdictional wetlands, serving as references.
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.0247 acres in size and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be 20 plots within the planted area (24.3 acres). Plots will be a
mixture of fixed and random plots, with 14 fixed plots and six random plots. Planted area indicates all
area in the easement that will be planted with trees. Existing wood ed areas are not included in the
planted area. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the fixed plots: species, height, planting
date (or volunteer), and grid location. For random plots, species and height will be recorded for all
woody stems. The location (GPS coordinates and orientation) of the random plots will be identified in
the annual monitoring reports. Vegetation will be planted and plots established at least 180 days prior
to the initiation of the first year of monitoring. Monitoring will occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between
July 1st and leaf drop. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored so that none become dominant
or alter the desired community structure of the Project. If necessary, RES will develop a species-specific
treatment plan.
Scheduling/Reporting
A baseline monitoring report and as-built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be
developed within 60 days of the planting completion on the Project. The report will include elevations,
photographs and sampling plot locations, gauge locations, cross section locations, and a description of
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 43 August 2020

initial species composition by community type. Baseline vegetation monitoring will include species,
height, date of planting, and grid location of each stem. The report will also include a list of the species
planted and the associated densities. In addition to the as-built drawings, a redline version of the as-
built drawings will be developed to identify any significant deviations between design and as-built
conditions. The baseline report will follow USACE guidelines and the October 2017 Mitigation Credit
Calculation Memo.

The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the
success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final
success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.

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

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 44 August 2020

Table 15. Monitoring Requirements
Objective Treatment Monitoring Metric Success Criteria
Improve the transport of
water from the
watershed to the Project
reaches in a non-erosive
way and maintain
appropriate wetland
hydrology for Johnston
and Deloss soil series
Convert land-use of some
Project reaches from
pasture and cropland to
riparian forest.

Restore and enhance
wetland hydrology through
stream restoration activities
and ditch plugging
Groundwater wells with
pressure transducers:
Downloaded quarterly
Water table within 12 inches of
the ground surface for 12% of
growing season (≈ 31 days)
Improve flood-bank
connectivity by
reducing bank height
ratios and increase
entrenchment ratios

Maintain regular,
seasonal flow in
restored, intermittent
streams
Reduce bank height ratios
and increase entrenchment
ratios by reconstructing
channels to mimic reference
reach conditions
Stage recorders:
Inspected quarterly
Four bankfull events occurring
in separate years
Flow gauges:
Inspected quarterly
30+ days of continuous flow
each year
Cross sections: Surveyed
in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
less than 2.2 within restored
reaches
Bank height ratio shall not
exceed 1.2
Limit erosion rates and
maintain channel
stability

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

Increase buffer width to
50 feet
Establish a riparian buffer
to reduce erosion and
sediment transport into
project streams.

Establish stable banks with
livestakes, erosion control
matting, and other in stream
structures.
As-built stream profile NA
Cross sections: Surveyed
in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
less than 2.2 within restored
reaches
Bank height ratio shall not
exceed
1.2
Visual monitoring:
Performed at least
semiannually
Identify and document
significant
stream problem areas; i.e.
erosion, degradation,
aggradation, etc.
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
Promote sediment
filtration, nutrient
cycling, and organic
accumulation through
natural wetland
biogeochemical
processes
Restore and enhance
wetland hydrology

Plant a riparian buffer

Establish permanent
conservation easement
Groundwater wells with
pressure transducers:
Downloaded quarterly
Water table within 12 inches of
the
ground surface for 12% of
growing season (≈ 31 days)
Establish native
hardwood riparian
buffer
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
Protect aquatic
resources in perpetuity
Visual assessment of
established conservation
signage: Performed at
least semiannually
Inspect signage.
Identify and document any
damaged or missing
signs
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 45 August 2020

9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of Project construction, RES will implement the post-construction monitoring
protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described
previously in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is determined that the
Project’s ability to achieve performance standards are jeopardized, RES will notify the USACE of the
need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized
RES will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Prepare Corrective Action Plan for review and approval by IRT.
5. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
6. Provide the IRT a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed.
Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 46 August 2020

10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval of the Project by the IRT, the Project will be transferred to Unique Places to Save
(UP2S):

Unique Places to Save
[phone]
PO Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
[e-mail]

UP2S will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Easements will be stewarded in
general accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land Trust Allianc e. Specific
responsibilities include:

• Monitoring of site is conducted on an annual basis.
• An on-site inspection is conducted once per year.
• Visits to the site are coordinated with landowner when possible.
• Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible.
• Signage for the easement boundary is maintained.
• Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are promptly
communicated to the landowner.

A model conservation easement and engagement letter from UP2S are included in Appendix A. The
engagement letter includes itemized annual cost accounting of long-term management, total amount of
funding, and the manner in which the funding will be provided.

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 47 August 2020

11 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved mitigation
plan of the site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise
provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required f or
construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the IRT, will determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules
below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released
depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending
on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of Project
credits will be subject to the criteria described in Table 16.
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the IRT
with written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a) Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
b) Approval of the final mitigation plan;
c) Mitigation site must be secured;
d) Delivery of financial assurances;
e) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
f) Issuance of the 404-permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
g) Documentation of the establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow account.
Subsequent Credit Releases
The second credit release will occur after the completion of implementation of the Mitigation Plan and
IRT approval of the Baseline Monitoring Report and As-built Survey. All subsequent credit releases
must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a determination that required
performance standards have been achieved. As projects approach milestones associated with credit
release, the Sponsor will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation
substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included
with the annual monitoring report.

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 48 August 2020

Table 16. Credit Release Schedule
Stream Credit Release Schedule
Release
Milestone Credit Release Activity Interim
Release Total Released

1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
stated above) 15% 15%

2 Baseline Monitoring Report and As-built Survey 15% 30%

3 First year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 40%

4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 50%
(60%*)
5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 60%
6 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 5% 65%
(75%*)
7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 75%
(85%*)
8 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 5% 80%
(90%*)
9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met, and project
has received close-out approval.
10% 90%
(100%*)
* 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Release
Milestone Credit Release Activity Interim
Release Total Released

1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
stated above) 15% 15%

2 Baseline Monitoring Report and As-built Survey 15% 30%

3 First year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 40%

4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 50%

5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 15% 65%
6 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 5% 70%

7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 15% 85%
8 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 5% 90%

9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met, and project
has received close-out approval.
10% 100%

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 49 August 2020

12 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The Project will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection will be conducted a minimum
of once per year throughout the post construction monitoring period until performance standards are
met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction
and may include the following:

Table 17. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in-stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental
installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where
stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance
to prevent bank failures and head-cutting. Stream maintenance activities will be
documented and reported in annual monitoring reports. Stream maintenance will
continue through the monitoring period.
Wetland Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir
matting, channel plug maintenance, and supplemental installations of live stakes and
other target vegetation within the wetland.

Vegetation Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant
species shall be treated by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation
control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. Vegetation maintenance
activities will be documented and reported in annual monitoring reports. Vegetation
maintenance will continue through the monitoring period.
Site Boundary Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be marked with signs
identifying the property as a mitigation site and will include the name of the long-
term steward and a contact number. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, tree-blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be
repaired and/or replaced on an as-needed basis. Easement monitoring and
staking/signage maintenance will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Road Crossing N/A
Beaver Routine site visits and monitoring will be used to determine if beaver management is
needed. If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability or vegetative success,
RES will trap beavers and remove impoundments as needed. All beaver management
activities will be documented and included in annual monitoring reports. Beaver
monitoring and management will continue through the monitoring period.

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 50 August 2020

13 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL

The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $1,246,223 Construction Performance
Bond to the USACE to assure completion of mitigation construction and planting. Constru ction and
planting costs are estimated to be at or below $1.246,223 based on the Engineer's construction materials
estimate and recent bid tabulation unit costs for construction materials. Following completion of
construction and planting the Construction Performance Bond will be retired and a $200,615
Monitoring Performance Bond will be provided to assure completion of seven years of monitoring and
reporting, and any remedial work required during the monitoring period. The $200,615 amount includes
contingency and estimated monitoring costs from the Engineer. The Monitorin g Performance Bond
will be reduced by $28,660 following approval of each annual monitoring report. The Monitoring
Performance Bond will be retired in total following official notice of site close-out from the IRT.
Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby trust or other designee at the direction of the obligee.
Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Bank
Sponsor are not acceptable. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the USACE
receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation. The Performance
Bonds will be provided by a surety listed with the U.S. Treasury and has an A.M. Best Rating of B or
above. All Performance Bonds will be submitted to the USACE in draft form for approval prior to
execution. In the event of Sponsor default, UP2S has agreed to receive the funds and ensure the work
is successfully completed.

Table 18. Financial Assurances
Construction Costs
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc.) $262,824
Sitework $420,288
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs, logs, rocks, coir, etc.) $310,030
Crossings $47,200
Vegetation $133,579
Miscellaneous/Admin Fees $72,302
Total $1,246,223
Monitoring Costs
Annual Monitoring and Reports $42,500
Maintenance and Contingency $158,115
Total $200,615

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 51 August 2020

14 REFERENCES
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.

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

Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood Frequency Analyses. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1543-
A.

Doll, Barbara A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton and D.A. Bidelspach, 2003, Hydraulic
Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams, NC Stream
Restoration Institute, Report to N.C. Division of Water Quality for 319 Grant Project No.
EW20011, www.ncsu.edu/sri. 11 pp.

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

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

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

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

Krstolic, J.L., and Chaplin, J.J., 2007, Bankfull regional curves for streams in the non-urban, non-
tidal Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5162, 48 p.

NCDENR 2012a. “Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina.” Water
Quality http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (Accessed August 2020).

NCDENR 2012b. “2012 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5.” Water Quality Section.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (Accessed August 2020).

NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2011. A Guide to Surface Freshwater
Classifications in North Carolina. Raleigh. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/
get_file?p_l_id=1169848&folderId=2209568&name=DLFE-35732.pdf; (Accessed August 2020).

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). “Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2010.”

Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan 52 August 2020

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). N.C. Natural Heritage Data Explorer.
https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/. (Accessed July 2019).

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

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

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

USACE. 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.

USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and
C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.

USACE. 2018. Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator.

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

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

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

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

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

USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov (December 2019).

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

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPAC). https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. (Accessed December 2019).

Figures

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

0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity
DugoutMitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
12-digit HUC - Willis Creek - 030300050102
Cape Fear River Basin - 03030005
©Date: 8/14/2020
Drawn by: SCF
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 1 - Project Vicinity.mxd1 inch = 1,000 feet
Dugout Project
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Legend
Proposed Easement
Project Drainage Area (8.31 sq mi)
©Date: 8/20/2020
Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 2a - USGS Quadrangle.mxd1 inch = 5,000 feet
Figure 2a - USGS QuadrangleCedar Creek (1988)
DugoutMitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
0 1,000500
Feet
Legend
Proposed Easement
Primary Watershed:
GC4
TV1-B
TV5-B
Subwatershed within:
GC4
TV1-B
TV5-A
©Date: 8/31/2020
Drawn by: SCF
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 2b - USGS Quadrangle.mxd1 inch = 1,000 feet
GC2
GC1
GC3 (MS)
GC3 (DS)
GC4
TV5-A
TV1-A TV1-B
TV5-B
Figure 2b - USGS QuadrangleCedar Creek (1988)
DugoutMitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Reach Area (ac)GC1 4980GC25085GC3 (US)5092GC3 (MS)5163GC3 (DS)5283GC45320TV1-A 7TV1-B 10TV5-A 2TV5-B 2
TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-78-7881
TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-77-0886
TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-57-8598
TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-46-1787
TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-37-1627
TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-37-1967
TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-38-2137
0 800400
Feet
Figure 3 - Landowner Parcels
DugoutMitigation Site
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Parcels
Project Parcel Boundary
©Date: 8/31/2020
Drawn by: SCF
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 3 - Landowner Parcels.mxd1 inch = 800 feet
0 4,0002,000
Feet
Figure 4 - Land-use
DugoutMitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Areas
Land-use
Forest 32%
Residential 31%
Agriculture 15%
Open Space 9%
Brush 7%
Roads 2%
Open Water 2%
Commercial 1%
Bare 0.1%
Roads - Dirt 0.1%
©Date: 8/31/2020
Drawn by: SCF
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 4 - Land-use.mxd1 inch = 4,000 feet
De
JT
AuA
CaB
CaD
BaD
BaB
TR
BaB
Ud
BaD
BaB
Ud
BaB
BaB
GdB
BaB
TR
BaD
0 500250
Feet
Figure 5 - Mapped Soils
DugoutMitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Hydric (100%)
Predominantly Hydric (66-99%)
Predominantly Hydric (33-65%)
Predominantly Nonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)©Date: 8/14/2020
Drawn by: SCF
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 5 - Mapped Soils.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit NameBaDBlaney loamy sand, 8 to 15% sl opesDeDeloss loamGdBGilead loamy sand, 2 to 8% slope sJTJohnston loam
TTTT!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(#*#*#*ttttTV1TV5GC3
GC1
GC2
G
C
4
OW1
WA-2
WD
WC
WA-1
WA-3
0 500250
Feet
Figure 6 - Existing Conditions
DugoutMitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
FEMA Zone AE (None)
Wetland
Open Water
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Ditch
Relic Channel Feature
T T Overhead Power Line
t Groundwater Well
#*DWR Stream ID Location
!(NCSAM Location
!(NCWAM Location
©Date: 8/18/2020
Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 6 - Existing Conditions.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 7 - Historical Conditions.mxd1951
1993 2017
Legend
Proposed Easement
Figure 7 - Historic Conditions
DugoutMitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
©Date: 8/14/2020
Checked by: BPB01,000500
Feet 1 inch = 1,000 feet
1972
Source: USGS Earth Explorer
Source: NCOneMap
Source: USGS Earth Explorer
Source: NCOneMap
Drawn by: MDD
PFO1C
PFO1A
PFO3/4C
PFO1/4A
PFO1Ax
PFO1C
PUBHx
PUBHh
PEM1Fh
0 500250
Feet
Figure 6 - National Wetland Inventory
DugoutMitigation Site
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
NWI Wetlands (USFWS 10/29/2018)©Date: 8/20/2020
Drawn by: SCF
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 8 - NWI.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name
PFO1A Pal ustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Te mporarily Fl ooded Wetl and
PFO1Ax Pal ustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Te mporaril y Flooded, Excavated Wetl and
PFO1C Pal ustri ne , Fore ste d, Broad-Le ave d Deci duous, Seasonally Fl ooded Wetl and
PFO3/4C Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved and Needl e-Leaved Evergree n, Seasonal ly Fl oode d We tl and
PUBHh Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, Di ked/Impounde d Pond
XXXXXX
X
X
X
X
XX X X X X X
X
X
X
X
TV5-B
TV1-CTV5-ATV1-BTV1-AGC1
GC2
GC4
GC3
GC3
WD
WC
WA
WE
WF
WG
©
0 350175
Feet
Date: 8/18/2020 Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 9 - Conceptual.mxdFigure 9 - Conceptual
DugoutMitigation Project
Cumberland County,North Carolina
1 in = 400 feet
Legend
Proposed E ase ment (41 .66 a c)
Wetland Approach
Re -e sta blish ment
Enhan cem ent (High)
Enhan cem ent (Low)
Prese rvation
Stream Approach
Re sto ra tion
Hydrologic Re storat ion
Enhan cem ent I
Prese rvation
Prop osed SwaleXXXProposed Fencing
Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Length (LF)Mitiation Ratio W arm SMUsGC1Preservation52610:1 52.600GC2Restoration6601:1 660.000Restoration2,148 1:1 2,148.000Restoration1,716 1:1 1,716.000GC4Enhancement I 971 2:1 647.333TV1-A Pres ervation 450 10:1 45.000TV1-B Res toration 340 1:1 340.000TV1-C Hydrologic Res toration 215 1:1 215.000TV5-A Pres ervation 250 10:1 25.000TV5-B Res toration 94 1:1 94.0007,370 5,942.933-151.230753.5806,545.283
Proposed Wetland Mitigation Type Total Acres Mitigation Ratio Riparian WMUs
Enhancem ent (Low)5.745 5:1 1.149
Pres ervation 3.284 10:1 0.328WCEnhancement (High)0.167 2:1 0.084
Enhancem ent (Low)0.213 5:1 0.043
Pres ervation 1.282 10:1 0.128WERe-es tablis hm ent 4.127 1:1 4.127WFRe-es tablis hm ent 0.271 1:1 0.271WGRe-es tablis hm ent 0.092 1:1 0.09215.181 6.222
Dugout W etland Credits
Total
Total
Total Adjusted SMUs
Dugout Stream Credits
Credit Loss in Required BufferCredit Gain for Additional Buffer
GC3
WA
WD
©0 600300
Feet
Date: 8/13/2020 Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 10 - Buffer Width Zones.mxdFigure 10 - Buffer Width Zones
DugoutMitigation Project
Cumberland County,North Carolina
1 in = 600 feet
Ideal Buffers Actual Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easem ent
Ineligible Area
Buffer Zone (ft)
0-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-75
76-100
101-125
126-150
Buffer Zones les s than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >2 0 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 35 feet >35 to 40 feet >40 to 45 feet >45 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 12 5 feet >125 to 150 feetMax Possible Buffer (square feet)221,100.00 73,700.00 73,700.00 73,700.00 73,700.00 73,700.00 73,700.00 73,700.00 368,500.00 3 68,500.00 368,500.00 368,500.0 0Ideal Buffer (square fee t)218,945.51 73,369.90 73,609.08 73,828.95 73,604.00 72,640.30 71,771.43 71,145.94 355,502.49 3 56,953.03 353,922.30 353,320.2 7Actual Buffer (square feet)216,149.72 71,782.56 71,581.94 71,157.92 70,137.08 69,038.78 67,879.17 66,903.09 312,934.78 2 47,993.32 169,121.18 100,097.5 6Zone Multiplier 50%10%10%10%5%5%5%5%7%5%4%4%Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,971.47 594.29 594.29 594.29 297.15 297.1 5 297.15 297.15 416.01 297.15 237.72 237.72Percent of Ideal Buffer 99%98%97%96%95%95%95 %94%88%69%48%28%Credit Adjustment -3 7.94 -12.86 -16.37 -21.50 -14.00 -14.73 -16.11 -17.72 366.19 206.44 113.59 67.35
Total Baseline Credit
5,942.93
Buffer W idth Zone (feet from Ordinary High W ater Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-151.23
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
753.58
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
602.34
Total Credit
6,545.28
XXXXXX
X
X
X
X
XX X X X X X
X
X
X
X
t
t
t
t
v
«
«
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
WD
WC
WA
WE
WF
WG
TV5-B
TV1-CTV5-ATV1-BTV1-AGC1
GC2GC4
GC3
GC3
©
0 400200
Feet
Date: 8/18/2020 Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\4_Mitigation Plan\Figure 11 - Monitoring plan.mxdFigure 11 - Monitoring Plan
DugoutMitigation Project
Cumberland County,North Carolina
1 in = 400 feet
Project Features
Proposed Easement (41.66 ac)
Existing Wetland
Existing Open Water
Planting Area (24.3 ac)
Wetland Approach
Re-establishment
Enhancement (High)
Enhancement (Low)
Preservation
Stream Approach
Restoration
Hydrologic Restoration
Enhancement I
Preservation
Proposed Swale
X X Proposed Fencing
Monitoring Devices
Fixed Vegetation Plot
Cross-section
«Stage Recorder
v Flow Gauge
q Wetland Gauge
q Reference Wetland Gauge
t Existing Wetland Gauge
Fixed ima ge location s will exist at each cross section , vegetationplot, sta ge recorder, flow gaug e, an d w etland gaug e.
In add ition to the 14 fixe d ve getation plo ts the re w ill be 6 rand omvegetation plots, for a total of 2 0 plots u tilized for veg etativesuccess. The ran dom p lots will vary in location from year-to-ye ar.
Note : Dep icte d mo nitoring d evice locatio ns a re proposedlocations. D evice locations are subje ct to chang e b ased on as-built conditio ns an d b est profession al judg ement in the field.

Appendix A –
Site Protection Instrument

1

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S
USE
PERMANENT CONSERVATION
EASEMENT

THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT (“Conservation Easement”) made
this day _____ of _______________, 202_____ by _______________ and
between (“Grantor”) and _______________ (“Grantee”).

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

RECITALS

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

WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not-for-profit or educational
corporation, association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of
2

the Internal Revenue Code, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq., the
purposes or powers of which include one or more of the purposes (a) – (d)
listed below;

(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open-space aspects of
real property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational,
educational, or open-space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.

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

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

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

3

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

ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT

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

ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

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

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

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

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

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

D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing,
animal husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area
4

are prohibited.

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

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

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

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

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

J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking,
draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related
activities, or altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or
disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns.
In addition, diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or
underground water into, within or out of the easement area by any means,
removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or
5

wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.

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

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

M. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not
limited to, motorcycles, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is
prohibited other than for temporary or occasional access by the [enter
Sponsor name], the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors,
assigns, NCDWR, and the Corps for purposes of constructing, maintaining
and monitoring the restoration, enhancement and preservation of streams,
wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation Easement Area. The
use of mechanized vehicles for monitoring purposes is limited to only
existing roads and trails as shown in the approved in the mitigation plan.

N. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the
Conservation Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the
purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area
substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental
systems, is prohibited.
6

ARTICLE III.
GRANTOR’S RESEVERED RIGHTS

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

Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, including [enter Sponsor name] acting as the Bank
Sponsor, the right to construct and perform activities related to the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within
the Conservation Easement Area in accordance with the approved
_______________ Mitigation Plan, and the Mitigation Banking Instrument
described in the Recitals of this Conservation Easement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, the following rights in the areas labeled as “Internal
Crossing” on the plat [insert plat name and recorded plat book page number] in
the Conservation Easement Area: vehicular access, livestock access, irrigation
piping and piping of livestock waste. All Internal Crossings that allow livestock
access will be bounded by fencing and will be over a culvert.

ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE’S RIGHTS

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

ARTICLE V.
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

7

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

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

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

ARTICLE VI.
MISCELLANEOUS

A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns
the Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the
Property which may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement
or that there are no outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other
8

interests in the Property which have not been expressly subordinated to this
Conservation Easement. Grantor further warrants that Grantee shall have the
use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and arising out of this
Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the
Property against the claims of all persons.

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

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

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

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

F. Long-Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term
management activities associated with fencing. These activities include the
9

maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic
resource functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are
sustained.

G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render
impossible the continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the
conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement may only be extinguished,
in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.

H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation
Easement Area is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to
substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this Conservation
Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time of
such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and direct
damages due to the taking.

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

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

To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]

To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]

To Sponsor:

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

K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to
enforce this Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified
grantee, and if within a reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of
these events Grantee fails to make an assignment pursuant to this
Conservation Easement, then the Grantee’s interest shall become vested in
another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate proceeding in a
10

court of competent jurisdiction.

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

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

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

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

[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]
Unique Places to Save Annual Monitoring and Legal Defense Endowment
Dugout Mitigation Easement - CONFIDENTIAL
Units Hours Cost/Unit Frequency Annual Cost
Annual Monitoring
Staff time to monitor mitigation easement, including file review,
travel time, on site time, post visit report production 27.58 ac 9 $60.00 Annual $540.00
Staff time needed to address minor violations or issues N/A 10 $600.00 Once every 10 yrs.$60.00
Mileage 180 N/A $0.580 Annual $104.40
Lodging Costs 0 N/A $0.00 Annual $0.00
Meal Costs 1 N/A $20.00 Annual $20.00
Sign Replacement 10 N/A $2.00 Annual $20.00
Insurance N/A N/A $100.00 N/A $100.00
Total Annual Funding Amount $844.40
Capitalization Rate 3.50%
Monitoring Endowment $24,125.71
Accepting and Defending the Easement in Perpetuity
Staff time for major violations N/A 80 $60.00 N/A $4,800.00
Legal Counsel N/A N/A N/A N/A $10,000.00
Other Incidentals N/A N/A N/A N/A $5,000.00
Stewardship Complexities N/A N/A N/A N/A $0.00
Monitoring Endowment $19,800.00
Total Monitoring and Legal Defense Endowment $43,925.71
Rounded $43,926

August 10, 2020  
Kasey Carrere 
RES 
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 
Raleigh, NC 27605 

Dear Ms. Carrere, 
This letter confirms that Unique Places to Save (“UP2S”), a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization located in the                
State of North Carolina, has preliminarily agreed to act as the conservation easement grantee and long-term                
steward for the Dugout Mitigation Project (“Site”) located in the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030005) in                 
Cumberland County, North Carolina. The Site consists of an approximate 41.9-acre conservation easement             
area. As the conservation easement grantee and long-term steward, UP2S has agreed to and shall be                
responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation               
Easement Deed are enforced and maintained into perpetuity. Specific responsibilities include: 
●The monitoring of the Site is conducted on an annual basis. 
●Visits to the Site are coordinated with the landowner when possible. 
●Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible. 
●Signage and fencing (if applicable) for the easement boundary are maintained. 
●Violations and potential violations of the Conservation Easement Deed are addressed following the             
Conservation Easement Deed and protocols within the UP2S Conservation Easement Violations Policy. 

UP2S shall receive a stewardship endowment from Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (“EBX”), the Site               
sponsor, to ensure annual Site inspections occur and the terms of the Conservation Easement Deed are legally                 
defended into perpetuity. UP2S shall also act as bond monitoring and construction bond obligee for the Site                 
and require an administrative fee upon execution of a Stewardship Agreement between UP2S and EBX. 

_______________________________ ____________________________ 
Jeff Fisher, Board Member  Representative Signature  
Unique Places To Save EBX/RES 

____________________________ 
Printed Name 

______________________ 
Date

PO Box 1183 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 919-428-2040 ​[e-mail]

Kasey Carrere
08/10/2020
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0FAFAEDA-E6FB-4E4D-9E0A-E03075A7658D

Appendix B –
Baseline Info and Correspondence

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

-2-
New Hanover/Columbus/Pender County lines intersection) has been historically
excluded from GSA limits of several existing banks located in the upper part of the
HUC. In a subsequent email, you requested the addition of the 12-Digit HUCs
030300050405 and 030300050303 to coincide with N.C. Department of
Transportation's May 31, 2018 Request for Proposal. Upon review of the information,
our office agrees to extend the GSA to include these two 12-Digit HUCs. The
expansion of the GSA to encompass the entire lower end of the 03030005 remains a
discussion within the NC IRT and plans are to finalize the GSA in this, and other, HUCs
in the near future. At this time, it is advisable for your planning purposes to presume
that the lower end of the 8-digit HUC will continue to be excluded from your Bank's GSA
until a final determination is made.
Other meeting topics of discussion included the need for mapping soil types,
identifying reference sites, reassessment of site being in a FEMA Floodway/100-year
floodplain and providing a map, designation of targeted wetland types and map of these
areas, additional justification of ratios and thoroughly documenting current functions
being provided (i.e., evidence or absence of overbank flooding), identification of NC
DWQ Stream ID Forms location, inclusion of NCSAM and NCWAM functional
assessment forms and locations, removal of TV2 from stream credit potential, and the
need to provide additional information for TV1 as stream credits and discussion on how
GC3 reach construction may or may not affect those potential credits.
Other components were also covered during the meeting and all discussed topics
should be considered and incorporated in your bank planning and development of the
mitigation plan. Also, please use the October 24, 2016 version of the Wilmington
District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update guidance in the
preparation of the plan.
If you have any questions regarding the banking process or moving forward with the
establishment of your proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me at the Wilmington
Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
1 V'\
Mickey S gg, 6hief
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office

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

Memorandum to the Record
November 6, 2018

Agency Comments for the Public Notice and Prospectus to establish the RES
Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (SAW-2018-01883) and Dugout
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site in Cumberland County, NC

Mickey,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the Public Notice (SAW-
2018-01883) and final prospectus to establish the RES Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
(UMB) and the Dugout Stream and Wetland Site as the primary component of the UMB. RES
and EBX-Neuse I, LLC (the Bank Sponsor) have presented a potentially viable plan to provide
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable jurisdictional stream impacts associated with the US
Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program. The site, as presented in
the prospectus, is expected to provide approximately 6,496 warm temperature stream mitigation
units (SMU) and 5.78 wetland mitigation units (WMU) through a combination of stream and
wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation of non-tidal streams in the Cape Fear River
05 watershed (HUC 03030005). The chosen mitigation site will also provide an excellent
opportunity for the restoration, enhancement and preservation of forested riparian buffers of the
streams within the project conservation easements. SMU credit also includes that generated by
non-standard buffer widths per the October 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update.

The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch offers the following project-
specific comments as they pertain to the RES Cape Fear 05 UMB Final Prospectus and Public
Notice dated September 2018 and October 16, 2018 respectively.

• Section 1/Page 2:
o Excellent goals and objectives to achieve functional lift, stability and protection of
the aquatic resources on-site.
o Recommend investigating the possibility of hydrologic trespass to adjacent
properties in detail during the development of the site mitigation plan. Gray’s
Creek appears to have a wide and substantial floodplain with an extensive ditch
network that may be obfuscating a damaging flood potential.
• Section 3.2/Page 5:
o Gray’s Creek flows from west to east.
• Section 3.6/Page 8:
o The FEMA Regulatory Floodway and 100-year floodplain map appear on Figure
9 (instead of 8). This area of Gray’s Creek seems to contain a large area of NWI
wetlands and I recommend another check of the FEMA mapping to ensure
accuracy of the location of the 100-year floodplain. Noting the distance to the
nearest 100-year floodplain may be helpful in this situation.
• Section 4.1/Page 9:
o Recommend denoting the SMU type (warm) and WMU type (riparian).
• Section 4.1.1/Page 10:
o For reach TV1-A be sure to include a description of the breached pond at the head
of the stream and its potential use as a BMP feature to capture adjacent runoff
from the farm. Recommend expanding the conservation easement around this
feature to include a 50-foot upland buffer.
• Section 4.1.3.3/Page 12:
o Recommend defining “little change” such as a percentage of change in a
parameter such as BHR (10% for example) or migration distance to or from a
bank pin.
• Section 4.1.3.5/Page 12:
o Recommend the exact size of the vegetation monitoring plot in order to correctly
assess the number of monitoring plots in the planted areas. If the plot size is 0.024
acres, this should be included in the description.
• Tables 9 and 10/Page 14:
o Recommend adding “baseline monitoring report and submission of as-built
survey” to the stream and wetland release milestone #2.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback, comments and concerns with the Public
Notice and final prospectus for the RES Cape Fear 05 UMB and Dugout site. I believe the
sponsor has provided a potentially viable plan to offset permitted impacts that will be incurred
within the Cape Fear 05 watershed geographic service area. If you or the sponsor have any
questions or need clarification on any of the comments stated above, please contact me at 404-
562-9225 or at [e-mail].
Best Regards,
Todd Bowers

Comments submitted to Mickey Sugg (SAW-PM) and NCIRT Chair via email on November 6,
2018

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

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

res.us

August 1, 2019

Mickey Sugg
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

Dear Mr. Sugg,
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) is pleased to present this Request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination for the Dugout Mitigation Site located in Cumberland County, North Carolina (34.9255 °N
and -78.8488 °W). This project will be part of the RES Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank and will
provide mitigation credits to offset unavoidable impacts to stream resources within the Cape Fear River
Basin (8-digit USGS HUC 03030005). As part of this scope of work, RES is submitting this request to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a confirmation of the limits of Waters of the U.S. on the subject
site.
The Dugout Mitigation Site (the “Site”) is contained in seven parcels totaling 41-acres of proposed
easement in Cumberland County, NC. The Site will involve the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of Grays Creek, which begins at the western part of the project area and drains in an easterly
direction across the Site, eventually draining to the Cape Fear River. The site is primarily characterized by
agricultural use, forest, and very low-intensity residential areas. Land use at the site is characterized by
pasture, row crop, and disturbed riparian forest.
The proposed site will provide improvements to water quality, hydrologic function, and habitat. The
projects will address stressors identified in the watershed through nutrient removal, sediment removal,
runoff filtration, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.

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

Sincerely,

Jeremy Schmid | Senior Ecologist
Attachments: Jurisdictional Determination Request Form, Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form,
Landowner Authorization Form, Vicinity Map, USGS Topographc Map, National Wetlands Inventory
Map, Soils Map, Potential Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map, and Wetland Data Sheets
From:Jeremy Schmid
To:Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject:RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Date:Friday, February 21, 2020 3:25:00 PM
Jordan, thanks for sending.

Here is Vance’s email: [e-mail]

Can you please copy Judson [e-mail] when you send to Vance? He is our main point of contact
with Vance.

Thanks again,

Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES | res.us
Mobile: [phone]

From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 10:47 AM
To: Jeremy Schmid <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)

Hey Jeremy, I am about ready to send the PJD out, can you give me Vance Tyson’s email address, so I
can CC him electronically? I couldn’t find it in the file.

Thanks!

From: Jeremy Schmid <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 2:57 PM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)

Thanks!
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist

RES | res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 1:58 PM
To: Jeremy Schmid <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Great, thanks Jeremy. That looks good. I can't get to it today, but I will get you the PJD by the end of
the week.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 9:29 AM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Hey Jordan,
Thanks for following up and sorry I missed you earlier. Those changes shouldn’t be an issue as we've
updated the proposed easement during the design process. I've updated the study area to reflect
the new easement which excludes all of those features. I've attached the updated aquatic resources
table and figure. Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES | res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 8:21 AM
To: Jeremy Schmid <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hey Jeremy,
I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I just left you a voicemail. I am good with the wetland
line, you supplied plenty of data to support it, and seeing it on the ground, I agree with the call. One
of the things I had notes on from the site visit, and perhaps I didn’t communicate it clearly, it was my
understanding we were taking off TV2 and the channel that leads to WF wetland, since it was an old
ditch with saplings and other veg in it, I would call it a conveyance, but not an aquatic resource, and
then a small wetland seep at the top of TV4. Other than that, it looks good. Feel free to call me to
discuss.
Thanks,
Jordan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 2:28 PM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Hey, I wanted to mention that an email confirming the wetland line is sufficient for our purposes if
you don't have the capacity to send out the official PJD. We will just need the PJD before submitting
the mitigation plan. We are trying to finalize the design and the call on the cutover area will dictate
our approach. If we decide to go for wetland rehabilitation/reestablishment in those cutover areas
then we will need to install groundwater gauges and get a soil scientist out there asap.
Thanks,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES | res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:30 PM
To: Jeremy Schmid <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hey Jeremy,
I apologize for the slow response, I was out all last week and a bunch over the holidays. I will look
through everything again and get back to you next week.
Thanks,
Jordan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 3:51 PM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Jordan,
Wanted to check in with you after the holiday break. We are prepping the draft mitigation plan and
will need the JD soon. Please let me know if you need anything else.
Have a great weekend!
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES | res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Schmid
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 11:34 AM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Jordan,
We had a crew out last week collecting survey data and they came across another stream that we
had previously missed. It apparently starts out of the hillside as a seep and starts to gain stream
characteristics shortly after. It flows parallel to TV1 so it might’ve been confused with that while
walking through the wetland there. I've included a photo and added it to the WOTUS figure. I'm
open to taking a look if you'd like and potentially re-visit the clearcut area and WA line break if
needed. Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES | res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Schmid
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 4:13 PM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Jordan,
My apologies for sending this a week late. I was able to get data from the surveyors and have
updated the stream and wetland WA lines based on centerline and top of bank shots along Gray's
Creek. The proposed stream centerline is attached but this was from early in the prospectus phase
and will likely have some updates once our designers take a look at the survey data. The concept
map from the prospectus is also attached for reference. I also adjusted the study area to exclude the
headcut/erosional feature that starts in the pasture just upstream from "the beach". Lastly, I
digitized some of the ditches near the wetland WA line that run just outside of the study area to
show where they are draining (east and southeast). Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES | res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 11:58 AM
To: Jeremy Schmid <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Sounds good, see you then!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 11:52 AM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
That’s sounds good to me. I think the easiest place would be at the BP gas station across the street.
We can look at maps and figure out a game plan from there.
5014 NC-87, Fayetteville, NC 28306
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES | res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 11:40 AM
To: Jeremy Schmid <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hi Jeremy,
Does 10:30 am on Oct 10 (Thursday) work for you? What is the preferred meeting spot?
Thanks,
Jordan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 11:34 AM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
Hey, no problem. I'm available all 3 of those dates. If you want to coordinate with Mickey and pick
one if he's available let me know.
The upland data sheets are in the submittal as DP-3b and DP-11. I also attached a table of soil
borings at the end to try and show what we were seeing in the "upland" but didn't take a full on data
point at each. I can send shapefiles from the map this afternoon when I get back in the office. Would
you like just the wetland polygon and stream lines?
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES | res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 12:37 PM
To: Jeremy Schmid <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hi Jeremy,
When you get a chance, could you also please send the shapefiles from the JD map? And the upland
data sheets?
Thanks,
Jordan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 8:58 AM
To: Jeremy Schmid <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hi Jeremy,
I apologize for the delay, I have been out of the office, or away from my desk most of the last three
weeks, I'm still catching up on emails. I will review the submittal and get back to you with any
questions.
Regarding a site visit, are you available Oct 8, 9, or 10?
Thanks,
Jordan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 2:06 PM
To: Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kasey Carrere <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout
Jordan,
I was in the field all last week but left a voicemail. Let me know if you have any questions about the
submittal. I should have most of October open if you want to schedule a site visit then.
Thanks,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES | res.us
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message-----
From: Sugg, Mickey T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 4:48 PM
To: Jeremy Schmid <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kasey Carrere <[e-mail]>; Jessop, Jordan E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Preliminary JD Request - Dugout
Good afternoon Jeremy,
My apologies for overseeing your email (was out 2 weeks in August), it just got by me. With that said,
Jordan Jessop (cc) is replacing me as the Wilmington Regulatory Field Office POC for bank proposals
in our office. He will be the person you need to connect with to verify this PJD. His # is (910) 251-
4810 if you would like to call him directly. If I'm available, I might try to tag along.
Again, sorry about the late response.
-mickey
Mickey Sugg, Chief
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone] (direct line)
[phone] (fax)
"The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help
us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at:
"BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?
p=136:4:0 "
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Schmid [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 9:25 AM
To: Sugg, Mickey T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kasey Carrere <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Preliminary JD Request - Dugout
Dear Mr. Sugg,
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) is pleased to submit a Preliminary JD Request for the Dugout
Mitigation Project. The Site, located in Cumberland County, contains approximately 7,800 linear feet
of stream mitigation and 12 acres of wetland mitigation. The purpose of the site is to generate
mitigation and ecological benefit in the Cape Fear River Basin.
The attached JD Package includes: preliminary JD form, landowner authorization form, supporting
figures, and wetland/upland data forms. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important
project and please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Senior Ecologist
RES | res.us <BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedhttp://www.res.us/>
Mobile: [phone]
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
M!
M!
M!
M!M!
M!
M!M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!M!
M!M!
M!M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!TV5TV1Gray's Creek
OW1
WA
WD
WC
1
2
45 6
7
89
10
1112
13 1415a 15
16 17
1819
20 22232425
26
27
28 29
30
3132
21
3b3a
©
0 400200
Feet
REFERENCE
1) Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Zone 17N.
2) Map Projection is NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Date: 2/19/2020 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\3_JD\WOTUS - Dugout_Updated_20200219.mxdLegend
Study
Potential WetlandWaters of the US
Potential Open Watersof the US
Potential Non-weltandWaters of the US
Ditch
M!Upland Datapoint
M!Wetland Datapoint
Potential Wetland or Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map
DugoutMitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
1 in = 400 feet
Revisions: 2
W ate r s Name Type Area/LengthOW1Open Water 0 .3 0 ac
WA Wetland 33.03 acWCWetland0.2 8 acWDWetland2.3 3 ac
GC Stream 6 ,5 62 ftTV1Stream619 ftTV5Stream423 ft
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 1

This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.

ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]

RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]

WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]

INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D – PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 2
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address:
City, State:
_______________________________________________
____________________________________________
___ County:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN):
B.REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
_________________________________________
Telephone Number: _________________________________________
Electronic Mail Address: ________________________________________
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant1
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain. ________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
C.PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION2
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Landowner Authorization Form
Site: Vance T� son
Property Legal Description
Deed Book/Page: 10068/811; 10006/306; 10009/887
County: Cumberland
Parcel ID Numbers: 0442-37-1627, 0442-37-1967, 0442-38-2137; 0442-46-1787; 0442-57-8598, 0442-77-0886,
0442-78-7881
Street Address: 5235 S NC-87 HM, Fayetteville. NC 28306. 1998 Schreiber Drive Fayetteville, NC 28306.5029 S
NC-87 Hwy., Fayetteville, NC 28306
Property Owner: Vance U. Tyson. Jr.
The undersigned, registered property owner of the above property, do hereby authorize
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Division of Water Resources, and the US Army Corps of Engineers,
their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above referenced property for the evaluation of
the property as a potential stream, wetland, and or riparian buffer restoration project, including conducting stream
and or wetland determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or
certification(s).
Property Owner Address: 4925 S NC 87 HM, Fayetteville, NC 28306
UWe hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
IZ'ItVe,0-A
(Property Owner Printed ame)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
(Property Owner Printed Name)
Date
Date

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. ALL REQUESTS

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

Size of Property or Review Area acres.

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

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 5

H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS

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

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

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

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

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

Vicinity Map

Aerial Photograph

USGS Topographic Map

Soil Survey Map

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

Landscape Photos (if taken)

NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets

NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms

Other Assessment Forms

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

Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory authorities referenced above. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B.NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
C.DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D.PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.:Long.:
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody:
E.REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE”SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
see attached table
07/15/19
Jeremy Schmid
CESAW-RG-W
NC Cumberland Hope Mills
34.9255 -78.8488
NAD83
Grays Creek
Waters_NameStateCowardin_Code HGM_Code Meas_Type Amount Units Waters_Type Latitude Longitude Local_WaterwayWANORTH CAROLINAPFO Area 34.18 ACRE DELINEATE 34.925 -78.8519WCNORTH CAROLINAPEM Area 0.2775 ACRE DELINEATE 34.9275 -78.8531WDNORTH CAROLINAPFO Area 4.2853 ACRE DELINEATE 34.9267 -78.8526WENORTH CAROLINAPFO Area 0.1164 ACRE DELINEATE 34.9259 -78.8509WFNORTH CAROLINAPFO Area 0.0902 ACRE DELINEATE 34.9266 -78.8496WGNORTH CAROLINAPSS Area 0.1851 ACRE DELINEATE 34.9259 -78.848OW1NORTH CAROLINAPOW Area 0.33 ACRE DELINEATE 34.9251 -78.8568GC3NORTH CAROLINAR3 Linear 6320 FOOT DELINEATE 34.925614 -78.84806TV1NORTH CAROLINAR4 Linear 580 FOOT DELINEATE 34.92697 -78.853011TV2NORTH CAROLINAR4 Linear 753 FOOT DELINEATE 34.926107 -78.85023TV3NORTH CAROLINAR4 Linear 497 FOOT DELINEATE 34.926404 -78.84889TV4NORTH CAROLINAR4 Linear 264 FOOT DELINEATE 34.927233 -78.848415
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the termsand
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit)or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or toprovideanofficial
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be”navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: _______BBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Corps navigable waters’ study: ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: _________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
State/local wetland inventory map(s): ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
FEMA/FIRM maps: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ____BBBBBBBBBBBB.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
or Other (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:__________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Other information (please specify): ______________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Vicinity, USGS, NWI, Soil, Existing conditions, WOUS
24k Cedar Creek
Jeremy Schmid Digitally signed by Jeremy Schmid
DN: cn=Jeremy Schmid, o, ou, email=[e-mail], c=US
Date: 2018.04.24 10:02:26 -04'00'
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Project Vicinity
Dugout Mitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Legend
Study Area
©Date: 7/2/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\3_JD\Project Vicinity - Dugout.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
Dugout Project
0 2,0001,000
Feet
USGS Quadrangle
Dugout Mitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Legend
Study Area
©Date: 7/2/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\3_JD\USGS - Dugout.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
Cedar Creek (1986)
De
AuA
JT
CaB
CaD
BaD
BaB TR
JT
TR
BaD
AuA
BaB
AuA
Pa
Wo
WaB
NoA
BaB
BaB
CaB
Ud
BaB
Ro
Ud
BaB
BaB
BaB
BaB
GdB
CaB
CaB
0 800400
Feet
Mapped Soils
Dugout Mitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
©Date: 7/2/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\3_JD\SOils Map - Dugout.mxd1 inch = 800 feet
Legend
Hydric (100%)
Predominantly Hydric (66-99%)
Partially Hydric (33-65%)
Predominantly Nonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)
Study Area
NRCS - Web Soil Survey 2019
PFO1C
PFO 1/4A
PFO1A
PFO1F
PFO 1Cd
PFO 3/4C
PFO1C
PSS1A
PFO1Ax
PEM1Fh
PUBHh
PFO 1/2Fh
PFO 1Ch
PUBHh
PUBHx
PU BHh
PUBHh
PFO3/4C
PU BHh
0 800400
Feet
National Wetland Inventory
Dugout Mitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Legend
Study Area
NWI Wetland (USFWS 10/15/2018)
©Date: 7/2/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\3_JD\NWI-Dugout.mxd1 inch = 800 feet
TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-78-7881TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-46-1787TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-57-8598TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-77-0886TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-37-1627TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-37-1967TYSON, VANCE U JR0442-38-21370 1,000500
Feet
Figure 4 - Landowner Map
Dugout Mitigation Site
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easem ent
Project Parcels
Parcels
©Date: 9/7/2018
Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\RFPs\DOT_RFP_Sept2018\Dugout\MXD\Figure 4 - Landowner Map - Dugout.mxd1 inch = 1,000 feet
M!
M!
M!
M!M!
M!
M!M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!M!
M!M!
M!M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!
M!TV4TV3TV1TV2Grays Creek
OW1
WA
WD
WC
WE WF
WG
1
2
45 6
7
89
10
1112
13 1415a 15
16 17
1819
20 22232425
26
27
28 29
30
3132
21
3b3a
©
0 400200
Feet
REFERENCE
1) Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Zone 17N.
2) Map Projection is NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Date: 8/1/2019 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JLS
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\3_JD\WOTUS - Dugout.mxdLegend
Study Area
Potential WetlandWaters of the US
Potential Open Watersof the US
Potential Non-weltandWaters of the US
Ditch
M!Upland Datapoint
M!Wetland Datapoint
Potential Wetland or Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map
DugoutMitigation Project
Cumberland County, North Carolina
1 in = 400 feet
Revisions: NONE
W ate r s Name Type Area/LengthOW1Open Water 0.33 a c
WA Wetl and 34 .18 acWCWetland0.28 a cWDWetland4.29 a cWEWetland0.12 a cWFWetland0.09 a cWGWetland0.19 a c
GC3 Strea m 6,320 ftTV1Stream580 ftTV2Stream753 ftTV3Stream497 ftTV4Stream264 ft
DP-2
11-Apr-19
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Area logged within last 5 years. Appears that heribicide was applied in powerline easement with possible drift into surrounding areas. Smilax dominant
in many areas
City/County:
State:
, or Hydrology
, or Hydrology
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Long.:
Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Soil Map Unit Name:
Datum:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
NWI classification:
Remarks:
R
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Are Vegetation
Section, Township, Range: S
significantly disturbed?
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
, Soil
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
% /
, Soil
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0US Army Corps of Engineers
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Dugout Fayetteville/Cumberland
Resource Environmental Solutions NC
J. Schmid
Valley bottom
MLRA 133A in LRR P 34.9250 -78.8461
Johnston loam PSS
Slope:0.0Local relief (concave, convex, none):°0.0

flat
2
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Use scientific names of plants.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
60.0%
0.0%
60.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
66.7%FAC
30 60
33.3%FAC
110 330
0 0
30
0 0
0.0%
140 390
0.0%
2.786
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
30
0 0.0%
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
Indicator
Status
= Total Cover
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) -
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
1
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0
30
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FACW
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20
30
30
0
25.0%FAC
37.5%FAC
37.5%FAC
80
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%Definition of Vegetation Strata:
DP-2Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)(Plot size:
50% of Total Cover:15 20% of Total Cover:6
50% of Total Cover:0 20% of Total Cover:0
50% of Total Cover:15 20% of Total Cover:6
50% of Total Cover:40 20% of Total Cover:16
0 0.0%
50% of Total Cover:0 20% of Total Cover:0
0 0.0%
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1m) tall.
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Quercus nigra
Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua
(Plot size:
Rubus argutus
Ilex opaca
(Plot size:
Smilax laurifolia
DP-2SOILSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
1
1
3
3
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0-20
20-24+
10YR
10YR 5/1
2/1 Silt Loam
Clay Loam
DP-3a
11-Apr-19
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
City/County:
State:
, or Hydrology
, or Hydrology
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Long.:
Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Soil Map Unit Name:
Datum:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
NWI classification:
Remarks:
R
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Are Vegetation
Section, Township, Range: S
significantly disturbed?
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
, Soil
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
% /
, Soil
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0US Army Corps of Engineers
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Dugout Fayetteville/Cumberland
Resource Environmental Solutions NC
J. Schmid
Valley bottom
MLRA 133A in LRR P 34.9254 -78.8551
Johnston loam PFO
Slope:0.0Local relief (concave, convex, none):°0.0concave
4
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Use scientific names of plants.
30
20
10
20
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
1037.5%FAC
25.0%OBL
1012.5%OBL
25.0%FAC
100.0%
80
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
60 60
100.0%FACW
50 100
0.0%
70 210
0 0
30
0 0
0.0%
180 370
0.0%
2.056
33.3%OBL
33.3%OBL
33.3%OBL
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
30
0.0%
0.0%
10
0 0.0%
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
Indicator
Status
= Total Cover
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) -
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
1
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0
10
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FACW
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10
20
0
0
33.3%FACW
66.7%FAC
0.0%
30
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%Definition of Vegetation Strata:
DP-3aSampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)(Plot size:
50% of Total Cover:5 20% of Total Cover:2
50% of Total Cover:15 20% of Total Cover:6
50% of Total Cover:15 20% of Total Cover:6
50% of Total Cover:15 20% of Total Cover:6
0 0.0%
50% of Total Cover:40 20% of Total Cover:16
0 0.0%
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1m) tall.
Acer rubrum
(Plot size:
Nyssa biflora
Taxodium distichum
Liquidambar styraciflua
(Plot size:
Magnolia virginiana
Liquidambar styraciflua
(Plot size:
Eubotrys racemosa
(Plot size:
Juncus effusus
Woodwardia areolata
Saururus cernuus
Smilax laurifolia
DP-3aSOILSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
1
1
3
3
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0-18
18-24+
10YR
10YR 4/1
2/1 Silt Loam
Clay
DP-3b
11-Apr-19
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
City/County:
State:
, or Hydrology
, or Hydrology
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Long.:
Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Soil Map Unit Name:
Datum:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
NWI classification:
Remarks:
R
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Are Vegetation
Section, Township, Range: S
significantly disturbed?
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
, Soil
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
% /
, Soil
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0US Army Corps of Engineers
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Dugout Fayetteville/Cumberland
Resource Environmental Solutions NC
J. Schmid
Valley bottom
MLRA 133A in LRR P 34.9254 -78.8551
Johnston loam
Slope:0.0Local relief (concave, convex, none):°0.0

Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Use scientific names of plants.
30
20
10
20
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
537.5%FACU
25.0%FAC
712.5%FAC
25.0%FAC
71.4%
80
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
100.0%FAC
0 0
0.0%
90 270
40 160
10
0 0
0.0%
130 430
0.0%
3.308
100.0%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20
0.0%
0.0%
10
0 0.0%
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
Indicator
Status
= Total Cover
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) -
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
1
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0
10
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10
0
0
0
100.0%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
10
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%Definition of Vegetation Strata:
DP-3bSampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)(Plot size:
50% of Total Cover:5 20% of Total Cover:2
50% of Total Cover:10 20% of Total Cover:4
50% of Total Cover:5 20% of Total Cover:2
50% of Total Cover:5 20% of Total Cover:2
0 0.0%
50% of Total Cover:40 20% of Total Cover:16
0 0.0%
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1m) tall.
Liriodendron tulipifera
(Plot size:
Acer rubrum
Quercus nigra
Pinus taeda
(Plot size:
Liquidambar styraciflua
(Plot size:
Rubus argutus
(Plot size:
Microstegium vimineum
Lonicera japonica
DP-3bSOILSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
1
1
3
3
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0-6
6-14
7.5YR
2.5YR 4/4
3/3 Sandy Loam
Sandy Loam
DP-11
11-Apr-19
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Area logged within last 5 years. Appears that heribicide was applied in powerline easement with possible drift into surrounding areas. Smilax dominant
in many areas
City/County:
State:
, or Hydrology
, or Hydrology
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Long.:
Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Soil Map Unit Name:
Datum:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
NWI classification:
Remarks:
R
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Are Vegetation
Section, Township, Range: S
significantly disturbed?
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
, Soil
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
% /
, Soil
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0US Army Corps of Engineers
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Dugout Fayetteville/Cumberland
Resource Environmental Solutions NC
J. Schmid
Valley bottom
MLRA 133A in LRR P 34.9250 -78.8461
Deloss loam
Slope:0.0Local relief (concave, convex, none):°0.0

concave
saturation at 18"
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Use scientific names of plants.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
60.0%
0.0%
60.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
33.3%FAC
50 100
66.7%FAC
65 195
0 0
15
0 0
0.0%
115 295
0.0%
2.565
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
50
0 0.0%
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
Indicator
Status
= Total Cover
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) -
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
1
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0
50
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FACW
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20
20
10
0
40.0%FAC
40.0%FAC
20.0%FAC
50
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%Definition of Vegetation Strata:
DP-11Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)(Plot size:
50% of Total Cover:25 20% of Total Cover:10
50% of Total Cover:0 20% of Total Cover:0
50% of Total Cover:7.5 20% of Total Cover:3
50% of Total Cover:25 20% of Total Cover:10
0 0.0%
50% of Total Cover:0 20% of Total Cover:0
0 0.0%
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1m) tall.
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Quercus nigra
(Plot size:
Ilex opaca
Rubus argutus
(Plot size:
Smilax laurifolia
DP-11SOILSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
1
1
3
3
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0-12
12-20+
10YR
10YR 4/1
2/1 Silt Loam
Clay
Date Boring  Soil Saturation depth Notes
4/11/2019 1 0‐20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam 3
4/11/2019 2 0‐20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam 2
4/11/2019 4
0‐12 10YR 2/1 silt loam    
12‐16 10YR 2/1 sand    16‐
24+ 10YR 4/1 loam >24
4/11/2019 5
0‐20 10YR 2/1 silt loam    
20‐28 10YR 5/1 clay 14
4/11/2019 6
0‐20 10YR 2/1 silt loam    
20‐28 10YR 5/1 clay 14
4/16/2019 7 0‐18 10YR 2/1 silt loam 16
4/16/2019 8 0‐24 10YR 2/1 silt loam 18
4/16/2019 9 0‐24 10YR 2/1 silt loam 18
4/16/2019 10
0‐12 10YR 2/1 silt loam    
12‐20 10YR 4/1 clay 18
4/16/2019 11
0‐12 10YR 2/1 silt loam    
12‐20 10YR 4/1 clay 18
4/16/2019 12 0‐20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam 8
4/16/2019 13 0‐20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam 7
4/16/2019 14 0‐20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam 8
4/16/2019 15 0‐20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam 10
4/16/2019 15a 0‐20+ 10YR 2/1 silt loam 8
4/16/2019 16 8
4/16/2019 17 16
4/16/2019 18 >20
4/16/2019 19 >20
4/16/2019 20 >20
4/16/2019 21 >20
4/29/2019 22 >20
4/29/2019 23 >20
4/29/2019 24 >20
4/29/2019 25 >20
4/29/2019 26 >20
4/29/2019 27 >20
4/29/2019 28 >20
4/29/2019 29 >20
4/29/2019 30 >20
4/29/2019 31 >20
4/29/2019 32 >20
rapid assessment to 
find any areas having 
saturation within 12" 
of ground surface. Soil 
data not recorded for 
each but were similar 
to previous borings 
(minimum 0‐8" of 10YR 
2/1)
Soil Borings

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

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

August 12, 2019

Mr. Mike DeAngelo
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

Subject: Request for Environmental Information for the Dugout Mitigation Project, Cumberland
County, North Carolina.

Dear Mr. DeAngelo,

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed project description. Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (as amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC has developed the Dugout Mitigation Project to restore and
enhance unnamed tributaries to Gray’s Creek. The proposed project presents the opportunity to restore
7,860 linear feet of stream and 12.61 acres of wetland in the Cape Fear River Basin, thereby providing
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts. Existing conditions in the
watershed include agricultural fields, pastureland and forest. Stream restoration projects often improve
water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested buffers in riparian areas will help protect
water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats and provide a travel corridor for wildlife species.

Please exercise caution during construction as there are records for the following state-significantly rare
species downstream of the site in Gray’s Creek: banded sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus) and Sandhills
spiny crayfish (Cambarus hystricosus). The NCWRC recommends the use of biodegradable and wildlife-
friendly sediment and erosion control devices. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have
loose-weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and
horizontal twines. Silt fencing and similar products that have been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh
should be avoided as they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and
sediment loads can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning
habitat, suffocation of eggs and clogging of gills. Any invasive plant species that are found onsite should
be removed.

Page 2

August 12, 2019
Scoping – Dugout Mitigation Project

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
res.us
July 26, 2019
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Sandhills Depot
PO Box 149
Hoffman, NC 28347
Subject: Project Scoping for Dugout Mitigation Project in Cumberland County
Dear Ms. Garrison,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to fish and wildlife associated with a potential stream and wetland restoration project on the
attached site (USGS site map with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance
are enclosed). The Dugout Project has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES)
to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts. The proposed project
presents the opportunity to restore/enhance/preserve 7,860 linear feet of sream and enhance and preserve
up to 12.61 acres of wetland in the Cape Fear River Basin. Coordinates for the site are as follows:
35.9255 N, -78.8488 W. The Project’s watershed is primarily a mix of row crops, pastureland, and some
forest and has historically been so since before the 1940’s.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to my
attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] with any questions that
you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Matt DeAngelo | Ecologist II
Attachments: Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic Map, Existing Conditions Map, Conceptual Plan Map 
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office R E C E I V E L.
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 NOV 2 6 2018
�'flei�,_ �NII R� M119 F1Ff?
November 15, 2018
Micl.ey Sugg
U,S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re: Cape Fear 05 UMBI (Dugout Stream & WetlandMitigation Sitcy SAW-2018-01883/ Alamance Co.
Dear Mr. Sugg:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service) has reviewed the information concerning the above
referenced project The project, based on the description inyour letter to our office, and other, information,
is expected to have minimal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended�ESA) and based on the information
provided, and ether available information, it appears the action is not likely to adversely affect fealelly
listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA. We believe that the requirements of section 7
(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project. Please remember that obligations under the ESA
must be reconsidered if: (1) new information identifies impacts of this action that may affect listed species
or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is modified in a manner that was
not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critichhabitat determined that may be
affected bythe identified action.
For your convenience a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North Carolina
is now available on our website athttp://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Our web page contains a complete and
frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened species protected by the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of
concern' that are known to occur in each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated notfederal representative), in
consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized, funded, or carried out by sib
agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federallglisted endangered or threatened
species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be prepared to fulfill that requirement and in
determining whether additional consultationwith the Service is necessary. In addition to the federally'
protected species list. information on the species' life histories and habitats and information on completing
a biological assessment or evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://wwyfws.gov/raleigh.
1 The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be, in need or
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and theirdesignation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

Please check the web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federallglisted species known to be present within
the county where your project occurs, the proposed ation has the potential to adversely affect those
species, As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence
within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be subsitiilted
for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to
adversely affect) a federal lyprotected species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species,
including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that
might affect the species. If you determine thatthe proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or
adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally listed species, then you are not required to contact our office
for concurrence (unless an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). Howe:t•, you should maintain a
complete record of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified
personnel conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Kathy Matthews at [phone],
extension 27.
Sin erely,
�1�
./ ete Benjamin
`I�`•' Field Supervisor
cc: NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh

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

November 8, 2018

Mickey Sugg
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

Re: Dugout Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, Highway 87 & Upton Tyson Road, Fayetteville,
SAW 2018-01883, Cumberland County, ER 18-3302

Dear Mr. Sugg:
We have received a public notice concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona M. Bartos

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
res.us
July 26, 2019
Renee Gledhill-Earley
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
Subject: Project Scoping for Dugout Mitigation Project in Cumberland County
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) has identified the Dugout Project to provide
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts. The proposed project presents an
opportunity to restore/enhance/preserve up to 7,860 linear feet of stream and enhance and preserve up to
12.61 acres of wetland in the Cape Fear River Basin.
RES requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential stream and wetland mitigation project on
the Dugout Site. Coordinates for the site are as follows: 35.9255 N, -78.8488 W. A USGS site map with
approximate limits of conservation easement is attached.
A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/; accessed July 9, 2019) was performed as part of the site due diligence
evaluation to reveal any listed or potential eligible historic or archeological resources. The database did
not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or archeological resources on the proposed Project
property. There is one documented structure within a half-mile radius of the Project. There are no
anticipated impacts from Project activities to state surveyed properties as there are none in the proposed
project vicinity. Other land use around the project is pasture, residential land, and some bottomland
hardwood forest.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any
historic properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return
the comment to my attention at the address in the letterhead, or via email. Please feel free to contact me at
[e-mail] with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Matt DeAngelo | Ecologist II
Attachments: Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic Map, Existing Conditions Map, Conceptual Plan Map 
0 10.5
Miles
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Dugout Mitigation Site
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
HUC: 030300050102
©Date: 9/6/2018
Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\RFPs\DOT_RFP_Sept2018\Dugout\MXD\Figure 1 - Vicinity Map - Dugout.mxd1 inch = 1 mile
03030004
03040203
03030005
03030006
DugoutSite
C e d a r C reekHope M ills
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGS Map
Dugout Mitigation Site
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
USGS 24k Topo Map Boundaries
©Date: 9/6/2018
Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\RFPs\DOT_RFP_Sept2018\Dugout\MXD\Figure 2 - USGS Map - Dugout.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
Grays Creek5,302.3 ac
TV212.2 acTV116.2 ac
Cedar Creek & Hope Mills Quadrangles (2016)
GC3 GC4TV2TV1
GC 1 GC2
0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 6 - Current Conditions Map
Dugout Mitigation Site
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easem ent
Existing Stream
Ditch
©Date: 9/7/2018
Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\RFPs\DOT_RFP_Sept2018\Dugout\MXD\Figure 6 - Current Conditions Map - Dugout.mxd1 inch = 1,000 feet
UUUUUUUUUUUGC3GC4TV2
GC 1 GC2 TV1-BTV1-A©
0 400200
Feet
REFERENCE
1) Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Z15N.
2) Map Projection is NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Date: 7/23/2019 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dugout\MXD\1_Proposal\Figure 10 - Concept Map - Dugout.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement (41.29 ac)
Project Parcels
Parcels
U Powerline
Stream Mitigation Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Wetland Mitigation Approach
Enhancement
Preservation
Figure 10 - Concept Map
Dugout Mitigation Site
Cumberland County, North Carolina
1 in = 400 feet

Appendix C –
Data/Analysis/Supplementary Information

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
-A [SD /I q
Project/Site: GrA
0 �i
Latitude:
-
Evaluator: IB
4____
County: 1�
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (cir
Other
Stream is t Intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 'L5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate t
Strogg
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2 -
3.
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2.
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
'21
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate '
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2, '
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
'- -)
_
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
r1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
.. UIIVIGI 41 L4 IWO PIC IIVI IQICV, OWU VIOL UOOIVIIA III IIIQIIUCI1
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 1 I a
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2_
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
v
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
6.
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal = ? 0 }
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
�2Q
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Project/Site:Latitude:
Evaluator: County: Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if • 19 or perennial if • 30*
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_________)Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a.Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 01 2 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _________)
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = _________)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0123
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
2
2
2
0
2
0.5
0.5
0
3
3
1
1
0.5
0.5
3
3
3
2
1
0.75;
TV1
12/12/2019 Dugout
M. DeAngelo Cumberland
30.75
15
9
6.75
Tv 5
nu liwtl stream taenwication norm version 4.ii
Date: I WProjectlSite: aL4q o u Latitude:
Evaluator: # ( County: C u vn U U 1 t.�t f" V Longitude:
Total Points: Stream Deter circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent a Ephemeral ntermitten Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
10
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
C1}
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
W
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
Tao = 0
Yes = 3
R_ Hvrlminav 15uhtntal = 7• 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
1 )
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
eYes = 3
C' Rinlnnv lSuhtntal = / 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NO
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name Dugout- GC1 Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
NA
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Brad Breslow- RES
8/30/2018
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
HIGH
Ia4
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NO
LOW
Stream Site Name Dugout- GC2 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
NA
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Brad Breslow- RES
8/30/2018
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ia4
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
NA
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NO
LOW
Stream Site Name Dugout- GC3 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
NA
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Brad Breslow- RES
8/30/2018
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ia4
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
NA
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Brad Breslow- RES
8/30/2018
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ia4
Stream Site Name Dugout- GC4 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NO
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
NA
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NO
HIGH
Stream Site Name Dugout- TV1 Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Brad Breslow- RES
8/30/2018
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
HIGH
Ia1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Matt DeAngelo- RES
7/27/2020
NO
NO
NO
Intermittent
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
HIGH
Ia1
Stream Site Name
HIGH
NA
Dugout- TV5 Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NO
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
NO
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
Dugout Morphological Parameters
Feature Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Riffle Riffle PoolDrainage Area (ac)Drainage Area (mi2)NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)2
VA Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)3
Design/Calculated Discharge (cfs)1
DimensionBKF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)39.7 39.2 2.4 2.8 39.7 39.2 46.0 48.4 31.7 34.1 29.7 33.1BKF Width (ft)16.1 13.2 6.7 6.7 16.1 13.2 15.7 14.6 11.8 15.3 18.5 12.3BKF Mean Depth (ft)2.5 3.0 0.4 0.4 2.5 3.0 2.9 3.3 2.7 2.2 1.6 2.7BKF Max Depth (ft)3.2 5.4 0.6 0.8 3.2 5.4 3.6 4.5 3.6 2.7 2.1 3.6Wetted Perimeter (ft)18.8 19.6 7.0 6.9 18.8 19.6 19.5 19.3 16.4 17.9 20.0 16.1Hydraulic Radius (ft)2.1 2.0 0.3 0.4 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.5 1.9 1.9 1.5 2.1Width/Depth Ratio 6.5 4.5 18.7 15.8 6.5 4.5 5.4 4.4 4.4 6.8 11.6 4.6Floodprone Width (ft)>50 >50 >20 >20 >30 >30 >30 >30 >30 25.0 >30 32.5Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 1.6 >2.2 2.6Bank Height Ratio 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.2
Substrate Description (D50)D16 (mm)D50 (mm)D84 (mm)
Pattern
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxChannel Beltwidth (ft)9 39 6 16 ----Radius of Curvature (ft)15 69 5 25 ----Radius of Curvature Ratio 1 4 1 4 ----Meander Wavelength (ft)76 120 25 50 ----Meander Width Ratio 1 2 1 2 ----
Profile
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxRiffle Length (ft)8 20 3 6 ----Run Length (ft)26 32 1 6 ----Pool Length (ft)16 22 3 8 ----Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft)-113 11 15 ----
Additional Reach ParametersValley Length (ft)Channel Length (ft)SinuosityValley Slope (ft/ft)Channel Slope (ft/ft)Rosgen Classification 1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data 2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003) 3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Krstolic and Chaplin (2007)
Existing
100
Min Min
--
--
--
--
Min
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Min
E5 E5 E60.003 0.006 0.0030.027C4b / C5b 0.003E6 to G4c / G5c
0.004 0.007 0.0031.13 1.12 1.021.160.031 1.260.003
455 715 585401639575543630 34094303
----------
Sand Sand SiltSand/Gravel Sand/Gravel
122-174 --
-----
3-6 -
0.01 5283
9773 74732 769897
7.78 7.78 7.951 8.25
Greys Creek (GC1)GC1 GC2UT Greys Creek (TV1)
Reference Reaches
GC3
4980 4980 50857
Dugout Morphological Parameters
Feature Riffle Riffle Riffle Pool Riffle Riffle Riffle Pool RiffleDrainage Area (ac)Drainage Area (mi2)NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)2
VA Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)3
Design/Calculated Discharge (cfs)1
DimensionBKF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)26.3 34.2 2.4 2.8 37.7 52.7 2.6 4.2BKF Width (ft)27.2 13.5 6.7 6.7 21.0 23.0 6.0 6.0BKF Mean Depth (ft)1.0 2.5 0.4 0.4 1.8 2.3 0.4 0.7BKF Max Depth (ft)1.9 3.5 0.6 0.8 2.4 3.9 0.6 1.2Wetted Perimeter (ft)28.3 17.2 7.0 6.9 22.0 25.1 6.2 6.6Hydraulic Radius (ft)0.9 2.0 0.3 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.4 0.6Width/Depth Ratio 28.0 5.3 18.7 15.8 11.7 10.0 13.6 8.6Floodprone Width (ft)30.0 25.2 >20 >20 >50 >50 >20 >21Entrenchment Ratio 1.1 1.9 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.3Bank Height Ratio 1.3 2.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Substrate Description (D50)D16 (mm)D50 (mm)D84 (mm)
Pattern
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxChannel Beltwidth (ft)------3 43 6 14 5 10Radius of Curvature (ft)------27 69 8 17 12 17Radius of Curvature Ratio ------1 3 1 3 3 4Meander Wavelength (ft)------75 160 32 47 33 47Meander Width Ratio ------0 2 1 2 1 2
Profile
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxRiffle Length (ft)------7 62 ----Run Length (ft)------------Pool Length (ft)------12 78 ----Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft)------10 111 ----
Additional Reach ParametersValley Length (ft)Channel Length (ft)SinuosityValley Slope (ft/ft)Channel Slope (ft/ft)Rosgen Classification 1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data 2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003) 3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Krstolic and Chaplin (2007)
>20>2.21.0
Riffle
Existing
4.00.30.44.10.313.6>20
1.2
0.000.004
21012
90 3-6
0.020
0.02C5
Design
TV5-B
20.0001
1-3
Sand/Fine Gravel--
1.094595555
--
1.74.60.40.54.80.412.4
----
-
88941.070.021
509
C5F5 / F6 to G5c / G6c C4 / C5 0.020.002 0.0220.031
-
0.0020.0270.001 C50.023C5b
0.001 1.141.161.07 1.200.028
40309775433524231050630
-------
Sand/Fine Gravel Sand/Fine GravelSand/Silt Sand/Gravel Sand-
>2.21.0
---
110761
8.31 0.01 0
GC4
10
GC2 / GC3 TV1-BTV1
5320 7 2
TV5
0
Upstream Downstream
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach GC1 -XS1 (Pool)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach GC1 -XS2 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
99
99.2
99.4
99.6
99.8
100
100.2
100.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach TV1-A -XS3 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
98.8
99
99.2
99.4
99.6
99.8
100
100.2
100.4
0 5 10 15 20Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach TV1-A -XS4 (Pool)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach GC3 -XS5 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach GC3 -XS8 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach GC3 -XS9 (Pool)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach GC4 -XS10 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach GC4 -XS11 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach GC2 -XS12 (Pool)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach GC2 -XS13 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach GC3 -XS14 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
98.5
98.7
98.9
99.1
99.3
99.5
99.7
99.9
100.1
100.3
100.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach TV5 -XS15 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Greys Creek - XS1 (Pool)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Greys Creek - XS2 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Greys Creek Relic - XS3 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
99
99.2
99.4
99.6
99.8
100
100.2
100.4
100.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UT to Grays Creek - XS1 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
98.8
99
99.2
99.4
99.6
99.8
100
100.2
100.4
0 5 10 15 20Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UT to Grays Creek - XS2 (Pool)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
HIGH
MEDIUM
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WA-1
Matt DeAngelo, RESBottomland Hardwood Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
7/27/2020
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
YES
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
Rating
HIGH
HIGH
NA
HIGH
HIGH
YES
NA
YES
NA
NO
HIGH
HIGH
NO
LOW
NO
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WA-2
Matt DeAngelo, RESBottomland Hardwood Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
7/27/2020
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NO
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NO
NA
NO
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WA-3
Matt DeAngelo, RESBottomland Hardwood Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
7/27/2020
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NO
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NO
NA
NO
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
LOW
LOW
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WC
Matt DeAngelo, RESHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
7/27/2020
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
LOW
LOW
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NO
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
MEDIUM
NO
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
HIGH
HIGH
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WD
Matt DeAngelo, RESHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
7/27/2020
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
YES
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
Rating
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
HIGH
YES
NA
YES
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
HIGH
NO
HIGH
NA
HIGH
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
LOW
MEDIUM
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WE (not jurisdictional)
Matt DeAngelo, RESBottomland Hardwood Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
7/27/2020
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
Rating
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NO
NA
NO
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW

FINAL
Detailed Hydric Soils Study
Dugout Mitigation Bank
Cumberland County NC

Prepared for:
Kasey Carrere
Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612

Prepared by:
George K Lankford Soil Scientist, LSS #1223
George K Lankford, LLC
238 Shady Grove Rd
Pittsboro, NC 27312

May 2020 Soil Scientist Seal

This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Dugout Mitigation Bank in Cumberland County, NC. Any
subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring the complete report, including figures, maps,
appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.

FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Dugout Mitigation Site
May 2020
Page 2 of 10
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Study Objectives and Scope
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the site soils and delineate the extent of riparian hydric soils
potentially suitable for hydrologic restoration and mitigation. All boundaries shown are based on the
detailed field evaluation. The potential for hydrologic restoration of hydric soil is evaluated considering
both the historic and existing land use, current conditions, and the sites potential for creating a
hydroperiod suitable for its landscape setting and soils. In addition to the anticipated restoration of the
stream to reestablish natural overbank flooding frequency, the practical modifications suggested generally
take advantage of available natural hydrology and may include, but are not limited to surface drainage
modifications such as plugging drainage ditches, removal of fill materials, and microtopographic
alteration such as surface roughening or enhancing existing depressions. Recommendation for the re-
establishment of wetlands follows the Principles of Wetland Restoration (USEPA 2000) that promote
successful establishment of a functioning wetland community by restoring ecological integrity through
reestablishment of natural structure and function. This site evaluation focuses on evaluating the soils and
the use of practical technical solutions to support reestablishment of natural hydrology. Recommendations
of removing extensive fill material is typically limited by cost and potential negative environmental
impacts. The potential for hydrologic restoration assumes a successful design and ability to construct site
modifications necessary to restore adequate hydrology.

This report presents an evaluation of the subject property based upon a detailed field investigation of this
site for the purpose of confirming the presence of and delineating the extent of hydric soil. The site is
assessed for the suitability of soils for wetland mitigation. The observations and opinions stated in this
report reflect conditions apparent on the subject property at the time of the site evaluation. My findings,
opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on professional experience, soils, drainage
patterns, site conditions, and boundaries of the property as evident in the field.
Project Information and Background
The site is located approximately 9 miles south of Fayetteville NC. It is east of Highway 87 in
Cumberland County. This project in on the floodplain of Grays Creek, a tributary to the Cape Fear River
(Figure 1). The land use of the contributing watershed community is a mix of urban and agricultural land
use with areas of undeveloped forest land (Figure 2). The project has a large watershed with mixed land
use consisting of residential developments, institutional, agricultural, and undeveloped forestland. The
undeveloped forestland appears to be more prevalent along the drainages and in poorly drained
depressional areas. The Dugout project area is approximately 45 acres with approximately 15 acres
evaluated for potential hydric soil. The remaining area consist of mostly jurisdictional wetland.
NRCS Soil Mapping
The NRCS soil mapping unit is an area having similar defined soil properties and physical characteristics
with similar management criteria base upon these properties. Map units across a site are useful for general
planning, but cover larger scales and which typically include smaller areas of dissimilar soils not
discernable without a detailed site evaluation. Properties of the map units provide the background for
interpreting the range of soil properties that may be encountered at the site.

The NRCS soil survey shows two soil map units within the project limits surrounded by three upland soil
units (Table 1). These soils are typical of low elevations along the floodplains of streams and terraces in
this area. The natural water table in these floodplains is expected to be at or near the surface for much of
the year due to the position in a lower elevation, frequent flooding, and slow drainage. These alluvial soils
formed from deposition of erosional material derived surrounding upland soils. Upland soils in this area
formed in marine deposits, typical of the Coastal Plain region (on line NRCS Web Soil Survey 2019).
Alluvial soils are highly variable on these wide floodplains due to differential sedimentation events and
the variability of upland soils eroded.
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Dugout Mitigation Site
May 2020
Page 3 of 10
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Table 1. NRCS Hydric Soil Map Unit-Summary of General Characteristics - Dugout Mitigation Bank
(map units in order of increasing depth to water table)
Series Taxonomic
Class
Drainage
Class
Hydric
(Hydric Rating)
Landscape setting
(down across)
Johnston loam (JT) (Consociation)
Not prime farmland – (found on floodplains)
Parent material - sandy and loamy alluvium
Depth to water table – about 0 inches (November to May)
Flooding – frequent Ponding - frequent
Johnston (100%) Cumulic
Humaquepts very poorly Yes
(A/D) concave-linear
Deloss loam (De) (Consociation)
Prime farmland if drained – (found on depressions, flats)
Parent material - loamy fluviomarine deposits
Depth to water table - 0 to 12 inches (November to April)
Flooding – none Ponding - none
Deloss (90%) Typic
Umbraquults
very
poorly
Yes
(B/D) concave-linear
Gilead loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes (GdB) (Consociation)
Prime farmland - (found on low hills, summits, crests)
Parent material - loamy and clayey marine deposits
Depth to water table – more than 80 inches
Gilead (90%) Aquic
Hapludults
moderately
well
No
(C) convex- convex
Bibb (3%) Typic
Fluvaquents poorly Yes
(A/D) concave-linear
Johnston (2%) Cumulic
Humaquepts very poorly Yes
(A/D) concave-linear
Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes (BaB) (Consociation)
Farmland of statewide importance – (found on low hills, summits, crests)
Parent material – sandy and loamy marine deposits
Depth to water table – more than 80 inches
Blaney (90%) Arenic
Hapludults well No
(C) convex- convex
Candor sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes (CaD) (Consociation)
Not Prime farmland - (found on the backslope and crest of ridges on marine terraces)
Parent material - sandy and loamy marine deposits and/or eolian sands
Depth to water table – more than 80 inches
Candor (80%) Grossarenic
Kandiudults
somewhat
excessively
No
(A) convex- convex
Source-NRCS Web Soil Survey (2020 04 14)

The project area is limited to the floodplain of Grays Creek containing two NRCS mapping units,
Johnston loam mapped upstream to the west, and Deloss loam mapped primarily across the area
evaluated. Found on floodplains, terraces, and depressions, both soils typically have a surface layer that
is high in organic content and relatively thick, and is not massive (umbric epipedon). A Deloss soil has
the umbric horizon to 10 inches thick and a clayey horizon within the subsoil. A Johnston soil has an
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Dugout Mitigation Site
May 2020
Page 4 of 10
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
umbric layer that may be up to 30 inches thick and lacks the clayey subsoil horizon. A Johnston is subject
to frequent flooding and ponding. The Deloss soils do not normally flood and rarely pond. Both soil map
units are considered to be very poorly drained soils are classified as hydric by the NRCS.

The foot slopes adjacent to the floodplain contains the Gilead, Blaney, and Candor map units. A Gilead
soil has a sandy textured surface over a slowly permeable clayey subsoil. This map unit may contain
small inclusions of poorly or very poorly drained soil. A Blaney soil has a thick sandy surface and the
Candor soil is a deep, sandy, excessively drained soil.
Project Approach
The approach to mitigation of hydric soil is to restore a functional, natural hydrology on the floodplain
that will sustain wetland hydroperiods appropriate for this landscape. A soil evaluation found this site
exhibits hydric soil characteristics typical wetland soils and the map units. The upstream portion of the
mitigation site is jurisdictional wetlands with Corps of Engineer concurrence and the area evaluated was
determined to be not be a jurisdictional wetland (Figure 2). The past land management, stream channel
incision, and ditching appear to have removed the natural wetland hydrology. The area downstream of the
jurisdictional wetland is the area evaluated for this report (Figure 2).
Methodology
A detailed hydric soil investigation for Dugout Mitigation Bank was completed in April of 2020. A series
of approximately 50 soil borings were performed across the site to described and verify the presence and
estimate the extent of hydric soil, including soils that appear to exhibit relict or historic hydric indicators
(Figure 2). Soils were evaluated using morphologic characteristics to determine hydric indicators and
evaluate current hydrology and using criteria based on "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United
States" (USDA, NRCS, 2018, Version 8.2). The boring observations do not contain adequate detail to
classify these soils to a series. Hydric soil indicators used are valid for the Regional Supplement to the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Version 2.0
within Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 133A (Southern Coastal Plain) - Southern Piedmont and
Land Resource Region (LRR) P- South Atlantic and Gulf Slope Cash Crops, Forest, and Livestock
Region. A hydroperiod success criteria is proposed based upon Corps mitigation guidelines (US Army
Corps of Engineers 2016). Soil boring locations were approximately located using the Terrain Navigator
Pro smart phone application by Trimble and figures were produced from the same software.

The soil was assessed for current hydrology by evaluating existing drainage modifications (both natural
and anthropogenic), the pattern and presentation of soil color and mottles, existing vegetation, and the
current water table where observed. The interpterion of hydric soil indicators does not assume current
hydrology. Hand auger soil borings, some greater than 40 inches, were used to described current soil
characteristics, observe current hydrologic conditions, and evaluate the extent of soil suitable for
reestablishment. In some areas, borings were placed beyond the proposed easement boundaries to
evaluate the wider range of floodplain conditions. Representative profiles are described to document the
range of characteristics observed (Appendix A). Constraints on stream restoration may limit the extent of
potential hydrologic restoration. General conditions and patterns representative of this floodplain were
noted.

General conditions and patterns representative of this floodplain were noted. This report describes these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation for wetland reestablishment at the Dugout Mitigation Bank.
The current hydrology, management, and existing modifications with relevant soil characteristics that
may affect potential hydrology are discussed.
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Dugout Mitigation Site
May 2020
Page 5 of 10
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Results and Discussion
Landscape Setting
This project site is within the Southern Coastal Plain on a wide, low gradient floodplain of Grays Creek, a
higher order channel within a moderately developed watershed. The watershed is characterized by low
broad, nearly level to gently rolling hills. The project lies along the transitional boundary between two
eco-regions, upstream is the Atlantic Southern Loam Plains, and downstream is the Southeastern
Floodplains and Low Terraces. The site appears more closely to reflect the Southeastern Floodplains and
Low Terraces ecoregion. The Cape Fear River is located approximately 2 miles east of the project.

Geologically the project lies in the Cape Fear formation where parent material may be composed of
hardened sandstone and sandy mudstone. Portions of the watershed also fall within the Black Creek
formation with materials composed of clays with find grained lenses of sand. These geologic formations
are the source material in which soil develops on uplands with the patterns of erosion and deposition
heavily influencing the alluvial floodplain soils.

The site historically supported a very wet to swampy riparian community similar to the community
upstream of Highway 87 to the west of the project. This community would have extended downstream,
possibly to the Cape Fear River. Downstream of this site, Grays Creek and the receiving waters of the
Cape Fear River is classified as Water Supply Watershed-VI (WS-IV) waters. This classification is for
water used as sources for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes and are generally in moderately
to highly developed watersheds. The downstream watershed classification makes water quality important
for this stream.
Site Conditions
The area evaluated appears to have been clear-cut in spring of 2012. Surface disturbance from the clear-
cutting were not readily apparent and evidence of old windrows or slash were not visible. The area
evaluated contains early successional dominated by young sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and red
maple (Acer rubrum) with a thick ground cover of greenbrier (Smilax sp.) present over large areas where
regeneration of trees is poor.

Grays Creek is deeply incised and located along the northern edge of the floodplain. No evidence of
recent flooding from Grays Creek was observed. Near the upper end of the area evaluated an electric
utility easement crosses the floodplain. In February of 2020, the Corps concurred with a jurisdictional
wetland boundary upstream of the study area. This boundary is the upstream limit of the study area
evaluated. The upstream portion the study area is approximately 600 feet wide, narrowing to about 350
feet at a natural constriction downstream of the wetland boundary, before widening to more than 700 feet.
Along the south edge of the floodplain a ditch along the toe of slope intercepts upland runoff and captures
potential seepage. Another ditch transects the floodplain extending from Grays Creek to the toe slope,
providing surface drainage within the floodplain and a high-water outlet for Grays Creek. East of the
project, these two ditches join and flow southeast away from the site before entering Grays Creek.

Within the floodplain, local topography is highly variable with low hummocks and shallow, irregular
shaped, depressions and low swales throughout. Low linear features extend along the floodplain
suggestive of an abandoned channel. Other low areas are reminiscent of old sloughs. A few areas
exhibited a uniformly level surface and appear to be slightly elevated.
Site Soils
Soils of the floodplain landscape formed in sandy and loamy alluvium originating in sediments from
upland soils of the water shed. Where very poorly drained, soils accumulate high organic content in the
surface horizons resulting in dark gray to black colors.

FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Dugout Mitigation Site
May 2020
Page 6 of 10
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Soils at this site predominantly have a black surface of muck or mucky sandy loam. The subsoils vary
from sandy clay and silt clay to sand, a normal range for the depositional environments of larger
floodplains. The soils appear to have high to very high permeability due to their sandy and high organic
nature. Where present, the clayey subsoils likely have limited effect on the water table due to the extent of
sandy textured subsoil observed. The sandy textured soils indicate soils are saturated throughout the
profile and historically supported by the high stream bed and absence of drainage ditches. The typically
thin sediment layers (4 to 8 inches) differ texturally from the surrounding surface soils, with a silt loam or
loam, but are underlain by the black horizon found elsewhere. In the sediment layers hydric indicators
have formed within 6 inches. Adjacent to the drainage ditches are spoil berms that are also underlain by a
black horizon. Outside of the areas with sediment or spoil, the variability in surface elevation has little
effect on the presence of this dark surface horizon. The field evaluation of the soils and landscape indicate
a high potential for wetland rehabilitation at this site.
Hydric Soil Indicators
The soil evaluation confirmed the presence of hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface
throughout site. The most common hydric soil indicators based on recorded profiles are A1-Histosol, A2-
Histic Epipedon, A3-Black Histic, A12-Thick Dark Surface, F1-Loamy Mucky Mineral, and F3-Depleted
Matrix, and F13-Umbric Surface. Other indicators that were found include A5-Stratified Layers and F8-
Redox Depressions. All but three of these indicators do not require a dark gray to black surface but does
not exclude a black surface. The indicators present reflect a very wet historical condition in this
floodplain resulting in the accumulation of organic materials throughout.
Current Hydrologic Alterations
Grays Creek is located close to the northern edge of the floodplain and toe slope, allowing the
interception of ground water seepage along this slope. The deep incision of Grays Creek effectively
lowers the floodplain groundwater elevation by limiting overbank flooding and providing drainage of the
surrounding sandy soils. To the south edge of the floodplain, the toe slope ditch intercepts seepage before
it can recharge the floodplain water table and provides additional surface drainage in the backwater area
of the floodplain. The ditch across the floodplain helps remove surface waters and acts to lower shallow
groundwater within the floodplain itself.

Observations with visible groundwater were limited and only found in the general area downstream of the
jurisdictional wetland and near the floodplain constriction. Below the constriction observations of the
water table were found near the center of the floodplain away from Grays Creek. Depth to the water table
was deeper with distance from the wetland and closer to Grays Creek. This pattern suggest that the
incised Grays Creek is effectively lowering local groundwater to the north of the floodplain and to the
south the slope ditch is limiting recharge and preventing ponding in the backwater.
Potential Hydroperiod for Restored Soils
The soils present in the floodplain of this project appear to be very similar to the NRCS map units. Based
on mitigation guidance for Coastal Plain soils (US Army Corps of Engineers 2016), both the Johnston
(Cumulic Humaquepts) and Deloss series (Typic Umbraquults) are suggested to have a natural
hydroperiod of between 12 and 16 percent where the water table is within 12 inches of the surface during
the growing season (Table 2). Soil similar to the surrounding upland soil map units was not located within
the floodplain. Because of natural variation of local topography and internal drainage found across this
site, a local hydroperiod slightly higher or lower than this guidance may be expected. Near the
downstream end where the stream design “steps down” to meet the existing channel, drainage will likely
reduce the expected hydroperiod. Depressional areas and areas underlain by a clayey subsoil may exhibit
longer hydroperiods exceeding 16 percent, depending on local topography.

FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Dugout Mitigation Site
May 2020
Page 7 of 10
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Because of the high permeability of soils, for the first year after construction, it is practical to expect a
hydroperiod of less than 12 percent as the site becomes wet and a higher groundwater table becomes
establishes. These suggested hydroperiods depend on the factors related to stream design and frequency
of flooding, construction accuracy, local topography, and local drainage after construction.

Table 2. Guidance for Hydroperiod Success Criteria at Dugout Mitigation Bank
Mapping
Unit/Series
Taxonomic
Classification
Topographic Slope
Setting
(down/across)
Flooding/Ponding
Frequency
Hydroperiod
Range*
Johnston
loam
Cumulic
Humaquepts concave-linear- frequent/ frequent (12-16%)
Deloss
loam
Typic
Umbraquults concave-linear- rare/none (12-16%)
*Hydroperiod follows US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016.
No guidance on upland soils – Blaney, Candor, and Gilead soils –soils typically expected to lack significant hydroperiod.

Functional Uplift from Hydric Soil Reestablishment
Successful construction and wetland reestablishment along Grays Creek and its floodplain wetland system
has the potential to provide numerous benefits to water quality. Grays Creek has a substantial watershed
with moderate development capable of discharging sediments, nutrients, and pollutants into this stream,
allowing a direct, unprocessed flows to pass on to the Cape Fear River. Upstream of the evaluation area
are jurisdictional wetlands. Groundwater elevations were found to decrease within distance from the
wetland boundary and proximity to the deeply incised Grays Creek.

The wetland reestablishment proposed will be the result of raising the local groundwater and restoring a
more natural hydrologic cycle with the associated functional uplift. Successful hydrologic restoration can
provide numerous functional uplifts related to soils and water quality. These include, reestablishment of
natural oxidation-reduction cycling, improved nutrient and chemical transformations (especially nitrates),
and potential immobilization of phosphorus. Potential sources of these pollutants are present in the
watershed.

Other benefits include a lower soil and surface water temperature after vegetative establishment,
increased organic carbon sequestration, and increases in diversity of beneficial microbial and fungal
populations important for soil health. Healthy microbial populations in wetlands are primarily responsible
for biochemical transformations of complex organic substances such as ammonia, molecular nitrogen,
nitrite and nitrate. Large scale benefits should include peak flood control, an increase of diverse wildlife
habitat, and greater connectivity to the natural aquatic communities along Grays Creek.
Summary Conclusions and Recommendations
The Dugout project lies along Grays Creek, a higher order tributary to the Cape Fear River. The project
site is within a suitable landscape position and soils exhibit numerous hydric indicators consisting of a
wide floodplain in a large, moderately developed watershed. Land use of the project site is currently in
drier, early successional, woody trees and vines with little of an appropriate natural vegetation present.

Based upon this detailed study of soils and current conditions at this site, the natural hydrology has been
significantly altered, resulting in a lower groundwater table. The altered hydrology results from the deeply
incised stream, presence of highly permeable soils, and the location of drainage features intercepting
groundwater discharges onto the floodplain. These changes to the natural hydrology and drainage limit
groundwater elevation across the floodplain.

FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Dugout Mitigation Site
May 2020
Page 8 of 10
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
The NRCS soil survey indicate the site contains two similar map units, Johnston and Deloss loams. These
soils area expected to have surface horizons high in organic matter. Although highly permeable, unless
drained the natural water table should be at or near the surface for extended periods. These map units are
classified as hydric.

The floodplain is nearly level with localized topography of depressions and low ridges. Past timber
harvest has removed native tree canopy with unmanaged regeneration resulting in a drier species with low
diversity of dense sweetgum and greenbrier dominating. Grays Creek appears to have once been located
within this wide floodplain, but may have been moved to the left edge of the floodplain. It has become
deeply incised along the toe slope, intercepting any discharges from the surrounding slope. A ditch
constructed along the right edge of the floodplain intercepts groundwater discharges from this slope.
Drainage of the floodplain is due to an incised channel, strategically located ditches, and the presence of
highly permeable soil. With flooding limited and significant sources of hydrology restricted, the
floodplain groundwater has been effectively lowered.

The soil investigation found deep black surface soils high in organic matter suggestive of the NRCS map
units. Much of the surface exhibited highly permeable muck or mucky loams, often underlain by highly
permeable sandy textured soils, also highly permeable. The site historically supported a very wet to
swampy riparian community. Deeper profiles indicated much of the area is underlain by a sand. These
highly permeable soils are expected to respond strongly to drainage modifications.

The common hydric soil indicators reflect this site was historical very wet. The accumulation of organic
materials supports the hydric indicators of A1-Histosol, A2-Histic Epipedon, A3-Black Histic, A12-Thick
Dark Surface, F1-Loamy Mucky Mineral, and F13-Umbric Surface. Other indicators that were found
include A5-Stratified Layers, F3-Depleted Matrix, and F8-Redox Depressions. The indicators present
reflect a very wet historical condition in this floodplain resulting in the accumulation of organic materials
throughout. With the large, moderately developed watershed, a functional uplift of flood storage, carbon
sequestration, and nutrient and pollutant transformations would provide valuable water quality benefits.
Additional uplift of natural habitat and connectivity would also be anticipated.
Recommendations
Restoration techniques to restore hydrology require a successful stream restoration to raise the local
groundwater elevation that allows frequent flooding. Additionally, plugging and filling of ditches to
redirect seepage back onto the floodplain and limit surface drainage is recommended. Due to the high
organic matter and existing natural surface topography, ripping is not required. Where construction
equipment is utilized, limited surface roughening may be necessary due to the structure of high organic
soil that may be destroyed by equipment. All heavy equipment and construction schedules should be
limited to dryer conditions and tracked equipment to limit loss of soil structure. These efforts to protect
this soil will retain natural structure, reduce erosion, and allow quicker vegetative reestablishment.

The hydric soils at this site can be expected to have a hydro period of 12 to 16 percent with small, more
pronounced depressional areas ponding for short periods and having potentially greater than 16 percent
hydroperiods. The channel reconnects downstream to the incised stream below the project, groundwater
will reflect a slope in the groundwater toward the channel bed. Due to the current drainage and permeable
soils, it may take at least a year for the site to become completely saturated and reach the target
hydroperiods. For at least the first year after construction, it may be reasonable to expect a hydroperiod
less than 12 percent, depending on final construction timing and rainfall.
Conclusions
The topographic setting and hydric soil are appropriate for a successful hydrologic reestablishment at the
Dugout mitigation site. This floodplain on Grays Creek reflects historically wetland conditions. The soils
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Dugout Mitigation Site
May 2020
Page 9 of 10
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
exhibit hydric indicators with high organic accumulation found in environments saturated for extended
periods. Restoration of the stream should raise the groundwater to within 12 inches of the surface for 12
to 16 percent of the growing season. Stream restoration will provide opportunities for multiple overbank
flooding events to support this hydrology.

This project will reestablish natural functions to these degraded aquatic resources by providing a stable
and unique wetland habitat to compliment the restored streams. Upon successful construction, the
restored wetland will be able to provide functional benefits of sediment removal, soil chemical and
biological transformations of nutrient and chemical pollutants while providing a range of wetland habitat.
Other benefits include increased organic carbon accumulation/capture and increases of natural diversity in
beneficial microbial and fungal populations important for soil health. Given the observed soil
characteristics and presence of hydric soil indicators within a favorable landscape position, this site
appears suitable for hydrologic wetland reestablishment. Because of the historically wet nature of this
site, correct landscape position, the appropriate soils, and potential for restoration of adequate hyd rology,
this site is suitable for wetland reestablishment.

This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Dugout Mitigation Site in
Cumberland County, NC. Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring
the complete report, including figures, maps, appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.
References
NTCHS. 2003. Technical Note 13: Altered Hydric Soils. Deliberation of: National Technical Committee
for Hydric Soils.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Web Soil Survey. Available online at the following link: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
Accessed [November/2019].
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016. SAW-2013-00668-PN
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W.
Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.
USDA 1984. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Soil
Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties North Carolina. October 1984)
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators
of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.).
USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
Vepraskas, M. J. 1994. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. Tech. Bulletin 301.
North Carolina Ag. Research Service, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina.
USEPA. 2000. Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Resources. EPA841-F-00-003.
Office of Water (4501F). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 4 pp.
(https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/principles-wetland-restoration).
USDA, NRCS. 2008. Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, or Creation. NEH Part 650.13 Engineering
Field Handbook. Washington, DC.

FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Dugout Mitigation Site
May 2020
Page 10 of 10
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Figures

APPENDICES

Appendix A Soil Boring Log
Appendix B Photos
Appendix C NRCS Web Soil Survey Report

SCALE 1:240000100020003000400050006000Feet01(C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap contributorsDeclinationMN 8.97° WGN 1.23° EMNGNLegendProject Area - Proposed Conservation EasementMap Name: CEDAR CREEK Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft.Figure 1. USGS Vicinity MapDugout Mitigation BankCumberlandCounty, NC
SCALE 1:2400
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Feet
0.0 0.1
Miles
h01
h03
h06
h17
h31
h37
h39
h41
h42
h48
402
404 405
407408409
410
411412
413414
415
416
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425426
427428
429430
432 433
434435436
438
440443
444
445
446
447
(C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap contributors
NE
SESW
NW
N
E
S
W
LEGEND
Proposed Easement
Hydric Soil-Reestablishment
Hydric Soil-Jurisdictional
Stream
Ditches
h Soil Profile Point
4 Soil Boring
Scale: 1 inch = 200 ft. Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Figure 2. Aerial and Soil Boring Points
Dugout Mitigation Bank
Appendix A
Dugout Mitigation Site, Cumberland County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Appendix A
Page 1 of 3
April 2020
Table Representative Soil Profiles at the Dugout Site
Depth
(inches)
Color Mottle Percentage
(Location*) Texture** Notes
Matrix Mottle

SB 01
March 12 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT (no saturation)
F1-Loamy Mucky Mineral
F13-Umbric Surface
0-28 N 2.5/- mucky L
28-32 10 YR 3/1 LS
32-40 10 YR 3/1 10 YR 6/2 15% (UCSG) S
SB 03
March 12, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT (no saturation)
A1-Histosol
A12- Thick Dark Surface
0-33 N 2.5/- muck <1% sand
33-42 10 YR 5/1 7.5 YR 4/6 10% SC massive - restrictive
SB 06
March 12, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
F3-Depleted Matrix
F8-Redox Depressions
0-6 10 YR 5/8 7.5 YR 6/4 20% (PL) SiL
6-18 7.5 YR 6/2 10 YR 5/8 20% (PL) SiL
18-24 N 2.5/- SiCL
24-28 7.5 YR 2.5/1 7.5 YR 3/4 5% (M) SCL
28-34 7.5 YR 5/1 7.5 YR 4/6 15% (PL) SC
SB 17
March 12, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
A2-Histic Epipedon
A3-Black Histic
A12-Thick Dark Surface
F13-Umbric Surface
0-10 N 2.5/- muck
10-29 7.5 YR 2.5/1 SiL
29-34 7.5 YR 5/1 7.5 YR 4/6 10% (PL) SC
SB 31
March 12, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
F1-Loamy Mucky Mineral
F3-Depleted Matrix
F13-Umbric Surface
0-2 7.5 YR 2.5/1 mucky L thin hemic/sapric above
2-5 7.5 YR 4/6 7.5 YR 6/4 25% (PL) SiL
5-6 7.5 YR 6/2
7.5 YR 4/6 SiL colors variegated
6-19 N 2.5/- SiL
Appendix A
Dugout Mitigation Site, Cumberland County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Appendix A
Page 2 of 3
April 2020
19-26 10 YR 3/1 LS ~10% uncoated sand
grains
26-43 10 YR 4/2 cS
SB 37
April 2, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
A1-Histosol
0-23 N 2.5/- muck
23-32 N 2.5/- mucky S
32-44 10 YR 3/2 10 YR 5/2
10 YR 2/1
5%
5% S
SB 38
April 2, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
A3-Black Histic
A5-Stratified Layers
0-2 10 YR 2/1 peaty/hemic
2-7 10 YR 6/1 7.5 YR 4/6 30% Si
7-12 N 2.5/- muck
12-16 N 2.5/- SiL
16-19 10 YR 2/1 7.5 YR 3/3 SiL
19-30 7.5 YR 5/2 7.5 YR 4/6 5% (PL) SCL
SB 39
April 2, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
A2-Histic Epipedon
0-4 10 YR 2/1 peaty?
4-12 N 2.5/- muck
12-16 10 YR 3/1 SL
16-22 10 YR 3/1 SiL
22-25 10 YR 5/1 SCL
SB 41
April 2, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
A1-Histosol
0-20 N 2.5/- muck
20-30 10 YR 3/1 20% (M) SL
30-38 10 YR 3/1 SCL
SB 42
April 2, 2020
Hydric Indicators WT -15"
A3-Black Histic
F3-Depleted Matrix
0-2 10 YR 2/1 L
2-5 10 YR 6/1 7.5 YR 4/6 40% (PL) SiL
5-10 N 2.5/- muck
10-14 N 2.5/- SCL
14-20 7.5 YR 5/2 S
20-26 7.5 YR 5/1 SL massive-restrictive
Appendix A
Dugout Mitigation Site, Cumberland County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Appendix A
Page 3 of 3
April 2020
SB 48
April 2, 2020
Hydric Indicators No WT observed
A1-Histosol
0-20 N 2.5/- muck
20-27 10 YR 3/1 SCL saturated at -25"
27-34 10 YR 4/1 SCL
»Indicators valid for NRCS Land Resource Region 133A (Southern Coastal Plain) and Land Resource Region P.
WT = observed apparent water table
*PL =pore lining, M = matrix, UCSG = uncoated sand grains
**Texture (follows USDA textural classification)
S = sand, L = loam, Si = silt, C = clay
f = fine, c = coarse (textural modifiers for sandy soils)

Soil Scientist Seal
Appendix B
Dugout Branch Mitigation Site – Cumberland County, NC
Photo Log
April 2020
1

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

1. Hydric profile. Meets the A1-Histosol and A12- Thick Dark Surface indicators. SB#03.

2. Landscape looking across floodplain with dense vines. SB#03.
Appendix B
Dugout Branch Mitigation Site – Cumberland County, NC
Photo Log
April 2020
2

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

3. Hydric profile. Meets the F1-Loamy Mucky Mineral, F3-Depleted Matrix, and F13-Umbric Surface
indicators. SB#31.

4. Landscape looking across floodplain with dense sapling. SB#31.
Soil Map—Cumberland County, North Carolina
(Dugout)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/14/2020
Page 1 of 33866100386630038665003866700386690038671003867300386750038661003866300386650038667003866900386710038673003867500695500695700695900696100696300696500696700696900697100697300697500697700
695500 695700 695900 696100 696300 696500 696700 696900 697100 697300 697500 697700
34° 55' 53'' N 78° 51' 37'' W34° 55' 53'' N78° 50' 2'' W34° 55' 2'' N
78° 51' 37'' W34° 55' 2'' N
78° 50' 2'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Feet
0 150 300 600 900
Meters
Map Scale: 1:11,100 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Cumberland County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 16, 2019
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 15, 2015—Jul
31, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—Cumberland County, North Carolina
(Dugout)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/14/2020
Page 2 of 3
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
BaB Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8
percent slopes
17.2 7.6%
BaD Blaney loamy sand, 8 to 15
percent slopes
1.7 0.7%
CaD Candor sand, 8 to 15 percent
slopes
3.0 1.3%
De Deloss loam 129.0 56.8%
GdB Gilead loamy sand, 2 to 8
percent slopes
2.6 1.1%
JT Johnston loam 73.8 32.5%
TR Torhunta and Lynn Haven soils 0.0 0.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 227.2 100.0%
Soil Map—Cumberland County, North Carolina Dugout
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/14/2020
Page 3 of 3

Appendix D –
Design Plan Sheets

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo o ooo o o oo oXXOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBB
BB BBBBBB BBBBBBBB BB BBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
B
B BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBB BB
BBBB
BB BBBBBB
BB
BBBBBB
BB
BB
BB
BBBB
BBTBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
T
B
TBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB
TB TB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TBT
BTBTB
TBTBTB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBBBBBB BB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTB TBTB TBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B BBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOHEOHE OHELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCES1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S16
S1
2
S1
3 S14S15 PROJECT LOCATIONUSACE ACTION ID #:SAW-2018-01883SITE MAPNTSPROJECT TOPOGRAPHY AND EXISTING CONDITIONSPLANIMETRICS SURVEY WAS PROVIDED BY WSP USA,INC. (NC FIRM LICENSE NUMBER F-0891, J. BRANDONHICKS, NC PLS L-5290), DATED FEBRUARY 07, 2020DESIGNED BY:RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC3600 GLENWOOD AVE, SUITE 100RALEIGH, NC 27612SURVEYED BY:WSP USA INC.128 TALBERT RD, SUITE AMOORESVILLE, NC 28117PROJECT DIRECTORYKnow what'sbelow.before you digCallNOTICE TO CONTRACTORPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DIGGING, OR EXCAVATION THECONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE) THAT MAY EXIST AND CROSS THROUGHTHE AREA(S) OF CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER INDICATED ON THE PLANSOR NOT. CALL "811" A MINIMUM OF 72 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING OREXCAVATING. REPAIRS TO ANY UTILITY DAMAGED RESULTING FROMCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THECONTRACTOR.FILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_COVER.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usRESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC302 JEFFERSON ST, SUITE 110RALEIGH, NC 27605VICINITY MAPNTSEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental LLCLicense: F-1428DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITECUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINACAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN: HUC 03030005AUGUST 20208/27/2020
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-0711KMCAFMTRSBRCREACH GC1REACH GC2/GC3REACH GC4REACH TV1-BREACH TV1-AREACH TV5-AREACH TV5-BSWALE (B)SWALE (A)Sheet List TableSheet NumberSheet Title-COVERA1OVERALL AERIALE1NOTES AND LEGENDE2EXISTING CONDITIONSS1REACH GCS2REACH GCS3REACH GCS4REACH GCS5REACH GCS6REACH GCS7REACH GCS8REACH GCS9REACH GCS10REACH GCS11REACH GCS12REACH TV1S13REACH TV1S14REACH TV5S15SWALE (A)S16SWALE (B)F1FENCING & IMPROVEMENTSP1PLANTING PLANW1WETLAND PLAND1DETAILSD2DETAILSD3DETAILSD4DETAILSD5DETAILSD6DETAILS
o oo o ooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB
BB
BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBB
BB BBBBBB BBBBBBBB BB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
TBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTB
TBT
BTB
TBTBTBTB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBBBBBB BBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTB TBTB TBTB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
BB
BBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBB
B BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOHEOHE OHELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE200400200REACH TV1REACH TV5REACH GC2/3(GRAY'S CREEK)0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_ESC.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711A1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
OVERALL AERIAL
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
8/27/2020 SWALE (B)SWALE (A)REACH GC1REACH GC4
LEGENDTBTBBBBBOHEOHEEXISTING TREELINELCELIMITS OF PROPOSEDCONSERVATION EASEMENT50465042EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITY LINEPROPOSED TOP OF BANKEXISTING FENCELINEEXISTING BOTTOM OF BANKEXISTING TOP OF BANKPROPOSED CONTOUR MINORPROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOREXISTING CONTOUR MINOREXISTING CONTOUR MAJOREXISTING WETLANDPROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG(SEE DETAIL D3)LOG SILL(SEE DETAIL D5)LOG STRUCTURE(PROFILE)PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED CENTERLINE OF CHANNELEXISTING TREEEXISTING STREAMTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBRUSH TOE PROTECTION(SEE DETAIL D3)WOODY RIFFLE(SEE DETAIL D5)ENGINEERED SEDIMENT PACK(SEE DETAIL D4)STREAM CONSTRUCTION NOTES:1.ALL PROPOSED CHANNELS AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT CROSSINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED INA DRY CONDITION VIA OFFLINE CONSTRUCTION WHERE POSSIBLE. PUMP AROUND OPERATIONSSHOULD BE LIMITED TO AREAS WHERE THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED CHANNEL ALIGNMENTS OVERLAP.2.ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND PUMPING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREAM AT THE ENDOF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BYTHE ENGINEER. WITH APPROVAL, A PUMP AROUND MAY BE ALLOWED TO RUN CONTINUOUSLY IF THEREIS NO FORECAST FOR RAIN OVERNIGHT, AND/OR THE PUMP APPARATUS IS MAINTAINED ANDMONITORED CONTINUOUSLY.3.CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE CHANNEL FIRST, WORKING IN AN UPSTREAM TODOWNSTREAM DIRECTION, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.4.REMOVE AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL WITHIN AREAS THAT ARE TO BE CUT 9" OR MORE BELOW EXISTINGGRADE. STOCKPILED TOPSOIL IS TO BE PLACED ALONG THE FLOODPLAIN BENCHES.5.STRUCTURES ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN SHEETS (AS INDICATED ON THESTRUCTURE TABLES) USING METHODS DESCRIBED IN THE DETAIL SHEETS. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING,OBTAIN APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER ON INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.6.SUBSTRATE MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE BED OF ALL PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS. SEETYPICAL RIFFLE DETAIL SHEET D4.7.UPON COMPLETION OF FINE GRADING, INSTALL STREAM BANK STABILIZATION INCLUDING, EROSIONCONTROL MATTING OR SOD MATS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS.8.FILL AND STABILIZE ABANDONED SEGMENTS OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL PER DIRECTION OF THEENGINEER.FILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NOTES AND LEGEND
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
8/27/2020
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONE10711KMCAFMTRSBRCBRUSH BED(SEE DETAIL D5)EXISTING UNDERSTORY/BRUSH
o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo o o o o oo oo ooo
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB
BB
BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBB BB BBBBBB BBBBBBBB BB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
TBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TBT
BTBTB
TBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTB TBTB TB TBTB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBBBBBB BBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTB TBTB TBTB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOHEOHE OHELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE200400200REACH TV5REACH TV1REACH GC(GRAY'S CREEK)0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711E2PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
8/27/2020 SWALE (B)SWALE (A)
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
BB BB BB BBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B
TBTBTB
TBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
LCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE
LCELCE0+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+0095959595
MATCH LINE 6+00S2(STA 0+35)LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTSCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'8590951001058590951001050+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+00306030REACH GC1PRESERVATIONSTA 1+94 TO 7+20EXISTING STREAMCENTERLINEEXISTING TOPOF BANK0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_GC.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH GC
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAPONDED REGIONAPPROXIMATESTA 0+25 TO 1+75EXISTING CULVERT(NOT SHOWN)ELEV: 91.26'NC HWY 87
BB BB BB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTB TBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE5+006+007+008+009+0010+001
1
+
0
0
12+0013+002-12-22-42-32-5939394 939393939393949393S1MATCH LINE 6+00MATCH LINE 12
+
0
0
S3SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'80859095100808590951006+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+002-12-22-32-42-5-0.20%306030REACH GC1PRESERVATIONSTA 1+94 TO 7+20EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTIE REACH GC1 INTOPROPOSED BED OFREACH GC2/3EXISTING TOPOF BANKTYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTIONTYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION4.5'6.0'21.0'2.1'15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH GC2/3 STA 7+20 TO STA 53+152.4'℄15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGE0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_GC.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S2PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH GC
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH GC2/3RESTORATIONSTA 7+20 TO 35+28EXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLED(SEE DETAIL D2)RESHAPE BANKS AND ADJUSTDICTH BED ELEVATION TOTIE INTO GC2/3
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B
TBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCE11+00 12+0013+0014+001
5
+
0
0
16+0017+0018+0019+002-42-53-13-23-33-5929292939392929
2
92
9292 929
3
S2MATCH LINE 12+00
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

1
8
+
0
0
S
4SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'808590951008085909510012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+003-13-13-23-33-5-0.20%3-4306030EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTIONTYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION4.5'6.0'21.0'2.1'15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH GC2/3 STA 7+20 TO STA 53+152.4'℄15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGE0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_GC.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S3PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH GC
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH GC2/3RESTORATIONSTA 7+20 TO 35+28APPROXIMATE LOCATIONOF REACH TV1(SHEET S13)EXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLED(SEE DETAIL D2)SWALE (A)(SHEET S15)
BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE17+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+003-54-14-24-4909091919291929292 9191S3MATCH LINE 18+00
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

2
4
+
0
0
S5SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'808590951008085909510018+0018+5019+0019+5020+0020+5021+0021+5022+0022+5023+0023+5024+004-14-24-4-0.20%-0.21%4-34-5306030EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTIONTYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION4.5'6.0'21.0'2.1'15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH GC2/3 STA 7+20 TO STA 53+152.4'℄15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGE0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_GC.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S4PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH GC
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH GC2/3RESTORATIONSTA 7+20 TO 35+28EXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLED(SEE DETAIL D2)
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBBBBB
B
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBB
BB
BBBBBBBBB
B
BB
BBBBBB
BBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE23+0024+0025+0026+00
27+0028+0029+0030+0031+004-45-25-35-48
9
8
990 9090
909090939090S4MATCH LINE 24+00
MATCH LINE 30+00S6SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'808590951008085909510024+0024+5025+0025+5026+0026+5027+0027+5028+0028+5029+0029+5030+005-25-35-4-0.21%5-1306030EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTIONTYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION4.5'6.0'21.0'2.1'15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH GC2/3 STA 7+20 TO STA 53+152.4'℄15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGE0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_GC.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S5PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH GC
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH GC2/3RESTORATIONSTA 7+20 TO 35+28SWALE (B)(SHEET S14)EXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLED(SEE DETAIL D2)EXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLED(SEE DETAIL D2)
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB
TBTBTBTBT
B
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBB
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE29+0030+0031+0032+0033+0034+0035+0036+0037+005-46-26-36-47-1888888 898989 9090859085
888888S5MATCH LINE 30+00
MATCH

L
I
N
E

3
6
+
0
0
S7SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'808590951008085909510030+0030+5031+0031+5032+0032+5033+0033+5034+0034+5035+0035+5036+006-26-36-4-0.21%6-4(STA 35+28)
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
(STA 35+99)
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
306030EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTIONTYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION4.5'6.0'21.0'2.1'15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH GC2/3 STA 7+20 TO STA 53+152.4'℄15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGE0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_GC.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S6PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH GC
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH GC2/3RESTORATIONSTA 7+20 TO 35+28EXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLED(SEE DETAIL D2)
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEBB BB BB BB BBBBBBBB BB BBBB BBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE35+0036+0037+0038+0039+0040+0041+0042+0043+007-17-37-47-586868
7
8
788888787
8888 888787898986S6MATCH LINE 36+00
MATCH LINE 42+00S8SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'7580859095758085909536+0036+5037+0037+5038+0038+5039+0039+5040+0040+5041+0041+5042+007-17-37-4-0.21%-0.18%7-27-5306030REACH GC2/3RESTORATIONSTA 35+99 TO 53+15EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTIONTYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION4.5'6.0'21.0'2.1'15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH GC2/3 STA 7+20 TO STA 53+152.4'℄15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGE0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_GC.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S7PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH GC
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA EXISTING SWALE TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLED(SEE DETAIL D2)
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE41+0042+0043+0044+0045+0046+0047+0048+0049+007-58-18-29-18686868687898687878686868787
85S7MATCH LINE 42+00M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

4
8
+
0
0
S
9SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'7580859095758085909542+0042+5043+0043+5044+0044+5045+0045+5046+0046+5047+0047+5048+008-18-2-0.18%306030EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTIONTYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION4.5'6.0'21.0'2.1'15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH GC2/3 STA 7+20 TO STA 53+152.4'℄15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGE0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_GC.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S8PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH GC
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH GC2/3RESTORATIONSTA 35+99 TO 53+15EXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLED(SEE DETAIL D2)EXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLED(SEE DETAIL D2)
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE47+0048+0049+00 50+00
51+0052+0053+0054+008-29-19-29-39-49-59-69-784858585858585868684858684S8MATCH LINE 48+00
MATCH LINE 5
4
+
0
0
S10SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'7580859095758085909548+0048+5049+0049+5050+0050+5051+0051+5052+0052+5053+0053+5054+009-19-29-49-39-59-69-7-1.70%-0.18%-0.13%306030EXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLED(SEE DETAIL D2)EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTIE REACH GC2/3 INTOEXISTING BED OFREACH GC4EXISTING TOPOF BANKTYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTIONTYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION4.5'6.0'21.0'2.1'15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH GC2/3 STA 7+20 TO STA 53+152.4'℄15.0'4.0'23.0'3.8'BANKFULL STAGE0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_GC.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S9PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH GC
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH GC2/3RESTORATIONSTA 35+99 TO 53+15REACH GC4ENHANCEMENT ISTA 53+15 TO 62+86CONSTRUCT A FLOODPLAINBENCH ALONG BOTH BANKSSTA 51+50 TO 59+30TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONFLOODPLAIN BENCHEXISTINGCHANNEL(VARIES)15112'-15'BENCHTIE TO EXISTINGGROUND @ 3:1
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BB
BB
B
BTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE54+0055+0056+0057+0058+0059+006
0
+
0
0
61+0083848585848
3
8
3
8
4
83828386848
2
S9MATCH LINE 54+00
MATCH LINE 60+00S11SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'7075808590707580859054+0054+5055+0055+5056+0056+5057+0057+5058+0058+5059+0059+5060+00-0.13%10-110-2306030EXISTING STREAMCENTERLINEEXISTING TOPOF BANK0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_GC.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S10PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH GC
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH GC4ENHANCEMENT ISTA 53+15 TO 62+86APPROXIMATE TOPOF BANK/BENCHELEVATIONCONTINUE FLOODPLAINBENCH ALONG LEFT BANKSTA 59+30 TO 61+50CONSTRUCT A FLOODPLAINBENCH ALONG BOTH BANKSSTA 51+50 TO 59+30END RIGHT BANKFLOODPLAIN BENCHSTA 59+30TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONFLOODPLAIN BENCHEXISTINGCHANNEL(VARIES)15112'-15'BENCHTIE TO EXISTINGGROUND @ 3:1
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE63+0458+0059+0060+0061+0062+0063+0083838384838282S10MATCH LINE 60+00SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'7075808590707580859060+0060+5061+0061+5062+0062+5063+0063+5064+00-0.13%(STA 62+86)
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
306030EXISTING STREAMCENTERLINEEXISTING TOPOF BANK0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_GC.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S11PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH GC
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH GC4ENHANCEMENT ISTA 53+15 TO 62+86APPROXIMATE TOPOF BANK/BENCHELEVATIONEXISTINGCHANNEL(VARIES)15112'-15'BENCHTIE TO EXISTINGGROUND @ 3:1TYPICAL BENCH CROSS SECTIONFLOODPLAIN BENCHALONG LEFT BANKSTA 59+30 TO 61+50
BBBBBBBBB
B
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB BBB
B
B
B
BBBBB
B
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
T
B
TB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B
T
B TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBOHE OH
EOH
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE0+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+0012-113-113-212-211011095120115110120115110125105
105
100100999795
110115120125 110
MATCH LINE 6+00S13SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'95100105110115951001051101150+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+00-2.50%12-212-1306030REACH TV1-APRESERVATIONSTA 1+00 TO 5+50EXISTING STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTIE EXISTING CHANNELINTO PROPOSED BEDOF REACH TV-1EXISTING TOPOF BANKTYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION1.5'1.5'6.0'0.6'3.5'1.0'6.0'1.2'1.2'1.0'3.5'6.0'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH TV1-B STA 5+50 TO STA 8+910FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_TV1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S12PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH TV1
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH TV1-BRESTORATIONSTA 5+50 TO 8+90REACH TV5(SHEET S14)WIDEN AND STABILIZE EXISTING BREACH;CONSTRUCT A FLOODPLAIN BENCHSUCH THAT THE MINIMUM WITHTHROUGH THE BREACH IS 35'
BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBOHE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE5+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0011+1712-113-113-213-412-213-39292 929590939594100 100999795
92S12MATCH LINE 6+00SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'909510010511090951001051106+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+00-2.10%-0.53%13-313-213-113-4306030REACH TV1-BRESTORATIONSTA 5+50 TO 8+90EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTIE REACH TV-1 INTOPROPOSED BED OFREACH GC-2TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION1.5'1.5'6.0'0.6'3.5'1.0'6.0'1.2'1.2'1.0'3.5'6.0'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH TV1-B STA 5+50 TO STA 8+910FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_TV1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S13PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH TV1
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH GC(SHEET S3)REACH TV1-CHYRDOLOGIC RESTORATIONSTA 8+90 TO 11+05DITCH (A)(SHEET S3)
BBBB BBBB
BB BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBBTB TB TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTB
TBTBTB
TB
TBTB
TBTB
TB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBOHE OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE0+001+002+003+003+4911090939594
105 105
100
100
99
979514-214-114-3110115120 125
LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'95100105110115951001051101150+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+00-2.38%14-114-214-3306030REACH TV5-BRESTORATIONSTA 2+50 TO 3+44EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTIE REACH TV5 INTOPROPOSED BED OFREACH TV1EXISTING TOPOF BANK0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_TV5.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S14PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
REACH TV5
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION1.2'1.1'4.6'0.5'2.6'1.0'4.6'1.0'1.0'1.0'2.6'4.6'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH TV5-B STA 2+50 TO STA 3+44REACH TV1(SHEET S13)REACH TV5-APRESERVATIONSTA 0+00 TO 2+50
92
92 929292 9295969790939594100 10099979
2
7+220+00 0+50 1+001+50 2+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+507+00BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBOHE OHEOHEOHEOHEOHE
LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'909510010590951001051+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+507+007+50-2.02%-3.63%-0.36%-0.29%306030SWALE (A)STA 1+30 TO 6+80EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCENTER OF SWALETIE SWALE (A) INTOPROPOSED BANK OFREACH GC2/30FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_SWALE (A).dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S15PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
SWALE (A)
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ℄TYPICAL CROSS SECTION3.0'2.0'10.0'1.0'SWALE (A)STA 1+30 TO 5+30℄TYPICAL CROSS SECTION3.0'2.0'10.0'0.6'STA 5+30 TO 6+80PROPOSED TOPOF BANKREACH TV5(SHEET S14)REACH TV1(SHEET S13)REACH GC2/3(SHEET S3)PARTIALLY FILL ABANDONEDCHANNEL TO REDIRECTFLOW TO THE SOUTHTIE TO EXISTINGGROUND AT 5:1BOTH BANKS
BBB
B
BB
BB
BB
BBBB
BB BB BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBTBTB TBTBTB
TBTBT
B
TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TBTBTBTB TBTBTBT
B TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB TB TB TB TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB
TB
TB
TBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BB BB BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
LCELCE LCE
L
C
E
L
C
E
L
C
E
L
C
E
90
9
09090 95949594
9
3
16-116-20+001+002+003+004+004+33SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'80859095100808590951000+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+00-0.19%-0.19%-0.19%16-116-2306030SWALE (B)STA 2+40 TO 4+07EXISTING STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDTIE EXISTING DITCH INTOPROPOSED BED OFSWALE (B)0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_SWALE (B).dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711S16PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8/27/2020
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
SWALE (B)
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINATIE SWALE (B) INTOPROPOSED TOPOF REACH GC2/3REACH GC(SHEET S5)℄TYPICAL CROSS SECTION3.0'2.0'10.0'0.75'SWALE (B)STA 2+40 TO 4+07TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND AT 4:1BOTH BANKS
o o o o o o o o o o o o oo o oooo oooooooOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB BB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBB
BB BBBBBB BBBBBBBB BB BB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
TBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TBT
BTBTB
TBTBTB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTB TB
TB TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBBBBBB BBTBTB
TBTBTBTB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTB TBTB TBTB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOHEOHE OHELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE200400200LEGENDLIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENTLCEEXISTING FENCELINEPROPOSED FENCELINEFENCING NOTES:1.CONTRACTOR TO TIE PROPOSED FENCEINTO EXISTING FENCE WHERE APPLICABLETO MAINTAIN CATTLE EXCLUSION.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL FENCINGLOCATED WITHIN LIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENT.INSTALL APPROXIMATELY 1600LF OF WOVEN WIRE FENCESEE DETAIL SHT D3SWALE (B)REACH TV1REACH GC2/30FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711F1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
FENCING & IMPROVEMENTS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
8/27/2020 REACH TV5SWALE (A)REACH GC4REACH GC1
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ooo o oo ooooOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB BB BBBBBB BBBBBBBB BB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
TBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TBT
BTBTB
TBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTB TB
TB TB TBTB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBBBBBB BBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTB TBTB TBTB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOHEOHE OHELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCE200400200PLANTING NOTESALL PLANTING AREAS1.EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENTVEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THECONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACHWORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.2.DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN10 WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATIONSHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS.SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN.3.DUE TO THE HIGH ORGANIC MATTER OF EXISTING SOIL AND EXISTING NATURALSURFACE TOPOGRAPHY, SOIL SCARIFICATION MAY NOT BE NECESSARY IN ALL AREAS.HOWEVER, IN AREAS COMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, SOIL SHALL BEPREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BY DISC OR SPRING-TOOTH CHISEL PLOW TO AMINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSSPLANTING AREAS WITH THE IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOWTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS.4.BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEETD2. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2.5.BARE ROOT AND LIVE STAKE TREE SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO THETABLE SHOWN TO THE LEFT, BUT SPECIES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BASED ONAVAILABILITY.6.TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN 6"DBH SHALL BE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.7.SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO 6 PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIESARE GROUPED TOGETHER.8.BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 800 STEMS PER ACRE.9.LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONGBOTH BANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.10.TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALLDISTURBED AREAS WITH SLOPES EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3:1.11.PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHINTHE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.12.PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THECONSERVATION EASEMENT BREAKS AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.PLANTING LEGENDLive Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree SpeciesCommon NameScientific NamePercentCompositionButtonbushCephalanthus occidentalis30%Eastern cottonwoodPopulus deltoides30%Black willowSalix nigra40%PLANTING TABLEPermanent Riparian Seed MixCommon NameScientific NamePercentCompositionRiverbank Wild RyeElymus riparius25%DeertongueDichanthelium clandestinum20%Bur MarigoldBidens aristosa15%Fox SedgeCarex vulpinoidea10%Redtop PanicgrassPanicum rigidulum10%Soft RushJuncus effusus10%Luris SedgeCarex lurida5%Hop SedgeCarex lupulina3%River OatsChasmanthium latifolium2%LIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENTLCEEXISTING TREELINEPROPERTY LINERIPARIAN PLANTING(TOTAL AREA: 24.3 AC)0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711P1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
PLANTING PLAN
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
8/27/2020Bare Root Tree Planting SpeciesCommon NameScientific NamePercentCompositionBald cypressTaxodium distichum10%Swamp tupeloNyssa biflora10%ButtonbushCephalanthus occidentalis10%American sycamorePlatanus occidentalis10%River birchBetula nigra10%Laurel oakQuercus laurifolia10%Overcup oakQuercus lyrata10%Swamp chestnut oakQuercus michauxxi10%Willow oakQuercus phellos10%Cherrybark oakQuercus pagoda5%Green ashFraxinus pennsylvanica5%SWALE (B)REACH TV1REACH GC2/3REACH TV5SWALE (A)REACH GC4REACH GC1
o o o o o o o o o o o o ooo ooo o o oo o oooOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB BB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBB
BB BBBBBB BBBBBBBB BB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
TBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TBT
BTBTB
TBTBTB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TB
TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBBBBBB BBTBTB
TBTBTBTB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTB TBTB TB
TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOHEOHE OHELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE2004002000FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-1428BRCTRSAFMKMC0711W1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
WETLAND PLAN
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
8/27/2020 WETLAND LEGENDWETLAND ENHANCEMENT: 6.152 ACWETLAND RE-ESTABLISHMENT: 4.504 ACWETLAND PRESERVATION: 4.567 ACWESWALE (B)REACH TV1REACH GC2/3REACH TV5SWALE (A)REACH GC4REACH GC1WAWFWCWDWG
SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.us8/27/2020PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND10711KMCAFMTRSBRC DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WHEN AND WHERE TO USE ITSILT FENCE IS APPLICABLE IN AREAS:WHERE THE MAXIMUM SHEET OR OVERLAND FLOW PATH LENGTH TO THE FENCE IS 100-FEET.WHERE THE MAXIMUM SLOPE STEEPNESS (NORMAL [PERPENDICULAR] TO FENCE LINE) IS 2H:1V.THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CONCENTRATED FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 CFS.DO NOT PLACE SILT FENCE ACROSS CHANNELS OR USE IT AS A VELOCITY CONTROL BMP.CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:1.USE A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC OF AT LEAST 95% BY WEIGHT OF POLYOLEFINS OR POLYESTER, WHICH ISCERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER AS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM D 6461.SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE AMINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF 0° TO 120° F.2.ENSURE THAT POSTS FOR SEDIMENT FENCES ARE 1.33 LB/LINEAR FT STEEL WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 5 FEET.MAKE SURE THAT STEEL POSTS HAVE PROJECTIONS TO FACILITATE FASTENING THE FABRIC.CONSTRUCTION:1.CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENT BARRIER OF EXTRA STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRICS.2.ENSURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND SURFACE.(HIGHER FENCES MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE OF THE STRUCTURE.)3.CONSTRUCT THE FILTER FABRIC FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO AVOIDJOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER CLOTH ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH 4FEET MINIMUM OVERLAP TO THE NEXT POST.4.EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC WITH 6 FEET POST SPACING DOES NOT REQUIRE WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE.SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC DIRECTLY TO POSTS. WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES SHOULD HAVE MINIMUM 50POUND TENSILE STRENGTH.5.EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES WIDE AND 8 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE PROPOSED LINE OF POSTSAND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER.6.PLACE 12 INCHES OF THE FABRIC ALONG THE BOTTOM AND SIDE OF THE TRENCH.7.BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH SOIL PLACED OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT. THOROUGH COMPACTION OFTHE BACKFILL IS CRITICAL TO SILT FENCE PERFORMANCE.8.DO NOT ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES.MAINTENANCE:1.INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRSIMMEDIATELY.2.SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE ITPROMPTLY.3.REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN ANDTO REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT.4.REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE ANDSTABILIZE IT AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED.8"4"24" MIN
24" MIN
8"RUNOFFRUNOFF18" TO 24"FLAT-BOTTOM TRENCH DETAILV-SHAPED TRENCH DETAILSILT FENCE INSTALLATION18" TO 24"TEMPORARY SILT FENCENTSCOIR MATTINGNTSINSTALLATION NOTES:SITE PREPARATION1.GRADE AND COMPACT AREA.2.REMOVE ALL ROCKS, CLODS, VEGETATION, AND OBSTRUCTIONS SO THAT MATTING WILLHAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL.3.PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL ABOVE FINAL GRADE.4.TEST SOILS FOR ANY NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND SUBMIT SOIL TEST RESULTS TO THEENGINEER. APPLY ANY TREATMENT SUCH AS LIME OR FERTILIZERS TO THE SOIL IF NEEDED.SEEDING1.SEE PLANTING SHEETS FOR SEEDING REQUIREMENTS.2.APPLY SEED TO SOIL BEFORE PLACING MATTING.INSTALLATION - STREAM BANK1.SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND DETAIL SHEETS FORINFORMATION REGARDING WHAT AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE COIR MATTING.2.OVERLAP ADJACENT MATS 6" (IN DIRECTION PARALLEL TO FLOW) AND ANCHOR EVERY 12"ACROSS THE OVERLAP. THE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE DOWNSTREAMMAT.3.EDGES SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER.4.LAY MAT LOOSE TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT.5.ANCHOR MAT USING BIODEGRADABLE STAKES.6.EXTEND MAT 2 TO 3 FEET PAST TOP OF BANK.7.PLACE ADJACENT ROLLS IN THE ANCHOR TRENCH WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" OVERLAP.SECURE WITH BIODEGRADABLE STAKES, BACKFILL ANCHOR TRENCH, AND COMPACT SOIL.8.STAKE AT 12" INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP.9.IF MORE THAN ROLL IS REQUIRED TO COVER THE CHANNEL FROM THE TOP OF BANK DOWNTO THE TOE, THEN OVERLAP MATTING BY A MINIMUM OF 1'.EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST MEET OR EXCEED THEFOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:·100 % COCONUT FIBER (COIR) TWINE WOVEN INTO AHIGH STRENGTH MATRIX.·THICKNESS - 0.35 IN. MINIMUM.·SHEAR STRESS – 5 LBS/SQFT·FLOW VELOCITY- OBSERVED 16 FT/SEC·WEIGHT - 29 OZ/SY·OPEN AREA - 38%·SLOPES – UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 1:115'
(M
IN
.
)EXIST
ING
ROAD50' MIN.COARSE AGGREGATE -STONE SIZE = 2"-3"PURPOSE:STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE USED AT ALL POINTS WHERE TRAFFIC WILL BE LEAVING ACONSTRUCTION SITE AND MOVING DIRECTLY ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD. INSTALL A CULVERT PIPE ACROSS THE ENTRANCEWHEN NEEDED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE.CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:1.CLEAR THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AREA OF ALL VEGETATION, ROOTS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL ANDPROPERLY GRADE IT.2.PLACE THE GRAVEL TO THE SPECIFIC GRADE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DETAIL, AND SMOOTH IT.3.PROVIDE DRAINAGE TO CARRY WATER TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET.4.USE GEOTEXTILE FABRICS BECAUSE THEY IMPROVE STABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION IN LOCATIONS SUBJECT TOSEEPAGE OR HIGH WATER TABLE.MAINTENANCE:1.MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTIONSITE. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2-INCH STONE.2.AFTER EACH RAINFALL, INSPECT ANY STRUCTURE USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS NECESSARY.3.IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS SPILLED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLICROADWAYS, OR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS.TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCENTSNOTE: HOSE SHOULD BEKEPT OUTSIDE OF WORKAREANOTES:1.EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY IN DRY AND/OR ISOLATED SECTIONS OF CHANNEL.2.IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAM FLOW.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED IN ONEWORKING DAY. A MAXIMUM OF 200 FEET MAY BE DISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING PUMP SIZE SUFFICIENT TOPUMP BASE FLOW.5.DIKE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON-ERODIBLE MATERIALS SUCH AS SANDBAGS.SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION:1.INSTALL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTFALL USING CLASS A RIP RAP AT THEDOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY PIPINGTHAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK AREA TO THESTABILIZED OUTFALL.3.INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAMDIVERSION.4.INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND DEWATERING PUMPING APPARATUS IFNEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSESHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA. THIS WATER WILL ALSO BEPUMPED TO AN OUTFALL STABILIZED WITH CLASS A RIP RAP.5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFOREREMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE. WHEN DEWATERING AREA, ALL DIRTY WATER MUST BEPUMPED THROUGH A SILT BAG. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND TEMPORARYFLEXIBLE HOSE/PIPING STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.6.ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE ALL RIP RAP AND IMPERVIOUS DIKES ANDSTABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH.7.ALL WORK IN CHANNEL MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE REMOVING IMPERVIOUS DIKE.SILT BAG PROFILE15' TO 20'FLOWINTAKE HOSEPUMP AROUNDPUMPCLASS ASTONEWORKAREADE-WATERINGPUMPIMPERVIOUSDIKESILT BAGLOCATIONSTABILIZED OUTFALLCLASS A STONEFILTER FABRICEXISTINGGROUNDDISCHARGEHOSE8" OF CLASS ASTONEFILTER FABRICSTABILIZED OUTFALLCLASS A STONEEXISTINGCHANNELDISCHARGE HOSEIMPERVIOUS DIKECLASS ASTONEPUMP AROUND & DEWATERING DETAILNTSTEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAMNTSFLOWSECTION A-ANOTES:1.END OF DIKE AT GROUND LEVEL TO BE HIGHER THAN THE LOWESTPOINT OF FLOW CHECK2.SUFFICIENT SANDBAGS ARE TO BE PLACED TO PREVENT SCOURING3.SANDBAG BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THREE LAYERS OFSANDBAGS. THE BOTTOM LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 3 ROWS OFBAGS, THE MIDDLE LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 2 ROWS OF BAGS ANDTHE TOP LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 1 ROW OF BAGS4.THE RECOMMENDED DIMENSION OF A FILLED SANDBAG SHALL BEAPPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT X 0.5 FT X 1.5 FTSECTION B-BBBAAPLAN VIEWSANDBAG IMPERVIOUS DIKENTSBACKFILL TRENCH WITHCOMPACTED EARTH1.25 LB./LINEAR FT. STEEL POSTSEXTRA STRENGTHFILTER FABRICUSE EITHER FLAT-BOTTOMOR V-BOTTOM TRENCHSHOWN BELOWBURY FABRICHEAVY DUTY PLASTIC TIEFOR STEEL POSTS6' MAX WITH STANDARD FABRICFILTER FABRICCOMPACTEDEARTHFILTER FABRICFILTER FABRICCOMPACTEDEARTHRUNOFFFILTERFABRIC6" MIN.MIDDLE LAYERBOTTOM LAYERTOP LAYEREARTH SURFACETRENCH 0.25' DEEPONLY WHEN PLACED ONEARTH SURFACEENDS OF BAGS INADJACENT ROWS BUTTEDSLIGHTLY TOGETHERSEE NOTELOWEST POINTGROUND LEVELEARTH SURFACE1
.
0
'MI
N
.KEY-IN MATTINGSTAKE MATTING JUSTABOVE CHANNEL TOEAND BACKFILL W/RIFFLE MATERIAL2.0'MIN.6" RIFFLEMATERIALSECTION B-BFLOWSECTION A-APLANFLOWCLASS B RIP RAPSPILLWAY CREST1' MIN OF # 5WASHED STONECLASS BRIP RAPFILTER FABRICNOTES:1.CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDENR EROSION CONTROL MANUAL2.RIPRAP SHALL BE CLASS I3.PLACE ROCK DAM AS SHOWN ON PLANS. EXTEND CLASS B RIP RAP ROCKAPRON 2 FEET DOWNSTREAM FROM TOE OF ROCK DAM1.0' THICK CLASSB ROCK APRON1.0' THICK CLASSB ROCK APRONCUTOFF TRENCHFILTER FABRIC# 5 WASHED STONEBBAA3:
1
2:175% BKF
(2' MAX.)2' MIN.W (SPILLWAY)MIN. 23 STREAM WIDTH75% BKF
(2' MAX.)BANKFULLINSTALL PIPE PER DESIGN(IF NEEDED)MAINTENANCE:1.INSPECT CHECK DAM PERIODICALLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANTRAINFALL EVENT FOR DAMAGE AND SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION2.AT A MINIMUM, REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN ACCUMULATIONS REACHONE-HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE3.REPLACE OR CLEAN SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE AS NEEDED TOALLOW WATER TO DRAIN THROUGH THE DEVICE BETWEEN RAINFALLEVENTSMAINTENANCE:1.PERIODICALLY INSPECT SANDBAG DIKE FORDAMAGE AND LEAKS AND REPAIR AS NEEDED2.REMOVE IMPOUNDED TRASH AND SEDIMENT4' MAX.WOVEN FILTER FABRICSTEEL POSTHARDWARE CLOTHWIRE FENCINGSTEEL POSTFLOWMAINTENANCE NOTES:1.FILTER OUTLETS SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY ORHIS AGENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURINGPROLONGED RAINFALL. ANY REPAIRS NEEDED SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY.2.THE STONE SHALL BE REPLACED PROMPTLY AFTER ANY EVENT THAT HAS CLOGGEDOR REMOVED IT.3.SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN DEPOSITS REACH HALF THEHEIGHT OF THE BARRIER. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER THESILT FENCE OUTLET IS REMOVED SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM TO THE EXISTINGGRADE, PREPARED AND SEEDED.GENERAL NOTES:1.SEDIMENT FILTER OUTLET AND HARDWARE CLOTH SHALL BE 16 INCHES HIGH BUT NO TALLERTHAN 18 INCHES.2.HARDWARE CLOTH SHALL BE ANCHORED TO THE STEEL POSTS SECURELY USING APPROPRIATEANCHORS. HARDWARE CLOTH SHALL BE KEYED IN A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES IN LENGTH ANDBACKFILLED PROPERLY AS SHOWN IN ABOVE DETAIL. HARDWARE CLOTH TO BE SAME AS STD.#30.09 (19 GAUGE, 1/4" SPACING).3.POSTS SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 4 FEET APART.4.SITE OUTLETS AT ANY POINT SMALL CONCENTRATED FLOWS ARE ANTICIPATED AND AT THEDIRECTION OF THE INSPECTOR.5.ONE ACRE MAXIMUM DRAINAGE AREA PER OUTLET.(IF APPLICABLE)WASHED STONE(NCDOT #5 OR #57)WASHED STONE(NCDOT #5 OR #57)HARDWARE CLOTHBETWEEN POSTS ANDCOVERED BY STONEANCHOR SKIRT;EXCAVATE TRENCH ANDCOMPACT BACKFILL8"4"SILT FENCE OUTLETNTS
LINE PANELWOVEN WIRE:ASTM CLASS 3 GALVANIZED.TOP AND BOTTOM WIRES MIN. 12 GAUGE.INTERMEDIATE AND STAY WIRES MIN.12 1/2 GAUGE.NOTES:1.LINE POSTS (WOODEN): MIN. 4 IN. DIAM. OR 4 IN. SQUARE.2.LINE POSTS (STEEL): STUDDED OR PUNCHED T, U, OR Y SHAPED, WITH ANCHOR PLATES.3.MIN. WEIGHT 1.3 LBS./FT. (EXCLUDING ANCHOR PLATE). POSTS SHALL BE DRIVEN A MINIMUMOF 18" DEEP AND MUST BE AT LEAST 5.5 FT IN LENGTH4.SPECIES AND TREATMENT FOR ALL WOOD: USE UNTREATED DURABLE POSTS OF SPECIESSUCH AS RED CEDAR, BLACK LOCUST OR OSAGE-ORANGE WITH BARK REMOVED, ORNON-DURABLE WOOD THAT IS PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE TREATED (0.40 LBS./CUBIC FOOTCCA, OR EQUIVALENT NON-CCA TREATMENT). DO NOT USE RED PINE.WOVEN WIRE FENCE (NRCS DETAIL 382A)NTSWOVEN WIRE WITH ONE BARB DETAIL16' MAX.4" TO 6"3" MIN.32" TO 42"6"6' MIN.2' MIN.SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.us8/27/2020PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND20711KMCAFMTRSBRC DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA LINE POSTWOVEN WIREBARBED ORELECTRIC WIRELINE POSTBARBED ORELECTRIC WIREWOVEN WIREGROUND LINELINE POSTTIMBER MAT CROSSINGTIMBER MAT APPROACHFLOW(5' MIN)RIP RAP APPROACHPLAN VIEWSECTION VIEWTIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CROSSINGNTSTOP OF BANKCLASS B RIP RAPTIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPERPENDICULARTIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPARALLELTIMBER MAT(TYP)CARRIAGE BOLTTOE OF BANK(TYP)TIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPERPENDICULARTOP OF BANKCLASS B RIP RAPCARRIAGE BOLT(TYP)FILTER FABRICAPPROXIMATE BASE FLOWWATER SURFACETIMBER MATINSTALLED PARALLELTOE OF BANKSEDIMENT RAILMIN HEIGHT = 4"SEDIMENT RAILMIN HEIGHT = 4"NOTES:1.TIMBER MATS SHALL BE USED FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESSTO TRAVERSE WET AND/OR MUDDY ARES ADJACENT TO THE STREAM ANDTO CROSS THE STREAM AND OTHER CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS.2.THE STREAM CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A DRY CONDITION WHENFLOW IS LOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO DISTURBANCE OF THECHANNEL BED AND BANKS AS A RESULT OF INSTALLING THE APPROACHESOR CROSSING.3.THE LENGTH OF TIMBER MAT REQUIRED TO CROSS THE STREAM ORCONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE TIMBER MATEXTENDS PAST THE TOP OF BANK ON EACH SIDE OF THE CROSSING ASUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO SUPPORT THE MAXIMUM EQUIPMENT SIZE USINGTHE CROSSING.4.STREAM CROSSINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT LENGTHSORIENTED PERPENDICULAR TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS. TIMBERMAT STREAM APPROACHES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MATLENGTHS ORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS.5.TIMBER MATS SHALL HAVE A SOLID DECK WITH NO GAPS OR SPACESALLOWED BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL BOARDS/TIMBERS.6.A 4" MINIMUM HEIGHT SEDIMENT RAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED AT STREAMCROSSINGS TO PREVENT TRACKED SEDIMENT FROM FALLING INTO THESTREAM BED.7.STREAM CROSSING APPROACHES FROM DRY AREAS SHALL BECONSTRUCTED USING CLASS B RIP RAP PLACED OVER FILTER FABRIC.8.ALL TIMBER MATS, FILTER FABRIC, AND RIP RAP SHALL BE COMPLETELYREMOVED FROM THE SITE WHEN THE CROSSING IS REMOVED.EROSION CONTROL WATTLENTSNOTES:1.EROSION CONTROL WATTLES OR COIR LOGS/WATTLESMAY BE USED IN PLACE OF SILT FENCE2.INSTLL A MINIMUM OF 2 UPSLOPE STAKES AND 4DOWNSLOPE STAKES AT AN ANGLE TO WEDGEWATTLE IN PLACEEXISTINGGRADEMINIMUM 9" EROSIONCONTROL COIR WATTLE/LOGSLOPEINSTALL WATTLE IN2" TO 3" TRENCH2" x 2" X 2' WOODENSTAKE ON 2' CENTERSPROFILE VIEWMAINTENANCE:1.INSPECT WATTLE PERIODICALLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANTRAINFALL EVENT FOR DAMAGE AND SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION2.REPLACE OR CLEAN WATTLE AS NEEDED TO ALLOW WATER TODRAIN THROUGH THE NATURAL FIBERS BETWEEN RAINFALL EVENTSEXISTINGGRADEEROSION CONTROLWATTLE/ SILT FENCETYPICAL HAUL ROADEXISTINGGRADENTSNOTES:1.MAINTAIN HAUL ROAD DURING CONSTRUCTION2.RETURN TO ORIGINAL GRADE AT THE COMPLETION OF WORK3.VEGETATE ALL DISTURBED AREAS4.REMOVE COMPOST FILTER SOCK UPON ESTABLISHMENT OF VEGETATIONMIN 12.0'SLOPEFINISHED GRADE30'FL
O
WTYPICAL SECTIONCHANNEL PLUGNTSOLD CHANNEL TO BEDIVERTED OR ABANDONEDNEW CHANNEL TO BECONSTRUCTEDCOMPACTED BACKFILL(12" LIFTS)IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL(PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER)10' MINUNCOMPACTED BACKFILL1.5' MINIMUM1111CHANNEL PLUG30' MIN.BANKFULL ELEVATIONNEW CHANNEL BANK SHALLBE TREATED AS SPECIFIEDIN PLANSPROPOSEDCHANNEL INVERTTOE PROTECTIONPLAN VIEWEXISTINGCHANNELFILL 6" ABOVEBANKFULLFILL TO ATLEAST 70%OF BANKFULLMAX. 75'MIN. 25'CHANNEL ABANDONMENT AND BACKFILLNTSEXISTING CHANNELBOTTOMBANKFULL ELEVATIONCOMPACTED BACKFILL(12" TO 18" LIFTS)70% BKFL
MAX. 75'MIN. 25'PLAN VIEWTYPICAL SECTION6"NOTES:1.IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING CHANNEL IS TO BE ABANDONED, FILL EXISTINGCHANNEL TO BANKFULL ELEVATION WHEN POSSIBLE.2.CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED IN 12" TO 18" LIFTS AND COMPACTED ACCORDINGLY.3.WHEN SPOIL DOES NOT EXIST IN ORDER TO COMPLETELY FILL EXISTING CHANNELTO BANKFULL ELEVATION, FILL CHANNEL TO AN ELEVATION 6" ABOVE BANKFULLHEIGHT FOR AT LEAST 25 LF OUT OF EVERY 100 LF SEGMENT. REMAININGCHANNEL SECTIONS ARE TO BE FILLED TO A DEPTH OF NO LESS THAN 70% OFBANKFULL ELEVATION.4.IN AREAS WHERE THE EXISTING CHANNEL IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THECONSERVATION EASEMENT, THE CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED COMPLETELY IN 12"LIFTS.DIBBLE PLANTING METHODUSING THE KBC PLANTING BAR1. INSERTPLANTING BAR ASSHOWN AND PULLHANDLE TOWARDPLANTER.4. PULL HANDLE OFBAR TOWARDPLANTER, FIRMINGSOIL AT BOTTOM.2. REMOVEPLANTING BARAND PLACESEEDING ATCORRECT DEPTH.3. INSERTPLANTING BAR 2INCHES TOWARDPLANTER FROMSEEDING.5. PUSHHANDLEFORWARDFIRMING SOILAT TOP.6. LEAVECOMPACTIONHOLE OPEN.WATERTHOROUGHLY.PLANTING NOTES:PLANTING BAGDURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALLBE KEPT IN A MOIST CANVAS BAG ORSIMILAR CONTAINER TO PREVENT THEROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING.KBC PLANTING BARPLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADEWITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION,AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH THICK ATCENTER.ROOT PRUNINGALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOTPRUNED, IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NOROOTS EXTEND MORE THAN 10INCHES BELOW THE ROOT COLLAR.NOTES:BARE ROOTS SHALL BE PLANTED 6FT. TO 10 FT. ON CENTER,RANDOM SPACING, AVERAGING 8FT. ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY680 PLANTS PER ACRE.BARE ROOT PLANTINGNTS2"
SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.us8/27/2020PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND30711KMCAFMTRSBRC DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA TYPICAL PLAN VIEWCHANNEL TOPOF BANKCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKCOIR MATTINGF
LOWBRUSH TOE(CHANNEL DEPTH >1.5')NTSNOTES:1.OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACE LARGERBRANCHES AND LOGS IN A CRISS-CROSS PATTERN. LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILLCOVERING 6 IN TO 12 IN OF THE LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS.2.PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGER BRANCHES/SMALLLOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) AND COMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER.BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO LOCK IN PLACE.3.PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE SMALL BRANCHES AND BRUSH. SEE TABLEON PLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTING AND LIVE STAKE SPECIESAND COMPOSITION. CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TOALLOW BETTER ROOTING.4.INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTED SOIL PERDIRECTION OF ENGINEER. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE KEYED INTO TOP OFBANK.5.INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYER PERDIRECTION OF ENGINEER.6.LIVE CUTTINGS SHOULD NOT EXTEND PAST 13 OF CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH.AASECTION A-ASMALL LOGS AND/ORLARGE BRANCHES WITH AMIN DIAMETER OF 4"SMALL BRANCHESAND BRUSHCOMPACTED SOIL LIFTTOP OF BANKLIVE STAKES1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH1/4 MAX POOL DEPTHLIVE CUTTINGSINSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAILSEE DWG D1MIN 2.0'6"TOE PROTECTION(LARGER CHANNELS)KEY COIR MATTINGINTO BANKTYPICAL PLAN VIEWCHANNEL TOPOF BANKCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKCOIR MATTINGF
LOWBRUSH TOE(CHANNEL DEPTH <1.5')NTS1.OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. INSTALL SMALLERBRANCHES AND BRUSH AND COMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL ANDCOMPACT TO LOCK IN PLACE.2.PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE SMALL BRANCHES AND BRUSH. SEETABLE ON PLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTING AND LIVESTAKE SPECIES AND COMPOSITION. CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED ATCUTTING POINT TO ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.3.INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTED SOIL PERDIRECTION OF ENGINEER. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE KEYED INTO TOP OFBANK.4.INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYERPER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.AASECTION A-ASMALL BRANCHESAND BRUSHCOMPACTED SOIL LIFTTOP OF BANKLIVE STAKES1/4 MAX POOL DEPTHLIVE CUTTINGSINSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAILSEE DWG D1MIN 2.0'6"KEY COIR MATTINGINTO BANKNWSMIN5.0'MIN5.0'1.HAY BALES SHALL BE APPROXIMATLY 14" X 18" X 36" STANDARD 2 STRAND(BIODEGADABLE TWINE) BALES.2.OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. INSTALL HAY BALE,BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO LOCK IN PLACE.3.HAY BALES SHOULD BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT THE TOP OF THE BALE IS AT THESAME ELEVATION AS THE HEAD OF THE DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE.4.PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE HAY BALE. SEE TABLE ON PLANTING SHEET FORACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTING AND LIVE STAKE SPECIES AND COMPOSITION.CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.6.LIVE CUTTINGS SHOULD NOT EXTEND PAST 13 OF CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH.7.INSTALL COMPACTED SOIL LIFT. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE WRAPED UNDERSOIL LIFT AND KEYED INTO TOP OF BANK.8.INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYER PERDIRECTION OF ENGINEER.SECTION A-ACOMPACTED SOIL LIFTTOP OF BANKLIVE STAKESLIVE CUTTINGSINSTALL COIRMATTING PER DETAILMIN 2.0'KEY COIR MATTINGINTO BANKHAY BALE TOEMIN 0.3'NTSHAY BALE SHALL BE EVEN WITH DESIGNED BANKSLOPE. AVOID EXCESSIVE PROTUSION FROMBANK.DOWNSTEAM HEADOF RIFFLE ELEVATIONMIN3.0'TYPICAL PLAN VIEWCHANNEL TOPOF BANKCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKCOIR MATTINGFLOWA ANOTES:1.SEE TABLE ON PLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE SPECIES AND COMPOSITION.2.LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE 2 TO 3 FEET LONG AND 0.75 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER.3.LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ON 1.5' ALTERNATING SPACING ON LARGECHANNELS (POOL DEPTH > 2FT) AND 1.0' ALTERNATING SPACING ON SMALLCHANNELS (POOL DEPTH < 2FT).4.LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ON ALL RESTORATION REACHES AND ALONG ALLENHANCEMENT REACHES AS SHOWN ON LIVE STAKE SHEETS.LIVE STAKINGNTSPLAN VIEWNWSTYPICAL SECTIONCOIR FIBERMATTINGSMALL CHANNELSPACINGLARGE CHANNELSPACINGNWSTOB1.5'3.0'1.5'3.0'LIVESTAKE SPACINGLARGE CHANNELINSTALL LIVESTAKESAROUND OUTSIDE OFMEANDER BENDSINSTALL LIVESTAKESAROUND STRUCTURESFLOW
LIVESTAKECOIR FIBERMATTINGNWSTOB1.0'1.0'2.0'LIVESTAKE SPACINGSMALL CHANNELLIVESTAKECOIR FIBERMATTINGWATER TABLECOIR FIBERMATTINGFLAT TOP ENDLATERAL BUDSIDE BRANCHREMOVED ATSLIGHT ANGLE45 DEGREETAPERED BUTT END0.5' TO 1.5'18" MIN.0.75" TO 2"DETAIL
SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.us8/27/2020PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND40711KMCAFMTRSBRC DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA A'APLAN VIEWSECTIONAL VIEW A - A'NOTES:REBAR (1/2" MINIMUM DIAMETER 3' MIN. LENGTHTYPICAL) SHOULD BE PLACED 1' TO 3' FROM END OFLOG. ADDITIONAL REBAR TO BE PLACED AT 6'OFFSETS. LAST REBAR SHOULD BE PLACED 1' TO 3'FROM END OF LOG. DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BEUSED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR REBAR, 2 PER LOG.ADDITIONALLY, APPROPRIATELY SIZED BOULDERSMAY BE USED TO ANCHOR LOG SILLS AT THEDIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.FLOODPLAIN SILLNTSMINIMUMDIAMETER 12"6'REBARLOGS5' MIN.LENGTH VARIESDOWNVALLEY5/8" REBARPROPOSED FLOODPLAINSURFACE5' MIN.6" (TYP.)BANKFULL LIMITS OFPROPOSED CHANNELFLOWBBAAFLOWSECTION B-BSECTION A-AFLOWPROPOSEDSTREAM BEDCHANNEL TOPOF BANKCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKMIN 3.0'1.5'SMALL LOGS AND/ORLARGE BRANCHES WITH AMIN DIAMETER OF 4".SMALL BRANCHESAND BRUSHLIVE STAKESNOTES:1.DRIVE 2 ROWS OF 4" CEDAR POSTS ON MINIMUN 3'CENTERS PAST MINIMUM DEPTH AS SHOWN.2.FILL THE VOID BETWEEN POST ROWS W/ AN EVEN MIXOF HARDWOOD LOGS, LIMBS, AND BRUSH AS SHOWN.3.REDUCE POST SPACING AS NEEDED TO IMPROVESTRUCTURE STABILITY.2.0' MIN
BANKFULL2.0' MIN
2.0' MIN
2.0' MINENGINEERED SEDIMENT PACK (ESP)NTS4" CEDAR POSTLIVE STAKES3.0'LIVE STAKES3.0'LIVE STAKESTYPICAL PLAN VIEWSTREAM TOPOF BANKSTREAM BOTTOMOF BANKSECTION A-AWOODY DEBRIS (LOGS,BRANCHES, AND BRUSH)COMPACTED WITH SOILTO PROPOSED GRADEWOODY DEBRIS FILL(LOGS, BRANCHES, ANDBRUSH) COMPACTEDWITH SOILPROFILE VIEWEXISTING GROUNDBRUSH BEDNTSMIN3.0'FLOWWOODY DEBRIS (LOGS,BRANCHES, AND BRUSH)COMPACTED WITH SOIL TOPROPOSED GRADEFLOWPROPOSEDSTREAM BEDVARIES - SEE PLANSHEET PROFILEAAPROPOSEDSTREAM BEDNOTES:1.SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLINGCOIR MATTING.INSTALL COIR MATTINGPER DETAILEXCAVATE / GRADE UPPER BANKINSTALL LIVE STAKESPER DETAILEXISTING CHANNEL BANKTIE TO EXISTING GRADEMIN SLOPE 2.0H:1VEXISTINGCHANNEL BEDTYPICAL BANK GRADINGNTSBENCH VARIESSEE PLAN SHEETSFOR WIDTH
SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dugout\CAD\DWG\0711_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.us8/27/2020PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND50711KMCAFMTRSBRC DUGOUT STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAPROFILECROSS SECTION A-A'FLOWVARIES PER PROFILEEND RIFFLECONTROL POINTPROPOSED TOPOF BANKRIFFLE MATERIAL;SEE TABLE 1MAX 2"-3"BRANCHES0.75' MINTOP OF BANKPROPOSEDTOE OF BANKLARGE COBBLE/SMALLBOULDERS, TYPRIFFLE MATERIAL;SEE TABLE 1POOLRUNCHANNELBOTTOM WIDTHNOTES:1.TYPICAL RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL NEWLY GRADEDCHANNEL SECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT UNLESSOTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON PLAN SHEETS.2.ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THEBEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TO ESTABLISH PART OFTHE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTSSHALL BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLEINSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.3.RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF 70% SAND/GRAVELAND 30% WOODY MATERIAL. WOODY MATERIAL SHALL CONSISTOF LOGS, BRANCHES, AND BRUSH NO GREATER THAN 3" INDIAMETER. THE SAND/GRAVEL MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OFNATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL WHEN POSSIBLE. NATIVEMATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE-USEDFROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. IF A SUITABLEQUANTITY OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL CANNOT BEHARVESTED, CONTRACTOR MAY SUBSTITUTE THE RIFFLEMATERIAL WITH ROCK MATCHING THE COMPOSITION IN TABLE 1.4.THE PLACEMENT OF RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN AMANNER TO CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT“JUMP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM POOL-GLIDEAND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT “DROP”(TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND THE DOWNSTREAMRUN-POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLEMATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE ANDDIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITHSOME VARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OFTHE SMALL POOLS AND LOGS.5.THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHERIN-STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL , J-HOOK, ETC.). NO LOGSSHOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THEPROPOSED STRUCTURE.BEGIN RIFFLECONTROL POINTTYPICAL RIFFLENTSTABLE 1 - STONE COMPOSITIONREACHSTONE SIZE%GC2/GC3NATIVE50PEA GRAVEL30#520TV1/TV5NATIVE30#540SURGE30POOLGLIDEFLOWA'ALARGE COBBLE/SMALL BOULDERSWOODY RIFFLENTSPLAN VIEWPROFILECROSS SECTION A-A'FLOWVARIESEND RIFFLECONTROL POINTPROPOSED TOPOF BANKBEGIN RIFFLECONTROL POINTVARIES CHANNELBOTTOM WIDTHBEGIN RIFFLEEND RIFFLEFLOWTOP OF BANKTOE OF BANKVARIESVARIESVARIESRIFFLERUNGLIDE TOP OF BANKRIFFLE MATERIAL0.75' MINTOP OF BANKPROPOSED TOEOF BANKTHALWEGTHALWEGCHANNELBOTTOM WIDTHNOTES:1.WOODY RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.2.ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TO ESTABLISH PART OF THE PROFILEOF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN ATOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.3.RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A 60/40 MIX OF WOODY MATERIAL AND ROCKS. WOODY MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF LOGS,BRANCHES, AND BRUSH NO GREATER THAN 4" IN DIAMETER. THE ROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL WHENPOSSIBLE. NATIVE MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE-USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. IF A SUITABLEQUANTITY OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL CANNOT BE HARVESTED, CONTRACTOR MAY SUBSTITUTE THE RIFFLE MATERIAL WITH ROCKMATCHING THE COMPOSITION IN TABLE 1.4.THE PLACEMENT OF RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TO CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT “JUMP”(TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM POOL-GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT “DROP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THERIFFLE AND THE DOWNSTREAM RUN-POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPEAND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION.5.THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER IN-STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL OR J-HOOK).6.THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM BANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED BY THE DESIGNER. THE "KEY" SHALLEXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK AT THE BEGINNING (CREST) OF THE RIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANKVEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY" MAY NOT BE USED (OR THE DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.A'ARIFFLE MATERIAL; MIX OFWOODY DEBRIS (BRANCHES ANDBRUSH) AT 60%, AND NATIVESUBSTRATE MATERIAL AT 40%RIFFLE MATERIAL; MIX OF WOODYDEBRIS (BRANCHES AND BRUSH) AT60%, AND NATIVE SUBSTRATEMATERIAL AT 40%POOLTABLE 1 - STONE COMPOSITIONREACHSTONE SIZE%GC2/GC3NATIVE50PEA GRAVEL30#520TV1/TV5NATIVE30#540SURGE30NTSLOG SILLSECTION B-B'TYPICAL PLAN VIEWAA'BB'FLOW5.0'MINHIGHLOWHIGHLOWNOTES:1.LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED2.COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF #57 STONE, SURGESTONE, AND CLASS A RIPRAP3.ANCHORS ARE ONLY NECESSARY IF CONSTRUCTING SILLS WITHIN FEMA FLOOD ZONE4.NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5' ALONG THE LOG5.HIGH SIDE OF LOG SHALL BE APPROX. 0.2' HIGHER THAN LOW END6.LOG DIMENSIONS:MIN DIAM. = 12"MIN LENGTH = 18'CHANNEL TOPOF BANKCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)CHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANK DUCKBILL ANCHORS (OREQUIVALENT) INSTALLEDPER MANUFACTURERSINSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)COIR MATTINGHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGPOOLNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)BRUSH TOE PROTECTIONLENGTH = BKF WIDTH(UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED ON THE PLANS)SECTION A-A'FLOWMIN. 5.0'DUCKBILL ANCHOR(OR EQUIVALENT)PROPOSEDSTREAM BEDTACK FABRICTO LOGBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (SEE NOTE #2)SEE PROFILE FORPOOL DEPTHSCOUR POOLNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)5 - 20°2 - 4%POINT REFERENCED INSTRUCTURE TABLE;TOLERANCE ± 0.1'POINT REFERENCEDIN STRUCTURE TABLE;TOLERANCE ± 0.1'