20210536 Ver 1_SAW-2021-00489_RevisedDraftPlan_20221031

ID#* 20210536
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 10/31/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 10/31/2022
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Ben Carroll
Project Information
.....................................................
ID#:* 20210536
Existing ID#
Project Type: DMS • Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Tobacco Road Mitigation Project -
Stream,Wetland, Buffer, Nutrient
County: Alamance
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address-*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: TobaccoRoad SAW-2021-
116MB
00489_Revised DraftPlan. pdf
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name: * Benton R Carroll
Signature: *
ffm�w_�

fires
October 31, 2022
Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Dr., Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
Subject: Cape Fear 02 Instrument Modification Tobacco Road Revised Draft Mitigation Plan Submittal
(SAW-2021-00489)
Dear Ms. Dailey,
On behalf of Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) & Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (a RES affiliate), I
am pleased to submit the Revised Draft Mitigation Plan for the Tobacco Road Site, an Instrument Modification for
the RES Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank. An Instrument Modification was submitted in March 2021, put on
public notice on June 25,2021, and issued an initial evaluation letter on August 17, 2021. A draft Mitigation Plan was
submitted on June 3, 2022; and comments were received on August 17, 2022.
The attached plan addresses the draft mitigation plan comments provided by the IRT and includes minor modifications
to the easement and alignments. The alterations and updates are summarized below and detailed in the Mitigation
Plan:
• The revised draft mitigation plan presents 8,311.010 SMUs (8,305.740 SMUs in the draft mitigation plan),
through stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation. This increase in SMUs was driven by minor
tweaks in alignment and stationing.
• The revised draft mitigation plan presents 2.096 WMUs (2.771 WMUs in the draft mitigation plan). This
decrease in WMUs is primarily driven by the exclusion of created wetland Cl, which was removed due to
an inconsistency in deed language that required RES to adjust the easement to avoid any potential issues in
the future.
• Additional information about Layered Riffles has been provided in Appendix C
• The Draft Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Plan was submitted as part of the appendices of the
Draft Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan; comments were received from NCDWR on October 12, 2022.
These will be addressed and submitted as Appendix A in the Final Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan. It is
not included as part of the appendices in the Revised Draft Steam and Wetland Mitigation Plan.
Thank you for your time and consideration for this Project and we look forward to our continued work together as this
Project progresses. Please contact me at 336-514-0927 or [e-mail] if you have any questions or require any
additional information.
Sincerely,
Ben Carroll, P.E.
Engineer / Project Manager
res. us

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
CESAW-RG/Dailey August 17, 2022
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Action ID # SAW-2021-00489, NCIRT Review Comments on the RES Cape
Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Tobacco Road Mitigation Project, Draft Mitigation
Plan
Erin Davis, NCDWR:
1. Page 9, Section 3.3 — Please confirm you have consulted with NCDOT and local
government planning web resources or contacted agency staff regarding
potential future projects in the project vicinity (e.g., DOT highway road widening
or culvert maintenance/replacement, Dominion Energy gas line
maintenance/expansion, Alamance County and/or local municipal
comprehensive land use or community master plans, etc.). DWR appreciates that
future land use was a consideration in sizing proposed crossings.
2. Page, 10, Section 3.4 — Has any evidence of beaver been observed onsite?
3. Page 11, Table 6 — It would be helpful to have columns included for reach
drainage areas and NCSAM scores.
4. Page 11, Section 3.4.1 — Please note if the project captures any of the stream
origins. Based on Sheets E2 & E3, it appears that the project captures the origins
of MN4-A, MN5-A, MN6-A, MN9, and TR2.
5. Page 11, Section 3.4.1, Reach TR1-A — How is the impoundment connected to
the project stream? If by an outlet, does the outlet structure appear stable and
maintained?
6. Page 19, Section 3.5.1 — Given the significant number of proposed crossings and
easement breaks, please include a table summarizing pertinent information (e.g.,
location/reach, need/justification, easement break width, external vs. internal
break, crossing type). Please explain why the TR1-C reach landowner access
easement break cannot be collocated within the utility easement break. Please
explain why the MN4 reach easement break and crossing cannot be shifted
upstream beyond the project boundary. If the TR1-C and MN4 crossings cannot
be eliminated, can they become internal easement crossings?
7. Page 19, Section 3.5.3 — DWR appreciates the discussion of the monarch
butterfly and the inclusion of swamp milkweed in the proposed permanent seed
mix.
8. Page 26, Section 6.1 — Please map the locations of the selected reference
streams. One of the two reference reaches is a sand bed system, does that
change how the reference data is applied? Also, both reference reaches have
larger drainage areas than many of the project tributaries and identified as

-z-
Rosgen Class E stream types whereas project reaches are proposed as Class C.
How does this affect the way the reference data is applied?
9. Page 27, Section 6.2 - Log sills are the only listed grade control structure for
intermittent reaches MN3, MN4, MN7, and MN8. DWR has observed log sills on
intermittent reaches, particularly in the slate belt region, breaking down before
the end of the monitoring period. Are there any concerns with long-term stream
stability?
10. Page 29, Section 6.2, MN2-A — Please add livestock exclusion to the list.
11. Page 34, Section 6.2.3 —
a. The narrative discusses diches and seeps plural; however, Figure 7 only
shows one ditch and one seep within the project area, please confirm.
Also, please callout "plugging surrounding drainage features" on
corresponding design sheets.
b. What are the max. depths for proposed shallow depression and pools?
Will these features be designed to dry seasonally?
c. Wetland rehabilitation requires the function uplift of multiple characteristic
(e.g., hydrology and vegetation). However, based on Sheets W2 and P2,
wetland credit areas WO, WQ and WR are not proposed to be planted
(even supplementally). Therefore, DWR supports hydrologic enhancement
at 2:1 as a more appropriate ratio for these wetland credit areas.
d. DWR encourages the placement of woody debris as habitat enhancement
in project wetland and floodplain areas.
12. Page 36, Section 6.2.4.1 — In the prospectus there was a 254-foot section of
Reach TR1-C proposed as "uncredited", likely due to fragmentation by two
easement breaks. This change was not mentioned in this section. If both external
easement breaks are proposed to remain, DWR does not support the change in
crediting for this fragmented reach section. Additionally, DWR cannot support the
requested TR1-C and TR1-D credit change without reviewing additional
information on the proposed Layered Riffle treatment. Please see DWR comment
#49.
13. Page 38 Section 6.3 and Page 41 Section 6.4 — Two natural community types
were identified as references and combined into one of two planting zones. What
is the vegetative reference for the second planting zone?
14. Page 39, Table 12 — Black willow is listed in planting zone 2 as a canopy tree to
be installed as live stakes. Are you proposing to count live stake stems in your
vegetation performance standard monitoring? Also, was another wetland
understory species considered to enhance diversity (e.g., buttonbush, spicebush,
serviceberry, elderberry)?
15. Page 40, Section 6.3.2 —
a. Will fescue be treated prior to or during construction?
b. Murdannia keisak was identified in the existing wetlands. This species has
caused significant issues in wetland credit areas on other mitigation
projects. What is your treatment approach?

-3-
c. Please confirm that the initial invasive species treatment will occur during
the construction phase for the entire easement area.
16. Page 40, Section 6.3.3 — Will existing site topsoil be stockpiled for reuse? DWR
is particularly concerned with treatment of poor soils in Priority 2 cut areas, steep
slopes, and floodplain to upland transition slopes.
17. Page 41, Section 6.5 — Should there be a subsection discussion and/or table for
proposed wetland credits?
18. Page 43, Section 7 — Please provide a Wetland Success Criteria subsection,
including the minimum proposed hydroperiod and determination of growing
season.
19. Page 43, Section 7.1.2 — Based on the slate belt location and very small
drainage areas, DWR is concerned with flow on multiple tributaries. As a
reminder, the 30 consecutive days flow is the very minimum threshold to meet
the performance standard and not a target to demonstrate success.
20. Page 45, Section 8.5 —
a. Please identify the proposed growing season start and end dates and
source/method of determination.
b. Please identify if a rain gauge will be installed onsite. If not, please explain
why and list source location(s) for rainfall data, including distance from
project site.
c. DWR requests soil data be collected during MY7 near the eight wetland
creation gauges for comparison to soil data collected at MYO (as required
by the 2016 NCIRT Guidance) to check for development of hydric soil
characteristics.
d. As noted in Section 10.1, re -delineation of wetland credit areas may be
required if areas are not meeting the minimum hydroperiod and/or clearly
exhibiting wetland habitat indicators.
21. Page 45, Section 8.7 — The baseline monitoring report should also include
verification of the installation of conservation easement boundary
markers/signage.
22. Page 47, Table 16 — There is no mention of wetland monitoring metrics or
performance standards. Understanding that the stream functions pyramid
framework is the presenting format, please integrate wetland information into this
monitoring requirements table if wetland credit is proposed.
23. Page 50, Table 17 — The stream component description ends with an "and", is
there more information to be included?
24. Page 51, Section 10.1 — Were encroachment risks evaluated based on current
land use and property owner(s)? How would future development surrounding the
site potentially affect the project? What are the risks associated with the proximity
to a DOT highway and utility gas transmission line? If the large Dutchy Airpark
impoundment upstream breaches, what is the risk to the project?
25. Page 53, Section 12.1 — Please add a bullet for "documentation of the
establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow account".

-4-
26. Page 55, Section 13 — Please correct the total endowment funding amount to
match the UP2S spreadsheet in Appendix B, $41,840. There are no five percent
returns.
27. Figures —
a. Please add a figure showing all assets proposed for the site, including
stream, wetland, buffer and nutrient offset.
b. A color LiDAR map would be helpful for this review.
28. Figure 5 — The Project Parcels do not appear to perfectly align with the Adjacent
Parcels. Are these features from different data sources or do they reflect
proposed changes to existing parcel boundaries?
29. Figure 13 —
a. This is a very busy figure. Given the scale and size of proposed wetland
credit areas, please consider presenting with multiple figures.
b. Please show the stage recorder along TR1-B as specified in Section 8.3.
c. Please add a wetland gauge to rehab area WK. And please see requested
gauge location shifts within WQ and C3 on attached figure mark-up.
d. Please dedicate one random veg plot to shift between planted wetland
rehab credit areas throughout monitoring.
30. Appendix B — Please note that the federal mileage rate is not 0.625. Also, have
you adjusted for inflation?
31. Sheet S1 —
a. Does the easement station number called out on the profile correspond to
the start of project reach credit? Is this the case on all plan sheets?
b. There appears to be an access path/road within the proposed easement,
please call out if this path/road will be removed.
32. Sheet S3 — Please callout the DOT road easement/ROW.
33. Sheet S4 — Please include a typical detail for the proposed stormwater swale
feature (including swale dimensions with max. depth, matting, seeding/planting).
Will stone be used in any form (e.g., outlet protection)? Are there any stability
concerns with directing concentrated flow over the abandoned channel plug?
34. Sheet S5 — Are there any concerns that the proposed stormwater swales within
the abandoned channel may inadvertently create preferential flow paths back
within the abandoned channel in the future? Are there any concerns that
connecting a stormwater swale just upstream of a log sill may erode the bank
anchoring the structure?
35. Sheet S6 — Please callout the utility easement/ROW on all applicable sheets.
36. Sheet S10 —
a. Please provide a callout description for the isolated plug in the floodplain.
b. Is the jurisdictional feature where the stormwater swale is proposed
expected to remain jurisdictional post -construction (i.e., not backfilled or
plugged)? If so, please confirm with USACE that BMPs are allowed within
jurisdictional features.

-5-
37. Sheet S14 — Please include a typical detail for the proposed engineered
sediment pack.
38. Sheet S16 — Does any concentrated flow from the pond just east of the project
enter the easement?
39. Sheet 19 — Sediment and erosion control measures to stabilize the steep slope
while groundcover establishes will be critical along the proposed cascade, as
well as other floodplain to upland transition slopes. Based on past project review
observations, these slopes are susceptible to become veg problem areas.
40. Sheet 23 - There appears to be an access path/road within the proposed
easement, please call out if this path/road will be removed.
41. Sheet 26 — Please callout Reach MN5-A.
42. Sheet S29 — The proposed realignment of MN6-B extends the reach length by
150 feet and parallels Reach TR1-D. Please provide a justification for the
extension and explain why an earlier tie-in is not appropriate.
43. Sheet S32 — Please add the easement line and station number callout to the
profile.
44. Sheets W1-W3 — If not included on the stream plan sheets, please show
proposed grading within wetland credit areas, noting any areas to be excavated
greater than 12 inches.
45. Sheet P1 — Please confirm that planting notes are consistent with plan narrative.
Also, please identify the proposed temporary seed species.
46. Details — Typical crossing details were missing. Preliminary culvert details should
be included in the draft mitigation plan for IRT review.
47. Sheet D2, Channel Abandonment and Backfill — The plan narrative mentions
shallow depressions and pools. Are these features only proposed within the
abandoned channels? If not, please show/callout on plan sheets and add a
typical detail.
48. Sheets D4 & D5 - Please consider aquatic passage in the max. drop depth
design and construction of proposed log sill and rock sill/vane structures. This
has become a concern based on observations at recent project as -built site
walks.
49. Sheet D6 - Regarding the proposed Layered Riffle, DWR is unfamiliar with this
design and will need to review additional information before we can support the
proposed approach and crediting change for TR1-C and TR1-D.
a. We are concerned about the long-term sustainability of these structures
and question whether they are suitable for a slate belt stream system.
Please provide more information about this technique (including photos
over time) and multiple examples of where it has been successfully
implemented. Examples should be situations similar to the proposed
setting and purpose.
b. Please provide a reach specific performance standard to demonstrate that
the functional uplift of increased overbank flow and floodplain connectivity

is achieved. Please include reach and structure specific monitoring
measures.
c. Please address concerns about inhibiting aquatic passage if flow starts
piping through the brush layers.
d. Please provide adaptive management strategies for dealing with potential
stream instability issues in these proposed treatment areas for this site.
e. Figure 12 shows the proposed five-year inundation with the layered riffles
extending beyond the project easement. This appears to show potential
hydrologic trespass. Please discuss your hydrologic trespass risk analysis
and potential corrective measures.
Olivia Munzer, WRC:
1. Piedmont Alluvial Forests/Headwater Streams — According to Schaeffle, this
community does not typically have river birch, hackberry or sycamore (these
percentages should be reduced or species removed and replaced with other
species that typically occur within this community). Here is a description of the
vegetation that typically occurs in this community type:
https://www.ncnhp.org/media/468/open
2. Similarly, they should look at the species list for the Piedmont Bottomland/swamp
forest community: https://www.ncnhp.org/media/466/open and
https://www.ncnhp.org/media/464/open
3. This community is not dominated by sycamore, river birch or hackberry. I
recommend reducing the percent composition. Consider adding the following
species: American holly, hickories, American hornbeam, other oaks.
4. 1 have concerns for the large percent of eastern cottonwood — they use a large
amount of water and is more common in larger streams. I recommend other lives
stakes, like elderberry, buttonbush, ninebark, or other species appropriate for the
community.
5. For permanent seed mix, I would like to see one or two more flowering species
added to the list, such as goldenrod.
6. For the livestock fencing, we would prefer there is no barbed wire.
7. We recommend leaving some woody debris in small piles or individually
throughout the project to provide wildlife habitat.
Samantha Dailey
Project Manager
Regulatory Division

MEMORANDUM fires
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 919.770.5573 tel. [phone] fax
TO: Kim Browning — IRT
FROM: Benton Carroll — RES
DATE: October 31, 2022
RE: Response to Draft Mitigation Plan Comments — RES Cape Fear 02 Umbrella
Mitigation Bank, Tobacco Road Mitigation Project, (SAW-2021-00489), Cape Fear
03030002; Alamance County, NC
Please note in addition to your comments, wetland creation area "C1" was removed from this
submittal and the adjacent easement was revised due to an inconsistency RES discovered in the
Greeson Deed language. RES adjusted the easement in this location to avoid any potential issues
at easement closing.
NCDWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Page 9, Section 3.3 — Please confirm you have consulted with NCDOT and local government
planning web resources or contacted agency staff regarding potential future projects in the
project vicinity (e.g., DOT highway road widening or culvert maintenance/replacement,
Dominion Energy gas line maintenance/expansion, Alamance County and/or local municipal
comprehensive land use or community master plans, etc.). DWR appreciates that future land
use was a consideration in sizing proposed crossings.
No projects in the Project vicinity are shown on the NCDOT 2020-2029 State Transportation
Improvement Plan Projects Map, and RES met onsite with gas company representatives to
make sure future encroachment is prevented to the extent practical. The most recent land use
plan for the Project area, the Alamance County 2020 Land Development Plan, projects that the
Project and its drainage area will remain in agriculture and rural residential. Additional
language has been added to this section describing the above.
2. Page, 10, Section 3.4 — Has any evidence of beaver been observed onsite?
During baseline data collection and subsequent site visits, evidence of beaver has not been
observed. If beaver activity is observed during site preparation or the monitoring period,
appropriate management activities will be initiated. All beaver management activities will be
documented and included in annual monitoring reports.
3. Page 11, Table 6 — It would be helpful to have columns included for reach drainage areas and
NCSAM scores.

Columns for drainage areas, in acres, and NCSAM ratings have been included in Table 6.
4. Page 11, Section 3.4.1 — Please note if the project captures any of the stream origins. Based
on Sheets E2 & E3, it appears that the project captures the origins of MN4-A, MN5-A, MN6-
A, MN9, and TR2.
The project captures the origins of MN2-A, MN5-A, MN6-A, MN7, and MN9. Language has
been added to those reach descriptions to indicate as such.
5. Page 11, Section 3.4.1, Reach TR1-A — How is the impoundment connected to the project
stream? If by an outlet, does the outlet structure appear stable and maintained?
The pond upstream of the Project outlets into TR1-A through two 24" CMPs. The CMPs were
found to be in good condition.
6. Page 19, Section 3.5.1 — Given the significant number of proposed crossings and easement
breaks, please include a table summarizing pertinent information (e.g., location/reach,
need/justification, easement break width, external vs. internal break, crossing type). Please
explain why the TR1-C reach landowner access easement break cannot be collocated within
the utility easement break. Please explain why the MN4 reach easement break and crossing
cannot be shifted upstream beyond the project boundary. If the TR1-C and MN4 crossings
cannot be eliminated, can they become internal easement crossings?
A table has been made outlining the details of each crossing, Table 8. RES worked with the
landowner to minimize the number and impact of the proposed crossings. Unfortunately, the
landowner was adamant that all crossings be located as shown.
7. Page 19, Section 3.5.3 — DWR appreciates the discussion of the monarch butterfly and the
inclusion of swamp milkweed in the proposed permanent seed mix.
Thank you.
8. Page 26, Section 6.1 — Please map the locations of the selected reference streams. One of the
two reference reaches is a sand bed system, does that change how the reference data is
applied? Also, both reference reaches have larger drainage areas than many of the project
tributaries and identified as Rosgen Class E stream types whereas project reaches are
proposed as Class C. How does this affect the way the reference data is applied?
The locations of the reference reaches have been included as Figure 11. Having reference
reaches with larger DAs is not a problem if scaling factors are employed to translate to the
design reaches. Typically, E-type streams maintain their stability through established riparian
vegetation and would be less stable immediately post -construction. C-type reaches, which,
with their higher width -to -depth ratios and lower sinuosity, have a lower risk of developing
bed and bank issues in the transition period between construction and vegetative -community
maturity. As bank vegetation matures and bank roughness increases C-type channels may
move toward E-type channels. RES used the sand bed stream to provide an additional
reference to help bracket the lower end of appropriate channel dimensions to ensure our
design falls in the appropriate range.

9. Page 27, Section 6.2 - Log sills are the only listed grade control structure for intermittent
reaches MN3, MN4, MN7, and MN8. DWR has observed log sills on intermittent reaches,
particularly in the slate belt region, breaking down before the end of the monitoring period.
Are there any concerns with long-term stream stability?
Rock structures have been added to these reaches to provide long-term grade control.
10. Page 29, Section 6.2, MN2-A — Please add livestock exclusion to the list.
Livestock exclusion has been added to the list of mitigation activities.
11. Page 34, Section 6.2.3 —
a. The narrative discusses ditches and seeps plural; however, Figure 7 only shows one
ditch and one seep within the project area, please confirm. Also, please callout
"plugging surrounding drainage features" on corresponding design sheets.
Figure 7 shows two seeps and one ditch, which are not adjacent to existing or
proposed wetlands and which will not be plugged as part of the Project. The verbiage
"plugging surrounding ditches and seeps" in paragraph two has been revised to
"plugging surrounding drainage features." The features in question are primarily the
old stream channels which are being plugged as part of the stream restoration
activities; however, there is also one floodplain ditch which is being plugged in the
wetland creation area C3, as shown on sheet 510.
b. What are the max. depths for proposed shallow depression and pools? Will these
features be designed to dry seasonally?
The max. depths will be 14", as shown in the Channel Fill detail on Sheet D2, and some
of these depressions will be connected back to the proposed channel to assist in
seasonal drying.
c. Wetland rehabilitation requires the function uplift of multiple characteristic (e.g.,
hydrology and vegetation). However, based on Sheets W2 and P2, wetland credit areas
WO, WQ and WR are not proposed to be planted (even supplementally). Therefore,
DWR supports hydrologic enhancement at 2:1 as a more appropriate ratio for these
wetland credit areas.
Thank you for your comment. Based on the proposed design approach, wetland areas
WO, WQ, and WR, which currently have high quality riparian areas and will not undergo
any planting, have been revised to enhancement at a ratio of 2:1. These areas may
undergo invasive species treatment as necessary throughout the life of the project.
d. DWR encourages the placement of woody debris as habitat enhancement in project
wetland and floodplain areas.
RES will keep this in mind during the construction of the project.
12. Page 36, Section 6.2.4.1 — In the prospectus there was a 254-foot section of Reach TR1-C
proposed as "uncredited", likely due to fragmentation by two easement breaks. This change
was not mentioned in this section. If both external easement breaks are proposed to remain,
DWR does not support the change in crediting for this fragmented reach section. Additionally,

DWR cannot support the requested TR1-C and TR1-D credit change without reviewing
additional information on the proposed Layered Riffle treatment. Please see DWR comment
#49.
The portion of TR1-C in question was proposed as uncredited in the prospectus due to a lack
of minimum buffer along that portion, not because of the easement breaks:
"Stream mitigation along Reach TR1-C will involve 1,125 linear feet of Enhancement II;
however, only 871 linear feet of the total reach will be creditable due to a lack of
minimum riparian buffer (less than 50 feet out from the left top of bank to the
easement boundary)."
The current easement shape and surveyed TOB allow for more than 50' buffers through this
section, which, along with the uplift projected from the new Enhancement I approach,
informed the change in crediting. The paragraph has been updated to clarify.
13. Page 38 Section 6.3 and Page 41 Section 6.4 — Two natural community types were identified
as references and combined into one of two planting zones. What is the vegetative reference
for the second planting zone?
The second planting zone, referencing aspects of a Piedmont Bottomland/Swamp Forest
(Schafale, 2012), was created based on a few reasons; one reason being the species currently
present throughout the site including, but not limited to, white oak, red maple, sweet gum,
green ash, ironwood, winged elm, etc. The Chewacla soils evident throughout the site, typical
of a Piedmont Bottomland Forest, were also referenced when choosing the second planting
zone. Finally, second planting zone was based on industry experience with species that have
previously done well among other project sites with similar floodplain and wetland
characteristics in the Piedmont region. The species chosen do not directly follow any one
specified natural community, but rather take into account a combination of factors. The
species on this list all indicate that they are either facultative wetland or obligate wetland
species in the Piedmont region. That being said, a few additional species, more characteristic
of Piedmont Alluvial and Piedmont Bottomland Forests, have been included to both planting
zones; composition percentages of species that aren't directly referenced in the listed natural
community types have been adjusted.
14. Page 39, Table 12 — Black willow is listed in planting zone 2 as a canopy tree to be installed as
live stakes. Are you proposing to count live stake stems in your vegetation performance
standard monitoring? Also, was another wetland understory species considered to enhance
diversity (e.g., buttonbush, spicebush, serviceberry, elderberry)?
Yes, planted black willow livestakes that are proposed in Zone 2 planting areas only (excluding
those livestaked along the stream banks) will be counted in the vegetative performance
standard monitoring. The composition percentage of black willow livestakes has been lowered
from 10% to 5%, and additional understory wetland species, including northern spicebush
(Lindera benzoin), possumhaw (Ilex decidua), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) livestakes, have been included to enhance diversity.

15. Page 40, Section 6.3.2 —
a. Will fescue be treated prior to or during construction?
Yes, fescue and other nuisance pasture grasses will be treated prior to construction
completion. This has been added to Section 6.3.2.
b. Murdannia keisak was identified in the existing wetlands. This species has caused
significant issues in wetland credit areas on other mitigation projects. What is your
treatment approach?
Murdannia keisak was observed in one small area of existing Wetland C. Because it
was observed in such a small population, this area will be targeted and treated with a
selective, wetland -safe herbicide, e.g. triclopyr plus a non-ionic surfactant. Monitoring
for this species will continue throughout the life of the project and treated as necessary.
c. Please confirm that the initial invasive species treatment will occur during the
construction phase for the entire easement area.
The sentence, "Initial treatment for invasive species will occur during the construction
phase of the Project throughout the entire easement area," has been added to the
beginning of Section 6.3.2.
16. Page 40, Section 6.3.3 — Will existing site topsoil be stockpiled for reuse? DWR is particularly
concerned with treatment of poor soils in Priority 2 cut areas, steep slopes, and floodplain to
upland transition slopes.
RES will stockpile topsoil where feasible and will apply soil amendments as needed to ensure
tree success.
17. Page 41, Section 6.5 — Should there be a subsection discussion and/or table for proposed
wetland credits?
A wetland crediting table has been added to Section 6.5 below the stream crediting table.
18. Page 43, Section 7 — Please provide a Wetland Success Criteria subsection, including the
minimum proposed hydroperiod and determination of growing season.
A Wetland Success Criteria subsection has been added as Section 7.2 and can also be found
in the Wetland Mitigation Approach, Section 6.2.3.
19. Page 43, Section 7.1.2 — Based on the slate belt location and very small drainage areas, DWR
is concerned with flow on multiple tributaries. As a reminder, the 30 consecutive days flow is
the very minimum threshold to meet the performance standard and not a target to
demonstrate success.
RES understands the flow requirements and will monitor flow on all intermittent streams
generating restoration and enhancement credits through the monitoring period, as discussed
in Section 8.3.
20. Page 45, Section 8.5 —
a. Please identify the proposed growing season start and end dates and source/method
of determination.

According to an NRCS WETS table, recording data from a station at the Burlington-
Alamance Regional Airport, the growing season extends from March 21 to November
8 and is based on a daily minimum temperature greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit
occurring in five of ten years. This text has been added to Section 8.5.
b. Please identify if a rain gauge will be installed onsite. If not, please explain why and list
source location(s) for rainfall data, including distance from project site.
A rain gauge will not be installed on -site due to the proximity of a National Weather
Service Cooperative Observer Data Station situated along the Cane Creek reservoir
(station ID 311429) in Saxapahaw, NC, approximately four miles southeast of the
Project. The data is provided by the North Carolina State Climate Office, through the
Station Scout application. This text has been added to Section 8.5.
c. DWR requests soil data be collected during MY7 near the eight wetland creation
gauges for comparison to soil data collected at MYO (as required by the 2016 NCIRT
Guidance) to check for development of hydric soil characteristics.
The request for soil data during MY7 has been added to Section 8.5. This will include
borings, horizon information, and wetland gauge/water measurements.
d. As noted in Section 10.1, re -delineation of wetland credit areas may be required if
areas are not meeting the minimum hydroperiod and/or clearly exhibiting wetland
habitat indicators.
Thank you for this comment; we understand the importance of this measure if wetland
indicators are not otherwise being exhibited.
21. Page 45, Section 8.7 — The baseline monitoring report should also include verification of the
installation of conservation easement boundary markers/signage.
Verification of conservation easement installation has been included in Section 8.7
22. Page 47, Table 16 — There is no mention of wetland monitoring metrics or performance
standards. Understanding that the stream functions pyramid framework is the presenting
format, please integrate wetland information into this monitoring requirements table if
wetland credit is proposed.
Wetland performance and monitoring criteria have been added to Sections 7 and 8, as well as
the Monitoring Requirements Table (now Table 17).
23. Page 50, Table 17 — The stream component description ends with an "and", is there more
information to be included?
No; this typo has been corrected.
24. Page 51, Section 10.1 — Were encroachment risks evaluated based on current land use and
property owner(s)? How would future development surrounding the site potentially affect the
project? What are the risks associated with the proximity to a DOT highway and utility gas
transmission line? If the large Dutchy Airpark impoundment upstream breaches, what is the
risk to the project?

RES worked closely with the landowners to ensure that the appropriate accommodations
(fencing, wells, waterers, crossings, etc) are provided to prevent future encroachment issues.
We reviewed the NCDOT STIP and met onsite with gas company representatives to make sure
future encroachment is prevented to the extent practical. Future development is always a risk
but with appropriate floodplain connections and vegetative success this risk can be
significantly reduced. RES has designed this project to promote long-term success. The flood
wave from a failure of the Dutchy Airpark Dam would encounter HWY 54 before reaching
much of our site. This would drastically reduce the impact of a breach on the majority of our
project. TC1-A would likely see some impact, but it is also generating credit at a 7.5:1 ratio so
the number of credits impacted would be limited.
25. Page 53, Section 12.1 — Please add a bullet for "documentation of the establishment of the
long-term endowment/escrow account".
This bullet point has been added to the list.
26. Page 55, Section 13 — Please correct the total endowment funding amount to match the UP2S
spreadsheet in Appendix B, $41,840. There are no five percent returns.
The number in Section 13 has been updated to $41,840.
27. Figures —
a. Please add a figure showing all assets proposed for the site, including stream, wetland,
buffer and nutrient offset.
A series of asset maps have been added to the figure set as Figure 16.
b. A color LiDAR map would be helpful for this review.
A LiDAR map has been added to the figure set as Figure 7a.
28. Figures 5 — The Project Parcels do not appear to perfectly align with the Adjacent Parcels. Are
these features from different data sources or do they reflect proposed changes to existing
parcel boundaries?
The original parcel boundaries were derived from tax parcel data sourced from the Alamance
County interactive GIS database, which was likely out of data or had projection errors, causing
misalignment when placed over adjacent parcel data. A partial boundary survey was
completed, and the figure has been updated to show aligned parcel boundaries for both
project and adjacent parcels.
29. Figure 13 —
a. This is a very busy figure. Given the scale and size of proposed wetland credit areas,
please consider presenting with multiple figures.
Thank you for the suggestion, the map figure is now presented as multiple figures.
b. Please show the stage recorder along TR1-13 as specified in Section 8.3.
The stage recorder along TR1-B was covered up by cross section symbology. Now
that the map figure is presented in multiple figures, it will be more visible.

c. Please add a wetland gauge to rehab area WK. And please see requested gauge
location shifts within WQ and C3 on attached figure mark-up.
The wetland gauges have been edited/added accordingly.
d. Please dedicate one random veg plot to shift between planted wetland rehab credit
areas throughout monitoring.
A sentence has been added to Section 8.6 Vegetation Monitoring, detailing that one
of the five random plots will shift between planted wetland rehabilitation crediting
areas throughout the monitoring life of the Project.
30. Appendix B — Please note that the federal mileage rate is not 0.625. Also, have you adjusted
for inflation?
The Endowment Calculator was completed before the federal milage rate was adjusted. RES
reached out to UP2S and they confirmed that the original calculated total is sufficient to
protect the project. Per UP2S, inflation is not accounted for in the calculator but is anticipated
to be offset by the investment of the endowment.
31. Sheet S1 —
a. Does the easement station number called out on the profile correspond to the start of
project reach credit? Is this the case on all plan sheets?
The station number called out on the profile on sheet S1 is meant to be the start of
project reach credit but contained a typo, which has been corrected to 0+44. This is
now the case on all plan sheets; MN1-A and MN3 were also updated to start credit
stationing at the easement.
b. There appears to be an access path/road within the proposed easement, please call
out if this path/road will be removed.
This path will be removed, and a callout has been added to the sheet.
32. Sheet S3 — Please callout the DOT road easement/ROW.
The road label on sheet S3 has been updated to "NC HWY 54, (120' NCDOT ROW)". The line
type for the ROW has been updated to differentiate it from other property lines.
33. Sheet S4 — Please include a typical detail for the proposed stormwater swale feature (including
swale dimensions with max. depth, matting, seeding/planting). Will stone be used in any form
(e.g., outlet protection)? Are there any stability concerns with directing concentrated flow over
the abandoned channel plug?
A typical detail has been added to sheet D6. The goal for the Swale is to direct water from the
old channel path into the new channel to prevent preferential flow of either surface or
groundwater through the old path. As such, it has a small drainage area and won't receive
much flow, so stone will not be necessary for long-term stability, and stability of the channel
plug is not a concern.
34. Sheet S5 — Are there any concerns that the proposed stormwater swales within the abandoned
channel may inadvertently create preferential flow paths back within the abandoned channel

in the future? Are there any concerns that connecting a stormwater swale just upstream of a
log sill may erode the bank anchoring the structure?
As stated in the previous response, the goal of the swales is to redirect flow from the old
channel path into the new channel to prevent the formation of a longer flow path within the
abandoned channel. The swale tie-in has been moved upstream to avoid potential stability
issues with the log sill.
35. Sheet S6 — Please callout the utility easement/ROW on all applicable sheets.
Callouts have been added to all applicable sheets to call out the gas easement and its width.
Further, the gas -easement linetype has been updated to differentiate it from other property
lines.
36. Sheet S10 —
a. Please provide a callout description for the isolated plug in the floodplain.
The indicated plug is interrupting a ditch which runs parallel to TR1-D along the
southern floodplain toe of slope. A callout has been added to clarify.
b. Is the jurisdictional feature where the stormwater swale is proposed expected to
remain jurisdictional post -construction (i.e., not backfilled or plugged)? If so, please
confirm with USACE that BMPs are allowed within jurisdictional features.
The swale on sheet S10 is not within a jurisdictional feature and is not proposed to be
maintained as a BMP.
37. Sheet S14 — Please include a typical detail for the proposed engineered sediment pack.
The ESP is no longer proposed.
38. Sheet S16 — Does any concentrated flow from the pond just east of the project enter the
easement?
The outflow from the pond in question dissipates into wetland WB before entering the Project
easement.
39. Sheet 19 — Sediment and erosion control measures to stabilize the steep slope while
groundcover establishes will be critical along the proposed cascade, as well as other floodplain
to upland transition slopes. Based on past project review observations, these slopes are
susceptible to become veg problem areas.
RES will use appropriate measures to stabilize these slopes.
40. Sheet 23 - There appears to be an access path/road within the proposed easement, please call
out if this path/road will be removed.
A callout has been added defining the removal work for the existing path.
41. Sheet 26 — Please callout Reach MN5-A.
A callout has been added.

42. Sheet S29 — The proposed realignment of MN6-B extends the reach length by 150 feet and
parallels Reach TR1-D. Please provide a justification for the extension and explain why an
earlier tie-in is not appropriate.
The proposed alignment of MN6-B follows the low point in the valley prior to its tie in, and
tying into proposed channel on TR1-D will be more stable than tying into the existing,
oversized channel upstream.
43. Sheet S32 — Please add the easement line and station number callout to the profile.
The easement -limits line and station callout have been added to the profile.
44. Sheets W1-W3 — If not included on the stream plan sheets, please show proposed grading
within wetland credit areas, noting any areas to be excavated greater than 12 inches.
No grading is proposed in Project wetlands that is not shown on the stream plan sheets.
45. Sheet P1 — Please confirm that planting notes are consistent with plan narrative. Also, please
identify the proposed temporary seed species.
Note #6 has been updated to reference the correct detail sheet (D4). Note #13 has been
updated to call for permanent seed in all proposed planting areas in addition to any disturbed
areas within the easement. Further, bare root and live stake species have been updated as
noted in other comments.
Temporary seed species are chosen from the NCDEQ handbook and typically include rye,
winter wheat, and German millet, depending on the season. RES is proposing an alternate
species list for this Project, based on the NCWRC initial review letter, to at least reduce the
allelopathic qualities of the temporary seed, especially compared to cereal rye. This new list
includes sterile triticale, winter wheat, spring oats, browntop millet, and partridge pea; an
erosion control notes page (sheet EC1) has been added to the plan set outlining those details.
However, this list may need to be adjusted for construction permitting based on NCDEQ
review, or for seed availability.
46. Details — Typical crossing details were missing. Preliminary culvert details should be included
in the draft mitigation plan for IRT review.
Culvert dimensions and materials were included in callouts on the respective stream plan
sheets where the crossings are proposed (Sheets S3, S6, S11, S19, and S23). However, crossing
sheets (X1-X3) have been added to expand upon the installation details of the culvert
crossings.
47. Sheet D2, Channel Abandonment and Backfill — The plan narrative mentions shallow
depressions and pools. Are these features only proposed within the abandoned channels? If
not, please show/callout on plan sheets and add a typical detail.
These features are proposed within the abandoned channels, but have also been added to
wetland creation areas C3 and C4, as outlined in Section 6.2.3. A detail for the shallow
depressions outside of the channel abandonment has been added to sheet D4, and
approximate locations for these depressions have been added to the plan sheets.

48. Sheets D4 & D5 - Please consider aquatic passage in the max. drop depth design and
construction of proposed log sill and rock sill/vane structures. This has become a concern
based on observations at recent project as -built site walks.
Drops over grade -control structures have been revised to no more than 0.4' on all reaches,
and drops over cascade features have been revised to no more than 0.6' on all applicable
reaches, based on this comment and similar discussions on previous projects.
49. Sheet D6 - Regarding the proposed Layered Riffle, DWR is unfamiliar with this design and will
need to review additional information before we can support the proposed approach and
crediting change for TR1-C and TR1-D.
A document titled Layered Riffle Detailed Design Approach and Risk Summary has been
added to Appendix C.
a. We are concerned about the long-term sustainability of these structures and question
whether they are suitable for a slate belt stream system. Please provide more
information about this technique (including photos over time) and multiple examples
of where it has been successfully implemented. Examples should be situations similar
to the proposed setting and purpose.
Based on the baseflow observed during all site visits, RES is confident that there is
sufficient baseflow at this site to make these structure appropriate. Layered Riffles are
a new approach, so RES does not have long-term photos to provide; however, a more
in-depth discussion of the structure and planned solutions to potential problems can
be found in Appendix C.
b. Please provide a reach specific performance standard to demonstrate that the
functional uplift of increased overbank flow and floodplain connectivity is achieved.
Please include reach and structure specific monitoring measures.
The performance of these structures will be evaluated using flow cameras, as discussed
in Appendix C
c. Please address concerns about inhibiting aquatic passage if flow starts piping through
the brush layers.
This is addressed under Potential Problem #1 in Appendix C Layered Riffle Detailed
Design Approach and Risk Summary.
d. Please provide adaptive management strategies for dealing with potential stream
instability issues in these proposed treatment areas for this site.
This is addressed in Appendix C Layered Riffle Detailed Design Approach and Risk
Summary.
e. Figure 12 shows the proposed five-year inundation with the layered riffles extending
beyond the project easement. This appears to show potential hydrologic trespass.
Please discuss your hydrologic trespass risk analysis and potential corrective measures.
The increase in inundation outside the Project easement is caused by the installation
of the new culvert crossings rather than the layered riffles. RES has preformed extensive
modeling of this area and are confident that this approach combined with the

proposed easement shape will not lead to hydrologic trespass. As always should issues
arise we will work with the landowner to address them.

Olivia Munzer, WRC:
1. Piedmont Alluvial Forests/Headwater Streams — According to Schaeffle, this community does
not typically have river birch, hackberry or sycamore (these percentages should be reduced or
species removed and replaced with other species that typically occur within this community).
While Piedmont Headwater Stream forests have a lowered occurrence of alluvial species with
a higher occurrence of upland species, Piedmont Alluvial Forests have a mixed composition of
alluvial species such as sycamore, river birch, and hackberry, according to Schafale and
Weakley. The first planting zone is referencing aspects from the combination of both natural
communities. Additionally, the species in the planting zones are chosen based on a number
of factors, notjust to identically mimic a specific natural community. Other characteristics that
are considered when creating the planting plans are wetland indicator status, growth rate,
soils, existing vegetation on -site and along reference project streams, water -logging
tolerability, and general industry experience. The percentages have been adjusted accordingly
and additional species have been added to both lists to increase diversity.
2. Similarly, they should look at the species list for the Piedmont Bottom la nd/swa mp forest
community.
See above comment concerning the process of making planting plans. The composition
percentages and species have been adjusted.
3. This community is not dominated by sycamore, river birch or hackberry. I recommend
reducing the percent composition. Consider adding the following species: American holly,
hickories, American hornbeam, other oaks.
Thank you for your suggestion; see above comments.
4. 1 have concerns for the large percent of eastern cottonwood — they use a large amount of
water and is more common in larger streams. I recommend other lives stakes, like elderberry,
buttonbush, ninebark, or other species appropriate for the community.
Eastern cottonwood has been removed from the live stakes list and replaced with elderberry.
5. For permanent seed mix, I would like to see one or two more flowering species added to the
list, such as goldenrod.
Thank you for your comment. When making our tree planting and seeding lists, we are careful
to consider many factors such as pollinator species, erosion and sediment control measures,
and cost per acre. Specifically, our erosion and sediment control requirements limit the ability
to incorporate several showy, flowering species, in order to comply with providing the proper
amount of erosion -control -specific grasses. While it may seem like there are only a few
flowering, herbaceous species (e.g., black-eyed Susan, oxeye sunflower, and swamp
milkweed), please also consider the number of flowering trees within the other planting lists
(e.g., elderberry, silky dogwood, buttonbush, persimmon, northern spicebush, and tulip
poplar). An additional flowering species, smooth goldenrod (Solidago gigantea), has been
added to the seeding list.

6. For the livestock fencing, we would prefer there is no barbed wire.
RES consults with Project landowners on what fencing will best fit their needs. In this specific
case, the landowner requested woven wire but does not need barbed wire on top of that. The
reference to barbed wire has been removed from the Fence detail on Sheet D2.
7. We recommend leaving some woody debris in small piles or individually throughout the
project to provide wildlife habitat.
RES will consider this during the construction of the project.

Draft Mitigation Plan (REVISED)
Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
RES Cape Fear 02 UMBI I USACE Action ID: SAW-2021-004891 October 2022
Cape Fear River Basin I HUC 03030002 1 Alamance County, North Carolina
Prepared By: Bank Sponsor:
Resource Environmental Solutions LLC Environmental Banc & Exchange LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1052
"This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation Project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and
Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14)."

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Components................................................................................................................
1
1.2 Project Outcomes....................................................................................................................
1
2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION ............................................. 2
2.1 Site Selection..........................................................................................................................
2
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................. 3
3.1 Watershed Summary Information..........................................................................................
3
3.2 Landscape Characteristics......................................................................................................
4
3.3 Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future...............................................................................
9
3.4 Reach Summary Information...............................................................................................
10
3.5 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints..........................................................
18
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL.......................................................................
21
4.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements............................................................
21
5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..........................................
24
5.1 Project Goals and Objectives................................................................................................
24
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN......................................................................................
26
6.1 Reference Stream..................................................................................................................
26
6.2 Design Parameters................................................................................................................
27
6.3 Vegetation and Planting Plan...............................................................................................
37
6.4 Mitigation Summary.............................................................................................................
41
6.5 Determination of Credits......................................................................................................
42
7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................
44
7.1 Stream Success Criteria........................................................................................................44
7.2 Wetland Restoration Success Criteria..................................................................................
44
7.3 Vegetation Success Criteria..................................................................................................
45
8 MONITORING PLAN..................................................................................................
45
8.1 As -Built Survey....................................................................................................................45
8.2 Visual Monitoring................................................................................................................
46
8.3 Stream Hydrology Events.....................................................................................................
46
8.4 Cross Sections......................................................................................................................
46
8.5 Wetland Hydrology..............................................................................................................
46
8.6 Vegetation Monitoring.........................................................................................................
47
8.7 Scheduling/Reporting...........................................................................................................47
9 INVASIVE SPECIES PLAN........................................................................................
50
10 MAINTENANCE PLAN...............................................................................................
51
10.1 Risks and Uncertainties........................................................................................................
52
11 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN..........................................................................
54
12 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE...............................................................................
55
12.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits..................................................................................
55
12.2 Subsequent Credit Releases..................................................................................................
55
13 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN......................................................................
57
14 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.......................................................................................
58
15 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................
59
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan ii October 2022

List of Tables
Table 7. Tobacco Road Project Components Summary....................................................................2
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information.........................................................................3
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information ...........................................................................
4
Table 4. Jurisdiction Wetland Information.........................................................................................5
Table5. Mapped Soil Series.................................................................................................................
8
Table 6. Summary of Stream Parameters........................................................................................
1 1
Table 7. Regulatory Considerations..................................................................................................18
Table 8. Easement Break and Crossing Details................................................................................19
Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements.............................................................................25
Table 10. Design Peak Flow Comparison........................................................................................32
Table 11. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses.............................................33
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities......................................................33
Table 73. Proposed Bare Root Planting Lists....................................................................................
39
Table 74. Proposed Live Stake Planting List.....................................................................................40
Table75. Permanent Seed Mix..........................................................................................................
40
Table76. Mitigation Credits..............................................................................................................42
Table 77. Monitoring Requirements..................................................................................................49
Table78. Maintenance Plan..............................................................................................................
52
Table 79. Stream Credit Release Schedule.......................................................................................
56
Table 20. Wetland Credit Release Schedule.....................................................................................
56
Table 27. Financial Assurances..........................................................................................................
58
List of Figures
Figure 1 —
Service Area
Figure 2 —
Project Vicinity
Figure 3 —
USGS Quadrangle
Figure 4a & 4b — Historical Conditions
Figure 5 —
Landowner Parcels
Figure 6 —
Land Use
Figure 7a
— LiDAR
Figure 7b
— Existing Conditions
Figure 8 —
National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 9 —
Mapped Soils
Figure 10
— Project Constraints
Figure 11
— Reference Reaches
Figure 12
— Stream and Wetland Conceptual Design Plan
Figure 13
— TR1-C/D Five Year Inundation Map
Figure 14a
& 14b — Monitoring Plan
Figure 15
— Buffer Width Zones
Figure 16
— Total Mitigation Assets
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan iii October 2022

Appendices
Appendix A -
Appendix B -
Appendix C -
Appendix D -
Appendix E -
Appendix F -
Appendix G -
Appendix H -
Buffer Mitigation Plan (to be included in Final Mitigation Plan Appendices)
Site Protection Instrument
Data, Analysis, and Supplementary Information
Wetland JD Forms and Maps
DWR Stream Identification and Buffer Viability
USACE District Assessment Forms
Regulatory Agency Scoping Letters
Plan Set
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan iv October 2022

I PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Components
The Tobacco Road Stream, Wetland, and Riparian Buffer Mitigation Project (the Project) is located in
Alamance County, approximately 13 miles southwest of Burlington, NC. The Project lies within the Cape
Fear River Basin, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002 and
North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-06-04 (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The
Project is being designed to help meet compensatory mitigation requirements for stream and wetland
impacts within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030002) and is specifically located in the Haw River
Subwatershed of Jordan Lake, 14-digit HUC 03030002050040. The Project proposes to restore 5,589 linear
feet (LF), enhance 6,707 LF, and preserve 139 LF of existing stream, as well as rehabilitate 1.02 acres, enhance
0.58 acres, and create 3.39 acres of wetlands that will ultimately provide water quality benefits and
ecosystem uplift for the 458-acre Project drainage area (Figure 3). The Tobacco Road Mitigation Site (SAW-
2021-00489) is being submitted as an Instrument Modification in accordance with the RES Cape Fear 02
Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument. IRT Meeting Minutes were carefully considered in the preparation
of this Mitigation Plan (Appendix Q. This site will be co -located with a DWR Riparian Buffer Bank of the
same name (Tobacco Road).
The Project area, in whole, is comprised of a 42.29-acre easement involving one main, unnamed headwater
tributary, with ten adjoining tributaries that drain directly into Motes Creek (also known as Newland Creek),
west of the proposed Project boundaries. Motes Creek, a USGS-named stream, then further drains south to
the Haw River. These features will be restored, enhanced, and preserved to comprise 11 total unnamed
tributaries, totaling 12,435 LF. The stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized in Table 1.
The Project is accessible from Thom Road, on the right, about 0.3 miles south of the intersection with NC-
54. Coordinates for the Project are as follows: 35.973063, and-79.282234.
1.2 Project Outcomes
The streams, wetlands, and associated riparian areas throughout the Project have been significantly
impacted by agricultural practices, both active livestock and row crop production. Proposed improvements
to the Project will help meet the river basin needs expressed in the 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP) as well as ecological improvements to riparian corridor within the easement.
The Project presents 12,435 LF of proposed stream mitigation, generating 8,311.010 base Warm Stream
Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 4.98 acres of wetland mitigation generating 2.096 Wetland Mitigation Units
(WMU) (Table 1). Additionally, the Project presents the opportunity to perform 979,162 ft2 (22.48 acres) (of
which 552,661 ft2 (12.69 acres) are creditable) of riparian buffer mitigation for the Haw River Watershed; a
tributary to B. Everett Jordan Lake, generating approximately 6.15 acres (268,031 ft2) of riparian buffer
restoration credits, 3.36 acres (146,465 ft2) of riparian buffer enhancement via cattle exclusion, and 3.17
acres (138,165 ft2) of buffer preservation credits in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0295. There will be 0.09
acres (3,868 ft2) of nutrient offset that are viable for buffer restoration credits in accordance with 15A NCAC
02B .0703. The draft Riparian Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan was received by NCDWR on June
3, 2022; comments will be addressed through a separate regulatory process and submitted as an appendix
to the final stream and wetland mitigation plan.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 1 October 2022

Table 1. Tobacco Road Project Components Summary
Stream Mitigation
Mitigation Approach
Linear Feet
Ratio
Base Warm SMU
Restoration
Enhancement 1
Enhancement II
Enhancement II (3)
Enhancement 111
Enhancement III (7.5)
Preservation
5,589
3,222
457
1,033
462
1,533
139
1:1
1.5:1
2.5:1
3:1
5:1
7.5:1
10:1
5,589.000
2,148.000
182.800
344.333
92.400
204.400
13.900
Total
12,435
8,574.833
Net change
from buffers
-263.820
Total SMUs
8,311.010
Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation Approach
Acres
Ratio
WMUs
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Creation
1.018
0.577
3.385
1.5:1
2:1
3:1
0.679
0.289
1.128
Total
4.979
2.096
2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The DMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP identified several restoration needs for each 8-digit HUC within the Cape
Fear River Basin. Specifically, goals for HUC 03030002 include creating a Local Watershed Plan for this
portion of the watershed. The Project stream reaches are tributaries that flow into the Haw River then into
the Cape Fear River. The Haw River is the major river in the HUC 03030002; this river and its tributaries flow
to B. Everett Jordan Lake, a drinking water supply. This supply has been designated a Nutrient Sensitive
Water and NCDWR has developed a set of rules to reduce non -point source pollution.
Many of the Project design goals and objectives will address major watershed stressors identified in the
2009 RBRP. Catalog Unit Specific Goals (CU) outlined in the 2009 Cape Fear RBRP for the watershed include:
7. Promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural and urban areas by restoring and preserving
streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers.
2.1 Site Selection
The Project was identified as a stream and buffer mitigation opportunity to improve water quality, habitat,
and hydrology within the Cape Fear River Basin. The aquatic resources associated with the Project have
been highly manipulated and degraded over time due to agricultural practices and the continuing urban
development of watershed as a whole. Aerial imagery indicates that the majority of the mid to eastern
portion of the Project has been used for mixed agriculture activities, primarily livestock and row crop
production, since at least the mid-1970s. The mid to western portions of the Project have remained mostly
forested since at least 1950, with minor intermittent clearing for row crop beginning between 1950 and
1964 and continuing to present day (Figures 4a and 4b). The land surrounding this portion of the Project
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 2 October 2022

is in active row crop production. Cattle, where present on the mid to eastern half, have direct access to the
stream, which has led to degraded water quality and unstable channel conditions throughout the affected
reaches. Historic and current dredging and straightening of Project streams have led to channels with
limited habitat and poor hydraulic function, as well as adversely impacting the hydrology of surrounding
wetlands. Therefore, the Project presents a great opportunity to address the RBRP goal of reducing nutrient
and sediment in agricultural and urban areas, while also providing tremendous additional uplift to a
degraded piedmont stream system. The Project will directly and indirectly address water quality and habitat
stressors by restoring natural channels of tributaries to Motes Creek, stabilizing eroding stream banks and
establishing floodplain connectivity, reducing sediment and nutrient loads, restoring and enhancing riparian
buffers and wetlands, and protecting aquatic resources in perpetuity. Project -specific goals and objectives
will be addressed further in Section S.
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes two parcels,
split into three sections, in Alamance County with the following ownership in Table 2 & Figure 5. Once
finalized, a copy of the land protection instrument will be included in Appendix B. The Wilmington District
Conservation Easement model template will be utilized to draft the site protection instrument.
Marvin Boyd Newlin— TR1-A, B, C, D, E; TR2; MN1; MN2-
Newlin Marvin Morrow REV Trust 9810596562 A, B; MN3; MN4-A, B; MN5-A, B;
MN6-A, B; MN7; MN8; MN9
Steven Gerald Greeson 9810273348 TR1-E, F
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Watershed Summary Information
3.1.1 Drainage Area and Land Use
The Project area is comprised of 11 tributaries that flow directly to Motes Creek west of the proposed Project
boundaries. The total drainage area for the Project is 458 acres (Figure 3). Primary land use within the
drainage area consists of approximately 49 percent forest and 40 percent agricultural land. Residential and
impervious area covers approximately 11 percent of the total watershed (Figure 6). Although the Project
watershed is primarily forested, most of the agricultural areas within the watershed are in close proximity
to or within the Project and play a significant role in the degradation of both the streams within the Project
and further reaching to Motes Creek. Historic and current land -use within the immediate Project area has
been in agriculture production, including row crop and livestock since at least the mid 1960's. These
activities have negatively impacted both water quality and streambank stability along the Project streams.
The resulting observed stressors being streambank erosion, channel incision, sedimentation, channel
modification, and the loss of riparian buffers.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 3 October 2022

Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information
Level IV Ecoregion 45c — Carolina Slate Belt
River Basin Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03030002050040
DWR Sub -basin 03-06-04
Project Drainage Area (acres) 458
Percent Impervious Area 3%
Surface Water Classification (drains to) WS-V and NSW
3.2 Landscape Characteristics
3.2.1 Physiography and Topography
The Project is located in the Carolina Slate Belt Level Four Ecoregion, a region described as having dissected
irregular plains, small hills, linear ridges, and low to moderate gradient streams with mostly boulder and
cobble substrates. The geology of the area is comprised of "mineral rich metavolcanic and metasedimentary
rocks," which is finer grained and less metamorphosed than other ecoregions within the Piedmont. Because
of this, the rocks are somewhat less resistant to erosion, leading to lower elevations and wider valleys. Soils
within this region tend to have higher silt compositions due to deeply weathered volcanic slates and include
fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Hapludults such as Georgeville and Herndon soil types. Typical land use
throughout this ecoregion includes pine plantations, row crop, pasture, cattle, hay, and poultry production.
The specific landscape characteristics of the Tobacco Road site are representative of the Carolina Slate Belt,
with generally linear ridges with slopes ranging from gentle to moderately steep hills (Figure 7a). Streams
throughout the well -drained upland landscapes have a gentle to moderate gradient, but often have rocky
stream beds.
3.2.2 Vegetation
The majority of the land within the Project has been used for various agricultural practices, including row
crop and livestock production; patches of disturbed riparian forest are scattered throughout these areas as
well. A maintained underground gas line intersects the Project and is maintained by Dominion Energy.
Current land use around the Project is primarily composed of row crops, pasture, and disjointed riparian
forest (Figure 6). Historic row crop and livestock production has been evident throughout the proposed
Project boundaries since at least 1990. The primary row crop currently in production is soybean which
borders most of the right bank of TR1-E and TR1-F. Existing vegetation throughout the site includes white
oak (Quercus alba), black oak (Quercus velutina), hickory (Carya sp.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia),
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sweet gum (Liquidambar
styracifluo), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), winged elm (Ulmus alata), American holly (Ilex opoca),
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), box elder (Acer negundo), red maple (Acer rubrum), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), eastern redbud
(Cercis canadensis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), American hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), and black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica).
The herb stratum throughout many of the wetland areas, open pasture, and forest understory includes
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), soft rush (Juncus effusus),
cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), American tearthumb (Persicaria sagittata), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 4 October 2022

radicans). Invasive and noxious species are also present throughout, including Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), Johnson grass
(Sorghum halepense), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), and autumn olive (Elaeognus umbellata).
3.2.3 Existing Wetlands
A survey of existing wetlands was performed in December 2021 and January of 2022. 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 total of 24 jurisdictional wetlands
were observed in and adjacent to the proposed Project boundaries (Appendix D, Figure 7b, Table 4).
Wetlands are labeled as WA (Wetland A) through to WW (Wetland W), depicted in Figure 8, and are
described below in Table 4. All wetlands within the Project vicinity were rated using the North Carolina
Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) (Appendix F). A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD)
request was sent to the USACE on March 1, 2022 and wetland determinations have not yet been verified by
the USACE. The final PJD has not yet been received. Wetland forms are included in Appendix D.
Table 4. Jurisdiction Wetland Information
Wetland NCWAM
Wetland
Area
Vegetation
ID Rating
Type
(ac)
Tree Stratum:
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana),
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), musclewood (Corpinus
WA Medium
Seep
0.04
caroliniona), black willow (Salix nigra)
Herb Stratum:
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibilis), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium
vimineum)
Tree Stratum:
Red Maple (Acer rubrum), American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidombarstyrocifluo)
Headwater
Shrub Stratum:
WB Medium
0.17
soft rush (Juncus effusus), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium
Forest
vimineum),
Woody Vine Stratum:
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), muscadine (Vitis
rotundifolio), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia)
Shrub Stratum:
soft rush (Juncus effusus), hedge hyssop (Grotiolo virginiana),
WC Low
Headwater
0.14
rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), Johnson grass
Forest
(Sorghum halepense), marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak)
Tree stratum:
Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer
Headwater rubrum), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
WD Medium 0.05 Shrub Stratum
Forest soft rush (Juncus effusus), rough cocklebur (Xanthium
strumarium), tear thumb (Persicoria sagittota), willowherb
(Epilobium anagallidifolium)
Tree stratum:
WE Low Seep 0.07 Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer
rubrum), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
Shrub Stratum
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 5 October 2022

Wetland NCWAM Wetland Area Vegetation
ID Ratina Tvae (ac)
soft rush (Juncus effusus), rough cocklebur (Xanthium
strumarium), tear thumb (Persicaria sagittata), willowherb
(Epilobium anagallidifolium)
Tree stratum:
Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiona), red maple (Acer
Bottomland
rubrum), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
WF Low Hardwood
0.14 Shrub Stratum
Forest
soft rush (Juncus effusus), rough cocklebur (Xanthium
strumarium), tear thumb (Persicaria sagittata), willowherb
(Epilobium anagallidifolium)
Bottomland
Shrub Stratum
WG Low Hardwood
0.15 soft rush (Juncus effusus), rough cocklebur (Xanthium
strumarium), tear thumb (Persicaria sagittata), willowherb
Forest
(Epilobium anagallidifolium)
Tree stratum:
Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiona), red maple (Acer
rubrum), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
WH Low Seep
0.01 Shrub Stratum
soft rush (Juncus effusus), rough cocklebur (Xanthium
strumarium), tear thumb (Persicaria sagittata), willowherb
(Epilobium anagallidifolium)
Shrub Stratum:
Headwater
WI Low
0soft rush (Juncus effusus), hedge hyssop (Gratiola virginiana),
Forest
.15 rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), Johnson grass
(Sorghum halepense), marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak)
Shrub Stratum:
WJ Low Seep
0.09 soft rush (Juncus effusus), hedge hyssop (Gratiola virginiana),
rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), Johnson grass
(Sorghum halepense), marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak)
Shrub Stratum:
WK Low Seep
0.32 soft rush (Juncus effusus), hedge hyssop (Gratiola virginiana),
rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), Johnson grass
(Sorghum halepense), marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak)
Shrub Stratum:
WM Low Seep
0.04 soft rush (Juncus effusus), hedge hyssop (Gratiola virginiana),
rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), Johnson grass
(Sorghum halepense), marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak)
Shrub Stratum:
WN Low Seep
0.01 soft rush (Juncus effusus), hedge hyssop (Gratiola virginiana),
rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), Johnson grass
(Sorghum halepense), marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak)
Tree stratum:
Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer
Headwater
rubrum), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
WO Medium
0.09 Shrub Stratum
Forest
soft rush (Juncus effusus), rough cocklebur (Xanthium
strumarium), tear thumb (Persicaria sagittata), willowherb
(Epilobium anagallidifolium)
Tree stratum:
Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer
rubrum), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
WP Low Seep
0.04 Shrub Stratum
soft rush (Juncus effusus), rough cocklebur (Xanthium
strumarium), tear thumb (Persicaria sagittata), willowherb
(Epilobium anagallidifolium)
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 6 October 2022

Wetland
ID
NCWAM
Rating
Wetland
Type
Area
(ac)
Vegetation
Tree Stratum:
Red Maple (Acer rubrum), American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), musclewood
Bottomland
(Carpinus caroliniana)
WQ
High
Hardwood
0.36
Herb Stratum
Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), soft rush (Juncus
Forest
effusus)
Woody Vine Stratum
Greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia)
Tree Stratum:
Red Maple (Acer rubrum), American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), musclewood
Bottomland
(Carpinus caroliniana)
WR
High
Hardwood
0.33
Herb Stratum
Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), soft rush (Juncus
Forest
effusus)
Woody Vine Stratum
Greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia)
Tree stratum:
Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiona), red maple (Acer
Headwater rubrum), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
WS Low 0.09 Shrub Stratum
Forest soft rush (Juncus effusus), rough cocklebur (Xanthium
strumarium), tear thumb (Persicaria sagittata), willowherb
(Epilobium anagallidifolium)
Tree Stratum:
Red Maple (Acer rubrum), American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), musclewood
(Carpinus caroliniana)
WU High Seep 0.02 Herb Stratum
Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), soft rush (Juncus
effusus)
fusus)
Woody Vine Stratum
Greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia)
Tree Stratum:
Red Maple (Acer rubrum), American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), musclewood
Bottomland (Carpinus caroliniana)
WV Medium Hardwood 0.02 Herb Stratum
Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), soft rush (Juncus
Forest effusus)
Woody Vine Stratum
Greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia)
Shrub Stratum:
WW Medium
Headwater 0.13 soft rush (Juncus effusus), hedge hyssop (Gratiola virginiana),
Forest rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), Johnson grass
(Sorghum halepense), marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak)
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts three
wetland types within the Project bounds (Figure 8). The wetland types include palustrine, unconsolidated
bottom, permanently flooded, impounded waters (PUBHh); riverine, intermittent, streambed, seasonally
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 7 October 2022

flooded waters (R4SBC); and palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded waters
(PFO1A). These areas were investigated during wetland delineation in December 2021 (Table 4, Appendix
D).
3.2.4 Soil Survey
Existing soil information from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, shows
several map units across the Project (NRCS, 2021). Map units include seven soil series across the Project and
are summarized in Table 5 and Figure 9. Project soils are mapped as Chewacla loam, Cullen clay loam,
Herndon silt loam, and Mandale-Secrest complex.
Table S. Mapped Soil Series
Chewacla loam, 0 to
Somewhat
ChA 2 percent slopes, 5 % B/D Floodplains
frequently flooded poorly drained
Cullen clay loam, 2
CnB2 to 6 percent slopes, 0 % Well drained B Interfluves
moderately eroded
Cullen clay loam, 6
CnC2 to 10 percent 0 % Well drained B Interfluves
slopes, moderately
eroded
Cullen clay loam, 10
CnD2 to 15 percent 0 % Well drained B Interfluves
slopes, moderately
eroded
Cullen clay loam, 15
CnE2 to 45 percent 0 % Well Drained B Interfluves
slopes, moderately
eroded
Herndon silt loam,
HnE 15 to 45 percent 0 % Well drained B Interfluves
slopes
Mandale-Secrest Somewhat Flats/depressions/sloughs/d
MaC complex, 6 to 10 0 C/D poorly drained rainageways on interfluves
percent slopes
3.2.5 Existing Soils
Soils within the proposed wetland mitigation areas were evaluated by a licensed soil scientist; specifically,
the areas from Highway 54 west to Mineral Springs Road. The evaluation focused on locating soils
demonstrating a high potential for successful wetland creation. Broad factors that were considered include:
landscape position, proposed stream restoration design, existing hydrologic sources, and soil characteristics
suitable for wetland creation. Factors specific to wetland creation were also considered, including the
evaluation of general texture and textural changes, focusing on finer textures or other horizons that can
perch a water table. These characteristics are known to affect infiltration, storage, store/conduct subsurface
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 8 October 2022

lateral flow, and perching of a water table. Other observations include depth to water table, buried hydric
soils, depleted or partially depleted soil horizons, lenses, and spatial relationships across the floodplain.
The landscape across the floodplain is comprised of early growth forest, following agricultural clearing and
the deposition of legacy sediments that make up the surrounding soils. The floodplain has shallow linear
swales that parallel the stream before draining into the channel, which has promoted rapid draining of
surface water. The slopes along the floodplain exhibit numerous areas of groundwater discharge. The areas
proposed for creation are connected or adjacent to the discharge areas located along the toe of slope. The
site soils appear to be atypical for a Chewacla or Wehadkee series, demonstrating a redder color than their
normal range. This redder color in soils can be associated with a soil having a higher content of iron in the
form of hematite, therefore attention was given to hydric indicator F20-Red Parent Material. Hematite forms
in drier conditions and have originate from upland soils. The higher iron is most likely related to local
geology of the watershed. In addition to the high iron, the darker red to black mottles indicate significant
manganese is present either in the soil mineralogy or within the groundwater discharge.
The soil evaluation found limited hydric soil indicators outside of the delineated wetland areas. They are
located in close proximity to existing wetlands or near constructed drainage features along the toe of slope.
These indicators outside of the wetlands were likely historically connected to a wetland or a source of
hydrology prior to ditching and incision of the stream. Hydric soil indicators observed throughout the
Project are F3-Depleted Matrix, F8-Redox Depressions, F72-Iron-Manganese Masses, F-79-Piedmont Flood
Plain Soils, and F20-Red Parent Material. Based on experience and the observed soil morphology, the
wetlands in this landscape are a discharge type wetland hydrology. The full soil report is included in
Appendix C.
3.3 Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future
Historic aerial imagery indicates that the Project had been mostly forested since at least 1950. At this time,
the land adjacent to the southwest portion of the proposed easement was cleared for agricultural purposes.
The area around the western -most easement break was cleared between 1950 and 1964 to accommodate
for row crop establishment. Sometime between 1964 and 1977, more of the surrounding land was cleared
for agriculture, including the middle and eastern portion of the proposed easement area. By 1998, the
developing farm southeast of the Project had expanded, clearing most of the middle and upstream portions
of the area within the proposed easement, excluding a very minimal forested buffer following the main
stem (TR1) and its downstream tributaries. Most of the tributaries draining to TR1 were either cleared for
row crop, disturbed by livestock, or are sparsely buffered with degraded riparian forest with invasive species.
The area north of the middle portion of the proposed easement had been forested since at least 1950, until
between 2012 and 2014, when it was timbered, along with middle -western sections of the Project. The
portion of easement east of Highway 54 has remained mixed forest and row crop since at least 1973
(Figures 4a and 4b).
Four of the stream channels were present on both the USGS topographical map and the Alamance County
Soil Survey map (NRCS, 1960); however, the remaining seven tributaries did not show up on either map and
therefore are not subject to the Jordan Lake buffer rules (15A NCAC 02B .0267). Currently, the Project area
remains a combination of row crop, active pasture, and disturbed riparian forest. The surrounding watershed
is mostly rural, comprised mostly of agricultural operations and residential homes; however, suburban
development from nearby Chapel Hill and Burlington, NC could begin to alter the current land -uses
surrounding the Project in the future.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 9 October 2022

The future land use for the Project will include an established 42.29-acre conservation easement, that will
protect streams, wetlands, and their riparian buffers in perpetuity. The most recent land -use plan for the
Project area, the Alamance County 2020 Land Development Plan, projects that the Project and its drainage
area will remain in agriculture and rural residential in the near future. More specifically, portions of the
property at the upstream area of the project will be subdivided into 10+ acre plots once the conservation
easement is closed. The project area that is currently being used for livestock will remain so for the
foreseeable future; and the property adjacent to the remainder of the project will become low density
residential homes based on conversations with the current landowner. With these considerations, crossings
have been appropriately sized for future land use. Further, no work is proposed on the NCDOT culvert
crossings at the upper and lower end of the project, according to the 2020-2029 State Transportation
Improvement Plan Projects Map.
3.4 Reach Summary Information
The Project area is comprised of nine easement sections. The proposed stream channels, which include 11
unnamed tributaries to Motes Creek (Figure 7b), were identified based on numerous observations in the
field and through desktop review. Historic aerial photography and historic soil survey maps show the main
channel (TR1), and some of its tributaries, existed in these natural drainages since 1960, the year of the most
recent published NRCS county soil survey. Regional curve data also show that each reach contains sufficient
drainage area to support natural channel formation.
In general, all or portions of TR1, TR2, MN1, MN2, MN3, MN4, MNS, MN6, MN7, MN8, and MN9 do not
function to their full potential. Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation due to active
and historical agricultural land manipulation. Restoration reaches are degraded, lacking stability and form,
as a result of historic and current land uses. Having been channelized in the past, some of the streams do
not access their floodplains as frequently as they naturally would have prior to alteration. Cattle have access
to the middle restoration reaches and contributed to bank erosion, soil compaction, and a lack of
functioning riparian buffer. Restoration reaches outside of active pasture have been manipulated and
channelized for adjacent row crop production. Some enhancement reaches throughout the Project have a
degraded riparian buffer, either from continued cattle disturbance, disruption from row crop production, or
the presence of exotic invasive species. The channel stability throughout the enhancement reaches vary and
will be described in the Section 3.4.1. The preservation reaches display high -functioning streams with little
to no disturbance and a well forested riparian area. Some invasive species may exist along the banks of
preservation reaches and will be treated accordingly. Morphological parameters are located in Appendix
C.
Channel Classification
Stream Classification Forms and North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) forms were
completed at representative locations throughout the Project area and stream determinations were
confirmed by DWR staff (Appendix E and Appendix F). All streams were classified as either intermittent or
perennial. Table 6 summarizes these stream parameters and stream determination scores; morphological
parameters for both reference and existing reaches can be found in Appendix C.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 10 October 2022

Table 6. Summary of Stream Parameters
Reach Hydrology Stream NCSAM Drainage Reach Rosgen
Status Determination Rating Area Length Stream
Score (Acre) (LF) Classification
TR1-A Intermittent 25.5 High 144 1,140 E444
TR1-B Perennial 36 Low 225 1,429 E444
TR1-C Perennial 36 Low 293 988 G4-F4
TR1-D Perennial 36 Low 366 1,979 G4-F4
TR1-E Perennial 36 Low 456 1,948 G4
TR1-F Perennial 36 Medium 458 216 E4
TR2 Intermittent 22 Medium 13 271 E4b-F4b
MN1-A Intermittent 25 Low 18 65 E4
MN1-B Intermittent 25 Low 28 731 G4
MN2-A Intermittent 21 Low 14 537 E4
MN2-B Intermittent 21 Low 27 532 G4-E4
MN3 Intermittent 25 Low 18 189 F6b
MN4-A Intermittent 23.5 Low 13 215 G5
MN4-B Intermittent 23.5 Medium 15 181 G5-E4
MNS-A Intermittent 22.5 High 9 44 E4
MNS-B Intermittent 22.5 Low 10 188 G4
MN6-A Intermittent 25.5 Medium 19 393 C4-G4
MN6-B Intermittent 25.5 Low 22 231 E6-C6
MN7 Intermittent 19.25 Medium 14 497 E5-G5
MN8 Intermittent 25 Low 33 86 E4-C6
MN9 Intermittent 25.5 High 9 95 N/A
3.4•1 Existing Channel Morphology
Reach TR1-A
The most upstream Reach on the Project TR1-A begins just downstream of the Duchy Airpark
impoundment and flows southwest through two 24-inch corrugated metal pipes, past a confluence
with Reach MN1-B to Highway 54. The reach is appropriately sized with instream habitat observed
throughout. Historic channel widening and incision was observed downstream of an existing double,
24-inch, reinforced concrete pipe crossing but appears to be nearing equilibrium as no mass wasting
was observed and trees are present along both banks. The riparian buffer varies in width from five
feet to greater than 50 feet through this reach and the surrounding land use is currently row crop
and hay production. Minimal invasive species are present along this reach. Existing wetland A (WA)
is situated along the left bank of the channel.
Reach TR1-13
Beginning at the outlet of the Highway 54 culvert Reach TR1-B flows southwest through active cattle
pasture past confluences with MN2-B and MN3 before transitioning to TR1-C. Upstream along TR1-
B the channel splays out over the floodplain with little to no riparian buffer due to continued livestock
access. Further downstream, past a degraded ford cattle crossing, the channel becomes straightened
and oversized with vertical, eroded banks. There is scattered vegetation along the banks; however,
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 11 October 2022

invasive species are present, and cattle access has heavily degraded the existing riparian area. Riffle
material is slightly undersized due to the sediment inputs from bank erosion and cattle access.
Existing wetlands G (WG), F (WF), E (WE), H (WH), J (WJ), and K (WK) are situated along both banks
of the channel.
Reach TR1-C
TR1-C begins just downstream of the MN3/TR1-B confluence and is segmented into three sections
due to two proposed easement breaks. One easement break is an existing gas line right of way and
the other is a degraded ford cattle crossing. The reach has bedform throughout but has been
channelized for agricultural purposes; spoil piles are scattered along the banks. Most of the reach is
open to direct cattle access which has led to degraded stream banks and riparian buffer. The channel
is entrenched to moderately entrenched with limited floodplain access. Localized channel instability
was observed throughout the reach. Riffle material has a bimodal distribution of large cobble and
fine sand and silt with little gravel observed outside of depositional areas. This is likely due to the
constant input of fine sediments from cattle access and upstream erosion as well as entrenchment
causing excess in channel forces that easily mobilized gravel. Some invasive species are present along
this reach. Existing wetlands D (WD), M (WM), N (WN), P (WP), O (WO), and S (WS) occur along both
banks of the channel.
Reach TR1-D
TR1-D begins at the confluence of TR1-C and MN5-B and flows southwest past confluences with
MN6 and MN7 toward TR1-E. The reach has bedform throughout but has been channelized for
agricultural purposes; spoil piles are scattered along the banks. The riparian buffer is intact and
greater than 50 feet on the right bank while the left bank has a buffer ranging from zero feet to 65
feet. The upstream portion of the reach is entrenched to moderately entrenched with limited
floodplain access while the reach below MN6 is more appropriately sized. Localized channel
instability was observed throughout the reach. Riffle material in the upstream end of the reach has a
bimodal distribution of large cobble and fine sand and silt with little gravel observed. This distribution
is likely due to the constant input of fine sediments from upstream cattle access and erosion as well
as entrenchment causing excess in channel forces that easily mobilized gravel. The riffle material
found on the downstream end of the reach is predominantly gravel with fine sand and silt. This
portion of the reach has become a depositional area due to backwater from the downstream 30-inch
culvert which was almost completely blocked during field observations. Scattered invasive species
are present throughout the reach. Existing wetlands R (WR) and Q (WQ) are situated along the right
bank of the channel.
Reach TR1-E
TR1-E begins at the downstream end of the 30-inch culvert and flows southwest past its confluence
with MN8 to TR1-F. The channel has bedform throughout but is entrenched and riffle material is a
bimodal mix of sand silt and cobble. The bed no longer appears to be down cutting but significant
mass wasting was observed along the banks as the channel begins to widen toward equilibrium. The
left bank has a riparian buffer greater than 50 feet for much of the reach while the right banks buffer
varies from five feet to 50 feet along the reach. Portions of heavy invasive species are present
throughout.
Reach TR1-F
TR1-F begins downstream of TR1-E and flows to the end of the proposed easement boundary at
Mineral Springs Road. Scattered bedrock lies throughout the bottom of the channel creating grade
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 12 October 2022

control throughout the reach and channel banks are stable with only minor erosion observed. The
reach is sparsely buffered by mature hardwoods with maintained grass along the left bank and some
invasive species observed throughout. Existing wetland V (WV) occurs along the left bank.
Reach TR2
TR2 is an intermittent tributary that originates from an ephemeral channel outside of the easement
which runs northwest before losing definition in existing wetland P (WP); the channel reforms below
WP and flows southwest, paralleling TR1-C before their confluence. It is sparsely forested with mature
native hardwoods and some invasive species on both banks. The channel has previously degraded
to match the incision on TR1-C and is now moderately incised with stable bed and banks. Several
knickpoints were observed along the reach as well as some bank erosion where the channel turns to
parallel TR1-C. These areas present future risk to channel stability as knickpoints may begin to
migrate upstream and the bank erosion could result in a new confluence with TR1-C if not stabilized.
Reach MN1
Reach MN1 begins as MN1-A below the gas line on the northern end of the Project and flows south,
paralleling Highway 54, to its confluence with MN1-13. MN1-A enters the Project with good bedform
diversity and an appropriately sized channel, but as it transitions to MN1-B a head cut in the upstream
portion of the reach has caused much of the channel to be incised with limited bedform and unstable
banks. The riparian buffer is predominantly open field on both banks with a few patches of sparse
forest found along the reach. Existing wetland B (WB) occurs along the left bank.
Reach MN2
Reach MN2, an intermittent tributary flowing south to TR1-13, is split into two smaller reaches, MN2-
A and MN2-B, divided by a proposed easement break designated for an existing gas line right of way
and a proposed culvert crossing. The stream originates within the Project as a headcut, flowing
through forested buffer, before emptying into a pasture with an exposed floodplain. MN2-A is a
relatively stable channel with heavily vegetated stream banks and a well -developed riparian buffer
composed mostly of mixed hardwoods. The channel has been straightened and areas of piled trash
can be found along the left bank. Just upstream of the gas line there is a 10-foot head cut that is
actively eroding. An active pasture parallels the stream to the east; however, a fence prohibits
livestock from having current access to MN2-A. MN2-B begins after the proposed easement break
and flows through active pasture, heavily impacted by historic and current cattle activity. The channel
has been manipulated, lacking bedform diversity and stability, and in some areas ditched or splayed
out over the floodplain. It flows through existing wetland I (WI), meeting a culverted livestock
crossing before coming to its confluence with TR1-B.
Reach MN3
Reach MN3 is an intermittent tributary flowing south toward the confluence of TR1-B and TR1-C. The
reach begins at the tree line south of its forested origin. MN3 has a mostly exposed floodplain to the
north but becomes sparsely forested closer to its confluence with TR1-C. Due to livestock pressure,
straightening and ditching, the stream is not functioning to its highest potential. The channel is
overwide and shallow with little to no bedform.
Reach MN4
Reach MN4, an intermittent tributary flowing north to TR1-C, is split into two smaller reaches, MN4-
A and MN4-B, divided by an easement break at an existing ford. The beginning of the channel, MN4-
A, starts just below an agricultural pond outside of the easement and flows north through open
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 13 October 2022

pasture. There is sparse tree cover at the top of the reach; however, the majority of MN4-A has an
exposed floodplain, with little to no forested buffer. Ditching and cattle access has caused this reach
to splay out across the floodplain in areas, lacking bedform diversity and channel stability. The stream
enters sparse forest after a proposed easement break, which begins MN4-B. The channel is stable
with heavily vegetated stream banks and a well -developed riparian buffer composed mostly of mixed
hardwoods; however, there is continued livestock access throughout the reach which has impacted
the functionality of MN4-13. The reach ends at a gas line easement just before its confluence with
TR1-C. Existing wetland C (WC) parallels the upstream right bank of MN4-A.
Reach MN5
Reach MN5, is an intermittent tributary of TR1-C that flows northwest and is split into two smaller
reaches, MN5-A and MN5-13. The channel begins within the Project as MN5-A, a heavily forested
stream with a well -developed rocky bed. With vegetation along both banks, the reach is stable. MN5-
A meets MN5-B as the right bank becomes less vegetated with hardwoods, and more vegetated with
pasture grasses. There is livestock access to both MN5-A and MN5-B; however, the impacts are more
evident along MN5-B as the channel banks are eroded and the channel is severely incised. The left
bank remains forested along the entire reach.
Reach MN6
Reach MN6, a tributary of TR1-D, flowing northwest, is split into two smaller reaches, MN6-A and
MN6-13. It begins as MN6-A originating at a forested headcut within the Project area. The banks are
relatively shallow, splayed out in some places, most likely due to agricultural manipulation, but
otherwise highly functioning. The stream parallels a planted field along the left bank while the right
bank is densely forested with a mix of hardwoods. Invasive species are present along this reach. MN9
flows into the stream, from the east, about a third of the way downstream. The channel transitions
to reach MN6-13 after flowing north beyond the tree line. This reach has been heavily ditched and
straightened, lacking bedform diversity. The channel enters back into a narrow line of trees and
empties into TR1-D.
Reach MN7
Reach MN7, originates within the northern limits of the Project and flows south towards TR1-D. The
channel is fed by an upstream linear wetland (WW). With adequate bedform diversity and a mostly
vegetated riparian buffer, MN7 is straightened but exhibits high stability and functionality over much
of the reach. There are several knick points along the reach and the channel is incised on the
downstream end where the stream down cuts to tie to TR1-D. Some invasives are present along the
reach, but the canopy is mostly native hardwoods. The easement boundary along the right bank lacks
a fully developed riparian buffer where a portion of row crop encroaches in, otherwise, both banks
are fully vegetated.
Reach MN8
MN8 begins as a forested headcut flowing northwest intermittently before coming to a confluence
with TR1-E. The reach is surrounded by disturbed riparian forest, comprised mostly of invasive
species, specifically autumn olive. Row crops border the forest line to the north and east. Within the
easement the channel becomes shallow and lacks bedform before going underground just before
the confluence with TR1-E. Existing wetland U (WU) is situated just west of MN8.
Reach MN9
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 14 October 2022

MN9 flows northwest intermittently towards MN6, originating as a forested headcut within the
Project area. The channel exhibits adequate bedform diversity with shallow banks, splayed out in
some areas. The entirety of the reach is forested, although there are some scattered invasive species
present along the banks.
Channel Photos:
Looking upstream along TR1-A
Looking downstream along TR1-C
Culvert downstream of TR1-D
Looking upstream along TR1-B
Looking downstream along TR1-D
Looking downstream along TR1-E
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 15 October 2022

Looking upstream along TR1-F
laW
Looking upstream along MN1-A
Looking upstream along MN2-A
Looking upstream along TR2
Looking upstream along MN1-B
Looking downstream along MN2-B
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 16 October 2022

Buffer Condition along MN3
Looking downstream along MN4-B
Looking upstream along MN5-B
Looking upstream along MN4-A
Looking downstream along MN5-A
Looking upstream along MN6-A
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 17 October 2022

Looking downstream along MN6-B
Looking upstream along MN8
Looking downstream along MN7
Looking upstream along MN9
3.5 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
Table 7 is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Project. Supporting documentation can be found
in Appendix G.
Table 7. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section
Yes
No
Appendix F'
404
Waters of the United States - Section
Yes
No
Appendix F'
401
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix G
National Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix G
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) /Coastal Area Management
No
N/A
N/A
Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
No
Figure 10
Magnuson -Stevens Act - Essential
Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
`PCN will be submitted after the Final Mitigation Plan is approved
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan
18
October 2022

3.5.1 Property, Boundary, and Utilities
Due to landowner requirements, utility access, and a DOT right of way, there are eight planned crossings
within the Project. These crossings will occur at easement breaks and will allow landowners and utility
workers to continue current land -use and access as needed. NC Highway 54 breaks the easement in the
northeast portion of the proposed boundaries. Livestock exclusion fencing will be installed across five of
the easement breaks in order to provide contiguous livestock exclusion to the Project streams. Several
existing forded crossings will be removed and replaced with appropriately sized culverts, specifically along
reaches: TR1-13, TR1-C, TR1-D, MN2-13, and MN4-A. A culvert will be replaced along TR1-D, and three
existing culverts will be removed along MN2-13, MN5-13, and MN6-B (Figure 10). The central air strip for the
Duchy Airpark is less than a mile east of the upstream easement boundary. The Project will not be increasing
open water area; therefore, no issues should arise with its proximity to the airpark. Table 8 below
summarizes relevant information regarding the eight easement breaks and crossings. Due to landowner
and utility right of way requirements, some crossing widths are approximate and based off of average width
of the easement break.
Table 8. Easement Break and Crossing Details
Reach/
Crossing ID
Justification
Width
External or
Crossing Type
Location
(Figure 10)
(ft)
Internal
TR1-A
1
Landowner access
60
External
Existing culvert
(East)
to remain
TR1-AB/TR1-
DOT/ N Highway
2
—215
External
DOT culvert
54
Agriculture Access/
Existing Ford to
MN2
3
Utility Access
90
External
Culvert
Existing Ford to
TR1-113
4
Agriculture Access
40
External
Culvert
MN4
5
Agriculture Access
40
External
Existing Ford to
Culvert
TR1-B/TR1-C
6
Agriculture Access/
— 120
External
Existing Ford to
Utility Access
Culvert
TR1-C
7
Agriculture Access
50
External
Existing Ford to
Culvert
TR1-D/TR1-E
8
Landowner Access
60
External
Replace Existing
Culvert
3.5.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, Reaches TR1-D, E and F are within
the FEMA 100-year flood zone (Zone AE, one percent annual chance of flooding) of Motes Creek Tributary
(Figure 10). Hydraulic modeling will be required to determine whether restoration activities will influence
100-year flood elevations downstream. The design and permitting of the mitigation will include
coordination with the Alamance County Floodplain Administrator and a No -Rise Certification or
CLOMR/LOMR will be secured. No hydrologic trespass will be permitted to adjacent properties upstream
or downstream of the Project. The Project can be found on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel 9810
(map number 3710981000J) effective date September 06, 2006.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 19 October 2022

3.5.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under provisions
of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. The USFWS database
(accessed March 2022) lists one federally endangered species that may occur in proximity to the Project,
the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholos). A candidate for federal protection, the monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus) was also listed as a species that may occur in proximity to the Project. Species and
species habitat listed in the USFWS database were inspected during the field investigation to determine
whether they occur within the Project. No individual species or habitats were identified on site. Potential
impacts to species and habitat off site, downstream, and within the vicinity of the Project were also
considered. A letter from the USFWS, sent on July 12, 2021 stated that it appears the Project is "not likely
to adversely affect federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA;" correspondence is
included in Appendix G. The proposed Project offers some potential to improve and create habitat for
wildlife species. Habitat may be improved or created for species that require riverine habitat by improving
water quality, in -stream and near -stream forage, and providing stable conditions not subject to regular
maintenance. With the potential for monarch butterfly within proximity to the Project, a pollinator -friendly
seed mix will be proposed in order to attract and promote pollinator species.
In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database was consulted to
determine whether previously cataloged occurrences of protected species are mapped within one mile of
the Project. Results from NHP indicated that there are no known occurrences within a one -mile radius of
the Project area. Documentation is included in Appendix G.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) was also consulted to review the Project for
any possible concerns. There were no known records for federal or state listed species within the vicinity of
the site. Recommendations provided by NCWRC for the Project included the use of biodegradable and
wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control devices, maximizing riparian buffer widths when possible,
and planting native grasses and trees appropriate Alamance County. All correspondence is included in
Appendix G.
3.5.4 Cultural Resources
A review of North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service (accessed March 2022)
database did not reveal any registered historic or archeological occurrences within the Project area. The
search did however reveal two registered occurrences within one mile of the Project area, the Sherriff
Turrentine House (AM0444), which is now gone, and the Newlin -Thompson House (AM0432). There are no
anticipated impacts from Project activities to state surveyed properties as there are none in the proposed
Project vicinity. A letter was received on July 20, 2021, from the SHPO in response to a letter sent June 25,
2021, stating that there will be no effect on historic resources. Documentation is included in Appendix G.
3.5.5 Clean Water Act -Section 4011404
Impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands will be unavoidable, due to the restoration and enhancement
activities proposed. Although these impacts are unavoidable, the proposed stream treatment will result in
an overall functional uplift of the stream and wetland system, as described in Section 4. All jurisdictional
Project restoration reaches will have permanent impacts due to stream restoration and stream realignment.
Wetland I (WI), Wetland J (WJ), and Wetland K (WK) will be permanently impacted due to stream restoration
and stream realignment. Moreover, all stream and wetland impacts will be accounted for in the Pre -
Construction Notification form.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 20 October 2022

4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
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 Tobacco Road 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 Tobacco Road 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 geomorphic function
of the system but will benefit the upper -level functions (physicochemical and biology) over time, and in
combination with other Projects within the watershed. 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.
4a Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
4A.1 Hydrology
The Project is expected to influence hydrology within the Project limits by significantly increasing floodplain
connection and reducing flow velocity. However, it is not anticipated that the Project will have a significant
effect on hydrology at the large watershed scale.
4.1.2 Hydraulic
The greatest potential uplift at the Project will be achieved through establishing 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 stream channels back to their 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 complexes where they are intended to
exist. Additionally, these stream channels will be designed and constructed with adequate energy
dissipation and grade control to achieve and maintain stable flow dynamics.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 21 October 2022

4.1.3 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 log and rock structures to promote a natural riffle -pool sequence, while 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 sills, layered riffles 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.
4.1.4 Physicochemical
Although this Project would support the overarching goal in the Cape Fear RBRP to promote nutrient and
sediment reduction in agricultural areas, it is difficult to measure nutrient and sediment reduction at this
Project level because they can be affected by so many variables. However, many of the restoration and
enhancement activities intended to improve the hydraulic and geomorphology parameters will also directly
and indirectly affect the physiochemical parameters of the Project streams over time. The primary activities
that will directly affect physiochemical functions include filtering of runoff through buffer areas, the
conversion of active pasture and row crop to a forested buffer, and improved denitrification and nutrient
uptake through buffer zones. Additional benefits may also come from functional uplift of the lower level
stream functions (hydraulics and geomorphology), which will reduce sediment and nutrients in the system
through bank stabilization and reforesting. Activities that will indirectly benefit physicochemical functions
are as follows: Temperature regulation will improve by introducing canopy tree species 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 use 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.
4.1.5 Biology
As mentioned for the physicochemical stream function, it will be difficult to measure the functional uplift of
the biological functions at this site within the monitoring period of the Project. However, since the life
histories of many species likely to benefit from stream and wetland restoration are depending on all the
lower -level functions, the functional uplift from the hydraulic and geomorphic levels would likely have a
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 22 October 2022

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 be assumed.
Stream restoration Projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and provide
a travel corridor for wildlife species. Provided measures are taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation
from construction/restoration activities, we do not anticipate the Project to result in significant adverse
impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 23 October 2022

5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
5.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The purpose of the proposed Bank is to generate compensatory mitigation credits for inclusion in the
Tobacco Road Bank in the Cape Fear River Basin. Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project's
maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and
objectives will be realized by the Project. These goals clearly address the degraded water quality and
nutrient stressors in the 2009 Cape Fear River RBRP. The Project will address outlined RBRP Goals and CU
specific goals (listed in Section 2).
The Project goals address stressors identified in the watershed, and include the following:
• Restore, enhance, and protect hydrology and water quality functions to stream channels;
• Reduce inputs of sediment into streams from eroding stream banks;
• Reduce nutrient inputs to streams and wetland complexes;
• Improve aquatic habitat in Project streams;
• Improve floodplain connectivity;
• Rehabilitate and protect wetland hydrology, soils, and plant communities;
• Create high quality wetlands, where appropriate, functioning in unison with stream channels;
• Restore, enhance, and protect appropriate riparian and wetland plant communities;
• Preserve high quality stream and wetland resources;
• Improve ecological processes by reducing water temperature, improving terrestrial and aquatic
habitat, and restoring a native plant community.
The Project goals will be addressed through the following objectives:
• Design and construct stable stream channels with appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile based
on reference reach conditions;
• Reduce bank height ratios to less than 1.2 and increase entrenchment ratio to greater than 2.2 in
accordance to the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update
Guidance;
• Add in -stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced
streams;
• Install habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of varying
depths to restored and enhanced streams;
• Replace existing fords and failing culverts with appropriately sized culverts;
• Exclude livestock permanently from streams and their associated buffers as well as surrounding
wetlands;
• Increase forested riparian buffers to at least fifty feet on both sides of the channel along the Project
reaches with an appropriate riparian plant community;
• Create and rehabilitate riparian wetlands by raising stream bed elevations, plugging surface ditches,
and planting native wetland plant species in order to maintain appropriate soil series
saturation/hydroperiod thresholds during the growing season;
• Remove invasive species from riparian buffer and wetland areas to support the colonization and
survival of native riparian buffer species;
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project that will perpetually protect streams,
wetlands, and their associated buffers.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 24 October 2022

Anticipated functional benefits and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function Based
Framework are outlined in Table 9.
Limitations to achieving these watershed goals arise by remaining constrained to the Project boundaries.
While restoring the habitat and streams to stable and effective conditions helps achieve the goals within
the Project parcels, the presence of surrounding poor riparian buffers and agricultural impact influences the
effect on the watershed as a whole. However, through this Project's connectivity with other Projects in the
watershed, and responsible stewardship of current restoration Projects, overall watershed functionality and
health will improve to meet the RBRP goals.
Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements
Function
Goal
Objective
Hydrolog
to transport water from
Convert land -use of streams and their
Transport of water from
the watershed to the
headwaters from active pasture and row
the watershed to the
channel in a non -erosive
crop to contiguous riparian forest
channel
manner
Hydraulic
Improve flood bank connectivity by
Transport of water in
reducing bank height ratios and increase
the channel, on the
to transport water in a
entrenchment ratios
floodplain, and through
stable non -erosive manner
the sediments
Maintain regular, seasonal flow in restored,
intermittent streams
Reduce erosion rates and channel stability
Geomorphology
to create a diverse
to reference reach conditions
Transport of wood and
bedform and stable
sediment to create
channels that achieve
Improve bedform diversity (pool spacing,
diverse bedforms and
dynamic equilibrium and
percent riffles, etc.)
provide suitable habitat for
dynamic equilibrium
life
Increase buffer width to over 50 feet and
protect existing buffer
to achieve appropriate
levels for water
Improve stream temperature regulation
Physicochemical °
temperature, dissolved
through introduction of canopy
Temperature and
oxygen concentration, and
oxygen regulation;
other important nutrients
Increase dissolved oxygen by installing in -
processing of organic
including but not limited
stream structures to created aeration zones
matter and nutrients
to Nitrogen and
Phosphorus through buffer
Decrease nutrient loading through filtration
planting and cattle
of planted riparian buffer
exclusion
Biology °
to achieve functionality in
Improve aquatic habitat through the
Biodiversity and life
levels 1-4 to support the
installation of habitat features, construction
histories of aquatic life
life histories of aquatic and
of pools at varying depths, and planting the
histories and riparian life
riparian plants and animals
riparian buffer
° These categories are measured indirectly
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan
25
October 2022

6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
6.1 Reference Stream
The restoration portions of the Project have been impacted by historic agricultural practices both within
and outside of the Project area, 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 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 Piedmont streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.
6.1.1 Reference Watershed Characterization
Two reference streams were selected UT to Muddy Creek and Watery Fork (Figure 11). UT to Muddy Creek
is located just downstream of the Rhapsody Project in Randolph County, NC. The reach that was surveyed
and analyzed is approximately 200 feet long. The drainage area for this segment of UT to Muddy Creek is
0.35 square miles (224 acres). The land use in the watershed is characterized as mostly forested (59%) and
agriculture (33%) with minor components of residential (3%), open space (2%), impervious (1%), and open
water (1%). Watery Fork is located at the Dairyland Project in Orange County, NC. The reach that was
surveyed and analyzed is approximately 1,559 feet long. The drainage area for the unnamed tributary is
0.98 square miles (624 acres). The land use in the watershed is characterized by mostly mixed pines and
hardwoods (78 percent), cultivated row crops (5 percent), residential (8 percent), managed herbaceous
cover/pasture land (9 percent) and open water (<1 percent).
6.1.2 Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge along with indicators of
bankfull stage for the reference site. Existing drainage area, land use, slope, roughness, and cross -sectional
area were all factors considered when performing the calculations. Using a combination of Piedmont
Regional Curves, in-house spreadsheet tools, and two Project specific regional flood frequency analyses,
the existing discharge for UT to Muddy Creek was calculated to be approximately 30 cubic feet per second
(cfs) and Watery Fork was approximately 87 cfs. See Section 6.2 for a more detailed description of the
hydrologic analyses performed for this Project.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 26 October 2022

6.2 Design Parameters
6.2.1 Stream Mitigation Approach
The restoration plan and design approach were developed based on existing conditions, reference reach
conditions and the Project goals outlined in Section S. This Project will utilize Priority 1 and 2 restoration,
bioengineered bank stabilization, and natural channel design techniques. Stream restoration designs will
produce a single thread meandering channel consisting of a typical riffle pool relationship. Reference reach
data, NC regional curve data, and historical data will be utilized in the design of each restored stream reach.
Analytical design approaches will also be used to determine watershed discharge contributing to each
stream reach as well as enhance the overall design. A conceptual view is provided in Figure 12. Design plan
sheets are located in Appendix H.
The restoration plan and design approach for each stream reach is detailed below:
Reach TR1-A
An Enhancement III approach is proposed for this reach to expand the buffer. Enhancement activities
include:
Riparian planting
Invasive treatment
Reach TR1-B
A Priority 1 Restoration design approach is being used for this reach to create a single thread meandering
channel. Restoration activities include:
- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
- Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control,
- Establishing a riffle -pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via coir matting and livestaking,
- Plugging a ditch,
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive treatment,
- Replacing an existing ford crossing with a culvert,
- Filling the existing channel.
Reach TR1-C and D
An Enhancement I design approach is being used for these reaches to address channel incision, limited
floodplain access, bank erosion, livestock access, and buffer degradation. Enhancement activities include:
- Installation of 23 Layered Riffles to promote overbank flows and reduce in -channel forces
(Appendix Q,
- Approximately 120ft of channel realignment,
- Installation of log and rock sills for grade control and habitat,
- Installation of one rock cross vane for grade control, bank protection and habitat,
- Installation of one rockj-hook for grade control, bank protection and habitat,
- Installation of brush toes for bank stabilization and habitat,
- Stabilizing banks via coir matting and livestaking,
- Removal of earthen berms to promote overbank flows and reduce channel forces,
- Cattle exclusion,
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 27 October 2022

- Riparian planting,
- Invasive treatment,
- Replacing two fords with culverts and replacing a failing culvert crossing with a new culvert.
Reach TR1-E
A Priority 1 Restoration design approach is being used for this reach to create a single thread meandering
channel. Restoration activities include:
- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
- Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control,
- Establishing a riffle -pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via coir matting and livestaking,
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive treatment,
Filling the existing channel.
Reach TR1-F
An Enhancement III design approach is being used for this reach to address buffer degradation.
Enhancement activities include:
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive treatment.
Reach TR2
An Enhancement II design approach is being used for this reach to address channel incision, limited
floodplain access, bank erosion, livestock access, and buffer degradation. Enhancement activities include:
- Installation of log sills for grade control and habitat,
- Installation of brush toe for bank stabilization and habitat,
- Stabilizing banks via coir matting and livestaking,
- Removal of earthen berms to promote overbank flows and reduce channel forces,
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive treatment.
Reach MN1-A
An Enhancement III design approach is being used for this reach to address buffer degradation.
Enhancement activities include:
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive treatment.
Reach MN1-B
A mixed Priority 1 and 2 Restoration design approach is being used for this reach to create a single thread
meandering channel. Restoration activities include:
- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
- Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control,
- Establishing a riffle -pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via coir matting and livestaking,
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive treatment,
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 28 October 2022

- Filling the existing channel.
Reach MN2-A
An Enhancement II design approach is being used for this reach to stabilize and 7ft tall head cut.
Enhancement activities include:
- Installation of a 100ft long cascade,
- Riparian planting,
- Invasive treatment,
- Livestock exclusion.
Reach MN2-113
A Priority 1 Restoration design approach is being used for this reach to create a single thread meandering
channel. Restoration activities include:
- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
- Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control,
- Establishing a riffle -pool, plane bed, and step -pool sequences throughout the new channel,
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via coir matting and livestaking,
- Livestock Exclusion,
- Replacing an existing ford crossing with a culvert,
- Culvert removal,
- Riparian planting,
- Filling the existing channel.
Reach MN3
An Enhancement II design approach is being used for this reach to provide channel stability and re-establish
a healthy riparian buffer. Enhancement activities include:
- Installation of log and rock sills for grade control and habitat,
- Berm Removal,
- Cattle Exclusion,
- Riparian planting.
Reach MN4-A
An Enhancement I design approach is being used for this reach to treat channel incision, buffer degradation,
livestock access and aggradation. Enhancement activities include:
- Approximately 75 LF of channel benching,
- Installation of 50 LF of Brush toe,
- Livestock exclusion,
- Replacing an existing ford crossing with a culvert,
- Riparian planting.
Reach MN4-113
An Enhancement III design approach is being used for this reach to address livestock access. Enhancement
activities include:
- Livestock exclusion,
Invasive treatment.
Reach MN5-A
A Preservation approach is being used for this reach to preserve existing conditions.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 29 October 2022

Reach MINIS-B
An Enhancement I design approach is being used for this reach to treat channel incision, buffer degradation
and livestock access. Enhancement activities include:
- Constructing a cascade channel,
- Culvert removal
Livestock exclusion,
Riparian planting.
Reach MN6-A
An Enhancement III design approach is being used for this reach to address buffer degradation.
Enhancement activities include:
- Riparian Planting,
Invasive treatment.
Reach MN6-B
A Priority 1 Restoration design approach is being used for this reach to create a single thread meandering
channel. Restoration activities include:
- Grading a new single thread channel through an abandoned crenulation,
- Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control,
- Establishing a riffle -pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via coir matting and livestaking,
- Culvert removal,
Riparian planting,
Filling the existing channel.
Reach MN7
An Enhancement II design approach is being used for this reach to provide habitat and grade control.
Enhancement activities include:
- Installation of log and rock structures,
- Installation of brush toe,
Invasive treatment.
Reach MN8
A Priority 1 Restoration design approach is being used for this reach to create a single thread meandering
channel. Restoration activities include:
- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
- Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control,
- Establishing a riffle -pool sequence throughout the new channel,
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
- Stabilizing banks via coir matting and livestaking,
- Riparian planting,
- Filling the existing channel.
Reach MN9
A Preservation approach is being used for this reach to preserve existing conditions.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 30 October 2022

6.2.2 Data Analysis
6.2.2.1 Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to determine and
validate the design bankfull discharge and channel geometry required to provide regular floodplain
inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a single
model. Peak flows (Table 10) and corresponding channel cross sectional areas were determined for
comparison to design parameters using the following methods:
• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• NC, VA, and SC Regional Curves
• Existing Conditions Morphology
6.2.2.2 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 0.14 to 10.2 mil which passed the Dalrymple homogeneity test
(Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations. Regional flood frequency
equations were developed for the 1.1-, 1.5-, and 2-year peak discharges based on the gauge data.
Discharges were then computed for the design reaches. These discharges were compared to those
predicted by the discharge regional curve and the existing conditions morphology.
6.2.2.3 Regional Curve Regression Equations
The Rural North Carolina Piedmont regional curves by Doll et al. (2002); the Virginia Non -Urban Piedmont
regional curves by Lotspeich (2009); and the South Carolina Piedmont regional curve by Jennings
Environmental (2020) for discharge were used in part to determine the bankfull discharge for the Project.
The regional curve discharge equations used for the analysis are:
(1) Qbkf=91.62*(DA)07 (Doll et al., 2002)
(2) Qbkf=43.895*(DA)09472 (Lotspeich, 2009)
(3) Qbkf=36.5*(DA)0699 (Jennings Environmental, 2020)
Where Qbkf=bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mi2).
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 31 October 2022

Table 10. Design Peak Flow Comparison
Drainage Existing FFQ FFQ FFQ NC Regional VA Regional SC Design/
Reach Area (Ac) Conditions Q1.1 Q,.s Q2.0 Curve Q (1) Curve Q (2) Regional Calculated
Curve Q (3) Q
TR1-B 200 35-43 27 49 67 40 15 16 25
TR1-D 320 - 37 67 91 56 23 22 32
TR1-E 400 40-50 43 77 105 66 28 26 40
MN1-13 31 6-8 8 15 20 11 3 4 7
MN2-B 27 6-8 7 13 18 10 2 4 7
MN5-B 9 - 3 6 9 4 1 2 11
MN6-B 22 4-5 6 12 16 8 2 3 5
MN8 34 - 8 15 21 11 3 5 10
6.2.2.4 Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a stable
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.
6.2.2.5 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.
Critical shear stress is the shear stress required to initiate motion of the channels median particle size (Dso)
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 32 October 2022

Table 11. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Allowable Shear Stress'
Proposed Shear Existing Critical
Reach Stress at Bankfull Shear Stress Fine Gravel Medium/Coarse
Very Coarse
Stage (Ibs/ft2) (Ibs/ft2) (Ibs/ft2) Gravel (Ibs/ft2)
Gravel / Cobble
(Ibs/ft2)
TR1-B 0.5 0.54 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67
1.0 to 4.0
TR1-D 1.0 0.33 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67
1.0 to 4.0
TR1-E 0.5 0.12 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67
1.0 to 4.0
M N 1-B 0.6 0.06 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67
1.0 to 4.0
MN2-B 0.9 0.03 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67
1.0 to 4.0
MN5-B 2.0 0.12 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67
1.0 to 4.0
MN6-B 0.4 0.004 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67
1.0 to 4.0
MN8 0.8 0.004 0.075 to 0.33 0.33 to 0.67
1.0 to 4.0
'(Fischenich, 2001)
Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Project design
reaches are greater
than the critical shear stress of the existing material (shear stress required to initiate motion). Therefore, the
proposed riffles will be supplemented with larger material to maintain bedform stability.
6.2.2.6 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
Manning's "n" Design Velocity
Permissible
Reach Value' Bed Material
(ft/s)
2
Velocity (ft/sec)
TR1-B 0.045 2.8 Gravel and Cobble
2.5 - 7.5
TR1-D 0.045 4.0 Gravel and Cobble
2.5 - 7.5
TR1-E 0.045 2.9 Gravel and Cobble
2.5 - 7.5
MN1-B 0.045 2.8 Gravel and Cobble
2.5 - 7.5
MN2-B 0.045 3.3 Gravel and Cobble
2.5 - 7.5
MN5-B 0.045 4.3 Gravel and Cobble
2.5 - 7.5
MN6-B 0.045 2.2 Gravel and Cobble
2.5 - 7.5
MN8 0.045 3.3 Gravel and Cobble
2.5 - 7.5
'(Chow, 1959)
2(Fischenich, 2001)
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 33
October 2022

6.2.2.7 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 cattle access.
There is also significant upland erosion in the watershed from the current land -use practices and an
impoundment upstream of TR1-A will limit the effect of any future development. It is anticipated that
sediment supply from agricultural land adjacent to the Project will decrease as buffers are established and
channelized flow entering the Project is directed into floodplain pools. Further, sediment supply from the
channel itself will decrease as channel entrenchment and stability is improved.
6.2.3 Wetland Mitigation Approach
The Tobacco Road Project offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity that will revitalize and create
wetlands throughout a highly disturbed floodplain complex. As such, the proposed wetland treatments are
closely tied to the stream restoration and enhancement. The Project will provide 2.096 WMUs through a
combination of wetland creation, rehabilitation, and enhancement.
Because of the site's observed soil characteristics and landscape position, a combination of wetland
creation, enhancement, and rehabilitation is proposed. The success of wetland creation, at a credit ratio of
3:1, relies upon the expectation that raising the stream bed elevation and plugging surrounding drainage
features will then raise the local groundwater table across the floodplain. In turn, this will connect and
expand these areas of discharge while providing frequent flood events to the surrounding floodplain. Once
the hydrology is established, these areas are anticipated to develop wetland functions and display wetland
characteristics. Enhancement areas, at a credit ratio of 2:1, aim to improve and protect vegetation in already
jurisdictional wetland areas. The successful rehabilitation of existing wetlands on the Project, at a credit ratio
of 1.5:1, also relies upon stream restoration and enhancement measures that will return appropriate
hydrology to the soils, improve crossing connectivity, foster wetland vegetation communities, and restore
a stream and wetland complex throughout. In areas that are planned to be mostly cleared of trees,
decompaction techniques to increase porosity, specifically ripping these areas 16 to 20 inches, will be
performed. Where larger trees are expected to remain, equipment will be limited, and no ripping will occur.
Once ripped, shallow depressions and pools can be constructed using smaller, low impact equipment. The
decompaction of disturbed soils will improve planting survival and allow greater infiltration and storage.
Along with infiltration and storage, these depressions will help to establish appropriate wetland vegetation
communities and will create diverse habitat throughout the wetland areas.
Wetland Creation
Wetland creation area C2 is a small, concave backwater area containing a spring/seep along the toe slope
that is expected to support wetland hydrology. Currently a ditch/linear wetland, WU, drains the discharge
from this seep and due to the narrow width of the floodplain at this location, the incised stream creates an
additional drainage impact. With the ditch/linear wetland diverting surface flow, this small depressional area
along the toe slope drains rapidly. The areas outside of the ditch/linear wetland currently lack adequate
hydrology due to drainage of the soils. This proposed creation is approximately 0.22 acre. Once the stream
bed is raised during construction, the slope discharge should quickly raise the local water table to near the
surface for extended periods. Hydrologic success criterion for this area is recommended to be 12 percent.
Wetland creation area C3 contains two small tributaries, MN6 and MN7, entering from each side of the
floodplain. A discharge wetland, WQ, is located on the right toe of slope near the upstream end. There is
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 34 October 2022

evidence of groundwater discharge along the slope near both tributaries. Upstream of this area the channel
is shallow to exposed bedrock. The presence of sharp bends and areas of bank erosion that extend up into
the surrounding floodplain indicate the loamy soils in this area are erodible. This creation area is
approximately 2.17 acres in size and extends along both sides of TR1-D. Once the downstream crossing is
constructed with an appropriately sized culvert, the stream bed is raised, and small depressions are created
throughout, the local water table should be near the surface for extended periods. Hydrologic success
criterion for this area is expected to be 12 percent, but any depressional areas may be greater than 16
percent.
Wetland creation area C4 lies within an active livestock pasture just downstream of a proposed crossing. An
abandoned crossing downstream, along MN5-B, degraded by bank erosion, will be removed during stream
enhancement work. There are three small discharge wetlands located along the edge of the floodplain. The
wetland along the upstream portion of the left floodplain, WP, is the source of a small tributary, TR2, that
parallels the central stream. Both channels are deeply incised, and erosion has created unstable banks. WP
exhibits soils that are saturated to the surface with shallow ponding. Ponding may be the result of
compacted/disturbed surface horizons from livestock impacts and soil churning. Two other areas of existing
hydric soil are situated downstream, one along the left floodplain, WO, and the other on the right side of
the floodplain, WS. The created area, situated amongst these existing wetland features, combines to be
approximately 0.79 acre. Once the stream beds are raised and small depressions are created throughout,
the local water table should be near the surface for extended periods due to the numerous seepage and
discharge points along both slopes. Sources of hydrology include three small discharge wetlands and two
streams. Due to the discharge along the slopes, the hydrologic success criterion for this area is expected to
be 12 percent, but any depressional areas may be greater than 16 percent.
The final wetland creation area, C5 is a small, nearly level, backwater area along the left floodplain located
just upstream of an existing crossing which will be upgraded during construction. Although small in extent,
0.19 acre, C5 has a significant discharge source that is expected to provide hydrologic success. Stream
enhancement with the addition of the upgraded crossing is anticipated to limit drainage and raise the
groundwater elevation to support adequate hydrology for this area. Hydrologic success criterion for this
wetland is expected to be 12 percent.
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland enhancement at a credit ratio of 2:1 is proposed within the jurisdictional wetlands WO, WQ, and
WR. These areas have sufficient hydrology and are surrounded by intact riparian forest; however, they are
disconnected from the stream (TR1-D). Activities proposed to enhance these wetlands include the
enhancement of TR1-C and TR1-D that will improve the wetland -stream interaction, treatment of invasive
species where necessary, livestock exclusion fencing (where applicable), and the establishment of a
conservation easement. This will encourage the connectivity and long-term hydrology of the jurisdictional
features throughout this area and will in turn promote the establishment of the surrounding created
wetlands (C3 and C4).
Wetland Rehabilitation
The remaining existing wetlands throughout the Project, excluding WA and WB, are proposed to generate
rehabilitation credit at a ratio of 1.5:1. These wetlands include WD, WE, WF, WG, WH, WI, WJ, WK, WM, WN,
WP, WS, WU, WV, and WW. These areas have been directly impacted by current and historic agricultural
practices and have lowered hydrologic function as a result; however, indicators such as hydric soil presence,
vegetative communities, and topographic location have allowed them to remain jurisdictional. Stream
restoration and enhancement activities, specifically raising the stream bed and plugging surrounding
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 35 October 2022

drainage features, along the adjacent streams, will raise the local water table and return and improve
hydrology to the existing wetland soils. Additional actions that will rehabilitate present wetlands include
crossing improvements, livestock exclusion, and planting an appropriate wetland vegetative community.
This will encourage the connectivity and long-term hydrology of the jurisdictional features throughout the
Project and will in turn promote the establishment of the surrounding created wetlands.
6.2.4 Summary of Approach Changes from Prospectus
This section is intended to identify and explain the reasons for any deviations in the Project approach
between the mitigation plan and prospectus document.
6.2.4.1 Stream Approach
The design and crediting approach changed for three of the 19 (TR1-A, C and D) reaches discussed in the
prospectus and one additional reach (MN8) was added to the Project since the prospectus.
Toe protection was proposed for TR1-A in the prospectus but upon further review RES engineers
determined that toe protection was not needed. This was based on minor active erosion observed along
the reach and hardening banks with minor erosion could potentially lead to degradation of other banks
that are currently stable. Based on the removal of toe protection from the design approach, the crediting
approach was changed from Enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio to Enhancement III at a 7.5:1 ratio.
Upon receipt of survey topography RES ran a 2-dimensional HEC-RAS model for reach TR1-C and D. This
model showed that there was limited floodplain access for these reaches until the 10-year flood event. This
limited access results in excessive in channel velocities in these reaches. RES knew that the channels were
incised from initial data collection however we made additional field visits to validate the presence of excess
in channel forces and found that much of TR1-C and TR1-D exhibited oversized riffle material with some
bedrock outcrops and limited pool formation. These are all indicative of a channel with excess in channel
forces. RES also observed depositional areas along these reaches. The existing fords on TR1-C are one of
the few places where the channel is not confined and therefore in channel forces are lower, these areas
were observed to have significant sand and gravel deposits. The existing culvert on the downstream end of
TR1-D is almost completed clogged with woody debris, creating a backwater effect that extends upstream
to the proposed realignment of TR1-D. Significant sand and gravel deposition was also observed in this
backwater area where in channel forces are lower. The presence of this deposition further validates the
model result of excess force in the upstream channels because we can see that there is smaller gravel
available in the system for riffle material if in channel forces were more balanced. Based on this new data,
RES has proposed a design approach that raises the bed to two to four feet through these reaches with
Layered Riffles (See Plan Sheet D6, Appendix H) which will significantly raise the water table and promotes
frequent floodplain inundation in the 2-year flood event and drastically reduces in channel forces restoring
a healthy stream wetland complex through this corridor. A comparison of the inundation boundary
(generated with a 2-diminsional HEC-RAS model) for these reaches with and without the layered riffles can
be found in Figure 13. Based on the uplift provided by this revised design approach RES has changed the
crediting approach for these reaches from Enhancement II at a 2.5:1 and 3:1 ratio to Enhancement I at a
1.5:1 ratio. Further, a portion of TR1-C was proposed as uncredited in the prospectus due to a lack of
minimum buffer, which was based on incomplete boundary and TOB data. The current easement shape,
based on surveyed boundaries, and surveyed top of banks allow for more than 50' buffers, so RES has
changed the credit approach to match the rest of TR1-C.
During detailed hydrology analysis of this Project RES identified an additional reach, MN8, that was missed
during initial site visits. This was missed during preliminary site investigations because it loses definition and
runs underground near its confluence with TR1-E. Based on the lack of channel definition within the
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 36 October 2022

easement and the need to tie the reach to the proposed TR1-E restoration, RES added this reach to the
Project with a restoration design approach at a 1:1 crediting ratio.
During design, several easement breaks had to be adjusted to account for required culvert lengths based
on landscape position and maintenance requirements. Easement breaks at the gas line were also adjusted
based on additional information provided by the gas company.
6.2.4.2 Wetland Approach
The design and crediting approach changed to include 23 Project wetlands, increasing from the four existing
wetlands that were included in the prospectus. The treatment types changed from the proposed
enhancement and preservation in the prospectus to now rehabilitation, enhancement, creation. Wetland
crediting changes were made after detailed hydraulic analysis indicated that the project approach,
particularly Reaches TR1-C and D, would significantly change ground water depth and inundation frequency
through the project. This realization in addition to detailed wetland boundaries that were delineated by RES
staff in December 2021 and January 2022 lead RES to pursue a revised wetland crediting approach. A
detailed hydric soils investigation was performed by a licensed soil scientist in March 2022 to determine the
viability for created wetlands throughout the Project area (Appendix Q. The success of these proposed
wetlands relies upon the expectation that raising the stream bed elevation and plugging surrounding
ditches and seeps will then raise the local groundwater table across the floodplain. In turn, this will connect
and expand these areas of discharge while providing frequent flood events to the surrounding floodplain.
In connection with stream restoration and enhancement, wetland hydrology will begin to establish
throughout proposed areas in the years following construction activities. The prospectus proposed 0.528
acres of wetland mitigation, generating 0.139 WMUs; the current wetland approach proposes 4.979 acres
of wetlands generating 2.096 WMUs.
6.3 Vegetation and Planting Plan
6.3.1 Plant Community Restoration
The restoration and enhancement of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration Project.
The selection of plant species is based on vegetation observations from reference reaches and typical native
vegetation for the surrounding area, as well as plants that have performed well in past restoration activities.
The reference streams are located in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. Some reference stream
channels adjacent and channels within the Project are most similar to a Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest.
This community type represents forests of floodplains of the smallest Piedmont streams, generally
intermittent to 1st or 2nd order. Some alluvial processes have a limited influence on vegetation and most
characteristic alluvial species are scarce (Schafale, 2012). Other stream reaches adjacent and within the
Project resemble a Piedmont Alluvial Forest, which are forests with a substantial component of alluvial
species, on narrow floodplains of small streams where the floodplain is narrowed by bedrock. These are
floodplains with limited differentiation of communities by depositional landforms, with natural levees,
backswamps, and sloughs absent or too small to create separate communities. Species observed in these
reference reaches include tulip poplar, sweetgum, American beech, red maple, various oak species, swamp
tupelo (Nyssa biflora), cinnamon fern, as well as various sedges (Carex spp.). These two target communities
will be referenced when selecting species for one of the planting zones. Due to existing species present,
soils, and wetland characteristics, the second planting zone was created referencing aspects of a Piedmont
Bottomland/Swamp Forest; however, it does not correlate exactly with the species presented in this
community. Other factors that drove the species selection in the second planting zone were wetland
indicator status, waterlogging tolerance (adapted from Hook, 1984), and general industry experience with
the success of certain species within wetland areas.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 37 October 2022

Due to the characteristics and rationale listed above, there will be two proposed planting zones that include
the stream corridor riparian areas and the riparian wetland areas. Both zones have a unique planting plan
associated with it that was determined using multiple sources. The tree species list has been developed and
can be found in Tables 13 and 14. Specific planting area zones can be found in Appendix H and Figure
14.
The restoration of plant communities throughout the Project will provide stability and diversity. For rapid
stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), elderberry
(Sambucus conadensis) and black willow (Sa(ix nigra) were chosen for live stakes along the restored channels.
Live stakes grow at a faster rate than the species planted around them, providing faster bank stabilization
and contribution of organic matter to the channel than the other planted woody species. As the community
matures, the live stakes will slowly stop growing or die out as the other species outgrow them and create
shade that the willows do not tolerate. The live -stake species will be planted along the outside of the
meander bends out three feet from the top of bank, creating a three-foot section along the top of bank.
The live stakes will be spaced at least one per three linear feet with alternate spacing vertically. The
permanent seed mix shown in Table 15 will also be used on the stream banks and throughout the floodplain
to provide both initial and long-term bank stabilization. The variety of plant species to be used in both
planting zones will provide a diverse plant community through the stream, riparian buffer, and wetland
complex.
Species with high dispersal rates are not included because of local occurrence, adjacent seed sources, and
the high potential for natural regeneration. The high dispersal species include red maple and sweetgum. In
order to maintain integrity of the mature forested areas adjacent proposed stream restoration construction
corridors, tree clearing will be limited to the greatest extent practicable. It is anticipated that the
construction will be completed in the spring; therefore, vegetation planting will be completed by March 15,
and there will be at least 180 days until the initiation of the first year of monitoring. Furthermore, any
replanting that may occur throughout the monitoring phase of the Project will occur between November
15 and March 15, per the October 2016 USACE/NCIRT monitoring guidance.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 38 October 2022

Table 13. Proposed Bare Root Planting Lists
Planting
Zone 1 -
Piedmont
Alluvial/Headwater
Stream Forest
Scientific
0.
Wetiand
Sub -Canopy
Common Name
Name
Platanus
Spacing
Canopy
Composition
American sycamore
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
10
occidentalis
Quercus
Willow oak
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
10
hellos
Quercus
Swamp chestnut oak
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
10
michauxii
Northern red oak
Quercus rubra
9x6
Bare root
FACU
Canopy
10
White oak
Quercus alba
9x6
Bare root
FACU
Canopy
10
River birch
Betula ni ra
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
10
Ulmus
American elm
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
10
americana
Hackberry
Celtis laevi ata
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
5
Liriodendron
Tulip poplar
9x6
Bare root
FACU
Canopy
5
tulipifera
Carpinus
Ironwood
9x6
Bare root
FAC
Canopy
5
caroliniana
Lindera
Northern spicebush
9x6
Bare root
FAC
Sub -Canopy
10
benzoin
Persimmon
Diospyros
9x6
Bare root
FAC
Sub -Canopy
5
vir iniana
* Based on NRCS-USDA Wetland Indicator Status for Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain
Common Name
Overcup oak
Planting Zone
Scientific Name
Quercus l rata
2- Piedmont Bottomlancl/Swamp
4.18
Spacing Unit Type
9x6 Bare root
Indic:tor
OBL
Forest
Sub-CanopyAcres-
VsCanopy
Canopy
Composition
15
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
15
American sycamore
Platanus
occidentalis
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
10
River birch
Betula ni ra
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
10
American elm
Ulmus americana
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
10
Hackberr
Celtis laevi ata
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
10
Black willow
Salix ni ra
9x6
Live stake
OBL
Canopy
5
Green ash
Fraxinus
penns lvanica
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
5
Possumhaw
Ilex decidua
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Sub -Canopy
10
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Sub -canopy
5
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
9x6
Bare root
OBL
Sub -Canopy
5
* Based on NRCS-USDA Wetland Indicator Status for Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 39 October 2022

Table 14. Proposed Live Stake Planting List
* Based on NRCS-USDA Wetland Indicator Status for Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain
Table 15. Permanent Seed Mix
Common Name
VA wild rye
Permanent Seed Mix Species
Wetiand Indicator
Scientific Name Status*
El mus vir inicus FAC
% Composition
15
Switchgrass
Panicum vir atum
FAC
15
Little bluestem
Schizach rium sco arium
FACU
15
Blacke ed Susan
Rudbeckia hirta
FACU
10
Oxeye sunflower
Helio sis helianthoides
FACU
10
Eastern Bottlebrush
El mus h strix
UPL
10
Beaked panic grass
Panicum ance s
FAC
10
Lurid sedge
Carex lurida
OBL
5
Frank's Sedge
Carex frankii
OBL
5
Swamp milkweed
Ascle ias incarnata
OBL
3
Smooth Goldenrod
Solida o gigantea
UPL
2
6.3.2 On Site Invasive Species Management
Initial treatment for invasive species will occur during the construction phase of the Project throughout the
entire easement area. While the whole Project will be evaluated and treated, specific areas along reaches
TR1 (A-F), TR2, MN1 (A-B), MN2-A, MN4-B, MN6-A, MN7, and MN8 have known occurrences of invasive
species. Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant
phenology and the location of the species being treated. All treatment will be conducted as to maximize its
effectiveness and reduce chances of detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods will
include mechanical (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical (foliar spray, cut stump, basal
spray, and hack and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds, will be removed from the
Project and properly disposed. Based on existing conditions, species including Chinese privet, multiflora
rose, Japanese stilt grass, Johnson grass, tall fescue, and autumn olive were observed throughout the
Project. For aquatic invasives, such as Murdannia keisak, a wetland -safe herbicide will be applied to treat
occurrences prior to construction completion and as -needed throughout the life of the project. Fescue and
other nuisance pasture grasses associated with the surrounding farm fields will be treated prior to
construction completion. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a certified ground pesticide
applicator with a North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) license and
adhere to all legal and safety requirements according to herbicide labels, and NC and Federal laws.
Management records will be kept on the plant species treated, type of treatment employed, type of
herbicide used, application technique, and herbicide concentration and quantities used. These records will
be included in all reporting documents.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 40 October 2022

6.3.3 Soil Restoration
Upon completion of all construction activities and prior to planting, the subsoil will be harrowed, and any
compaction will be disturbed. Applicable areas within the easement will be prepared using a subsoiler to a
minimum depth of 12 inches. Soil testing will be completed prior to construction to determine what
amendments should be applied to the soil. Completing this process will ensure favorable soil conditions to
promote rapid plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the
Project.
6.4 Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been utilized to develop the restoration and enhancement designs
described throughout this document. A combination of measured/observed and analysis -based methods
were used in the design for this Project. These methods were deemed appropriate due to the Project's rural
location, the relatively small size of each watershed, the known causes of disturbance and plan to abate
them, and the minimal infrastructure constraints. Reference reaches were observed and measured to
produce the original design parameters for each of the proposed reaches. An iterative analysis -based
approach was then used to refine the original design parameters. Numerical methods such as the modeling
of fluvial processes, and the development of bankfull discharge simulations were used for the iterative
analysis and refinement of the design. The restoration and enhancement designs proposed in this report
aim to provide natural Piedmont gravel -bed channel features that will promote stream bed diversity and
improve aquatic communities. The proposed design promotes flow along the floodplain for storm events
that exceed the bankfull stage. The stream corridor, floodplain, and wetland areas will be planted with a
diverse mix of plant and tree species. A complete plant list can be found in Table 13, 14, and 15 above as
well as in Appendix H.
A large portion of the existing streams will be filled using material excavated from the restoration channels.
A combination of native woody material, biodegradable stabilization materials, and stone will be installed
throughout each restored reach. These materials will reduce bank stress, provide grade control, and increase
habitat diversity.
Wetland creation, rehabilitation, and enhancement is being proposed for the various jurisdictional wetlands
throughout the Project and in areas where existing conditions prove to be appropriate for establishing
wetland communities. These areas will be planted with a diverse mix of plant species commonly found in
wetland complexes.
Forested riparian buffers of at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel will be established and enhanced
along each of the Project reaches impacted during construction. Existing forested riparian areas along
preservation reaches will be protected in perpetuity. A combination of Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
and Piedmont Alluvial Forest communities, as found in local reference reach sites, will be established and
include a diverse combination of plant species.
A multitude of sediment control measures will be utilized on site. These sediment control measures include
riparian buffer planting, bank stabilization, stream restoration, stream enhancement, wetland creation,
wetland rehabilitation, and livestock exclusions. These measures will provide functional uplift of the site by
limiting the nutrient input and sediment from activities outside of the proposed conservation easement.
This Project proposes temporary and permanent impacts to stream restoration and enhancement reaches,
existing wetland areas, and riparian buffer areas. Please refer to Section 3.5.5 for a discussion of Project
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 41 October 2022

impacts. All stream, wetland, and buffer impacts will be accounted for in the Pre -Construction Notification
(PCN) form.
6.5 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 16 are Projections based upon site design (Figure 12). Upon
completion of site construction, the Project components and credits data will only be revised to be
consistent with the as -built condition if there is a large discrepancy and with an approved mitigation plan
addendum. This will be approved by the USACE, in consultation with the IRT.
Table 16. Mitigation Credits
Reach
TR1-A
MitigationExistin
Type
Enhancement III
Proposed
0+44
Stationing
to
Stream Mitigation
4+92
Length
448
...
Length (LF)
448
Mitigation
Ratio
7.5:1 59.733
TR1-A
Enhancement III
5+55
to
12+47
692
692
7.5:1
92.267
TR1-13
Restoration
14+56
to
17+64
302
308
1.0:1
308.000
TR1-13
Restoration
18+04
to
29+95
1,127
1,191
1.0:1
1,191.000
TR1-C
Enhancement 1
31+87
to
35+39
352
352
1.5:1
234.667
TR1-C
Enhancement 1
35+90
to
42+26
636
636
1.5:1
424.000
TR1-D
Enhancement 1
42+26
to
60+36
1,979
1,810
1.5:1
1,206.667
TR1-E
Restoration
60+96
to
82+21
1,948
2,125
1.0:1
2,125.000
TR1-F
Enhancement 111
82+21
to
84+37
216
216
5.0:1
43.200
TR2
Enhancement 11
0+22
to
2+93
271
271
2.5:1
108.400
MN1-A
Enhancement 111
1+76
to
2+41
65
65
5.0:1
13.000
MN1-13
Restoration
2+41
to
10+13
731
772
1.0:1
772.000
MN2-A
Enhancement II
0+0
to
5+29
537
529
3.0:1
176.333
MN2-B
Restoration
6+25
to
12+06
532
581
1.0:1
581.000
MN3
Enhancement II
1+08
to
2+94
189
186
2.5:1
74.400
MN4-A
Enhancement 1
0+01
to
2+16
215
215
1.5:1
143.333
MN4-B
Enhancement III
2+68
to
4+49
181
181
5.0:1
36.200
MN5-A
Preservation
0+0
to
0+44
44
44
10.0:1
4.400
MN5-13
Enhancement 1
0+44
to
2+53
188
209
1.5:1
139.333
MN6-A
Enhance cement III
0+0
to
3+93
393
393
7.5:1
52.400
MN6-13
Restoration
3+93
to
8+50
231
457
1.0:1
457.000
MN7
Enhancement 11
1+09
to
6+13
497
504
3.0:1
168.000
MN8
Restoration
0+29
to
1+84
86
155
1.0:1
155.000
MN9
Preservation
0+0
to
0+95
95
95
10.0:1
9.500
Totals 11,955 12,435 8,574.833
Credit Loss in Required Buffer-675.390
Credit Gain in Required Buffer 411.570
Non -Standard Buffer Width Adjustment*-263.820
Total Adjusted SMUs 8,311.010
*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 6.5 and
in Figure 12.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 42 October 2022

Table 16. Mitigation Credits (Continued)
Wetland ID
WC
MitigationWetland
Rehabilitation
Mitigation
0.136
Ratio
1.5
0.090
WD
Rehabilitation
0.042
1.5
0.028
WE
Rehabilitation
0.023
1.5
0.015
WF
Rehabilitation
0.135
1.5
0.090
WG
Rehabilitation
0.108
1.5
0.072
WH
Rehabilitation
0.009
1.5
0.006
WI
Rehabilitation
0.125
1.5
0.083
WJ
Rehabilitation
0.064
1.5
0.042
WK
Rehabilitation
0.219
1.5
0.146
WM
Rehabilitation
0.023
1.5
0.015
WN
Rehabilitation
0.001
1.5
0.001
WP
Rehabilitation
0.036
1.5
0.024
WS
Rehabilitation
0.051
1.5
0.034
WU
Rehabilitation
0.022
1.5
0.016
WV
Rehabilitation
0.016
1.5
0.011
WW
Rehabilitation
0.008
1.5
0.006
WO
Enhancement
0.093
2
0.046
WQ
Enhancement
0.321
2
0.161
WR
Enhancement
0.163
2
0.081
C2
Creation
0.224
3
0.075
C3
Creation
2.177
3
0.726
C4
Creation
0.787
3
0.262
C5
Creation
0.196
3
0.065
WA
Non -crediting
0.023
N/A
N/A
WB
Non -crediting
0.120
N/A
N/A
Total
5.122
2.096
6.5.1 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths
The Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator, produced by the USACE in January 2018, was
utilized to calculate functional uplift credit adjustments. To perform this calculation, GIS analysis was
performed to determine the area (in square feet) of ideal buffer zones and actual buffer zones around all
streams within the Project. Minimum standard buffer widths are measured from the top of bank (50 feet in
Piedmont and Coastal Plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties). The ideal buffers are the maximum
potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated
using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The actual buffer is the square feet in each buffer zone,
as measured by GIS, excluding non -forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer),
easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc.
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. The stream lengths, mitigation type,
ideal buffer, and actual buffer are all entered into the calculator. This is data is processed, and the resulting
credit amounts are totaled for the whole Project (Figure 15).
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 43 October 2022

7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Project will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in the 2016
USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update and subsequent agency
guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
7.1 Stream Success Criteria
7.1.1 Bankfull Events
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
7.1.2 Surface Flow
Intermittent stream reaches will be monitored annually to document at least intermittent surface flow and
the maintenance of an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM). 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 at any point during the year.
On reaches where the layered riffle design approach is proposed (TR1-C and TR1-D), base flow elevation
and overbank-event monitoring will be conducted. These will be measured using a flow camera, installed
prior to construction in order to capture pre- and post -construction conditions. Accurately measuring an
increase in flow frequency over a few months or years is not possible; therefore, RES suggests that if base
flow elevation is met, then overbank flow events must also be met, as an increase in base flow elevation
confirms a decrease in channel -flow capacity and a resulting increase in overbank-flow events (Appendix
C).
7.1.3 Cross Sections
There should be little change in as -built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -cutting or
erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified
using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be greater than 2.2 within restored riffle cross sections (for C and E
streams).
7.2 Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
The NRCS has a current WETS table (1971-2022) for Alamance County upon which to base the average
growing season. The closest comparable data station was determined to be the WETS station at the
Burl ington-Alamance Regional Airport in Burlington, NC. This station determines the growing season to
be 232 days long, extending from March 21 to November 8, and is based on a daily minimum temperature
greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years.
The soils in the floodplain of this project do not specifically meet some of the characteristics that define a
Chewacla (or a Wehadkee inclusion). Normal guidance for hydrologic success is based on soil series and
mitigation guidance for Piedmont soils (US Army Corps of Engineers 2016). Although these soils cannot
be directly derived from this guidance, the observed floodplain soils do appear to meet the general
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 44 October 2022

taxonomic criteria for either a Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts (similar to Chewacla) or a Fluvaquentic
Endoaquepts (similar to Wehadkee).
Using the mitigation guidance for a Wehadkee series, wetlands in this landscape may be expected to have
a natural hydroperiod of 12 percent during the growing season where the water table is within 12 inches of
the surface. Factors contributing to a 12 percent hydroperiod include landscape position, proposed stream
restoration and enhancement design, existing hydrologic sources, and soil characteristics suitable for
wetland creation. After completion of the Project, a local hydroperiod slightly higher or lower than this
guidance is possible due to natural variation in local topography, internal drainage, and the actual period
of slope discharge. Depressional areas and soils adjacent to the slope discharge may exhibit longer
hydroperiods exceeding 16 percent, depending on local topography. Soil of the surrounding soil map units
are well drained and not anticipated to have hydroperiods exceeding 6 percent. For the first year after
construction, it may be practical to expect a hydroperiod of less than 12 percent if rainfall patterns are below
normal as soils becomes saturated and a higher groundwater table becomes established. Due to the nature
of wetland creation, the hydroperiod may be depressed into the second year. These suggested
hydroperiods are subject to factors related to stream design and frequency of flooding, construction
accuracy, local topography, and local drainage after construction. Specific information regarding each
wetland creation area and its relative hydroperiod criteria can be found in Section 6.2.3. Overall, hydrologic
success criterion for wetlands throughout the Project are recommended to be 12 percent.
7.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project will
follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the survival of at
least 320 planted three -year -old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, a minimum of 260 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. In order for a volunteer tree to count towards success
criteria, it must be a species on the approved planting list and be present at least two growing seasons.
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. Additionally, invasive species will be monitored and controlled to under
five percent of the easement area.
8 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring will be conducted for seven years post -construction. Annual monitoring data will be reported
using the IRT monitoring template. The monitoring report shall provide a Project data chronology that will
facilitate an understanding of Project status and trends, research purposes, and assist in decision making
regarding Project close-out. Monitoring reports will be prepared annually and submitted to the USACE.
Monitoring of the Project will adhere to metrics and performance standards established by the USACE's
April 2003 Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the IRT's October 2016 Wilmington District
Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Table 17 outlines the links between Project goals,
objectives, and treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and performance standards. The
monitoring plan is presented in Figure 14.
8a 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
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 45 October 2022

compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual monitoring
reports unless requested by USACE.
8.2 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year by
qualified individuals. Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or
degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures.
Longitudinal images should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive
increase in channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation
of the banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation. Cross section, vegetation plot, stage recorder, flow gauge, and culverted crossing locations will
be used as permanent digital image stations. In addition to fixed image stations, a camera rig (flow camera)
will be installed along TR1-D in the attempt to capture daily images of stream flow throughout the layered
riffle structures that will line this reach (Appendix Q. If necessary, additional flow cameras will be installed
later in the monitoring life of the Project. A series of photos over time should indicate successional
maturation of riparian vegetation.
8.3 Stream Hydrology Events
Continuous stage recorders, devices that utilize automatic -logging pressure transducers that are capable of
documenting the height, frequency, and duration of bankfull events, will be installed on Priority 1
Restoration reaches that are at least 1,000 feet in length. Specifically, stage recorders will be installed on
reaches TR1-13 and TR1-E.
For intermittent streams generating restoration or enhancement credit, monitoring flow gauges should be
installed to track the frequency and duration of stream flow events. Specifically, nine flow gauges, consisting
of automatic -logging pressure transducers, will be installed at the Project; one each on reaches TR2, MN1,
MN2, MN3, MN4, MN5-B, MN6, MN7, and MNB. Additional photos and site notes will be included in yearly
monitoring reports when necessary.
On reaches where the layered riffle design approach is proposed (TR1-C and TR1-D), base flow elevation
and overbank-event monitoring will be conducted. These will be measured using a flow camera, installed
along TR1-D, prior to construction in order to capture pre- and post -construction conditions (Appendix Q.
8.4 Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at approximately one per 20 bankfull widths with half in pools
and half in riffle on all Restoration 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 40 cross sections are proposed across the Project. Cross
sections will be monitored in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
8.5 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydrologic conditions in the Project's wetland areas.
This will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges installed in representative
locations across the creation areas as well as some already jurisdictional wetland areas for reference
conditions. These groundwater gauges will be installed in accordance with USACE guidelines and
subsequent NCIRT guidance. The gauges will be downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be
calculated during the growing season.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 46 October 2022

Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators will also be recorded during
quarterly site visits. A total of nine groundwater gauges are proposed across the Project; six in created
wetlands and three in rehabilitated or enhanced, jurisdictional wetlands, serving as hydrologic references.
Four groundwater gauges will be installed throughout the wetlands adjacent to TR1-D (WQ and C3) in early
2023, prior to construction. This pre -construction data, compared to post -construction data once the
Project has been built, will provide insight into how the layered riffle structure approach, proposed along
this reach, affects the local groundwater table. This data will also be used to justify the wetland crediting
approach. Soil data including borings, horizon information, and wetland gauge measurements will be
collected during the as -built site setup and again during monitoring year 7 (MY7), for comparison to check
for development of hydric soil characteristics. Due to lack of widespread hydric indicators and the redder,
high iron soils, the formation of hydric indicators will likely be slow. Evidence most likely observable will be
mottles along soil pores and root channels. This data will be included in both the as -built report and the
final close-out monitoring report.
If, by the fifth year of monitoring, successful hydroperiods of created wetlands are not achieved, RES staff
will perform a second wetland delineation to locate created and existing areas of jurisdictional features.
Additional photos and site notes will be included in yearly monitoring reports when necessary.
A rain gauge will not be installed on site due to the proximity of a National Weather Service Cooperative
Observer Data Station situated along the Cane Creek reservoir (station ID 311429) in Saxapahaw, NC,
approximately four miles southeast of the Project. The data is provided by the North Carolina State Climate
Office, through the Station Scout application.
8.6 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring plots will be 100 square meters, or 0.025 acres, in size and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be 20 plots within the planted area (25.27 acres). The planted area is
split into two zones: the stream corridor riparian areas (21.09 acres) and the riparian wetland zone (4.18
acres). Plots will be a mixture of fixed and random plots, with 15 fixed plots and five random plots. Of the
15 fixed plots, 12 will be located within the Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset crediting areas and will satisfy
both stream and riparian buffer/nutrient offset crediting. The remaining three fixed plots and five random
plots will be included for stream credit only. One of the five random plots will be dedicated to shift between
planted wetland rehabilitation crediting areas throughout the monitoring life of the Project. Planted area
indicates all area in the easement that will be planted with trees. Existing wooded areas are not included in
the planted area. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the fixed plots: species, height, planting
date (or volunteer), and grid location. For random plots, species and height will be recorded for all woody
stems. The location (GPS coordinates and orientation) of the random plots will be identified in the annual
monitoring reports. Vegetation will be planted and plots established at least 180 days prior to the initiation
of the first year of monitoring. Monitoring will occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between July 1 st and leaf drop.
Any revegetation or replanting should be conducted between November 15t" and March 15t". Invasive and
noxious species will be monitored so that none become dominant or alter the desired community structure
of the Project. If necessary, RES will develop a species -specific treatment plan.
8.7 Scheduling/Reporting
A baseline monitoring report and as -built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be
developed within 60 days of the planting completion on the Project. The report will include all information
required by IRT mitigation plan guidelines, including elevations, photographs and sampling plot locations,
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 47 October 2022

gauge locations, a description of initial species composition by community type, and verification of the
installation of conservation easement markers and signage. The report will also include a list of the species
planted and the associated densities and will document any changes from the planting plan in Section
6.3.1. Baseline vegetation monitoring will include species, height, date of planting, and grid location of each
stem. The baseline report will follow USACE guidelines. In addition, the baseline monitoring report will also
include red -line drawings comparing the recorded drawings to the final mitigation plan design sheets.
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 must be completed for all seven years. Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of
each year and submitted to the IRT no later than April 15t of the year. The monitoring reports will include all
information and be in the format required by USACE.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 48 October 2022

Table 17. Monitoring Requirements
Goal Treatment Outcome Monitoring Metric Performance Standard
To transport water
from the watershed
to the channel in a
non -erosive manner
and create, enhance,
and rehabilitate
appropriate wetland
hydrology for
Chewacla and
Wehadkee soil series
Improve flood -bank
connectivity
Maintain regular,
seasonal flow in
restored intermittent
streams
Convert land -use
of Project reaches
from pasture and
cropland to
riparian forest.
Create, enhance,
and rehabilitate
wetland
hydrology
through stream
restoration
activities
Reduce bank
height ratios and
increase
entrenchment
ratios by
reconstructing
channels to mimic
reference reach
conditions
Improve the
transport of water
from the
watershed to the
Project reaches in
a non -erosive way
Improve flood
bank connectivity
by reducing bank
height ratios and
increase
entrenchment
Groundwater wells
with pressure
transducers:
downloaded quarterly
Water table within 12 inches of the
ground surface for 12% of the
growing season
Stage recorders:
Four bankfull events occurring in
Inspected quarterly
separate years
Flow gauge:
At least 30 days of continuous flow
Inspected quarterly
each year
Cross sections:
Entrenchment ratio shall be no less
Surveyed in
than 2.2 within restored reaches
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2
ratios Flow camera installed Increase in base flow elevation and
on TR1-D overbank flow events; comparing
Layered riffle pre- and post -construction
structure design conditions
Establish a
Reduce erosion
riparian buffer to
rates and channel
To create a diverse
reduce erosion
stability to
bedform
and sediment
reference reach
transport into
conditions
To achieve dynamic
Project streams.
equilibrium
Improve bedform
As -built stream profile NA
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
Cross sections: less than 2.2 within restored
Surveyed in reaches
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2
Establish stable
diversity (pool
Visual monitoring:
Identify and document significant
Limit erosional rates
banks with
spacing, percent
Performed at least
stream problem areas; i.e.
p
and maintain
livestakes, erosion
riffles, etc.
semiannually
erosion, degradation,
channel stability
control matting,
aggradation, etc.
and other in
Increase buffer
Vegetation plots:
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
stream structures.
width to 50 feet
Surveyed in
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
To achieve
Create, enhance,
Improve stream
Groundwater wells
appropriate levels
and rehabilitate
temperature
with pressure
Water table within 12 inches of the
for water
wetland
regulation through
transducer:
ground surface for of the
temperature,
hydrology
introduction of
downloaded quarterly
on
growing season
dissolved oxygen
canopy
Vegetation plots:
concentration, and
Plant or protect
Surveyed in
MY 1 3: 320 trees/acre
other important
riparian buffer
Decrease nutrient
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
nutrients including
loading through
(indirect measurement)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
but not limited to
Fencing out
filtration of
Nitrogen and
livestock
planted riparian
Visual assessment of
Inspect fencing, crossings, and
Phosphorus
buffer, natural
established
si na e.
g g
Establish
wetland
conservation signage:
Identify and document any
Establish native
permanent
biogeochemical
Performed at least
damaged or missing
hardwood riparian
conservation
processes, and
semiannually
buffer
easement
livestock removal
(indirect measurement)
signs
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan
49
October 2022

9 INVASIVE SPECIES PLAN
Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
Project. These site inspections may identify the presence of invasive vegetation. RES will treat invasive
species vegetation within the Project area and provide remedial action on a case -by -case basis.
Common invasive species vegetation throughout the Project, such as Chinese privet and autumn olive,
will be treated to allow native plants to become established within the conservation easement. Invasive
species vegetation will be treated by approved mechanical and/or chemical methods such that the
percent composition of exotic/invasive species is less than five percent of the total riparian buffer area.
Any control methods requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. If areas of invasive species exist within the
easement, they will be monitored yearly as part of the monitoring protocol and treated if necessary. If
required, problem areas will continue to be treated until the Project easement shows overall trending
towards meeting all monitoring requirements.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 50 October 2022

10 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:
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 51 October 2022

Table 18. 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. If any repairs result in a change from the approved plans,
RES will notify the IRT of the planned repairs.
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.
Project Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be
marked with signs identifying the property as a mitigation site and will
include the name of the long-term steward and a contact number.
Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree -blazing, or
other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement.
Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or
replaced on an as -needed basis. Easement monitoring and staking/signage
maintenance will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Road Crossing
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way,
or corridor agreements. Crossings in easement breaks are the responsibility
of the landowner to maintain.
Livestock Fence Livestock fencing is to be placed outside the easement limits. Maintenance
of fencing is the responsibility of the landowner after the Project has closed
out.
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.
ioa Risks and Uncertainties
While RES is committed to restoring and enhancing the stream system and protecting its associated
riparian areas throughout the Project, it is acknowledged that potential risks and uncertainties may
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 52 October 2022

arise. Risks during design and planning have been addressed throughout the design parameters,
Section 6.2 and in the plan sheets found in Appendix H. This project incorporates an innovative way
to address channel incision within a stable channel through use of layered riffles. However, RES
understands that new structures and approaches come with new uncertainty and have described some
of the risks and uncertainties and our approach to them in Appendix C. Monitoring of these risks will
ensure the success of the Project. General risks that are common on restoration Projects are discussed
above in Table 18 as they are typical maintenance activities that occur throughout the monitoring
period.
Other Project -specific uncertainties are associated with wetland creation work and the feasibility of
created wetlands establishing successful hydroperiods in the years following stream and wetland
construction. These created wetlands should begin to provide some of the typical wetland functions
once vegetation is established. It may take up to two years for the full extent of the creation areas 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 between 9 and 12 percent, depending on
final construction timing and rainfall. Due to the nature of wetland creation, the hydroperiod may be
depressed into the second year. RES believes these created wetlands will meet performance criteria of
a minimum 12 percent hydroperiod; however, the duration of time in which it takes to establish these
hydroperiods is uncertain and will be monitored accordingly. If, by the fifth year of monitoring,
successful hydroperiods of created wetlands are not achieved, RES staff will perform a second wetland
delineation to locate created and existing areas of jurisdictional features. Additional photos and site
notes will be included in yearly monitoring reports when necessary.
By understanding and monitoring these risks, RES is better equipped to combat areas of concern not
only throughout the Tobacco Road Mitigation Site, but also future Project sites that may require similar
considerations.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 53 October 2022

11 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of Project construction, RES will implement the post -construction monitoring
protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described
previously in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is determined that the site's
ability to achieve performance standards are jeopardized or if a repair will result in a change to approved
plans, 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.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 54 October 2022

12 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved mitigation
plan of the site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation Project be debited until the necessary DA
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided
written approval for the Project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of
the mitigation Project. The DE, in consultation with the IRT, will determine if performance standards
have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where
some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the
specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent
to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of Project credits will be
subject to the criteria described in Tables 19 and 20.
12.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the IRT
with written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a) Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
b) Approval of the final mitigation plan;
c) Mitigation site must be secured;
d) Delivery of financial assurances;
e) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
f) Issuance of the 404-permit verification for construction of the site, if required;
g) Documentation of the establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow account
12.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
The second credit release will occur after the completion of implementation of the Mitigation Plan and
IRT approval of the Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey. All subsequent credit releases must
be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a determination that required
performance standards have been achieved. As Projects approach milestones associated with credit
release, the Sponsor will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation
substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included
with the annual monitoring report.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 55 October 2022

Table 19. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated above) 15% 15%
2 Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey 15% 30%
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 40%
3 standards are being met.
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 50%
4 standards are being met.
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 60%
5 standards are being met.
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 5% 65%
6 standards are being met. (75%)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 75%
7 standards are being met. (85%)
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance 5% 80%
8 standards are being met. (90%)
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 90%
9 standards are being met, and Project has received close-out (100%)
approval.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Table 20. Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Wetiand Credit Release Schedule
Release Credit Release Activity Interim Total
Milestone Release Released
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria 15% 15%
1 stated above)
2 Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey 15% 30%
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
40%
3
performance standards are being met.
Second year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
50%
4
performance standards are being met.
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
60%
5
performance standards are being met.
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
65%
6
performance standards are being met.
(75%)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
75%
7
performance standards are being met.
(85%)
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
80%
8
performance standards are being met.
(90%)
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
90%
9
performance standards are being met, and project
(100%)
has received close-out approval.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 56 October 2022

13 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval of the Project by the IRT, the Project will be transferred to Unique Places To Save:
Unique Places to Save
[phone]
PO Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
www.uniqueplacestosave.org
Unique Places To Save (UP2S) will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Project to ensure that
restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld.
Easements held by the UP2S are stewarded in general accordance with the guidelines published by the
National Land Trust Alliance. These guidelines include annual monitoring visits to easements and
related communication with the landowner(s). During the visit a standard report is completed and
pictures taken for the record. If violation of the easement terms is found within the Project area, UP2S
works with the landowner to ensure the problem is rectified. When appropriate UP2S pursues legal
action to enforce the easement terms. UP2S typically requires the Project developer to install standard
UP2S signage as part of the easement transfer package. This includes well marked corners of the
easement boundary, as well as plastic or metal signs identifying the easement. The current sign standard
is a six-inch by six-inch aluminum sign with contact information. Signs are refreshed as needed.
Typically, a sign will last five to ten years before it is no longer legible due to fading from the sun.
UP2S requires an endowment for each easement it agrees to hold. Endowments are sized so that the
interest from the principal will pay the expected monitoring costs for that easement. This assumes a
seven-year monitoring period for the Project during which UP2S will not incur any expenses. It also
assumes a five percent annual return. This flat fee includes a property walkthrough, report, pictures,
sign installation, etc. Funding will be provided upfront to UP2S upon the easement closing in the
amount of $41,840.00. This fee ensures annual Site inspections occur and the terms of the conservation
easement are legally defended into perpetuity. An overview of the UP2S Easement Stewardship
program and the details on the specific endowment fee is included in Appendix B.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 57 October 2022

14 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $1,300,000 Construction Performance
Bond to the USACE to assure completion of mitigation construction and planting. Construction and
planting costs are estimated to be at or below $1,300,000 based on the Engineer's construction
materials estimate and recent bid tabulation unit costs for construction materials. Following completion
of construction and planting the Construction Performance Bond will be retired and a $290,000
Maintenance and Monitoring Performance Bond will be provided to assure completion of seven years
of monitoring and reporting, and any remedial work required during the monitoring period. The
$290,000 amount includes contingency and estimated monitoring costs from the Engineer. The
Maintenance and Monitoring Performance Bond will be reduced by $57,143 following approval of each
annual monitoring report. The Maintenance and Monitoring Performance Bond will be retired in total
following official notice of site close-out from the IRT. Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby
trust or other designee at the direction of the obligee. Financial assurances structured to provide funds
to the USACE in the event of default by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable. A financial assurance must
be in the form that ensures that the USACE receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any
termination or revocation. The Performance Bonds will be provided by a surety listed with the U.S.
Treasury and has an A.M. Best Rating of B or above. All Performance Bonds will be submitted to the
USACE in draft form for approval prior to execution. In the event of Sponsor default, UP2S has agreed
to receive the funds and ensure the work is successfully completed.
Table 27. Financial Assurances
Construction Costs
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc.)
$100,000
Sitework
$200,000
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs, logs, rocks, coir, etc.)
$500,000
Crossings
$100,000
Vegetation
$200,000
Miscellaneous/Admin Fees
$200,000
Total $1,300,000
Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Set -Up, As -Built, & Equipment
$50,000
Year 1 Monitoring and Report
$15,000
Year 2 Monitoring and Report
$15,000
Year 3 Monitoring and Report
$15,000
Year 4 Monitoring and Report
$15,000
Year 5 Monitoring and Report
$15,000
Year 6 Monitoring and Report
$20,000
Year 7 Monitoring and Report
$20,000
Maintenance and Contingency
$125,000
Total $290,000
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 58
October 2022

15 REFERENCES
Alamance County, "2020 Land Development Plan and Snow Camp Small Area Plan". November 18,
2020.
Cluer, B. and Thorne, C. 2012. A Stream Evolution Model Integrating Habitat and Ecosystem Benefits.
River Research and Application: 30: 135-154. Wiley Online Library, 2022.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,
FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Doll, Barbara. Et al. 2002 "Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams throughout the
Piedmont of North Carolina" Journal of the American Water Resources Association Vol 38,
No3. June 2002
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Fischenich, C. 2001. "Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials." ERDC Technical Note No.
EMRRP-SR-29, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Miss.
Fischenich, J.C., 2006. Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration, EMRRP Technical Notes Collection
(ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-52), US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. (available online at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr52.pdf)
Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy.
AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -Based
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Hook, Donald D. 1984. "Waterlogging Tolerance of Lowland Tree Species of the South." Southern
Journal of Applied Forestry, Volume 8, Issue 3. August 1984.
NCDENR 2012a. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water Quality
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home.
NCDENR 2018b. "2018 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5." Water Quality Section.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home.
NCDOT 2018. "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures"
NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). 2020-2029.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 59 October 2022

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 I id=1169848&folderld=2209568&name=DLFE-35732.pdf
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). "Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009."
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Resource Environmental Solutions (2022). Tobacco Road Project Draft Buffer Mitigation Plan.
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2rd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO
Russell, Periann, 2008. Mapping Headwater Streams: Intermittent and Perennial Headwater Stream
Model Development and Spatial Application. Final Report for Federal Highway Administration
Contract Feasibility Study WBS: 36486.4.2.
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. 2022. Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator.
USACE. 2021. 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. National Water and Climate Center. Agricultural Applied Climate Information System
(AgACIS). http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=37163
USDA NRCS. 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH 654), USDA
USDA NRCS. 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance 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.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 60 October 2022

USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. EPA Manual. Quantifying Physical
Habitat in Wadeable Streams.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina."
North Carolina Ecological Services. http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/.
Tobacco Road Mitigation Plan 61 October 2022

f;f Axton Fairfield Park �� — Aar
Critz O z9 65N w'
Brosville Sutherlin Turbeville Cluster Springs
57 Ringgold Ridgeway Danville w
Cascade
Alton Mayo
.__.Price......-.._ Whitfield (�-............
Fitz erald Cunningham""' """" ""
57
Sandy Ridge Pelham Blanch Semora
Eden Woodsdale
Stoneville ��J eb Hyco Lake
Prestanville J
sn Ruffin
Dodgetown B7 ezi
Mayodan
Wentworth c- Quick Yanceyville se
Madison ® ' ''"i Leesburg Roxboro Allensville
?I -- ' 49
O e Bb
Somerset
, sc
Highlawers i s�
51nu1 Cove Che „� O
Timberlake
Hurdle Mills
C
Stak Prospect Hill '9
-� Rougemont
kenown
ar Grove Bahama
avi
Keme Tobacco Road ct -", Butn
Mitigation Proje
_ Hillsborough sy
CP University Gorman
Nallburg
Jamestown
D am
,� Ple _ Oak Grove O
High Point Ga
Calvander Bet sda
Archdale C J Chapel Hill
Thomasville Trinity Dogwood
d5 Acres
C Liberty g
an ss
Randleman Grays Chapel Crutch (1 orrisville
Staley
Crossro t mrington
;rove Sil Cary
Cedar Falls
Silver Valley Ramseur a', Wilsonville sac x
Asheboro aYP Parks Siler City 0
Crossroads
Cedar Grove 402 r?i N ill
Denton
Farmer Ulah Coleridge Bonlee Holly Springs
9
a- s_ i
a� Bear Creek Mon
_ Goldston
al Fuquay-Varina
Erect Bennett 0-Duncan 55
Pisgah Seagrove
raj
Seagrove
a7 Carbonton Colon
Legend ai,
3 An
Sanford
Broadway
Proposed Easement Tramway Seminole
Cape Fear River Basin - 03030002 0 Mamers Buie
Lillington
White Hill
Haw River Subwatershed of the Jordan Lake Watershed zro
Carthage
14 Digit HUC - 03030002050040 n 0 Ej Barbecue r^� Cameron ia.
;1
P neview 35.973063,-79.282234vel
Figure; - Service Area Date: 6/1/2022
w e Tobacco Road Drawn by: EJU res
0 5 10 Mitigation Project Checked by:MGB
MENG;;;;Z;@ 0
1 inch = 10 mile Restoring a Resilient Earth for a Modern World
Miles Alamanee County, North Carolina

vASPE South
a Cteeµ Buckner Compani ,
50`7 detailing �, South AtlanticQ Ma
Galvanizing JS Grove
zlaz
0
C,
0
3`
.�F
Tecmobile9
C
hater 21a2
'Qv
Wheeley Auto Mall
Outdoors At L.09
o`
CI go\©
Matya Grove Church Rtl
Kinder House 0
21a2
Citgo Graham Grocery,() `
a
Archangel Battle Park O
�n
cg
c�
�QSalem United _ €
Methodist Church
21a2 a
CIRCLE K RANCH
c`
a
U-Haul ycc
ghborhood Dealer
Vo
©Rae McKenzie
Mobile Home Park
21a2
Jaeger 0l � e
Mortow SChOOrRd
hd
I
a
�
m
m
� �
c
Mature Lo
tt.&- ad
Andersen Sterilizers
The Pavili
at Nicks R
Qr 1
�rotine Dr
1m
71
Duchy Airpark
o�
a �¢
00
.f
d
3
0
� o
c
0
0
x
a.
Contigo Education Q �� S
-pol
x
s_
Watkins\vy HaulingQ 1.
o
�
Thorn Rd
0
3 ,
_Jmb1CM
W
Martinsville
ramOk9ar' �
-
o
Danville
ss
O
Tobacco Road
f
Mitigation Project
v, v O
= Carroll Construction Morrow Ancestral© ...0 v Burlington [)Ilrha
And Landscape Supply Graveyard ighoPoin ti
King CobraLA, piary G
Chapel Hill
Legend
Asheboro
Proposed Easement
Cape Fear River Basin - 03030002 (Haw River Subwatershed of
the Jordan Lake Watershed) °"e !'!
14 Digit HUC - 03030002050040
9 Uwharrie
j Duchy Airport tional Forest
Plneh63 .?73063,-79.282234
" Figure 2- Project Vicinity Date: 10/17/2022
w - e Drawn by: EJU res
Tobacco Road
o ,,000 2.000 Mitigation Project Checked by:BRC
1 Inch = 2,000 feet Restoring a Resilient Earth for a Modern World
Feet Alamanee County, North Carolina

. .........
100"
MNI-A
n
f
Legend 46 r7
I MN3 Reach ID Area (ac)
I l TR1-A 144
Proposed Easement TR1-BI TR1_13 225
TR1-C TR1-C 293
Primary Watershed (458 ac.) M N14, B
MN7 TR1-D 366
TR1 TR1-D MN4-A TR1-E 456
MN5 B R2 TR1-F 458
Sub -Watershed
TR2 13
TR2 MN6'B MN1-A 18
NS-A
,ilk-E
MN I -LS 26
M
MN1 N9
MN2-A 14
48
MN2 MN2-B 27
MNt)-A MN8 MN3 18
MN3
MN4-A 13
IVIN4-B 15
MN4
MN5-A 9
MN5 MN5-B 10
MN6-A 19
MN6 k MN6-13 22
MN7 14
MN7 0 MN8 33
IAN9 9
MN8 Z 0 Total
MN9 Drainage 458
Copyright:© 201,3 Natio Area
N
Figure 3 - USGS Saxapahaw Quadrangle (11977) Date: 10/25/2022
Tobacco Road Mitigation Project Drawn by: EJU res
s Checked by: BRC
0 750 1,500
Alamance County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1,500 feet Restoring a Resilient Earth for a Modem World

1993 le 1 1 1998
Source: USGS Earth Explorer Source: USGS Earth Explorer
006 016
Legend
Proposed Easement
. an W E
S
0 850 1,700
Feet
USGS EarthExplorer.'
Nm,.i
Figure 4b - Historic Imagery Date: 10/17/2022
Tobacco Road Drawn by: EJU
Mitigation Project Checked by: BRC
Alamance County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1,700 feet
'k Source: USGS EarthE
fires

1 _M
1Ali N
NEWLIN MARVIN MORROW REV TRUST
9810596161
i_
NEWLIN MARVIN MORROW REV TRUST
9810596562
F
IN
Legend
jp -
Proposed Easement
x«. Project Parcel
Adjacent Parcel
Figure 5 -Landowner Parcels Date: 10/17/2022
Tobacco Road Mitigation Project Drawn by: EJU pres
Checked by: BRC
Alamance County, North Carolina 1 7ch=800 feet Restoringo Resilient Earth for o Modern World

� br
l,{.. •F
+��
ki
'g, �..` , a�. x� r. =� aJ)
i % a
.��INNa "�4t
� xv
r a.
�`q4��
Legend 41. J
Proposed Easement
> C
® Drainage Area h
Land Use
Cropland
Pasture
- Open Water
Forest
- Residential
_ Impervious
w�
0 500 1,000
Feet
! '" M
Figure 6 - Land Use
Tobacco Road Mitigation Project
Alamance County, North Carolina
t
� ~ f
ire
Date: 10/17/2022
Drawn by: EJU
res
Checked by: BRC
A
1 Inch = 1,000 feet Restoring a Resilient Earth for a Modern World
I,

N
w E
S
0 250 500
Feet
Figure 7a - LiDAR
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
Alamance County,
North Carolina
Date: 10/17/2022 Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: 1RM 1 in = 500 feet
Legend
Proposed Easement
4 ft. Contour
High : 771ft.
Low: 457ft.
REFERENCE
1) Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Zone 17N
2) Map Projection is NAD_1983_StatePlane_
North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
+�wra�■�����4 ��u�1
rr�r�tl�•�,ijj�wa���►�J�*����

t owl
,►ice
Lim
Figure 7b - Existing Conditions
+e
Tobacco Road Mitigation Project
350 700
M16iiiiiiia Alamance County, North Carolina
Feet
Legend
P
a
� Proposed Easement
9
® Existing Wetland
Existing Pond
Existing Stream
Perennial
k 1
--- Intermittent
Ditch
Seep
P-P Underground Gasline
Q Existing Culvert
Existing Ford
0 Duchy Airport
Date: 10/17/2022
Drawn by: EJU pres
Checked by: BRC
1 Inch = 700 feet Restoring a Resilient Earth for a Modern World

PA
371098100 J Q� 77
Qom_
Proposed Easement
0 Adjacent Parcel
FEMA Zone AE
a �
Existing Project Stream
PANFA Proposed Stream
3710981000J
eff. 9/6/2006 P P Underground Gasline
I,
Q Existing Culvert
Ill Ford
Existing
r_
,.,... .. - Zone AE
Duchy Airport
s
Figure 10 - Project Constraints Date: 10/19/2022
Drawn by: EJU
Tobacco Road Mitigation Project pres
0 350 700 Checked by: MGB
Alamance County, North Carolina 1 inch= 700 feet Restoringo Resilient Earth for a Modern World
a Feet

T3ifl3n 7W
Oak Ridge W
r-�
Cedar Grove
ICE"
63
Piedmont? Glen Raven
x Triad Joseph M©� Bi - Green Level
IntAirrportnal"1° OLD PIIRRVING McLeansville Gibso ville all Elon� 87 �o Meb 79
® Burlington �o Haw River
no
NJhisell 70 municipio M yes Eland �'_��
Greensboro 10 Melville Hillsborough
Sedalia - _ � Graham
Hawfields
CD
eickho,rn
® Alamance Bellemonl Q 0 -
Swepsonvllle
GRANOOVER
Jamestown Cj
Back
ar} Rock Creek
Pleasant fJ Tobacco Road ELba
Point ® Garden Mitigation Project T-er
Kim sville
Saxapaha:`i
Calvander
em (-
Arc a e ear Crc
Climax �_
C
CI hitney Watery Fork
Trinity Reference Reach
�Levell Snosv Camp wc
GlenolaUT to Muddy Creek DOq
Reference Reach Acre
O
L Lrr,,: Mandale
zz
Sophia
Randleman Grays Chapel
Crutchfield
3 llillro 4e Crossroads
� ° 0 OIfOJAI $tal
421 Silk Hope
Lvit n
Legend
r Falls
Franklinvllle �?
Proposed Easement Ramseur g,
®
S_. County Boundary
Parks iler City Pittsborr,
© eoz
Approximate Location of Reference Reach Crossroads z„D
Ci -1 Sox
Figure 11 - Reference Reaches Date: 8/18/2022
Drawn by: EJU
Tobacco Road Mitigation Project Drawn
pres
0 2.5 5 Checked by: BRC

res
_! - ReOtoringesilient Earth for a Modern World
W E
S
0 75 150
Feet
Figure 12 - Conceptual Design for
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Sheet 1
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
Alamance County, North Carolina
Date: 10/25/2022 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: EJU 1 in = 150 feet
Legend
QProposed Easement
Wetland Approach
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
® Creation
Stream Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11 (2.5)
— —Enhancement 11 (3)
Enhancement 111 (5)
Enhancement 111 (7.5
—Preservation
X Proposed Fence Line
Q Install New Culvert
Remove Culvert
K
WF
ri

U
U
►1
+❑
WE
0]
F—
Pri ?y�4�
ReOtoringesilient Earth for a Modern res World
N
w E
S
0 75 150
Feet
Figure 12 - Conceptual Design for
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Sheet 2
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
Alamance County, North Carolina
Date: 10/25/2022 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: EJU 1 in = 150 feet
Legend
QProposed Easement
Wetland Approach
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
® Creation
Stream Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11 (2.5)
—Enhancement 11 (3)
Enhancement 111 (5)
Enhancement 111 (7.5
Preservation
O X Proposed Fence Line
Q Install New Culvert
Remove Culvert

WW \
1
rZ
1
1
1
1,
1
1
1
1
1
U
ReOtoringesilient Earth for a Modern res World
N
W E
S
0 75 150
Feet
C4
WS Figure 12 - Conceptual Design for
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Sheet 3
Tobacco Road
WR Mitigation Project
�- Alamance County, North Carolina
WO
Date: 10/25/2022 Drawn by: MDE
WQ _ A ,O Checked by: EJU 1 in = 150 feet
Legend
QProposed Easement
Wetland Approach
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
® Creation
Stream Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11 (2.5)
— —Enhancement 11 (3)
Enhancement 111 (5)
Enhancement 111 (7.5
Preservation
X Proposed Fence Line
Q Install New Culvert
Remove Culvert

-
ReOtoring res Re Earth for a Modern World
N
w E
- C3
s
0 75 150
Feet
Figure 12 - Conceptual Design for
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Sheet 4
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
Alamance County, North Carolina
Date: 10/25/2022 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: EJU 1 in = 150 feet
Legend
QProposed Easement
Wetland Approach
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
® Creation
Stream Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11 (2.5)
— —Enhancement 11 (3)
Enhancement 111 (5)
Enhancement 111 (7.5
Preservation
X Proposed Fence Line
Q Install New Culvert
Remove Culvert

There will be a total of 20 vegetation plots:
15 will be fixed, with 12 utilized for stream
and buffer credits; the remaining 3 fixed and 5
randoms will be utilized for stream credit only
9 Wetland gauges will be installed;
3 in existing wetlands and 6 in created
wetlands:
RePres
toringesilient Earth for a Modern World
N
w E
S
0 250 500
Feet
Figure 14a - Monitoring Plan
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
mance County, North Caro
Date: 10/24/2022 Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: RTM 1 in = 500 feet
Legend
0 Proposed Easement
Planting Zone
M Zone 1 (20.99 ac)
® Zone 2 (4.17 ac)
Wetland Approach
0 Rehabilitation
0 Enhancement
® Creation
Stream Approach
—Restoration
—Enhancement I
Enhancement 11 (2.5)
Enhancement II (3)
—Enhancement 111 (5)
—Enhancement 111 (7.5
—Preservation
Monitoring Device
F7Stream and Buffer VP
0 Stream Only VP
0 Stream Random VP
Cross Section
• Flow Gauge
® Stage Recorder
0 Wetland Gauge

There will be a total of 20 vegetation plots:
15 will be fixed, with 12 utilized for stream
and buffer credits; the remaining 3 fixed and 5
randoms will be utilized for stream credit only
9 Wetland gauges will be installed;
3 in existing wetlands and 6 in crec
wetlands;
2 stage recorders an low gauges
will be installed- 1 flow c ra will be
installed along TR7-D;
40 cross sections will be monitored
throughout Project riffles and pools;
Photos will be taken at all cross
sections, vegetation plots, stage
recorders, flow gauges, and at c
crossings throughout the site;
All monitoring station locations or proposed
and subject to slight change base on field,
conditions; changes will be docu f
nted in the
Project As -Built Report.
MN2-A/B
TR1-A
RePres
toringesilient Earth for a Modern World
N
w E
S
0 75 150
Feet
Figure 14b - Monitoring Plan
Sheet 1
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
mance County, North Caro
Date: 10/31/2022 1 Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: RTM 1 1 in = 150 feet
Legend
QProposed Easement
Wetland Approach
0 Rehabilitation
Enhancement
® Creation
Planting Zone
® Zone 1 (20.99 ac)
®Zone 2 (4.17 ac)
Cross Section
Monitoring Device
0 Stream and Buffer VP
0 Stream Only VP
0 Stream Random VP
40 Flow Gauge
® Stage Recorder
® Wetland Gauge
Flow Carmera
Stream Approach
— Restoration
—Enhancement I
Enhancement 11 (2.5)
—Enhancement 11 (3)
—Enhancement III (5)
—Enhancement 111 (7.5
—Preservation

There will be a total of 20 vegetation plots:
15 will be fixed, with 12 utilized for stream
and buffer credits; the remaining 3 fixed and 5
randoms will be utilized for stream credit only
9 Wetland gauges will be installed;
3 in existing wetlands and 6 in created
wetlands;
2 stage recorders and 9 flow gauges
will be installed- 1 flow camera will be
installed along TR7-D;
40 cross sections will be monitored
throughout Project riffles and pools;
Photos will be taken at all cross
sections, vegetation plots, stage
recorders, flow gauges, and at culverted
crossings throughout the site;
All monitoring station locations are proposed
and subject to slight change based on field -
conditions; changes will be documented in the
Project As -Built Report.
TR1-C
TR2
MN
WD
MN4-A/B
RePres
toringesilient Earth for a Modern World
N
w E
S
0 75 150
Feet
Figure 14b - Monitoring Plan
Sheet 2
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
mance County, North Caro
Date: 10/31/2022 1 Drawn by: EJU
I Checked by: RTM 1 in = 150 feet
TR1-B
Legend
QProposed Easement
Wetland Approach
0 Rehabilitation
Enhancement
® Creation
Planting Zone
® Zone 1 (20.99 ac)
®Zone 2 (4.17 ac)
Cross Section
Monitoring Device
0 Stream and Buffer VP
0 Stream Only VP
0 Stream Random VP
40 Flow Gauge
® Stage Recorder
® Wetland Gauge
Flow Carmera
Stream Approach
— Restoration
—Enhancement I
Enhancement 11 (2.5)
—Enhancement 11 (3)
—Enhancement III (5)
—Enhancement 111 (7.5
—Preservation

There will be a total of 20 vegetation plots:
15 will be fixed, with 12 utilized for stream res
and buffer credits; the remaining 3 fixed and 5
randoms will be utilized for stream credit only,
Re toring a Resilient Earth for a Modern World
9 Wetland gauges will be installed;
3 in existing wetlands and 6 in created N
wetlands; TR1-D
2 stage recorders and 9 flow you s W E
will be installed- 1 flow camera w i be
installed along TR7-D;
S
0 75 150
40 cross sections will be monitor
throughout Project riffles and po Is; Feet
ca
Photos will be taken at all cross MN7 ws
sections, vegetation plots, stage l Figure 14b -Monitoring Plan
recorders, flow gauges, and at c verted Sheet 3
crossings throughout the site;
wo� Tobacco Road
All monitoring station locations re proposed
and subject to slight changebas d0 field, ♦ Mitigation Project
conditions; changes will be docu en in the wR
Project As -Built Report 1 Alamance County, North Carolina
1 —
_011�Date: 10/31/2022 Drawn by: EJU
WQ
1 Checked by: RTM 1 in = 150 feet
® C3 Legend
r M N 5-A/B
QProposed Easement
Wetland Approach
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
® Creation
Planting Zone
® Zone 1 (20.99 ac)
®Zone 2 (4.17 ac)
Cross Section
Monitoring Device
MN9 0 Stream and Buffer VP
0 Stream Only VP
0 Stream Random VP
40 Flow Gauge
® Stage Recorder
® Wetland Gauge
Flow Carmera
Stream Approach
MN6-A/B
—Restoration
—Enhancement I
Enhancement II (2.5)
—Enhancement II (3)
—Enhancement III (5)
—Enhancement III (7.5
—Preservation

There will be a total of 20 vegetation plots:
15 will be fixed, with 12 utilized for stream res
and buffer credits; the remaining 3 fixed and 5
randoms will be utilized for stream credit only,
RePtoringesilient Earth for a Modern World
9 Wetland gauges will be installed;
3 in existing wetlands and 6 in created N
wetlands;
J
------- TR1-F W—ZJE
C3
S
0 75 150
Feet
Figure 14b - Monitoring Plan
Sheet 4
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
mance County, North Caro
Date: 10/31/2022 Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: RTM 1 in = 150 feet
Legend
QProposed Easement
Wetland Approach
0 Rehabilitation
Enhancement
® Creation
Planting Zone
® Zone 1 (20.99 ac)
®Zone 2 (4.17 ac)
Cross Section
Monitoring Device
0 Stream and Buffer VP
0 Stream Only VP
0 Stream Random VP
40 Flow Gauge
® Stage Recorder
® Wetland Gauge
Flow Carmera
Stream Approach
— Restoration
—Enhancement I
Enhancement II (2.5)
—Enhancement II (3)
—Enhancement III (5)
—Enhancement III (7.5
—Preservation

Actual Buffers
pres
Restoring a resilient earth for a modern world
5
0 350 700
Feet
Figure 15 - Buffer Width Zones
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
Alamance County,
North Carolina
Date: 10/24/2022 Drawn by: MDE
1 in = 700 feet Checked by: EJU
Legend
_
Proposed Top of Bank
Proposed Easement
®
Ineligible Area
Buffer Distance (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
r�r

WJ
WK
W F .
¢
:Cl A
7
e"
4
RePres
toringesilient Earth for a Modern World
N
W E
S
0 75 150
Feet
Figure 16 - Total Mitigation
Assets
Sheet 1
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
amance County, North Caro
Date: 10/25/2022 1 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: EJU 1 in = 150 feet
QProposed Easement
Wetland Approach
0 Rehabilitation
0 Enhancement
® Creation
Buffer Approach
0 Restoration (0-50')
®Non -Subject Restoration
(0-50')
0 Enhancement (0-50')
® Non -Subject
Enhancement (0-50')
0 Preservation (0-50')
®Non -Subject Preservation
(0-50')
=Nutrient Offset (151-200')
Stream Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11 (2.5)
Enhancement 11 (3)
Enhancement III (5)
Enhancement 111 (7.5
Preservation
Stream Credit for
Additional Buffer (51-150')

V,
C4
10
°c
wo-�
WP
l i �
WK
e
Q
WF
co
c5ix
�0
0
WH
�r
i d1, n
W—
p
�R
RePres
toringesilient Earth for a Modern World
N
W E
f.
S
0 75 150
Feet
Figure 16 - Total Mitigation
Assets
Sheet 2
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
Alamance County, North Carolina
Date: 10/25/2022 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: EJU 1 in = 150 feet
QProposed Easement
Wetland Approach
0 Rehabilitation
0 Enhancement
® Creation
Buffer Approach
0 Restoration (0-50')
®Non -Subject Restoration
(0-50')
0 Enhancement (0-50')
® Non -Subject
Enhancement (0-50')
0 Preservation (0-50')
-Non-Subject Preservation
(0-50')
O QNutrient Offset (151-200')
Stream Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11 (2.5)
Enhancement 11 (3)
Enhancement III (5)
Enhancement 111 (7.5
Preservation
Stream Credit for
Additional Buffer (51-150')

u
Pei
W //
.,
.'
� WR
1 _ _
WQ
C3
1
r .
, 1
4 %
0
/
//�
/ AIJV9
i'
�o-
ttt4bt
/ WS
0
�o
C4
wo
RePtoringesilient Earth for a Modern res World
N
W E
S
0 75 150
Feet
Figure 16 - Total Mitigation
Assets
Sheet 3
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
amance County, North Caro
Date: 10/25/2022 1 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: EJU 1 in = 150 feet
QProposed Easement
Wetland Approach
0 Rehabilitation
0 Enhancement
® Creation
Buffer Approach
0 Restoration (0-50')
®Non -Subject Restoration
(0-50')
0 Enhancement (0-50')
® Non -Subject
Enhancement (0-50')
0 Preservation (0-50')
-Non-Subject Preservation
(0-50')
QNutrient Offset (151-200')
Stream Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11 (2.5)
Enhancement 11 (3)
Enhancement III (5)
Enhancement 111 (7.5
Preservation
Stream Credit for
Additional Buffer (51-150')

*11
C2 WU
Wv
o
0 0 0
i
res
7<1,7RePtoringesilient Earth for a Modern World
N
W E
C3
s
0 0 '�b
.. �; 0 75 150
dO Feet
Figure 16 - Total Mitigation
Assets
0
Sheet 4
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
Alamance County, North Carolina
Date: 10/25/2022 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: EJU 1 in = 150 feet
QProposed Easement
Wetland Approach
0 Rehabilitation
Enhancement
® Creation
Buffer Approach
0 Restoration (0-50')
® Non -Subject Restoration
(0-50')
0 Enhancement (0-50')
Non -Subject
Enhancement (0-50')
EM Preservation (0-50')
=Non -Subject Preservation
(0 50')
®Nutrient Offset (151-200')
(V/ Stream Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11 (2.5)
Enhancement 11 (3)
Enhancement 111 (5)
Enhancement III (7.5
Preservation
Stream Credit for
Additional Buffer (51-150')

Appendix A —Buffer Mitigation Plan
(To Be Included in Final Mitigation Plan Appendices)

Appendix B —Site Protection Instrument

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S
USE
PERMANENT CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") made
this day of , 202_ by and between
("Grantor") and _ ("Grantee").
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said
parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural,
masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated,
lying and being in County, North Carolina, more particularly
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property");
WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not -for -profit or educational
corporation, association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of
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, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the
Conservation Easement Area is also a condition of the approval of the
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI) and Bank Parcel Development Package (BPDP) or
Mitigation Plan forthe Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset
Mitigation Bank, North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
Project ID# , which was approved by the NCDWR, and will
be made and entered into by and between [enter Sponsor name], acting as
the Bank Sponsor, and the NCDWR. The Riparian Buffer
and Nutrient Offset Site is intended to be used to compensate for riparian
buffer and nutrient impacts to surface waters.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) and 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 the
Department of the Army instrument number SAW-

("Mitigation Banking Instrument"), or any permit or certification issued by the
Third -Parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, Grantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors and assigns, forever and in
perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and character and to the
extent hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area described on
Exhibit B, together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation
values thereof, as follows:
ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation
Easement is an easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by
Grantee against Grantor, Grantor's personal representatives, heirs, successors
and assigns, lessees, agents and licensees.
ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent
with the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The
Conservation Easement Area shall be preserved in its natural condition and
restricted from any development that would impair or interfere with the
conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities
and uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated
hereunder:
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance,
alteration or impairment of the natural features of the Conservation Easement
Area or any introduction of non-native plants and/or animal species is
prohibited.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any
building, mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other
advertising display, antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock
or any other temporary or permanent structure or facility on or above the
Conservation Easement Area.
C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential
and/or commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes
are prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing,
animal husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area

are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction,
harming, cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan and
BPDP/Mitigation Plan. Mowing of invasive and herbaceous vegetation for
purposes of enhancing planted or volunteer trees and shrubs approved in the
Mitigation Plan and BPDP/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.
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 orwalkways.
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
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 or BPDP/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 and BPDP/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.
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, the approved
BPDP/Mitigation Plan, and the two Mitigation Banking
the Recitals of this Conservation Easement.
Instruments described in
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,
the Corps and NCDWR, shall have the right to enter the Property and
Conservation Easement Area at all reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting the Conservation Easement Area to determine if the Grantor, or his
personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, is complying with the
terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation Easement.
The Grantee, [enter Sponsor name], and its authorized representatives,
successors and assigns, the Corps and NCDWR shall also have the right to
enter and go upon the Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making
scientific or educational observations and studies, and taking samples. The
easement rights granted herein do not include public access rights.
ARTICLE V.
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, the Corps,
and NCDWR are allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation
Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to
require the restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Easement
Area that may be damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the
terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of
the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The
Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of such notice to correct the conditions
constituting such breach. If the breach remains uncured after 30 days, the
Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by appropriate legal

proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice, to obtain a
temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if the breach of
the terms of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or otherwise
materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement.
The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances damage
to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate.
The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition
to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in
connection with this Conservation Easement. The costs of a breach, correction
or restoration, including the Grantee's expenses, court costs, and attorneys'
fees, shall be paid by Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be
responsible for the breach. The Corps and the NCDWR shall have the same
rights and privileges as the said Grantee to enforce the terms and conditions of
this Conservation Easement.
B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or
provision hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other
covenant, condition, or provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce
the same in the event of a subsequent breach or default.
C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be
construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or
change in the Conservation Easement Area resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of
God or third parties, except Grantor's lessees or invitees; or from any prudent
action taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to property or harm to the
Conservation Easement Area resulting from such causes.
ARTICLE VI.
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns
the Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the
Property which may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement
or that there are no outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other
interests in the Property which have not been expressly subordinated to this
Conservation Easement. Grantor further warrants that Grantee shall have the
use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and arising out of this
Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the
Property against the claims of all persons. -
B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms
of this Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that
transfers any interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area.
The Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60)
days prior to the date of the transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the
terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee and
easement interests in the Conservation Easement Area or any portion thereof
and shall not be amended, modified or terminated without the prior written

consent and approval of the Corps.
C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of
this Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however
that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or
assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will
be a qualified holder pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34
et seq. and § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the
Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or
assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to
continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The combined Mitigation
Banking Instruments: MBI with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and MBI with
corresponding BPDP/Mitigation Plan, and this Conservation Easement sets
forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation
Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings
or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found
to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder
shall continue in full force and effect.
E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate
taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall
keep the Property free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations
incurred by Grantor, except those incurred after the date hereof, which are
expressly subject and subordinate to the Conservation Easement. Grantee shall
not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the ownership,
operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as
expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits
that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
F. Long -Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term
management activities associated with fencing. These activities include the
maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic
resource functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are
sustained.
G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render
impossible the continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the
conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement may only be extinguished,
in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.
H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation
Easement Area is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to
substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this Conservation
Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time of
such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and direct
damages due to the taking.
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 the Corps:
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
To NCDEQ -DWR:
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to
enforce this Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified
grantee, and if within a reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of
these events Grantee fails to make an assignment pursuant to this
Conservation Easement, then the Grantee's interest shall become vested in
another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate proceeding in a
court of competent jurisdiction.
L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but
only in a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment
does not affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of
the Grantee under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation
purposes of this grant.
M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The
wetlands, scenic, resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of
the Conservation Easement Area, and its current use and state of
improvement, are described in Section of the Mitigation Plan, prepared
by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and Grantee to be complete and
accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee have copies of this
report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any future changes in the use
of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with the terms of this
Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude the

use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the Conservation
Easement Area if there is a controversy over its use.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually
unto Grantee for the aforesaid purposes.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and
seal, the day and year first above written.
[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]

Tobacco Road Easement - CONFIDENTIAL
Staff time to monitor mitigation easement, including file review,
travel time, on site time, post visit report production _ 44.64 acres 8 $65.00 Annual $520.00
Staff time needed to address minor violations or issues _ N/A 10 $650.00 Once every 10 yrs. $65.00
Mileage 60 N/A $0.540 Annual $32.40
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 $757.40
Capitalization Rate _3.50%
Monitoring Fund $
Accepting and Defending the Easement in Perpetuity
'Staff time for major violations N/A 80 $65.00-4 N/A $5,200.00
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
Legal Defense Fund $20,200.00

Authentisign ID: 09EA83B7-C6DD-EC11-B656-501AC586DF9D
y
ON A
Unique Places
To Save
May 27, 2022
Matt Butler
RES
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Mr. Butler,
This letter confirms that Unique Places to Save ("UP2S"), a 501(c)3 not -for -profit organization located in the
State of North Carolina, has preliminarily agreed to act as the conservation easement grantee and long-term
steward for the Tobacco Road Mitigation Project ("Site") located in the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030002)
in Alamance County, North Carolina. The Site consists of an approximate 44.64-acre conservation easement
area. As the conservation easement grantee and long-term steward, UP2S has agreed to and shall be
responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement
are enforced and maintained into perpetuity. Specific responsibilities include:
• Monitoring of Site is conducted on an annual basis.
• Visits to Site are coordinated with the landowner when possible.
• Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible.
• Signage for the easement boundary is maintained.
• Ensure fencing is maintained by the landowner (if applicable).
• Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are addressed following
protocols contained in the UP2S Conservation Easement Violations Policy and Conservation Easement
Deed.
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 are legally
defended into perpetuity. UP2S shall also act as bond obligee on the project.
[juthenti
eFFrey FrAer 05/27/22
Jeff Fisher, Board Member
Unique Places To Save
IAuthenti
Matt 8utler
Representative Signature
EBX/RES
Matt Butler
Printed Name
05/27/22
Date
PO Box 1183 • Chapel Hill, NC 27514 • 919-428-2040 infoCa)uniqueplacestosave.org

Appendix C —
Data/Analysis/Supplementary Information
• Layered Riffle Detailed Design Approach and Risk
Summary
• Hydric Soil Report
• Tobacco Road Initial Evaluation Letter
• IRT Site Visit Memo
• Reference and Existing Reach Morphological
Parameters
• Existing Reach Cross Section Summary

Layered Riffle Detailed Design Approach and Risk Summary
We consistently find stream reaches in the piedmont of NC in Stage 3s, the arrested degradation phase,
of channel evolution (Cluer & Thorne, 2013). These reaches are severely incised (often to bedrock) but
have stable banks held together by a thin line of trees along the banks. We struggle with what mitigation
approach to take on these channels since they are mostly stable and often have defined riffles with
large, aesthetically pleasing cobble or bedrock features. Historically, our approach has been to either
plant a buffer and walk away or install some sort of structure in the channels at areas of erosion. Neither
of these approaches address the incision and resulting issues caused by incision even in a "stable" reach.
Not only do they not address these issues, they often lead to more problems within the reach due to the
remaining energy imbalance within the channel.
STAGE O
Anafomo,mR Als„d„b,.,j
3
STAGE a 1 srnu
Aiu,oE„r,lnr I'� fNwu� Ew�E T1Mv�
��� • � IrrAee r
t S n
ErAaE ■
LwwWr MY 0".a4e,.n
h-h,
• i7AGE ,,
—I
R =*+KEG Am.tee b.graoaunn
Q,nN E,U b­ �E/LILEe aI,/'IEIM,1111�
lemn
Aora/MMn YId WLMnp�
m,mW
Figure 4. Stream Evolution Model based on combining the Channel Evolution Models in Figures 1-1 insetting a precursor stage to better
represent pre-disturtmuce conditions, adding two successor stages to cover late -stage evolution and representing incised channel evolution
as a cyclical rather than a linear phenomenon. Dashed arrows indicate `short-circuits' in the normal progression, indicating for example that
a Stage U stream can evolve to Stage i and recover to Stage 0, a Stage 4-14 short-circuit, which occurs when multiple head cuts migrate
through a reach and which may be particularly destructive. Arrows outside the circle represent 'dead end' stages, constructed and maintained
(2) and arrested (3s) where an erosion -resistant layer in the local lithnlogy stabilla.es incised channel hanks
Reaches TR1-C and D land in the category of arrested degradation and RES developed a new structure /
approach called a "Layered Riffle" to raise the channel bed and reconnect flows to the existing
floodplain. By reconnecting flows to the floodplain, we can significantly reduce in -channel forces
allowing the channel to provide more long-term habitat and sediment storage than the existing
conditions, where everything in the channel gets flushed downstream in high flows due to excess forces.
In addition to the in -channel benefits of floodplain reconnection, the floodplain itself will see improved
habitat as frequent overbank events provide the water, nutrients, and organic material required to
promote the restoration of a diverse ecosystem.
RES also anticipates this approach will raise the groundwater table within the riparian area and lead to
an increase in riparian wetlands throughout the site. RES is proposing several areas of wetland creation
through this reach because of the anticipated increase in groundwater elevation. The change in

groundwater level and increase in wetlands cannot be considered a certainty, and RES is proposing
several groundwater -monitoring wells along the reach to provide insight into the effect this approach
has on the groundwater table and to justify the wetland crediting approach. RES plans to install the
groundwater wells for this reach by March 2023 to capture pre- and post -construction groundwater
hydroperiods.
While RES believes that this approach will be successful in raising the channel bed, raising baseflow
above the proposed riffles, promoting a stable channel, and increasing groundwater hydroperiods, we
understand that new structures and approaches come with new uncertainty. The proposed layered
riffles are spaced approximately 100 ft apart to reduce the project risk associated with any one
structure. RES has identified some specific areas of potential failure of this approach which are outlined
below along with our design considerations and anticipated solution:
Potential Problem: Base flow runs through the structure not over the top.
a. Solution: The design length (15 ft.+) and close structure spacing provides
resistance to subterranean flow throughout the reach. RES has also proposed a
layer of sediment be placed on the upstream face of the structure to act as a
long-term source of material (along with channel sediment loads) to fill voids in
the structures. However, if water is not observed flowing over structures at
base flow, RES plans to come back to the site and add filter fabric or an
equivalent liner to prevent significant piping.
Potential Problem: Scour at the foot of the structure leading to structure failure.
a. Solution: The structures were designed with a mix of medium sized rock and
wood so that they could adjust to changing channel conditions and avoid
failures common to more rigid boulder and log designs. They were also
designed with a 4:1 slope on the downstream end of the project to provide
energy dissipation as water falls over the front of the structure and to provide
additional resistance to a head cut that could try to move upstream. Designing
the structures close together and ending them at a channel realignment
provides another layer of protection by promoting a pool on the downstream
end of the structure to dissipate energy before it can contact the bottom of the
channel. If a headcut is observed during monitoring, RES will determine if it
poses a threat to the structure, and if so, material will be added to the channel
bed to arrest the headcut.
Potential Problem: Scour at the bank of the structure leading to structure failure.
a. Solution: The structures were designed with a mix of medium sized rock and
wood so that they could adjust to changing channel conditions and avoid
failures common to more rigid boulder and log design. They were also designed
with a minimum 5 ft. key -in at the banks to provided extra insurance if bank
erosion occurs. Designing the structures close together and ending them at a
channel realignment provides another layer of protection by promoting a pool
on the downstream end of the structure to dissipate energy before it can cause
undermining of the channel bank. Ultimately, bank livestaking and floodplain
trees will provide long-term stability, once established. If bank erosion is
observed during monitoring, RES will determine if it poses a threat to the
structure, and if so, standard measures will be utilized to stabilize the bank.

4. Potential Problem: Structure settles or scours at the top increasing channel depth and
increasing in -channel forces.
a. Solution: The structures were designed with a mix of medium-sized rock and
wood so that they could adjust to changing channel conditions and not fail like
a more rigid boulder or log design. This will likely lead to scour and adjustment
that affect the elevations of the structure. This is anticipated particularly shortly
after construction, before vegetation can provide the channel with increased
roughness. In anticipation of this, RES designed the structures to have a length
along the channel of 15 ft.+ (not including the 4:1 slope on the downstream
end). This provides room for sections of the structure to adjust / erode / settle
and still maintain grade. If excess settling or erosion is observed, material can
be added to the top of the structure to return it to proposed conditions.
Stream Performance Standards
1. Increased Base flow Elevation:
Base flow will be raised to the proposed top elevations for the layered rifles. This will be
monitored using a flow camera. RES hopes to begin collecting existing flow data by
March 2023 for comparison to post -construction conditions.
2. Increased Overbank Flows:
Overbank-event frequency will be increased as part of this project. This will be
monitored with a flow camera along the reach. RES hopes to begin collecting existing
base flow data in the by March 2023 for comparison to post -construction conditions.
Accurately measuring an increase in frequency over a few months or years is not
possible. Therefore, RES suggests that if performance standard 1 is met, then
performance standard 2 must also be met, as an increase in base flow elevation
confirms a decrease in channel -flow capacity and a resulting increase in overbank-flow
events.
Monitoring Measures
1. Flow Cameras
2. Cross Sections
3. Groundwater Wells (For wetland creation performance standards)
This structure has been evaluated by RES experts across the east coast in multiple departments
including design, engineering, construction, and ecology, and we all feel strongly that this approach is an
appropriate next step in providing meaningful uplift to streams in this condition. If issues are
encountered at any step of the process, then this initial engagement with RES experts will facilitate rapid
access to a wealth of knowledge to support project success. The design plans can be found in Appendix
H and the layered riffle detail can be found in them on Sheet D6 (note the proposed structures can be
found on sheets S6 — S10).

FINAL
Detailed Soils Study
Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
Alamance County NC
Prepared for:
Matt Butler
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 2022
Soil Scientist Seal
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Tobacco Road Mitigation Bank Site in Alamance County,
NC. Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring the complete report, including figures, maps,
appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
Project Information and Background
The project is located in Alamance County approximately 13 miles northwest of Chapel Hill NC and
approximately 2 miles north east of Saxapahaw. It lies between Highway 54 and Mineral Springs Road
(SR 1407) on the floodplain of an unnamed tributary to Motes Creek (Figure 1). The land use of the
contributing watershed community is mostly rural consisting of agricultural farmland, areas of
undeveloped forest land, and residential homes (Figure 2). The Tobacco Road project encompasses
approximately 43 acres. This soil evaluation is limited to the area from Highway 54 to Mineral Springs
Road. The project extends east above Highway 54, but is not part of this soil investigation.
Study Objectives and Scope
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the site soils for areas having a high potential for successful
wetland creation. Four factors were evaluated; 1) landscape position, 2) proposed stream restoration and
enhancement design, 3) existing hydrologic sources, and 4) soil characteristics suitable for wetland
creation. This report describes soil characteristics that may support retention of the available hydrologic
sources and have a high potential for sustaining wetland hydrology. The potential for hydrologic
restoration is evaluated considering both the historic and existing land use, current conditions, landscape
position, and the sites potential for creating a hydroperiod suitable for its landscape setting and soils. The
boundaries shown are based on the detailed field evaluation.
All areas determined suitable for wetland creation were made in consultation with the stream design
engineer and the above criteria. Hydrologic restoration considered includes the anticipated restoration of
the stream to reestablish natural overbank flooding frequency, local toe of slope discharge along edge of
the floodplain, and practical consideration for modifying the floodplain to enhance storage and
infiltration. Using soil characteristics and landscape features, practical modifications are suggested for
improving potential for hydrologic success that generally take advantage of available natural hydrology
and may include, but are not limited, to surface drainage modifications such as plugging drainage
features, removal of fill materials, and microtopographic alteration such as surface roughening and
enhancing existing depressions.
The practice of wetland creation be directly related to the same principle utilized for wetland
reestablishment with the primary difference being evidence of past hydrology as seen in hydric soil
indicators and most techniques used for wetland reestablishment are directly suited for wetland creation.
As in reestablishment, the site selection for creation is one of the most important considerations. The site
must be in an appropriate landscape to capture and sustain hydrology. The site also determines potential
sources for adequate hydrology and soils that will sustain the wetland community. This site evaluation
focuses on an evaluation of soils in the landscape and the use of practical technical solutions to support
establishment of wetland hydrology. The processes and recommendation for wetland creation draws on
the NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (Wetland Creation Code 658), Principles of Wetland
Restoration (USEPA 2000), and other resources that promote successful development of a functioning
wetland community. All 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 for the
purpose of evaluating soils suitable for wetland creation. 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.
May 2022
Page 2 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
NRCS Soil Mapping
A Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) soil mapping unit consists primarily of soils having
similarly defined soil properties and physical characteristics with similar management criteria base upon
these properties. Mapping units are useful for planning by indicating the types and ranges of soil
characteristics that may be found within a landscape. The map units often correlate closely with soils at a
location, but have limitations because a site's soils represent the natural conditions and gradients
influenced by local geology, slope, and past land management practices. These soil map units provide
useful information for interpreting soil within a landscape and inform potential management decisions.
General characteristics of mapping units for the Tobacco Road site are summarized in Table 1. NRCS
map units cover large extents and naturally 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 within the landscape at a site. Although map units are
useful for general planning, an on -site evaluation is necessary to determine soil characteristics specific to
a site. The characteristics of these map units are a starting point for this soil evaluation (online NRCS
Web Soil Survey 2022).
Table 1. NRCS Hydric Soil Map Units at the Tobacco Road Site.
Series
Taxonomic
Drainage
Hydric
Landscape setting (down
Class
Class
(Hydric Rating)
across)
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (ChA) (Complex)
Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season.
Parent material - loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Location —found toe slope and tread, talf
Depth to water table - 6to 25 inches Flooding — none to re uent Pondin - none
Chewacla (90%)
somewhat
No
Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
poorly
(B/D)
linear -linear
Riverview (5%)
well
B°
Wehadkee (5%)
Fluvaquentic
poorly
Yes
Endoa ue is
B/D
Cullen clay loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes, moderately eroded (CnE2) (Complex)
Farmland of statewide importance
Location —found on side slopes and backslopes
Parent material - mixed residuum weathered from igneous and metamorphic rock
Depth to water table - > 80 inches Flooding — none Pondin - none
Cullen (95%)
Typic
No
HaUltdults
well
concave -linear
Enon (5%)
ic
No
Ha ludal s
C
Source-NRCS Web Soil Survey (2022 March)
The NRCS soil survey shows one soil map unit along the floodplain of the central unnamed tributary with
the surrounding slopes mapped as one map unit type (Appendix D). The Chewacla loam is found on the
floodplain where frequent flooding typically occurs. This alluvial soil formed from deposition of
erosional material derived from surrounding upland soils. The Chewacla is somewhat poorly drained and
the natural ground water table is expected to be between 6 and 24 inches below the surface for much of
the year. This map unit may also contain inclusions of well drained Riverview and poorly drained
Wehadkee. The surrounding upland unit is a well drained Cullen clay loam. The Cullen map unit consists
only of well drained soil. The Chewacla is somewhat poorly drained, but is not classified as hydric by the
May 2022
Page 3 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
MRCS. Wehadkee soil inclusions are classified as hydric by the MRCS. The upland map units are not
considered hydric by the MRCS. General characteristics of these map units are shown in Table 1.
The Chewacla map unit typically has brown, loamy surface underlain by yellowish brown sandy clay
loam with iron depletions and masses of oxidized iron. Below these horizons are mineral horizons
consisting of stratified sandy loam that is little altered (Web soil survey for Alamance County 2022).
Wehadkee soils have a grayish brown surface underlain by a dark gray subsoil with soft masses of iron.
These inclusions are typically where the water table closer to the surface and chemical process have
started altering the soil. In the landscape of the project, these are found along the toe of slope where
groundwater discharges and ditching has inadequately drained these seeps.
The Chewacla map unit has a taxonomic classification of Inceptisols. Inceptisols soils have not developed
or weathered the features that are diagnostic of other soil orders, primarily due to time, but also from the
other factors affecting development such as vegetation and climate. Alluvial soils often fall into this
classification due to the geologically more recent deposition and lack of time needed for development of
diagnostic features. The soils deposited across the floodplain more closely reflect the materials eroded
from the redder upland soils, reflected in the textures and red soil typical of the upland soil of the
watershed. Over time, the weathering can form from addition of organic material from vegetation and
periods of saturation that supports the chemical changes needed to alter soil, especially cohesion and
color. In more developed soils, materials also move between horizons and chemical processes break down
base materials into secondary minerals necessary for other soil taxonomic orders.
In addition to color, the depositional material determines the texture of these alluvial soils. A watershed
with sandy uplands is more likely to have sandy alluvial soils and clayey upland soil will have finer
textured soil. Depositional events also result in uneven particle size and distribution, resulting in the
variable horizons thickness and textural differences between them. This textural variability is partially due
to the sedimentation characteristics associated with overbank events and differences in sediments from
the slopes to either side of the valley. Larger channels and floodplains can have a higher variability due to
the more complex watershed, but many areas within a floodplain show a relative consistency of soils
deposited, making interpretation of soil limitation more useful.
This NRCS map unit indicates a relatively young soil that lack most of the general diagnostic features. A
Chewacla soil is often drained and protected from flooding. These young landscapes have not developed
significant surface roughening from tree tips or accumulation of materials behind large woody debris.
Determining potential areas for wetland creation must identify potential conditions that can be altered to
raise the local water table, allowing development of a fully functional wetland.
Project Approach
The success of wetland creation is from the expectation that raising the stream bed elevation and plugging
ditches will raise the local groundwater table across the floodplain, connecting and expanding these areas
of discharge while providing frequent flood event to the surrounding floodplain. Once the hydrology is
established, these areas are anticipated to develop wetland functions. Proposed creation areas should have
soils with characteristics able to sustain wetland hydrology and support these functions.
The site is along a small floodplain having variable widths with small jurisdictional wetland scattered
along the toe of slope. Three small unnamed tributaries enter the stream floodplain within the evaluated
project area. A number of obvious seepage areas are located along the toe of slope. Many of these
seepage areas appear to be partially drained. The absence of hydric soil outside of the wetlands and
suitable landscapes provides the opportunity to expand these existing wetlands and create a larger, more
functional wetland complex. The EPA provided the definition of Wetland Creation as the "construction of
May 2022
Page 4 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
a wetland in an area that was not a wetland in the recent past (within the last 100-200 years) and that is
isolated from existing wetlands (i.e., not directly adjacent)" (EPA
https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-restoration-definitions-and-distinctions). The proposed creation
areas do not contain hydric soil within 12 inches, but a number are adjacent to the existing wetlands. For
purposes of this report, wetland creation are areas having suitable landscape position, lack hydric soil
indicators within 12 inches, and appear to have at least a secondary source of hydrology beyond stream
overbank flood events such as a wetland or an area of groundwater discharge. The assumption is that after
stream restoration/enhancement, the overbank events will become relatively frequent and provide
significant hydrology to these areas with the secondary hydrologic source stabilizing the hydroperiod. The
approach for wetland creation is to design and establish local conditions that mimic a suitable wetland
hydroperiod that will allow development of normal geochemical functions common to natural wetland
systems in this landscape position.
The current wetlands are small in extent and are located near areas of groundwater discharge. The
wetland soils have developed hydric indicators, suggesting these landscapes will support development of
the appropriate hydric soil indicators and function as wetlands.
Methodology
A detailed soil investigation for Tobacco Road Mitigation Site was completed in March of 2022. Soils
were evaluated based on evidence of hydrology, landscape position, soil texture, and observed soil
morphology. The boring observations are not intended to classify these soils to a series and lack adequate
detail to classify a soil series. Soils were evaluated using morphologic characteristics to describe the
horizons, textures, overall soil structure, mottles, the presence of a water table, and other relevant features
as observed. The mottles can be used as an indication of the where the water table elevation is for
extended periods. Hydric indicators, where observed, were determined using criteria based on "Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (USDA, NRCS, 2018, Version 8.2). 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) 136
(Southern Piedmont) - and Land Resource Region (LRR) P- South Atlantic and Gulf Slope Cash Crops,
Forest, and Livestock Region. The hydroperiod success criteria proposed follows the Corps mitigation
guidelines where applicable (US Army Corps of Engineers 2016) and is based upon observed soil
characteristics. The boundary for the creation areas is based on field observations, survey data provided
by RES, and close consultation with the stream engineer. Soil boring locations examined during the field
evaluation were approximately located using the Terrain Navigator Pro smart phone application by
Trimble and figures were produced from the same software.
The wetland areas have previously been delineated and mapped by RES staff (Figure 2). An official
concurrence with the Corps of Engineers is being sought to verify the wetlands. For this evaluation, the
wetlands were only briefly examined and determined to have hydric soils with conditions that appear to
meet the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. The soils suitable for creation generally lack hydric soil
indicators and appear to lack adequate hydrology.
A series of approximately 40 soil borings were performed across the site to describe and identify areas
that appear suitable for wetland creation (Figure 3). Hand auger soil borings were used to describe current
soil characteristics and determine the extent of soil suitable for wetland creation. Some borings extended
to greater than 30 inches in depth to evaluate deeper conditions that may impact hydrology. The current
hydrologic conditions were determined by observing the existing drainage modifications (both
anthropogenic and natural), soil interpretation of the location, pattern, and presentation of color and
mottles, existing vegetation patterns, and the current water table where observed. Representative profiles
are described to document the range of characteristics observed (Appendix A). The presence of hydric
May 2022
Page 5 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
soil indicators does not assume current hydrology. Constraints on stream restoration/enhancement may
limit the extent of potential hydrologic restoration shown. Selected photographs of soils and the landscape
are shown in Appendix B.
This report describes these findings, conclusions, and recommendation for wetland mitigation at the
Tobacco Road Mitigation site. The discussion describes relevant soil characteristics, current hydrology,
and land management with observed modifications that may affect potential hydrologic restoration.
Results and Discussion
Landscape Setting
This project is in the Piedmont physiographic region. It lies within the Carolina Slate Belt ecoregion and
the general topography has linear ridges with slopes ranging from gentle to moderately steep hills. The
well drained upland landscapes have streams with a gentle -to moderate gradient, but often have rocky
stream beds. Geology within the project and surrounding area is a felsic metavolcanic rock formation.
This geology provides the parent material for soil formation and consists of light gray to greenish gray
metamorphosed volcanic rock high in silica and low in alkali metal oxides with layers of mafic and
interbedded with intermediate types of volcanic rock and mudstones. The upland soils are often eroded.
The upland soil typically consists of loam or silt loam surface underlain by a clay or silty loams. Based on
observed soil color, mottle colors, and the presence of soft nodules, the underlying bedrock of the project
watershed is likely dominated by mafic rock having a high magnesium and iron content.
Current land use of the contributing watershed consists of scattered residential home and mixed
agricultural activities, including livestock grazing, row crops, and silvicultural land (Figure 2). Land use
adjacent to the project is livestock in the upper reach with row crops in the lower portion of the project.
Livestock have heavily impacted the stream banks, increasing bank erosion and have resulted in extensive
churning of the soil surfaces on the floodplain.
Site Conditions
The floodplain vegetation appears to be a first growth forest, most likely following agricultural clearing
and the deposition of legacy sediments that make up the floodplain soils. Shallow ditches and swales have
been constructed to enhance the drainage of small seeps and springs along the toe of slopes. The channel
substrate consists mostly of gravel and cobbles with scattered boulders. In many places the stream is
incised to expose the underlying bedrock. In other areas there appears to be a weakly cemented
consolidated layer of sand and gravel and is expected shallow to bedrock.
A few locations beside the stream may be old spoil, but have softened over time and naturalized. The
floodplain has shallow linear swales that parallel the stream before draining into the channel. These
features promote rapid draining of surface water. Depressions from old root tips is generally absent due to
the young age of the vegetation and ponding does not appear to regularly occur. The incised stream
appears to lack frequent overbank events. The slopes along the floodplain exhibit numerous areas of
groundwater discharge, often appearing to provide significant amounts of discharge. The areas proposed
for creation are connected or adjacent to the discharge areas located along the toe of slope.
Site Soils
Five separate areas were determined to have a high potential for successfully creation of wetlands. These
areas of proposed creation are labeled Cl through C5, beginning downstream and progressing upstream.
Due to the proposed wetland creation aspect of this project, the existing soils were examined for
important morphological characteristics that can affect functions and success. The soils were evaluated
for general texture and textural changes, focusing on finer textures or other horizons that can perch a
water table. These characteristics are known to affect infiltration, storage, store/conduct subsurface lateral
flow, and perching of a water table. Other observations include depth to water table (if present), buried
May 2022
Page 6 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
hydric soils, depleted or partially depleted soil horizons, lenses, and spatial relationships across the
floodplain. Structure affects the rates of infiltration and overall potential storage within the soil. It impacts
survival and growth of vegetation through rooting depth and availability of nutrients and water during dry
periods.
The soils found along the floodplain of the Tobacco Road site appear to be atypical for a Chewacla or
Wehadkee series. The observed soil colors are consistently redder than the range, (redder than 7.5 YR),
mostly falling within the 5YR hue. This redder color in soils can be associated with a soil having a higher
content of iron in the form of hematite, therefore attention was given to hydric indicator F20-Red Parent
Material. Hematite forms under the drier, well drained, conditions of upland soils, and is transported to
the floodplain. The high iron in these soils is related to local geology and soil parent material of the
watershed. In addition to the high iron, the darker red to black mottles indicate significant manganese is
present either in the soil mineralogy or within the groundwater discharge. Also, the incised stream has
exposed bedrock shallower than the 80 inches typical of a Chewacla or Wehadkee series.
The legacy sediments that make up the floodplain soil at this site are high in iron and manganese
minerals. Although low in organic material, it is likely to contain sufficient nutrients to support any
selected vegetative community. The textures appear to be within the range of a Chewacla and overall
approach for the creation of wetland hydrology should be similar. High iron content can delay formation
of strong hydric soil indicators, but can still form given time. As evidenced in the existing seepage
wetlands these soils can develop appropriate soil indicators. The current lack of widespread indicators can
be attributed to current site modifications consisting of shallow ditching below seepages and the incised
stream channel affecting the groundwater. Small non -continuous sand lenses were found, but due to a
limited extent are not anticipated to negatively impact drainage after project completion. These same
porous lenses can provide subsurface storage and help disperse groundwater across the floodplain.
Generally, soil across this site is loamy with small lenses of sands or clayey textured soils.
Hydric Soil Indicators
The soil evaluation found limited hydric soil indicators outside of the delineated wetland areas. They are
located in close proximity to existing wetlands or near constructed drainage features along the toe of
slope. These indicators are outside of the wetlands although were likely historically connected to a
wetland or a source of hydrology prior to ditching and incision of the stream. The processes that utilize
organic matter are limited due to the low organic content that has accumulated at this site. Indicators
found here are associated with oxidation-reduction reactions common in iron rich soils having extended
periods of saturation. These biogeochemical processes utilize the abundant iron and manganese and are
not dependent upon accumulation of organic material. The indicators observed are F3-Depleted Matrix,
F8-Redox Depressions, F12-Iron-Manganese Masses, F-19-Piedmont Flood Plain Soils, and F20-Red
Parent Material. The F19 and F20 indicators are considered test indicators in this MLRA. The F-19
indicator is for testing on floodplains subject to Piedmont depositions throughout LRR P. The F20
indicator is testing in all soil derived from red parent materials (USDA NRCS 2018). Due to the
suspected red parent materials, the F20 indicator is appropriate to consider as an indicator. Based on
experience and the observed soil morphology, the wetlands in this landscape are a discharge type wetland
hydrology.
Five general areas of the floodplain were identified as having the ability to support a natural wetland
hydrology and provide the related functions (Figure 2 and Figure 3). These areas are shown on Figure 2
as Cl through C5 beginning at the downstream end of the project and progress upstream. Representative
soil profiles are shown in Appendix A.
May 2022
Page 7 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
Area Cl
This potential creation area is near the downstream portion of the project where the floodplain widens at
the bottom of a natural concave landscape. The stream is located near the right side of the floodplain and
incised approximately 48 to 60 inches with steep banks showing active erosion. Exposed bedrock is
common. A ditch is located on the left side of the floodplain along the toe of slope where it intercepts
seepage and diverts runoff from the floodplain. During the site evaluation, this ditch exhibited low flow
throughout its length, indicating its potential as a source of significant hydrology. A few borings on the
floodplain outside of this ditch exhibited hydric indicators, but are limited in extent and do not appear to
currently have adequate hydrology.
Soils borings were placed to roughly approximate a simple transect down the valley or across the valley.
The soils were found to generally have a moderately restrictive horizon that gently dips from the edge of
the floodplain to the stream. The observed water table was between 16 and 35 inches along the slope with
the highest elevations near the left edge of the floodplain and along seepage areas. The water table drops
across the valley to the channel. Small lenses of either sandy, highly permeable soils or dense, restrictive
clays are present, but discontinuous.
This proposed creation is approximately 1.62 acres. Hydrologic success criterion for this area is
recommended to be in the 12 to 16 percent along the left side of the floodplain with the right floodplain
having a range of 10 to 12 percent with extended ponding in the partially filled abandoned channel.
Area C2
This is a small, concave backwater area containing a spring/seep along the toe slope that is expected to
support wetland hydrology. Currently a ditch drains the discharge from this seep and due to the narrow
width of the floodplain at this location, the incised stream creates an additional drainage impact. With the
ditch diverting surface flow, this small depressional area along the toe slope drains rapidly.
The soils are mostly sandy loam to greater than 30 inches and have good structure. One boring outside of
the ditch meets the F8-Redox Depressions indicator. It currently appears to lack adequate hydrology due
to drainage of the soils.
This proposed creation is approximately 0.28 acre. Once the stream bed is raised, the slope discharge
should quickly raise the local water table to near the surface for extended periods. Hydrologic success
criterion for this area is recommended to be in the 12 to 16 percent.
Area C3
This area is the most extensive and complex of the proposed creation areas, containing two small
tributaries, one entering from each side of the floodplain. A discharge wetland is located on the right toe
of slope near the upstream end. There is evidence of groundwater discharge along the slope near both
tributaries. Upstream of this area the channel is shallow to exposed bedrock.
The soils have a loamy texture throughout and are permeable. A few borings exhibited a moderately
restrictive layer. The presence of sharp bends and areas of bank erosion that extend up into the
surrounding floodplain indicate these loamy soils are erodible.
This creation area is approximately 2.14 acres in size and extends along both sides of the channel. Once
the downstream crossing is constructed and the bed is raised, the local water table should be near the
surface for extended periods. Hydrologic success criterion for this area is expected to be in the 12 to 16
percent.
May 2022
Page 8 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
Area C4
This potential creation area lies within an active livestock operation between two crossings although the
downstream one appears to have been abandoned due to bank erosion. The upstream crossing will be
upgraded and remain. The downstream crossing will be eliminated. There are three small discharge
wetlands located along the edge of the floodplain. On the upstream left floodplain this wetland is the
source of a small tributary that parallels the central stream. Both channels are deeply incised and erosion
has created unstable banks.
The soil textures are primarily loamy. Soils exhibit redoximorphic features from historic saturation, but
the stream incision and drainage have lowered the groundwater. The wetland soils were not evaluated, but
were saturated to the surface with shallow ponding. Ponding may be the result of compacted/disturbed
surface horizons from livestock impacts and soil churning. A thin dark surface indicates higher organic
content.
This area combines to be approximately 0.77 acre. Once the stream beds are raised, the local water table
should be near the surface for extended periods due to the numerous seepage and discharge points along
both slopes. Hydrology includes three small discharge wetlands and two streams. Due to the discharge
along the slopes, the hydrologic success criterion for this area is expected to be in the 12 to 16 percent,
but any depressional areas may be greater than 16 percent.
Area C5
This is a small, nearly level, backwater area along the left floodplain located just upstream of an existing
crossing to be upgraded. Although small in extent, it appears to have a significant discharge source that is
expected to provide hydrology success.
Soils are loamy with the most permeable horizon between 4 and 12 inches. Redoximorphic concentrations
are present below 4 inches. At 12 inches the matrix is becoming depleted of iron and bright mottles have
formed. This horizon has weak structure and may be somewhat restrictive despite its loamy texture.
This area is somewhat small at 0.19 acre. Stream restoration and enhancement with the upgraded crossing
is anticipated to limit drainage and raise the groundwater elevation to support adequate hydrology for this
area. Hydrologic success criterion for this area is expected to be in the 12 to 16 percent.
Potential Hydroperiod for Restored Soils
The soils in the floodplain of this project do not specifically meet some of the characteristics that define a
Chewacla (or a Wehadkee inclusion). Normal guidance for hydrologic success is based on soil series and
mitigation guidance for Piedmont soils (US Army Corps of Engineers 2016). Although these soils cannot
be directly derived from this guidance, the observed floodplain soils do appear to meet the general
taxonomic criteria for either a Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts (similar to Chewacla) or a Fluvaquentic
Endoaquepts (similar to Wehadkee).
Using the mitigation guidance for a Wehadkee series, wetlands in this landscape may be expected to have
a natural hydroperiod of between 12 and 16 percent during the growing season where the water table is
within 12 inches of the surface (Table 2). After completion of the project, a local hydroperiod slightly
higher or lower than this guidance is possible due to natural variation in local topography, internal
drainage, and the actual period of slope discharge. Depressional areas and soils adjacent to the slope
discharge may exhibit longer hydroperiods exceeding 16 percent, depending on local topography. Soil of
the surrounding soil map units are well drained and not anticipated to have hydroperiods exceeding 6
percent.
May 2022
Page 9 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
For the first year after construction, it may be practical to expect a hydroperiod of less than 12 percent if
rainfall patterns are below normal as soils becomes saturated and a higher groundwater table becomes
established. Due to the nature of wetland creation, the hydroperiod may be depressed into the second
year. These suggested hydroperiods are subject to factors related to stream design and frequency of
flooding, construction accuracy, local topography, and local drainage after construction.
Table 3. Tobacco Road — Potential Success Criteria for Compensatory Wetland Mitigation
Mapping
Taxonomic
Seasonal
Topographic
Drainage
Unit/Series
Classification
High Water
Slope Setting
Classification
Hydroperiod
Table
(down/across)
Range
Chewacla
Fluvaquentic
6 to 24 inches
linear - linear
somewhat poorly
10-12%
D strude is
Wehadkee
Fluvaquentic
Endoa ue is
0 to 12 inches
linear - linear
poorly
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 direct guidance criteria for hydric soil creation:
Due to the lack of widespread hydric indicators and the redder, high iron soils, formation of hydric
indicators will likely be slow. By the end of the monitoring period, there may be evidence of these
indicators beginning to form. Evidence most likely observable will be mottles along soil pores and root
channels. The red soil matrix may begin to change, but is unlikely to reach criteria for a depleted soil
within this time.
Functional Uplift from the Establishment of Wetland Hydrology
The successful construction of this stream and wetland project has the potential to provide numerous
benefits to water quality. The watershed is primarily agricultural with the potential of discharging
sediments, nutrients, and pollutants into these streams. The stream and wetland creation proposed will
raise local groundwater in these areas, establishing a natural hydrologic cycle with the associated
functional uplift. The hydric soils present do not presently contain much organic materials, but once these
wetland areas become established, the vegetation and extended hydroperiods will begin to accumulate
organic matter and the associated biological processes and chemical transformations.
Successful establishment of wetland hydrology at this site can provide numerous functional uplifts related
to soils and water quality. These include, accumulation of organic matter, establishment 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 this
agricultural watershed. After vegetative community establishment, other potential benefits include low
soil temperatures, increased organic carbon sequestration, and increased 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 benefit peak flood control, increase and diversify
wildlife habitat, and connect to the natural aquatic communities of Motes Creek.
Summary Recommendations and Conclusions
The Tobacco Road project will restore unnamed tributaries to Motes Creek and reestablish regular
overbank flooding. Currently the site has an incised stream with areas of nearly level floodplain. The
stream restoration/enhancement activities will raise the channel bed through the floodplain, resulting in a
higher groundwater table. Along with observed areas of groundwater discharge along edge of the
floodplain, the groundwater is anticipated to be at or above the ground surface for extended periods.
There are five areas suitable for wetland creation.
May 2022
Page 10 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
Recommendations
Soils in these proposed wetland creation areas are generally nonhydric, but are near small pockets of
wetlands and areas of groundwater discharge. The soils exhibit a redder color than the mapped series,
indicating a high iron content of the alluvial parent material. The current soils are a mix of loams with
clays and silts that appears to be around 3 feet in thickness over bedrock. The finer textured soils create a
moderately restrictive horizon with the underlying consolidated materials or bedrock being more
restrictive. Due to the depositional nature of alluvial soils porosity may be limited. Where areas are
planned to be mostly cleared of trees, decompaction techniques should be considered to improve porosity.
Ripping these areas 16 to 20 inches is suggested. Where larger trees expected to remain, equipment
should be limited and no ripping allowed. Once ripped, shallow depressions and pools can be constructed
using smaller, low impact equipment. The decompaction of disturbed soils will improve planting survival
and allow greater infiltration and storage. A soil test for pH and general fertility is recommended to
determine if soil amendments are needed.
Where land clearing and agricultural activities have occurred floodplain soils often have a relatively
smooth transition from uplands to the floodplain. Natural floodplain in this landscape generally exhibit a
sharp, low break onto the floodplain. A sharp break can be constructed along the toe of slope to naturally
define the floodplain. Construction of shallow depressions throughout the floodplain is good practice and
creates diverse habitat along with storge capacity. These depressions can be round, irregular, or linear in
shape with depth ranging from six inches to twelve inches. Disturbance and decompaction can
temporarily lower organic matter. Use of larger woody debris is highly recommended.
Conclusions
Given the favorable landscape position, soil characteristics observed, and presence of hydrology sources,
this site contains areas suitable for wetland creation. Where saturation still persists, soils appear to have
begun forming limited redoximorphic characteristics. Once the wetland creation areas are constructed, it
can be anticipated that process leading to formation of hydric indicators will occur. The formation of
additional indicators is expected to be limited, but may occur during the monitoring period. Indicators
likely to form where they do not currently exist would be he F3-Depleted Matrix and once depressions
are constructed, the indicator F8-Redox Depressions. These indicators may potentially be observed before
the end of the monitoring period.
Hydrology proposed for these areas is a high water table from groundwater discharge along toe slope and
frequent overbank flooding. These created wetlands should begin to provide some of the typical wetland
functions once vegetation is established. It may take up to a year for the full extent of the creation areas 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 between 9 and 12 percent, depending on final
construction timing and rainfall. Due to the nature of wetland creation, the hydroperiod may be depressed
into the second year.
This project offers an opportunity to provide wetlands that complement the activities of stream
restoration/enhancement and provide functions similar to natural wetlands. Potential functional benefits
include both physical and biogeochemical attributes. Upon successful construction, the created wetland
will be able to provide functional benefits of sediment removal, perform soil chemical and biological
transformations of nutrient and chemical pollutants while providing a range of wetland habitats. The
biogeochemical process includes, natural oxidation-reduction cycling, transformations of nutrient and
chemicals, nutrient removal (especially nitrates), and potential immobilization of phosphorus. Potential
sources of these pollutants are present in the watershed. Other benefits include increased organic carbon
accumulation/capture and increases of natural diversity in beneficial microbial and fungal populations
important for soil health.
May 2022
Page 11 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
In general, this appears to be a site with appropriate conditions for Wetland Creation. Based upon this
detailed study of soils and current conditions observed at this site, wetland hydrology will be established
in the areas indicated. The natural hydrology is present and once stream construction has successfully
restored the channel bed, the resulting raised groundwater table can provide successful Wetland Creation.
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Tobacco Road Mitigation Site in
Alamance 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 [March/2022].
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/RegulatoryP ermitProgram/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0, ed. J. F. Berkowitz, J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center.
USDA 1960. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Soil
Survey of Alamance County North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators
ofHydric 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.
Vepraskas, M. J. et al. 1995. Development of Redoximorphic Features in Constructed Wetland Soils.
Tech. Paper No. 5. Wetland Research Inc.
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, Chapter 13
Engineering Field Handbook. Washington, DC.
USDA-NRCS. 2017. Soil Survey Manual 4th Edition. USDA Handbook 18. Soil Survey Division
Staff.
May 2022
Page 12 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
FIGURES
APPENDICES
Appendix A Soil Boring Log
Appendix B Photos
Appendix C NRCS Web Soil Survey Report
May 2022
Page 13 of 13

10 CU
3 N d�`
ern j
gh Pomt
C- agel Hill
CID
T? Ral
NORTH i. �'zkz
CAROLINA 1 ! ry Ir
�;IACn
- /
cn
1 v
Oton \, ( j J c
,fo y
\, CD
r ¢> al i CD �
5j6
o �� C'o ,`ae ` '� �/ �� l� A oad�w y Dr �
M' -Morrow School Road
st Math
; O„ j L f-T - 1- 1
61
Softwlnd Dn(Vc
ySaxapaiiaw=Bethlehem Church Road., M,rr6,,
��'�. ��' 1 -�,
Declination
ae(�\ra / r
N N
Say pahaw ( r Purnp.ng sta t, _
/ AUs
fln - -
N QUaner Ro
r. 4� GN 1.00' E
MN8.86°W
N/A -
Project RLegend
Area - Proposed Easement -
C Crop ri ht2016,Tr'mble NJ\(igption,Limited, OpenStr�etMap contributors
Map Name: SAXAPAHAW Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft. Base Map Scale: 24,000
Figure 1. USGS Vicinity Map
Tobacco Road Mitigation Bank
Alamance NC
SCALE 1:24000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Feet
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Miles

f
Scale: 1 inch = 500 ft
k.•j .. • .i''� !
l Y�
•I .
I
f �'1+:.c:�4��iiG_'r_�.'��'':. ,t��L as�•�..s:� r: rx- — — T .Y s
Y
Horizontal Datum: WGS84 IF
Figure 2. Project Aerial
Tobacco Road Mitigation Bank
e OHO
f.
l
'air 4
i
�50
'�•:
..'I r
LEGEND
Wetland Creation
Will.•:_ {< _ ,�• :• ''� ', ; Hydric Soil -Jurisdictional Wetland
`,''y'; i■' . �" '.ts ."F� .'',r� xr Proposed Easement
N p
SCALE 1:6000 Existing Stream (surveyed top of bank)
0 1000
w e Feet
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Miles
s

x
>cale: 1 inch = 200 ft.
i, I
r
a � yr• } � _ re
J
r . 1 T � ' ¢ � � i + � � i .a �` {s r� , 'M1� � � � fie. � � �� �� e � r►� r ' 4 4+
it
Ar
�. ; • 4 , r'
w
Horizontal Datum: WGS84 "
SCALE 1:2400
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Figure 3A. Soil Boring Locations W E Feet
Tobacco Road Mitigation Bank 0.0 0.1
Miles
s
LEGEND
Stream (surveyed top of bank)
Wetland Creation
Wetland Rehabilitation
Proposed Easement
Profile Point (hydric)
Profile Point (non-hydric)
Soil Boring (hydric)
Soil Boring (non-hydric)

sn-F i F�� •
F_ 7 , x Y
_
f
nk
T�•
+
it
r I
+r
I
IRA
r
le: 1 inch = 200 ft.
R"y— !n
_ .I. ,, F
' 1 i ,'
- -,.; ,+N, .. -T- _•+
1 +•rr` ,, .�y�•.x �:Ap2,,.
Y
lot
III ,1 I , S
r-
I '
.'
1 �',�•+ . r'
t.
r� r} , �_ I �'� - .i
I
•
`! � I' � - n
q' JN � i 3
' + .. a
r I• � , ' r 4 •
►�
: - � '�
�.' + + 1 r
! .r
IN
r
i
�
r j--, m e
4F
i ,�
i '�' '
", + E 5 •
,�.
A' ;w'W
wi,
� • �Y � w • 4 Y, ,I � �a •� ``1 i IY £ '. r 1 � � lY - 1
v IY!`1 • i .IF j Y ■. .1 rt.r • r . y I'�'^ r_' ,+ t • ' .e +�. i•
ri�z ♦ �i �_ 1 � Ia t r
40#FJ1 ` �F i J t+ . "<r �r , r { ' r' 1 fir ' �r II 40 i 'M
41
r � � ,�� r � a tin• , - -� � r
4.
oe
*it
'
A �1.
A.'+ 1L
' r s i
' 7 t
ref + •.J+'+',vr Nrl'Ap
;
V •:L 1- Y i H .
f � •
41l(
' � >' ; �� * � .i�. r d• Sri ,
+�i i
h
Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Figure 3B. Soil Boring Locations
Tobacco Road Mitigation Bank
'lot* b►
ff
SC�f
K.46a4kr ��r+1.Y
� • w r9,
r
1223
NOW
SCALE 1:2400
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Feet
0.0 0.1
Miles
LEGEND
Stream (surveyed top of bank)
Wetland Creation
Wetland Rehabilitation
Proposed Easement
Profile Point (hydric)
Profile Point (non-hydric)
Soil Boring (hydric)
Soil Boring (non-hydric)

Appendix A
Tobacco Road Mitigation Site, Alamance County NC
SOIL BORING PROFILES
Table Representative Soil Profiles at the Tobacco Road Site
Depth
Color
Mottle Percentage
Texture**
Notes
Matrix
Mottle
(inches)
(Location*)
SB 03 Area C1
WT -24" (46" on March 22)
March 8, 2022
SHWT —11" co m letely de leted matrix = 27"
0-3
5 YR 3/3
SiL
3-11
5 YR 4/6
CL
11-22
5 YR 4/6
5 YR 2.5/2
15% (PL)
soft mottles of Mn
5 YR 5/4
10%(PL)CL
22-27
5 YR 4/6
5 YR 5/2
15% (PL)
CL
2.5 YR 4/8
5% PL
27-34
5 YR 5/2
5 YR 4/6
10% (PL)
SL
SB 26 Area C1
WT -19" (16" on March 22)
March 16, 2022
meets h dric indicator F8 at 3"
0-3
5 YR 3/3
SL
3-10
5 YR 4/6
5 YR 3/3
5% PL
SL
10-21
5 YR 4/6
5 YR 4/8
5% (PL)
Sc
moderately restrictive
2.5 YR 2.5/2
3% PL
soft mottles of Mn
21-26
5 YR 5/4
5 YR 4/6
20% PL
Sc
restrictive
26-30
5 YR 5/3
5 YR 4/6
12% PL
Sc
massive -restrictive
30-31
1 2.5 YR 4/6
cSL
sa rolite
SB 27 Area C1
stream bank profile -water surface at-31 ")
March 16, 2022
0-18
5 YR 4/4
SL
18-23
5 YR 3/2
10 R 4/6
variegated
LS
—35% gravel
highly ermeable
23-27
5 YR 3/4
S w/ ravel
g
-�50% gravel
highly ermeable
27+
1 sa rolite/cobbles
SB 28 Area C1
WT -not observed (49" on March 22)
March 16, 2022
meets h dric indicator F 19 at 8"
0-1
5 YR 3/3
SL
1-8
5 YR 4/4
SL
8-18
5 YR 4/4
5 YR 5/4
30% PL
SL
18-26
5 YR 6/2
5 YR 5/8
15% (PL)
5 YR 4/6
5%(PL)fSL
Appendix A
Page 1 of 5
March 2022

Appendix A
Tobacco Road Mitigation Site, Alamance County NC
SOIL BORING PROFILES
Table Representative Soil Profiles at the Tobacco Road Site
Depth
Color
Mottle Percentage
Texture**
Notes
Matrix
Mottle
(inches)
(Location*)
SB 29 Area C1
WT -29" (-16" on March 22)
March 16, 2022
meets h dric indicator F3 at 11"
0-2
5 YR 4/3
SL
2-11
5 YR 4/4
SL
perched water table
I 1-22
5 YR 4/2
5 YR 4/4
10% (PL)
SCL
restrictive
5 YR 3/2
5% PL
22-26
5 YR 7/1
5 YR 3/3
35% (PL)
SL
relatively
SB 30 Area C1
WT -18"
March 16, 2022
0-5
5 YR 3/2
L
5-15
5 YR 4/6
SCL
restrictive
15-23
7.5 YR 5/3
5 YR 2.5/1
40% PL
SCL
restrictive
5 YR 4/6
15% (PL)
23-34
7.5 YR 5/3
5 YR 3/3
10% PL
CL
SB 31 (strm bk) Area C1
stream bank profile - water surface at --54"
March 22, 2022
0-24
2.5 YR 3/6
fSL
2.5 YR 3/6
20% (PL)
24-34
5 YR 5/4
5 YR 5/3
15% (PL)
SL
2.5 YR 2.5/4
5% PL
2.5 YR 3/6
20% (PL)
35-42
5 YR 5/4
5 YR 5/3
15% (PL)
SL
gravel prm
permeable
2.5 YR 2.5/4
5%(PL)highly
consolidated sand/gravel
At 42-
2.5 YR 4/6
5 YR 6/1
30% (PL)
SCL
with —40%cobbles
SB 32 Area Cl
WT not observed
March 22, 2022
0-18
5 YR 4/6
SL
18-28
5 YR 4/4
SL
28-33
5 YR 5/4
5 YR 6/3
5% PL
SCL
massive - restrictive
SB 33 Area C1
WT not observed
March 23, 2022
0-12
SC
12-23
SL
23-32
SCL
massive - restrictive
32-35
gravelly
Appendix A
Page 2 of 5
March 2022

Appendix A
Tobacco Road Mitigation Site, Alamance County NC
SOIL BORING PROFILES
Table Representative Soil Profiles at the Tobacco Road Site
Depth
Color
Mottle Percentage
Texture**
Notes
Matrix
Mottle
(inches)
(Location*)
SB 22 Area C2
WT -11"
meets hydric indicator F3 at 13" (buried/relict)
March 16 2022
'
meets h dric indicator F8 at 4"
0-4
5 YR 4/4
CL
4-15
5 YR 4/6
5 YR 3/4
15% PL
SL
12-13
5 YR 2.5/1
5 YR 3/3
20% PL
SL
thin layer - oxidized Mn
13-20
5 YR 6/2
5 YR 4/6
15% (PL)
SL
5 YR 3/3
2% PL
Mn concentration
20-30
5 YR 6/2
5 YR 4/6
15% (PL)
SL
gravel and cobble below
SB 9 Area C3
WT -not observed
March 8, 2022
0-5
5 YR 3/3
fSL
5-10
5 YR 4/4
fSL
10-14
5 YR 5/6
5 YR 5/2
15% PL
SL
2.5 YR 5/8
20% (PL)
14-20
5 YR 5/6
5 YR 5/8
15% (PL)
SL
5 YR 2.5/4
5% PL
SB 35 Area C3
WT -31"
March 22, 2022
0-3
5 YR 3/3
SCL
may have low infiltration
3-31
5 YR 4/6
SL
31-38
5 YR 4/2
5 YR 4/6
15% PL
SCL
restrictive
38-42
5 YR 6/2
5 YR 4/2
35% (PL)
Sc
massive - restrictive
5 YR 2.5/2
4% PL
SB 36 Area C3
WT -11"
March 22, 2022
meets h dric indicator F20 at 9"
05-
5 YR 3/3
CL
5-9
5 YR 4/4
5 YR 3/4
10% PL
SCL
restrictive
5 YR 4/4
15% (PL)
9-18
5 YR 515
5 YR 5/2
5% PL
SCL
restrictive -weak structure
gravel —5%
18-28
5 YR 4/4
5 YR 2.5/1
15% (PL)
SCL
mottles are soft nodules
- moderate permeability
Appendix A
Page 3 of 5
March 2022

Appendix A
Tobacco Road Mitigation Site, Alamance County NC
SOIL BORING PROFILES
Table Representative Soil Profiles at the Tobacco Road Site
Depth
Color
Mottle Percentage
Texture**
Notes
Matrix
Mottle
(inches)
(Location*)
SB 37 Area C3
WT -12"
meets hydric indicator F19 at 3"
March 23 2022
'
meets h dric indicator F20at 3"
0-3
5 YR 4/3
fSL
3-14
5 YR 5/4
5 YR 4/6
20% PL
SL
mottles likely Mn-Fe mix
14-19
5 YR 5/2
5 YR 3/3
25% (PL)
CL
moderatelyrestrictive
5 YR 2.5/1
2%(PL)
5 YR 4/6
15% (PL)
19-27
5 YR 6/2
5 YR 2.5/2
5% (PL)
SCL
restrictive
SB 39 Area C3
WT -29"
March 22, 2022
meets h dric indicator F20 at 8"
0-8
5 YR 4/4
CL
may have low infiltration
8-13
5 YR 4/4
5 YR 513
10% PL
CL
13-18
5 YR 5/4
5 YR 4/6
10% PL
SL
18-26
5 YR 6/2
5 YR 4/6
15% (PL)
SL
5 YR 3/4
2% PL
26-31
5 YR 5/2
5 YR 5/6
150% (PL)
SL
relatively dry
5 YR 3/4
5 /o PL
SB 41 Area C4
WT -11"
March 22, 2022
12' from RTOB
0-8
SL
8-16
SCL
good structure
16-20
Sc
20-30
dark Mn concentrations as soft nodules
SCL
restrictive -weak structure
30-34
no Mn concentrations
SCL
Restrictive -lacks Mn
SB
12 Area C4
WT not observed
March 23,
2022
0-2
5 YR 3/3
L
2-17
5 YR 4/6
SL
17-28
5 YR 7/2
5 YR 5/8
20% PL
SL
28-33
5 YR 3/3
5 YR 2.5/1
30% (PL)
SL
gravel —15% - boring
terminated due to gravel
Appendix A
Page 4 of 5
March 2022

Appendix A
Tobacco Road Mitigation Site, Alamance County NC
SOIL BORING PROFILES
Table Representative Soil Profiles at the Tobacco Road Site
Depth
(inches)
Color
Mottle Percentage
(Location*)
Texture**
Notes
Matrix
Mottle
SB 43 Area C4
March 22, 2022
WT not observed
0-3
5 YR 3/3
5 YR 4/6
5% PL
L
3-13
5 YR 4/6
5 YR 3/4
5% L
L
13-21
5 YR 3/3
5 YR 5/2
5% PL
SL
21-30
5 YR 6/1
5 YR 4/6
25% PL
SL
Area CS -iw:
I
SB 44 Area C5
March 22, 2022
WT -16"
0-4
5 YR 3/3
SCL
potential low infiltration
4-12
5 YR 4/6
5 YR 2.5/1
8% PL
SL
soft nodules of Mn
12-26
5 YR 5/3
5 YR 5/6
20% PL
SCL
restrictive
»Indicators valid for NRCS Land Resource Region 136 (Southern Piedmont) 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)
Appendix A
Page 5 of 5
March 2022

Appendix B
Tobacco Road Mitigation Bank — Alamance County, NC
Photo Log
April 2022
1. Nonhydric profile. Soil shows surface accumulation of organic materials. Subsoil is typical of the
nonhydric soils across the floodplain (not show is depleted matrix at 31 inches). Area C 3 - SB#35.
2. Landscape across floodplain to stream. Area C 3 - S13#35.
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix B
Tobacco Road Mitigation Bank — Alamance County, NC
Photo Log
April 2022
3. Hydric profile. Meets the F19-Piedmont Flood Plain Soil indicator. Area C1 - S13#28.
4. Depressional landscape along toe of slope facing across the floodplain. Ditch is visible in background.
Area Cl - S13#28.
2
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix B
Tobacco Road Mitigation Bank — Alamance County, NC
Photo Log
April 2022
5. Nonhydric profile. Matrix becomes depleted at -17 inches. Area C4 - SB#12.
6. Floodplain facing downstream. Dredged UT to left and incised main tributary to right.
Area C4 - S13#112.
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

5.
CnB2 CnB2 CnD2
Cn'.C2 — Cr
.. r IrB� /
CnB2 CnD2/
Cn
' CnC2
A� _
6J, ,.
CnB2
C B2 CnC
WtB—
WtD -nD2
CW aB tB QCl
tC
I . I 0.
CmCc W
CnB2
�CnC2
i
CnC2 in I- CnB2
CnB2�CnB2
A A ti
f
CnC2 SIC n
CnB2 1
w
s GhA CnB2 CnD2TC,n '
+ CnEV
w•`
CnB2
i62 CnB2
Will CnE2
// .CnC2 I 1 t CnE2�
WJr..nB2 IrB, CnB2 MaB�
wtc
nB2 MaC b�Ai
w U
Wt6%M'aB
C 2 CnB'-2 HnE_
\\ HnD x
CnC2 •a
HrC2
HnD CnD2 CnD2
^'/ Cn W CnB� �+
i(2
nB2 CnB2 C-E2
U WNtD
CnC2 1tC
MaC,�
CnB2
'CnB2 VC! nB2
ChA CnC2
-
CnB2
CnD2 .f
CnC2
CnE2 CnC2 1
�W CnE2 CnB2
/ 1ChA,�`.. ,
CH —2
W CnB2
CnC2 /

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
im 0
Soil Map Unit Lines
0
Soil Map Unit Points
Special
Point Features
Vo
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
4
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
0o
Sodic Spot
Soil Map—Alamance County, North Carolina
(Tobacco Road Site)
MAP INFORMATION
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:12,000.
Stony Spot
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Very Stony Spot
measurements.
Wet Spot
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Other
Web Soil Survey LIRL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
•�
Special Line Features
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Water Features
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
Streams and Canals
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
Transportation
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
Rails
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
Interstate Highways
of the version date(s) listed below.
US Routes
Soil Survey Area: Alamance County, North Carolina
Major Roads
Survey Area Data: Version 21, Jan 21, 2022
Local Roads
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Background
®
Aerial Photography
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 28, 2019—Jul 30,
2019
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.
UUsDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/15/2022
Iiim Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Soil Map-Alamance County, North Carolina
Tobacco Road Site
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
ChA
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent
193.6
9.6%
slopes, frequently flooded
Cullen clay loam, 2 to 6
CnB2
572.6
28.3%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
CnC2
Cullen clay loam, 6 to 10
417.6
20.6%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
CnD2
Cullen clay loam, 10 to 15
352.9
17.4%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
CnE2
Cullen clay loam, 15 to 45
211.3
10.4%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
HnD
Herndon silt loam, 10 to 15
27.5
1.4%
percent slopes
HnE
Herndon silt loam, 15 to 45
16.3
0.8%
percent slopes
HrC2
Herndon clay loam, 6 to 10
13.2
0.7%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
IrB
Iredell loam, 2 to 6 percent
32.9
1.6%
slopes
IrC
Iredell loam, 6 to 10 percent
0.0
0.0%
slopes
MaB
Mandale-Secrest complex, 2 to
38.5
1.9%
6 percent slopes
MaC
Mandale-Secrest complex, 6 to
34.3
1.7%
10 percent slopes
RxE
Rowan -Poindexter complex,
0.5
0.0%
15 to 45 percent slopes
Ud
Udorthents, loamy 0 to 25
21.7
1.1 %
percent slopes
W
Water
17.4
0.9%
WtB
Wynott-Enon complex, 2 to 6
28.2
1.4%
percent slopes
WtC
Wynott-Enon complex, 6 to 10
26.9
1.3%
percent slopes
WtD
Wynott-Enon complex, 10 to
20.8
1.0%
15 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
2,026.2
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/15/2022
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
\� WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
August 17, 2021
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2021-00489
Re: NCIRT Initial Review of the RES Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Banking
Instrument (UMBI), Tobacco Road Mitigation Project Prospectus
Mr. Matt Butler
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh North Carolina 27612
Dear Mr. Butler:
This letter is in reference to your prospectus document dated May 2021, for the
proposed Tobacco Road Mitigation Project, a modification to the RES Cape Fear 02
UMBI. The proposal consists of the establishment and operation of a commercial
umbrella mitigation bank, and the associated 44.64-acre Tobacco Road Mitigation
Project, located near the intersection of Thom Road and NC Highway 54, in Mebane,
Alamance County, North Carolina (35.973036' N,-79.282234' W). The proposed
Tobacco Road Mitigation Project would include stream and wetland restoration,
enhancement and preservation activities within the Motes Creek watershed, in the Cape
Fear River Basin (8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC): 03030002).
The Corps determined the Prospectus was complete and issued a public notice (P/N
# SAW-2021-00489) on June 25, 2021. The purpose of this notice was to solicit the
views of interested State and Federal agencies and other parties either interested in or
affected by the proposed work. Attached are comments received in response to the
public notice from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina
Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office.
The Corps has considered the comments received from members of the Interagency
Review Team (IRT) and information that was discussed during an IRT site review on
April 8, 2021. We have determined that the proposed mitigation bank appears to have
the potential to restore, enhance and preserve aquatic resources within the 8-digit HUC
03030002 of the Cape Fear River. Therefore, the bank sponsor may proceed with
preparation of a draft UMBI.

Please provide a response to the attached comments with your draft UMBI
submittal. We appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting waters of the United
States. If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact me at the Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office by email at Samantha.J.DaileyCcD-usace.army.mil or telephone
[phone], Extension 22.
Sincerely,
s� a
Samantha Dailey
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List

M E M O R A N D U M 0 r"s
3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: NCIRT
FROM: Matt Butler — RES
DATE: May 6, 2021
RE: Tobacco Road IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes
Attendees
Samantha Dailey, USACE
Erin Davis, NC DWR
Date & Time
10:30 am, April 8, 2021.
General Summary
Olivia Munzer, NC WRC
Matt Butler, RES
Brad Breslow, RES
Ben Carroll, RES
- Site visit was scheduled to discuss draft instrument modification submitted March 8, 2021.
- RES provided an overview of the site, land use, and project constraints.
- Main concern with the site is the total number of easement breaks. RES will speak with the landowner to work to
either reduce the total number of crossings or to bring crossings within the conservation easement and address in
mitigation plan.
- Erin Davis provided feedback that she would like to see veg plots in the enhancement areas that will have invasive
removal and planting within the understory of existing forest to assess bare root survivability and provide data to
DWR.
- IRT members agreed that the Tobacco Road Site is suitable to provide compensatory mitigation and final credit
ratios will be determined in the approved Mitigation Plan.
Reaches with no Treatment Change
Based on discussions in the field, the group agreed that the following reaches had the appropriate treatment/approach in the
Instrument Modification. RES understands that final design approaches and crediting rationale for all reaches must be fully
justified in the mitigation plan.
- TR 1-A
- MN4-A
- TR1-B
- TR2
- TR1-C
- MN5-A
- TR1-D
- MN5-B
- TR 1-E
- MN6-A
- TR 1-F
- MN6-B
- MN I -C
- MN7-A
- MN2-A
- MN7-B
- MN3

Reach Specific Comments
MN1-A
- IRT had concern about the quality of Preservation and hydrology in this reach.
- RES will remove this reach from consideration.
MN4-B
- RES will reassess the current location of MN4-B in relation to the gas easement and adjust crediting
accordingly.
MN8
- IRT had concern about the proximity of the gas easement, quality of Preservation, and hydrology in this
reach.
- RES will remove this reach from consideration.
MNl -B
- IRT mentioned that the proximity of this reach to the road and the incision further up the reach would
justify Restoration through this reach, up to the point where hydrology is lost.
- RES will change this reach to Restoration and explain within the Mitigation Plan.
- RES will design and install a BMP at the top of this reach to capture runoff and prevent erosion in the
stream.
MNI-R
- IRT agreed that this reach was incised and impacted by cattle and could be Restoration.
- RES will change this reach to Restoration and explain within the Mitigation Plan.
TR1-E
- IRT had some concern about the need for Restoration on this reach. RES acknowledged that the reach is
wooded and has moderate pattern. RES discussed the incision and active erosion present through out the
reach. RES discussed the large riffle substrate compared to TRI-D as evidence of the increased in channel
forces caused by the incision.
- RES will pursue Restoration on this reach to address channel incision and bank erosion.
TR2
- IRT expressed concern with parallel streams in this location.
- After reviewing the reach it was agreed that the parallel streams were appropriate.
Next Steps
- RES will make changes to Instrument Modification and send to USACE for distribution to IRT.
- USACE will begin Public Notice Process

Tobacco Road Morphological Parameters
Reference Reach
Existing
UT to Muddy Creek
Watery Fork
TR1-A
TR1-B
TR1-C
Feature
Riffle Pool
Pool Riffle
Riffle Riffle
Riffle Riffle Pool
Riffle
Drainage Area ac
224
624
102
201
280
Drainage Area mil
0.35
0.98
0.16
0.31
0.44
NC Regional Curve Disc har a cfs 2
44
90
25
40
51
VA Regional Curve Discharge cfs 3
16
43
8
15
20
Design/Calculated Discharge cfs'
30
87
-
20-43
Dimension
BKF Cross Sectional Area ftz
10.6
21.8:2.5
23.9
5.2
5.5
6.3
12.0
14.2
8.8
BKF Width ft
9.7
11.7
15.3
8.1
5.3
7.8
13.6
10.9
9.9
BKF Mean Depth ft
1.1
1.9
1.6
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.3
0.9
BKF Max Depth ft
1.4
2.7
2.0
0.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.9
1.1
Wetted Perimeter ft
10.8
13.9
19.0
9.4
7.0
8.9
15.0
12.5
10.8
H draulic Radius ft
1.0
1.6
1.3
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.1
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
8.9
6.3
7.1
9.8
12.6
5.1
9.6
15.4
8.3
1 11.1
Floodprone Width ft
19.0
>50
>30
>30
8.9
>12
29.0
18.7
12.0
Entrenchment Ratio
2.0
>2.2
>2.2
2.0
1.1
>2.2
3.7
1.4
1.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
1.0
1 1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1 2.2
1.6
Substrate
Description D50
Sand
Very Coarse Gravel
Coarse Gravel
Very Coarse Gravel
Coarse Gravel
D16 mm
1.1
1.1
1.9
D50 mm
1.9
45
56
D84 mm
18
130
130
Pattern
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Channel Beltwidth ft
12.7
26.7
36
114
Radius of Curvature ft
16.5
26.0
14
73
Radius of Curvature Ratio
1.6
2.5
0.9
4.8
Meander Wavelength ft
33.7
56.0
112
345
Meander Width Ratio
3.2
5.4
2.4
7.5
Profile
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Riffle Length (ft)
6.4
21.8
12.0
35.0
8
20
Run Length ft
-
-
2.0
10.0
5
19
Pool Length ft
30.0
41.3
3.0
18.0
2
15
Pool -to-Pool Spacing ft
54.3
67.9
29.0
62.0
26
62
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
136
1238
1149
1241
1267
Channel Length ft
192
1500
1203
1355
3019
Sinuosity
1.41
1.21
1.05
1.09
2.38
Valley Slope fUft
0.072
0.011
0.020
0.013
0.016
Channel Slope fUft
0.060
0.010
0.016
0.012
0.015
Ros en Classification
E5
E4
E4 - F4
E4 - F4
G4 - F4
' Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2002)
3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Lotspeich (2009)

Tobacco Road Morphological Parameters
Existing
TR1-D
TR1-E
TR2
MN 1
Feature
Riffle
Riffle
I
Pool
I Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Riffle
Drainage Area ac
320
395
14
31
Drainage Area mil
0.50
0.62
0.02
0.05
INC Regional Curve Discharge cfs 2
56
65
6
11
VA Regional Curve Dischar a cfs 3
23
28
1
2
Design/Calculated Discharge cfs'
-
40-50
6-8
Dimension
BKF Cross Sectional Area ftz
7.8
9.4
11.4
9.6
17.8
14.3
15.5
1.4
4.0
2.9
1.9
BKF Width ft
10.0
10.3
8.4
12.0
9.6
12.6
13.1
3.6
4.2
4.5
3.5
BKF Mean Depth ft
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.8
1.9
1.1
1.2
0.4
0.9
0.6
0.5
BKF Max Depth ft
1.1
1.1
1.6
1.0
2.4
1.6
1.5
0.6
1.2
0.8
1.0
Wetted Perimeter ft
10.9
11.5
10.4
13.4
12.8
14.3
14.8
3.9
5.3
5.3
4.3
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.7
0.8
1.1
0.7
1.4
1.0
1.1
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
12.9
1 11.2
6.2
15.1
1 5.2
11.1
11.1
9.2
1 4.5
7.0
6.4
Floodprone Width ft
16.4
20.7
13.1
13.5
17.4
15.2
6.2
4.8
4.7
>7.7
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
2.0
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.7
1.1
1.0
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
1.0
1.4
1 2.3
1.8
1 2.8
1
2.2
1.5
1 2.1
1 2.4
1.0
Substrate
Description D50
Coarse Gravel
Fine Gravel
Gravel
Fine Gravel
D16 mm
1.5
0.062
1.3
D50 mm
29
7.4
5.6
D84 mm
74
55
20
Pattern
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Radius of Curvature Ratio
Meander Wavelength ft
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Riffle Length (ft)
7
15
1
10
Run Length ft
16
17
2
6
Pool Length ft
14
55
3
15
Pool -to-Pool Spacing ft
40
50
11
23
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
1713
1862
287
660
Channel Length ft
1948
216
65
296
Sinuosityl
1.14
0.12
0.23
0.45
Valley Slo a ft/ft
0.011
0.011
0.019
0.021
Channel Slo a ft/ft
0.009
0.010
0.026
0.020
Ros en Classification
G4 - F4
G4
E4b - F41b
G4 - E4
' Bankfull stage was estimated using INC Regional Curve equations and
2 INC Regional Curve equations source: Doll at al. (2002)
3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Lotspeich (2009)

Tobacco Road Morphological Parameters
Existing
MN2-A
MN2-B
MN3
MN4
MN5
Feature
Riffle I Riffle
Riffle Pool Riffle
Riffle I Riffle
Riffle I Riffle
Riffle Riffle Riffle
Drainage Area ac
14
27
19
7
9
Drainage Area mil
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01
INC Regional Curve Disc har a cfs 2
6
10
8
4
4
VA Regional Curve Dischar a cfs 3
1
2
2
1
1
Design/Calculated Discharge cfs'
6-8
Dimension
BKF Cross Sectional Area ftz
1.9
2.1
3.1
2.1
2.6
3.3
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.2
BKF Width ft
4.7
3.7
3.4
5.5
8.6
4.4
3.0
6.0
2.4
4.0
BKF Mean Depth ft
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.3
BKF Max Depth ft
0.6
0.7
1.3
0.8
0.6
1.1
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.5
Wetted Perimeter ft
5.2
4.8
5.0
6.2
8.8
5.3
3.9
6.2
3.3
4.4
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
Width/Depth Ratio
11.3
6.3
3.7
14.8
28.3
5.9
5.4
30.6
4.6
13.2
Floodprone Width ft
9.8
5.6
16.3
15.2
7.0
4.8
8.1
2.7
5.4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
11
2.9
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.1
1.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.4
4.1
3.1
2.2
2.5
2.0
2.5
1.0
5.1
3.6
Substrate
Description D50
Coarse Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
Silt
Sand / Silt
Very Coarse Gravel
D16 mm
0.062
D50 mm
2
D84 mm
27
Pattern
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Radius of Curvature Ratio
Meander Wavelength ft
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Riffle Length (ft)
3
17
Run Length ft
3
13
Pool Length ft
4
16
Pool -to-Pool Spacing ft
12
33
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
490
514
182
410
244
Channel Length ft
532
189
215
-224
349
Sinuosityl
1.09
0.37
1.18
-0.55
1.43
Valley Slo a ft/ft
0.030
0.037
0.033
0.061
0.074
Channel Sloe ft/ft
0.030
0.034
0.035
0.033
0.063
Ros en Classification
E4
G4 - E4
F6b
G5
G4
' Bankfull stage was estimated using INC Regional Curve equations and
2 INC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2002)
3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Lotspeich (2009)

Tobacco Road Morphological Parameters
Existing
MN6-A
MN6-B
MN7
MN8
MN9
Feature
Riffle Riffle
Riffle Riffle
Riffle Riffle
Riffle Pool
Riffle Riffle
Drainage Area ac
19
22
15
34
1
Drainage Area mil
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.00
NC Regional Curve Discharge cfs 2
8
8
6
11
1
VA Regional Curve Discharge cfs 3
2
2
1
3
0
Design/Calculated Discharge cfs'
4-5
Dimension
BKF Cross Sectional Area ftz
1.1
1.1
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.1
2.3
5.6
BKF Width ft
2.9
4.2
3.3
5.2
3.7
2.7
4.6
4.8
BKF Mean Depth ft
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.5
1.2
BKF Max Depth ft
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.6
1.0
1.1
0.8
1.4
Wetted Perimeter ft
3.3
4.3
4.0
5.4
4.5
3.7
5.3
6.8
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
7.7
16.3
6.8
16.7
6.0
3.3
9.3
4.1
Floodprone Width ft
4.3
13.8
>8
>12
30.6
5.1
11.2
-
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
3.3
>2.2
>2.4
8.4
1.9
2.4
Bank Height Ratio
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1 2.1
1.1
1.3
Substrate
Description D50
Very Fine Gravel
Silt
Coarse Sand
Coarse Gravel
Sand / Silt
D16 mm
D50 mm
D84 mm
Pattern
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Radius of Curvature Ratio
Meander Wavelength ft
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Riffle Length (ft)
Run Length ft
Pool Length ft
Pool -to-Pool Spacing ft
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
377
250
513
80
95
Channel Length ft
231
497
86
95
11859
Sinuosity
0.61
1.99
0.17
1.19
124.83
Valley Slope fUft
0.056
0.024
0.021
0.013
0.053
Channel Slope fUft
0.060
0.030
0.026
0.015
0.053
Ros en Classification
G4 - C4
E6 - C6
E5 - G5
E4 - C6
-
' Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll at al. (2002)
3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Lotspeich (2009)

Tobacco Road Morphological Parameters
Design
TR1-B
TR1-E
MN1
MN2-B
MN6-B
MN8
Feature
Rife Pool
Riffle Pool
Riffle Pool
Riffle Pool
Riffle Pool
Riffle Pool
Drainage Area ac
201
395
31
27
22
34
Drainage Area mil
0.31
0.62
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.05
NC Regional Curve Discharge cfs 2
40
65
11
10
8
11
VA Regional Curve Discharge cfs 3
15
28
2
2
2
3
Design/Calculated Discharge cfs'
20-35
37-44
7-8
6-10
5-6
7-8
Dimension
BKF Cross Sectional Area ft2
3.0
15.6
12.9
24.5
3.0
5.0
2.2
4.8
2.4
4.1
3.0
5.0
BKF Width ft
6.4
13.6
14.0
17.4
6.4
8.0
5.8
7.8
5.8
7.2
6.4
8.0
BKF Mean Depth ft
0.5
1.1
0.9
1.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
BKF Max Depth ft
0.6
2.0
1.3
2.4
0.6
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.9
0.6
1.0
Wetted Perimeter ft
6.6
14.3
14.4
18.3
6.6
8.4
6.0
8.2
6.0
7.5
6.6
8.4
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.5
1.1
0.9
1.3
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
13.7
11.9
15.2
12.4
13.7
12.8
15.3
12.7
14.3
12.8
13.7
12.8
Floodprone Width ft
>24
>31
>14
>13
>13
>14
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Substrate
Description D50
Very Coarse Gravel
Very Coarse Gravel
Very Coarse Gravel
Cobble
Very Coarse Gravel
Very Coarse Gravel
D16 mm
D50 mm
D84 mm
Pattern
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Channel Beltwidth ft
31
51
25
39
16
47
11
30
18
28
19
22
Radius of Curvature ft
20
40
28
40
14
22
14
20
14
16
13
25
Radius of Curvature Ratio
3.1
6.3
2.0
2.9
2.2
3.4
2.4
3.4
2.4
2.8
2.0
3.9
Meander Wavelength ft
84
108
105
140
48
84
48
87
59
68
58
78
Meander Width Ratio
4.8
8.0
1.8
2.8
2.5
7.3
1.9
5.2
3.1
4.8
3.0
3.4
Profile
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Riffle Length (ft)
20
45
18
39
6
30
8
50
6
30
8
29
Run Length ft
8
15
17
20
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pool Length ft
6
18
14
50
7
41
6
12
8
15
8
17
Pool -to-Pool Spacing ft
40
70
51
92
22
61
20
70
20
40
20
50
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
1231
1836
655
587
411
142
Channel Length ft
1421
2124
789
636
457
155
Sinuosityl
1.15
1.16
1.20
1.08
1.11
1.09
Valley ft
0.010
0.024
0.034
0.022
0.023
Channel S
0.00.013
067-0.018
0.0067 - 0.014
0.014 - 0.030
0.012 - 0.043
0.015 - 0.026
0.025 - 0.028
Ros en Classification
C3
C3
C3
C3 - C4b
C3
C3
' Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll at al. (2002)
3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Lotspeich (2009)

Upstream
Downstream
Reach TR1-F - XS1 (Riffle)
521
520
519
w 518
w
p 517
w
m
516
y
w
515
514
513
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
z�
_ ." e- `s"N' • .. -
.vim ���Jv
Downstream
Reach TR1-E - XS2 (Pool)
529
528
527
526
525
c
0
524
m
w 523
522
521
520
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull

Upstream Downstream
Reach TR1-E - XS3 (Riffle)
529
528
527
w 526
p 525
w
m
y 524
w
523
522
521
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

4
totx
-
Upstream Downstream
Reach TR1 -E - XS4 (Riffle)
539 -
538 ------
537
2 C 536 -
.
uJ
535 -
534 LLL 533
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground —Approx. Bankfull — Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach MN8 - XS5 (Riffle)
542
541.5
541
w 540.5
w
p 540
w
m
539.5
y
w
539
538.5
538
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
♦Ground —0--Bankfull Area Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach MN8 - XS6 (Pool)
541.5
541
540.5
540
539.540
c
0
'�
539
W 538.5
538
537.5
537
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
♦Ground `—Bankfull Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach TR1-D - XS7 (Riffle)
545
544
543
w
p
w 542
R
w
541
540
539
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Gi
kR2 '6
Upstream
d
y
WO
j:
Downstream
Reach MN6-B - XS8 (Riffle)
550.5
550
549.5
549
c
0
m 548.5
>
d
w 548
547.5
547
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach MN6-B - XS9 (Riffle)
552
551.5
551
F 550.5
p 550
cc
d 549.5
W
549
548.5
548
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

�a
�1 FfSS_(FK�
Upstream Downstream
Reach MN6-A - XS10 (Riffle)
561
560
559
w
p 558
w
R
uJ
557
556
555
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
♦Ground --o—Bankfull Area Floodprone Area

^.x FSr pi
yyz
Upstream Downstream
Reach MN6-A - XS11 (Riffle)
561
560
559
w
p 558
w
R
uJ
557
556
555
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
♦Ground --o—Bankfull Area Floodprone Area

d
568
567
566
w
p 565
.2
R
i 564
563
562
0
Upstream
Reach MN6-A - XS12 (Riffle)
10 20 30 40 50
Distance (ft)
♦Ground —0--Bankfull Area Floodprone Area
TIP
Downstream
60 70

TO
r �s
1
ya

Upstream Downstream
Reach MN6-A - XS12c (Riffle)
568
567
566
w
p 565
w
>
d 564
w
563
562
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
♦Ground —0--Bankfull Area Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach TR1-D - XS13 (Riffle)
552
551
550
w
p 549
w
R
w
548
547
546
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach TR1-D - XS14 (Pool)
552
551
550
549
c
0
m 548
d
w 547
546
545
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull

Upstream
Downstream
Reach TR1-D - XS15 (Riffle)
557
556.5
556
555.5
555
p 554.5
w
>
554
d
w 553.5
553
552.5
552
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
603
Reach MN1 - XS16 (Pool)
602
w
601
p
600
w
R
W
599
598
597
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull

Upstream
603
602
601
w
p 600 -
R
d w 599
598
597
0
Downstream
Reach M N 1 - XS17 (Riffle)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
40 45

619
618
617
w
p 616
w
m
i 615
614
613
0
Upstream
Reach MN1 - XS18 (Riffle)
s u f
Y �r
y W
3
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Downstream
30 35

+' 9 r
4"
6 f
Upstream Downstream
Reach TR1-A- XS19 (Riffle)
604
603
602
w
c
0 601
>
w 600
599
598
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
614
Reach TR1-A - XS20 (Riffle)
w
C
0
613.5
613
612.5
612
—
611.5
w
611
610.5
610
609.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach MN2-B - XS21 (Riffle)
616
615
614
w
p 613
.2
m
w
612
611
610
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

f t:,
l Air 4
a , MW �
it
Upstream
Downstream
Reach MN2-B - XS22 (Pool)
617
616
615
614
c
0
613
m
d
w 612
611
610
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull

FM
a
b�
Upstream Downstream
Reach MN2-B - XS23 (Riffle)
600
599
598
w
p 597
.2
R
d 596
w
595
594
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach TR1-13 - XS24 (Riffle)
597
596.5
596
595.5
595
c
0
594.5
w 594
593.5
593
592.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

r+a
e� s X
y.
Upstream
588
587
586
F 585
c
0
m 584
d
W 583
Reach TR1-B - XS25 (Riffle)
Downstream
582 1
581 ,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
45 50

Upstream
Downstream
Reach TR1-B - XS26 (Pool)
588
587
586
585
c
0
m 584
d
w
583
582
581
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull

�. tr
4,
J
711
AS,1�t�?
588
587
586
p 585
.2
lC
0
W 584
583
582
0
Upstream
Reach MN3 - XS27 (Riffle)
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
40 45

574
573
572
p 571
.2
R
W 570
569
568
0
Upstream
Reach MN5-B - XS28 (Riffle)
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
♦Ground —0--Bankfull Area Floodprone Area
w 4 _
Downstream
30 35

567
566
565
w
p 564
w
R
d w 563
562
561
0
Upstream
Reach MN5-B - XS29 (Riffle)
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
♦Ground —0--Bankfull Area Floodprone Area
40 45

Upstream Downstream
Reach MN7 - XS30 (Riffle)
98
97
96
w
p 95
w
R
w
94
93
92
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
♦Ground —0--Bankfull Area Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach MN4-A - XS32 (Riffle)
98
97
96
w
p 95
.2
R
w
94
93
92
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
♦Ground —0--Bankfull Area Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach MN4-B - XS33 (Riffle)
97
96
95
w
p 94
w
R
d 93
di
92
91
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
♦Ground —0--Bankfull Area Floodprone Area

i 1 p
SO
s A,�.
!j1
Se,
4:
Upstream Downstream
Reach TR2 - XS34 (Riffle)
97
96
95
w
p 94
w
R
w 93
92
91
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
♦Ground —0--Bankfull Area Floodprone Area

96
95
94
w
p
w 93
R
d 9 di2
91
90
0
Upstream
Reach TR1-C - XS35 (Riffle)
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
—*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
45 50

Upstream
Downstream
Reach MN5-A - XS36 (Riffle)
97
96.5
96
95.5
p 95
w
m
y 94.5 40
w
94
93.5
93
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
♦Ground —0--Bankfull Area Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
9s
Reach MN2-A - XS37 (Riffle)
97
96
tE
95
c
O
94
d
w
93
92
91
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
♦Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Appendix D —Wetland JD Forms and
Maps

urisdictional Determination Reauest
US Army Corps
of Engineers
-
MIrrington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.LM.mil/Missions/Re ug latoiyPennitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: May 2017 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: 5249 Thom Rd.
City, State:
Mebane. NC
County: Alamance
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 9810596562, 9810273348
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Jeremy Schmid, RES
Mailing Address: 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone Number: 919.345.3034
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
✓❑ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant'
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: RES Aster, LLC
Mailing Address: 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone Number: 919.345.3034
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
' Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Landowner Authorization Form
Site: Tobacco Road (Greeson)
Property Legal Description
Deed Book/Page: 3217/0243
County: Alamance
Parcel ID Numbers: 9810273348
Street Address: 4870 Mineral Springs Road, Apt A, Graham, NC 27253
Property Owner: Steven Gerald Greeson and wife Deedra Greeson
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: 4870 Mineral Springs Road, Apt A, Graham, NC 27253
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
6 ee n
(Property Owner Printed Name)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
(Property Owner Printed Name)
4846-3189-9210, v. 1
Date
Date
9NEF--rrs-a

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
PIN Number: 9810596562
Street Address: 5249 Thom Road, Graham. NC 27253
Property Owner (please print): / 44Z-VlN �6'L✓ /tJ�(/1/Lr
ProPeKply Owner- (please print), -
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Department of Environmental Quality, and the US
Army Corps of Engineers, their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above
referenced property for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s).
Property Owners(s) Address: c/o 0?2:—k-'U/ Al C 1^' L / /J
(if different from above) q 0 3 {-(0 li L AA/D 12-D
Property Owner Telephone Number: 57 S
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Property Own6� Authorized Signature)
(Date)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)

Jurisdictional Determination Request
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 130 acres.
❑✓ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude:
Longitude
35.973063
-79.282234
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than I Ix17 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/Re ulatory-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'
❑ Vicinity Map
a 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)
❑ NCWAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
❑ NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
❑ Other Assessment Forms
' www.saw.usace.gM.mil/Portals/59/docs/re ug latorregdocs/JD/RGL 08-02_App_A_Prelim _JD_Form _fillable.pdf
' Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re ug latory-Permit-Proaram/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.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 02/28/2022
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: ,Jeremy Schmid
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: CESW-RG-R
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Alamance city: Saxapahaw
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 35.973063 Long.:-79.282234
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name of nearest waterbody: Motes Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non -wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
see attached table

Waters_ St� I Cowardin_Code I HGM_Code I Meas_Type I Amount I Units I Waters_Type I Latitude I Longitude
WA
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.03875 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97726600
-79.27751100
WB
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.171445 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97780900
-79.27976900
WC
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.141662 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97292300
-79.28349300
WD
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.053085 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97369700
-79.28405300
WE
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.06499 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97411100
-79.28285100
WF
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.134998 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97506100
-79.28201100
WG
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.145074 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97590500
-79.28051100
WH
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.008533 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97389300
-79.28323300
WI
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.152273 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97678800
-79.28114300
WJ
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.088607 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97567100
-79.28187800
WK
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.323488 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97508700
-79.28270900
WL
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.043784 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97398600
-79.28448900
WM
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.03669 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97385200
-79.28480600
WN
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.01431 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97342100
-79.28556700
WO
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.092762 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97230300
-79.28639600
WP
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.036325 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97278200
-79.28548300
WQ
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.359891 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97180700
-79.29011400
WR
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.326734 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97202100
-79.28862500
WS
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.09445 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97246300
-79.28696000
WT
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.060146 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97198800
-79.28621900
WU
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.023881 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.96867300
-79.29440900
WV
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.016201 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.96846400
-79.29821000
WW
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.132872 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.97264800
-79.29160200
TR1
NORTH CAROLINA
R3
Linear
8132 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.97659200
-79.27937000
MN1
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
746 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.97693500
-79.27979400
MN2
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
1092 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.97793100
-79.28201500
MN3
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
524 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.97429300
-79.28351600
MN4
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
567 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.97277700
-79.28352900
TR2
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
582 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.97270000
-79.28581700
S2
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
201 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.97286800
-79.28719000
MN5
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
256 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.97152400
-79.28674500
MN6
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
644 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.97044400
-79.28998000
MN9
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
128 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.97034500
-79.28945200
MN7
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
494 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.97237100
-79.29155400
MN8
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
517 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.96903200
79.29377700
D1
NORTH CAROLINA
POW
Linear
384 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.96795200
-79.29694100
S1
NORTH CAROLINA
R6
Linear
84 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.97653900
-79.27906700

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre -
construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
❑■ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:Vicinity, USGS, NWI, Soil, Existing conditions, WOUS
❑E Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
El
❑■ U.S
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 24k Saxapahaw
❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑■ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
G
100-year Floodplain Elevation is:
Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Jeremy Schmid oe o,eoa=„oous.oaao ®re,,�e
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

-V
Hunters Helping Kids
9
DodsCoun��
Store & Gi
Citgo GrAarn
Archangel Battle Park 9
PT
CooperSchool
Andersen Sterilizers The Pavilion
9 at Nicks Road V
1901
Duchy Airparko
t
Paws4ever I
Red Tail Grains
IQ Salem United
0
Methodist Church
F21-472
9 CIRCLE K RANCH
Watkins Heavy Hauling 9
\
F21-475
gfBdSYWW �U:lff'I
9 Custom Home Services
3
Tobacco Road
Mitigation Project
AW �01...d Df
F21-421
reensboro
0
it
0
BUr ingto-i rT
coemw.r of
I Poirl
F21-451
Chapel Hill
Carroll Construction
And Landscape Supply
Legend
King CobrlalAipiary 9
Study Area 130 ac.)
Figure 1 Project Vicinity
Date: 2/15/2022
Drawn by: EJU
Tobacco Road Mitigation Project
Checked by: JLSres
0 1,000 2,000
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Feet
Alarnance County, North Carolina

NN
8
41
Ss
'` a �� �- , :� •� ;� ��� I �, D�� �•.�"�.--
Study Area 130 ac.)
Cgpyright:© 201r3 Na
Figure 2 - USGS Saxapahaw Quadrangle (1977) Date: 2/15/2022
Drawn by: EJU
0 1,000 2,000
Tobacco Road Mitigation Project Checked by: AS res
Feet Alamanee County, North Carolina 1 inch = 2,000 feet

GOP
A&

F
CnC2
J
CnC2
� jJCnD2
WtC
CnCd
CnD2
CnB2 /
CnC2
Cy • n CnB2
n
CnC2 CnD2
CnB2 ` \ ,HnE) I 1
f� I( /CnB2 CnB2
MaB HnD
1 U CnE2
l MaC CnC2
W Ud
CnB2 CnB2
CnD2 /
CnC2
1.
7CnB2
w M
Am

Legend
Study Area (-130 ac.)
® Potential Wetland Waters of the US
Potential Non -Wetland Waters of the US
Date: 2/25/2022
Figure 5 - Waters of the US
"` Drawn by: EJU
0 350 goo Tobacco Road Mitigation Project Checked by: xxx
's
Feet Alamance County, North Carolina 1 inch =700feet

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Tobacco Road City/County: Alamance Sampling Date: 02-Dec-21
Applicant/Owner: RES State: NC Sampling Point: DP-01
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope: 0.0% / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 35.97726600 Long.: -79.27751100 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes * No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ❑
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes * No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes OO No ❑ within a Wetland?
Remarks:
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
d❑ FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes C No ❑
Depth (inches): 1
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Yes C NO ❑
Saturation Present?
Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant Sampling Point: DP-01
Absolute
Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _ )
% Cover
Cover Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 • Platanus occidentalis
10
d❑
28.6%
FACW
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2. Juniperus viroiniana
5
❑
14.3%
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3. Ostrva viroiniana
10❑
28.6%
FACU
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
4. Celtis laevigata
10
0
28.6%
FACW
5
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
❑
o
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75.0 /o (A/B)
6.
o
o.o°r°
7
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
g
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
35
= Total Cover
OBL species 5 x 1 = 5
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
10
d❑
100.0%
FAC
FACW species 30 x 2 = 60
1. Carpinus caroliniana
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 30 x 3 = 90
2
3
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 25 x 4 = 100
4.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
5
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 90 (A) 255 (B)
6
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.833
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
$
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
9
0
❑
0.0%
�/❑ Dominance Test is > So%
10.
0
❑
0.0%
0 Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
10
= Total Cover
❑Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
1. Salix nigra
5
d❑
100.0%
OBL
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
3.
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
0
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5.
0
❑
o.o%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Four Vegetation Strata:
7
0
❑
0.0%
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
5
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
1 • PolYstichum acrostichoides
10❑
25.0%
FACU
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
2. Onoclea sensibilis
10
❑
25.0%
FACW
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
3. Microstegium vimineum
20❑
50.0%
FAC
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
4'
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
❑
in height.
5.
0
0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Five Vegetation Strata:
7
0
❑
0.0°r°
❑
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
$
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
9•
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
❑
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
10.
0
0.0%
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
11.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
12.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Woody Vine Stratum ( Plot size: j
40
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous non -wood plants,
( y)
1
0
❑
0.0%
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
2.
0
❑
0.0%
m) in height.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
4.
0
❑
0.0%
height.
5. 0 ❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes * No 0
0
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Soil
Sampling Point: DP-01
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inchesl _ Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvne 1 Locz Texture
0-8 10YR 5/2 100 Silty Clay Loam
8-16 l0Y 5/2 95 10GY 5/4 5 Silty Clay
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑d Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (SS) (LRR N, ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) 3 Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytict
vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No O
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Tobacco Road City/County: Alamance Sampling Date: 02-Dec-21
Applicant/Owner: RES State: NC Sampling Point: DP-02
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope: 0.0% / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 35.97726600 Long.: -79.27751100 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes * No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No O Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑' within a Wetland?
Remarks:
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ NO
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Yes ❑ NO
Saturation Present?
Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant Sampling Point: DP-02
Absolute
Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _ )
% Cover
Cover Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 • Juniperusyiroiniana
10
d❑
16.7%
FACU
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2. Liquidambar stvraciflua
20
d❑
33.3%
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3. Pinus taeda
10❑
16.7%
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
4. Ulmus alata
10
d❑
16.7%
FACU
5. Carva glabra
10
d❑
16.7%
FACU
Percent of dominant Species
❑
o
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 44.4 /o (A/B)
6•
o
o.o°r°
7
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
g
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
60
= Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
10
d❑
100.0%
FACW
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1. Cornus amomum
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 40 x 3 = 120
2
3
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 60 x 4 = 240
4.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
5
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 110 (A) 380 (B)
6
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.455
7.
o
❑
0.0%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
$
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
9•
0
❑
0.o%
❑ Dominance Test is > SO%
10.
o
❑
0.0°r°
❑ Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
10
= Total Cover
❑Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
1.
0
❑
0.0%
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
3.
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
0
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5.
0
❑
o.o%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Four Vegetation Strata:
7
0
❑
0.0%
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
0
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
1 • PolYstichum acrostichoides
10❑
33.3%
FACU
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (f m) tall.
2. Lonicera japonica
20❑
66.7%
FACU
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
3
0
❑
0.0%
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
4'
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
❑
in height.
5.
0
0.0%
6
0
❑
0.0%
Five Vegetation Strata:
7
0
❑
0.0°r°
❑
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
$
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
9•
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
❑
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
1
0
0.0%
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
11.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
12.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (f to 6 m) in height.
Woody Vine Stratum ( Plot size: j
30
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous non -wood plants,
( y)
1 Smilax rotundifolia
10
d❑
100.0%
FAC
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
•
-
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (f
2.
0
❑
0.0%
m) in height.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
4.
0
❑
0.0%
height.
5. 0 ❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes O No
10
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Soil
Sampling Point: DP-02
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inchesl _ Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvne 1 Locz Texture
0-2 10YR 4/4 100 Loam
2-12 10YR 5/6 100 Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (SS) (LRR N, ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) 3 Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytict
vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Tobacco Road City/County: Alamance Sampling Date: 02-Dec-21
Applicant/Owner: RES State: NC Sampling Point: DP-03
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0% / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 35.97780900 Long.: -79.27976900 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes * No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O Is the Sampled Area Yes * No O
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes OO No 0 within a Wetland?
Remarks:
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 NO
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Yes C NO 0
Saturation Present?
Yes * No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches): 4
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
Sampling Point: DP-03
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _ )
1. Liquidambar stvraciflua
2. Acer rubrum
3. Platanus occidentalis
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Rosa multiflora
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Juncus effusus
2. Toxicodendron radicans
3. Microstegium vimineum
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Vitis rotundifolia
2. Smilax rotundifolia
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute
Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Cover
Cover Status
Number of Dominant Species
30
d❑
42.9%
FAC
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
30
d❑
42.9%
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
10
❑
14.3%
FACW
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 85.7% (A/B)
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
70
= Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 15 x 2 = 30
0
El
0.0%
FAC species 110 x 3 = 330
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 15 x 4 = 60
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 140 (A) 420 (B)
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.000
0
❑
0.0°r°
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
❑
0.0%
�/❑ Dominance Test is > So%
0
❑
0.0%
0 Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
0
= Total Cover
Morphological Ada tations 1 Provide
❑p ( supporting
15
d❑
100.0%
FACU
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
0
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
0 ❑ 0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Four Vegetation Strata:
0
❑
0.0%
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
-
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
15
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
❑
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
5
14.3%
FACW
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (f m) tall.
10❑
28.6%
FAC
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
20❑
57.1%
FAC
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
-
in height.
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Five Vegetation Strata:
o
❑
o.o°r°
❑
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
❑
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
0
0.0%
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (f to 6 m) in height.
35
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
10❑
50.0%
FAC
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
-
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (f
10
d❑
50.0%
FAC
m) in height.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
0
❑
0.0%
height.
0
❑
0.0%
Hydrophytic
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes * No 0
20
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Soil Sampling Point: DP-03
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
(inchesl _ Color (moist) %
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Tvne 1 Locz
Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 3/3 100
Sandy Clay Loam
3-16 2.5Y 6/2 90
10YR 4/6 10
Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
(MLRA 147,148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (SS) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
3 Indicators of vegetation and
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
mushydrophytict
hydrology
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No O
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Tobacco Road City/County: Alamance Sampling Date: 02-Dec-21
Applicant/Owner: RES State: NC Sampling Point: DP-04
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope: 0.0% / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 35.97780900 Long.: -79.27976900 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes * No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes * No ❑
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No O Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑' within a Wetland?
Remarks:
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ NO
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Yes ❑ NO
Saturation Present?
Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant Sampling Point: DP-04
Absolute
Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _ )
% Cover
Cover Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 • Juniperus viminiana
10
❑
16.7%
FACU
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2. Celtis laevigata
30
d❑
50.0%
FACW
d❑
Total Number of Dominant
3. Liquidambar styraciflua
20
33.3%
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
4.
o
❑
0.0%
5
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
❑
o
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75.0 /o (A/B)
6•
o
o.o°r°
7
0
❑
0.o%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
g
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
60
= Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
20
d❑
66.7%
FAC
FACW species 40 x 2 = 80
1. Liquidambar stvraciflua
10
d❑
33.3%
FACW
FAC species 70 x 3 = 210
2. Cornusamomum
3
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 25 x 4 = 100
4.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 10 x 5 = 50
5
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 145 (A) 440 (B)
6
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.034
7
0
❑
0.0°r°
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
$
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
9
0
❑
0.o%
�/❑ Dominance Test is > So%
10.
0
❑
0.0°r°
❑ Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
30
= Total Cover
❑Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
1. Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
15
d❑
60.0%
FACU
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
2. Elaeannus umbellata
10
d❑
40.0%
UPL
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
3.
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
0
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5.
0
❑
o.o%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Four Vegetation Strata:
7
0
❑
0.0%
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
25
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
1 • Microstegium vimineum
20❑
500.0%
FAC
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (f m) tall.
2.
0
❑
0.0%
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
3
0
❑
0.0%
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
4'
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
❑
in height.
5.
0
0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Five Vegetation Strata:
7.
0
❑
0.0°r°
❑
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
$
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
9•
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
❑
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
1
0
0.0%
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
11.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
12.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (f to 6 m) in height.
Woody Vine Stratum ( Plot size: )
20
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous non -wood plants,
( y)
1 Vitis rotundifolia
10
d❑
100.0%
FAC
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
•
-
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (f
2.
0
❑
0.0%
m) in height.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
4.
0
❑
0.0%
height.
5. 0 ❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes * No 0
10
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Soil
Sampling Point: DP-04
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inchesl _ Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvne 1 Locz Texture
0-2 10YR 4/3 100 Loam
2-12 10YR 5/3 85 10YR 4/6 15 Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (SS) (LRR N, ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) 3 Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytict
vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Tobacco Road City/County: Alamance Sampling Date: 02-Dec-21
Applicant/Owner: RES State: NC Sampling Point: DP-05
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0% / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 35.97292300 Long.: -79.28349300 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Cullen clay loam NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes * No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation d❑ , Soil d❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ❑ No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ❑
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes * No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes OO No ❑ within a Wetland?
Remarks:
site heavily impacted by livestock access
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
d❑ FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No C
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes C No ❑
Depth (inches): 1
Yes C NO ❑
Saturation Present?
Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
Sampling Point: DP-05
Absolute
Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _ )
% Cover
Cover Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
0
❑
0.0%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2
0
❑
0.o%
❑
Total Number of Dominant
3
0
0.0%
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
❑
o
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0 /o (A/B)
6.
o
o.o°ro
7
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
g
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
0
= Total Cover
OBL species 30 x 1 = 30
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
o
El
0.0%
FACW species 20 x 2 = 40
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 5 x 3= 15
2
3
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
4.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
5
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 65 (A) 125 (B)
6
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.923
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
$
0
❑
0.0%
�/❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
9
0
❑
0.0%
�/❑ Dominance Test is > so%
10.
0
❑
0.0%
0 Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
0
= Total Cover
❑ Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
1.
0
❑
0.0%
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
3.
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
0
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5.
0
❑
o.o%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Four Vegetation Strata:
7
0
❑
0.0%
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
0
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
1 • Juncus effusus
20❑
30.8%
FACW
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (f m) tall.
2• Gratiola virginiana
10
❑
15.4%
OBL
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
3. Xanthium strumarium
5
❑
7.7%
FAC
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
4• Sorghum halepense
10
❑
15.4%
FACU
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
-
Se
in height.
5. Murdannia keisak
20
30.8%
OBL
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Five Vegetation Strata:
7.
0
❑
0.0°ro
❑
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
$
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
9•
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
❑
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
10.
0
0.0%
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
11.
o
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
12.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (f to 6 m) in height.
Woody Vine Stratum ( Plot size: j
65
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous non -wood plants,
( y)
1
0
❑
0.0%
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (f
2.
0
❑
0.0%
m) in height.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
4.
0
❑
0.0%
height.
5. o ❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes * No 0
0
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Soil Sampling Point: DP-05
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
(inchesl _ Color (moist) %
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Tvne 1 Locz
Texture Remarks
0-1 10YR 3/3 100
Silty Clay Loam
1-10 2.5Y 4/2 90
2.5Y 5/8 10
Silty Clay Loam bedrock @ 10"
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
(MLRA 147,148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (SS) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
3 Indicators of vegetation and
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
mushydrophytict
hydrology
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No O
Remarks:
bedrock at 10"
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Tobacco Road City/County: Alamance Sampling Date: 02-Dec-21
Applicant/Owner: RES State: NC Sampling Point: DP-06
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope: 0.0% / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 35.97292300 Long.: -79.28349300 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Cullen clay loam NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes * No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation d❑ , Soil d❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes O No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O Is the Sampled Area Yes O No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No O within a Wetland?
Remarks:
site heavily impacted by livestock access
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O NO
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Yes O NO
Saturation Present?
Yes O No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
Sampling Point: DP-06
Absolute
Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size: _ )
% Cover
Cover Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
0
❑
0.0%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
2
0
❑
0.o%
❑
Total Number of Dominant
3
0
0.0%
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
❑
o
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0% (A/B)
6.
o
o.o°ro
7
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
g
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
0
= Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1= 0
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size:
)
o
El
0.0%
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
2
3
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 70 x 4 = 280
4.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
5
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 80 (A) 310 (B)
6
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.875
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
$
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
9•
0
❑
0.o%
❑ Dominance Test is > 50%
10.
0
❑
0.0°ro
❑ Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
Shrub Stratum
(Plot size: )
0
= Total Cover
❑ Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
1.
0
❑
0.0%
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
3.
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
0
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5.
0
❑
o.o%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Four Vegetation Strata:
7
0
❑
0.0%
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
Herb Stratum
(Plot size: )
0
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
0
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
1 • Trifolium repens
30
37.5% FACU
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (f m) tall.
2. Cynodon dactvlon
40❑
50.0% FACU
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
3. Xanthium strumarium
10
❑
12.5% FAC
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
4'
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
❑
in height.
5.
0
0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Five Vegetation Strata:
7.
0
❑
0.0°ro
❑
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
$
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
9•
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
❑
Sapling
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
1
0
0.0%
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
11.
o
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
12.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (f to 6 m) in height.
Woody Vine Stratum ( Plot size: )
80
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous non -wood plants,
( y)
1
0
❑
0.0%
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (f
2.
0
❑
0.0%
m) in height.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
4.
0
❑
0.0%
height.
5. o ❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes O No
0
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Soil
Sampling Point: DP-06
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inchesl _ Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvne 1 Locz Texture
0-4 10YR 4/4 100 Clay Loam
4-12 2.5Y 6/4 85 10YR 4/6 15 Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (SS) (LRR N, ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) 3 Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytict
vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Tobacco Road City/County: Alamance Sampling Date: 02-Dec-21
Applicant/Owner: RES State: NC Sampling Point: DP-07
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0% / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 35.97590500 Long.: -79.28051100 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes * No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation d❑ , Soil d❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O Is the Sampled Area Yes * No O
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes OO No 0 within a Wetland?
Remarks:
site heavily impacted by livestock access
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that ap)ly)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
d❑ FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes C No 0
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Yes C NO 0
Saturation Present?
Yes O No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
Sampling Point: DP-07
Absolute
Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _ )
% Cover
Cover Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
0
❑
0.0%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2
0
❑
0.o%
❑
Total Number of Dominant
3
0
0.0%
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
❑
o
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0 /o (A/B)
6.
o
o.o°ro
7
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
g
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
0
= Total Cover
OBL species 20 x 1 = 20
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
o
El
0.0%
FACW species 40 x 2 = 80
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
2
3
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
5
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 70 (A) 130 (B)
6
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.857
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
$
0
❑
0.0%
�/❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
9
0
❑
0.0%
�/❑ Dominance Test is > So%
10.
0
❑
0.0%
0 Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
0
= Total Cover
❑ Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
1.
0
❑
0.0%
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
3.
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
0
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5.
0
❑
o.o%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Four Vegetation Strata:
7
0
❑
0.0%
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
0
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
1 • Juncus effusus
40❑
57.1% FACW
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (f m) tall.
2• Xanthium strumarium
5
❑
7.1% FAC
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
3. Persicaria sagittata
20
Se
° OBL
28.6 /o
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
4. Epilobium anaaallidifolium
5
❑
7.1% FAC
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
-
❑
in height.
5.
0
0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Five Vegetation Strata:
7.
0
❑
0.0°ro
❑
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
$
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
9•
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
❑
Sapling
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
10.
0
0.0%
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
11.
o
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
12.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (f to 6 m) in height.
Woody Vine Stratum ( Plot size: j
70
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous non -wood plants,
( y)
1
0
❑
0.0%
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (f
2.
0
❑
0.0%
m) in height.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
4.
0
❑
0.0%
height.
5. o ❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes * No 0
0
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Soil Sampling Point: DP-07
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
(inchesl _ Color (moist) _%
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Tvoe 1 Locz
Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 4/2 75
7.5YR 4/4 25
Silty Clay Loam
6-16 10YR 7/2 70
5YR 4/6 30
Silty Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
(MLRA 147,148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (SS) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
3 Indicators of vegetation and
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
mushydrophytict
hydrology
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No O
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Tobacco Road City/County: Alamance Sampling Date: 02-Dec-21
Applicant/Owner: RES State: NC Sampling Point: DP-08
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope: 0.0% / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 35.97590500 Long.: -79.28051100 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes * No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation d❑ , Soil d❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes O No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O Is the Sampled Area Yes O No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No O within a Wetland?
Remarks:
site heavily impacted by livestock access
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that ap)ly)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O NO
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Yes O NO
Saturation Present?
Yes O No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
Sampling Point: DP-08
Absolute
Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size: _ )
% Cover
Cover Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
0
❑
0.0%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
2
0
❑
0.o%
❑
°
Total Number of Dominant
3
0
0.0%
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
❑
o
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0% (A/B)
6.
o
o.o°ro
7
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
g
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
0
= Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1= 0
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size:
)
o
El
0.0%
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 0 x 3= 0
2.
3
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 80 x 4 = 320
4.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species P x 5= 0
5
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 80 (A) 320 (B)
6
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.000
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
$
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
9•
0
❑
0.o%
❑ Dominance Test is > 50%
10.
0
❑
0.0°ro
❑ Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
Shrub Stratum
(Plot size: )
0
= Total Cover
❑ Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
1.
0
❑
0.0%
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
3.
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
0
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5.
0
❑
o.o%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Four Vegetation Strata:
7
0
❑
0.0%
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
Herb Stratum
(Plot size: )
0
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
1 • Cvnodon dactvlon
20❑
25.0% FACU
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (f m) tall.
2• Trifolium repens
20
d❑
25.0% FACU
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
3. Festuca arundinacea
40
d❑
50.0% FACU
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
4'
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
❑
in height.
5.
0
0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Five Vegetation Strata:
7.
0
❑
0.0°ro
❑
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
$
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
9•
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
❑
Sapling
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
1
0
0.0%
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
11.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
12.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (f to 6 m) in height.
Woody Vine Stratum ( Plot size: )
80
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous non -wood plants,
( y)
1
0
❑
0.0%
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (f
2.
0
❑
0.0%
m) in height.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
4.
0
❑
0.0%
height.
5. 0 ❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes O No
0
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Soil
Sampling Point: DP-08
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inchesl _ Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvne 1 Locz Texture
0-2 7.5YR 4/3 100 Clay Loam
2-12 7.5YR 5/6 100 Clay
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (SS) (LRR N, ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) 3 Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytict
vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Tobacco Road City/County: Alamance Sampling Date: 02-Dec-21
Applicant/Owner: RES State: NC Sampling Point: DP-09
Investigator(s): 3. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0% / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 35.97180700 Long.: -79.29011400 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes * No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O Is the Sampled Area Yes * No O
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes OO No 0 within a Wetland?
Remarks:
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
d❑ FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes C No O
Depth (inches): 3
Yes C NO 0
Saturation Present?
Yes O No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant Sampling Point: DP-09
Absolute
Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _ )
% Cover
Cover Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 • Platanus occidentalis
10
❑
16.7%
FACW
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2. Liquidambar stvraciflua
20
d❑
33.3%
FAC
a
Total Number of Dominant
3. Acer rubrum
30
50.0%
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
❑
°
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0 /o (A/B)
6•
o
o.o°r°
7
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
g
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
60
= Total Cover
OBL species 20 x 1 = 20
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
10
d❑
100.0%
FAC
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1. Carpinus caroliniana
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 110 x 3 = 330
2
3
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
5
0
❑
0.0%
Column Totals: 140 (A) 370 (B)
6
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.643
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
$
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
9
0
❑
0.0%
�/❑ Dominance Test is > So%
10.
0
❑
0.0%
0 Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
10
= Total Cover
❑Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
1. Rubus pensilvanicus
30
d❑
100.0%
FAC
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
3.
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
0
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5.
0
❑
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Four Vegetation Strata:
7
0
❑
0.0%
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
30
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
1 • Microstegium vimineum
10❑
33.3%
FAC
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (f m) tall.
2. Juncus abortivus
20
d❑
66.7%
OBL
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
3
0
❑
0.0%
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
4'
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
❑
in height.
5.
0
0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Five Vegetation Strata:
7.
0
❑
0.0°r°
❑
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
$
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
9•
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
❑
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
10.
0
0.0%
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
11.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
12.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (f to 6 m) in height.
Woody Vine Stratum ( Plot size: )
30
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous non -wood plants,
( y)
1 Smilax rotundifolia
10
d❑
100.0%
FAC
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
•
-
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (f
2.
0
❑
0.0%
m) in height.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
4.
0
❑
0.0%
height.
5. 0 ❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes * No 0
10
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Soil Sampling Point: DP-09
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
(inchesl _ Color (moist) %
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Tvne 1 Locz
Texture Remarks
0-7 10YR 4/1 100
Silt Loam
7-16 10YR 4/1 80
10YR 5/8 20
Silty Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
(MLRA 147,148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (SS) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
3 Indicators of vegetation and
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
mushydrophytict
hydrology
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No O
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Tobacco Road City/County: Alamance Sampling Date: 02-Dec-21
Applicant/Owner: RES State: NC Sampling Point: DP-10
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope: 0.0% / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 35.97180700 Long.: -79.29011400 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes * No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No O Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑' within a Wetland?
Remarks:
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ NO
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Yes ❑ NO
Saturation Present?
Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
Sampling Point: DP-10
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _ )
1. Juniperus viminiana
2. Ouercus alba
3. Liquidambar stvraciflua
4. Pinus taeda
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Juniperus viminiana
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Microstegium vimineum
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . Lonicera japonica
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute Rel.Strat. Indicator
Cover
Cover
Status
10
❑ 15.4%
FACU
20
d❑ 30.8%
FACU
20❑
30.8%
FAC
15
d❑ 23.1%
FAC
0
❑ 0.0%
0
❑ 0.0%
0
❑ 0.0%
0
❑ 0.0%
65
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 = Total Cover
5 d❑ 100.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
5 = Total Cover
10 d❑ 100.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
10 = Total Cover
15 d❑ 100.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
0 ❑ 0.0%
15 = Total Cover
FACU
FAC
FACU
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 45 x 3 = 135
FACU species 50 x 4 = 200
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
column Totals: 95 (A) 335 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.526
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ Dominance Test is > so%
❑ Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
❑ Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be Dresent, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes No
O ❑
Present. �
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Soil
Sampling Point: DP-10
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inchesl _ Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvne 1 Locz Texture
0-4 7.5YR 4/4 100 Clay Loam
4-12 10YR 6/4 85 7.5YR 5/8 15 Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (SS) (LRR N, ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) 3 Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytict
vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Appendix E — DWR Stream ID and Buffer
Viability

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Summary
REACH
TR1A
TR1B-F
TR2
MN1
MN2
MN3
MN4
MN5
MN6
MN7
MN8
MN9
Coordinates
NA
NA
35.97279559
-79.2854854
35.979392
-79.28045721
35.97836292
-79.28236823
35.97495065
-79.28402652
35.97336551
-79.28401044
35.97193262
-79.28684087
35.97015845
-79.28952535
35.97351952
-79.29188984
35.96821808
-79.2927459
35.970284
-79.289498
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =)
11.5
19
6
12.5
6
12.5
9.5
7.5
12
3
14
12
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
2
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
2
3
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
S. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
8. Headcuts
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
9. Grade control
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10. Natural valley
1
1.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
11. Second or greater order channel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =)
8
10
11
6.5
9
7.5
8
9
8.5
9.5
5
8.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
0
3
0
3
1
1
1
2
3
0
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1.5
0.5
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.5
1.5
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1
1.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
C. Biology (Subtotal =)
6
7
5
6
6
5
6
6
5
6.75
6
5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22. Fish
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23. Crayfish
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24. Amphibians
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25. Algae
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.75
0
0
Total Points (Subtotal--)
25.5
36
22
25
21
25
23.5
22.5
25.5
19.25
25
25
Stream Determination
Intermittent
Perennial
Intermitent
Intermitent
Intermitent
Intermitent
Intermitent
Intermitent
Intermitent
Intermitent
Intermitent
Intermitent

DocuSign Envelope ID: 16A473A0-8A26-44C6-850E-lB5AE77AC968
ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
Matt Butler
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
(via electronic mail: [e-mail] )
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
September 24, 2021
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Tobacco Road Site
Near 35.973063,-79.282234 in Graham, NC
Haw River Sub -watershed
Alamance County
Dear Mr. Butler,
On June 21, 2021, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a request
from you on behalf of Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX) for a site visit near the above -
referenced site in the Haw River Sub -watershed of Jordan Lake. The site visit was to determine the
potential for riparian buffer mitigation and nutrient offset within a proposed conservation easement
boundary, which is more accurately depicted in the attached map labeled "Figure 4-Existing
Conditions" (Figure 4) prepared by EBX. The proposed easement boundary in Figure 4, includes all
riparian areas intended to be proposed as part of the mitigation site. This site is also intended to be
proposed as a stream mitigation site and therefore stream bank instability or presence of erosional
rills within riparian areas were not addressed. On August 11, 2021, Ms. Merritt performed a site
assessment of the subject site. Staff with EBX were also present.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. This evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB)
and landward 200' from each feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(effective November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0703.
Feature
Classification
'Subiect
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
3Nutrient
','Mitigation Tyne Determination Win
onsite
to
riparian areas
adiacent to Feature
Credit
Offset
Buffer
0( 200')
Viable
Viable at
Rule
2,249.36
lbs-N/acre
TRl-A
Stream
Yes
Non -forested hay fields
2Yes
Yes (non-
Non -forested fields - Restoration Site
along with mature forest
forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
within at least 30' from
fields only)
TOB.
Forested Areas - Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)
D E Q�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
NORTH CAROLINA -
oeper entm�,Imnm�lQuai;\� 919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 16A473A0-8A26-44C6-850E-lB5AE77AC968
Tobacco Road Site
EBX
September 24, 2021
Feature
Classification
'Subject
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
3Nutrient
4,SMitigation Type Determination Win
to
riparian areas
onsite
adiacent to Feature
Credit
Offset
Buffer
0( 200,)
Viable
Viable at
Rule
2,249.36
lbs-N/acre
TR1-13 & C
Stream
Yes
Combination of forested
'Yes
Yes (non-
Non -forested pasture - Restoration Site
(starts @
pasture and non -forested
forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
Hwy 54
pasture grazed by cattle.
fields only)
ends at
(see map)
Forested pasture - Enhancement Site per
MN-5)
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
TRl-D,E,F
Stream
Yes
Combination of forested
ZYes
Yes (non-
Non -forested fields - Restoration Site
(starts A@
areas and non -forested
forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
confluence
agricultural fields (not in
fields only)
w/ MN-5 to
pasture). (see map)
Forested Areas - Preservation Site per
F)
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)
MN-1
Stream
Yes
Combination of forested
ZYes
Yes (non-
Non -forested fields - Restoration Site
areas and non -forested
forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
agricultural fields (not in
fields only)
pasture). A small off-line
Forested Areas - Preservation Site per
pond is present along left
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)
bank. No credit areas can
be measured off pond top
of bank. Pond is
anticipated to remain.
MN-2
Stream
No
Combination of forested
ZYes
Yes (non-
Non -forested fields - Restoration Site
areas not in pasture and
forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
non -forested pasture
fields only)
Forested Areas — Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)
MN-3
Stream
No
non -forested pasture grazed
Yes
Yes
Non -forested pasture - Restoration Site
by cattle.
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
MN-4
Stream
Yes
non -forested pasture grazed
Yes
Yes
Non -forested pasture - Restoration Site
by cattle.
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
MN-5
Stream
No
Combination of forested
'Yes
Yes (non-
Non -forested pasture - Restoration Site
pasture and non -forested
forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
pasture grazed by cattle.
fields only)
Forested pasture - Enhancement Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
MN-6
Stream
No
Combination of forested
ZYes
Yes (non-
Non -forested fields - Restoration Site
areas and non -forested
forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
agricultural fields (not in
fields only)
pasture)
Forested Areas - Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)
Page 2 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 16A473A0-8A26-44C6-850E-lB5AE77AC968
Tobacco Rd Site
EBX
September 24, 2021
Feature
Classification
'Subiect
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
'Nutrient
','Mitigation Tyne Determination w/in
onsite
to
riparian areas
adiacent to Feature
Credit
Offset
Buffer
0( 200,)
Viable
Viable at
Rule
2,249.36
lbs-N/acre
MN-7
Stream
No
Combination of forested
2Yes
Yes (non-
Non -forested fields - Restoration Site
areas and non -forested
forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
agricultural fields (not in
fields only)
pasture)
Forested Areas - Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)
MN-9
Stream
No
Mature forest
2Yes
No
Forested Areas - Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)
TR2
Stream
Yes
Combination of forested
7Yes
Yes (non-
Non -forested pasture - Restoration Site
pasture and non -forested
forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
pasture grazed by cattle.
fields only)
Forested pasture - Enhancement Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
'Subjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondence dated June 1, 2021 (DWR# -no ID) using the 1:24,000
scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by the
NRCS.
2The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation Only site to comply with this rule.
3NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment. Credits are calculated differently in the Jordan Lake Watershed. Phosphorus may be calculated separately.
'Determinations made for this Site are determined based on the proposal provided in maps and figures submitted with the request.
s All features proposed for buffer mitigation or nutrient offset, must have a planted conservation easement established that includes the
tops of channel banks when being measured perpendicular and landward from the banks, even if no credit is viable within that riparian
area. Easement breaks that disconnect the continuity of riparian restoration/enhancement/preservation result in no credit viable beyond
the break.
'The area of the mitigation site on ephemeral channels shall comprise no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7).
7The area described as an Enhancement Site was assessed and determined to comply with all of 15A NCAC 02B .0295(o)(6). Cattle
exclusion fencing is required to be installed around the mitigation area to get buffer credit under this part of the rule.
Determinations provided in the table above were made using a proposed easement boundary showing
proposed mitigation areas shown in Figure 4. The map representing the proposal for the site is
attached to this letter and initialed by Ms. Merritt on September 24, 2021. Substantial changes to the
proposed easement boundary as well as any site constraints identified in this letter, could affect the
Site's potential to generate buffer mitigation and nutrient offset credits.
This letter does not constitute an approval of this Site to generate buffer and nutrient offset credits.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to
DWR for written approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or
surface waters for buffer mitigation credit. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0703, a proposal regarding a
proposed nutrient load -reducing measure for nutrient offset credit shall be submitted to DWR for
approval prior to any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
Page 3 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 16A473A0-8A26-44C6-850E-1B5AE77AC968
Tobacco Road Site
EBX
September 24, 2021
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0703.
This viability assessment will expire on September 24, 2021 or upon approval of a mitigation
plan by the DWR, whichever comes first. This letter should be provided in any nutrient offset,
buffer, stream or wetland mitigation plan for this Site.
Please contact Katie Merritt at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
PW/kym
Attachments: Figure : Existing Conditions Map
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
DOCUSigned by:
949D91 BA53EF4E0...
Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
Page 4 of 4

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
Resource Environmental Solutions
Attn: Matt Butler
Delivered via email to: [e-mail]
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
March 17, 2022
Subject: On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Jordan Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0267)
Subject Property: Tobacco Road Mitigation Project
Dear Mr. Butler:
On February 23, 2022, 1 conducted an follow up on -site determination with you to review additional
features located on the subject project for stream determinations with regards to the above noted state
regulations.
The attached initialed and dated updated sketch and updated buffer subjectivity table below depict all
previous Division stream determinations as well as additional recent stream determinations conducted
during the original site visit on May 4, 2021 and the recent site visit on February 23, 2022. Please note
that the pond adjacent to stream MN1 on the attached map is not subject to the buffers because it does
not have an intermittent or perennial stream flowing into, or out of it. In addition, the Seep shown on
the attached map did scored less than 19 points on the DWR Stream Identification Form although may
be considered a jurisdictional feature by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Stream ID
UST
Soil Survey
Subjectivity
TR1
Yes
Yes
Yes
MN1
Yes
Yes
Yes
MN2
No
No
No
MN3
No
No
No
MN4
Yes
Yes
Yes
TR2
Yes
Yes
Yes
MN5
No
No
No
MN6
No
No
No
MN7
No
No
No
MN8
No
No
No
MN9
No
No
No
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. The owner (or future
owners) should notify the Division (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in any future
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office 1 450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 1 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
aoRni cARCIUNA
ma "t of w.o-o onm aosuy 336.776.9800

correspondences concerning this property. Landowners or affected parties that dispute this
determination made by the Division may request a determination by the Director of Water Resources.
This determination is final and binding, unless an appeal request is made within sixty (60) calendar days
of the date of this letter to the Director in writing.
If sending via U.S. Postal Service:
Paul Wojoski - DWR 401 & Buffer
Permitting Branch Supervisor
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.)
Paul Wojoski - DWR 401 & Buffer
Permitting Branch Supervisor
512 N Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
This letter only addresses the features on the subject property and/or within the proposed project area
and does not approve any activity within buffers or within waters of the state. If you have any
additional questions or require additional information, please call me at 336-776-9693 or
[e-mail]. This determination is subject to review as provided in Articles 3 & 4 of G.S.
150B.
Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
466ED631098F411...
Sue Homewood
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Cc: Steven & Deedra Greeson, 4870 Mineral Springs Rd, Apt A, Graham NC 27253
Ray Newlin, 903 Holland Rd, Fuquay-Varina NC 27526
Katie Merritt, 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
DWR, Winston-Salem Regional Office
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office 1 450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 1 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
0RiH CAROLINA
a -d m em­ a�si� /^� 336.776.9800

21
l000
10,
V.
It
— m
17
Proposed Easement
Ost
�--/
® Drainage Area (458 ac)�-
_'�. - A. f�' Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, cubed
Figure 3a - USGS Saxapahaw Quadrangle Date: 4/12/2021
w (1977)
Drawn by: EJU
0 1,000 2,000 Tobacco Road Mitigation Project Checked by: JRM res
Feet Alamance County, North Carolina 1 inch - 2,000 feet

�.., 7
7..- t.. ., !' Y,J'Y { L • YOtro: Dn x,. tl' 'S .+. {t
x CITY
,7
"aayy'i;;,
' P
b ` � /4 J �•' J� *FI' � ��j,ixrt tt'n�'4 �.,; � $ w { , '1 �;�� �i` A, P
Kit
'St
w -
v
"k A A R� �•R� � i' k.
1,
i
r `
`It 4Sc
it
Enters Easement: L
35.969,-79.294 egen
d
Proposed Easement
Existing Stream
« origii Intermittent
Perennial
4 �" ;tl, — — • Ephemeral
Stream Origin (Feb 2022)
3/17/2022 Stream Determination Map Date: 2/25/2022
Drawn by: EJU
s Tobacco Road Mitigation Project
LDS
t
0 325 650 Checked by: xxx res
Feet Alamanee County, North Carolina 1 inch = 650 feet

Appendix F — USACE District Assessment
Methods/Forms

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Tobacco Road Reach: TR1-A
Stream Category Pat
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 12/2/2021
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Tobacco Road Reach: TR1-B
Stream Category Pat
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 12/2/2021
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Tobacco Road Reach: TR1-C
Stream Category Pat
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 12/2/2021
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Tobacco Road Reach: TR1-D
Stream Category Pa3
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 12/2/2021
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Tobacco Road Reach: TR1-E
Stream Category Pa3
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 12/2/2021
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Tobacco Road Reach: TR1-F
Stream Category Pa3
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 12/2/2021
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WA
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Seep
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Condition
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WB
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WC
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WD
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WE
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Seep
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WF
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WG
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WH
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Seep
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WI
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WJ
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Seep
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WK
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Seep
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WM
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Seep
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WN
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Seep
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WO
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WP
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Seep
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WQ
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WR
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WS
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wu
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Seep
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WV
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WW
Date
12/2/2021
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

Appendix G —Regulatory Agency Scoping
Letters
• SHPO Response Letter
• USFWS Response Letter
• NCWRC Correspondence
• NHP Report

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Cameron Ingram, Executive Director
Via Email
28 March 2022
Emily Ulman
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
SUBJECT: Environmental Review of the Tobacco Road Mitigation Site in Alamance County, North
Carolina.
Dear Ms. Ulman,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your request for
review and comments on any possible concerns regarding the Tobacco Road Mitigation Site. Comments
are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The Tobacco Road Mitigation Site is located northeast and northwest of the intersection of Thom Road
and NC Highway 54 near Saxapahaw, Alamance County, North Carolina. The proposed project would
restore, enhance, and protect perennial and intermittent streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers within a
41.87-acre conservation easement in the Cape Fear River basin. The existing land use is a mix of forested
and agricultural lands, including row crops and active pasture.
We have no known records for rare, threatened, or endangered species within the site. The lack of records
from the site does not imply or confirm the absence of federal or state -listed species. An on -site survey is
the only means to determine if the proposed project may impact federal or state rare, threatened, or
endangered species.
Mitigation 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. We offer the following general recommendations to minimize impacts
to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources:
1. We recommend riparian buffers are as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner
needs. NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams to
maximize the benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland
runoff, and wildlife habitat.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
28 March 2022
Tobacco Road Mitigation Site
Alamance County
2. We recommend a plant list that consists of species typically found in reference streams and the
appropriate natural vegetation community, as described by M.P. Schafale in The Guide To The
Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation
(https://www.ncOp.org/references/Op-publications/fourth-approximation-descriptions). Also,
ensure the species planted occur naturally within Alamance County.
3. Avoid using orchard grass, fescue, or cereal rye, which exhibits allelopathic characteristics, or
any other non-native species for soil stabilization. Alternatively, use a grain, such as oats, wheat,
or browntop millet for temporary cover and native seed mixes for permeant seeding. We
recommend planting a mix of grasses and native, wildflower seed mixes that will create pollinator
habitat within the project boundary.
4. The use of biodegradable and wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose -weave netting
that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal
twines. Silt fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it
impedes the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have
detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of
eggs, and clogging of gills.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. If I can be of additional assistance, please call (336)
269-0074 or email olivia.munzer(kncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

Roy Cooper, Governor
■■■
00 ® NC DEPARTMENT OF
■■19■■ NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■w■
March 21. 2022
Matthew DeAngelo
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: Tobacco Road (updated)
Dear Matthew DeAngelo:
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Burhaaan
Deputy Director, Natural Heritage Program
N CN H D E-17458
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federally -
listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod nev.butler(o)ncdcr.aov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT 4F NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
�t 121 W. JONF-SSSTREET. P ALEIGH_ NC- 27603 • 1651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALDGH, NC 27&9q
OFC 919.707.9120 • FAX 919.707.$i21

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Tobacco Road (updated)
March 21, 2022
NCNHDE-17458
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific NameE Common Name ast Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Dragonfly or 33764 Somatochlora Coppery Emerald 2004-Pre H? 5-Very --- Significantly G3G4 Sl?
Damselfly georgiana Low Rare
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
No Managed Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httos://ncnhde.natureserve.orq/helip. Data query generated on March 21, 2022; source: NCNHP, Q4, January 2022. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3

NCNHDE-17458: Tobacco Road (updated)
y _
ems. I
o,
I r�
I
des Cie`Y b ?
#0 t
to G
X Q 1 T
,4 a
3 (
h
I
N t
I
W�Eltdem I
S309a�''w
S
March 21, 2022
❑ Project Boundary
❑ Buffered Project Boundary
1:27,893
0 0.225 0.45 0.9 mi
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 km
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong). (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community
Page 3 of 3

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Secretary D. Reid Wilson
July 20, 2021
Samantha Dailey samantha.j.dailey( ,usace.aM.mil
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Tobacco Road Mitigation Project, 35.973063,-79.282234, Alamance County, ER 21-1594
Dear Ms. Dailey:
Thank you for your notification of June 25, 2021, regarding the above -referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.
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 919-814-6579
or environmental.reviewkncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
July 12, 2021
Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Mitigation Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: RES Cape Fear 02 UMB (Tobacco Road Mitigation)/ SAW-2021-00489/ Alamance County
Dear Mrs. Dailey:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the project advertised in the above
referenced Public Notice. The project, as advertised in the Public Notice, is expected to have
minimal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Therefore, we have no objection to the
activity as described in the permit application.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) and based on the
information provided, and other available information, it appears the action is not likely to
adversely affect federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA. We believe
that the requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project. Please
remember that obligations under the ESA must be reconsidered if: (1) new information identifies
impacts of this action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered; (2) this action is modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a
new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
For your convenience a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North
Carolina is now available on our website at <http://www.fws.gov/raleigh>. Our web page contains
a complete and updated list of federally protected species, and a list of federal species of concern
known to occur in each county in North Carolina.
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 Mathews at (919) 856-
4520, extension 27.
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin,
Field Supervisor
cc: NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh

Appendix H —Plan Set

s=
co
J
I
h
I '
a
h
h
P, Le%i ,
i
Swepsonville Melville
I
Sa xa pa h aynr
h
hi bbDraugh
I#sCi[ORY
Carrbai a
Chapel H'li
PROJECT LOCATION
VICINITY MAP
NTS
10
Know what's below.
Call before you dig
TOBACCO ROAD MITIGATION SITE
I --
NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DIGGING, OR EXCAVATION THE
CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND j
UTILITIES (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE) THAT MAY EX15T AND CR055 THROUGH
THE AREA(5) OF CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER INDICATED ON THE PLANS
OR NOT. CALL 1181 1 II A MINIMUM OF 72 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING OR
EXCAVATING. REPAIRS TO ANY UTILITY DAMAGED RESULTING FROM
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL DE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONTRACTOR.
PROJECT DIRECTORY
DE51GNED BY:
RE50URCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC
3000 GLENWOOD AVE, SUITE 100
RALEIGH, NC 27G 12
5 U RV EYED BY:
ASCENSION LAND SURVEYING, PC
G WILLIAM5 ROAD
MOCK5VILLE, NC 27026
NJ &IOMEW01 W0102 iv,
PROJECT TOPOGRAPHY AND EX15TING CONDITIONS
PLANIMETRIC5 SURVEY WAS PROVIDED BY ASCENSION
LAND SURVEYING, PC (NC FIRM LICENSE NUMBER
C-4288, CHRI5TOPHER L. COLE, NC PI-5 L-5008),
DATED 5EPTEMBER 15, 2021 - OCTOBER G, 2022
REACH TR I -F
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(35.978200) -79.276723)
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN/HUC 03030002050040
OCTOBER 2022
RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC
REACH MN7
REACH TR I -E
3600 GLENWOOD AVE, SUITE 100
REACH TRI -D
11\L/ \111 I VIINC7-/
RALEIGH, NC 27612
REACH MN2-A
REACH MN2-B
REACH TRI -E
REACH TR I -C
REACH MN5-B
\ — RFA(-H KAN9
(=,ITF NA AP
IV 1 --)
REACH MN5-A
REACH MN4-B
REACH MN4-A
PROJECT COORDINATES
REACH MN I -A
REACH MN I -E�
SCE
REACH TR I -A
Sheet List Table
Sheet Number
Sheet Title
--
COVER
--
INDEX
Al
OVERALL AERIAL
E1
NOTES
E2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
E3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
E4
EXISTING CONDITIONS
S1
REACH TR1-A
S2
REACH TR1-A
S3
REACH TR1-B
S4
REACH TR1-B
S5
REACH TR1-B
S6
REACH TR1-C
S7
REACH TR1-C
S8
REACH TR1-C
S9
REACH TR1-C
S10
REACH TR1-D
S11
REACH TR1-E
S12
REACH TR1-E
S13
REACH TR1-E
S14
REACH TR1-E
S15
REACH TR1-F
S16
REACH MN1-A
S17
REACH MN1-B
S18
REACH MN2-A
S19
REACH MN2-13
S20
REACH MN2-B
S21
REACH MN2-B
S22
REACH MN3
S23
REACH MN4-A
S24
REACH MN4-B
S25
REACH TR2
S26
REACH MN5
S27
REACH MN6-A
S28
REACH MN6-B
S29
REACH MN6-B
S30
REACH MN7
S31
REACH MN7
S32
REACH MN8
F1
FENCING PLAN
F2
FENCING PLAN
F3
FENCING PLAN
P1
PLANTING PLAN
P2
PLANTING PLAN
P3
PLANTING PLAN
W1
WETLAND PLAN
W2
WETLAND PLAN
W3
WETLAND PLAN
X1
TR1 CROSSINGS
X2
TR1 CROSSINGS
X3
MN2 & MN4 CROSSINGS
EC1
EROSION CONTROL
EC2
EROSION CONTROL
EC3
EROSION CONTROL
EC4
EROSION CONTROL
EC5
EROSION CONTROL
EC6
EROSION CONTROL
EC7
EROSION CONTROL
EC8
EROSION CONTROL
EC9
EROSION CONTROL
D1
DETAILS
D2
DETAILS
D3
DETAILS
D4
DETAILS
D5
DETAILS
D6
DETAILS
D7
DETAILS
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
Ii.i
<p o
N
O N
Co
z
O
U
z
O
U
O
w
I—
O
O
Q
o z_
o
�
(n
W J
w
w
w
cr
M Q_
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:

S1
REACH
TR1—A
S2
REACH
TR1—A
S3
REACH
TR1—B
S4
REACH
TR1—B
co
J
0
w
Q
Cn
0)
Cr
w
0
Ui
H
2
N
O
C3
0
70
0
O
O
U
U
¢S
n
O
H
n
O
N
0
U
a�
2
a
Cz
Cz
U
V)
U
cr
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1
0
2" = FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6j
Q N
0 o
N_
N
O �
J p
Z
O
U
H
U)
Z
O
U
O
LL
O
Z
O
Q
66
0
Z
z
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
W
W
Q
z_
�J
O
C/)
0�
O
U
V
OZ
�
X
0
>
Q
z
z
0�
O
O
U
U
w
U
CU
W
Q
z
W
J
2
Q
~
O
2i
H
Q
F-
Z
W
J
Q
O
M
�
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:

LCE
mJ `F
W
H MN 1 -1
V
IP
f�
! ��. �,^
1 s r
J:KEACH M N'
�VIA
\ - BEACH MN5-B
J e`
r)
,m
REACH M N 9
\ l
e
e� \
\� L
\ W
c
\� II
I\\ I
of ei\
� e
a n I —a -r [D I n ff
t.
�01
I �% . � �p T_ - .
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite
100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 250
0
250
500
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I\
bi
QN
O
OLo
N
J p
r
Z
O
U)
Z
O
U
O
LL
O
z
i
O
0�
LL
Z
o
z
O
Lu
Cn
Lu
LU
Lu
Cr
Lu
CC
0_
z_
LLJ
J
ON
��-)n
v
L.I_
Z
Q
O
U
T-
Q
Q
O
w
-
z
Q
�
J
Q
z
Q
O
::)
w
�
O
�
O
U
O
U
w
U
U
W
z
Lu
co
Q<C
Z
O
U
G
Z
Lu
J
Q
O
Q
IL
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
A 1

STREAM CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
ALL PROPOSED CHANNELS AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT CROSSINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN
A DRY CONDITION VIA Off LINE CONSTRUCTION WHERE POSSIBLE. PUMP AROUND OPERATIONS
SHOULD BE LIMITED TO AREAS WHERE THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED CHANNEL ALIGNMENTS OVERLAP.
2. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND PUMPING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREAM AT THE END
OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY
THE ENGINEER. WITH APPROVAL, A PUMP AROUND MAY BE ALLOWED TO RUN CONTINUOUSLY IF THERE
IS NO FORECAST FOR RAIN OVERNIGHT, AND/OR THE PUMP APPARATUS IS MAINTAINED AND
MONITORED CONTINUOUSLY.
3. CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE CHANNEL FIRST, WORKING IN AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
4. TOP OF BANK LINES SHOWN ON PLAN SHEETS ARE BASED ON PROPOSED TYPICAL RIFFLE WIDTHS AND
MAY NOT REFLECT FINAL PROPOSED WIDTHS THROUGH POOL SECTIONS. REFER TO TYPICAL CROSS
SECTIONS ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS FOR ACTUAL PROPOSED DIMENSIONS.
5. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL WITHIN AREAS THAT ARE TO BE CUT 9" OR MORE BELOW EXISTING
GRADE. STOCKPILED TOPSOIL IS TO BE PLACED ALONG THE FLOODPLAIN BENCHES.
G. STRUCTURES ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN SHEETS (AS INDICATED ON THE
STRUCTURE TABLES) USING METHODS DESCRIBED IN THE DETAIL SHEETS. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING,
OBTAIN APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER ON INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.
7. SUBSTRATE MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE BED OF ALL PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS. SEE
TYPICAL RIFFLE DETAIL FOR RIFFLE MATERIAL COMPOSITION (DETAIL DG).
8. ALL QUARRY STONE SHALL MEET NCDOT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
9. UPON COMPLETION OF FINE GRADING, INSTALL STREAM BANK STABILIZATION INCLUDING, EROSION
CONTROL MATTING OR SOD MATS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS.
10. FILL AND STABILIZE ABANDONED SEGMENTS OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL PER PLAN SHEETS AND DETAIL
SHEET D2.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR 50
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR — — 46 — —
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR 50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR 42
EXISTING WETLAND W W
----- TB
EXISTING STREAM — BB�
-91 ----
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
EXISTING BEDROCK
EXISTING GAS UTILITY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT OF WAY
- - - - TB----- TB
----- BB----- BB -
GAS GAS GAS GAS
RW R/WRIW
EXISTING FENCELINE —X X X X X—
EXISTING TREELINE
EXISTING TREE
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK — —
PROPOSED STORMWATER SWALE //////<<
(SEE DETAIL D4) \\\\\\\\
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF CHANNEL
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT LCE
PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG
(SEE DETAIL D2)
BRUSH TOE PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL D3) wmzm
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL D4)
ROCK SILL
(SEE DETAIL D5)
ROCK CROSS VANE
(SEE DETAIL D5)
ROCK A -VANE
(SEE DETAIL D5)
ROCK J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL D5)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL D5)
LOG STRUCTURE
(PROFILE)
ROCK STRUCTURE
(PROFILE)
►� 0
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
w
QN
N
O
N
LL)
N
J p
Z
O
U
H
Z
O
U
O
ILL
Z
DC
�
O
Q
0
Z_
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
_
W
cr
rr
D_
Q
z_
O
U
z
Q
O
U
Q
�
O
U)
0
F___
O
Q
z
z
0�
O
O
CU
CU
w
U
U
W Q
z
Q
Z O
Q
z
Lu
J
Q
O
Q
�
�
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
El

J
WETLAND WA
LLJ
4C
/ _ \
�TB
LEACH TIC I —A
a
G �
-r 91
a \
\ \
\ \a
\
41 \
LEACH MN I —B
m� <'Cl
,v v
WET LAN D WB rav vv
.tee
o\Ne/
i
WETLAND WA
LEACH MN I —A
+
• m � ONE / P
�ii � �i'/ � e e1 • .' ' ,
�.,"'y //� <C1
GO —_� �; + WETLAND WJ
�Ci�
, \\
/ to
ONE � -- l` I� / --e1—---e1--_--H1-----81----� ��_ �� \\ ��> ... _ 1 /ice ���0 ••/� re---- gl� \ C�
Sb TB-----TB_—i--
/ � — � , � �,, �' / eye ••/• —re v\10
�j
z
/
/
/
/
/
I
I
b
Sb0 M
Sb
M I l /Sv��L
iLCE BEACH MN2—B
I
WETLAND WI
Y
WETLAND WK
i
ata
\ I \ m
/
REACH M N 2 —A
/
\ \ ems\ 1\1
\ \ t mr
\a \
BEACH TR I —B
WETLAND Wf=
BEACH TR I —C
�CF WETLAND WH _
\ e \ •
91
TB
FI-
i
ti
\ - c
/
I
,e WETLAND WC
ot
m BEACH M N4—A
937 \\ i
gel./
937
REACH M N 3
WETLAND WD \m> BEACH MN4—B
LENE SHEET E3
,/ my MATCH
/ m
/
�el
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite
100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100
200
2" = FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
W
Q N
0 o
N_
N
O �
J p
Z
O
U)
Z
0
O
LL
H
Z
i
LL
Q
66
0
Z
O
U)
U)
W
J
w
z
w
�O
v
U
z
0
Z
�
O
Q
�
�
O
O
0
�z
0
>
U
0
a0
z
�
0�
O
F--
O
U
c_n
U
w
X
U
U
w
LLI
Q m
Q
F-
O
U ~
G
Z
Lu
J
Q
O
Q
M
IL
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
E 2

MATCO
WETLAND
J
LINE SKEET E2
WETLAND WP
REACH M N 5- B
WETLAND WT
BEACH TK2
LCE \\ \
\ LC
/e
\ w
—Ell
TB \-TB `\ LC),
1 my r,. —gym 94
,
J�
e�
J7
WETLAND WO
BEACH TIR I -C
WETLAND W5
- /91
/i
\ J
LEACH M N9
LCE
LCE
(REACH M N 6-A
I ,
1 /
/ 1
r
I �
BEACH M N 6-B
/r n
ml
it
Im
1�
II
it
II
I!
( IcF�1
,\
'i
71
0Y1 1
\ C�
m/ \
LcE
LcE
BEACH M N 7 ,�v
ucf-
U /. y
1
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite
100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100
200
2" = FULL SCALE
1 "
=HALF SCALE
I`
W
Q N
0 o
oLo
N
J p
z
O
U
H
U)
z
O
O
LL
-
O
z
LL
Q
0
z
Z
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
W
W
Q
Z
LL1
J
O
C/)
0�
U
z
0
Z
�
O
Q
v
O
0
z
Z
O
Q
Z
CD
O
::)
z_
0�
O
F--
O
U
cn
w
ULLI
CU
Q m
Q
~
O
U ~
G
Z
J
Q
O
M
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
E3

LGE
LGE
LCE
REACH M N 8
WETLAND WU
LQ
L
LGE E
LC
v a I (
\ ` /\ 1 _
——co
re
LLJ
\ 93�
J
WETLAND WV
BEACH TR I -F
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite
100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100
200
—
2 FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
W
Q N
0 o
N_
N
O �
J p
Z
O
I—
U)
Z
O
O
LL
Z
D:
LL
Q
0
Z
z
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
W
W
Q
z
W
J
�
O
C/)
0�
U
z
0
Z
T-
O
Q
v
O
0
z
z
O
Q
z
V
O
::)
z
0�
O
F--
O
U
c_n
U
w
X
U
CU
w
m
F-
Q
Q
O
C
U ~
Z
Lu
J
Q
O
Q
M
IL
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
E4

G25
G20
G15
G05
LCE
LCE
LCE
\ 9�
LCE �`-
\ 18—
\ Lc
REACH TR I -A
(ENHANCEMENT) \
\
Te
3+00
RL
y
111�00 1-1
81\ '00 ,
CD
i
1 �
\ m
EX15TING PATH, AND
ENTIRE PLANTING
AREA (5EE 5HEET F 1),
TO BE RIPPED AND
DI5CED
1
1A/G7-I Akir) 1A/
0
EX15TING PIPE5
TO BE RETAINED
V
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING
m
Ln
\�
—
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
TOP OF BANK
+
Q
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT BREAK
+
Q
—
\
^
_
—
w
"I
08
\
ol;
-
-
Q�
\
WI0
I
Q
ol�
0
I
0+00 0+50 1 +00 1 +50 2+00 2+50 3+00
SCALE: HOK 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3'
1�+Dv
1++nV
1)+DV
G25
G20
G15
G05
G+00
LCE
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
Lu
Q N
N
Lo
N
J p
CL —
z
_O
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z_
o
�
(n
Q
-
J
W
>
W
W
Q
Z
O
U)
Z
Q
O
U
�
Q
�
~
Z
>
2
Z
U
Q
O
�
W
0�
O
O
U
LU
U
U
w
Q GoQ
z O
w ~
Q
C7
z
J
�
Q
�
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S 1

Cn
Cz
M
0
w
Q
U)
ULO
N
O
(7
0
Cz
O
fr
O
co
LO
U
r;
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
U)
N
cr
o�
W
a
z
0
U
w
—z
J
L
Q LCE LICE LCE
75 E LCE LCE LCE
LC LCE
\ O
O Oei
_
6+00 1— —81 ----�j —��al \ �k0 �\ //��� 9�00 W �� I 0+00 �L_ a _ \ \ k00 2 00 _e /
�OO 81 -- J /--F_ J—`-9�
B —Tg� %
TB-- — TB� W —'� /T // \.� --- TB--- TB�\—ice TB ---- TB — TB—��� J/—
\\
— /
REACH TRI -A
(ENHANCEMENT)
\ —
/ C)
G15
G10
G05
GOO
595
G15
G10
G05
GOO
595
G+00 G+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9- 0 9+50 1 0+00 1 0+50 1 1 +00 1 1 +50 1 2+00
SCALE: HOR 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3'
�—
EXISTING GRADE
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
EXISTING
TOP OF BANK
N
`-
\
�—
—
JE
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
O
N
N
O �
J p
CL —
z
O
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
o
z_
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
—j
W
fr
Q_
Q
z_
J
O
U
z
Q
O
U
Q
~
z
>
2
z
U
Q
O
�
w
0�
O
O
CU
U
w
U
U
Q IW
Q
~
z O
~
Q
z
W
J
O
Q
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S2

Cn
Cz
M
0
w
U)
3
Uco
rl-
LO
N
O
CD
0
Cz
O
rr
O
U
U
r;
co
LO
N
0
U
m
2
o-
0
co
U
a)
N
cr
o�
W
a
z
REACH TR I —B 5TA 1 4+52 TO 5TA 29+60
=ALIGNMENT POINT
O 10.81
30,�C WETLAND WG PROP05ED 30 LF 0+ 2.5' 2.9'
LC� OF G4" x 43'' CMPA cf)
/ I ' (5EE 5HEET X 1) BANKFULL STAGE
z� 0_ N
L / /�� /
CE / / ' / � I LCE REACH TK I -B z
LCE V / �/ / / // / 1 (RE5TORATION) v
�G TYPICAL RIFFLE CR055 SECTION
/ Q
v LCE
S REACH TR I -A u
r (ENHANCEMENT) G� 13.G'
Z 7.G' 2.0'
—
// BANKFULL STAGE
el
O �13+00 0� \ �yOIL
/
14+00 00 o rC� 00_-,-8
e1 —
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CR055 SECTION
TB
i
l v // // 3-2 17+00 13.G
/ 2.0' 7. G'
4-I �
03 \ / BANKFULL STAGE
�
3-3 —
,, o
133
5.4'
�3��
REACH MN2 �m / �/ (�
O
7 (SHEET 52 1) I / /� ►�► TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
0 / /
Qj
MM 11 alp"
G15
G10
G05
GOO
595
590
G15
G10
G05
GOO
595
590
1 2+00 1 2+50 1 3+00 1 3+50 1 4+00 1 4+50 1 5+00 1 5+50 I G+00 1 G+50 1 7+00 1 7+50 1 8+00
SCALE: HOK 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3'
N
— I
/ CON5ERIVATION
/ EASEMENT
\
BREAK
ILn
+
I—
+ m
> z
— w w
LLJ
EXISTING
TOP OF BANK /
�1
\I I
\
\
EXISTING GRADE
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
PROPOSED
TOP OF BANK
I
PROPOSED
CHANNEL BED
3-3
-0. 1 2%—
\
EXIS
RCP
_ /
-0.G7%
i�4z
----
—
�'
----
PROF 30 LF
OF 43"
CMPA
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0
30
60
2
FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL —
z
_0
U
z
0
O
LL
0
oC
}
o
ILL
Q
o
z
o
Q
w
ED
w
w
Q
z
W
~O
U
z
Q
O
U
Q
�
m
z
z
U
Q
O�
W
0�
O
O
U
Lu
U
U
w
Q m
Q
~
z O
~
Q
z
w
J
Q
O
Ir
I
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S3

Cz
M
0
w
Q
C/)LO
N
O
C7
0
O
fr
O
co
U
O
H
(O
Cq
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
a)
N
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
O
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
z
O
()
0�
z
Q
O
U
<
�
m
z
z
U
Q
O
�
w
0�
O
O
CU
U
w
U
U
Q IW
Q
~
z O
~
Q
z
W
J
Q
O
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S4

Cz
M
0
w
Q
C/)LO
N
O
C7
0
O
fr
O
co
U
O
H
(O
Cq
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
a)
N
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
O
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
z
O
()
0�
z
Q
O
U
<
�
m
z
z
U
Q
O
�
w
0�
O
O
CU
U
w
U
U
Q IW
Q
~
z O
~
Q
z
W
J
Q
O
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S5

Cz
M
0
w
Q
C/)LO
N
O
C7
0
O
fr
O
co
U
O
H
(O
Cq
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
a)
N
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
O
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
z_
O
()
0�
z
Q
O
U
�
U
�
~
z
>
2
z
U
Q
O
�
w
0�
O
O
CU
U
w
U
U
Q IW
Q
~
z O
~
Q
z
W
J
Q
O
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S6

�50'GA5
EASEMENT
LCEZ///7z -
WETLAND WK
LCE
LCE
LIVE STAKE AND MAT
AREA BETWEEN BANKS
LCE
v
v
WETLAND WT WETLAN D WO /
LCE
\ KEACH TK2 _
(SHEET 525) /
/ "I 8, - ^>.
81---\\ �Y/ m�---,�-TB��
40+00.
\ v% 7-I \\ \--(a1 gl-----81--- // \37+0 TB
\ TB_---- TB
J
oo
INSTALL SHALLOW \
DEPRESSIONS
Q \� (5EE DETAIL D4)
Y
i
9;
REACH TK I -C
(ENHANCEMENT)
-01
LCE '
REAC I-1 M N 5
> (SHEET 524)
_ V
To
--/ \ /' ED
k00
7-G ___—e�� 7-7
/ 7 5 56y
i(:�Y �^ - TB--- TB-
TB- TB----
\ �81--
7-4 � —
m
I i
;1 M
INSTALL SHALLOW
DEFRE5510N5
(5EE DETAIL D4)
WETLAND W5
9M
00
N
v� Co
v�
575 575
7-I 7-2
_ 7-3
7-4
570 7_5 7-6 570
7-7
— _ EXISTING GRADE
� ALONG STREAM EXISTING
— CENTERLINE TOP OF BANK
5G5 — �— — _ 5G5
v --
5GO _ _ 5GO
555 555
I
3G+00 3G+50 37+00 37+50 38+00 38+50 39+00 39+50 40+00 40+50 4 1 +00 4 1 +50 42+00
SCALE: HOR 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3'
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
w
Q N
oC)
N
N
O �
J p
CL —
z
O
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
w
J
W
>
w
-
w
�
Q
Z
O
U)
Z
Q
O
U
�
U
�
~
Z
>
2
Z
U
Q
O
�
w
0�
O
O
CU
U
w
U
U
Q
a Go
z O
w ~
Q
z
J
Q
O
Q
o=
�
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S7

\N
�4
7
—��l 42
-41
7A
Q
k
L
O
REACH MN5 LCE LCE LCE
LCE LCE L E
\ 1 (SHEET 524)
V 1
REACH TR I -D
\ (ENHANCEMENT)
4G+00
00
\ Xk1—_—mo_al — _
al,47+00
00 Abo
A5 a
8=— �91—�� 81
i 8-2 _ \t-�
TB y — 8-G
~�` al J ���� —TB
REACH TR I -C
(ENHANCEMENT) /
i
r
rn
LC
00 — � �� .�
0
N
= WETLAND WR
5G5 565
8-I
8-2 -
8-3
8-5
5GO 8-6 5 G 0
EXI5TING
EXI5TING GRADE TOP OF BANK
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
10/
555 — ~ 555
550 550
545 545
42+00 42+50 43+00 43+50 44+00 44+50 45+00 45+50 4G+00 4G+50 47+00 47+50 48+00
SCALE: HOR 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3'
9-I
9
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
W
Q N
N
N
O �
J p
CL —
z
O
C)
z
O
C)
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
o
z_
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
Q
Z
O
U)
Z
Q
O
U
<
�
U
~
Z
2
Z
U
Q
O
=)w
0�
O
O
U
U
w
U
U
W
LLJ
Q
Go
z O
w ~
Q
z
J
Q
O
Q
o=
�
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S8

Cn
Cz
M
0
w
Q
C/)LO
N
O
(7
0
Cz
O
fr
O
co
LO
U
r;
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
U)
N
cr
o�
W
a
z
n
REACI-i TR I -D
(ENHANCEMENT) \\ \
— REAC I-i M N 6 \
L E � ' � — LCE�� — — � LCE LICE LCE � (SHEET s26)
LC E
I — i INSTALL 5HALLOW
DEPRESSIONS
(SEE DETAIL D4)
1
Ab
\✓1\9' 00 J+00'� �9�\ k00 'a� 54 00
� 1
9-7 O
9- I 9-2 al e y — . — 9-5 ` il—r al _ sL — e� \ W O 1 0- 1
—� +
/ l 9-3 ��i 9-4 1 /� i +
T � \ �v �� WETLAND WO
7
v _
T
T -^ CA ___----
T O —
_ T
T
560 560
9-I
9-2
9-3
9-4
555 9-5 9_6 555
9-7
EXISTING GRADE EXISTING
ALONG STREAM TOP OF BANK
CENTERLINE
A z
Wv II/A
550 — J 55X0 1 -1.0 F
545 545
J
540 540
I
48+00 48+50 49+00 49+50 50+00 50+50 5 1 +00 5 1 +50 52+00 52+50 53+00 53+50 54+00
SCALE: HOR 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3'
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
Q N
N
Lo
N
J p
C�
z
O
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
Q
Z_
O
U)
Z
Q
O
U
�
U
�
~
Z
>
2
Z
U
Q
O
�
W
0�
O
O
CU
U
w
U
U
Q
Q
~
z O
~
Q
z
W
J
Q
0
Ir
I
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S9

Cn
Cz
M
0
W
U)
Uco
rl-
LO
N
O
(D
0
Cz
0
rr
0
co
U
r;
co
LO
N
0
U
m
0
0
co
U
U)
N
cr
o�
W
a
z
INSTALL 5HALLOW U,
DEPRESSIONS EX15TING CHANNEL TO BE v. REACh TR I -D 5TA 55+79 TO 5TA 58+ 14
\\ 1 (SEE DETAIL D4) PLUGGED (SEE DETAIL D2) —' �=ALIGNMENT POINT
REACH MNG
c
14.0'
\ (SHEET 527) LC� \ 3.0' 4.0'
SCE BANKFULL STAGE
LC
I TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION
\ INSTALL SHALLOW
REACH TR I -D
\ ( DEPRESSIONS e (ENHANCEMENT) (SEE DETAIL D4) 17.4'
\ Te
3.0'
+00— 54 00 � \ \ ,% I G +00 J ��
5 3 %%
;a � BANKFULL STAGE
00
0 OIL
IL
/--ei--- 9-7 \ o -- 56+00, 7.0'
X \ _ I / TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CRO55 SECTION
q I / \ 0
w \TB\ / �� — al / 1 0-2 — ` / —\ I O-3 58+00 (/ el
6�
/—
m y I _ 9� 5,9+0O / J 1 7.4'
�y
BANKFULL STAGE
m/ I I I m / 10-5 \ co / l I \1 re 1 0-7 1 0-8
N
7.0'
WETLAND WQ
I ( TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CR055 SECTION
TIE EXISTING BED OF REACH
MN7 INTO PROPOSED BED I / — — el �y' �'� S
OF REACH TR I
REACH M N 7 +
1
(SHEET 53 1) / 00
EX15TING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AND BACKFILLED
(5EE DETAIL D2)
LLI / I
555
550
545
540
535
54
EX15TING GRADE
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
PROPOSED
TOP OF BANK
0-3
L.4374
05ED
BED
LZN
F
O-5 I
O-G
I O-8
EXISTING
TOP OF BANK
F
T— —
-0. 55 °70
TIE PROPOSED BED
OF KEACI-1 TK I -D
INTO EX15TING BED
_
TIE PROPOSED BED
OF REACI-1 TR I -D
INTO EX15TING BED
L�
+00 54+50
55+00
55+50
5G+00
5G+50
57+00
57+50
58+00
58+50
59+00
59+50
G0+
555
550
545
540
535
00
SCALE: HOR 1 "=30'; VEKT 1 "=3'
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2
FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
O
oLo
N
J p
CL —
z
O
U
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
I—
O
z
oC
}
O
ILL
Q
o
z_
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
—j
W
rr
Q_
Q
Z_
O
U
z
Q
O
U
~
Z
Z
U
Q
O
z:)w
0�
O
O
U
U
w
U
U
Q IW
Q
~
z O
2
w ~
Q
c�
z
J
Q
O
Ir
I
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S10

Cz
M
0
w
Q
C/)LO
N
O
C7
0
O
fr
O
co
U
O
H
(O
Cq
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
a)
N
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6j
QN
N
O
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
z
O
()
0�
z
Q
O
U
<
�
w
z
z
U
Q
O
�
w
0�
O
O
CU
U
w
U
U
Lu
Q IW
Q
~
z O
Q
z
W
J
Q
O
Cr
C
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S 11

Cz
M
0
w
Q
C/)LO
N
O
C7
0
O
fr
O
co
U
O
H
(O
Cq
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
a)
N
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6j
QN
N
O
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
z
O
()
0�
z
Q
O
U
<
�
w
z
z
U
Q
O
�
w
0�
O
O
CU
U
w
U
U
Lu
Q IW
Q
~
z O
Q
z
W
J
Q
O
Cr
C
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S12

Cz
M
0
w
Q
C/)LO
N
O
C7
0
O
fr
O
co
U
O
H
(O
Cq
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
a)
N
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6j
QN
N
O
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
z
O
()
0�
z
Q
O
U
<
�
w
z
z
U
Q
O
�
w
0�
O
O
CU
U
w
U
U
Lu
Q IW
Q
~
z O
Q
z
W
J
Q
O
Cr
C
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S13

Cz
M
0
w
Q
C/)LO
N
O
C7
0
O
fr
O
co
U
O
H
(O
Cq
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
a)
N
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6j
QN
N
O
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
z
O
()
0�
z
Q
O
U
<
�
w
z
z
U
Q
O
�
w
0�
O
O
CU
U
w
U
U
Lu
Q IW
Q
~
z O
Q
z
W
J
Q
O
Cr
C
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S14

Cn
Cz
M
0
w
Q
U)
Uco
LO
N
O
C7
0
Cz
0
rr
0
co
1-7
U
r;
co
LO
N
0
U
m
0
0
co
U
a)
N
Er
o�
W
a
z
,Lct
LCEi
WETLAND WV O� I I
m 1 I I I
I
Z�1 rn , I
vG- O �� ,el ,_el - 1�1 85+00 i 85+45
0--9�------91—��� 0CLI
CO
411
81
co
k 00 / QD O
52 y 30, ELECTRIC Z
— _ UTILITY ROW ,
f T1 >^L O
1 4-7 1 4-8
o ��/ o W O
/CO / / / � REACH TRI-F
(ENHANCEMENT)
I �
r
530
525
520
515
510
83
z
w
w
LU
EXI5TING
TOP OF BANK
—z
m
�
wco
nQ
O
zF
U
I
�
i
EXI5TING GRADE
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
�
I
15TI
G 6
7 R
P
+00 83+50
84+00
84+50
85+00
85+50
86+00
86+50
87+
530
525
520
515
510
00
SCALE: HOK 1 "=30'; VEKT 1 "=3'
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0
30
ME III iiiiij!I
60
iiiiiiiiiii
2"
III
— FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
w
Q N
O
N
N
O �
J p
CL -
z
O
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
O
Q
o
z_
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-
W
Q
z_
O
()
0�
z
Q
O
U
�z
=
~
z
z
U
Q
O
�
w
0�
O
O
U
U
w
U
U
Q IW
Q
~
z O
w ~
Q
C7
z
J
Q
O
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S15

c
co
co
M
0
w
U)
a,
3
a
z
ULO
N
0
(D
0
Cz
0
rr
0
co
LO
U
r;
N
0
U
0
0
co
U
U)
N
cr
o�
W
a
z
U
LCE LCE LCE REACH MN 15TA 2+ 4 1 TO 5TA 1 0+ 08
WETLAND WB LCE &=ALIGNMENT POINT
6.4'
�-ct 1.4' 1.8'
LCE LCE
BANKFULL STAGE
LCE ' / 0
TYPICAL RIFFLE CK055 SECTION
REACH MN I
(RESTORATION) \ a ` 6.0'
4.0' 2.0'
I G-7
A BANKFULL STAGE
v x
5 + 5 0 - 3.2'
TYPICAL KIGhT MEANDER CRO55 SECTION
T— _
I +00 �� I G-G ` TB re (0-
XO� k50 J — TB — — ��— J I G-9 \ 6.0'
TB — \ —
\ 8
2+50^ — I G-3 BANKFULL STAGE
I G-2 / / \
TB
G- 10 - 3.2'
+ ATYPICAL LEFT MEANDEK CR055 SECTION
I
v R,w v 17-3
\ \ \ Jj C)
7` C� 0
J
937 r
G20
GIG
G12
G08
G04
G20
GIG
G 1 2
G08
G04
1 +50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 G+00
SCALE: hOK 1 "= 20'; VERT 1 "= 2'
EXISTING TOP
OF BANK
EXISTING GRADE
\
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
/\ \
PROP05ED TOP
\
/
I G-2
OF BANK
IG-3
PROPOSED
G-4
CHANNEL BED
IG-5
i
I G-7
I G-9
z
-
13�
\
\
zI
0
TIE EXISTING CHANNEL
�.�7%- —
—
�9
BED INTO PROPOSED
—
—
\I
QI
BED OF REACH MN I
WI
0
1
-1.54%
OI
\
I
l
I
-2.0/%I
_
—
.40%'
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
w
Q N
O
N
N
O �
J p
CL —
z
O
(!)
z
O
U
(
O
IL
I—
O
z
O
Q
ILL
0
z_
O
U)
(n
W
J
W
W
W
cr
Q_
Q
Z_
O
U)
10�
Z
Q
O
U
Q
~
Q
i
0
z
U
Q
Z
Q
O�
w
�
O
�
O
U
Lu
U
U
w
Q
a Go
z O
U
Q
z
J
Q
O
Ir
�
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S16

c
co
co
M
0
w
a
3
a
z
C/)LO
r,
N
O
(7
0
Cz
0
rr
0
co
U
0
F-
r;
LO
N
0
U
0
0
co
U
U)
N
cr
o�
W
a
z
vot (\ \ \\
REACH MN 15TA 2+ 4 1 TO 5TA 1 0+ 08
\ & =ALIGNMENT POINT
\ \ � 6.4'
\ \ \ 1.4' 1.8'
1 \
\ m BANKFULL STAGE
r
REACH TR I
(SHEET 52) \ o
\ REACH MN TYPICAL RIFFLE CK055 SECTION
�� \
— — —e� (RESTORATION) \ \
l0 \ / � 4.0' 2.0'
r XvJ BANKFULL STAGE
T13—— — — \ O
I 1 \OL
0TB
/ 0 17-2 k TB
—el --- 91 --- \
/ \ \ O x e� \ �y� \ TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CR055 SECTION
C TB — , 9+50 el 10+00 \\
BANKFULL STAGE
17-101 \ �� o
1 7-9
TB 3.2'
17-7 �k00 TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
O
�9
Z
�o
Q�� O713
G 1 2 I G 1 2
PROP05ED TOP
OF BANK
PROPOSED
//1
CHANNEL BED
1 7-2
G08 1 7-3 G08
1 %-4 EXISTING GRADE
7-5 ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
7-7
7-9
17- I O
-93
G04
/ I
G00 / \ I -2.0p% � � GOO
J
\ \ 96%
l
i
i
i
50G 59G
G+00 G+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50
SCALE: HOR 1 "= 20'; VERT I ''= 2'
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
w
QN
N
N
N
O �
J p
CL —
z
O
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
O
ILL
Q
0
z_
O
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
Q
Z
O
U)
0�
Z
Q
O
U
�z
=
m
OZ
Z
U
Q
Z
Q
O�
w
�
O
�
O
U
ULu
U
W
Q to
Q
~
z O
W ~
Q
z
J
Q
0
Ir
�
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S17

co
co
M
0
w
Q
N
z
C/)LO
N
O
(D
0
Cz
O
rr
O
co
U
O
H
LO
(O
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
U)
N
cr
o�
W
a
z
AGE
SCE
SCE
LC E LC E \0
\0 -Z'
vot
REACH MN2-A 7
(ENHANCEMENT)
LLJ
TB \ Q
\ — \
/ \ \
/ \ J — TB 2 \ O _ 081
O / \ 81 — —
/ �y \O 81 \\\_ k�0 ,/--\T\\B---O �� � / _TB' \\ \ 0 3k \R =
r— -
-
1J �e 19- I
i
/
TB \
J�
G40
G3G
G32
G28
G24
G40
G3G
G32
G28
G24
0+00 0+50 1 +00 1 +50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50
SCALE: HOR 1 "=20'; VERT 1 "=2'
\M
EXI5TING TOP
\
OF BANK
\
\
EXI5TING GRADE
\ \
ALONG STREAM
\
CENTERLINE
\
L/
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C3
FULL SCALE: 1"=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
w
QN
N
O
N
I— in
N
J p
CL -
z
O
U
H
z
O
(
O
LL
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
O
U)
(n
W
J
W
>
-
ED
�
Q_
Q
Z
O
()
0�
Z
Q
O
U
�
Q
�
OZ
N
Z
�
2
�
U
Q
Z
Q
O
�
w
�
O
�
O
U
U
w
U
U
W Q
Z
Go
Q
Z O
w
Q
z
J
Q
0
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S18

M
0
w
Q
N
z
C/)LO
N
O
c�
0
O
fr
O
co
U
O
H
LO
(O
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
a)
N
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1"=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
O
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
Z
O
()
0�
Z
Q
O
U
<
�
m
OZ
N
Z
�
2
�
U
Q
Z
Q
O
�
w
�
O
�
O
U
U
w
U
U
W Q
Z
J
Go
Q
Z O
w
Q
z
J
Q
O
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S19

M
0
w
Q
N
z
C/)LO
N
O
c�
0
O
fr
O
co
U
O
H
LO
(O
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
a)
N
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
O
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
Z
O
()
0�
Z
Q
O
U
<
�
m
OZ
N
Z
�
2
�
U
Q
Z
Q
O
�
w
�
O
�
O
U
U
w
U
U
W Q
Z
J
Go
Q
Z O
w
Q
z
J
Q
O
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S20

M
0
w
Q
N
z
C/)LO
N
O
c�
0
O
fr
O
co
U
O
H
LO
(O
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
a)
N
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C)
FULL SCALE: 1"=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
O
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
Z
O
()
0�
Z
Q
O
U
<
�
m
OZ
N
Z
�
2
�
U
Q
Z
Q
O
�
w
�
O
�
O
U
U
w
U
U
W Q
Z
J
Go
Q
Z O
w
Q
z
J
Q
O
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S21

M
0
w
Q
U)
m
it
z
C/)LO
N
O
C7
0
Cz
O
fr
O
co
U
O
H
LO
(O
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
a)
N
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
O
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
Z
O
()
0�
Z
Q
O
U
<
�
M
O
Z
�
�
U
Q
Z
Q
W
0�
O
O
U
U
W
U
U
Q IW
Q
~
z O
~
Q
z
W
J
Q
O
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S22

1
W
U
J
i
i
1,
1,
I \
I\ \ VVLI LnIVV VVV
M
_n
59G
592
588
b0.
-93 7
SCE
REACH MN4
(ENHANCEMENT)
PROPOSED 40 LF
OF 30'' CMP
(SEE SHEET X3)
g 3�
EXISTING PATH, AND
ENTIRE PLANTING AREA
(SEE SHEET P 1), TO BE
RIPPED AND DISCED
LC E
3 �
00 \gel — 4+00
1
_3+50
J \ TB ��
QD
N CONSERVATION
N
`
EASEMENT B
EAK
EXI5TING GRADE
ALONG STREAM
Q
Q
/
/
CENTERLINE
/
PROP05ED
I
—
TOP OF BANK
23-
I
EXI5TING TOP
W
�
\
OF BANK
23-2
LU
LLLJ
LU
--
j z
0
�
,6
-- o
PROP 40
Lf
OF 30" C
P
0+00 0+50 1 +00 1 +50 2+00
SCALE: HOR 1 "=20'; VERT 1 "=2'
zfi5v
_a
_M
59G
592
588
3+00
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=20
0
20
40
2"
— FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
w
Q N
O
N
N
O �
J p
CL -
z
O
z
O
U
IY
O
w
O
z
oC
I
}
o
Q
o
z
o
Q
U)
w
w
w
w
Q
Z_
O
U)
Z
Q
O
U
Q
OZ
Z
U
Q
Z
Q
O
�
w
�
O
�
O
ULU
U
U
w
Q
a Go
z O
w ~
Q
z
J
Q
O
Q
Ir
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S23

Cz
M
0
w
Q
m
it
z
ULO
N
0
cD
0
Cz
0
fr
0
co
U
H
(O
Lfi
N
0
U
0
o-
0
co
U
N
m
o�
W
a
z
LCE / 0) ° TB T
G)
LCE i Te
LCE
REACH MN4 9s'
(ENHANCEMENT) t
2+ 00 - _ _ �� - \
WETLAND WM
\ \ \�REACH TR I -C
00 1 (SHEET 5G) rfl
e _
23- I 2+50rE, - - \al _ \\
T
TB — J/ e_ 1 \ `_3+50 4+00
TB — \
0 — TB —— /� — I X \
40
WETLAND WL
J
� I /
WETLAND WD
y I 1
� 1
/
v / /
588
584
560
57G
572
588
584
580
57G
572
3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 G+00
SCALE: HOP, 1 "=20'; VERT 1 "=2'
\
EXISTING GRADE
z
\
\�
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
W
�
�
W
\
\
Lo O
Q
CL/
\
\
Q LW
U
�
\
\
\�
LL-
�O
(S)
�\
EXISTING TOP
OF BANK
\
\
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1"=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
W
QN
N
O
N
N
O �
J p
CL —
z
_O
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
I—
O
z
o
Q
0
z_
O
U)
(n
W
J
W
W
W
fr
Q_
Q
wZ
O
Z
Q
O
U
<
�
m
OZ
Z
U
Q
Z
Q
O
�
w
�
O
�
O
U
ULu
U
w
Q
a Go
z O
w ~
Q
z
J
Q
O
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S24

Cz
M
0
w
a
0)
m
it
z
Url-
LO
N
O
cD
0
Cz
O
rr
O
co
U
O
H
LO
(O
N
0
U
m
2
o-
0
co
U
N
m
o�
W
a
z
LCE
_ _ ___ _ LCE
WETLAND WP LCE LC WETLAND WT
�G E LCE
-- --- _ _ LCE
0 LCE
L
00
-7� \ y�
</
- LIVE STAKE AND MAT WETLAND WO
AREA BETWEEN BAN K5 REACH TR2
0+50 \ (ENHANCEMENT)
TB
\�-00 \ I
\ I
2+00' �
2+50
e� y — Te \ I
—ar\� �� TB---- TB-- -- TB_-- _� — `3�00 I
\—Eli
—91 — \�
REACHTRI -C81�—TB--� B-------TB_ —��
\ TB —
(5HEET57) \\\ --TB— * y/\\_
I N5TALL SHALLOW
DEPRE5510N5 INSTALL SHALLOW
(SEE DETAIL D4) DEPRESSIONS 1
(5EE DETAIL D4)
57G
572
5G8
5G4
5GO
57G
572
5G8
5G4
5GO
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50
SCALE: HOR I "= 20'; VERT I "= 2'
EXI5TING GRADE
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
EX15TI N G
25-1
TOP OF BANK
25-2
FROP05ED
r
\
\
CHANNEL BED
FROF05ED
TOP OF BANK
_
\
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
0 0
N
N
O �
J p
CL —
z
O
U
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
_
W
cr
Q_
Q
Z_
O
Z
Q
O
U
�
�
N
0
�
2
>
U
Q
Z
Q
::)
LU
0
O
O
U
U
LEI
U
U
W Q
Z
Q
Z O
w
Q
z
J
Q
0
0=
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S25

� G-
REACH MN5-A
(PRESERVATION)
-----0+50
ICJ �
no i
9,D%
REACH MN5-t3—/
(ENHANCEMENT)
580
57G
572
5G4
5GO
55G
REACH TR I -C
�C (SHEET S8)
`c`
EXISTING PIPE TO BE
REMOVED AND DISPOSED
OF OFF -SITE
C�
1 +50_ 2+0 -�91— 2 l
el 2+50 \
24-3 \
\ 1
> t
Cy
W
-937
I I �
\ I
dY \ I
m '
WETLAND WO I^ c
I
I
m I
\
\
EXISTING GRADE
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
24-
24-2
'
1
I
I
24-3
`
0
PROPOSED
TOP OF BANK
S�9 �
0
PROPOSED
CHANNEL BED
_
—
`
TIE REACH MN5 INTO
EX15TING BED OF
REACH TR I -C
0+00 0+50 1 +00 1 +50 2+00
SCALE: HOR I ''= 20'; VERT I ''= 2'
CtDU
I
I
�
�
/
r
I
n
r�
►/
I
�y
G
/ C)
580
57G
572
5G4
5GO
55G
3 +00
n
m r-- WETLAN D WS
T
C
BEACH MN5 5TA 0+44 TO 5TA 2+06
=ALIGNMENT POINT
S R'
I YrIC;AL KIrrLL C:KU55 -')LC I IUN
7.2'
3. G'
BANKFULL STAGE
O
OIL
23'
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
7.2'
1.81 3. G'
BANKFULL STAGE _
0
2 3'
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0
30
60
211
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
O
N
N
O �
J p
CL —
z
O
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
II--
0
z
oC
}
O
Q
0
z_
O
�
(n
w
J
W
>
W
-j
W
cr
Z_
O
()
0�
Z
Q
O
U
L0
O
Z
~
U
Q
Z
Q
W
0�
O
O
U
U
w
U
U
Q m
Q
z O
w ~
Q
C7
z
J
Q
O
Q
o=
IL
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S26

(LLJ
V
590
580
570
560
550
540
AGE
LCE
LCE
REACH MNG-A
(ENHANCEMENT)
LCE
LCE
LICE
00 --el
2+50
Q �� _
i
c � \
/ y
/ A
N
REACH MN9
(PRESERVATION)
D1
131
EXISTING TOP
OF BANK
EXISTING GRADE
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
I I
0+00
V+SV I +VV I +�DV C+VV
SCALE: HOR 1 = 20 ; VERT 1 =4
C+SV
590
:•
570
5GO
550
540
3+50
k
O
LCE
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1"=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
O
N
N
0 �
J p
CL —
z
O
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
Q
z
O
F/-
v!
z
Q
O
U
z
zz
�
_
o
U
Q
z
Q
O
�
w
�
O
�
O
U
U
w
U
U
W Q
z
J
Go
Q
Z 0
w ~
Q
z
J
Q
O
Q
o=
�
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S27

co
co
M
0
w
U)
a,
z
ULO
N
O
(D
0
Cz
O
rr
O
co
U
O
H
LO
(O
N
0
U
m
2
o-
0
co
U
U)
N
cr
o�
W
a
z
REACH MN6-B 5TA 4+ 14 TO 5TA 8+50
/ LC� =ALIGNMENT POINT
�� / �� �� 5.8'
i
L CE N I . 1.61
29 2 BANKFULL STAGE
Ln
- — / / �� ! �cE O k'b0—
0 I / A\ TYPICAL RIFFLE CK055 SECTION
3 + 00 \ /
_ _ _ � � \ REACH MN6-B 29- I
3.0 1.8'
(RESTORATION) /// BANKFULL STAGE
57x� A 0
3k 0 �\ 7 �0 i
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CR055 SECTION
C 1
1 \\ 8y 28-G I 7.2'
O \ \ k 0 28-5 28-7 1.61 3.0
+ 28- I O �� W / (� BANKFULL STAGE
LLJ
J 28-2 ( / r \ �\ o
_ 2.9'
Q ` TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CR055 SECTION
937 28-4 - 6+00
I �y
EX15TING PIPE - a�
TO BE REMOVED
AND DISPOSED OF
�� OFF-51TE - \
7 INSTALL SHALLOW /
DEPRE5510N5 \
(5EE DETAIL D4) b
REACH TR I -D y
(SHEET 59)
Tn __
5GO
55G
552
54(5
544
5GO
55G
552
548
544
3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 G+00 G+50 7+00
SCALE: HOR I "= 20'; VERT I "= 2'
EXI5TING GRADE
PROPOSED
TOP OF BANK
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
/
—
PROP05ED
CI-1ANNEL BED
28-2
28-3
28-4
28-5
28-6
28-7
\ -/.98
1
2.55%
TIE REACH MNG-A INTO
PROPOSED BED OF
I
-2 32% _ _ -
REACII MNG-6ro
\
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1"=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
Q N
0 0
N
oLo
N
J p
CL —
z
O
I..L
I�—/�
V J
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
I—
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
�
w
-
w
Q
Z
W
O
U)0�
Z
Q
O
U
Q
Im
OZ
Cfl
Z
U
Q
Z
Q
O�
w
�
O
�
O
U
ULU
U
w
m
Q
Q
z O
w ~
Q
z
J
Q
O
Ir
I
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S28

c
co
co
M
0
w
a,
z
C/)LO
N
O
cD
0
Cz
0
rr
0
co
U
0
r;
LO
LO
N
0
U
m
0
o-
0
co
U
a)
N
cr
o�
W
a
z
REACH M N 6-B 5TA 4+ 14 TO 5TA 8+ 5 0
�GV S =ALIGNMENT POINT
5.8'
1.8'
BANKFULL STAGE
LCE LC LC INSTALL SHALLOW Ln
LCE DEPRE5510N5
\ (5EE DETAIL D4)
REACH MNG-B TYPICAL RIFFLE CK055 SECTION
- I INSTALL SHALLOW (RESTORATION)
++ c\Z DEPRESSIONS 7.21
Ln — (SEE DETAIL D4)
^� 3.0 1.8'
co
7 BANKFULL STAGE
28-
t-
5+50I OIL
-77
�
�/ \ _
,\ 7+50 k�0 �`� \ 7� \ -- - TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CR055 SECTION
28-3 _ _
\ � a
8 7.2'
i
28-4 / \ / \ / \ / BANKFULL STAGE
28-7 / / \I \ e / 2.9'
TB - TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CK055 SECTION
d
l/
coREACH TRI -D
(5HEET 51 0)
I
CID
REACH MN7 / \\ /�/'\
/ ��y
(SHEET 53 I)
co
55G
552
548
544
540
55G
552
548
544
540
7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00
SCALE: HOR I "= 20'; VERT I "= 2'
EXI5TING GRADE
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
29-1
29-2
PROPOSED
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED
—_ -1.5/%
CHANNEL BED
-0.60-7o
- —
\\—
TIE REACH MNG-B INTO
PROPOSED BED OF
REACH TRI-E
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
O
N
N
O �
J p
CL —
z
O
U
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-
W
Q
Z
O
(n
0�
Z
Q
O
U
Q
m
OZ
(6
Z
U
Q
Z
Q
O
�
w
�
O
�
O
U
U
w
U
U
W Q
Z
Go
Q
Z O
w
Q
z
J
Q
O
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S29

5G4
5GO
55G
552
vC-
REACH MN7
(ENHANCEMENT)
O
-I-
/ m
VGA / �D n
i S6
U
2k00
i A
WETLAND WWx� \ I
\ p1 + 00 / �y SO 9s I ��� \ l
--J
0+00 OA-5cd
u/ l
V
I I
EXI5TING GRADE
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
I
�
I
\
I
EXI5TING TOP
OF BANK
I
—
—�
V
1LJ
1LJ
Q
v
UW
�o
�L
W�0
Q
i
V
U
O
J
0+00
VtDu
I t uu
I t--)V CtVV
SCALE: HOR 1 "= 20'; VERT 1 "= 2'
CtDV
.�fiVV
Ta----4+00----- TB--
31-1
5G4
5GO
55G
552
3+50
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
W
QN
N
O
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL —
z
_O
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
Q
Z_
O
U
Z
Q
O
U
—
O
Z�
c
U
Q
Z
Q
w
0-
O
O
U
LU
U
U
w
m
�
Q
Q
z O
W
Q
z
J
Q
O
Q
�
�
�
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S30

co
co
M
0
w
Q
3
a
z
2
C/)co
rl-
LO
N
0
(D
0
Cz
O
fr
O
co
U
O
H
r`
co
LO
N
0
U
2
0
co
U
U)
N
cr
o�
W
a
z
CD
J
o \-G ��-- r6--'
n
+ 81
00
/ I zm
J (s) m \ \
U REACH TR I -D I
(SHEET 510)
Y so
i
/ w REACH MN7 i / I I INSTALL SHALLOW
/
(ENHANCEMENT) - - - - a1 - - - el / DEPRESSIONS
(SEE DETAIL D4)
m x m I
� I I \_ � —5+50— rB__--- B—'r,-1-00 \
r� \ — —q.+00 — — — r — 4T+� 50 3 —' —its +00— — TB' \
\ 3+50'Te--- __ TB TB-- B--- — — �— —
rB — �— — --+— — 6'X ,�\,
/ - - - _ REACH MNG
- I -I�
(SHEET 525)
'\ l / 1
m
�1 \
e
TB
0 —TB
co
TB
55G
552
548
544
540
55G
552
548
ZL"
CH MN7 INTO
SED BED OF
TRI -D
540
3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 G+00 G+50
SCALE: HOR I "= 20'; VERT I "= 2'
EXI5TING GRADE
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
3 I -2
\
3 1 -3
EXI5TING TOP
OF DANK
I
_
/
_
_
TIE REA
PROPO
REACH
Ores
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
Q N
0 0
N
o�
N
J p
CL —
z
O
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J w
w
w
Q
Z_
O
Z
Q
O
U
ti
O
Z
�
�
U
Q
Z
Q
w
0�
O
O
CU
U
w
U
U
Q m
Q
z O
w ~
Q
z
J
Q
O
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S31

M
0
w
Q
U)
m
it
z
C/)LO
N
O
C7
0
Cz
O
fr
O
co
U
O
H
LO
(O
N
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
a)
N
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=20
0
20
40
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
QN
N
O
N
i— Lo
N
J p
CL
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
o
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
z
O
()
0�
z
Q
O
U
O
z
�
�
U
Q
z
Q
W
0�
O
O
U
U
W
U
U
Q IW
Q
~
z O
~
Q
z
W
J
Q
O
Ir
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S32

dim �H_—ty
J
o
\0 GO
� Sb�
/ 0Y
/ / I // /
<e // / //
/
\ ems\ 1\1
\a \
FENCING LEGEND
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EA5EM ENT
M P,TCh LANE 5hEET F2
EXI5TING FENCELINE—x—x—x—x—x--x—
FROF05ED FENCELINE
FENCING NOTE5:
I . CONTRACTOR TO TIE FROF05ED FENCE
INTO EXI5TING FENCE WHERE APPLICABLE
TO MAINTAIN CATTLE EXCLUSION.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL FENCING
LOCATED WITHIN LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT.
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6j
Q N
0 o
N_
N
O �
J p
z
O
U)
z
O
0
LL
1-
O
z
O
0Y
0
z
z
O
U)
U)
Q
W
J
L1J
Q
z
LL1
J
O
�n
V
O
U
Q
z
�
O
Q
z
LL
z
Q
z
U
O
::)
z
0�
0
w
O
U
LL
U
w
U
CU
m
Q
F-
Q
O
U ~
G
Z
JV`
Q
O
LL
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
F 1

C
N
(rs
J
FENCING LEGEND
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT LICE
EXISTING FENCELINE—x—x—x—x—x—x—
PROPOSED FENCELINE
FENCING NOTES:
I . CONTRACTOR TO TIE PROPOSED FENCE WETLAND WP
INTO EXISTING FENCE WHERE APPLICABLE
TO MAINTAIN CATTLE EXCLUSION.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL FENCING
LOCATED WITHIN LIMITS OF CONSERVATION REACI-1 M N 5—B REACH M N 5—A
EASEMENT.
WETLAND WT
hEE� F I REACH TR2 I N5TALL 23,240 LF OF
MATCH SINE 5 WOVEN WIDE FENCE
SEE DETAIL 5MEET D2
TB
a � _
• I •/�Y I �., ��m`_�\ 1 '" � \/tea \`
WETLAND WL
T.
91
REACH M N9
WETLAND WM '
\ 14 \
\, REACM TIC I —D \r
a\
REACM TIC I —C WETLAND WO
\ a \\
/ REACM M N 6—A
l
s
REACH TR I —C
WETLAND W5
.,;
I
\\tee\\ II/>
••, ,.
\ REACM MN 6—B
• , , , gel\ ,. ///
— � e
a I
\mo
WETLAND WICIN
� 1 � � ��el\ I!
l
/
WETLAND WC)' • ; : ; ,\
0 �/m a �\
REACH M N 7 ' / \ LLJ
L1
—_j
1
f'
/
I
I r
m
WETLAND WW
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
W
Q N
0 o
N_
N
O �
J p
o_
Z
O
I—
U)
Z
O
O
LL
H
Z
O
0�
Z
0
Z
O
U)
(n
Q
LU
J
L1J
z
LiJ
J
O
z
Q
O
U
Q
z
z
LL
z
Q
z
U
0�
O
w
O
U
LL
LLI
U
CU
w
Q m
Q
~
O
U ~
G
Z
J
Q
O
<
M
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
F2

C
LL
LQ
LQ
Z
LQ
J
Y
Q
J
cKgL SP�I
� NCD0 NGS RD
(�
FENCING LEGEND
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT LCE
EXISTING FENCELINE
PROPOSED FENCELINE
FENCING NOTES:
I . CONTRACTOR TO TIE PROPOSED FENCE
INTO EXISTING FENCE WHERE APPLICABLE
TO MAINTAIN CATTLE EXCLUSION.
2. CONTRACTOR 511ALL REMOVE ALL FENCING
LOCATED WITHIN LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT.
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6j
Q N
0 o
N_
N
O �
J p
Z
O
U
H
U)
Z
O
U
O
LL
O
Z
O
LL
Q
66
0
Z
z
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
W
W
Q
z
�J
O
C/)
0�
O
U
Q
z
�
O
Q
z
LL
z
Q
z
U
�
w
p
O
U
LL
LLI
U
CU
w
Q
z
w
J
H
O�
Q
Z
W
J
Q
O
Q
M
o_
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
F3

WETLAND WA
r"'_��cF
LLJ
_ 4C
Ta _al\ \
�ai /
\\`TB
PLANTING LEGEND
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION LCE
EASEMENT
EXISTING TREELINE
PROPERTY LINE
RIPARIAN PLANTING - ZONE I
(TOTAL AREA: 2 1. 1 AC)
RIPARIAN PLANTING - ZONE 2
(TOTAL AREA: 4.2 AC)
PLANTING TABLE
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Virginia Wildrye
Elymus virgrnicus
1 5%
Switchgrass
Panicum virgatum
1 5%
Little bluestem
Schizachyrium scoparium
1 5%
Blackeyed Susan
Rudbeckia hirta
1 0%
Oxeye sunflower
llehopsis hehanthoides
1 0%
Eastern bottlebush
Elymus hystrix
1 0%
Beaked panic grass
Panicum anceps
1 0%
Lurid sedge
Carex lunch
5%
Frank's sedge
Carex franks
5%
Swamp milkweed
Asclepias incarnate
3%
Smooth goldenrod
Solidago giganteo
2%
Live 5takincj and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
20%
Elderberry
3ambucu3 canaden3i3
20%
Black willow
Salix nigra
GO%
Bare Root Planting Tree Species - Zone I
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
American Sycamore
Plantanus occidentalis
1 0%
Willow Oak
Quercus phehos
1 0%
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
1 0%
Northern red oak
Quercus rubra
1 0%
White oak
Quercus alba
1 0%
River birch
Betula nigra
1 0%
American elm
Ulmus americana
1 0%
Hackberry
Celtic leavgata
5%
Tulip poplar
Linodendron tulipifera
5%
ronwood
Carpinus carohniana
5%
Northern spicebush
Lindera benzoin
1 0%
Persimmon
Dio3pyros virginiana
5%
Bare Root Planting Tree Species - Zone 2
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
1 5%
Willow Oak
Quercus phelio3
1 5%
American Sycamore
Platanus occidentals
1 0%
River birch
Betula nigra
1 0%
American elm
Ulmu.s americana
1 0%
Hackberry
Celtis leavigato
1 0%
Black willow
3alix nigra
5%
Green ash
Fraxinu3 penn3ylvanica
5%
Possumhaw
ilex decidua
1 0%
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
5%
Buttonbush
Cephalanthu3 occidentalis
5%
PLANTING NOTES
ALL PLANTING AREAS
I . EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION
IS ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE
FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.
2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10
WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN.
3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE HARROWED TO A DEPTH OF 3 — 4 INCHES PRIOR TO SEEDING.
ANY DISTURBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR HARROWING BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER.
4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RIPPED ALONG TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS WITH A SUBSOILER
PRIOR TO BARE ROOT PLANTING. 5UB501LER DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 1 2 INCHES AND
SPACING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF GFT. ANY DISTURBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR RIPPING BY
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER.
5. ALL NON -FORESTED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT SHALL BE RIPPED ALONG
TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS WITH A 5UB501LER PRIOR TO BARE ROOT PLANTING. 5UB501LER
DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES AND SPACING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF GFT. ANY
DISTURBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR RIPPING BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY
THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER.
G. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D4. LIVE
STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D4.
7. BARE ROOT AND LIVE STAKE TREE SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO THE TABLE
SHOWN TO THE LEFT, BUT SPECIES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BASED ON AVAILABILITY.
8. TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN G" DBH SHALL
BE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.
9. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO G PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES ARE
GROUPED TOGETHER.
10. BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY 15 APPROXIMATELY 800 STEMS PER ACRE.
1 1. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH
BANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.
12. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS PER EROSION CONTROL
SHEETS.
13, PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND ALL PROPOSED PLANTING AREAS AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
PERMANENT FESCUE SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
501L AMENDMENTS SHALL BE APPLIED TO RIPARIAN PLANTING AREA PER SOIL TESTS OR APPLY
2,000 LB/ACRE GROUND AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE AND 1,000 LB/ACRE 1 0- 1 0- 10 FERTILIZER.
> ' >
LINE 5NEET P2
M p,T Ch
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100 200
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I\
W
QN
Q o
N
O �
J p
Z
O
H
U
V)
z
O
Of
O
LL
O
Z
OC
�
O
ILL
Q
Z
o
z
O
Lu
Cn
Lu
LU
Lu
cr
ED
Cc
o_
Q
z
w
�O
U)
Z
Q
O
CU
=
z
(D
J
O
Z
�
O
>
Z
�
Q
Z
O::)
z
�
O
J
O
C)
U
w
U
U
w Q
ZLu
coCQC
z
O
U
G
Z
Lu
J
Q
O
:
IL
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
P 1

J
WETLAND WP
SKEET P I f�EACh Tf�2
LCE
a
—
1
— � 8
WETLAND WL - -
k,_��
WETLAND WM
IREACI­1 TIC I -C
PLANTING NOTES
ALL PLANTING AREAS
1 . EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL
PERMANENT VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN
ISSUED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT
THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONING
PROPERLY.
2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED
WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT
VEGETATION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10
WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL
PLAN.
3. ALL DISTUKBED AREAS SHALL BE HARROWED TO A DEPTH OF 3 — 4 INCHES PRIOR
TO SEEDING. ANY DISTUKBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR HARROWING BY THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER.
4. ALL DISTUKBED AREAS SHALL BE RIPPED ALONG TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS WITH
A 5UB50ILEF PRIOR TO BARE ROOT PLANTING. 5UB50ILEP DEPTH SHALL BE A
MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES AND SPACING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF GFT. ANY
DISTURBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR RIPPING BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER.
5. ALL NON -FORESTED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT SHALL BE
RIPPED ALONG TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS WITH A 5UB50ILEP PRIOR TO BARE
ROOT PLANTING. 5U650ILEK DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES AND
SPACING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF GFT. ANY DISTURBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT
FOR RIPPING BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION
PM AND ENGINEER.
G. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON
SHEET D4. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON
SHEET D4.
7. BARE ROOT AND LIVE STAKE TREE SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO
THE TABLE SHOWN TO THE LEFT, BUT SPECIES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BASED ON
AVAILABILITY.
6. TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN
G" DBH SHALL BE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.
9. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO G PLANTS OF THE SAME
SPECIES ARE GROUPED TOGETHER.
10. BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 500 STEMS PER ACRE.
1 1. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND
ALONG BOTH BANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.
12. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS PER EROSION
CONTROL SHEETS.
13. PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS
WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND ALL PROPOSED PLANTING AREAS AT
A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
14. PERMANENT FESCUE SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS
OUTSIDE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
15. SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE APPLIED TO RIPARIAN PLANTING AREA PER SOIL
TESTS OR APPLY 2,000 LB/ACRE GROUND AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE AND 1,000
LB/ACRE 1 0- 1 0- 10 FERTILIZER.
PLANTING TABLE
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Virginia Wildrye
Elymus virjinicus
1 5%
Switchgrass
Parncum virgatum
1 5%
Little bluestem
Schizachyrium scoparium
1 5%
Blackeyed Susan
Rudbeckia hirta
1 0%
Oxeye sunflower
1lehop5i3 hehanthoides
1 0%
Eastern bottlebush
Elymus hystrix
1 0%
Beaked panic grass
Parncum anceps
1 0%
Lurid sedge
Carex lurida
5%
Frark's sedge
Carex franks
5%
Swamp milkweed
Asclepias incarnate
3%
Smooth goldenrod
Sohdago gigantea
2%
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
20%
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
20%
Black willow
Sahx rngra
GO%
Bare Root Planting Tree 51510GIe5 - Zone I
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
American Sycamore
Plantanus ocadental,s
10,70
Willow Oak
Quercus phehos
10,70
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauwi
10,70
Northern red oak
Quercus rubra
1070
White oak
Quercus albo
10,70
River birch
Betula rngra
10,70
American elm
Ulmus americana
10,70
Hackberry
Celtic Ieavigata
576
Tulip poplar
briodendron tuhpifera
576
Ironwood
Carptnus carollmana
576
Northern spicebush
Lndera benzoin
0%
Persimmon
Diospyros virgmiana
576
Bare Root Planting Tree Species - Zone 2
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
1 5%
Willow Oak
Quercus phehos
1 5%
American Sycamore
Platanus occidentahs
10
River birch
Betula mgra
1 0%
American elm
Ulmus americana
1 0%
Hackberry
Celtic leavigata
1 0%
Black willow
Salix rngra
5%
Green ash
Proxrnus pennsylvarnca
5%
Possumhaw
ilex decidua
1 0%
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
5%
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus ocudentalis
5%
PLANTING
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
EXISTING TREELINE
PROPERTY LINE
RIPARIAN PLANTING - ZONE 2
(TOTAL AREA: 4.2 AC)
L I -
� pF
9�
\
m
\
—tea
1�\
LU
1
�JI
I
,
-LAND WQ ' • " �^ -
REACh M N 7
Y
0 /
LCE
1
I r-
N^e1
91 \ 0 0Y
/
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
w
Q N
0 o
N_
N
O �
J p
Z
O
I—
C)
U)
Z
O
U
0
LL
I—
z
0=
i
�
�
Q
66
0
Z
Z
O
U)
(n
W
J
W
W
W
Q
z
LL1
J
O
O
U
z
Q
O
z
V ffinn
>
z
0
z
z
O�
z
�
O
Q
00
LLI
U
CU
w
Q W
Q
ll—
O
U ~
G
Z
Lu
J
Q
O
M
E
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
P2

PLANTING LEGEND
PLANTING NOTES
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
ALL PLANTING AREAS
LCE
EASEMENT
1 . EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION
IS ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT
EXISTING TREELINE
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE
FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.
PROPERTY LINE — —
2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10
RIPARIAN PLANTING - ZONE I
WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE IN
(TOTAL AREA: 2 1. 1 AC)
ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN.
RIPARIAN PLANTING - ZONE 2
3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE HARROWED TO A DEPTH OF 3 - 4 INCHES PRIOR TO SEEDING.
(TOTAL AREA: 4.2 AC)
ANY DISTURBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR HARROWING BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER.
4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RIPPED ALONG TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS WITH A 5UB501LER
PRIOR TO BARE ROOT PLANTING. 5U5501LER DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES AND
SPACING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF GIFT. ANY DISTURBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR RIPPING BY
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER.
5. ALL NON -FORESTED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT SHALL BE RIPPED ALONG
TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS WITH A SUBSOILER PRIOR TO BARE ROOT PLANTING. 5U55OILER
DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES AND SPACING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF GFT. ANY
DISTURBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR RIPPING BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY
THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER.
G. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D4. LIVE
STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D4.
7. BARE ROOT AND LIVE STAKE TREE SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO THE TABLE
SHOWN TO THE LEFT. BUT SPECIES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BASED ON AVAILABILITY.
8. TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LE55 THAN G" DBH SHALL
BE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.
REACH M N 8 9. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO G PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES ARE
GROUPED TOGETHER.
10. BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY 15 APPROXIMATELY 600 STEMS PER ACRE.
1 1. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH
BANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.
2 TEMPORARY SEED M S A BE APPLIED TO A D STURBED AREA5 PER ERGS O CONTROL \ I IX H LL LI ALL I N L
WffTL N D U SHEETS
13. PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE
/ - -- CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND ALL PROPOSED PLANTING AREA5 AT A RATE OF 15 LB5/ACRE.
LCE LCE 14. PERMANENT FESCUE SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LB5/ACRE.
LQ
LU m LCE _ \ \ i ` 15. 501L AMENDMENTS SHALL BE APPLIED TO RIPARIAN PLANTING AREA PER 501L TESTS OR APPLY
2,000 LB/ACRE GROUND AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE AND 1,000 LB/ACRE 10- 10- 10 FERTILIZER.
co
LQ
-_
� 7�
L - �� v
v �CF
LEACH TI -E
C�
9 TB 1
I /
\ I I
r ti
` 10
i
m
� m
I
m
m �
rm 1
WETLAND WV
r
BEACH TK I -F
M/NER '
,� L
3H0�
(G0/ N SP�I//GS
�ooT �o �d
V V)
PLANTING TABLE
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Virginia Wildrye
Elymus virgmicus
1 5%
5witchgra55
Panicum virgatum
1 5%
Little bluestem
Schizachyrvum scopanum
1 5%
Blackeyed Susan
Rudbeckia hirta
1 0%
Oxeye sunflower
llehop3i3 hehanthoide3
1 0%
Eastern bottlebush
Elymus hystrix
1 0%
Beaked panic grass
Panicum ancep3
1 0%
Lurid sedge
Carex lunch
5%
Frank's sedge
Carex franks
5%
Swamp milkweed
A3clepias mcarnata
3%
Smooth goldenrod
3olidago gigantea
2%
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Silky dogwood
Cornu3 amomum
20%
Elderberry
5ambucu3 canaden31s
20%
Black willow
Salix rngra
GO%
Bare Root Planting Tree Species - Zone I
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
American Sycamore
Plantanus occidentoh5
1 0%
Willow Oak
Quercus phehos
1 0%
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
1 0%
Northern red oak
Quercus rubra
1 0%
White oak
Quercus alba
1 0%
River birch
Betula nigra
1 0%
American elm
Ulmus americans
1 0%
Hackberry
Ce1t15leavigata
5%
Tulip poplar
Linodendron tuhpifera
5%
Ironwood
Carpinus carohniana
5%
Northern 5picebu5h
Lmdera benzoin
1 0%
Persimmon
Diospyros virgmiana
5%
Bare Root Planting Tree Species - Zone 2
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Overcup oak
Quercu3 lyrata
1 5%
Willow Oak
Quercus phelios
1 5%
American Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
1 0%
River birch
Betula nigra
1 0%
American elm
Ulmus amercana
1 0%
Hackberry
Celtic leavigata
1 0%
Black willow
Salix nigra
5%
Green ash
Fraxmus pennsylvanica
5%
Possumhaw
ilex decidua
1 0%
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
5%
Buttonbush
Cephalanthue occidentahs
1 5%
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100 200
211 — FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I\
W
QN
o
Lo
N
J p
Z
O
D
V)
Z
O
Of
O
LL
O
lcl�
IL
Z
0
Z
O
Lu
c/
U)
Lu
LU
Cr
C
z
w
�O
U)
z
Q
O
CU
z
(D
J
O
z
C
fn
z
Q
z
O�
z
z
�
O
J
O
C)
U
w
U
U
w Q
zLu
coCQC
z
O
U
G
Z
Lu
J
Q
O
Q
tr
aC
IL
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
P3

J
rl-'-�
LLJ
4C
/
It e----- --
LEACH TIC I —A
2
37
�Ol gm v
<I c
\
a \
i \ 'cF
\ ra \
41
\ \a
LEACH MN I —B
\
vvv m�
vI vvv C'�/ �
�
WP
0
REACH MN I —A :: , ,9; T ; ��� oy
�l
Ikk
> GClt
� / \
J \ \
i�
U% e1-----H1---al----> A
Ts—
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
I
s0 BEACH MN2—B
-M t --4 1 svf
/ , I�•• e1 J I
i CE
/
\ m �
Im
/
i /
ata
\ I \ m
/
REACH M N 2 —A
/
\a \
d \re\ \1\\ \
Te\Iv\ \el X >
CCF
WETLAND LEGEND
EX15TING WETLAND5
++++
WETLAND REHABILITATION: 1.59 AC + + + +
WETLAND CREATION: 5. 1 3 AC
WETLAND PRESERVATION (NO CREDIT): 0. 14 AC
WH
BEACH TIC I —C
Ell
C
V N—\'bJ 01—'^\. 911\
,Y/ \
x•k ''tom /�/
LLJ
J
Te (
r
WC
WD
I\\
�C ' : - �/
0
\�\ �fI
�,
G� '/
/
I'� v
8
BEACH M N4—A
937
Al ,
937
AC H M N 3
\,
BEACH M N4—B
> ; >
�
NE 5HEET W2
,/ mY
MATCh
/ m
/
el
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
W
Q N
0 o
N
N
0 �
J p
z
0
U)
z
0
0
LL
z
0
NNN1
66
0
z
0
U)
U)
Q
W
J
L1J
Q
z
W
�O
C/)
0�
U
`O
1
Z
V
O
5
0
Q
O::)
O
W
O
U
w
U
CU
LLI
Q
Z
J
2
F-
O
CQ
H
G
Q
F-
Z
W
J
Q
0
Q
M
o_
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
W 1

IWPI
MATCINE SKEET W I
h U ;,
LC \ \
E \\ \
X + - TB - \
m
X 9f
J
�ID,
LEACH MN5-B
�CF ,
'
\ L
\
�Sza1
iwoi
W5 1
937
0, \
� re/
/
r
j///
., .x. x x I
X'x' z i 'x' 1
x x .X,
x 'x • �/
X
\\\ i lcF
LEACH MN9
D
/ �C,
\lei
a
`81 T8 181 \\
81 1 Te \9
\e 8f \
Ix,x..x \
WR
X x —\
+X+ x c
it
� 81
\1 `\
�-� 81\`
8
LCE
W
(3,
Lu
U
_J
LCE
i-i
rn
WETLAND LEGEND
EXISTING WETLANDS
WETLAND REHABILITATION: 1.59 AC
WETLAND CREATION: 5. 1 3 AC
WETLAND PRESERVATION (NO CREDIT): 0. 14 AC
LEACH M N G-A
SCE
SCE
u
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
W
Q N
0 o
N
O �
J p
o_
Z
O
I—
C)
U)
Z
O
O
LL
I—
Z
tr
�
LL
Q
0
Z
z
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
z
�J
O
C/)
0�
O
U
=
z
Q
O
G
0
Q
O::)
O
w
O
U
w
U
U
W Q
z
J
H
Z O
CQ
~
G
Q
O
Z
w
J
�
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
W2

J
LCE LCE
LCE
4 J
LCE-
�� I� LCE - � , 'w'v v
- ���,��,(/I//vv v v
I V�� v��AVAV,�� \\ V ii�--
T6—1e
-
\`w`VIW
NNN
I--_ a
1
r —�
REACH M N 8
\\
i
ij
r
//�(o
I /
� I
el
I \
`l
W
U m
J \
Im
I
937
I ,
M/ \3Ho 9J7
NEKq ��3�0,
(GGIIVSPRINGS
C�
BEACH TR I -F
WETLAND LEGEND
EX15TING WETLAND5 ; ........
WETLAND REHABILITATION: 1.59 AC + + + +
WETLAND CREATION: 5. 1 3 AC 2
WETLAND PRESERVATION (NO CREDIT): 0. 14 AC
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100 200
2 — FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
u.i
Q N
0 o
N_
N
O �
J p
Z
O
U)
Z
O
O
LL
Z
O
0�
LL
66
0
Z
Z
O
U)
U)
W
J
w
Q
wz
J
�
O
C/)
0�
U
`O
1
Z
V
w
�O
Z
0
O
�
�
O
w
O
�
U
w
U
CU
Q
Z
J
2
Q
~
O
2i
i—
Q
O
Z
W
J
Q
O
Q
M
IL
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
W3

U)
(D
Z
U)
U)
0
LO
U
N
c�
r)
ro
O
Ir
O
U
U
Cz
O
FT
(`
LO
N
0
U
a�
2
ro
U
N
ui
Q
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I\
li.i
QN
Q O
Lo
N
J p
Z
O
U
I—
U)
Z
O
U
IY
O
LL
1—
O
z
O
Q
Z
0
Z
O_
Lu
c/
w
w
w
w
Cr
CC
Q_
Q
Z
�J
-O
U)
cl�
Z
Q
O
U
-
_
Q
(D
z
z
U)
o
>
Q
C)
z
U
O
�
0�
O
O
U
U
w
U
U
w
z
Lu
M< W
Z
O
C<
C
U
Z
Lu
J
Q
O
I
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
x 1

I � -
i C
D°
D° D°
`00
°
— I
°
— — —7GAw + —
REACH TRI -C
(SHEET SG)
MAT UPSTREAM AND
DOWNSTREAM FACE OF
CULVERT /
(SEE SHEET D2)
x x—x�x�xx�X
�x—x�x�x
580
EXISTING
GROUND
575 o
>
J o
w >
� w
w
+
0 0
Q
570
Pf
I I I I I --
LOW PT. STA: 0+72.40
LOW PT ELEV: 5G9.92
PROPOSED 71 " x 47" CMPA
(BURIED 0.4' BELOW GRADE)
_I
e�
36+00 7-1
�D
X�
x/
PROPOSED 40 LF OF
7 1 " x 47" CMPA
US INV = 5G8.75'
DS INV = 5G8.09'
(PIPE BURIED 5") �\
HIGH PT. STA: 1 +58.55
HIGH PT ELEV: 573.88
m
0
PROPOSED
�' GROUND
>
w
L
+- — o
II Ln
I I
580
575
F >I V- II
N w LU
1 5" MIN. _ m J LU
COVER +
GSg01_ Q + N
c (S)
2.22�0
570
_ INSTALL BEDDING PER
MANUFACTURERS
SPECIFICATIONS LOW PT. STA: 2+45.73
LOW PT ELEV: 5G9.91
7.9' MIN.
0+00 0+50 1 +00 1 +50 2+00
SCALE: I10R 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3'
ROAD P ISO I= I LE
575
570
5G5
34
2+50
BED ELEVATION
CULVERT US
EARTH
FILL
#5 WASHED
------------
STONE
-
G" DEEP
= 5G8.,
INV. = 5Gt
IDS
INV.
=
=
5G9.
5G8.751
1 5'
_
BED
CULVERT
ELEVATION
3' MIN. I —
INSTALL
BELOW
CLAY PLUG
CULVERT
2 FEET
INVERT
—
+50 35+00
35+50
36+00 36+
SCALE: HOR 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3'
PIPE FKOI=1 LE
575
19'
.09'
570
5G5
IN
3 +00
y
1
i
a0+00
sy �
i
i
PROPOSED 40 LF OF a `
83" X 57" CMPA
US INV = 539.98'
IDS INV = 539.G I' 'Cl
(PIPE BURIED 5") Q�
HIGH PT. STA: I +G7.73
HIGH PT ELEV: 54G.5 I
550 0
EXISTING v
GROUNDLn
w
o w
Ln O N N
i
EXISTING PIPE TO BE
REMOVED AND DISPOSED
OF OFF -SITE
i
i
REACH TR I -E
(SHEET 51 1)
MAT UPSTREAM AND
DOWNSTREAM FACE OF
CULVERT
(SEE SHEET D2)
n PROPOSED
+ GROUND
II II
N
Ln
N
N
+
Q
U�
tL
N
Ln
IT
Ln
Ln
II
Q I
T
J
w
w
14" MIN.
3
545
w
o
COVER
20q
\
+
o
Ln
+
+
�10
Q
o
o
\
��2
----
I
LOW PT. STA: 0+G0.70 '
LOW PT ELEV: 54 1 .95
540
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN
\ (US OF CROSSING)
PROPOSED 83" x 57" CMPA 8.9' MIN.
(BURIED 0.4' BELOW GRADE)
I I I
INSTALL BEDDING PER
MANUFACTURERS
SPECIFICATIONS
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
SCALE: HOR 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3'
ROAD P ISO I= I LE
550
545
540
I
SCALE: HOR 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3'
PIPE FROFI LE
550
545
.01'
19.G 1'
540
50
k 550
545
540
2+95
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I\
li.i
QN
o
OLo
N
J p
Z
O
D
H
U)
Z
O
IY
O
LL
1--
0
Z
O
Q
Z
0
Z
O
Lu
c/
w
w
w
w
Cr
CC
Q_
Q
z
�J
-
O
U)
0�
z
Q
O
CU
Q
LD
z
0
�
z
�
o
>
C)
Q
z
U
O
�
O
O
C)
U
w
U
U
w Q
z
coCQC
z
O
U
G
Z
Lu
J
Q
O
Q
Ir
aC
IL
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
X2

Lei
4
Q4 Q4 �
REACH MN2 0>
(SHEET S 1 9) O
a k
�Qa
\\ 6+00
ca
\ re t
JPSTREAM AND
REAM FACE OF
CULVERT
SEE SHEET D2
G25
Lfl
\ >
\ w
\ W—
\ Ln
\ +
� o
G20
91
i
i
i
1 9-3
TB
TB
"—PROPOSED 30 LF OF
G4" x 43" CMPA
US INV = G I I .G4'
DSINV =G11.42'
i1O , (PIPE BURIED 5")
Ar
G25
ii
+ EXISTING
N Q , GROUND
G 20
Q
� 3C0\0
9tj'
PROPOSED
GROUND
PROPOSED G4" x 43" CMPA \
(BURIED 0.4' BELOW GRADE) V�"MIN,LOW PT. STA: I +35.30
G 15 LOW PT ELEV: G 15.92 G 15
PROPOSED FLOODPLAINLL BEDDING PER(US OF CROSSING)FACTURERS
FICATIONS
7.3' MIN.
0+00
575
0+50 1 +00
SCALE: HOP, 1
ROAD
EARTH FILL
BED ELEVATION = G 1 2.04'
CULVERT US INV. = G I I .G4'
1 +50 2+00 2+50
"=301; VERT 1 "=3'
PISOI=I LE
575
#5 WASHED STONE - G" DEEP
`---== = ______ 7_ 1
BED ELEVATION = G 1 1 .82'
CULVERT DS INV. = G 1 1 .42'
570
5G5
34+50
31' MINI.
` —
570
5G5
INSTALL CLAY
BELOW
PLUG
CULVERT
2 FEET
INVERT
—
35+00
SCALE: HOR
35+50
1 "=30';
VERT 1
3G+00
"=3'
3G+50
PIPE FK01=1 LE
_O•
595
590
v
Ln
I I
PROPOSED
w
/
GROUND
m
N
+
—
�
Ln
I I
>
w�
to
o
i
0
2
75o
— — —
I G" MIN.
COVER
i
—
—
—
—
i
EXISTING
PROPOSED 30" CMP
\
GROUND
(BURIED 0.3' BELOW GRADE)
INSTALL BEDDING PER
MANUFACTURERS —
SPECIFICATIONS
4.5' MIN.
0+00 0+50
GOO -1 1 '
I fiVV I fi7V
SCALE: HOR 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3'
ROAD PISOI=I LE
_ IFEEmumbe
MEN� : 1 . -
#5 WASHED STONE - G" DEEP
EARTH FILL
BED ELEVATION = 589.89'
CULVERT DS INV. = 589.59'
ONTO]
595
590
INSTALL CLAY PLUG 2 FEET \
BELOW CULVERT INVERT
1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50
SCALE: HOR 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3'
PIPE FROEILE
0
3' MIN.
WE
595
590
2+50
— 7-13
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite
100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I\
li.i
QN
o
Ln
N
J p
Z
O
U
Z
O
U
IY
LL
1--
0
O
0�
u_
Q
Z
0
Z
O_
Lu
v5
w
LU
w
w
Cr
CC
0_
Q
z
�J
—
O
U)
cl�
z0
U
(D
F—
=
z
()
U)
O
O
z
0�
U
Q
z
z
2
�
O
06
O
U
N
U
LU
z
U
w Q
z
J
O
CaC
H
~
G
Q
C3
z
w
J
Q
O
Q
aC
I
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
X3

TEMPORARY SEEDING SCHEDULE - FALL / EARLY WINTER TEMPORARY SEEDING - LATE WINTER / EARLY SPRING
SEEDING MIXTURE SEEDING MIXTURE
SPECIES RATE (LB/ACRE) SPECIES RATE (LB/ACRE)
• STERILE TRITICALE GO • STERILE TRITICALE GO
• WINTER WHEAT GO • SPRING OATS GO
SEEDING DATES
• MOUNTAINS: AUG. 15 - FEB. I
• COASTAL PLAIN AND PIEDMONT: SEPT. 15 - JAN. 30
501L AMENDMENTS
FOLLOW 501L TESTS OR APPLY 2,000 LB/ACRE GROUND AGRICULTURAL
LIMESTONE AND 1,000 LB/ACRE 10-10-10 FERTILIZER.
MULCH
APPLY 4,000 LB/ACRE STRAW. ANCHOR STRAW BY TACKING WITH NETTING OR
A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL. A DI5K WITH BLADES SET NEARLY STRAIGHT CAN
BE USED AS A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL.
MAINTENANCE
REPAIR AND REFERTILIZE DAMAGED AREAS IMMEDIATELY. TOPDRE55 WITH 50
LB/ACRE OF NITROGEN IN MARCH. IF IT 15 NECESSARY TO EXTEND TEMPORARY
COVER BEYOND JUNE 15, OVER5EED WITH 50 LB/ACRE WINTER WHEAT IN LATE
FEBRUARY OR EARLY MARCH.
GENERAL NOTES:
SEEDING DATES
• MOUNTAINS: FEB. I - MAY I
• PIEDMONT: JAN. I - MAY I
• COASTAL PLAIN: DEC. I - APR. 15
SOIL AMENDMENTS
FOLLOW RECOMMENDATION OF 501L TESTS OR APPLY 2,000 LB/ACRE
GROUND AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE AND 750 LB/ACRE 10-10-10 FERTILIZER.
MULCH
APPLY 4,000 LB/ACRE STRAW. ANCHOR STRAW BY TACKING WITH NETTING OR
A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL. A DISK WITH BLADES SET NEARLY STRAIGHT CAN
BE USED AS A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL.
MAINTENANCE
RE -FERTILIZE IF GROWTH 15 NOT FULLY ADEQUATE. RESEED, RE -FERTILIZE AND
MULCH IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING EROSION OR OTHER DAMAGE.
I . REVIEW CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FOR ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. ALL PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY
EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES (I.E CHECK DAMS, SILT FENCE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES) SHALL BE
INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAND -DISTURBING ACTIVITY.
2. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AREAS SHOWN ARE TO GUIDE CONTRACTOR DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL
COORDINATE WITH ENGINEER IF ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES WILL IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF
CONSTRUCTION.
3. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SEEDED PER THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE SEEDING SCHEDULE
SHOWN ON THI5 SHEET.
4. CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM 501L TESTING TO DETERMINE VEGETATIVE VIABILITY PRIOR TO LAND DISTURBANCE.
5. MULCH: APPLY 2 TONS/ACRE GRAIN STRAW AND ANCHOR STRAW ON ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS.
G. EROSION CONTROL:
A. INSTALL PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER AND THE LONG-TERM EROSION PROTECTION MEASURES OR STRUCTURES AS
DIRECTED BY ENGINEER UPON CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION. APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE
PLACED BETWEEN THE DISTURBED AREA AND AFFECTED WATERWAY AND MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENTLY VEGETATED.
B. PROVIDE FOR HANDLING THE INCREASED RUNOFF CAUSED BY CHANGED 501L AND SURFACE CONDITIONS. USE
EFFECTIVE MEANS TO CONSERVE EXISTING ON -SITE SOIL CONDITIONS.
C. DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING
DAY. USE TEMPORARY PLANT COVER, MULCHING, AND/OR STRUCTURES TO CONTROL RUNOFF AND PROTECT AREAS
SUBJECT TO EROSION DURING CONSTRUCTION.
D. ALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROLS ARE TO BE INSPECTED AT LEAST ONCE EVERY SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS AND
AFTER ANY STORM EVENT OF GREATER THAN 1.0 INCHES OF PRECIPITATION DURING ANY 24-HOUR PERIOD.
MAINTENANCE OF SEDIMENT TRAPPING STRUCTURES SHALL BE PERFORMED AS NECESSARY PER THESE INSPECTIONS.
SILT FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
E. STABILIZATION MEASURES SHALL BE INITIATED AT THE END OF EACH DAY IN PORTIONS OF THE 51TE WHERE
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES HAVE TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED. GROUNDCOVER MUST BE ESTABLISHED
PER THE "GROUND COVER SCHEDULE" SHOWN ON THI5 SHEET IN AREAS WHERE CONSTRUCTION HAS TEMPORARILY
CEASED. ALL AREAS WHERE FINAL GRADE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SHALL BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED WITHIN 2
CALENDAR DAYS.
F. CONTRACTOR MUST TAKE THE NECESSARY ACTION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TIRE WASHING STATIONS AT EACH
ACCESS POINT TO MINIMIZE THE TRACKING OF MUD ONTO THE PAVED ROADWAY FROM CONSTRUCTION AREAS.
DAILY REMOVAL OF MUD/SOIL MAY BE REQUIRED.
G. ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THE
COMPLETION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND ALL DISTURBED AREAS HAVE BEEN STABILIZED. ADDITIONAL
CONTROL DEVICES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO CONTROL ER0510N AND/OR OFF 51TE
SEDIMENTATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY CONTROL DEVICES ONCE CONSTRUCTION 15
COMPLETE AND THE 51TE 15 STABILIZED.
H. EROSION CONTROL MATTING SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL BANKS FROM APPROXIMATELY 2.0'
TO 3.0' ABOVE TOP OF BANK DOWN TO CHANNEL TOE.
I. SILT FENCING TO BE INSTALLED AROUND INDICATED STOCKPILE AREAS TO PREVENT L055 OF SEDIMENT. STOCKPILE
AREAS MAY BE RELOCATED UPON APPROVAL FROM ENGINEER.
J. ASPHALT TACKIFIER SHALL NOT BE USED.
K. WETLANDS/STREAMS CANNOT BE ENCROACHED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IF NOT APPROVED AS DESIGNATED
I M PACT AREAS.
L. ACTIVITIES MUST AVOID DISTURBANCE OF WOODY RIPARIAN VEGETATION WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA TO THE
GREATEST EXTENT PRACTICABLE. REMOVAL OF VEGETATION MUST BE LIMITED TO ONLY THAT NECESSARY FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNEL.
M. NO ON51TE BURIAL OF VEGETATION OR CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS WILL BE PERMITTED. VEGETATIVE DEBRIS SHALL BE
STOCKPILED AND DISPOSED OF ONSITE PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
N. ANY GRADING BEYOND THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHOWN ON THE PLAN 15 A VIOLATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE, AND 15 SUBJECT TO A FINE.
0. PLEASE REFERENCE PLAN SHEET DETAILS AND NCDENR STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES.
P. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES RELATED TO THE
CONSTRUCTION SITE.
Q. THE LOCATIONS OF SOME EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY HAVE TO BE ALTERED FROM TH05E SHOWN ON THE
PLANS IF DRAINAGE PATTERNS CHANGE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
R. IF IT 15 DETERMINED DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT SIGNIFICANT SEDIMENT 15 LEAVING THE SITE
(DESPITE THE PROPER IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES), THE PERSON
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY 15 OBLIGATED TO TAKE ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE ACTION.
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
TEMPORARY SEEDING - LATE SPRING / SUMMER
SEEDING MIXTURE
SPECIES RATE (LB/ACRE)
• BROWNTOP MILLET' 20
• PARTRIDGE PEA 20
`IN THE PIEDMONT AND MOUNTAINS, A SMALL -STEMMED SUDANGRA55 MAY
BE SUBSTITUTED AT A RATE OF 50 LB/ACRE.
SEEDING DATES
• MOUNTAINS: MAY 15 - AUG. 15
• PIEDMONT: MAY I - SEPT. 15
• COASTAL PLAIN: APR. 15 - SEPT. 15
501L AMENDMENTS
FOLLOW RECOMMENDATION OF 501L TESTS OR APPLY 2,000 LB/ACRE
GROUND AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE AND 750 LB/ACRE 10-10-10 FERTILIZER.
MULCH
APPLY 4,000 LB/ACRE STRAW. ANCHOR STRAW BY TACKING WITH NETTING OR
A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL. A DI5K WITH BLADES SET NEARLY STRAIGHT CAN
BE USED AS A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL.
MAINTENANCE
REFERTILIZE IF GROWTH 15 NOT FULLY ADEQUATE. RESEED, REFERTILIZE AND
MULCH IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ER0510N OR OTHER DAMAGE.
I . INSTALL ER0510N CONTROL MEASURES AS DESCRIBED IN THE ER0510N CONTROL PLAN AND NOTES.
ER0510N CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE PHASED -IN TO TH05E AREAS OF THE PROJECT CURRENTLY
BEING WORKED ON. THE CONTRACTOR MAY MODIFY OR RELOCATE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO
MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR UNFORESEEN FIELD CONDITIONS 50 LONG AS PROPER CONSTRUCTION 15
MAINTAINED TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY AND USEFULNESS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURES. ALL
DISTURBED AREAS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH TEMPORARY SEED AND MULCH
AT THE END OF EACH DAY.
2. EXISTING WETLANDS CANNOT BE ENCROACHED UPON UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IF NOT APPROVED
AS DESIGNATED IMPACT AREAS. HIGH VISIBILITY FENCING MUST BE PLACED AROUND ALL EXISTING
WETLANDS THAT ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND/OR ARE LOCATED WITHIN
THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
3. STOCKPILE AREAS AND TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS MAY BE RELOCATED OR ADDED UPON THE
APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. SILT FENCING MUST BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL STOCKPILE AREAS.
4. THE WORK TO RESHAPE THE CHANNEL BANKS WILL BE PERFORMED USING EQUIPMENT WORKING FROM
THE TOP OF THE EXISTING STREAM BANK, WHERE POSSIBLE.
5. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL NOT BE PLACED WITHIN THE ACTIVE CHANNEL TO PERFORM WORK IF
POSSIBLE. PLATFORMS SHOULD BE USED TO CROSS CHANNEL WHERE ACCESS 15 NOT POSSIBLE.
G. NO MORE CHANNEL SHALL BE DISTURBED THAN CAN BE STABILIZED BY THE END OF THE WORK DAY OR
PRIOR TO RESTORING FLOW TO NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL SEGMENTS.
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY CONTROL DEVICES ONCE CONSTRUCTION 15 COMPLETE
AND THE 51TE IS STABILIZED. A MAXIMUM OF 200 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM MAY BE DISTURBED AT
ANY ONE TIME. STABILIZE STREAM BANKS IMMEDIATELY AFTER GRADING.
8. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
9. AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE EXISTING CHANNEL 15 BEING MAINTAINED, TEMPORARY PUMP AROUND
DAMS AND BYPASS PUMPING WILL BE USED TO DE -WATER THE WORK AREA AS DESCRIBED IN THE
DETAI L5.
10. WHEN THE PROPOSED CHANNEL HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED TO PREVENT EROSION, ALL
TEMPORARY PUMP AROUND DAMS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE STREAM CHANNEL AND
NORMAL FLOW RESTORED. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN DESIGNATED SPOILS
AREAS PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY PUMP AROUND DAM.
1 1. AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH LOG STRUCTURES, ROCK STRUCTURES, BOULDER TOE STABILIZATION, AND
LOG TOE STABILIZATION ARE CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS, TEMPORARY COFFER DAMS AND BYPASS
PUMPING WILL BE USED TO DE -WATER THE WORK AREA, EXCEPT AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE NORMAL
FLOW CAN BE DIVERTED AROUND THE WORK AREA WITH THE USE OF AN EXISTING CHANNEL. WHEN
THE TOE HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED TO RESTRAIN EROSION ALL TEMPORARY COFFER DAMS
WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE STREAM CHANNEL AND NORMAL FLOW RESTORED.
ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN DESIGNATED SPOILS AREA PRIOR TO REMOVAL
OF TEMPORARY COFFER DAM.
12. MATERIAL THAT 15 REMOVED FROM THE STREAM WILL BE RE -DEPOSITED OUTSIDE OF THE ACTIVE
CHANNEL AND ITS FLOODPLAIN.
13. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF ALL DISTURBED GRASSED AREAS AT THE TOP OF THE
CHANNEL BANKS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEEDING AND MULCHING SPECIFICATION AS
SHOWN ON PLANS.
14. RE -FERTILIZE AND RE -SEED DISTURBED AREAS IF NECESSARY.
15. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE SELF INSPECTIONS AND MONITORING AS OUTLINED IN THE
SELF -INSPECTION AND SELF -MONITORING COMBINED FORM LOCATED AT:
http5://deq.nc.goV/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/erosion-Sediment-control/forms. THIS
FORM SHOULD BE UP TO DATE AND AVAILABLE AT THE JOB 51TE AT ALL TIMES.
GROUND COVER SCHEDULE
51TE AREA DESCRIPTION
STABILIZATION TIME FRAME
STABILIZATION TIME FRAME EXCEPTIONS
PERIMETER DIKES, SWALES, DITCHES AND
7 DAYS
NONE
SLOPES
HIGH QUALITY WATER (HQW) ZONES
7 DAYS
NONE
SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3: 1
7 DAYS
IF SLOPES ARE I O' OR LESS IN LENGTH AND ARE NOT
STEEPER THAN 2: 1 , 14 DAYS ARE ALLOWED
SLOPES 3: 1 OR FLATTER
14 DAYS
7 DAYS FOR SLOPES GREATER THAN 50 FEET IN LENGTH
ALL OTHER AREAS WITH SLOPES FLATTER
14 DAYS
NONE (EXCEPT FOR PERIMETERS AND HWQ ZONES)
THAN 4: I
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Virginia Wildrye
Elymus wrgmicus
1 5%
Switchgrass
Panicum virgatum
1 5%
Little bluestem
Schizachyrium ecoparium
1 5%
Blackeyed Susan
Rudbeckia hirta
1 0%
Oxeye sunflower
1lehopsis hehanthoides
1 0%
Eastern bottlebush
Elymus hystrix
1 0%
Beaked panic grass
Panicum anceps
1 0%
Lurid sedge
Carex lurida
5%
Frank's sedge
Carex frankii
5%
Swamp milkweed
Aeclepias incarnata
3%
Smooth goldenrod
Sohdago gigantea
2%
STREAM CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE:
I . CONDUCT PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING INCLUDING OWNER, ENGINEER, ASSOCIATED CONTRACTORS,
AND OTHER AFFECTED PARTIES.
2. ER0510N AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (E*5C) PERMIT AND A CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE (COC) MUST BE
OBTAINED BEFORE ANY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES OCCUR. THE COC CAN BE OBTAINED BY FILLING
OUT THE ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF INTENT (e-NOI) FOR AT DEQ.NC.GOV/NCGO 1. PLEASE NOTE, THE
e-NOI FORM MAY ONLY BE FILLED OUT ONCE THE PLANS HAVE BEEN APPROVED. A COPY OF THE E*5C
PERMIT, THE COC, AND A HARD COPY OF THE PLAN MUST BE KEPT ON SITE, PREFERABLY IN A PERMITS
BOX, AND ACCESSIBLE DURING INSPECTION.
3. CONTRACTOR 15 FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL APPROPRIATE PARTIES AND ASSURING
THAT UTILITIES ARE LOCATED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. CALL NC 81 1 FOR
UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES 48 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. CONTRACTOR
SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE NC DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINERAL AND LAND RESOURCES
(DEMLR) WINSTON SALEM REGIONAL OFFICE (33G-77G-9800) AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO
COMMENCING ANY LAND -DISTURBING ACTIVITIES.
5. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, STABILIZED GRAVEL ENTRANCE/EXIT AND ROUTES OF INGRESS AND EGRESS
SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND DETAILS.
G. PRIOR TO ANY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES, INSTALL 51LT FENCING AND ANY ASSOCIATED ER0510N
ARRESTING DEVICES (CHECK DAMS, WATTLES, DIVERSION DIKES, ETC.) AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND
DETAILS.
7. INSTALL TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS AS SHOWN ON PLANS. TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS
SHOULD ONLY BE INSTALLED WHEN NECESSARY.
8. PREPARE STAGING AND STOCKPILING AREAS IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS
OR A5 APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ANY EXCESS SPOIL FROM STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE
USED TO CONSTRUCT CHANNEL PLUGS AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
9. CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM 501L TESTING TO DETERMINE VEGETATIVE VIABILITY PRIOR TO LAND
DISTURBANCE.
10. ALL PROPOSED CHANNELS AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT CROSSINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN
A DRY CONDITION VIA OFFLINE CONSTRUCTION WHERE POSSIBLE. PUMP AROUND OPERATIONS
SHOULD BE LIMITED TO AREAS WHERE THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED CHANNEL ALIGNMENTS OVERLAP.
1 1. INSTALL PUMP AROUND APPARATUS AND IMPERVIOUS DIKES AT UPSTREAM END OF PROJECT. AS
CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES, MOVE PUMP AROUND OPERATION DOWNSTREAM.
12. CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE CHANNEL FIRST, WORKING IN AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
13. ROUGH GRADING OF CHANNEL SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.
14. INSTALL STRUCTURES AS SHOWN ON PLANS AND DETAILS. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING, OBTAIN
APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER ON INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.
15. UPON COMPLETION OF FINE GRADING, INSTALL STREAM BANK STABILIZATION INCLUDING, EROSION
CONTROL MATTING OR 50D MATS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS.
I G. FILL AND STABILIZE ABANDONED SEGMENTS OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL PER DIRECTION OF THE
ENGINEER.
17. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND PUMPING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREAM AT THE END
OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY
THE ENGINEER. WITH APPROVAL, A PUMP AROUND MAY BE ALLOWED TO RUN CONTINUOUSLY IF THERE
15 NO FORECAST FOR RAIN OVERNIGHT, AND/OR THE PUMP APPARATUS 15 MAINTAINED AND
MONITORED CONTINUOUSLY.
18. DURING STREAM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE WORK AREA SHALL BE STABILIZED IMMEDIATELY
AFTER GRADING AND AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY.
19. INSTALL LIVE STAKE, BARE ROOT, AND CONTAINERIZED PLANTINGS AS SPECIFIED ON PLANTING PLANS.
20. WHEN THE PROJECT 15 COMPLETE, THE PERMITTEE SHALL CONTACT DEMLR TO CL05E OUT THE E*5C
PLAN. AFTER DEMLR INFORMS THE PERMITTED OF THE PROJECT CL05E OUT, VIA INSPECTION REPORT,
THE PERMITTEE SHALL VI51T DEQ.NC.GOV/NCGO I TO SUBMIT AN ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF TERMINATION
(e-NOT). A $ 100 ANNUAL GENERAL PERMIT FEE WILL BE CHARGED UNTIL THE e-NOT HAS BEEN FILLED
OUT.
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite
100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
w
QN
N
o
N
H Lo
N
J p
a
Z
O
U
H
CO
Z
O
U
O
LL
O
Z
aC
}
O
ILL
Q
0
Zz
O
LU
U)
U)
W
J
LU
>
LU
J
Lu
cr
rr
D_
Q
z_
O
U
z
Q
O
U
J
Q
�
O
z
~
z
O
U
>
Q
z
O
0�
O
0
O
CU
CU
Lu
LU
U
U
LU Q
zLU
Q
0
H
C) ~
Q
C�
z
LY
J
Q
O
Q
�
�
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
EC1

WHEN AND WHERE TO USE IT
51LT FENCE IS APPLICABLE IN AREAS:
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SHEET OR OVERLAND FLOW PATH LENGTH TO THE FENCE 15 1 00-FEET.
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SLOPE STEEPNESS (NORMAL [PERPENDICULAR] TO FENCE LINE) IS 2H: I V.
THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CONCENTRATED FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 CF5.
DO NOT PLACE 51LT 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 POLYOLEFIN5 OR POLYESTER, WHICH 15
CERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER A5 CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN A5TM D G4G 1.
SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE A
MINIMUM OF G MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF O° TO 1 20' F.
2. ENSURE THAT POSTS FOR SEDIMENT FENCES ARE 1.33 LB/LINEAR FT STEEL WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 5 FEET.
MAKE SURE THAT STEEL POSTS HAVE PROJECTIONS TO FACILITATE FASTENING THE FABRIC.
1.25 LBAINEAR IT. STEEL POSTS
EXTRA STRENGTH
FILTER FABRIC
BACKFILL TRENCH WITH
COMPACTED EARTH
I . CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENT BARRIER OF EXTRA STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRICS.
2. ENSURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND SURFACE.
(HIGHER FENCES MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE OF THE STRUCTURE.)
3. CONSTRUCT THE FILTER FABRIC FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO AVOID USE EITHER FLAT -BOTTOM
JOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER CLOTH ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH 4
FEET MINIMUM OVERLAP TO THE NEXT POST. OR V-BOTTOM TRENCH
4. EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC WITH G FEET POST SPACING DOES NOT REQUIRE WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE. SHOWN BELOW
SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC DIRECTLY TO POSTS. WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES SHOULD HAVE MINIMUM 50
POUND TENSILE STRENGTH.
5.
EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES WIDE AND 8 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE PROPOSED LINE OF POSTS
AND UP51LOPE FROM THE BARRIER.
G.
PLACE 12 INCHES OF THE FABRIC ALONG THE BOTTOM AND SIDE OF THE TRENCH.
7.
BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH 501L PLACED OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT. THOROUGH COMPACTION OF
FILTER FABRIC
THE BACKFILL 15 CRITICAL TO 51LT FENCE PERFORMANCE.
8.
DO NOT ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES.
COMPACTED
EARTH
MAINTENANCE:
PUNC
I .
INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS
IMMEDIATELY.
�p
=
2.
SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OK BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE IT
-
PROMPTLY.
3.
REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN AND
TO REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT.
4.
REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE AND
STABILIZE IT AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED. FILTER
FABRIC 41
FLAT -BOTTOM TRENCH DETAIL
STEEL P
WIRE FENCING
(IF APPLICABLE)
WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
I�
I.I I
I
4.' MAX
107
r • • - : • - r : • II
cl'--►-...
II■■■
MEN111
��M
i
�..'..
���►..
►..
♦
O '
►e
U�_ 4v►4 ?b:F _
.,
II N
♦ _ I
NOTES:
I . SEDIMENT FILTER OUTLET AND HARDWARE CLOTH SHALL BE I G INCHES HIGH BUT NO TALLER
THAN 181NCHE5.
2. HARDWARE CLOTH SHALL BE ANCHORED TO THE STEEL POSTS SECURELY U51NG APPROPRIATE
ANCHORS. HARDWARE CLOTH SHALL BE KEYED IN A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES IN LENGTH AND
BACKFILLED PROPERLY A5 SHOWN IN ABOVE DETAIL. HARDWARE CLOTH TO BE SAME A5 STD.
#30.09 (1 9 GAUGE, 114" SPACING).
3. POSTS SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 4 FEET APART.
4. 51TE OUTLETS AT ANY POINT SMALL CONCENTRATED FLOWS ARE ANTICIPATED AND AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE INSPECTOR.
5. ONE ACRE MAXIMUM DRAINAGE AREA PER OUTLET.
INSTALLATION NOTES:
51TE PREPARATION
I . GRADE AND COMPACT AREA.
2. REMOVE ALL ROCKS, CLODS, VEGETATION, AND OBSTRUCTIONS 50 THAT MATTING WILL
HAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL.
3. PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOP501L ABOVE FINAL GRADE.
4. TEST SOILS FOR ANY NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND SUBMIT 501L TEST RESULTS TO THE
ENGINEER. APPLY ANY TREATMENT SUCH A5 LIME OR FERTILIZERS TO THE 501L IF NEEDED.
SEEDING
1. SEE PLANTING SHEETS FOR SEEDING REQUIREMENTS.
2. APPLY SEED TO 501L BEFORE PLACING MATTING.
INSTALLATION - STREAM BANK
I . SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND DETAIL SHEETS FOR
INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE COIR MATTING.
2. OVERLAP ADJACENT MATS G" (IN DIRECTION PARALLEL TO FLOW) AND ANCHOR EVERY 121,
ACROSS THE OVERLAP. THE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE DOWNSTREAM
MAT.
3. EDGE5 SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER.
4. LAY MAT LOOSE TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT.
5. ANCHOR MAT USING BIODEGRADABLE STAKES.
G. EXTEND MAT 2 TO 3 FEET PAST TOP OF BANK.
7. PLACE ADJACENT ROLLS IN THE ANCHOR TRENCH WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" OVERLAP.
SECURE WITH BIODEGRADABLE STAKES, BACKFILL ANCHOR TRENCH, AND COMPACT SOIL.
8. STAKE AT 1 2" INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP.
9. IF MORE THAN ROLL 15 REQUIRED TO COVER THE CHANNEL FROM THE TOP OF BANK DOWN
TO THE TOE, THEN OVERLAP MATTING BY A MINIMUM OF 1'.
EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
• 100 % COCONUT FIBER (COIR) TWINE WOVEN INTO A
HIGH STRENGTH MATRIX.
• THICKNESS - 0.30 IN. MINIMUM.
• SHEAR STRESS - 4.G3 LB5/5QFT
• FLOW VELOCITY- OBSERVED I G FT/SEC
• WEIGHT - 2G.55 O7_/5Y
• OPEN AREA - 39%
• SLOPES - UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 1: 1
SILT FENCE OUTLET
NT5
2.0'
MIN.
6�M
1/Th
SILT FENCE INSTALLATION
FI LTER FABRIC ----
COMPACTED
EARTH
RUB
co
HEAVY DUTY PLASTIC TIE
FOR STEEL POSTS
BURY FABRIC
v
N
0
co
z_
III
v
N
FILTER FABRIC
V-SHAPED TRENCH DETAIL
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
NT5
STEEL POST
HARDWARE CLOTH
WASHED STONE
(NCDOT #5 OR #57)
I
4"
FLOW
ANCHOR SKIRT;
EXCAVATE TRENCH AND
COMPACT BACKFILL
MAINTENANCE:
I . FILTER OUTLETS SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY OR
HI5 AGENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING
PROLONGED RAINFALL. ANY REPAIRS NEEDED SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY.
2. THE STONE SHALL BE REPLACED PROMPTLY AFTER ANY EVENT THAT HAS CLOGGED
OR REMOVED IT.
3. SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN DEP051T5 REACH HALF THE
HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER THE
51LT FENCE OUTLET 15 REMOVED SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM TO THE EXISTING
GRADE, PREPARED AND SEEDED.
KEY -IN MATTING
- STAKE MATTING JUST
ABOVE CHANNEL TOE
AND BACKFILL W/
RIFFLE MATERIAL
G" RIFFLE
MATERIAL
MAINTENANCE:
1 . INSPECT ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS (RECP) AT LEAST WEEKLY AND AFTER
EACH SIGNIFICANT (2 INCH OR GREATER) RAIN FALL EVENT, REPAIR IMMEDIATELY.
2. GOOD CONTACT WITH THE GROUND MUST BE MAINTAINED AND EROSION MUST NOT
OCCUR BENEATH THE RECP
3. ANY AREAS OF THE RECP THAT ARE DAMAGED OR NOT IN CL05E CONTACT WITH THE
GROUND SHALL BE REPAIRED AND STAPLED/STAKED.
4. IF EROSION OCCURS DUE TO POORLY CONTROLLED DRAINAGE, THE PROBLEM SHALL BE
FIXED AND THE ERODED AREA PROTECTED.
5. MONITOR AND REPAIR THE RECP A5 NECESSARY UNTIL GROUND COVER 15
ESTABLISHED.
COIR MATTING
NT5
IN
(SEE
FLOW
B
A A
B
PLAN VIEW
�'CC AI/lTC I /llA /C!"'T 1-J /"11A IT
SECTION A -A
MAINTENANCE:
1. PERIODICALLY INSPECT SANDBAG DIKE FOR
DAMAGE AND LEAKS AND REPAIR A5 NEEDED
2. REMOVE IMPOUNDED TRASH AND SEDIMENT
MIDDLE LAYER
BOTTOM LAYER
ENDS OF BAGS IN
ADJACENT ROWS
BUTTED SLIGHTLY
GROUND LEVEL TOGETHER
SECTION B-B
TOP LAYER
EARTH SURFACE
TRENCH 0.25' DEEP
ONLY WHEN
PLACED ON EARTH
SURFACE
EARTH SURFACE NOTES:
I . END OF DIKE AT GROUND LEVEL TO BE HIGHER THAN THE LOWEST
POINT OF FLOW CHECK
2. SUFFICIENT SANDBAGS ARE TO BE PLACED TO PREVENT SCOURING
3. SANDBAG BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THREE LAYERS OF
SANDBAGS. THE BOTTOM LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 3 ROWS OF
BAGS, THE MIDDLE LAYER SHALL CON515T OF 2 ROWS OF BAGS AND
THE TOP LAYER SHALL CON515T OF I ROW OF BAGS
4. THE RECOMMENDED DIMENSION OF A FILLED SANDBAG SHALL BE
APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT X 0.5 FT X 1 .5 FT
SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS DIKE
NTS
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE USED AT ALL POINTS WHERE TRAFFIC WILL BE LEAVING A
CONSTRUCTION SITE AND MOVING DIRECTLY ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD. INSTALL A CULVERT PIPE ACROSS THE ENTRANCE,
WHEN NEEDED, TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE.
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:
I . CLEAR THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AREA OF ALL VEGETATION, ROOTS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL AND
PROPERLY GRADE IT.
2. PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE LARGE TRUCKS.
3. PLACE THE GRAVEL TO THE SPECIFIC GRADE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DETAIL AND SMOOTH IT.
4. PROVIDE DRAINAGE TO CARRY WATER TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET.
5. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRICS BECAUSE THEY IMPROVE STABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION IN LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO
SEEPAGE OK HIGH WATER TABLE.
G. A 24" HDPE PIPE 15 REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE NEW DRIVEWAY/CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
LOCATED ON THE WEST 51DE OF DARDEN ROAD. SEE DETAIL SHEET DG FOR DRIVEWAY DETAIL.
NOTES:
I . EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY IN DRY AND/OR ISOLATED SECTIONS OF CHANNEL.
2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAM FLOW.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED IN ONE
WORKING DAY. A MAXIMUM OF 200 FEET MAY BE DISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING PUMP SIZE SUFFICIENT TO
PUMP BASE FLOW.
5. DIKE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON -ERODIBLE MATERIALS SUCH A5 SANDBAGS.
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION:
I . INSTALL STILLING BA51N AND STABILIZED OUTFALL USING CLA55 A RIP RAP AT THE
DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY PIPING
THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK AREA TO THE
STABILIZED OUTFALL.
3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM
DIVERSION.
4. INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND DEWATERING PUMPING APPARATUS IF
NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE
SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA. THI5 WATER WILL ALSO BE
PUMPED TO AN OUTFALL STABILIZED WITH CLASS A RIP RAP.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE
REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE. WHEN DEWATERING AREA, ALL DIRTY WATER MUST BE
PUMPED THROUGH A SILT BAG. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND TEMPORARY
FLEXIBLE h05E/PIPING STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.
G. ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE ALL RIP RAP AND IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND
STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH.
7. ALL WORK IN CHANNEL MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE REMOVING IMPERVIOUS DIKE.
I . MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION
SITE. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2-INCH STONE.
2. AFTER EACH RAINFALL, INSPECT ANY STRUCTURE USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT A5 NECESSARY. DE-WATEKIN(
3. IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS SPILLED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC PUMI
ROADWAYS, OR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS.
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IMPERVIOUS
DIKE
NT5
NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDEQ EROSION CONTROL MANUAL
2. KIPRAP SHALL BE CLA55 I
3. PLACE ROCK DAM A5 SHOWN ON PLAN5. EXTEND CLA55 B RIP RAP ROCK
APRON 2 FEET DOWNSTREAM FROM TOE OF ROCK DAM
MAINTENANCE:
A
I . INSPECT CHECK DAM PERIODICALLY AND AFTER EACH 5IGNIFICANT
RAINFALL EVENT FOR DAMAGE AND SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION
2. AT A MINIMUM, REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN ACCUMULATIONS REACH
ONE-HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE I .O' THICK CLA55
3. REPLACE OR CLEAN SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE A5 NEEDED TO B ROCK APRON
ALLOW WATER TO DRAIN THROUGH THE DEVICE BETWEEN RAINFALL B
EVENTS
PLAN
W (SPILLWAY)
MIN. /3 STREAM WIDTH
2' MIN
FLOW
n
SPILLWAY CREST I' MIN # 5
WASHEDD STONE
CLA55 B RIP W
FLOW
1 .0' THICK CLA55 °o
B ROCK APRON
CUTOFF TRENCH
FILTER FABRIC
SECTION B-B
RIP RAP TI
TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM
NT5
114SHED STONE
J
51LT BAG
LOCATIOI`
STABI
CLASS A STONE
FILTER FABRI
STABILIZED OUTFALL
CLA55 A STONE
H05E
PUMP AROUND
PUMP
J5 DIKE
:GE H05E
LD BE
NORK
-CHARGE
5E
L/�IJ I IIVV
CHANNEL
SILT BAG PROFILE
PUMP AROUND DEWATERING DETAIL
NT5
pres
3600 Glenwood
Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
CN
O
N
W
�
LO
N
Q
O
H
O
J
11
Z
O
U
F_
Z
0
O
IL
H
O
Z
aC
I
}
O
ILL
Q
66
0
Z_
O
U)
U)
W
J
LU
>
W
J
Lu
Cc
Q
z_
�J
O
U)
cl�
z
Q
O
U
_
rQ
V
-
O
U)C~
Z
J
c
Q
>
Q
z
w
0
O
O
U
U
w
2U
U
Q
z
Z
H
W O
Z
~
0
J
<
Q
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D1

LINE POST
WOVEN WIRE
GROUND LINE
1 GMAX.
' '"'= POST
WOVEN WIRE WITH ONE BARB DETAIL
LINE POST
WOVEN WIRE:
A5TM CLA55 3 GALVANIZED.
TOP AND BOTTOM WIRES MIN. 12 GAUGE.
INTERMEDIATE AND STAY WIRES MIN.
12 1 /2 GAUGE.
NOTES:
I . LINE POSTS (WOODEN): MIN. 4 IN. DIAM. OR 4 IN. SQUARE.
2. LINE POSTS (STEEL): STUDDED OR PUNCHED T, U, OR Y SHAPED, WITH ANCHOR PLATES.
3. MIN. WEIGHT 1.3 LBS./FT. (EXCLUDING ANCHOR PLATE). POSTS SHALL BE DRIVEN A MINIMUM
OF 1 8" DEEP AND MUST BE AT LEAST 5.5 FT IN LENGTH
4. SPECIES AND TREATMENT FOR ALL WOOD: USE UNTREATED DURABLE POSTS OF SPECIES
SUCH AS RED CEDAR, BLACK LOCUST OR 05AGE-ORANGE WITH BARK REMOVED, OR
NON -DURABLE WOOD THAT IS PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE TREATED (0.40 LBS./CUBIC FOOT
CCA, OR EQUIVALENT NON-CCA TREATMENT). DO NOT USE RED PINE.
WOVEN WIRE I=ENCE (NRCS DETAIL 382A)
NT5
CLA55 B RIP RAF
TIMBER MAT INSTALLED
PERPENDICULAR
r�o �c nnniv
PLAN VIEW
SEDIMENT RAIL
MIN HEIGHT = 4"
CARRIAGE BOLT TIMBER MAT INSTALLED
(TYP) PERPENDICULAR
CLASS B RIP RAP TIMER MAT
TOP OF BANK INSTALLED BPARALLEL
FILTER FABRIC
TOE OF BANK —J
(TYP) APPROXIMATE BASE FLOW
SECTION VIEW WATER SURFACE
I . INSPECT TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS AFTER RUNOFF -PRODUCING RAIN5 TO CHECK
FOR BLOCKAGE IN CHANNEL, EROSION OF ABUTMENTS, CHANNEL SCOUR, RIPRAP
DISPLACEMENT, OR PIPING. MAKE ALL REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE
TO THE INSTALLATION.
2. MATS WHICH BECOME COVERED WITH SOIL OR DEBRIS SHALL BE CLEANED AND THE
MATERIALS REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF IN AN UPLAND LOCATION. THE MATERIALS SHALL
NOT BE SCRAPED AND SHOVELED INTO PROTECTED AREAS.
3. MATS WHICH BECOME IMBEDDED MUST BE RESET OR LAYERED SUCH THAT THE MATS ARE
ABOVE ADJACENT GROUND ELEVATIONS.
MIN 1 2.0'
EXISTING
GRADE
EROSION CONTROL
WATTLE/ SILT FENCE
SLOPE
NOTES
1. MAINTAIN HAUL ROAD DURING CONSTRUCTION
2. RETURN TO ORIGINAL GRADE AT THE COMPLETION OF WORK
3. VEGETATE ALL DISTURBED AREAS
4. REMOVE COMPOST FILTER SOCK UPON ESTABLISHMENT OF VEGETATION
�BER MAT INSTALLED
ZALLEL
:ARRIAGE BOLT
TIMBER MAT
(TYP)
TYPICAL HAUL ROAD
NT5
2" x 2" X 2' WOODEN
STAKE ON 2' CENTERS
CONTROL COIR WATTLE/LOG
NOTES:
I . EROSION CONTROL WATTLES OR COI, LOGS/WATTLES MAY BE
USED IN PLACE OF SILT FENCE
2. INSTLL A MINIMUM OF 2 UP51-OPE STAKES AND 4 DOWNSLOPE
STAKES AT AN ANGLE TO WEDGE WATTLE IN PLACE
EXISTING
GRADE
_ _L WATTLE IN
2" TO 3" TRENCH
I . INSPECT WATTLE PERIODICALLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT
RAINFALL EVENT FOR DAMAGE AND SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION
2. REPLACE OR CLEAN WATTLE AS NEEDED TO ALLOW WATER TO
DRAIN THROUGH THE NATURAL FIBERS BETWEEN RAINFALL EVENTS
EROSION CONTROL WATTLE
I . TIMBER MATS SHALL BE USED FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
TO TRAVERSE WET AND/OR MUDDY ARE5 ADJACENT TO THE STREAM AND
TO CROSS THE STREAM AND OTHER CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS.
2. THE STREAM CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A DRY CONDITION WHEN
FLOW 15 LOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO DISTURBANCE OF THE
CHANNEL BED AND BANKS AS A RESULT OF INSTALLING THE APPROACHES
OR CROSSING.
3. THE LENGTH OF TIMBER MAT REQUIRED TO CR055 THE STREAM OR
CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE TIMBER MAT
EXTENDS PAST THE TOP OF BANK ON EACH SIDE OF THE CROSSING A
SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO SUPPORT THE MAXIMUM EQUIPMENT SIZE USING
THE CROSSING.
4. STREAM CROSSINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT LENGTHS
ORIENTED PERPENDICULAR TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS. TIMBER
MAT STREAM APPROACHES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT
LENGTHS ORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS.
5. TIMBER MATS SHALL HAVE A SOLID DECK WITH NO GAPS OR SPACES
ALLOWED BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL BOARDS/TIMBERS.
G. A 4" MINIMUM HEIGHT SEDIMENT RAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED AT STREAM
CROSSINGS TO PREVENT TRACKED SEDIMENT FROM FALLING INTO THE
STREAM BED.
7. STREAM CROSSING APPROACHES FROM DRY AREAS SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED U51NG CLA55 B RIP RAP PLACED OVER FILTER FABRIC.
8. ALL TIMBER MATS, FILTER FABRIC, AND RIP RAP SHALL BE COMPLETELY
REMOVED FROM THE SITE WHEN THE CROSSING IS REMOVED.
TIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CROSSING
NT5
NT5
O
Ln
z
r�AL'irl\rlT�7:I�\\I\r�Cl
EXISTING CHANNEL
BOTTOM
PLAN VIEW
MIN. 50'
TYPICAL SECTION
EXISTING CHANNEL
TOP OF BANK
(1 2" TOv1 8" LIFTS)
NOTES:
I . IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING CHANNEL IS TO BE ABANDONED, FILL EXISTING CHANNEL TO
TOP OF BANK ELEVATION WHEN POSSIBLE.
2. CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED IN 1 2" TO 1 8" LIFTS AND COMPACTED ACCORDINGLY.
3. WHEN SPOIL DOES NOT EXIST IN ORDER TO COMPLETELY FILL EXISTING CHANNEL TO
TOP OF BANK ELEVATION, FILL CHANNEL TO AN ELEVATION G" ABOVE TOP OF BANK
ELEVATION FOR AT LEAST 50 LF OUT OF EVERY 150 LF SEGMENT. REMAINING CHANNEL
SECTIONS ARE TO BE FILLED TO A DEPTH OF NO LE55 THAN 1 4" FROM TOP OF BANK
ELEVATION.
4. IN AREAS WHERE THE EXISTING CHANNEL 15 LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT, THE CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED COMPLETELY IN 1 2" LIFTS.
CHANNEL ABANDONMENT AND BACKI=ILL
NT5
NEW CHANNEL TO BE 'A�
CONSTRUCTED
OLD CHANNEL TO BE
DIVERTED OR ABANDONED
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
1 .5' MINIMUM
COMPACTED BACKFILL
(1 2" LIFTS)
IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL
(PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER)
(SEE NOTE 1)
NOTE:
1. IF IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL
15 NOT FOUND ON SITE, SUITABLE
MATERIAL MUST BE OBTAINED
FROM AN OFF -SITE SOURCE.
PLAN VIEW
50'-1 00'
10"MIN
TYPICAL SECTION
CHANNEL PLUG
NT5
CHANNEL PLUG
BANKFULL ELEVATION
NEW CHANNEL BANK SHALL
BE TREATED AS SPECIFIED
IN PLANS
PROPOSED
CHANNEL INVERT
TOE PROTECTION
pres
3600 Glenwood
Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
N
0
N
W
�
LO
N
Q
O
O
J
11
Z
O
U
Hl^
l
CO
Z
O
U
O
IL
F
O
O
ILL
Q
0
Z_
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
W
W
cr
r
Q
z_
�J
O
(n
cl�
z
Q
O
U
rQ
V
—
O
cn
z
J
5~
Q
Q
z
w
O�
0�O
O
U
U
w
ILL,U
U
Q
z1120
Z
<
H
0 O
`
z
~ LU
0
J
<
Q
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D2

NOTES:
1. SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLING
COIR MATTING.
TYPICAL DANK GRADING
NTs
1 711 C�PA/-II`1/`
1\LI/nIV�..il 1V1\ IV-1LI\InL
AT TOE OF SLOPE
EMBANKMENT MATTING
NTS
BANK
JNEL BANK
ISTI NG
1ANNEL BED
,,ZIES
SEE PLAN SHEETS
FOR WIDTH
KEY/ANCHOR MATERIAL
AT TOP OF SLOPE
NOTES:
I . LAY BLANKETS LOOSELY AND STAKE OR
STAPLE TO MAINTAIN DIRECT CONTACT WITH
THE SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH.
2. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MINIMUM,
MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS MAY HAVE
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE
MET.
3. SLOPE SURFACE SHALL BE FREE OF ROCKS,
SOIL CLODS, STICKS, GRASS.
MAT/BLANKETS SHALL HAVE GOOD SOIL
CONTACT.
4. THE DETAIL SHOWN IS FOR SLOPE MATTING.
FOR CHANNEL MATTING SPECIFICATIONS
PLEASE REFER TO COIR MATTING DETAIL.
EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
• CURLEX II EROSION CONTROL BLANKET (OR EQUIVALENT)
• THICKNESS - 0.327 IN. MINIMUM.
• SHEAR STRESS — 2.25 LBS/SQFT
• WEIGHT - I I .G8 OZ/SY
• SLOPES — UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 1 .5: 1
KEY COIR MATTING
INTO BANK
MIN
5.0'
MIN 2.
112 WOODY DEBRIS
DEPTH
112 WOODY DEBRIS
DEPTH
/x
SMALL LOGS AND/OR —
LARGE BRANCHES WITH A
DIAMETER OF 4" to G"
KEY COIR MATTING
INTO BANK
KEY COIR MATTING
INTO BANK
MIN 2.0'
F-=
\/ A
112 MAX POOL DEPTH
MIN 0.5'
INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAIL
SEE DWG D I
MAINTAIN TYPICAL POOL
TOP OF BANK WIDTH
COMPACTED SOIL LIFT
LIVE STAKES
BOTTOM OF SOIL LIFT SHOULD
MATCH HEAD OF DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE ELEVATION
LIVE CUTTINGS
SMALL BRANCHES AND
BRUSH WITH A MAXIMUM
DIAMETER OF 4"
OVER EXCAVATE OUTSIDE OF
MEANDER TO MAINTAIN TYPICAL
POOL TOP OF BANK WIDTH
MIN
~ 5.0'
SECTION A -A
`TOE PROTECTION
(LARGER CHANNELS)
BRUSH TOE (TRI )
NTS
INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAIL
SEE DWG D I
COMPACTED SOIL LIFT
LIVE STAKES
BOTTOM OF SOIL LIFT SHOULD
MATCH HEAD OF DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE ELEVATION
LIVE CUTTINGS
SMALL BRANCHES
AND BRUSH WITH A
MAX DIAMETER OF 3"
77 N WS
BRUSH TOE (TR2 AND MN 1 -9)
NTS
TYPICAL POOL
CROSS-SECTION
TOP OF BANK
NOTES:
I . MAINTAIN TOP OF BANK WIDTH PROVIDED IN TYPICAL SECTION.
2. OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACE LARGER
BRANCHES AND LOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) IN A
CRISS-CROSS PATTERN. LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING G IN TO
12 IN OF THE LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS.
3. PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGER
BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) AND COMPACT
LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO LOCK IN PLACE.
4. PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE SMALL BRANCHES AND BRUSH. SEE
TABLE ON PLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTING AND LIVE
STAKE SPECIES AND COMPOSITION. CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT
CUTTING POINT TO ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.
5. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTED SOIL
PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE KEYED INTO
TOP OF BANK.
G. INSTALL I TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS
LAYER PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
7. LIVE CUTTINGS AND BRUSH SHOULD NOT EXTEND PA5TY3 OF
CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH.
S/\�/VAS/
A
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK
i
CHANNEL
OF BANK
TOP OF BANK
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK
CHANNEL BOTTOM
OF BANK
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
NOTES:
I . OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. INSTALL SMALLER
BRANCHES AND BRUSH AND COMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL AND
COMPACT TO LOCK IN PLACE.
2. PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE SMALL BRANCHES AND BRUSH. SEE TABLE ON
PLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTING AND LIVE STAKE SPECIES AND
COMPOSITION. CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOW
BETTER ROOTING.
3. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIK) MATTING OVER COMPACTED SOIL PER
DIRECTION OF ENGINEER. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE KEYED INTO TOP OF BANK.
4. INSTALL LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYER PER THE LIVE STAKING
DETAIL.
5. LIVE CUTTINGS AND BRUSH SHOULD NOT EXTEND PAST 1/3 OF CHANNEL BOTTOM
WIDTH.
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
INSTALL COIR
MATTING PER DETAIL
LIVE STAKES
COMPACTED SOIL LIFT
MIN 2.0'
LIVE CUTTINGS NOTES:
/ ROCK SHALL BE EVEN WITH DESIGNED BANK I . OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL.
SLOPE. AVOID EXCESSIVE ROCK PROTUSION TOP OF BANK INSTALL FILTER FABRIC, BASE STONE LAYER AND COMPACT.
FROM BANK. INSTALL TOP STONE LAYER, BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO
\ MINIMUM 1 2" INTERMEDIATE LOCK IN PLACE.
_ _ — — _ _ DIAMETER STONE / /\\/\\ 2. PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE RIPRAP. SEE TABLE ON
PLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTING AND LIVE
/ \ Iq — NWS � STAKE SPECIES AND COMPOSITION. CUTTINGS SHOULD BE
RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.
3. INSTALL COMPACTED SOIL LIFT. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE
j /��\� WRAPED UNDER SOIL LIFT AND KEYED INTO TOP OF BANK.
4. INSTALL LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYER PER
THE LIVE 5TAKING DETAIL.
\\\\ 5. FILTER FABRIC SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS FOR NCDOT
/ WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
MIN FILTER
2.0' FABRIC
STONE TOE
NTs
RING
COIK MATTING
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
N
O
N
w
�
`O
N
Q
O
0
J
11
Z
_O
F
U
H
U)
Z
O
12'
0
F
O
Z
1
o
0-1
ILL
Q
&5
0
Z_
O
U)
U)
W
J W
W
W
cr
Q
z_
�J
O
U)
0�
Z
Q
O
U
fQ
V
—
O
(n
Z
J
5�
Q
Q
z
w
O=)
0
0�O
O
U
U
w
2U
ULi
Q
Z
z
O
W
G
Z
~
0
J
<
Ir
Q
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D3

DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD
USING THE KBC PLANTING BAR
v
BOTTOM OF
A
\ OPTIONAL SWALE
1. INSERT 2. REMOVE 3. INSERT (SEE PLANSHEET)
PLANTING BAR AS PLANTING BAR PLANTING BAR 2 \ �,
SHOWN AND PULL AND PLACE INCHES TOWARD / ADJACENT PROJECT
HANDLE TOWARD SEEDING AT PLANTER FROM f PLANS EET) E
PLANTER. CORRECT DEPTH. SEEDING.
4. PULL HANDLE OF
BAR TOWARD
PLANTER, FIRMING
SOIL AT BOTTOM.
5. PUSH
HANDLE
FORWARD
FIRMING SOIL
AT TOP.
I I
G. LEAVE
COMPACTION
HOLE OPEN.
WATER
THOROUGHLY.
PLAN VIEW
�J
PLANTING NOTES: I NOTES: DEPRESSION
OPTIONAL
PLANTING BAG I BARE ROOTS SHALL BE PLANTED G SWALE -� GROUND 5URFACE
DURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALL � NOTES:
BE KEPT IN A MOIST CANVAS BAG OR FT. TO 10 FT. ON CENTER,
SIMILAR CONTAINER TO PREVENT THE RANDOM SPACING, AVERAGING 8 G" MIN. STREAM CHANNEL I . INSTALL WETLAND DEPRESSION WITH OPTIONAL SWALE OUTLET AT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN
ROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING. FT. ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 0.4' - 0.7' \ SHEETS. LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED OR ADDED TO BETTER HANDLE SITE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
G80 PLANTS PER ACRE. KBC PLANTING BAR 12" MAX. DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADE 2. DEPRESSIONS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SUCH THAT THE DEPTH IS VARIABLE ACROSS THE
WITH A1ALL BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4
TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION,
AND SHDEPRESSION. MAXIMUM DEPTHS SHALL NOT EXCEED 12" BELOW POOL TOP OF BANK.
INCHES WIDE AND I INCH THICK AT 3. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS (ECB) ALONG ALL SWALES PER MANUFACTURER'S
CENTER. INSTRUCTIONS. APPLY BOTH TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEED MIX BEFORE ECB INSTALLATION.
ROOT PRUNING 4. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET INSTALLATION MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE SPECIFICATIONS OF CURLEX
ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOT I FIBRENET COIR MATTING MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF CURLEX PER APPROVAL FROM ENGINEER.
PRUNED, IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NO
ROOTS EXTEND MORE THAN 10
INCHES BELOW THE ROOT COLLAR.
BARE ROOT PLANTING
NTs
INSTALL LIVESTAKES
AROUND OUTSIDE OF
MEANDER BENDS
+++
++++
++++++
INSTALL LIVESTAKES
AROUND STRUCTURES
/
+++++++++++
++++++++
PLAN VIEW
TYPICAL SECTION
NOTES:
I . SEE TABLE ON PLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE SPECIES AND COMPOSITION.
2. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE 2 TO 3 FEET LONG AND 0.75 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER.
3. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ON 1 .5' ALTERNATING SPACING ON LARGE
CHANNELS (POOL DEPTH > 2FT) AND 1.01 ALTERNATING SPACING ON SMALL
CHANNELS (POOL DEPTH < 2FT).
4. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ON ALL RESTORATION REACHES AND ALONG ALL
ENHANCEMENT REACHES AS SHOWN ON LIVE STAKE SHEETS.
LIVE STAKI N G
NT5
SECTION A -A'
0.75" TO 2"
FLAT TOP ENDS
LATERAL BUD
SIDE BRANCH
REMOVED AT
SLIGHT ANGLE
LARGE CHANNEL
SPACING
WATER TABLE
LI VESTAKE
COIF FIBER
MATTING
TOE
O./
>\NW5
C
WETLAND DEPRESSION
NTs
COIR FIBER I CHANNEL BOTTOP
MATTING OF BANI
/ Cn COARSE AGGREGATI
BACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2
0
Ln
p f NON-WOVEI
GEOTEXTILE FABRI(
(NCDOT TYPE I
1 POINT REFERENCE
IN STRUCTURE TABLE
45 DEGREE TOLERANCE ± 0.
TAPERED BUTT END
SMALL CHANNEL
SPACING
=STAKE
COIR FIBER
MATTING
INSTALL TOE PROTECTION
SEE PLAN SHEET FOR
TYPE AND LENGTH
POOL
CHANNEI
OF U)ANN
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
LOG SILL
NTS
O
N
Ln
PROPOSED
STREAM BED
FLOW
BACKFILL WITH COARSE
AGGREGATE (SEE NOTE #2)
BACKFIILL WITH FINE
AGGREGATE (SEE NOTE #3)
NON -WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
(NCDOT TYPE II)
TACK FABRIC
TO LOG
COIR MAT -FIN
HEADERLO
FnnTFR I n
SEE PROFILE FOR
POOL DEPTH
INSTA�LCOARSEAGGREGATE
SPLASH PAD IN BOTTOM OF
POOL (SEE NOTE #2)
SECTION A -A'
SECTION B-B'
NOTES:
I . LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED
2. COARSE AGGREGATE MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF 4" - G" STONE, AND 8" - 121, STONE.
3. FINE AGGREGATE BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF ABC STONE AND NATIVE MATERIAL.
4. BACKFILL SHOULD BE CONPACTED IN 8" LIFTS.
5. TOE PROTECTION IS TO BE INSTALLED ON THE DOWNSTREAM LOW SIDE OF ALL LOG SILLS AND SHOULD ABUT
THE DOWNSTREAM FACE OF THE LOGS.
G. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 1 OD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1 .5' ALONG THE LOG
7. HIGH SIDE OF LOG SHALL BE APPROX. 0.2' HIGHER THAN LOW END
8. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIAM. = 12"
MIN LENGTH = 17'
pres
3600 Glenwood
Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
N
O
N
W
�
LO
N
Q
O
H
O
J
11
z
O
U
H
z
O
U
O
LL
H
O
z
O
ILL
Q
0
z
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
W
W
cr
rr
D_
Q
z
�J
O
U
z
O
CU
_
rQ
V
—
O
cn
z
J
5~
Q
Q
z
w
O=)
0
0�O
O
CU
U
w
ILL,U
U
Q
z
z
W O
`
z
~
0
J
<
Q
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D4

TOE OF BANK
BANKFULL
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)
20'TO 30'
RIGHT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)
FLOW
------
FOOTER ROCK
FLOW
CHANNEL %3 CHANNEL %s CHANNEL
WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH
H
I
I
STREAM BANK
MIN
5.0'
CROSS VANE INVERT
CONTROL POINT
HEADER AND FOOTER
BOULDERS
FILTER FABRIC
POOL B
LEFT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
BAN KFULL
LEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
VARIES
O' TO 0.8'
3°%
---- \ --- ---- ti----'
POOL
PROFILE VIEW
TOE OF BANK, TYPICAL FLOW
BANKFULL, TYPICAL
Y3 CHANNEL %3 CHANNEL Y3 CHANNEL
WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (5EE NOTE #2)
FILTER FABRIC
20' TO 30'
J
_ POOL _
FILTER FABRIC P-4,
RIGHT VANE ARM °
BANK INTERCEPT ,q -
CONTROL POINT
,I I
B
MIN POOL
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)
FLOW
FILTER FABRIC
FOOTER ROCKS
BANKFULL
FLOW
HEADER ROCK
ROCK CROSS VANE
NT5
STREAM BANK, TYPICAL
CR055 VANE INVERT
CONTROL POINT
MIN
5.0 STEP INVERT
CONTROL POINT
HEADER AND FOOTER
BOULDERS
FILTER FABRIC
B
LEFT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
LEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
VARIES
O' TO 0.8'
2°l� -
#\)e/ POOL %/\�4 POOL
PROFILE VIEW
BANKFULL
TOE OF BANK
FILTER FABRIC
VANE ARM BANK
INTERCEPT CONTROL
POINT
BAN KFULL
STREAM BANK
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
TREAM BED
NPOOL
VARIES /
O' TO%3 WIDTH `\
%3 CHANNEL %3 CHANNEL %3 CHANNEL
WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH
VANE ARM BANK
INTERCEPT CONTROL
POINT
FILTER
FABRIC -- - - - '
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
SECTION B-B'
NOTES:
I . SEE STRUCTURE BOULDER SIZE TABLE FOR MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF BOULDERS. T
UPPER LIMIT FOR BOULDER SIZES SHOULD BE NO MORE THAT 20% OF THE SPECIFIE
MINIMUM SIZE AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
OF THE STRUCTURE.
2. COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL COMPOSITION SHALL MATCH THE RIFFLE COMP051TIO
TABLE PROVIDED IN THE TYPICAL RIFFLE DETAIL. A MIXTURE OF WOODY DEBRIS AND
SOIL MAY BE MIXED INTO AGGREGATE BACKFILL IN ORDER TO HELP SEAL STRUCTURE
3. BOULDERS AT TOE SHALL BE INSTALLED SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN (APPROX. 0. 1') IN
ORDER TO PROMOTE LOW FLOW INTO CENTER OF CHANNEL.
4. CROSS VANES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO THAT ADJOINING BOULDERS TAPER IN
UPSTREAM DIRECTION, FROM THE BANKFULL ELEVATION TO THE STREAM INVERT. TH
UPSTREAM END OF THE CROSS VANE IS SET AT AN ANGLE OF 20 TO 30 DEGREES
TANGENT TO THE PROJECTED STREAM BANK DIRECTION. THE TOP ELEVATION OF BO
VANES WILL DECREASE TOWARD THE CENTER OF THE CHANNEL.
5. THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE CROSS VANE SHALL BE KEYED INTO THE STREAMBA
AT THE BANKFULL ELEVATION. THE CROSS VANE SHALL BE KEYED A MINIMUM OF FIV
FEET INTO THE 5TREAMBANK. THE UPSTREAM END OF CROSS VANE SHALL BE KEYED
INTO THE 5TREAMBANK AT THE DESIGNED STREAMBED INVERT ELEVATION.
G. VANE BOULDERS SHALL BE PLACED IN A LINEAR FASHION SO AS TO PRODUCE THE
SLOPING CROSS VANE, AND SHALL BE PLACED WITH TIGHT, CONTINUOUS SURFACE
CONTACT BETWEEN ADJOINING BOULDER. BOULDER SHALL BE PLACE SO AS TO HAV
NO SIGNIFICANT GAPS BETWEEN ADJOINING BOULDER.
7. VANE BOULDERS SHALL BE PLACED SO AS TO HAVE A FINAL SMOOTH SURFACE
ALONG THE TOP PLANE OF THE CROSS VANE. NO VANE BOULDER SHALL PROTRUDE
HIGHER THAN THE OTHER BOULDER IN THE BOULDER VANE. A COMPLETED CROSS
VANE HAS A SMOOTH, CONTINUOUS FINISH GRADE FROM THE BANKFULL ELEVATION
TO THE STREAMBED.
8. AS THE CROSS VANE IS CONSTRUCTED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHINK ALL VOIDS
BETWEEN THE FOOTEK BOULDERS, AND BETWEEN THE POOTEK BOULDERS AND VAN
BOULDERS. VOIDS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH SMALLER ROCK SUCH THAT NO VOIDS
GREATER THAN FOUR INCHES IN SIZE WILL BE PRESENT.
STREAM BANK
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
TOE OF BANK/ I k, , /,
\�� \
�\\\ NPOOL TBED
FILTI
VANE ARM BA
INTERCEPT CONTR
POI
SECTION A -A'
Y3 CHANNEL Y3 CHANNEL Y3 CHANNEL
1 A /I fITLJ
NK
VANE ARP
OL
INTERCEP
NT
POINT
FILTER r r r J
FL FABRIC `-JL-JL J\-J -J
�j\xHEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
HEADER ROCKS
ROCK A -VANE
NT5
1 BANK
CONTROL
K�\7777
CHANNEI
5TRUCTUR
CONTRC
COARSE AGGRI
BACKFILL (SEE NO -
TOP OF BANK
FLOW
PLAN VIEW
B'
TOI
PROPOSED
NOTES: STREAM BED
I . SEE STRUCTURE BOULDER SIZE TABLE FOR MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF BOULDERS. FLOW UPPER LIMIT FOR BOULDER 51ZES SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN 20% GREATER
THAN THE SPECIFIED MINIMUM SIZE AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER
PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE STRUCTURE.
2. COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL COMPOSITION SHALL MATCH THE RIFFLE i
COMPOSITION TABLE PROVIDED IN THE TYPICAL RIFFLE DETAIL. A MIXTURE OF WOODY
DEBRIS AND SOIL MAY BE MIXED INTO AGGREGATE BACKFILL IN ORDER TO HELP SEAL COARSE AGGREGATE -
STRUCTURE.
BACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)
3. FINE AGGREGATE BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF ABC STONE AND
NATIVE MATERIAL.
4. BOULDERS AT TOE OF BANK SHALL BE INSTALLED SLIGHTLY HIGHER (APPROX. 0. 1') IN
ORDER TO PROMOTE LOW FLOW INTO CENTER OF CHANNEL.
5. THE BOULDER SILL 15 GENERALLY CONSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS:
A PLACE FOOTER BOULDERS A LAYER OF BEDDING MATERIAL UNDER THE POOTEK
HE BOULDERS MAY BE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. THERE SHALL BE NO GAPS BACKFILL WITH FINE J
BETWEEN BOULDERS.
B. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC. FILTER FABRIC
N C. PLACE COURSE BACKFILL BEHIND THE FOOTEK BOULDERS. (804.2. 1 1 CLA55 2)
D. INSTALL HEADER BOULDERS ON TOP OF AND SET SLIGHTLY BACK FROM THE
FOOTEK BOULDERS (SUCH THAT PART OF THE HEADER BOULDER IS RESTING ON
. THE COARSE BACKFILL). HEADER BOULDERS SHALL SPAN THE SEAMS OF THE
FOOTEK BOULDERS. THERE SHALL NOT BE A SEAM IN THE CENTER OF THE
AN STREAM BED (AT THE THALWEG). THERE SHALL BE NO GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS.
E E. PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND HEADER BOULDERS ENSURING THAT ANY VOIDS
BETWEEN THE BOULDERS ARE FILLED.
TH 5. BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED IN 1 2" LIFTS.
NK NOTES:
E
I . LOGS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS AS FOLLOWS:
MIN DIAM = 10"
MIN LENGTH = 30'
2. ALL LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND LIMBS SHALL BE TRIMMED FLUSH.
E 3. FOOTEK LOGS/BOULDERS ARE LOGS/BOULDER PLACED TO PROVIDE A FOUNDATION AND SCOUR
PROTECTION FOR THE HEADER LOGS/BOULDERS.
4. HEADER LOGS/BOULDERS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER LOGS/BOULDERS UNLESS OTHERWISE
DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
5. HEADER LOGS ARE THE TOP MOST LOGS USED IN EACH LOG STRUCTURE. ALL HEADER LOGS CAN BE
SEEN PROTRUDING FROM THE WATER SURFACE DURING EXTREMELY LOW FLOWS.
G. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE OFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTING LOGS WHERE SCOUR
POOLS ARE ANTICIPATED TO FORM AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL.
E 7. SILL LOGS SHALL BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO THE BANKFULL FLOW DIRECTION.
8. THE FOOTEK LOGS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE SILL LOG TO THE END OF THE HEADER LOG TOWARD THE
BANK.
9. HOOK BOULDERS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE HEADER LOG TO BEYOND BANKFULL WIDTH.
10. SET INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS.
1 1 . HEADER LOG SHALL TIE INTO THE STREAM BANK AT A MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF -L DMAX (MEASURED AT
THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE) BELOW BANKFULL ELEVATION AND A MINIMUM ELEVATION OF 2 DMAX
(MEASURE AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE) BELOW BANKFULL ELEVATION UNLESS OTHERWISE
DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. NON -WOVEN
12. CUTTING OF THE SILL LOG ROOTWAD BAY BE REQUIRED TO PREVENT THE KOOTWAD FROM GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
PROTRUDING ABOVE THE BANKFULL ELEVATION. (NCDOT TYPE II)
13. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN I INCH BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTING LOGS SHALL BE CHINKED
WITH LIMBS AND/OR BRUSH ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GEOTEXTILE.
14. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN I INCH BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTING BOULDERS SHALL BE
CHINKED WITH GRAVEL AND COBBLES.
15, ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE LOGS AND/OR BOULDERS, NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE
PLACED AS SHOWN IN PLANVIEW AND IN SECTION B-B'. PLACE SELECT BACKFILL FOR THE ENTIRE
LENGTH OF THE LOG AND BOULDER HOOK. 51LL LOG OR
I G. BACKFILL STRUCTURE WITH SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL AS SHOWN SHOWN IN PLANVIEW AND IN ROOT WAD
SECTION B-B'.
17. SELECT BACKFILL AND SOIL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE
SETTLEMENT OF THE MATERIAL IS KEPT TO A MINIMUM.
18. NAIL NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE USING 3" 1 OD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL TO EDGE OF HEADER LOG
AND BACKFILL AS SHOWN IN THE GEOTEXTILE PLACEMENT AND SELECT BACKFILL DETAIL.
LOG BURIED IN
Z STREAM BANK VANE LENGTH
Y BANKFULL OFFSET FROM
TOP OF BANK
3 PRIMARY ROCK DIMENSIONS:
X. LONGEST DIMENSION
Y. SHORTEST DIMEN5ION
Z. INTERMEDIATE DIMEN5ION
STRUCTURE MINIMUM BOULDER SIZE
REACH
DIMENSION
LENTGH (IN.)
MN -9
X
18
Y
12
Z
18
TKI
X
24
Y
18
Z
18
ROCK SILL
NTS
POOTEK BOULDER
STRUCTURE TABLE
CONTROL POINT
HEADER BOULDER
MIN. 5.0' SEE PROFILE FOR
-I POOL DEPTH
i
IV
FOOTER BOULDER
SECTION A -A'
SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL (MIX OF
COARSE AGGREGATE AND #5 5TONE)� A
FOOTER LOG
OUTSIDE
MEANDER BEND
HEADER
LOG
e
/ SCOUR 8
POOL
A
LIVE
STAKI N G
PLANVIEW
STREAM BED
/�\\//\\// /\//\ \ INVERT LOG BURIED IN STREAM ELEVATION
\\ Y MAX DEPTH OF
NEAREST RIFFLE
TO 4%
SECTION A -A'
BANK MIN. 5FT
LOG J-HOOK
NT5
LIVE STAKES
(TYP J
501L BACKFILL
SELECT
BACKFILL MATERIAL /
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE J
FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)
SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL
(MIX OF COARSE AGGREGATE
AND #5 STONE)
SECTION B-B'
BANKFULL
F------- HEADER LOG
STREAMBED
FOOTER LOG
pres
3600 Glenwood
Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
CN
0
N
W
�
LO
N
Q
o
H
O
z
O
U
H
z
O
O
IL
H
O
z
O
�
IL
0
z_
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
W
W
Cc
Ir
Q
z
J
Uj
O
vJ
Q
z
U
0_
F-
F-
Q
0
O
Z
J
Q
~
Q
w
0
O
U
U
LU
2 Q
U
LU
a co
J
F-
z p
F-
0 ~
5Q
z
Lu
J
Ir
Q
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D5

A' r
FLow
1
LARGE COBBLE/
SMALL BOULDERS
EXCESS SPOIL FROM STRUCTURE KEY IN
SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM
FACE OF THE STRUCTURE AND
COMPACTED @ A 4: 1 OR FLATTER SLOPE.
BEGIN RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
2: 1 OR
FLATTER
EXCESS SPOIL FROM STRUCTURE KEY IN-
5HOULD BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM
FACE OF THE STRUCTURE AND
COMPACTED @ A 4: 1 OR FLATTER SLOPE. /
i^nn n v A 1-rPn
BEGIN RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
RIFFLE MATERIAL;
SEE TABLE I
VLI VL \
POOL
MAX 2"-3" -
BRANCHE5
VARIES PER PROFILE
FLOW
LAYER 4
LAYER 3
LAYER 2
MIN'
PROFILE
CRO55 SECTION A -A'
LAYERED RI FELE
NTS
CHANNEL
CROSS SECTION A -A'
VARIES PER PROFILE
FLOW
PROFILE
TYPICAL RII=I=LE
NTS
END RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
4: 1 OR
FLATTER
LARGE COBBLE/5MALL
BOULDERS, TYP
1.01
MIN
RIFFLE MATERIAL;
SEE TABLE I
PROPOSED TOP
OF BANK
-END RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
RUN
POOL
NOTES:
I . LAYERED RIFFLE STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN EXISTING CHANNEL SECTIONS,
AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN SHEETS.
2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL MATCH THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN THE PROFILE.
SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE
INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.
3. LAYERED RIFFLE STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSTALLED BEGINING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM
MOST LAYERED RIFFLE STRUCTURE AND CONTINUING UPSTREAM.
4. LAYERED RIFFLE STRUCTURES SHOULD BE COMPRISED OF THE FOLLOWING
MATERTIAL:
- LAYER I : 4" - G" DIA. BRUSH BACKFILLED WITH SOIL AND COMPACTED TO A
MINIMUM I FT THICKNESS. BRUSH SHOULD BE CUT TO A MINIMUM
LENGTH OF 10 FT.
- LAYER 2: A 50 / 50 MIX OF G" - 8" STONE AND 10" - 1 2" STONE BACKFILLED WITH
SOIL AND COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM I FT THICKNESS
- LAYER 3: 2" - 4" DIA. BRUSH BACKFILLED WITH 501L AND COMPACTED TO A
MINIMUM 0.75 FT THICKNESS. BRUSH SHOULD BE CUT TO A MINIMUM
LENGTH OF 10 FT.
- LAYER 4: A 50 / 50 MIX OF 4" - G" STONE AND 10" - 1 2" STONE COMPACTED TO
PROPOSED GRADE AND MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 0.75FT
5. LAYER I SHOULD BE INSTALLED BELOW THE EXISTING CHANNEL BED. IF BEDROCK IS
ENCOUNTERED DURING INSTALLATION, SKIP LAYER ONE AND TIE LAYER 2 TO THE
BEDROCK.
G. ALL LAYERS SHOULD BE KEYED INTO THE BANK A MINIMUM OF 5FT FROM THE
CHANNEL BANK AT PROPOSED GRADE. ALL LAYERS SHOULD BE KEYED INTO THE
BANK FOR THE TOP LENGTT OF THE RIFFLE.
7. EXCESS MATERIAL GENERATED DURING STRUCTURE INSTALLATION SHOULD BE
PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM FACE OF THE STRUCTURE AND COMPACTED TO A 4: 1 OR
FLATTER SLOPE.
8. WRAPPED SOIL LIFTS ARE TO BE INSTALLED OVER "KEYED" AREAS IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN BANK STABILITY. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER
COMPACTED SOIL WITH I TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES (SEE DETAIL D3). COIR
MATTING SHALL BE KEYED INTO TOP OF BANK,
9. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURING THAT BASE FLOW TRAVELS ON TOP OF
THE RIFFLE FOR THE FULL LENGTT OF THE STRUCTURE.
NOTES:
I . TYPICAL RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL
SECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
ON PLAN SHEETS.
2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE
BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TO ESTABLISH PART OF THE
PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE
REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A
TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.
3. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF 75% ROCKS AND 25%
WOODY MATERIAL. WOODY MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF LOGS,
BRANCHES, AND BRUSH NO GREATER THAN 3" IN DIAMETER. THE
ROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL
WHEN POSSIBLE. NATIVE MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED,
STOCKPILED, AND RE -USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. IF
A SUITABLE QUANTITY OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL CANNOT BE
HARVESTED, CONTRACTOR MAY SUBSTITUTE THE RIFFLE MATERIAL
WITH ROCK MATCHING THE COMPOSITION IN TABLE 1.
4. THE PLACEMENT OF RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TO
CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT "JUMP" (TRANSITION)
BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM POOL -GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE
NO ABRUPT "DROP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND THE
DOWNSTREAM RUN -POOL. THE FINISHED CRO55 SECTION OF THE
RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND
DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOME
VARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALL
POOLS AND LOGS.
5. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER
IN -STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL, J-HOOK, ETC.). NO LOGS SHOULD
BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
TABLE I - STONE COMPOSITION
REACH
STONE SIZE
%
MN2, MN4
MN5
8" - 1 2"
80
2" - 4"
20
TRI , TR2, MN 1,
MN3, MNG,
MN7 �- MN8
G" - I O"
80
2" - 4"
20
I �
3
INSTALL ER0510N
CONTROL BLANKET
MIN. 2.0'
KEY IN EROSION
CONTROL BLANKET
MAN•
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET INSTALLATION NOTES:
51TE PREPARATION
I . GRADE AND COMPACT AREA.
2. REMOVE ALL ROCKS, CLODS, VEGETATION, AND OBSTRUCTIONS 50 THAT MATTING WILL
HAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL.
3. PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOP501L ABOVE FINAL GRADE.
4. TEST SOILS FOR ANY NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND SUBMIT 501L TEST RESULTS TO THE
ENGINEER. APPLY ANY TREATMENT SUCH A5 LIME OR FERTILIZERS TO THE 501L IF NEEDED.
SEEDING
1. SEE PLANTING SHEETS FOR SEEDING REQUIREMENTS.
2. APPLY SEED TO SOIL BEFORE PLACING MATTING.
INSTALLATION - CHANNEL
I . SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND DETAIL SHEETS FOR
INFORMATION REGARDING WHICH AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE MATTING.
2. OVERLAP ADJACENT MATS G" (IN DIRECTION PARALLEL TO FLOW) AND ANCHOR EVERY 1 2"
ACR055 THE OVERLAP. THE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE DOWNSTREAM
MAT.
3. EDGES SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER.
4. LAY MAT L005E TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT.
5. ANCHOR MAT U51NG BIODEGRADABLE STAKES.
G. EXTEND MAT 2 TO 3 FEET PAST TOP OF BANK.
7. STAKE AT 1 2" INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP.
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
• CURLEX I FIBRENET ER0510N CONTROL BLANKET (OR
EQUIVALENT)
• THICKNESS - 0.401 IN. MINIMUM.
• SHEAR STRESS - 1.75 LB5/5QFT
• WEIGHT - 5. 1 2 OZ/5Y
• SLOPES - UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 2: 1
• BIO-DEGRADABLE
I . INSTALL 5WALE AT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHEETS.
LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED OR ADDED TO BETTER HANDLE
51TE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
2. INSTALL EP0510N CONTROL BLANKETS (ECB) ALONG ALL 5WALE5
PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. APPLY BOTH TEMPORARY
AND PERMANENT SEED MIX BEFORE ECB INSTALLATION.
3. 5WALE5 SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SLOPES NO STEEPER
THAN 5%.
4. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET IN5TALLTION MUST MEET OR EXCEED
THE SPECIFICATIONS OF CURLEX I FIBRENET. COIR MATTING MAY
BE USED IN PLACE OF CURLEX PER APPROVAL FROM ENGINEER.
5. ALL 5WALE5 MUST BE STABILIZED WITH SEED, MULCH * MATTING
WITHIN 7 DAYS OF LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES.
MAINTENANCE:
I . INSPECT ROLLED ER0510N CONTROL PRODUCTS (RECP) AT LEAST WEEKLY
AND AFTER EACH 51GNlflCANT X2 INCH OR GREATER) RAIN FALL EVENT,
REPAIR IMMEDIATELY.
2. GOOD CONTACT WITH THE GROUND MUST BE MAINTAINED AND ER0510N
MUST NOT OCCUR BENEATH THE RECP.
3. ANY AREAS OF THE RECP THAT ARE DAMAGED OR NOT IN CL05E CONTACT
WITH THE GROUND SHALL BE REPAIRED AND STAPLED/STAKED.
4. IF EROSION OCCURS DUE TO POORLY CONTROLLED DRAINAGE, THE
PROBLEM SHALL BE FIXED AND THE ERODED AREA PROTECTED
5. MONITOR AND REPAIR THE RECP A5 NECESSARY UNTIL GROUND COVER 15
ESTABLISHED.
I=LOODPLAIN 5WALE
NT5
pres
3600 Glenwood
Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
CN
0
N
W
�
LID
N
Q
O
H
O
J
IL
Z
_O
H
U
H
CO
Z
O
U
O
LL
H
O
Z
I
O
01�
IL
Q
0
Z_
O
U)
(n
W
J
W
>
W
_j
W
cr
rr
Q
z_
�
J
�O/
z
O
CU
rQ
V
-
O
cn
z
J
C~
c
Q
>
Q
z
w
O=)
0
0�O
O
U
U
w
ILL,U
U
Q
z
Z
O
W
G
Z
~
0
J
<
Q
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D6

SMALL POOL
A' r
LARGE COBBLE/
SMALL BOULDER
ANCHOR BOULD
4" - G" LOGS
COMPACTED
501 L LIFT, TYP
4.0'
TYP
\KO'<�/\�/\
0.5' MIN
I .0, MIN
4" - G" LOGS
ANCHOR BOULDER
RIFFLE MATERIAL;
SEE TABLE I
BEGIN RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
GLIDE
POOL
CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH
CR055 SECTION A -A'
LARGE COBBLE/51MALL
BOULDERS, TYP
4.0'
TYP
if Y
VARIES PER PROFILE
FLOW
0 0 0
4" - G" LOGS
PROFILE
RI EELE GLADE CONTROL
NTS
PROPOSED
TOE OF BANK
— RIFFLE MATERIAL;
SEE TABLE I
— GRADE CONTROL ROCK
50/50 MIX OF CLA55 A
AND CLA55 B RIPRAP
PROPOSED TOP
OF BANK
END RIFFLE CONTROL POINT
/-- RUN
GRADE CONTROL ROCK
50/50 MIX OF CLA55 A
AND CLA55 B RIPRAP
POOL
NOTES:
I . RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY
GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN SHEETS.
2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE
BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TO ESTABLISH PART OF THE
PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE
REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A
TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.
3. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A 50/50 MIX OF
CLA55 A AND B RIPRAP. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACED
SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OF RIFFLE
MATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.
4. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ROCKS AND LOGS. THE
ROCK MATERIAL COMPOSITION SHALL MATCH TABLE 1. RIFFLE
MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE -USED FROM
ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. ROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL OBTAINED
OFF5ITE SHALL BE SLIGHTLY ROUNDED, "RIVER -TYPE" ROCK, UNLESS
OTHER ROCK CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
CHANNEL.
5. SPACING AND NUMBER OF LOGS SHOULD BE BASED ON RIFFLE
LENGTH AND MAY VARY BASED ON LOG AVAILABILITY. LOGS SHOULD
BE SPACED EQUALLY AND ANCHORED TO THE CHANNEL BED WITH
BOULDERS.
G. THE PLACEMENT OF GRADE CONTROL ROCK AND/OR RIFFLE MATERIAL
SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TO CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH
NO ABRUPT "JUMP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM
POOL -GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT "DROP"
(TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND THE DOWNSTREAM
RUN -POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL
SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON
THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOME VARIABILITY OF THE
THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALL POOLS AND LOGS.
7. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER
IN -STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL , J-HOOK, ETC.). NO LOGS SHOULD
BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
8. THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM
BANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED BY THE DESIGNER. THE "KEY"
SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK FOR THE LENGTH OF THE
RIFFLE.
9. WRAPPED SOIL LIFTS ARE TO BE INSTALLED OVER "KEYED" AREAS IN
ORDER TO MAINTAIN BANK STABILITY. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL
(COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTED 501L WITH I TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE
STAKES (SEE DETAIL D3). COIR MATTING SHALL BE KEYED INTO TOP
OF BANK.
TABLE I - STONE COMPOSITION
REACH
STONE SIZE
MN2, MN4
MN5
8" - 1 2"
80
2" - 4"
20
TR 1, TR2, MN 1,
MN3, MNG,
MN7 * MN8
G" - I O"
80
2" - 4"
20
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
QN
N
0 CD
N
N
O �
J p
z
O
U
CO
z
O
U
O
LL
O
z
aC
}
o
Q
0
z
o
U
(n
W
J
W
>
W
_j
W
cr
rr
D_
Q
z_
O
U
z
Q
O
U
Q
F---
0
—
O
cn
z
J
>
<
Q
z
w
O=)
0
0�O
O
CU
CU
w
U
U
Lu Q
zLU
Q
Z O
C) ~
Q
z
J
Q
O
Q
Er
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
102567
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D 7