Big Buffalo_TechPro_Redact

PART 2: TITLE PAGE
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
BIG BUFFALO MITIGATION SITE
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(RFP #16-452048014)
FULL DELIVERY PROJECT
TO PROVIDE STREAM MITIGATION CREDITS
WITHIN CATALOGING UNIT 03030003 OF THE CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Restoration Systems, LLC
Authorized Rearesentative: Georee Howard
Ph: 919-755-9490
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Prepared by:
JULY 2022
Axiom Environmomnl. Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

TECHNICAL APPROACH AND RESTORATION PLAN
BIG BUFFALO MITIGATION SITE
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RFP #16-452048014 - FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS TO PROVIDE STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION
CREDITS WITHIN CATALOGING UNIT 03030003 OF THE CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
PART 4: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems (RS) is pleased to provide you with this proposal in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP)
#16-452048014 dated June 28, 2022. This proposal describes the merits of the Big Buffalo Mitigation Site (Site). The
general content of this technical proposal includes the following:
Project Staffing and Organization — Part 5
Technical Approach — Part 6
- Project goals, objectives, description, development, and success criteria
- Proposed mitigation
- Current ownership and long-term protection of the Site
- Project phasing/implementation schedule
- Project success criteria
- Quality control procedures
Completed and signed RFP Attachments (D-G)
Completed Technical Scoresheet
The Site occurs within 14-digit Cataloging Unit 03030003070010 along North Prong Rocky River and unnamed
tributaries to North Prong Rocky River. The Site is located approximately 2.3 miles southwest of Liberty, in the
northwest corner of Chatham County. The Site is in a Water Quality Targeted Resource Area (TRA), a Habitat TRA,
a Hydrology TRA, a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), and a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area.
As summarized in the following table, the proposed mitigation was calculated per the requirements stipulated in
RFP #16-452048014.
Mitigation Activities and Site Credit Potential Summary
Stream Mitigation Type
Type
Linear Feet
Ratio
SMUS
Restoration
Priority 1
10,207.458
1:1
10,207.458
Enhancement
Level 1
1,932.773
1.5:1
1,288.515
Enhancement
Level 11
589.177
2.5:1
235.671
Enhancement
Level 11
1037.373
7.5:1
138.316
Enhancement
Level 11
5,475.117
10:1
547.512
Preservation
NA
1,741.896
10:1
174.190
Totals
20,983.794 linear feet
12,591.662 SMUs
Stream Buffer Credit Adjustment*
816.278**
Total SMUs
13,407.940 SMUs
*See Figure 8 (Appendix A) and the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator Output Table (Appendix A)
for stream buffer credit adjustment output and results.
**Additional credit generated by stream buffer credit adjustment was reduced by 5% to account for the margin of
error due to the lack of a design stream alignment at the current phase of project development.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 4— Executive Summary
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)

PARTS: PROJECT STAFFING AND ORGANIZATION
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) and the RS Team of Axiom Environmental, Sungate Design Group, K2 Design Group,
and Land Mechanic Designs offer the Division a uniquely qualified team to accomplish the full -delivery of the
proposed Site as outlined in the Scope of Work detailed in the Request for Proposal (RFP) number 16-452048014. In
total, the RS Team offers an unparalleled 100+ years of combined regulatory and permitting insight and critical
relationships within the profession of compensatory mitigation in North Carolina. Since RS' inception in 1998, it has
sponsored over 533,500 linear feet of stream and 3,760 acres of wetland mitigation in North Carolina. Specifically,
RS has contracted with the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) for 54 full -delivery projects, encompassing
383,285 LF of streams and 687 acres of wetlands. Of the 54 DMS contracted projects, 31 have been successfully
closed out by the NC Inter -agency Review Team (IRT).
Since 2010, the RS Team has worked collaboratively on permitting, designing/engineering, implementing, and
managing RS-sponsored compensatory mitigation projects in North Carolina, further detailed in Table A below.
Table A: RS Team Experience
RS Team Member & Role(s)
Number of
Total LF of
Total Acres of
Projects w/ RS
Stream
Wetland
Axiom Environmental (Axiom)
Professional wetland & soil science, project design,
permitting (404 and 401), construction management,
55
195,826
2,561
data collection, and monitoring services
Sungate Design Group (Sungate)
Engineering services: construction documents, land
quality permitting, FEMA compliance (CLOMR/LOMR),
20
110,947
1,190
and as -built survey/recorded drawings
K2 Design Group (K2)
Survey services: title searching, property/easement,
66
419,582
3,650
baseline/topographic, as-built/recorded drawings
Land Mechanic Designs (LIVID)
Stream/wetland construction and management
38
254,995
1,409
Several factors make the RS Team the preferred choice for DMS:
Experience and Expertise
♦ RS —Tenure of Operation Managers, Worth Creech — 21 years and Raymond Holz 12.
♦ RS — Sponsor of 94, Full -Delivery, outcome -based, compensatory mitigation projects in NC (54 with DMS,
18 mitigation banks, and 19 permittee-responsible)
♦ RS —1,000 + negotiated and acquired purchase agreements within NC
♦ IRS —45 projects successfully closed out by regulatory agencies within NC
♦ Axiom — Providing design and engineering services for mitigation projects with RS since 2005
♦ Sungate — Providing design and engineering services for mitigation projects with RS since 2010
♦ K2 — Providing land survey services for mitigation projects with RS since 2000
♦ LIVID — Since 2005, 100+ projects constructed; 580,000 LF of stream restoration and enhancement and
over 200 acres of wetland restoration and enhancement.
♦ RS— Pioneer of "Full -Delivery," outcome -based mitigation with the first such contract in North Carolina
for the Department of Transpiration and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (now DMS) in 2000
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 5 — Project Staffing & Organization
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)

Regulatory & Policy Knowledge
♦ Axiom — Sandy Smith was a co-author and is now teaches the North Carolina Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) & North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM)
♦ IRS — First Post 2008 Mitigation Rule Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank in NC —Cripple Creek
♦ IRS — First and only large scale dam removals for mitigation credit in NC
♦ RS — Environmental public policy background (US Senate) with a focus on wetlands, water quality, and
species issues
♦ IRS — State & non-profit advocacy
• Founding and active member of the NC Environmental Restoration Associations (NCERA); a not -for -
profit trade group involved with the improvement of ecological restoration and conservation
• Former Trustee of the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund (now NC Land and Water Fund)
• Former Board Member of the NC Coastal Federation
• Former Board Member of the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation
• Former Commissioner of North Carolina Mining and Energy Commission
• Currently, Board Member of the UNC Institute for the Environment
• Currently, Trustee of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Proven Management — A Collaborative & Responsive Approach to DMS' Full -Deliver Objectives
♦ A multidisciplinary, results -driven team that understands DMS' objectives
♦ Responsive, schedule -focused delivery that keeps DMS informed and projects on track
♦ Open-minded, flexible team amendable to new ideas and DMS/regulatory agency input
♦ An engaging and collaborative communication -based approach to identifying, permitting, designing, and
managing compensatory mitigation projects with a high value on DMS/regulatory agency input in
developing the optimal solution
Experience in the Slate -Belt Region of INC
♦ The proposed Project is within the Level IV Slate Belt Ecoregion of NC, a geologic area known for its difficulty
in implementing mitigation projects and achieving the required success criteria.RS has vast experience in
permitting, construction, and managing stream and wetland mitigation projects within the Slate Belt. A
summary of RS's work in this region is provided in Table B.
Table B: IRS Project History in the INC Slate Belt Region
Number of IRS projects
within the NC Slate -Belt
Total LF of
Stream
Total Acres
of Wetland
Project Phases
12
Bass Mt. (Bank) Heron (DMS)
- Closed Out: 3
Wall (DMS) Major Hill (DMS)
- Late -Stage Monitoring (Yrs. 4-7): 5
Abbey Lamm (DMS) Phantom Mill (DMS)
66,743
49.95
- Early -Stage Monitoring (Yrs. 1-3): 3
Motes (Bank) Nesbit (DMS)
- Under Construction: 1
Orphan Crk. (Bank) Wits End (DMS)
Rocky Top (Bank) Brahma (DMS)
As the submitter of this Proposal, IRS will act as Project Sponsor and primary coordinator with the DMS and NC IRT.
IRS will manage all work out of its Raleigh Headquarters, located at 1101 Haynes St. Suite 211, Raleigh, NC 27604.
This location allows us to meet with DMS staff in minutes and enables IRS immediate access to state & federal
regulatory personnel.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 5 — Project Staffing & Organization
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)

As a leading environmental restoration and mitigation banking firm with ninety-four (94) sponsored mitigation
banks, permittee-responsible, and full -delivery mitigation sites across eight (8) States and US Army Corps Districts,
RS fully understands the complexities of providing cost-effective compensatory mitigation. RS' sole business activity
is restoring and protecting water, land, and endangered species habitat by purchasing permanent conservation
easements, fee -simple interests, or deed restrictions from property owners while physically restoring the
waterways, vegetation, and habitat to exceed current function and duplicate historical ecological conditions to the
extent practicable.
As a firm, RS is structured to facilitate a multidisciplinary approach. Staff backgrounds in policy, environmental
science, biology, landscape architecture, real estate, construction management, and economics allow for the
flexibility to overcome ecological and regulatory variables that are inherently part of providing full -delivery
compensatory mitigation. That approach is carried over to the selection of our sub -consultants. RS sub -contracts
local biologists, geomorphologists, civil and environmental engineers, and project -specific consultants to provide a
diverse approach to achieving cost-effective mitigation alternatives.
Sub -contractors are under the supervision of RS' Operation Managers, who hold direct oversight over all aspects of
project development, implementation, monitoring, and closure. Work products are scrutinized for quality,
undergoing sub -contractor and RS quality assurance and control (QA/QC).
With assistance from Worth Creech, RS' Senior Operations Manager, Raymond Holz, RS' Operations Manager, will
lead RS Team as the Senior Project Manager. During Raymond's twelve years with RS, he has performed over 50 Site
identification and mitigation feasibility studies and currently oversees permitting and monitoring of RS North
Carolina projects. Raymond's responsibilities have included site identification and acquisition, environmental
screening, project oversite (permitting, construction, yearly monitoring, and remedial action planning), coordination
with DMS Project Managers and NC IRT members, and project permitting/close out with the NC IRT.
Table C summarizes the RS Team's key personnel, including individual qualifications, related experience, and
assigned responsibilities for this Project.
Table C: RS Team — Key Member Resume, Experience, & Project Role
Name and Background Mitigation Project Experience Project Role
(Past 5 years)
Raymond Holz (RS):
No. of Relevant Projects: 30+
Professional Licenses, Certifications, and/or
Training: Stream Mechanics — Function -
Based Framework for Stream Assessment &
Restoration Projects — 2015,
NC State Nutrient Management Training —
2017
Worth Creech, GC (RS):
No. of Relevant Projects: 65+
Professional Licenses, Certifications, and/or
Training: NC Unlimited Building General
Contractor's License, NC, #64807, Rosgen
Level I Certification, NC Stormwater BMP
Inspection and Maintenance Certificate,
NCEEP/NCSY Stream Restoration
Construction Training Certificate
Environmental assessment and natural resource
investigations Sr. Project Manager &
QA/QC
Land acquisition & document preparation for
NC State Property Office Sr. Manager of all
- Natural systems restoration design & permitting
- Construction management Project tasks outlined in
- Monitoring the Scope of Work
- Project closeout (SOW) Tasks 1-13
- Environmental assessment and natural resource
investigations
Land acquisition & document preparation for
NC State Property Office Sr. Construction Manger
- Natural systems restoration design & permitting SOW Task 4
- Construction management
Monitoring
Project closeout
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 5 — Project Staffing & Organization
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)

Table C: IRS Team — Key Member Resume, Experience, & Project Role (continued)
Name and Background
W. Grant Lewis, PWS, CPSS (Axiom):
No. of Relevant Projects: 65+
Professional Licenses, Certifications, and/or
Training: NC Licensed Soil Scientist (#1233),
Society of Wetland Scientists, Professional
Wetland Scientist Certification -January
2002, Applied Fluvial Geomorphology
(Rosgen Level I, II, III, and IV)
Mitigation Project Experience
(Past 5 years)
Project Role
Environmental assessment and natural
resource investigations
- Natural systems restoration design & Sr. Design Manager
permitting
- Construction management SOW Tasks 1, 3, & 5-13
- Monitoring
- Project closeout
Kenan Jernigan (Axiom):
No. of Relevant Projects: 30+ Environmental assessment and natural
Professional Licenses, Certifications, and/or resource investigations Environmental &
Training: NC Wetland Assessment Method - Natural systems restoration design & Monitoring Manager
Certification — 2012, Surface Water permitting
Identification Training and Certification — Monitoring SOW Tasks 5-13
2014 & 2019, NC Stream Assessment Project closeout
Method Certification — 2017
Josh Dalton, PE (Sungate):
No. of Relevant Projects: 20+
Professional Licenses, Certifications, and/or
Training: Professional Engineer, NC (026971)
_ Natural systems restoration design, permitting,
Certified Professional in Sediment and
& feasibility QA/QC
Engineer of Record
Erosion Control (4419), Level III: Designer of
-Sealed construction documents
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, #3552,
- Sediment &erosion control permitting SOW Task 3 & 6
NCSU Stormwater BMP Inspection and
- FEMA compliance (CLOMR/LOMR)
As-built/map of record documents
Maintenance Certification, #2216, NCDEQ—
DEMLR Stormwater BMP Reviewer
Certification
John Rudolph, PLS (K2): - Property, easement, & topographic (baseline)
No. of Relevant Projects: 65+ survey work for mitigation projects
Professional Licenses, Certifications, and/or Document preparation for NC State Property
Training: PLS North Carolina (L-4194) Sept. Office Project Surveyor
2000, PLS Virginia (0403003029) Dec. 2009, - Sediment & erosion control design and
PLS South Carolina ELS.30298 L Dec. 2010, permitting SOW Task 2, 3, 4, & 6
Certified Professional in Erosion and - Construction stake -out
Sedimentation Control CPESC-2226 - As-built/map of record survey work/document
prep
Lloyd Glover (LMD):
- Natural systems construction project
No. of Relevant Projects: 100+
manager/foreman
Professional Licenses, Certifications, and/or
Training: Level I & II NCDOT Erosion and
- Purchasing coordinator Construction
Sedimentation Control/Stormwater
- Estimating
Superintendent
Certification Stream Restoration
- CDL driver
Construction Training - NCSU - 12/15/05,
- Equipment operator
SOW Task 4
Storm Water BMP Inspection &
-Coordinating all land disturbing activities
Maintenance Certification- NCSU -
Experience with Trimble and TopCon GPS
7/17/2007
systems
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 5 — Project Staffing & Organization
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)

PROJECT ORGANIZATION
IRS will lead the Team as Offeror/Sponsor, providing project management support and coordination between the IRS
Team members, DMS, and regulatory entities for the proposed Project. Work will be performed primarily by staff
from the following office locations:
Amm Environmental, Inc.
Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc.
1101 Haynes Street Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27604 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
The following graphic provides a visual representation of the Project's organizational structure.
Project Organization Chart
George Howard
(IRS)
RS' CEO
Authorized
Representative
IRS Support Staff
Berrett Jenkins, CPA
Project Cash/Finance
Worth Creech, GC
Construction Mgr.
Alex Baldwin, PWS
QA/QC Manager
Matthew Harrell
Vegetation Specialist
NC DMS / NC IRT
Raymond Holz
(IRS)
Sr. Project Manager,
Day -to -Day
Operations, &
QA/QC
Grant Lewis John Rudolph, PLS
(Axiom) I I I (K2)
Stream/Wetland Lead Engineer
Designer (Engineer of Record)
Kenan Jernigan Josh Dalton, PE, PCESC
(Axiom) I I I (Sungate)
Environmental & Lead Engineer
Monitoring Manager (Engineer of Record)
Lloyd Glover
(LIVID)
Construction
Superintendent
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 5 — Project Staffing & Organization
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)

TECHNICAL APPROACH AND RESTORATION PLAN
BIG BUFFALO MITIGATION SITE
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RFP #16-452048014 - FULL DELIVERY PROJECT TO PROVIDE STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION
CREDITS WITHIN CATALOGING UNIT 03030003 OF THE CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART6: TECHNICAL
APPROACH...................................................................................................................................1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives...........................................................................................................1
1.2
Project Description..........................................................................................................................4
1.2.1 Soils.................................................................................................................................5
1.2.2 Stream Characterization.................................................................................................6
1.2.3 Sediment Model..............................................................................................................8
1.2.4 Nutrient Model................................................................................................................8
1.2.5 Site Design and Implementation Constraints..................................................................9
1.3
Project Development....................................................................................................................11
1.3.1 Stream Restoration.......................................................................................................11
1.3.2 Stream Enhancement (Level 1)......................................................................................12
1.3.3 Stream Enhancement (Level 11).....................................................................................12
1.3.4 Stream Preservation......................................................................................................12
1.3.5 Individual Reach Descriptions.......................................................................................12
1.3.6 Wetland Restoration (Re-establishment)......................................................................13
1.3.7 Wetland Enhancement..................................................................................................16
1.3.8 Wetland Preservation...................................................................................................16
1.3.9 Riparian Restoration.....................................................................................................16
1.3.10 Fence / Easement Marking...........................................................................................17
1.3.11 Nuisance Species Management....................................................................................17
1.4
Proposed Mitigation......................................................................................................................17
1.5
Current Ownership and Long-term Protection.............................................................................17
1.6
Project Phasing..............................................................................................................................18
1.7
Success Criteria.............................................................................................................................18
1.8
Quality Control..............................................................................................................................20
1.9
References.....................................................................................................................................22
LIST OF TABLES
Table1. RBRP Goals.......................................................................................................................................................1
Table2A. INC SAM Summary..........................................................................................................................................2
Table2B. INC WAM Summary........................................................................................................................................3
Table 2C. Targeted Functions, Goals, Objectives, and Uplift Evaluation.......................................................................3
Table 3. Project Background Information......................................................................................................................4
Table4. Site Soils...........................................................................................................................................................5
Table 5. Essential Morphology Parameters...................................................................................................................7
Table 6. BEHI and NBS Modeling Summary...................................................................................................................8
Table 7. Threatened and Endangered Species..............................................................................................................9
Table 8. Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift.....................................................................................13
Table 9. Mitigation Activities and Site Credit Potential Summary...............................................................................17
Table10. Current Ownership.......................................................................................................................................17
Table 11. Proposed Project Schedule..........................................................................................................................18
Table12. Monitoring Schedule....................................................................................................................................18
Table13. Success Criteria............................................................................................................................................19
Table 14. Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives......................................................19
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6 —Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Table of Contents

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Figures
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3A. Site Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 3B. UT Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5. Soils
Figure 6. LiDAR Mapping
Figures 7, 7A-C. Proposed Conditions
Figure 8. Stream Buffer Credit Adjustment Output
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator Output Table
Appendix B: Stream & Wetland Data
NCSAM Forms
NCWAM Forms
NCDWR Forms
Cross -Sections
BEHI & NBS
Soil Boring Logs
Appendix C:
NHP Report,
ATLAS Documents
IPaC Resource List
RCW SLOPES Determination Key
Appendix D:
Landowner Authorization (LOA)
Memorandum of Option Agreement (MOA)
Chatham County EQIP — Conservation Plan / Schedule (Keith A Tuttle Farms Inc.)
Appendix E: Completed and Signed RFP Attachments & Technical Scoresheet
RFP Attachment D: HUB Supplemental Vendor Information
RFP Attachment E: Supplemental Vendor Information
RFP Attachment F: Location of Workers Utilized by Vendor
RFP Attachment G: Certification of Financial Condition
Completed Technical Proposal Scoresheet
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Table of Contents

PART 6 - TECHNICAL APPROACH
Restoration Systems (RS) is pleased to provide you with this proposal in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP)
#16-452048014 dated June 28, 2022. This proposal describes the merits of the Big Buffalo Mitigation Site (Site). The
general content of this technical proposal includes the following:
• Project Staffing and Organization — Part 5
• Technical Approach — Part 6
- Project goals, objectives, description, development, and success criteria
- Proposed mitigation
- Current ownership and long-term protection of the Site
- Project phasing/implementation schedule
- Project success criteria
- Quality control procedures
Completed and signed RFP Attachments (D-G)
Completed Technical Scoresheet
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is in the 14-digit Cataloging Unit 03030003070010 along North Prong Rocky River and unnamed tributaries
to North Prong Rocky River. The Site is located approximately 2.3 miles southwest of Liberty, in the northwest corner
of Chatham County. The Site is in a Water Quality Targeted Resource Area (TRA), a Habitat TRA, a Hydrology TRA,
a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), and a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area.
Table 1. RBRP Goals
RBRP Goal
Site Objectives Addressing RBRP Goals
Reduce and control sediment inputs
Reduction of 380.8 tons/year after mitigation is complete
Livestock removal from streams will result in a direct
Reduce and manage nutrient inputs
reduction of 4287.4 Ibs/yr of nitrogen, 355.3 Ibs/yr of
phosphorus, and 56.1 x 1011 col of fecal coliform/day
Protect and augment designated natural heritage
NA
areas
Site -specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed using the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of existing stream systems at the
Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010). Site functional assessment data forms are available upon request; model
output is included in Appendix B and summarized in Tables 2A and 213. Metrics targeted to meet the Site's goals and
objectives are depicted in bold.
Based on NC SAM output, all three primary stream functional metrics (Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat) and
21 sub -metrics are under -performing, as exhibited by a LOW metric rating (see Figure 4, Appendix A for NC SAM
data reaches). LOW performing metrics are targeted for functional uplift through mitigation activities, goals,
objectives, monitoring, and success criteria. Based on NC WAM output, all three primary wetland functional
metrics (Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat) and 9 sub -metrics are under -performing, as exhibited by a LOW
metric rating. LOW performing metrics are targeted for functional uplift through mitigation activities, goals,
objectives, monitoring, and success criteria.
Stream and wetland metrics targeted for functional uplift, tied to defined Site -specific project goals and objectives,
are presented in Table 2C.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 1

3
3
3
3
3
_
3
3
3
W
3
3
3
_
3
3
3
3
N
� c
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0=
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
v
�.
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
y
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
o
y
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a E
j N
3
W
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
c
O
o
o
o
0
o
0
0
o
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< o
v
O
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
0
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
w
7
Q
2
O=
0
0
0
0
z
0
0
0
0
0=
0
0
0
w
y
0
0
0=
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
�
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
o
C7
o
C7
C7
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
O=
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0=
0
0
o
y=
0
0=
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
a
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
W
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
y=
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
4
m
c
m
H
m
d
c
O
c
O
Ic
0
N
m
r
t
on
=
C
~
V
.O
O
00
N
Y
O
u
y
E
i
Q
Q
on
°
O
&;
o
0
a
°_
a
F
Q=
'
i
a
EU
vE
a
"o
`
�
mm
°
`
o
O
m
s
`
v
uo
omm
�
o
°o
v
v
d4
N
N
....
....
N
N
....
....
N
N
N
....
N
0

Table 2B. NC WAM Summary
NC WAM Sub -function Rating Summary
WAM 1
WAM 2
WAM 3
WAM 4
WAM 5
Wetland Type
Headwater
Forest
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
Headwater
Forest
Headwater
Forest
Headwater
Forest
(1) HYDROLOGY —Site is in a TRA
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Surface Storage & Retention
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Sub -surface Storage and Retention
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
(1) WATER QUALITY — Site is in a TRA
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Pathogen change
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
(2) Particulate Change
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
(2) Soluble change
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Physical Change
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
(1) HABITAT — Site is in a TRA
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Physical Structure
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Vegetative Composition
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
OVERALL
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
Table 2C. Targeted Functions, Goals, Objectives, and Uplift Evaluation
DMS Functional Uplift
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
Evaluations
Identified Functional Stressor
(Uplift Potential)
(1) HYDROLOGY— This Site is in a Hydrology TRA
(2) Flood Flow
e Construct a new channel at historic
floodplain elevation to restore
(3) Streamside Area
Attenuation
• Minimize
downstream
flooding to the
maximum extent
overbank flows
e Plant woody riparian buffer
a Dee p rip floodplain soils to reduce
compaction and increase soil surface
• Peak Flows (restore overbank
flooding, surface water and
subsurface water storage,
e .
increase frictional resistance
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Microtopography
possible.
roughness
• Protect riparian buffers with a
to floodwaters, remove
incised streams from
(2) Wetland Surface Storage
and Retention
perpetual conservation easement
e Remove incised/ditched streams
floodplains)
• Artificial Barriers (remove two
(2) Wetland Sub -surface
Storage and Retention
in -line pond dams to restore
(3) Stream Stability
• Construct channels with the proper
pattern, dimension, and longitudinal
aquatic life passage)
• Ditching/Draining (remove
(4) Channel Stability
• Increase stream
profile
incised streams within the
stability within
e Remove livestock from the property
floodplain)
the Site sthat
e Construct stable channels with the
• Other (remove in -line pond
channels a
a re
appropriate substrate
dams, thereby restoring
(4) Sediment Transport
neither
e Upgrade/install piped channel
typical stream hydrodynamics
degrading nor
crossings
to the system)
degrading.
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Stabilize stream banks
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 3

Table 2C. Targeted Functions, Goals, Objectives, and Uplift Evaluation (continued)
DMS Functional Uplift
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
Evaluations
Identified Functional Stressor
(Uplift Potential)
(1) WATER QUALITY — This Site is in a Water Quality TRA
(2) Streamside Area
• Non-functioning Riparian
Vegetation
• Remove agricultural livestock and
reduce agricultural land/inputs
Buffer/Wetland Vegetation
(restoring or enhancing
(3) Upland Pollutant
Filtration
• Remove direct
and indirect
. Plant woody riparian buffer
. Restore/enhance jurisdictional
—84+ acres of riparian
buffer)
(3) Thermoregulation
nutrient and
pollutant inputs
from the Site and
wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Remove several in -line ponds
• Sediment (removing 380.8
tons per year of sediment
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
reduce
a provide surface roughness and
from bank erosion)
(2) Wetland Pathogen Change
contributions todownstream
reduce compaction through deep
ripping/plowing.
• Nutrients (removing 4287.4
Ibs N/year and 355.3 Ibs
(2) Wetland Particulate
Change
waters.
• Restore overbank flooding by
constructing channels at historic
floodplain elevation.
P/year)
• Fecal Coliform (removing
56.1x1011 colonies of fecal
(2) Wetland Soluble Change
(2) Wetland Physical Change
coliform/day)
(1) HABITAT —This Site is in a Habitat TRA
(2) In -stream Habitat
• Construct stable channels with the
appropriate substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer to
provide organic matter and shade
• Habitat Fragmentation
(remove 2 in -line pond
dams to restore aquatic life
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -Stream Habitat
• Construct a new channel at historic
passage)
(2) Stream -side Habitat
• Improve
instream and
stream -side
floodplain elevation to restore
overbank flows
• Remove multiple ponds that restrict
• Limited Bedform Diversity
restoring re ( g ' sustained
ular,
sequence of riffles and pools
(3) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
habitat.
aquatic life passage
that do not fill with
(2) Wetland Physical Structure
• Protect riparian buffers with a
perpetual conservation easement
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional
sediment)
• Absence of Large Woody
Debris (restoring woody
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
(2) Wetland Landscape Patch
Structure
wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Stabilize stream banks
debris on channel banks or
in bed)
(2) Wetland Vegetative
Composition
• Install in -stream structures
1.2 Project Description
The Site is located approximately 2.3 miles southwest of Liberty, in the northwest corner of Chatham County (Figure
1, Appendix A). General project information is included Table 3.
Table 3. Project Background Information
Project Information
Site
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
County
Chatham
Easement Area
89.8 acres
Site Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
35.831020,-79.52593
Site Elevations
670-610 feet
Site Streams
North Prong Rocky River and UT 1— UT 17
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)
Part 6—Technical Approach
Page 4

Table 3. Project Background Information (continued)
Physiography & Watershed Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Level IV Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS 14-digit HUC
03030003070010
NCDWR Sub -basin
03-06-12
Targeted Local Watershed
Yes
LWP, RWP, TRA*
Yes, No, Yes (Water Quality, Habitat, & Hydrology TRAs)
Water Quality Information
Stream Index Number
North Prong Rocky River - 17-43-4
Best Use Classification
WS-III
303d List
No
Drainage Area & Land Use Information
Existing Site Land Use
Livestock pasture, hayfield, forest
Site Drainage Area
9.8 square miles (6282.1 acres)
Site Drainage Area Land Use
Livestock pasture, forest, residential
Site Drainage Area Percentage Impervious Surface
<2%
*LWP=Local Watershed Plan, RWP=Regional Watershed Plan, TRA=Targeted Resource Area
1.2.1 Soils
Based on Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2022), the Site contains the soil series outlined in Table 4. A licensed soil
scientist (NC LSS # 1233) mapped existing wetlands and drained hydric soils of the Wehadkee series on March 29,
2022, and April 8, 2022 (Figure 5, Appendix A); soil boring logs are included in Appendix B.
Table 4. Site Soils
Map Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name (Classification)
Hydric Status
Description
Chewacla and Wehadkee
This series consists of very deep, poorly to somewhat
ChA
soils
(Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts)
Non-hydric
poorly drained, moderately permeable soils on Piedmont
and (Fluvaquentic
and hydric
river and stream valleys. Parent material is recent alluvium.
ndoaquepts)
Depth to the seasonal high-water table is 0 to 2 feet.
This series consists of moderately deep to very deep,
Non-hydric
somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained, slow
Cid-Lignum complex
but may
to very slowly permeable soils on interstream divides,
CmB
(Aquic Hapludults)
contain hydric
broad ridges, drainageways, and heads of drainageways.
inclusions
Parent material is residuum weathered from argillite and
other fine-grained metavolcanic rock. Depth to the
seasonal high-water table is 1 to 2.5 feet.
This series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately
Georgeville silt loam
permeable soils on Piedmont uplands. Parent material is
GaC
(Typic Kanhapludults)
Non-hydric
residuum weathered from fine-grained metavolcanic rock
of the Carolina Slate Belt. Depth to the seasonal high-water
table is more than 5 feet.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 5

Table 4. Site Soils (continued)
This series consists of very to moderately deep, well
Georgeville-Badin complex
drained, moderately permeable soils on Piedmont uplands.
GkD
(Typic Kanhapludults) and
Non-hydric
Parent material is residuum weathered from fine-grained
(Typic Hapludults)
metavolcanic rock of the Carolina Slate Belt. Depth to the
seasonal high-water table is more than 6 feet.
This series consists of deep to moderately deep, well
Nanford-Badin complex
drained, moderately permeable soils on Piedmont uplands.
NaB, NaC
(Typic Kanhapludults) and
Non-hydric
Parent material is residuum weathered from fine-grained
(Typic Hapludults)
metavolcanic rock. Depth to the seasonal high-water table
is more than 6 feet.
Non-hydric
This series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately
RvA
Riverview silt loam
but may
permeable soils on Piedmont river and stream valleys.
(Fluventic Dystrudepts)
contain hydric
Parent material is recent alluvium. Depth to the seasonal
inclusions
high-water table is 3 to 5 feet.
Geology
As mentioned in Table 3, the Site is within the Carolina Slate Belt, where soils outside the stream floodplains have
formed in residuum weathered from felsic-ash flow tuffs, intermediate to mafic lava flows, and other fine-grained
metavolcanic rocks. As a result, soils in the Site are highly variable. At times, these soils were mapped as complexes
due to the scale at which they were mapped. This variability in the soils results in a multitude of factors promoting
lateral groundwater movement, including depth to restrictive layers, presence of sandy subsoil lenses, slow to
moderate permeability, high silt and clay content, and sticky and plastic soil consistency. These soil characteristics
result in wetland seeps at the heads of drainageways and along lower portions of side slopes, typical of stream
origins at the Site.
Landscape
The Site's landscape includes broken/sharply irregular convex slopes ranging from 2 — 15% with short valley sides.
This topography results in short and stubby first and second -order streams with high angle junctions. The
contributing drainage area of the Site's unnamed tributaries (UT) has been affected by livestock pastures with eroded
soil surfaces and agricultural ponds, increasing the rate and amount of surface water runoff entering the Site. These
conditions, coupled with the geology and soils, facilitate surface and subsurface water movement resulting in
wetland seeps observed throughout the Site.
1.2.2 Stream Characterization
Table 5 summarizes morphology parameters existing at the Site and preliminary estimates of stable stream
attributes based upon regional curves for the Piedmont region of North Carolina (Harmen et al. 1999). Site streams
are generally incised and oversized, as indicated by Bank -Height -Ratios and existing cross -sectional areas versus
bankfull cross -sectional areas listed in Table 5. This likely results from channel ditching/dredging, erosion, hoof shear
and stormwater flow within unvegetated channels. The channels appear to be straightened, as evidenced by low
sinuosity values across much of the Site.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 6

v
o
o,
c
o
o
w
u
N
N
m
o
0
o
io
O
v —
o on
X �
m
«
.W
io
o
O
W
W
rai
I�
N
rl
N
N
ip
N
el
N
y
—
>
m
W N
W
G
O
o
ri
m
m
o
o
o
l0yy
O
\ —
0 i
X �
m
io
6
6
oi
—
E
'p
ry
O
m
°?
W
Q
�
O
o
-i
O
W W
d
O.
2
O
N
� j
n
n
n
ti
ti
n
ti
ei
0
V oD
� c
a
X p
IT
on
c
v
�
W
n
eN1
ifl
ei
N
V
m
y
�
E
'p
o.
O
o
o
ry
W
w
N
oq
N
m
n
m
m
o
v
o
1D
ti
m
U�LI
O
O
O
�j
V
V
O
O
O
tDyy
0
V oD
p
7
eai
7
�
yn
O
O
Ul
�,
of
tD
O
lD
O
of
O
O
N
of
of
of
Ny
ti
ti
,p oo
'p
0
O.
p
a`
0
o
n
of
W
V
v
N
a
N
m
t+l
io
o
oq
o
oq
o
o
ry
tD
o
°q
N
ti
m
O oD
V
x
x �
m
o
�
n
of
v
°-
v
fV
o
w
n
V
in
O
n
O
Iq
ti
^
v
nl
m
N
v
nl
o
'p
O
Oa
o
vl
1°
o
o
ry
O
W
�
V
w
N
oo
N
m
V
n
O
m
O
m
O
o
v
6
o
1D
rI
ti
ti
m
O oD
V
v �
a`
7
m
.X
o
v
of
N
w
m
O
ifl
tD
O
of
O
O
Ili
of
of
of
C
ti
y
m
m �
W
},
X
o
NO
v
�
of
fV
tD
m
O
vt
lD
O
of
O
O
N
of
of
Lq
N
ti
ti
� H
X 7
°q
X
O
of
v
(D
fV
w
V
in
O
n
O
ti
^
v
nl
m
N
v
nl
o
V m
N V
'p
N
O
p-
p
p.
o
m
o
�
v
W
a
V
m
.-I
m
.ti
m
ti
ri
ri
rj
o
T
o
of
io
ti
ti
W D
o
° oD
V
x H
X7
W
'X
m
O
vi
V
v
e,'
m
.-I
v
N
o
•-I
fV
nl
'p
N
p
O.
O�
oo
o
.-I
n
W
- j
o
fV
o
N
in
m
io
O
w
O
w
O
o
.-I
tD
o
m
ti
ti
ti
_
v
a m
0
V oD
ei N
p.
.X
o
m0
.-I
n
v
°-
o
fV
w
eN1
o
of
n
O
o
m
fV
o
lD
V
N
N
Oo
E
Q
¢
Y
v
V¢
O d
m 4
3
0
=
¢`
v
n
K
ton
°
o
v
m
c
_
_
E
o
o
o
a

1.2.3 Sediment Model
Sediment load modeling was performed using methodologies outlined in A Practical Method of Computing
Streambank Erosion Rate (Rosgen 2009) and Estimating Sediment Loads using the Bank Assessment of Non -point
Sources Consequences of Sediment (Rosgen 2011). These models provide a quantitative prediction of streambank
erosions by calculating Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near -Bank Stress (NBS) along each Site reach. The
resulting BEHI and NBS values are compared to streambank erodibility graphs prepared for North Carolina by the NC
Stream Restoration Institute and NC Sea Grant.
Streambank characteristics involve measurements of bank height, angles, materials, presence of layers, rooting
depth, rooting density, and percent of the bank protected by rocks, logs, roots, or vegetation. Site reaches have been
measured for BEHI and NBS characteristics and predicted lateral erosion rate, height, and length to calculate a cubic
volume of sediment contributed by the reach each year. Data forms for the analysis are available upon request, and
the data output is presented in Appendix B. Model results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. BEHI and NBS Modeling Summary
Stream Reach
Proposed Mitigation Treatment
Predicted Sediment
Contribution (tons/year)
UT 1
Restoration
0.9
UT 2
Restoration and Enhancement (Level 11)
19.2
UT 3
Restoration and Enhancement (Level 11)
0
UT 4
Restoration, Enhancement (Level I and 11), and Preservation
219.5
UT 5
Restoration
6.1
UT 6
Restoration
15.5
UT 7
Restoration
23.4
UT 8
Restoration
11.7
UT 9
Enhancement (Level 1)
0.0
UT 10
Restoration
0.2
UT 11
Preservation
0
UT 12
Enhancement (Level 11)
1.0
UT 14
Restoration and Enhancement (Level I and 11)
60.0
UT 15
Enhancement (Level 1)
0.0
UT 16
Restoration and Preservation
8.4
UT 17
Restoration and Enhancement (Level 1)
14.8
Total Sediment Contribution (tons/year)
380.8
1.2.4 Nutrient Model
Nutrient modeling was conducted using a method developed by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) (NCDMS 2016) to determine nutrient and fecal coliform reductions from the exclusion of livestock from
the buffer.
The equation for nutrient reduction for this model includes the following:
TN reduction (Ibs/yr) = 51.04 (Ibs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
TP reduction (Ibs/yr) = 4.23 (Ibs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 8

Where:
TN — total nitrogen;
TP —total phosphorus; and
Area —total area of restored riparian buffers inside of livestock exclusion fences.
Equations for fecal coliform reduction for this model include the following.
Fecal coliform reduction (col) = 2.2 x 1011(col/AU/day) x AU x 0.085
Where:
Col - quantities of Fecal Coliform bacteria
AU - animal unit (1000 Ibs of livestock)
Assuming approximately 84 of the 89.8 acres of the Site will have livestock removed, and a current stocking rate of
300 head of livestock (200 sheep and 100 cows/buffalo) residing on the farm, the NC DMS analysis calculates
approximately 4287.4 Ibs/yr of nitrogen, 355.3 Ibs/yr of phosphorus, and 56.1 x 1011 col of fecal coliform/day will be
reduced via exclusion of livestock from the easement area.
1.2.5 Site Design and Implementation Constraints
During field surveys, no known Site constraints that may hinder proposed mitigation activities were identified.
Potential constraints reviewed include the following:
Threatened & Endangered Species
Federally protected species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife — Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
website "as occurring in the vicinity" of the Site are summarized in Table 7, along with potential habitat and a
preliminary biological conclusion for each species (IPaC 2022).
Table 7. Threatened and Endangered Species
Common Name
Federal
Habitat at
Biological
(Scientific Name)
Status
Site
Conclusion
Summary
Red -cockaded Woodpecker
Habitat does not exist in or near
(Picoides borealis)
Endangered
No
No Effect
the project boundaries.
Cape Fear Shiner
Habitat exists in or near the
(Notripis mekistocholas)
Endangered
Yes
Unresolved
project boundaries.
Atlantic Pigtoe
Habitat exists in or near the
(Fusconaia masoni)
Threatened
Yes
Unresolved
project boundaries.
Harperella
Habitat exists in or near the
(Ptilimnium nodosum)
Endangered
Yes
Unresolved
project boundaries.
Red -cockaded Wood
Primary habitat consists of mature to over -mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-
leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. elliottii), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and Baker 1971). Nest cavities are
constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70 years and infected with red -heart disease. Nest
cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, referred to as colonies (FWS 1985).
Habitat for this species does not exist within the project area. In addition, the Site does not occur within a Red -
cockaded Woodpecker Consultation Area, as designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (see SLOPES key in
Appendix C). Therefore, this Project is not expected to affect this species.
Cape Fear Shiner
Habitat elements include clean streams with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs
and slackwater areas with large rock outcrops and side channels and pools with water of good quality with relatively
low silt loads (USFWS 2003).
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 9

Habitat for this species exists within the project area. A site -wide survey will be conducted before initiating
construction activities.
Atlantic pigtoe
Habitat includes streams with yielding substrates composed of coarse sand and gravel downstream from riffle areas
(TSCFTM 1990).
Habitat for this species exists within the project area. A site -wide survey will be conducted before initiating
construction activities.
Harperella
This plant is a relatively prolific annual, and large numbers may occur within each population, especially along rivers
(FWS 2003). Habitat includes (1) rocky or gravel shoals and margins of clear, swift -flowing stream sections; and (2)
edges of intermittent pineland ponds in the coastal plain. This plant tolerates and may require a particular and
unusual water regime, including moderately intensive spring floods, which may reduce or eliminate competing
vegetation.
Habitat for this species exists within the project area. A site -wide survey will be conducted during the survey window
(July to early September) and before initiating construction activities.
Cultural Resources
Field visits were conducted at the Site in March and April 2022. No structures or other features that may be eligible
for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places were identified within proposed easement boundaries;
however, coordination with State Historic Preservation Office will occur before construction activities to determine
if any significant cultural resources are present.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Elements
A query of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database indicates there are no records for rare
species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. Within a one -mile radius of the Site, NCNHP lists no federally -protected species. Three managed areas
(NC Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund Easement and two Piedmont Land Conservancy
Easements) are documented within a one -mile radius of the project area (Appendix C).
FEMA
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps were inspected for the Site: Rate Map 3710874400K, Panel 8744, effective
11/17/2017. FEMA mapping indicates that the North Prong Rocky River through the Site is located within a Zone AE
flood area. Project activities are not likely to affect the flood zone, and a "Conditional Letter of Map Revision"
(CLOMR) may not be required for this Site. However, coordination with FEMA will occur throughout the Project.
Utilities
Two powerlines (one minor and one major) cross the Site. The minor powerline near the top of UT 8 will be moved
to a location outside the proposed easement. The major powerline crosses the North Prong, UT-4, and UT-6, and
will not be moved, is roughly perpendicular to Site streams, and should not adversely affect the Project. Stream
restoration on UT-4 and UT-6 will occur throughout the powerline right of way though no stream credit will be
derived. Furthermore, the conservation easement will extend through the major powerline easement to ensure
livestock are entirely restricted from Site streams.
Air Transport Facilities
The nearest airport to the Site is the Hinshaw Greenacres Airport, located 2.6 miles to the north. The Hinshaw
Greenacres airport is a privately owned grass strip approximately 50 feet wide and open to the public. No other
airports are within a 5-mile radius of the Site.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) / Conservation Program Contract (CPC)
In 2004, Keith A. Tuttle Farms Inc. entered into an EQIP/CPC with the Chatham County Natural Resources
Conservation Service for fencing and livestock watering facilities on Chatham County Parcels 0000133 and 0060059
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 10

(Section 1.5 Current Ownership, Table 10) which are a part of this Project. A copy of the Conservation Plan/Schedule
is included in Appendix D. Though the expiration date of this contract is 12/03/2007, the fencing "lifespan" is for a
term of 20 years, with termination in December of 2024. Per the Project's Phasing/Timeline, IRS anticipates the
completion of construction in late 2024 (Section 1.6, Table 11). Thus, IRS anticipates coordinating with and receiving
approval from the State Conservationist to concurrently remove existing fencing within the Project footprint, and
relocate/construct new fencing outside the Project's easement footprint — ensuring no lapse in livestock exclusion
of Project waters. IRS has previously completed such requests on awarded DMS mitigation sites (Warren Wilson
College-2018). Given the Project will result in additionally protected waters beyond the current EQIP fencing project
and extend the current termed practices with a perpetual conservation easement, IRS does not anticipate any issues
with receiving approval from the State Conservationist. The EQIP project has not and will not provide any funds for
any task outlined in RFP# 16-452048014.
1.3 Project Development
1.3.1 Stream Restoration
Stream restoration efforts are designed to restore a stable stream that approximates hydrodynamics, geometry, and
local microtopography relative to reference stream conditions. Restoration at the Site will be Priority I restoration,
raising the bankfull elevations to meet the adjacent valley floodplain elevation. Stream restoration is expected to
entail 1) channel excavation, 2) channel stabilization, 3) channel diversion, and 4) channel backfill.
Pond Dam Removal: Stream restoration through existing ponds is expected to include the complete removal of the
ponds and earthen impoundments by 1) notching the subject dam to dewater; 2) removal of the entire dam to match
adjacent floodplain elevation; 3) excavating sediments that are unsuitable for channel bank construction; 4)
backfilling areas of sediment removed with soil suitable for channel construction (as necessary); 5) excavation of the
design channel; 6) stabilization of the channel with coir matting, seed, and mulch; 7) installation of structures; 8)
painting of live -stakes and hardwood species throughout the easement area.
Site dams will be notched and dewatered during the early summer months, and the pond bed will be seeded with
temporary grasses to stabilize sediments remaining in the pond. Care will be taken during the notching of the dams
to allow sediments to stabilize in place.
Once the pond has been dewatered and sediments stabilized, the dams will be removed with finished grades
matching the valley's elevations and floodplain above and below the dam location. Material removed from the dam,
if suitable, may be used as channel backfill for reaches of the stream to be abandoned during Priority I stream
restoration efforts. If additional backfill remains, the material will be stockpiled outside the easement or spread
evenly across the adjacent property and seeded for stabilization. Erosion control measures will be implemented on
all stockpiled or spread soil materials, such as silt fence, seeding, and mulching.
A determination on sediment quantity and quality within the abandoned ponds will be made concerning the ability
to work with/stabilize the sediment for stream construction. If sediment is deemed unsuitable for channel
construction, the sediment will be removed from the vicinity of the design channel and spread along the pond's
outer margins. Subsequently, suitable soil material will be placed in the design channel's location to stabilize design
channel banks without liquefaction. Removing unsuitable material, installing suitable material, and constructing the
design channel may coincide, reducing the impacts of machinery on the pond bed.
Excavation of the design channel will occur in the pond beds like other stream restoration reaches, with stabilization
using approved erosion control materials and techniques.
In -stream Structures: In -stream structures will be used for grade control, habitat, and to elevate local water surface
profiles in the channel, flattening the water -energy slope or gradient and directing stream energy into the center of
the channel and away from banks. The structures will consist of log cross -vanes or log j-hook vanes; however, at the
Engineer's discretion, rock cross -vanes or rock j-hook vanes may be substituted if dictated by field conditions. In
addition, the structures will be placed in relatively straight reaches to provide secondary (perpendicular) flow cells
during bankfull events.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 11

Channel Crossings: Landowner constraints will necessitate installing several piped/ford crossings within internal
easement crossing areas to allow access to portions of the property isolated by stream restoration activities. Piped
crossings will be constructed of properly sized pipes and hydraulically stable riprap or suitable rock. The crossings
will be built of hydraulically stable riprap or suitable rock. Crossings will be large enough to handle the weight of
anticipated agricultural traffic. Approach grades to the crossings will be at an approximate 10:1 slope and
constructed of hard, scour -resistant crushed rock or other permeable material free of fines.
1.3.2 Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
Stream enhancement (level 1) will entail stream dimension and profile restoration by installing habitat and grade
control structures, livestock exclusion, easement markers, and planting riparian buffers with native forest vegetation
to facilitate stream recovery and prevent further stream degradation.
1.3.3 Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
Stream enhancement (level 11) will entail installing easement markers and planting riparian buffers with native forest
vegetation, targeted streambank stabilization, and livestock exclusion to facilitate stream recovery and prevent
further stream degradation.
Stream enhancement (Level 11) is proposed at various ratios depending upon cattle impacts, vegetation assemblage,
and channel erosion. Typical stream enhancement (Level 11) entails fencing livestock, planting a vegetated buffer,
and doing minor bank stabilization (or other mitigation activities) and is proposed at a mitigation ratio of 2.5:1. UT
3 is characterized by a relatively stable channel with a narrow fringe of trees and is therefore proposed at a mitigation
ratio of 7.5:1.
North Prong Rocky River is characterized by relatively mature forest vegetation extending approximately 25 - 40 feet
from the top of the stream bank and is fenced from livestock. This section is proposed for widened buffers (60 to
more than 150 feet from the top of the stream bank), invasive species treatment, planting with containerized stock
on the outer margins, and the excavation of shallow (0.5 to 1.0 foot deep) depressions at the outer margins of the
floodplain. These depressions are expected to catch surface water draining from the adjacent agriculture fields to
store stormwater and treat pollutants. The depressions will be closed such that water percolates into the floodplain
soils, thereby treating nutrients and removing solids from the water column. The depressions are non-credit
generating and are expected to fill over time. This reach is proposed for enhancement (level 11) at a mitigation ratio
of 10:1.
The upper -middle reach of UT 16 is characterized by mature forest extending between 10 and 45 feet from the top
of the right bank. This reach is proposed for enhancement (level 11) at a mitigation ratio of 10:1. The reach is fenced
from livestock; however, additional planting is proposed within the livestock pasture to 100+ feet from the top of
the right bank. Additionally, a cut strip along an existing fence line on the left bank is proposed for containerized
planting.
1.3.4 Stream Preservation
Stream preservation will occur on the upper reaches of UT 4 and along 16. These reaches are not impacted by
livestock. These reaches are characterized by channels with mature riparian vegetation, suitable channel bed
substrate, and little bank erosion. The reaches are included in the Project for Site continuity and to protect adjacent
sections of the Site from future impacts. Of the total stream mitigation credits proposed, preservation -based credits
account for less than 2% of the Project total.
1.3.5 Individual Reach Descriptions
Mitigation activities for each stream reach and anticipated functional uplift are summarized in Table 8.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 12

Table 8. Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift
Reach
Mitigation Activities
Functional Uplift Provided for
Identified Stressors
• Conduct enhancement Level II activities, including extending the vegetative buffer
into agriculture pastures.
• Widen the vegetative buffer from approximately 25 - 40 feet to 80 — 200 feet from
the top of stream banks.
• Non-functioning riparian
North
. Add a series of marsh treatment areas in draws that drain into N. Prong Rocky River.
buffer/wetland vegetation
Prong
Rocky River
. Excavate shallow linear depressions on the outer edge of the floodplain to capture
• Nutrients
surface runoff from fields and hold water for nutrient and particulate treatment.
• Fecal Coliform
• Plant containerized vegetative stock on the outer margins of the easement to form
a vegetative buffer rapidly.
• Plant a vegetative buffer within pasture areas of the floodplain.
• Non-functioning riparian
• Tie into upper reach just below origin and elevate the stream bed with grade
buffer/wetland vegetation
control/habitat structures and contour channel banks to the appropriate dimension.
• Sediment
• Upgrade crossing to include 25-foot roadbed and cattle crossing.
• Nutrients
• Tie to pipe outfall and continue P1 stream restoration until tie with UT 4 in the old
• Fecal Coliform
UT 1
farm pond.
• Peak Flows
• Restore and enhance wetlands adjacent to the channel.
• Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the property.
• Habitat Fragmentation
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Initiate stream Enhance (Level II) in the upper reaches by planting forest vegetation
• Non-functioning riparian
buffer/wetland vegetation
and upgrading fencing.
• Sediment
• Widen the vegetative buffer from approximately 25 - 45 feet to 70 feet from the top
of stream banks.
• Nutrients
UT-2
. At headcut, initiate stream restoration using Priority 1 techniques.
•Fecal Coliform
• Remove forded crossing and include a 10 ft break (internal) to maintain a water line.
• Peak Flows•Ditching/Draining
• Tie stream into UT 4 in the old farm pond.
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Enhance (Level 11) wooded stream portions by fencing livestock, treating invasive
• Non-functioning riparian
species, and planting forest vegetation.
buffer/wetland vegetation
UT-3
• Restore the downstream of UT 3 by removing the existing spoil pile along the right
• Nutrients
bank and moving the stream through the lowest point in the floodplain.
• Fecal Coliform
• Tie into UT 4 at appropriate elevation in the abandoned pond bed.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Initiate stream preservation and Enhancement (Level 11) [10:1 ratio] in the upper
reaches.
• Tie into natural grade and step up to Priority 1 stream restoration in the historic
floodplain.
• Non-functioning riparian
• Upgrade a failing piped crossing.
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Construct a marsh treatment area in a draw entering UT 4.
• Sediment
• Tie to the upgraded crossing and continue with a combination of stream
• Nutrients
UT 4
Enhancement (Level 1) and restoration techniques that tie the stream channel to the
•Fecal Coliform
floodplain.
• Enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to the channel.
•Peak Flows
• Remove the agriculture pond and restore the stream channel in the abandoned
•Ditching/Draining
pond bed within the powerline right-of-way.
.Limited Bedform Diversity
• Add a road crossing in the old pond bed.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Tie into North Prong Rocky River at the appropriate location and elevation.
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)
Part 6—Technical Approach
Page 13

Table 8. Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift (continued)
Reach
Mitigation Activities
Functional Uplift Provided for
Identified Stressors
• At the upstream property boundary, initiate Priority 1 stream Restoration
• Non-functioning riparian
techniques.
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Install habitat/grade control structures.
• Sediment
• Restore and enhance adjacent wetlands by tying the stream channel to the adjacent
• Nutrients
UT 5
floodplain.
• Fecal Coliform
• Tie to UT 4 at the appropriate location and elevation.
• Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the property.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Non-functioning riparian
• Move the existing road outside the easement, restore the natural spring under the
buffer/wetland vegetation
current road, and begin stream Restoration.
• Sediment
• Construct a marsh treatment area above the stream origin.
UT-6
• Install habitat/grade control structures.
• Nutrients
• Fecal Coliform
• Tie to UT 4 at the appropriate location and elevation.
•Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Non-functioning riparian
• Move the existing road outside the easement, restore the natural spring under the
buffer/wetland vegetation
current road, and begin stream Restoration.
• Construct a marsh treatment area above the stream origin.
• Nutrients
UT-7
• Install habitat/grade control structures.
• Fecal Coliform
• Peak Flows
• Tie to North Prong at the appropriate location and elevation.
Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the easement.
Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Upgrade the road crossing at the upper reaches of the Site to include a more stable
• Non-functioning riparian
buffer/wetland vegetation
roadbed and culvert.
• Sediment
• Relocate the existing powerline outside the easement (likely along the roadway)
• Remove a dam and restore the stream channel through the pond bed.
. Nutrients
UT-8
• Fecal Coliform
• Continue Priority 1 stream restoration throughout the reach.
•Peak Flows
• Remove a perched culvert in the lower reaches of UT 8.
• Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the easement.
Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Add a marsh treatment area above the stream origin point.
• Non-functioning riparian
• Initiate stream enhancement (Level 1) by contouring stream banks and adding
buffer/wetland vegetation
habitat/grade control structures.
• Nutrients
UT 9
. Tie into UT 17 at the appropriate location and elevation.
• Fecal Coliform
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
•
Non-functioning riparian
• At the upstream wetland complex, tie into the natural ground above the headcut
buffer/wetland vegetation
and initiate stream Restoration.
• Sediment
• Remove a dam and restore the stream channel through the pond bed.
UT-10
• Remove a crossing at the location of the dam.
• Nutrients
• Continue Priority 1 stream restoration throughout the reach.
• Fecal Coliform
• Peak Flows
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)
Part 6—Technical Approach
Page 14

Table 8. Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift (continued)
Reach
Mitigation Activities
Functional Uplift Provided for
Identified Stressors
• Conduct stream enhancement (Level 11) on a natural stream/seep that ties into UT
• Nutrients
UT-11
14 (stream enhancement is proposed at a 10:1 mitigation ratio).
• Fecal Coliform
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Non-functioning riparian
buffer/wetland vegetation
• At the upstream wetland complex, tie into the natural ground above the headcut
. Sediment
and initiate stream Restoration.
• Remove a piped crossing/roadbed and continue stream restoration throughout the
• Nutrients
UT-12
reach.
• Fecal Coliform
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Peak Flows
• Ditching/Draining
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Tie into existing grade and institute a combination of stream Restoration,
Enhancement (Level 1), and Enhancement (Level 11) through the upper half of the
• Non-functioning riparian
reach. Enhancement (Level 11) is proposed at various ratios depending on cattle
buffer/wetland vegetation
impacts, vegetation assemblage, buffer width, and channel erosion.
• Sediment
• In the lower reaches, initiate stream Restoration in a new location at the elevation
• Nutrients
UT-14
of the floodplain.
• Fecal Coliform
• Add a series of marsh treatment areas in draws that lead to UT 14
• Peak Flows
• Tie into North Prong at the appropriate location and elevation.
• Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Improve the historic ford crossing as an internal easement crossing (Figure 713)
• Non-functioning riparian
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Stream enhancement (Level 1) is initiated at the origin point by contouring stream
• Sediment
banks and adding habitat/grade control structures.
• Nutrients
UT-15
• Tie into UT 16 at the appropriate location and elevation.
• Fecal Coliform
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Peak Flows
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain
• Ditching/Draining
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Initiate stream preservation at the origin point. Wetlands in the headwaters are
very wet and will be enhanced by planting the surrounding upland margins with an
appropriate vegetive community.
• Non-functioning riparian
• Initiate Enhancement (Level 11) [10:1 ratio] by widening the right bank vegetative
buffer/wetland vegetation
buffer to 100+ ft from the top of the bank and planting containerized trees along
• Sediment
the lane cut around the existing fence.
• Nutrients
UT-16
• Tie into upper preservation reach above a headcut and initiate P1 stream
• Fecal Coliform
restoration with grade control/habitat structures on a new location.
• Peak Flows
• Restore and enhance wetlands adjacent to the channel.
• Ditching/Draining
• Tie into an abandoned relict channel before initiating stream preservation in the
• Limited Bedform Diversity
downstream reach.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Remove livestock from the property.
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Move the existing road outside the easement, restore the natural spring under the
. Non-functioning riparian
current road, and begin stream Restoration.
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Construct a marsh treatment area above the stream origin.
• Sediment
• Install habitat/grade control structures.
• Nutrients
UT-17
• At the convergence with UT 9, begin stream enhancement (Level 1) by elevating the
•Fecal Coliform
channel, contouring stream banks, and adding habitat/grade control structures.
. Peak Flows
• At the lower reaches, tie into UT 16 with stream restoration at the appropriate
. Ditching/Draining
elevation and location.
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
Absence of Large Woody Debris
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)
Part 6—Technical Approach
Page 15

1.3.6 Wetland Restoration (Re-establishment)
Alternatives for wetland re-establishment are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system, provide
surface water storage, nutrient cycling, remove imported elements and compounds, and create various wildlife
habitats.
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soils have been impacted by stream entrenchment, vegetative clearing,
livestock disturbance, and other land disturbances associated with land use management. Wetland re-
establishment/rehabilitation options focus on restoring vegetative communities, stream corridors, and historic
groundwater tables, and the re-establishment of soil structure and microtopographic variations. In addition, the
construction of (or provisions for) surface water storage depressions (ephemeral pools) will also add an essential
component to groundwater restoration activities. These activities will result in the re-establishment of
approximately 0.337 acres of jurisdictional riparian riverine wetlands.
1.3.7 Wetland Enhancement
Wetland enhancement will focus on removing livestock and restoring vegetation communities, improving wetland
function to 5.178 acres of riparian riverine wetlands.
1.3.8 Wetland Preservation
Wetland preservation will focus on protecting existing forested jurisdictional wetlands in near -reference conditions.
Areas will be protected in perpetuity by establishing a conservation easement that protects 0.112 acres of riparian
riverine wetlands.
1.3.9 Riparian Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forests allows for developing and expanding characteristic species across the landscape.
Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to species diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as
enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.
Revegetating floodplains will provide overall system stability, shade, and wildlife habitat. In addition, viable riparian
communities will improve biogeochemical function by filtering pollutants from overland and shallow subsurface
flows and providing organic materials to adjacent stream channels.
Variations in vegetative planting will occur based on topography and hydrologic condition of soils. Vegetative species
composition will be based on Reference Forest Ecosystems (RFEs), site -specific features, and community descriptions
from Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale 2012). Community associations to be utilized
include 1) a combination of Piedmont Alluvial Forest and Piedmont Headwater Forest, 2) Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory
Forest, and 3) Streamside Assemblage.
Bare -root seedlings within the Piedmont Alluvial/Headwater Forest and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory will be planted at
approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Stream -side assemblage will be planted at a density of
approximately 2,720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers. Planting will be performed between November 15 and March
15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring season. Potential species
planted within the Site may include the following.
Piedmont Alluvial/Headwater Forest
1.
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
2.
American elm (Ulmus americana)
3.
Hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
4.
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
5.
Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)
6.
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
7.
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii)
8. River birch (Betula nigra)
9. Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
10. Pawpaw (Asimina triloba)
Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
1. White oak (Quercus alba)
2. Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
3. Pignut hickory (Carya glabra)
4. Mockernut hickory (Carya alba/tomentosa)
5. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica)
6. Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
7. Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
8. Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
9. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 16

Stream -Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
3. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
1.3.10 Fence / Easement Marking
The entire easement area will be fenced and/or appropriately marked to identify the easement boundaries per
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Interagency Review Team (IRT) requirements. Livestock is to be
removed entirely from the Site.
1.3.11 Nuisance Species Management
Beaver, privet, and other potential nuisance species will be monitored throughout the 7-year monitoring period.
Appropriate actions to ameliorate any negative impacts regarding vegetation development and/or water
management will occur as needed.
1.4 Proposed Mitigation
Mitigation outlined in this proposal is designed to provide the following, as calculated under the requirements
stipulated in RFP #16-452048014, and is summarized in Table 9.
Table 9. Mitigation Activities and Site Credit Potential Summary
Stream Mitigation Type
Type
Linear Feet
Ratio
SMUs
Restoration
Priority 1
10,207.458
1:1
10,207.458
Enhancement
Level 1
1,932.773
1.5:1
1,288.515
Enhancement
Level11
589.177
2.5:1
235.671
Enhancement
Level 11
1037.373
7.5:1
138.316
Enhancement
Level11
5,475.117
10:1
547.512
Preservation
NA
1,741.896
10:1
174.190
Totals
20,983.794 linear feet
12,591.662 SMUs
Stream Buffer Credit Adjustment*
816.278**
Total SMUs
13,407.940 SMUs
*See Figure 8 (Appendix A) and the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator Output Table (Appendix A)
for stream buffer credit adjustment output and results.
**Additional credit generated by stream buffer credit adjustment was reduced by 5% to account for the margin of
error due to the lack of a design stream alignment at the current phase of project development.
1.5 Current Ownership and Long-term Protection
Current property ownership and parcel information are as follows:
Table 10. Current Ownership
Current Property Owner
Parcel ID Number
Neal C. Tuttle and Mary B. Tuttle
0000133 and 0080303
Keith A. Tuttle Farms, Inc.
0000256, 0060059, and 0000112
Lyn Smith Richardson
0072982
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 17

Restoration Systems has an Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of a Conservation Easement (Agreements) with all
property owners. Memorandums of the agreements were recorded in the Chatham County Register of Deeds
(Appendix D). Complete copies of these Agreements are available upon request. Upon approval of the contract,
Restoration Systems will place a conservation easement over the subject parcels; such easement will be conveyed
to the State of North Carolina. Restoration Systems will remain responsible for project implementation, the
achievement of success criteria, and management actions. A long-term management plan that, in general, will
include protecting the Site from encroachment, trespass, clearing, and other violations that interfere with
conservation purposes will be developed for the Site and incorporated into the mitigation plan. Other activities may
be included based on site -specific considerations.
1.6 Project Phasing
A tentative project phasing schedule is presented in Table 11 and commences upon contract execution.
Table 11. Proposed Project Schedule
Task
Project Milestones
Months from Contract Execution
Task 1
Regulatory Site Visit & Environmental Screening
3
Task 2
Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
16
Task 3
Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and Financial Assurance
12
Task 4
Mitigation Site Earthwork Complete
24
Task 5
Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices
25*
Task 6
Baseline Monitoring Report (including As -built Drawings)
28*
Task 7
Submit Monitoring Report #1 to NCDMS
Dec. after implementation
Task 8
Submit Monitoring Report #2 to NCDMS
Dec. - 2yrs after implementation
Task 9
Submit Monitoring Report #3 to NCDMS
Dec. - 3yrs after implementation
Task 10
Submit Monitoring Report #4 to NCDMS
Dec. - 4yrs after implementation
Task 11
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to NCDMS
Dec. - 5yrs after implementation
Task 12
Submit Monitoring Report #6 to NCDMS
Dec. - 6yrs after implementation
Task 13
Submit Monitoring Report #7 to NCDMS and Complete Project
Close-out Process
Dec. - 7yrs after implementation
and Spring after submittal of
Report #7
* Time frame is dependent upon seasonal conditions after Site implementation.
1.7 Success Criteria
Tables 12-14 summarize the monitoring schedule and success criteria for this Project, which follow the October 24,
2016, NC Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Table 12. Monitoring Schedule
Resource
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Streams
X
X
X
X
X
Vegetation
X
X
X
X
X
Visual Assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Report Submittal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)
Part 6—Technical Approach
Page 18

Table 13. Success Criteria
Streams
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section over the monitoring period.
• BHR at any measured riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline conditions
during the monitoring period.
• The stream project shall remain stable, and all other performance standards shall be met through four
separate bankfull events, occurring in individual years, during the monitoring years 1-7.
Vegetation
• Within planted portions of the Site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum
of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at
year 7.
• In the Piedmont counties, trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5 and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each
plot.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the
Site; natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case basis.
• Any single species can only account for up to 50% of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot.
Table 14. Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives
Goals
Objectives
Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY —The Site is in a Hydrology TRA
• Construct a new channel at historic floodplain elevation to
• BHR not to exceed 1.2 over the monitoring
• Minimize
restore overbank flows
period
downstream
• Plant wood y riparian buffer
• Document four overbank events in separate
flooding to the
• Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase
maximum
soil surface roughness
monitoring years
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
extent
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation
possible.
easement
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Remove incised/ditched streams
• Conservation Easement recorded
• Increase
• Construct channels with the proper pattern, dimension, and
• Cross-section measurements indicate a stable
stream stability
longitudinal profile
channel with the appropriate substrate
within the Site
. Remove livestock from the easement
• Visual documentation of stable channels and
so that
• Construct stable channels with the appropriate substrate
structures
channels are
• BHR not to exceed 1.2 over the monitoring
neither
• Upgrade piped channel crossings
period
aggrading nor
. Plant woody riparian buffer
• < 10% change in BHR over the monitoring period
degrading.
• Stabilize stream banks
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1) WATER QUALITY — The Site is in a Water Quality TRA
• Remove direct
• Remove agricultural livestock and reduce agricultural
and indirect
land/inputs
• BHR not to exceed 1.2 over the monitoring
nutrient and
• Plant woody riparian buffer
period
pollutant
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site
. Document four overbank events in separate
inputs from the
streams
monitoring years
Site and reduce
• Provide surface roughness and reduce compaction through
. Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
contributions
deep ripping/plowing.
to downstream
• Restore overbank flooding by constructing channels at
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
waters.
historic floodplain elevation.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 19

Table 14. Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives (continued)
Goals
Objectives
Success Criteria
(1) HABITAT — The Site is in a Habitat TRA
• Construct stable channels with the appropriate substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and
. Cross-section measurement indicate a stable
channel with the appropriate substrate
shade
• Visual documentation of stable channels and in-
9 Construct a new channel at historic floodplain elevation to
• Improve
restore overbank flows
stream structures
• BHR not to exceed 1.2 over the monitoring
instream and
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation
period
stream -side
easement
• Document four overbank events in separate
habitat.
• Remove 3 in -line ponds
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site
monitoring years
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
streams
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Stabilize stream banks
• Conservation Easement recorded
• Install in -stream structures
1.8 Quality Control
Our core business at IRS is full -delivery ecosystem restoration (usually within the context of compensatory
mitigation); as such, our projects are repeatedly scrutinized. More importantly, our compensation is tied directly to
project quality. Thus, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) is of the utmost importance to our compensation
and reputation.
The IRS QA/QC program comprises a broad range of general and specific measures to ensure that all deliverables
submitted to the contracting organization meet projected schedules, follow appropriate formats, and comply with
applicable laws, regulations, and permits.
General Measures:
- Staff Qualifications — IRS employs trained and/or experienced staff in varied specific aspects of
environmental restoration. Examples include regulatory affairs, permitting, design, geomorphology,
chemistry, biology, soils, Geographic Informational Systems (GIS), and invasive species management.
Field Training — Staff members attend periodic workshops for training in pertinent topics to improve and/or
maintain necessary skills related to stream/wetland design and construction. Staff members have also
participated in stream and wetland restoration workshops, including those held by North Carolina State
University's Stream Restoration Institute (SRI), focusing on proper procedures related to stream restoration
practices. Restoration Systems periodically has internal workshops and field study days led by experienced
staff members to ensure that the team of Project Managers is up-to-date on current practices and
technology.
- Internal Experience - Office staff members periodically attend workshops led by professional organizations
to remain current on best practices. All projects are backed by a support team. Senior -level professionals
are consulted to successfully guide the process from start to finish.
Specific Measures:
- Project Implementation - The core of RS's project implementation QA/QC program utilizes task changeover
points within the restoration process. Procedural verification steps at each changeover point provide
control and correction opportunities, minimizing waste while ensuring a project meets its objectives.
- Quality Control - Ecosystem restoration projects
0 Site evaluation
■ Identify and document site constraints that will affect restoration objectives, design,
and construction
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 20

o Design evaluation
■ Verify design meets objectives and is practicable given construction constraints and site -
specific conditions
o Construction plan evaluation
■ Ensure the construction plan is consistent with permit conditions and efficiently
implements design (i.e., limits the number of phases)
o Construction environmental and permit compliance
■ Routine inspection of construction activities to ensure environmental compliance and
that all work is performed according to specifications and limitations of acquired
permits
o Design and construction reconciliation
■ Reconcile construction drawings with implementation routinely, especially before
transitioning between construction phases
o Construction drawing and as -built reconciliation
■ Verify the accuracy of as -built drawings and reconcile them with construction drawings,
noting deviations and their explanations
o Site closeout
■ confirm planting was performed with appropriate species composition and density
■ check that all excess construction materials have been removed and all
features/structures are in a completed condition
- Assignment of specific tasks and responsibilities — Specific tasks that occur throughout a project's life are
assigned to specific individuals who are trained and/or experienced to perform that task. All arrangements
are overseen by senior management.
The project implementation QA/QC program is a collaborative effort between the Senior Project Manager and
Construction Manager). The project manager or the construction manager (or both) will be on -site during
construction hours to ensure environmental compliance and the appropriate implementation of the Project's design.
- Deliverable Preparation — a series of measures are taken to prepare deliverables to ensure each product
meets the customer's expectations promptly.
0 Checklists and Templates — IRS staff has developed internal guidelines, checklists, and templates to
prepare all deliverables to ensure compliance with appropriate requirements and schedules.
Checklists are created to ensure that all required paperwork is included when assembling submittal
packages and easy delegation of workflow.
0 Peer Review of Documents — All submitted deliverables are reviewed by several qualified
individuals. Once a document has been generated internally or received from an assigned
consultant, it is entered into a three -round internal review process. It is first reviewed by staff
members with experience in editing. The document is then passed on to staff members with
specific expertise in a given area to ensure accuracy. Finally, where applicable, maps and diagrams
are reviewed by an experienced GIS Manager for accuracy. Once all comments are made, the
document is edited and distributed for a final round of review by staff members and the assigned
Project Manager before packaging.
0 Prolect Managers' Meetings — All managers meet weekly to update company management on each
Project's status, including the projected future timeline of tasks.
0 Prolect Coordination and Tracking — Restoration Systems' Project Manager and Construction
Manager utilize appropriate computer software to produce a Gantt chart for each Project. These
charts graphically display each Project's schedule and are used to identify potential delays,
overload points, and other issues related to schedules. Each chart is reviewed weekly at the Project
Managers' meeting.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 21

1.9 References
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart. 1999. Bankfull
Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). 2022. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (online). Available:
https:Hipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ (April 1, 2022).
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock
Exclusion and Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration. June 15, 2016. North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM)
User Manual. Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team (NC WFAT) 2010. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM)
User Manual. Version 4.1.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs, Colorado
Rosgen, D. 2009. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate (online). Available: http://www.u-s-
c.org/html/documents/Erosion rates.pdf.
Rosgen, D. 2011. Estimating Sediment Loads using the Bank Assessment of Non -point source Consequences of
Sediment (BANCS). Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS). Hagerstown, Maryland.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth Approximation. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (TSCFTM). 1990. A Report on the Conservation Status
of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan Fauna. Pp. 50-52.
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red -cockaded woodpeckers nesting habitat requirements (pp.
170-186). In R.L. Thompson ed., The Ecology and Management of the Red -cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbers
Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2022. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [March 24, 2022].
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1985. Red -cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina. Chatham
County listing. Internet address: http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 22

APPENDIX A: FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3A. Site Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 3B. UT Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5. Soils
Figure 6. LiDAR Mapping
Figures 7, 7A-C. Proposed Conditions
Figure 8. Stream Buffer Credit Adjustment Output
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator Output Table
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices

W U J N O N
_ O F Z (� N 00 0
O
f; Y Z N 0 o w
f x LLZ o W O a N C? of
�.• LLO U FQ Q N
-_ C9 C9 OJ z IL
AT
a a F o o in a
.
I N
1 r1- II 'E .p
a.....n.a ° L%. 1 . w _ U
CL
qua
O. e�aa y C 0 b
S rn a N n
j' yl•. aeaa L_ -� <� raa y Z v O W O
20 W E W OD
r N V r 0, C
(� J� •4 EO C'Xy OIOV
'd — \1 dip -� L o v O
O.p ENO V �J
a.haN�
"J/
Lf
cr
2 peo '
_ � � j � 4iiwS !, • pad '
9
0
a�
C)�
z.

LJI U J N O N
-.0-1O z U U o o
a J V) a 0 a- N o W
o x
cm7a o� a z LL
c�
921 . 45
G N O L N U 0
a` a` U o o cn
....
LL _
a r
R �•+ o
ID
5 - e
� a
o d
-`o-
_ m U) 0
a wit It " m U)
E�I O
L
CO O it
5 _ O
d J U) t6 O
b
ID
u' -
i
m e-
"t> O
04
��e'
to
w O` O O
- o � a o
0 0 oM U)
m D
N

W z } La (� N 0 O
O N c a Q o Lu
LL O 0 w Q N W
Z 0
o m Q E 0 o (7 M
C7 m a Q Q ? LL
O
a a U F o o in a
00
� } 1 ::y:�:.:. i ( =- •spa` ! �Z
• . ...........
l p i
1J,
o OLL
omom�co ��VV
e e e e e e E e E
vaaaaaaaaa
�4A In
-----------------
Mai
`A*
�'" _x ` � 4.• fir `fit

LLI U N 0 0
O z N 0
J (n Y (7 z 0
LU
`( y LL z z p LL N of
1 L = o C) N� Q N D
- o mQ E XZ �. O C�
O L IJ O n Z LL
10 m �H m U
m 3 m � o m
a a` U P o o in a
00
C u N u ° g .4 Lj
NN a (n J J oE M. __
w l a `o E o 3 0 i , �Ir " o n
° N i� Q T LL o° o° .0 \\
(6 U ul O = LL' LL LL LL p \ MM LL. N
m o in in in m >A U o =' ° G' U in A.
mindSdSdSozcl zzGdSN �\ i % �o ^ z
a ♦ O
1 S Uo
U U)
Z
LL 4 ' X Q O
_ 0,6
> N
I o� 8� Z�
O Z ♦_
w4E i I U U
z U ZL-
�i X UT14� In e° o
r
N
/ Q o
I 1 ♦ U
' / % % � sue/ _� ♦ � z U
wo
o
3d xi a ZU I
/ I
o !
€ C) 0 f-
�� 1
LL g
o /,� z r
LL N U) < N -
° ' 6uoad 4uoN
10
X a LLm
UT17 zn LL°
0
6
" o °
z E U)I
_ E� �.. z E� Lo2 X
t. s LLOO LLm�� Q m t
1.
U //� �� LL'.. am cn`o E
t Zin Urn m N ZU tr m
1
o� Z'y ornO .. ' 1 0 0
�yeLL OJ 4 4 ° 2 LL X 2 111 ()
E`o=K m m + z
U) U 0 U o
zU �> Q U
U U ZU
N Z
�+fy 4 u� U
0 z in
C) ou
E X-....tV LL 0 z o //
9 I i l°L M N U) /
AD
U n
1'
Z

LLI 0 0
J O H_ z O V1 O ° o
a V1 Y w Z
LLI
M a D
m O z a Z
OL7 r �O IL
10 m H m a U 3 m m
o o U) a`
\
i
m x iJ o L
-"------_ `
E 0 E E E E .O 6I .= E
N
m=
m u Ir w w w w a E w a u
E E E E E E E
UT-14 Z/ In , o
j
":Io

`
[
•
J+ c
LLI
O N
LS O
mQ
m f-
T
0
E
m
0 z
LJ_I
0
0z
d U
>
3
o
O
N
Q
o
O O
CO
V 0
N
o
m
LLI
(�
J
�
oL
oLL
w
_ -
-
o,
-
%
1
- -
w`=v
!
II
_vE�ro�r@v
I o E -o
�w5
_--/
v�aM=o E=o>;
I cww oEv
'�° j
5
'.f
? w ME 2 w 0 a.
-5
w ME� v
L
V
ooo v9'� �
a,2 -5 w£
I w�v ww� o
+ o_ Er.3
aFvv�a
1
wm
I mW woo
rn 00
o,�v
e> E�-
° m N u>
a`
w
R
V
m = _
.I Ea v vri _ m l o
El
g -rr�n1Fwa
I
am`v M0-
'o w°-=w=m
�
o
vE _ -
=
~`fl
v
r
d
f�
L 3
o.�w�0
..
° -
I
w E p ° m
n a v> rn
A
_
I
w 0
> j - ° E
F a
10
v�
0?
E -
-
- E
_
vF
> _
r
v
0.` _
10
v a -
L
�b
J
a�
•�
o`
��
mEM. oo�
m
-vv2
_
w E
_
v a`
" =
+L�i
!
-
5 0> rn
r 3
_ r3
a
- >o
'o �z_o �m
2 v n o
-
v r v v v m
I v a a
v >
E E zi - °-
o N
EV m„_T
_ E m> m
�%
1
-O va>&
_ m n
l
°
1
Boa=oo"
-
!
_
v
t E °-= E E
F v � a
I
E _
_
v
r U a
d•
v C m O m
U =
s`
N E
W O o
l
r
o a
E � �
_ a E
ON
_
3 _
o E
t
'
- -
E -
3
o o
t5
'w�wo�
°- v o2
�vm22
rr'oc
-
_- .0 w
�L
u3�-
mvr
..
r �rnvv
vmw
`3Ym°E
-- -- _ m
o
° E r 3 v yr
o o=
E
w 1. v w w w w c - w>? a
azz
5. "M
E`
Yam,
- == off
ovo0Y�
r °� v
w==ao� d
..
w v v E r
ETi o =
E - a v4 _ _.
'.
` a` m
° u w w` w` w` w` a` C7 w w w j =
a
=
ram.
r
v - w
F
o 0 0
rn w v 2 m
$ o
v> m o v -
_ r E w
s !
m w w w w w w w w `w 3
._ w in in in in in in in s
..
VV
/
�{
¢ v ��F w� a
N
F o rw=wa-
II
1

-
44
!
ry
C
N
10
N
m
O
LLI
0=
J V)
L.L O
M
mQ
C7 C7
m H
C
Z
Y
O
E
m
L
m
L
U
P
0 V)
LLI z
U) -
a
Oz
O
d U
(>�
>
a
3
o
N
(Y
Q
N
o
O
LO
M
m
N
in
O
O
O
o
Z
O
a`
LLI
C�
O L
LL
wN o
rn v
N
PO
N
W II >
a
0
O E li
E 0 E E E E .o, .= E
O
O
LL N N N (6 (6 (6 N O
O
IrI wL(DIr F�
E E E E E E E
m m m m m m m m m m m
--------
----
ILA I I I 11 1 O®
O
J
- -
_
O
sD lam M
m v B> � 3
\
E
E o_
`m m 1° WE r
f
m
�wm-=3WEv!
o
r:
N
-
or
m
w`mwrn�wW3
- - 0
!i
l
\
N
rn w o U?
\
~
o
mw
%o o
m
E
- :
- o
1-
_ ' E m o
-
J
----------
r -
• {'. -
wv
Fw > ¢wa
�0 o
`v
vE
0
r
f
r
ft
- o Em L
r 3.2
m�
E2
I
m r m E w
u N
/
f
E a` 0 2
E
°'
g° 5 E
_
I
c
`EV
\
Zjo
I
v¢F �a
/
I I
• U
, e
I
I
`o I I
'o I
-
o �
n
0 1
wx �w w
E E r 3
O s
o�
m v $
E EL
g o 0 o m
v m ' m m
¢r rrrrra
�_
1:
N
f

W 0 0
0 0
J ? OJN T �Z N CN 0
W LLI
LL
[ ma E oz o C�
a a o o U) a
e
o I o
2 cc
>a vvr '
v
° 1 1$1
_ ° f
2E
o
LL
oLL
ICI
�W z

LLI J N O N
O ~ z LLI , z CO O
J V) Y
L t O 0 m o a a N W
�7C7 r w�
�== a Z LL
O
m Q 3 ui °' m
N o
a a` o C, 0 a`
��pJJqq�� o
m co
r41
4
�Np r • r rMlw
m O�0 00 00 V 0 r�
Q O N • .
O N O N O N O N O
� CO Q
/-V�
4 +� r
0000
A o
ro
i z� In
t
* 1 4'
� c
w O
4
-v _ "•'• . nor
r
J� 1�
1
N

) a
§ k
_/ E
§\T.§�\-§§\\k((\\\.
!,||/!$
!n zu § !]]!!l:::::!
or
\ )
)o
o
\
) \
\ \
\o
op
)
}\ }
\\Em
o
o
\
( u \
\ \\ o
o
\)\\ }$
! u \)
\ \\\\ uo
�o
:
l >e
\\)
o
\6 E o m
§,±a!! -
\\\\\} \o
\\}�\u \j
\o mu
\\� \. \\
»®�
§/\t; \)
,;
;|U i/
§_ §)|
o
o
t; Mlo o E' \ -
:<72;!)ii
i#){;\)/f
{!:al2)§!
_E,>»=a2#
\}\\}\\�\
|%/!E m
\\\�\\\\\
))j}//\}]

APPENDIX B: STREAM & WETLAND DATA
NCSAM Forms
NCWAM Forms
NCDWR Forms
Cross Sections
BEHI & NBS
Soil Boring Logs
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Big Buffalo - SAM UT 1 Date of Assessment 3/29/22
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization Axiom - Lewis
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Big Buffalo - SAM UT 2 Date of Assessment 3/29/22
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization Axiom - Jernigan
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Big Buffalo - SAM UT 4 Date of Assessment 3/29/22
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization Axiom - Lewis
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
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
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Big Buffalo - SAM UT 6 Date of Assessment 3/29/22
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Axiom - Jernigan
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Big Buffalo - SAM UT 7 Date of Assessment 3/29/22
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization Axiom - Lewis
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Big Buffalo - SAM UT 8 Date of Assessment 3/29/22
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization Axiom - Lewis
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Biigper Buffalo - SAM UT 14 Date of Assessment
3/29/22
Up
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization
Axiom - Lewis
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
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
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall LOW

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Big Buffalo - SAM UT 14 Date of Assessment
3/29/22
Lower
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization
Axiom - Jernigan
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
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
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall LOW

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Big Buffalo - SAM UT 16 Date of Assessment 4/8/22
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization Axiom - Keith
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(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
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(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
NA
Overall
LOW

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Big Buffalo - SAM UT 17
Stream Site Name Date of Assessment
4/8/22
upper
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization
Axiom - Keith
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Big Buffalo - SAM UT 17 Date of Assessment
4/8/22
lower
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization
Axiom - Keith
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(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
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
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WAM 1 Date of Assessment 03/29/22
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan/Axiom
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) 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 Ratina Summa
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
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WAM 2 Date of Assessment 03/29/22
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan/Axiom
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) 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 Ratina Summa
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
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
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
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 WAM 3 Date of Assessment 03/29/22
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan/Axiom
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) 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 Ratina Summa
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
Veaetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
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 WAM 4 Date of Assessment 03/29/22
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan/Axiom
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) 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 Ratina Summa
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
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
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 WAM 5 Date of Assessment 03/29/22
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan/Axiom
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) 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 Ratina Summa
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
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
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
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

ql3
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 3 2 1 Az Z
Project/Site:
Latitude: 3 �� _
Evaluator: ji'yt< _
County: Ghwarl/►
Longitude: _
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent j
Stream Determination (cir
Other L bti
if >_ 19 or erennial if >_ 30" 31
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennia
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = i 3 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2p
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
T
<P
3
9. Grade control
0
' I
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
t .5
11. Second or greater order channel
Na =
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual `l
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 3 ,-'� )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
CD
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
(j
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0)
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 4.5 ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3}
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
(D
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
&52
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
ProjectlSite:
Latitude:
Evaluator: �. -w l
County: aL+a
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent v
Stream De te circle one)
Other L H
if >_ 19 or perennial if? 30"
Ephemera Intermitte Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 1 D )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1'
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
r'1" }
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
`'"1
-0
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0'
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
sp
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
Qj
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No'= 0
Yes = 3
GRl weal WW V0 PIG IIVL 10LGV, JGG VIJLiV JJIV 1J Ill manual
B. Hvdroloav [Subtotal = I
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
F'
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
C. Biolow (Subtotal = 7- ) 1 .
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
02
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
-3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
r
1
2
3
22. Fish
®
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
Co
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

N L to W k2 stream Wennucation norm Version 4.11
Date: 12,7 Project/Site: - La Latitude: 3 S
,l
Evaluator: .Y E - � County: 6'1'LotA-k a Longitude: _ 7 9 5 j /9
Total Points: Stream Deter circle one) Other 1,1 CA
Stream is at least intermittent r r Ephemeral Intermitte'Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 orperennial if >_ 30'
A. Geomomholoov (Subtotal = A . ) I Absent I Weak I Moderate I Strong
12, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2)
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
[►
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1W
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
i 0.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o _
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussiRs in manual
B. Hvdroloov tSuhtntal = C. .7 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes =
C_ Blolon►r tSuhtntal = I _ ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 3 Z y ZZ
Project/Site: I r�lo
Latitude: 3 5, 92G Syr
Evaluator: A Ile i
County: Cka41AQ r"
Longitude: _ 7-9, t /8 8Z&
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle
Ephemeral Intermittent •;Perennia
Other
e.g. Quad Name: 1 bu
if a 19 orperennial if a 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
)
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
J!
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ool sequence
0
1
62
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
q
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
(J
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2.
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
'Z
3
9. Grade control
0
0.54
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 .
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. HArolow (Subtotal = 145 ]
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
/3 ,
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
1V
3
14. Leaf litter
11.5)
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes �3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
: $
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
C'7
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

U-F9+
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: a {�, . `c ,
Project/Site: r
+`(0
Latitude: .-
,1 tZ DZI
Evaluator: r« �
County: C� a s
Longitude: ,.�q 5 Z,� 9 y
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 'Z
Stream Deteymi circle one)
E hemeral :lntermitte Perennial
Other
e. Quad NameW 6 �
if a 19 or perennial if 2 30'
P
g'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = t L 5 } Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1'
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
12
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
r '
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
;'No = 0 '
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 7 •6, )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes =
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0 1
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
01
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
01
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0'
0.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
1
Other = 0
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 "1-` 1 "L
Date: 3 ZZ
Project/Site: 918"�°� '' U
Latitude: 3'3Zb 5 3
Evaluator: 4 11( / - k
County: CM a it,, a ✓vt
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
N
if z 19 or ,perennial if >_ 30*
Ephemeral InvirmiffaMf erennial
e.g. Quad Name:Li�
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_._)
Absent
0
Weak
Moderate
2
Strong
3
12, Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
`1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1!
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
F
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0.
�le�
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5?
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
6.5
1
1.5_
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = `0 I
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
0
1
1
2
2
1-3,
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
1"5)
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
-
11-0) s
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
j 0
tj.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high wa r table?
No = 0
I Yes 3,'
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = It.1 ' )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
,1`
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
�3
�,"2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity, abundance)PIT _
ki�
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks L Sh -114
0
1
1_
3
_
22. Fish
0
0.5
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians L A4,
0
0.5
' D
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
_
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 3 2 ��
Project/Site: -_
Latitude: 3 5- $ y
Evaluator: A Kr `
County: CLA x a��/1
Longitude: _� " CBS
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral : Intermitter Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name: L'+ % r^
if >_ 19 or perennial if 2-30"
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = t ' )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
'1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
LO
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
M.
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
5
�_.
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
ailll ACII UILI II0D 010 IIUI IaLOU, Dec uIII I1a1wal
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = L Zi )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
(Z
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
Lo
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
s = 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
ED 1
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
022
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
<< �
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 ?_
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
; 0 r
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

lr L L W q btream l(lientitttcation i orm Version 4.11
Date: 4 / 41? l 711 Project/Site: j UT111
Evaluator: MadtciiG County:
Total Points: Stream Determ' circle one)
Stream is at least intermittent 2 i Ephemeral ntermittent erennial
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30" '
Latitude: 3 S i 8 283 11 ,r
Longitude: - 79, 51),;72, u
Other
e.g. Quad Name: L e
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = / J
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
O
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
V
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
(D
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
0
1 1.5'
11. Second or greater order channel
o =
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = i
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
C0773
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = 1. 7 l
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.
1
4
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
0
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
&Krer = 0-
.perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: f016
d %5 j-o tl*i 4

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 U f 1-1 rd" 0r "'� I r)
Date: 4/2--1
Project/Site: $a �Q
Latitude: -.� 5. 81g 15 1
Evaluator: V) 4 , e A �
County: C�� � �� �.�
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle
Other `r
at 3 c
if >_ 19 orperennial if >_ 30* �i J
Ephemeral Intermittent erenn al
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = 1 J
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o =
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolocly (.Subtotal = 9 ]
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
cy
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es =
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
0
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other =
'perennial streams may also be identified using
other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: ('Jf i t^Cs de•,r.-�
Cn Owe. �O res } e.d
ue
SP,ve 1 k(_f sue 1
��I-c/ d �f fu'�1ed PQS�v���
a reVl
.511`)14� Ls, f- Gral �; s h

.$
i�g
w
O
�Q
CA
�Q
O
O
O
O
.O.
�
�
� a
I
I
I
I
I
I+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

0
M
•I
yy
d
N
O
�Q
CA
�Q
op
O
O
O
O
.O.
O
O
awi u N �
(;aafi u011nn01a
0.4 U xS
O
O 01 01 x h \o \o \o \o \o \o h x x x x
y 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01
W
�' y i•w
0 0�� 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0�� O O
v���CwAw
01
'�
01
01
O
C,
O
w+
3
G
E 5
� a
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

0
N
p'
>y
O
�Q
CA
241
It
COO
�Q
C,iclicli
rn
CD
rn
rncl�
U
a,
� a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

—,
2
k
c_
... .
q
�
iclicli
k
00
cli
�
rn
CD
CD
CD
rn
CD
rn
2
\
\ \
e
z z
3%ƒ)/ƒ
m6m�J
14JxiI
jmmmrzmzzz=rm�__
\///%//\\\//%///
w
� (
:
ill
\
]
!>
�
)/)
|
|�|

tii
a
w�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
I
N
�
I
F
I
I
I
I
_
I
I
I
�
�
I
I
y
F
I
w
COO
U
I
I
O
I
CC
I
I
I
N
C,
C,
CA
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
M
O
O
Imo.
O
rn
O
rn
p
I
I
O
(1aaj) u01nnalg
0.1
U
xC
:4
O
i00
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
00
01
C,
C,
.i4
W
it2

. •
.2
.
.
�
\�\
�
r x
�
k
�
rn
cD
cD
cD
cD
\
t
/}\
°
a / )
» 2
z z
/§_ /)
3
m6m�J
=1 a x2
jr-
zemer_---- -- ee
\///%%/\/\\\/////
w
� (
:
\
]
}
»
j
�
)\
!>
|
|�|

I
&
I
9
I
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
_� r
� I
w
0
�Q
CA
�Q
O
O
M
O
M �
O y
� O
awi N (;aaj) u011DA01a
0
w+ - — - - O N O - - 01 CO �n N M - 01
C, C, 00 h h \o \o � \o 00 00 00 00
y C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C,
W
CDN h 00 C, O O N N M M \O 01
0
01
'�
00
01
0^0
01
C,
O
w+
3

a- ,y
N
rl
'
0.0
oc
0.0
11
�Q
GA
�p
�Q
rn
7
O
N
O
O
O
O
'O
N
awi 00 N .�
(1aaj) U011DA01a
0.1 u x x v
0
w o a� - �o - v N o 0 00 — N oo v - o N
C, x x x I; I; I; I; I; � I; I; I; x x C, C,
W
y
it "� DC W A Li.
h
\O
00
i�i
C,
O
w+
Uj
3
I
I
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

<»!\\\
d
Q
®
ƒ
_
�
®
�
\
\
/2r /
o
061DA01J
3Sx
j=eze_ez=e=_eee_e
\/%%%%//\/\//%%//
w
� (
:
412
\
]
�
)\
!>
|
|�|

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 1
Bank Length
673
Observers
KRJ
Date
29-Mar-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
114
right
Mod
Mod
0.05
114
2
11.4
2
231
right
Low
Low
0
117
1
0.0
3
336
right
Low
Low
0
105
1
0.0
4
5
6
7
8
9
162
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
162
1
8.1
10
279
left
Low
Low
0
117
1
0.0
11
337
left
Low
Low
0
58
1
0.0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
19.5
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
0.7
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
0.9
Erosion per unit length
Total Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.001

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 2
Bank Length
1842
Observers
KRJ
Date
29-Mar-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
63
right
High
Low
0.1
63
3
18.9
2
127
right
Mod
Low
0.02
64
2
2.6
3
281
right
High
Mod
0.15
154
4
92.4
4
406
right
High
Mod
0.15
125
3
56.3
5
618
right
Mod
Low
0.02
212
2
8.5
6
804
right
Mod
Low
0.02
186
3
11.2
7
925
right
Low
Low
0
121
1
0.0
8
9
63
left
High
Low
0.1
63
3
18.9
10
127
left
Mod
Low
0.02
64
1 2
2.6
11
281
left
High
Mod
0.15
154
4
92.4
12
397
left
High
Mod
0.15
116
3
52.2
13
609
left
Mod
Low
0.02
212
2
8.5
14
720
left
Mod
Low
0.02
111
3
6.7
15
762
left
High
High
0.2
42
3
25.2
16
796
left
Mod
Low
0.02
34
3
2.0
17
917
left
Low
Low
0
121
1
0.0
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
398.2
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
14.7
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
19.2
Erosion per unit length
Total Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.010

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 3
Bank Length
574
Observers
KRJ
Date
29-Mar-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
287
left
Low
Low
0
287
1
0.0
2
3
4
287
right
Low
Low
0
287
1
0.0
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
0.0
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
ITotal Erosion (yd/yr)
0.0
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
ITotal Erosion (tons/yr)
0.0
Erosion per unit length
ITotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.000

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 4
Bank Length
4972
Observers
KRJ
Date
29-Mar-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
660
left
Low
Low
0
660
3
0.0
2
903
left
Very High
Extreem
1.5
243
5
1822.5
3
1366
left
Low
Low
0
463
1
0.0
4
1695
left
Mod
Low
0.02
329
2
13.2
5
1921
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
226
3
33.9
6
2233
left
High
High
0.2
312
4
249.6
7
2461
left
High
High
0.2
228
3
136.8
8
9
10
642
right
Low
Low
0
642
3
0.0
11
885
right
Very High
Extreem
1.5
243
5
1822.5
12
1384
right
Low
Low
0
499
1
0.0
13
1677
right
Mod
Low
0.02
293
2
11.7
14
1890
right
Mod
Mod
0.05
213
3
32.0
15
2215
right
High
High
0.2
325
4
260.0
16
2511
right
High
High
0.2
296
3
177.6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
4559.7
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
ITotal Erosion (yd/yr)
168.9
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
ITotal Erosion (tons/yr)
219.5
Erosion per unit length
ITotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.044

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 5
Bank Length
548
Observers
KRJ
Date
29-Mar-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS,
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
118
left
Very High
High
0.3
118
2
70.8
2
187
left
Low
Low
0
69
1
0.0
3
274
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
87
1
4.4
4
5
6
118
right
High
High
0.2
118
2
47.2
7
187
right
Low
Low
0
69
1
0.0
8
274
right
Mod
Mod
0.05
87
1
4.4
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
126.7
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
ITotal Erosion (yd/yr)
4.7
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
ITotal Erosion (tons/yr)
6.1
Erosion per unit length
ITotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.011

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 6
Bank Length
1818
Observers
KRJ
Date
29-Mar-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS,
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
310
left
High
High
0.2
310
2
124.0
2
713
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
403
1
20.2
3
909
left
Low
Low
0
196
1
0.0
4
5
6
407
left
High
High
0.2
407
2
162.8
7
603
left
Low
Low
0
196
1
0.0
8
909
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
306
1
15.3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
322.3
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
ITotal Erosion (yd/yr)
11.9
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
ITotal Erosion (tons/yr)
15.5
Erosion per unit length
ITotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.009

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 7
Bank Length
1290
Observers
KRJ
Date
29-Mar-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
235
left
Low
Low
0
235
1
0.0
2
529
left
High
High
0.2
294
3
176.4
3
645
left
High
High
0.2
116
2
46.4
4
5
6
302
left
High
High
0.2
302
3
181.2
7
442
left
Low
Low
0
140
1
0.0
8
645
left
High
High
0.2
203
2
81.2
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
485.2
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
ITotal Erosion (yd/yr)
18.0
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
ITotal Erosion (tons/yr)
23.4
Erosion per unit length
ITotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.018

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 8
Bank Length
1769
Observers
KRJ
Date
29-Mar-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
458
left
Low
Low
0
458
1
0.0
2
729
left
High
Mod
0.15
271
2
81.3
3
885
left
High
High
0.2
156
2
62.4
4
5
6
597
left
Low
Low
0
597
1
0.0
7
759
left
High
Mod
0.15
162
2
48.6
8
884
left
High
High
0.2
125
2
50.0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
242.3
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
ITotal Erosion (yd/yr)
9.0
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
ITotal Erosion (tons/yr)
11.7
Erosion per unit length
ITotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.007

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 9
Bank Length
54
Observers
KRJ
Date
29-Mar-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
25
left
Low
Low
0
25
2
0.0
2
3
4
5
6
29
right
Low
Low
0
29
2
0.0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
0.0
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
ITotal Erosion (yd/yr)
0.0
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
ITotal Erosion (tons/yr)
0.0
Erosion per unit length
ITotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.000

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 10
Bank Length
1150
Observers
KRJ
Date
29-Mar-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
239
left
Low
Low
0
239
1
0.0
2
471
left
Low
Low
0
232
1
0.0
3
575
left
Mod
Low
0.02
104
1
2.1
4
5
6
239
right
Low
Low
0
239
1
0.0
7
471
right
Low
Low
0
232
1
0.0
8
575
right
Mod
Low
0.02
104
1
2.1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
4.2
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
ITotal Erosion (yd/yr)
0.2
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
ITotal Erosion (tons/yr)
0.2
Erosion per unit length
ITotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.000

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 12
Bank Length
682
Observers
KRJ
Date
29-Mar-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
187
left
Low
Low
0
187
1
0.0
2
341
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
154
1
7.7
3
4
5
6
142
right
Mod
Low
0.02
142
2
5.7
7
296
right
Mod
Mod
0.05
154
1
7.7
8
341
right
Low
Low
0
45
1
0.0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
21.1
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
ITotal Erosion (yd/yr)
0.8
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
ITotal Erosion (tons/yr)
1.0
Erosion per unit length
ITotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.001

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 14
Bank Length
5856
Observers
KRJ
Date
29-Mar-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
600
left
Mod
Low
0.02
600
2.5
30.0
2
820
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
220
2
22.0
3
915
left
High
Mod
0.15
95
3
42.8
4
951
left
Very high
High
1
36
5
180.0
5
1213
left
High
Mod
0.15
262
3
117.9
6
1603
left
High
Mod
0.15
390
2
117.0
7
1805
left
Low
Low
0
202
2
0.0
8
2200
left
Low
Low
0
395
1
0.0
9
2657
left
Mod
Low
0.02
457
3
27.4
10
2933
left
Mod
Low
0.02
276
2
11.0
11
3114
left
High
Mod
0.15
181
3
81.5
12
13
221
right
Mod
Mod
0.05
221
2
22.1
14
316
left
High
Mod
0.15
95
3
42.8
15
697
left
High
High
0.2
381
3
228.6
16
1003
left
High
Mod
0.15
306
2
91.8
17
1205
left
Low
Low
0
202
2
0.0
18
1273
left
High
High
0.2
68
3
40.8
19
1909
left
Mod
Low
0.02
636
2.5
31.8
20
2210
left
High
Mod
0.15
301
3
135.5
21
2511
left
Mod
Low
0.02
301
2
12.0
22
2742
left
Mod
Low
0.02
231
2.5
11.6
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
1246.5
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
46.2
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
60.0
Erosion per unit length
Total Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.010

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 15
Bank Length
70
Observers
KRJ
Date
29-Mar-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
35
left
Low
Low
0
35
1.5
0.0
2
3
4
5
6
35
right
Low
Low
0
35
1.5
0.0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
0.0
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
ITotal Erosion (yd/yr)
0.0
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
ITotal Erosion (tons/yr)
0.0
Erosion per unit length
ITotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.000

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 16
Bank Length
3136
Observers
AEK
Date
8-Apr-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
947
left
Low
Low
0
947
2
0.0
2
1000
left
High
Mod
0.15
53
3
23.9
3
1114
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
114
3
17.1
4
1194
left
Low
Low
0
80
3
0.0
5
1321
left
High
Low
0.1
127
3
38.1
6
1402
left
High
High
0.02
81
2
3.2
7
1568
left
High
Low
0.1
166
3
49.8
12
13
947
right
Low
Low
0
947
2
0.0
14
1000
right
High
Low
0.02
53
3
3.2
15
1114
right
Mod
Mod
0.05
114
3
17.1
16
1194
right
Low
Low
0
80
3
0.0
17
1321
right
Mod
Mod
0.05
127
3
19.1
18
1402
right
Mod
Low
0.02
81
2
3.2
19
1568
right
Low
Low
0
166
3
0.0
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
174.7
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
6.5
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
8.4
Erosion per unit length
Total Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.003

Site
Big Buffalo Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 17
Bank Length
1594
Observers
AEK
Date
8-Apr-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS,
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
64
left
High
High
0.2
64
5
64.0
2
104
left
Low
Low
0
40
3
0.0
3
205
left
High
Low
0.1
101
5
50.5
4
242
left
High
Low
0.1
37
5
18.5
5
261
left
Mod
Low
0.02
19
3
1.1
6
349
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
88
3
13.2
7
475
left
Low
Low
0
126
3
0.0
8
592
left
Low
Low
0
117
2
0.0
9
678
left
Low
Low
0
86
1
0.0
10
797
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
119
2
11.9
12
13
64
right
High
High
0.2
64
5
64.0
14
104
right
Low
Low
0
40
3
0.0
15
205
right
High
Low
0.1
101
4
40.4
16
242
right
High
Low
0.1
37
5
18.5
17
261
right
Mod
Low
0.02
19
3
1.1
18
349
right
Mod
Mod
0.05
88
3
13.2
19
475
right
Low
Low
0
126
3
0.0
20
592
right
Low
Low
0
117
2
0.0
21
678
right
Low
Low
0
86
1
0.0
22
797
right
Mod
Mod
0.05
119
2
11.9
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
308.4
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
11.4
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
14.8
Erosion per unit length
Total Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.009

BEHIMBS Summary
Stream Reach
Erosion Rate
(tons/year)
UT1
0.9
UT2
19.2
UT3
0.0
UT4
219.5
UT5
6.1
UT6
15.5
UT7
23.4
UT8
11.7
UT9
0.0
UT10
0.2
UT12
1.0
UT14
60.0
UT15
0.0
UT16
8.4
UT17
14.8
Total
380.8

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 4/8/2022
Project/Site: Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
County, State:
Chatham County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates:
Soil Profile 1 (35.831366,-79.523653)
Investigator:
W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series:
Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-3
10 YR 5/1
100
loam
3-9
10 YR 6/1
95
10 YR 4/6
5
C
M
sandy clay loam
9-18
10YR 7/2
95
10 YR 4/6
3
C
M
fine sandy loam
10 YR 5/4
2
C
M
18+
10YR 6/1
40
10 YR 3/1
20
C
M
fine sandy loam
10YR 4/6
40
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matri)
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: '""� Jt^-n
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 4/8/2022
Project/Site: Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
County, State:
Chatham County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates:
Soil Profile 2 (35.832108,-79.520939)
Investigator:
W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series:
Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-2
10 YR 4/1
99
10 YR 4/6
1
C
PL
loam
2-9
10 YR 7/1
95
10 YR 4/4
5
C
M
sandy clay loam
9-15
10YR 6/2
95
10 YR 4/4
3
C
M
sandy clay loam
10 YR 5/6
2
C
M
15+
10YR 7/1
60
10 YR 5/6
20
C
M
sandy clay loam
10 YR 4/4
20
C
M
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matri)
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: '""� Jt^-n
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 4/8/2022
Project/Site: Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
County, State:
Chatham County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates:
Soil Profile 3 (35.834339,-79.519103)
Investigator:
W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series:
Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-2
10 YR 5/1
80
10 YR 5/6
20
C
PL
sandy clay
2-9
10 YR 6/2
90
10 YR 5/6
10
C
M
sandy clay
9-15
10YR 6/2
80
10 YR 5/6
10
C
M
sandy clay loam
10 YR 5/1
5
D
M
10 YR 6/6
5
C
M
15+
10YR 6/1
70
10 YR 5/6
20
C
M
sandy clay loam
10 YR 4/6
10
C
M
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matri)
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: '""� Jt^-n
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 4/8/2022
Project/Site: Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
County, State:
Chatham County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates:
Soil Profile 4 (35.829049,-79.511632 )
Investigator:
W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series:
Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-3
10 YR 4/1
95
10 YR 4/6
5
C
PL
sandy loam
3-6
10 YR 6/1
50
10 YR 5/8
10
C
M
sandy clay loam
10 YR 6/2
40
6-14
10YR 7/2
70
10 YR 7/6
28
C
M
sandy clay loam
10 YR 2/1
2
C
M
14+
10YR 7/1
75
10 YR 5/8
23
C
M
sandy clay
10 YR 2/1
2
C
M
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matri)
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: '""� Jt^-n
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 4/8/2022
Project/Site: Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
County, State:
Chatham County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates:
Soil Profile 5 (35.820438,-79.525931)
Investigator:
W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series:
Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-3
10 YR 4/2
95
10 YR 4/6
5
C
PL
loam
3-14
10 YR 5/1
50
sandy loam
10 YR 6/2
30
10 YR 4/6
30
14+
10YR 7/1
85
10 YR 5/6
10
C
M
sandy clay loam
10 YR 4/6
5
C
M
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matri)
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: '""� Jt^-n
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 4/8/2022
Project/Site: Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
County, State:
Chatham County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates:
Soil Profile 6 (35.825104,-79.526467 )
Investigator:
W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series:
Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
Depth
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matri>
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: '""� Jt^-n
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matri>
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: '""� Jt^-n
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

APPENDIX C: FORMS & REPORTS
NHP Report
Atlas Documents
IPac data
RCW SLOPES Form
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6 —Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices

Roy Cooper, Governor
■ ■■■
■■ ■ INC DEPARTMENT OF
■■■■i NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■■
April 8, 2022
Allison Keith
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27603
RE: Big Bull; 22-001.02
Dear Allison Keith:
❑. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy Director, Natural Heritage Program
NCNHDE-17655
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:
httr)s://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 ney.butler�ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPAR7HEN7 OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
121 W. JONES STREET. RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 1691 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH. NC 27609
OFC 919.707.9120 • FAX [phone]

/
CO
■
■
CO
?
\
ƒ
\
�
3 /
/
CO e
CO %
s /
CO
/
/ CO
z ±
e
s
e
7
4E
E
\
(
\
\
/
x
x
4
6
6
\(®
/
E
\
/ o
0
3
/
O
\
a
CC)
CO \
\
\ \
\
4 ^
°
© e
\
u
\
\
\
¢
/
\
\ E
/
/
co
//
\
/
\ =
g
e
\ E
2
\
\\
\
\
_
O
e
/ e
\
/
\ /
E
g z
°9
\
_
\
E ^
/
CO
CO
e t
E.a)
/
/
//
3
3
0
0
%—
\/
/
\
/
\
\
\
E
/ /
CO
CO
z
/
> / >
/ (
§
%
/ % /
3/\a2323
CO
4
\
�
\
\
\
CO
\
§
/
CO
2
\
\
\
E
\
0
CO
\
\
\
\
/
�
B
\\
§
\
/

i
I
I
I
td
I
I
I
I
I
I
p-L wie jl�euquaa�
;:king Horse TO
wIQ
Zlx
¢I~
Iv
I
I
I v
P2! aMol U es
al�rnc5 � _
% RaUWM
n
R r
n �r`
� 4
c Q
%N oe,
BSe"
rrr :,dour
a
z
B
A
y ayr�
Odd U
i
W^
Y
O
M
O
M

This report is for high-level screening purposes only. Staff and consultants must continue to adhere to NCDOT standard
operating procedures including, but not limited to, ETRACS requests and field validations.
Report Date: 03/28/2022
Big Buffalo
MAI
County:
Division:
Study Area Size
Buffer Size:
Randolph, Chatham,
Alamanne
8,7
35757Acnes
1 Miles
User Customized Screening
EPALevel III Ecmregimn:
Piedmont
EPA Level K/Ecmregimn:
Carolina Slate Belt
HUC8:
03030003
Riparian Buffer:
Error
CAK8A:
No
Airport within 4miles:
Yes

Boundaries
Feature
Total
Nearest
Count
Coverage
Feature
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Properties
0
0
0
NCDOT ATLAS NC USACE Norfolk District Section 408 Waters
0
0
0
Historic Architecture and Archaeology
Feature
Total
Nearest
Count
Coverage
Feature
NC Historic Preservation Office Surveyed Only Points
5
N/A
1111.7 ft
NCDOT ATLAS NC Cemeteries
4
N/A
2860.1 ft
Tribal Urban Communities
3
3575.2 ac
N/A
NC Historic Preservation Office SL Points
1
N/A
N/A
NC Historic Preservation NR Points
0
0
0
NC Historic Preservation Office Local District Boundaries
0
0
0
NC Historic Preservation Office Local Points
0
0
0
NC Historic Preservation Office NR Boundaries
0
0
0
NC Historic Preservation Office NR DOE Site Boundaries Poly
0
0
0
NC Historic Preservation Office NR DOE Site Points
0
0
0
NC Historic Preservation Office NR SL Site Boundaries Polv
0
0
0
Transportation
Feature
Total
Nearest
Count
Coverage
Feature
FAA Airports
0
0
0
Conservation Area
Feature
Total
Nearest
Count
Coverage
Feature
NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
1
11.6 ac
133.7 ft
Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary Partnership Regional Trails
0
0
0
Blue Ridge Forever Appalachian Trail Centerline
0
0 ft
0
Catawba Main Stem (1000 foot Buffer)
0
0
0
NC Conservation Tax Credit Program Properties
0
0 ac
0
NC Critical Areas
0
0
0
NC DEQ CAMA Counties (DCM List)
0
0
0
NC DEQ DCM Coastal Reserve Boundary
0
0
0
NC DEQ Oceanfront Setback Factors
0
0
0
NC DEQ Outstandinq Resource Water Management Zones
0
0
0
NC DEQ Primary Fish Nursery Areas
0
0
0
NC DEQ Unique Wetlands
0
0
0
NC Natural Heritage Natural Areas (NHNA)
0
0
0
NC Public Beach and Waterfront Access
0
0
0
NC Shellfish Growinq Area Classifications
0
0 ac
0
NCDOT ATLAS NC Coastal Public Trust Shorelines AEC
0
0
0
2 of 7

NCDOT ATLAS NC Ocean Hazard Erodible AEC 0
NCDOT ATLAS NC Public Trust Unvegetated Beach AEC 0
NCDOT ATLAS NC Significant Coastal Archaeological Resources AEC 0
NCDOT ATLAS NC Unique Coastal Geologic Formations AEC 0
USFWS National Wildlife Refuges 0
USGS Protected Area Database 0
Fish and Aquatics Feature
Count
0
0
0
0
0
0 ac
Total
Coverage
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nearest
Feature
NC DEQ DMF Reef Guide Artificial Reefs
0
0
0
NC DEQ DMF Reef Guide Oyster Sanctuaries
0
0
0
NC Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
0
0 ac
0
NC WRC Public Mountain Trout Waters
0
0 ft
0
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat
0
0
0
Hydrography
Feature
Total
Nearest
Count
Coverage
Feature
NCDOT ATLAS NC Open Water Polygons
5
14.9 ac
780.9 ft
NCDOT NC FEMA Stream Study
5
27677.5 ft
761.1 ft
National Flood Hazard Layer Flood Hazard Boundaries
40
75931.6 ft
13.8 ft
NCDOT Hosted NC DEQ 303d and 305b Streams
4
28048.8 ft
2137.7 ft
USGS Drainage Areas of Selected Sites
4
N/A
2714.8 ft
NC Major Hydrography Streams Rivers (CGIA)
3
6769.1 ft
2185.9 ft
NC 24K Streams 2014
2
28048.8 ft
2137.7 ft
NC DEQ Water Supply Watershed III
2
28048.8 ft
2137.7 ft
NC USGS Stream Gaging Stations
2
N/A
N/A
NCDOT ATLAS NC Hydrography
132
109019.5 ft
101.3 ft
NC DEQ Major Basins
1
3575.2 ac
N/A
NC DEQ Water Supply Watersheds
1
3575.2 ac
N/A
National Park Service Park Boundaries
0
0 ac
0
NC DEQ DCM Oceanfront & Inlet Shorelines
0
0 ft
0
NC DEQ DRAFT 2016 DWR 303(d) Water Quality Assessment
0
0
4915.0 ft
NC DEQ Riparian Buffer Areas
0
0
0
NC DEQ Water Supply Watershed I
0
0 ft
0
NC DEQ Water Supply Watershed II
0
0 ft
0
NC DEQ Water Supply Watershed IV
0
0
0
NC Falls Lake Boundary
0
0
0
NC Goose Creek Watershed Boundary
0
0
0
NC High Rock Watershed Boundary
0
0
0
NC Jordan Lake Watershed Boundary
0
0
0
NC Perry Creek Watershed Boundary
0
0
0
NC Randleman Lake Watershed Boundary
0
0
0
3 of 7

NC Wild and Scenic Rivers (CGIA)
0
0
0
NC WRC Boatinq Locations
0
0
0
NCDOT ATLAS NC Western Watersheds Draining to Critical Habitat
0
0
0
NOAA Datums Stations
0
0
0
TVA Reservoirs
0
0
0
US Army Corps of Engineers Federal Navigation channels
0
0
0
US DHS HIFLD Coast Guard Regulated Navigational Areas
0
0 ac
0
USACE Channel Area
0
0 ac
0
USACE Channel Lines
0
0 ft
0
USACE Channel Quarter
0
0 ac
0
USACE Channel Reach
0
0 ac
0
USACE Corps Projects Area
0
0 ac
0
USACE Corps Projects Point
0
0
0
USFWS Coastal Barrier Resources Act Areas
0
0
0
Mitigation
Feature
Total
Nearest
Count
Coverage
Feature
NC Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Easements
0
0 ac
0
NCDOT Mitigation Site Polygons
0
0 ac
0
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services Property Easements
0
0
3062.0 ft
Physiography
Feature
Total
Nearest
Count
Coverage
Feature
NCDOT ATLAS NC USDA Hydric Soils
26
665.4 ac
52.7 ft
NC Gridded Soil Survey_gSSURGO
189
3575.2 ac
13.0 ft
NCDOT ATLAS NC NRCS Prime Farmland Soils
147
3444.1 ac
13.0 ft
Threatened and Endangered
Feature
Total
Nearest
Count
Coverage
Feature
NC Natural Heritage Element Occurrences
1
3.3 ac
N/A
Combined Bridge Inspections
0
0
0
NCDOT ATLAS NC Mines
0
0
0
NCDOT ATLAS NC Northern Long -Eared Bat Hibernation And Or
0
0
0
Maternity Sites by HUC 12
USFWS ECOS Critical Habitat (line)
0
0 ft
0
USFWS ECOS Critical Habitat (polygon)
0
0 ac
0
Water Quality
Feature
Total
Nearest
Count
Coverage
Feature
NC DEQ Coal Ash Structural Fills (CCB) (CLOSED)
0
0
0
NC DEQ High Quality Waters
0
0
0
NC DEQ Nutrient Sensitive Waters
0
0
0
NC DEQ Outstanding Resource Waters
0
0
0
NC Industrial Outfalls
0
0
0
NC Surface Water Quality Classification (CGIA)
0
0
0
NCDOT Stormwater Controls
0
0
0
4 of 7

US EPA Superfund Sites
Wetlands
0 0 0
Feature Total Nearest
Count Coverage Feature
NC Division of Coastal Management Coastal Wetland Inventory
0
0 0
NCDOT ATLAS NC NRTR Preliminary Jurisdictional Wetlands
0
0 0
Project ATLAS Lenoir County Wetlands
0
0 ac 0
U-6187 Wetland Model
0
0 ac 0
5 of 7

Created by: axiom_nc Date/Time Executed: 03/28/2022 2:35 PM
Application version: 1.14.7.0
Report Disclaimer:
While the N.C. Department of Transportation strives to provide complete and accurate information, the data provided in
this screening report are reported "as is." This report does not replace field data collection and data verification
conducted by licensed professionals. No warranty is expressed or implied regarding the accuracy of available data for
general or scientific purposes. NCDOT shall under no circumstances be responsible for any errors or omissions which
may occur in these records, nor liable for any actions taken as a result of reliance upon any information contained within
this web site from whatever source, or any consequences from such reliance.
How to read this report:
User -defined Project Study Area = The final polygon that the user created in the Screening Tool. This study area
includes any buffers the user added within the application.
Layer Name = Layer selected for Screening. You may click the hyperlink to access additional layer details.
Field Name = Calculated result for a specific field within a layer that was selected for Screening (using Set Field).
Feature Count = Number of unique features (points, lines, and/or polygons) from a particular GIS layer that are within or
intersecting the user -defined project study area.
Values displayed the Output Report: (N/A vs 0)
N/A: When this value is displayed it indicates that the calculation requested cannot be completed do to a limitation
of the geometry. For example, you cannot calculate the area of a point.
0: When this value is displayed it means that the calculation was able to be performed with no limitations due to the
input geometry, however the result was 0. For example, your study area did not overlap a hydrography feature,
therefore the resulting overlap length is 0.
Total Coverage = Total number of linear feet (lines) or area (polygons) from a particular GIS layer that are contained
within the user -defined project study area. N/A under Total Coverage refers to point layers as point layers cannot have
coverage.
Nearest Feature = Distance from the boundary of the user -defined project study area to next closest feature (point, line,
or polygon) for a particular GIS layer within the vicinity (1 mile) of the project study area boundary. Zero (0) under
Nearest means there are no features in the project vicinity (1 mile buffer).
Availability of Web Services:
The layers referenced in this report utilize web services. If any web services were unavailable at the time of the report
execution, related errors are noted in the following table:
Service Name
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRM
Panels
USACE Western NC Waters
Service Uri
Error Thrown
https://hazards.fema.aov/gis/nfhl/rest/ser Error returned from service:
vices/FIRMette/NFHLREST FIRMette/M Pagination is not supported.
apServer/1
https://services6.arc.gis.com/bRKU5OXoV Error Message: count
OUOEK25/arcg is/rest/services/Western_
NC Waters/FeatureServer
6 of 7

USACE Trout Watersheds https://services6.arcgis.com/bRKU5OXoV Error Message: count
OUOEK25/arcgis/rest/services/NC Trout_
Waters heds/FeatureServer
USACE Western NC Water Buffers https://services6.arcais.com/bRKU5OXoV Error Message: count
OUOEK25/arcgis/rest/services/Western_
NC Waters Buffers/FeatureServer
Conservation Easements (National https://server2.tplgis.org/arcgis2/rest/sery Connection Error:
Conservation Easement Database) ices/National/NCED_CompleteDB/MapS HTTPSConnection Pool
erver/O (host='server2.tplg is.org',
port=443): Max retries exceeded
with url:
/arcg is2/rest/services/National/NCE
D_Complete DB/MapServer/O/query
(Caused by NewConnection Error
('<requests.packages.urllib3.conne
ction.VerifiedHTTPSConnection
object at Ox0000012C83DE5240>:
Failed to establish a new
connection: [Errno 11001 ]
getaddrinfo failed',))
North Carolina Effective Flood zones https://hazards.fema.gov/gis/nfhl/rest/ser
vices/FIRMette/NFHLREST FIRMette/M
apServer/20
Connection Error:
HTTPSConnection Pool
(host='hazards.fema.gov',
port=443): Max retries exceeded
with url:
/gis/nfhl/rest/services/FIRMette/N F
HLREST_FI RMette/MapServer/20/
query (Caused by
Read TimeoutError
("HTTPSConnectionPool
(host='hazards.fema.gov',
port=443): Read timed out. (read
timeout=3)",))
7 of 7

INC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/QV6GLXZFMJHFRLSPGAH...
IPaC
IPaC resource list
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as
critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project
area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the
project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the
project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have
on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site -specific (e.g.,
vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed
activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for
the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the
introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS
Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources
addressed in that section.
Location
Chatham County, North Carolina
�µ hcy'Apr, R!
W
Local office
C
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
t. [phone]
1 of 12 3/28/2022, 3:56 PM

INC: Explore Location resources
JEJ [phone]
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/QV6GLXZFMJHFRLSPGAH...
MAILING ADDRESS
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, INC 27636-3726
PHYSICAL ADDRESS
551 Pylon Drive, Suite F
Raleigh, INC 27606-1487
0105
FOB
2 of 12 3/28/2022, 3:56 PM

INC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/QV6GLXZFMJHFRLSPGAH...
Endangered species
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each
species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI
includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by
activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish
does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or
eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can
change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project
area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site -specific and
project -specific information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the
Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be
present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted,
funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list
which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list
from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local
field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC
website and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed speciesi and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown
on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under theirjurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC
also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status
page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see
FAQ).
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
3 of 12 3/28/2022, 3:56 PM

IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/QV6GLXZFMJHFRLSPGAH...
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department
of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Birds
NAME STATUS
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
Fishes
NAME STATUS
Cape Fear Shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of
the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6063
Clams
NAME STATUS
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Threatened
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of
the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
I nsects
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
4 of 12 3/28/2022, 3:56 PM

IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/QV6GLXZFMJHFRLSPGAH...
Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3739
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the
endangered species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Acts.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and
consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-
species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds
/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.g ratorybirds
it
/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your
project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how
this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this
location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To
5 of 12 3/28/2022, 3:56 PM

RCW SLOPES Manual — North Carolina
March 2022
US Army Corps
of Engineers..
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
Appendix B — Red -cockaded Woodpecker Effects Determination Key
ORM2 No.: Date 3/31 /2022
USFWS Reference No. (if applicable):
1) Is the action areal located within the RCW consultation area (see Appendix A and project -specific
results from a project -specific IPaC or internal USACE GIS review)?
a) Yes......................................................................................................................................................go to 2
b) No..................................................................................................................................................No effectZ
2) Is the action areal located in the northeastern coastal plain (see Appendix A)?
a) Yes.......................................................................................................................................................go to 3
b) No (the project is located in piedmont, sandhills, or southeastern coastal plain)..................go to 4
3) Is the action areal located in a forested area with pine trees present in northeast North Carolina (e.g.,
high pocosin, Atlantic white cedar, nonriverine swamp forests, pond pine woodland, coastal fringe
evergreen forest, wet successional pine/pine-hardwood forest, or pine plantation or uplands)? If yes,
are the pine trees greater than 30 years of age (if stand age is not readily determined, refer to Table
1 for a description of the minimum dbh of 30-year-old pines associated with each community type).
If the answer to both of these questions is yes, choose Yes below. If the answer to one or both
questions is no, then choose No below.
a) Yes.......................................................................................................................................................go to 8
b) No...................................................................................................................................................No effectZ
4) Is the action areal located within suitable RCW foraging or nesting habitat (pine or pine/hardwood
stands in which 50% or more of the dominant trees are pines and the dominant pine trees are 30
years of age or older or >_8-inches dbh')?
a) Yes.......................................................................................................................................................go to 5
b) No...................................................................................................................................................No effectZ
5) Will any activity in the action area' remove trees equal to or greater than 8 inches dbh; or will any
activity occur within 200 feet of known RCW cavity trees? If unable to determine the location of a
cavity tree with confidence, contact the USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office.
a) Yes (to one or both).........................................................................................................................go to 6
b) No.........................................................................................................................................................NLAA'
12

RCW SLOPES Manual — North Carolina
March 2022
6) Is the action areal located in suitable RCW nesting habitat (in the sandhills and piedmont: pine or
pine/hardwood stands that contain pines 60 years in age or older or >_10 inches dbh; in the
southeastern coastal plain: pine or pine/hardwood stands that contain pines >_8 inches dbh, including
but not limited to pine flatwoods, pocosin, pine savannah, upland pine/hardwood)?
a) Yes........................................................................................................................................................go to 9
b) No.........................................................................................................................................................go to 7
7) Does suitable nesting habitat occur within 0.5 miles of suitable foraging habitat that would be
impacted by any activity in the action areal?
a) Yes......................................................................................................................................................go to 9
b) No.........................................................................................................................................................NLAA'
8) Refer to Table 1 in the SLOPES for the northeastern North Carolina habitat type in the action areal.
Are pine trees with a dbh equal to or greater than that shown in Table 1 proposed to be removed in
the action areal, or is the action areal within 200 feet of a cavity tree? If the answer to either of these
questions is yes, choose Yes below. If unable to determine the location of a cavity tree with
confidence, then contact the USFWS Raleigh Field Office.
a) Yes......................................................................................................................................................go to 9
b) No.........................................................................................................................................................NLAA'
9) Contact the appropriate USACE representative for a pre -application meeting to determine if a survey
is necessary (for a list of USACE representatives please see the contact list at http://saw-
reg.usace.army.mil/FO/PM List.pdf). Note that project -specific information, such as a delineation of
waters of the U.S., project plans, and details concerning certain activities on disturbances that would
occur in the action areal (e.g. percussive activities, forest management, or similar disturbances), may
be needed for the USACE to determine the action area(s)l of the project. If a survey is required and
agreed to by the applicant, all suitable RCW nesting habitat within 0.5 miles of the action areal should
be surveyed according to USFWS protocol for the presence of RCW cavity trees'. If the applicant is
unwilling or unable to conduct the survey, standard consultation with the USFWS should begin. Such
surveys are conducted by running line transects through stands and visually inspecting all medium-
sized and large pines for evidence of cavity excavation by RCWs. Transects must be spaced so that all
trees are inspected and are run north -south.
Was a survey performed?
a) Yes, a survey was performed, and RCW cavity trees were observed.......................................go to 10
b) Yes, the survey was submitted to the USFWS for concurrence, and the USFWS concurred with the
results (no RCW cavity trees were observed)................................................................................NLAA'
c) No, the USACE determined that a survey was not required and the USFWS
concurred.............................................................................................................................................NLAA'
d) No, a survey was not performed..........................................................................Consultation required'
10) Does the project involve activities or disturbances in the action areal (e.g., percussive activities, forest
management, or similar disturbances) within the 200-foot cavity tree buffer, and/or cause removal or
damage to RCW cavity trees (e.g., via root compaction, soil compaction)? If yes to either or both then
consultation is required.
a) Yes............................................................................................................................Consultation required'
b) No......................................................................................................................................................go to 11
13

RCW SLOPES Manual — North Carolina
March 2022
11) Has a foraging habitat analysis (FHA)' been conducted to determine whether enough foraging habitat
would remain for each RCW group post -project? For information on how to conduct an FHA', refer to
the "Procedures for Determining Foraging Habitat Availability" and the Private Land Guidelines.'
a) Yes, the FHA' has been submitted to the USFWS for concurrence' and the USFWS concurred
that adequate amounts of foraging habitat would remain post -project ................................. NLAA3
b) Yes, and review of the FHA' by the USACE along with concurrence from USFWS determined
inadequate amounts of foraging habitat would remain post -project......... Consultation required'
c) No, an FHA' has not been conducted...............................................................Consultation required'
'Action Area means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved
in the action. Please contact the appropriate USACE representative for any questions as to the action area for the Federal action.
For a list of USACE representatives, please see the contact list at: http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/FO/PMList.pdf.
2No effect — The proposed project would result in no effect to this species and/or its federally designated critical habitat (if
applicable). Further consultation with the USFWS Raleigh and Asheville Ecological Services field offices is not necessary for the
project as described.
3NLAA—The proposed project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect this species and/or its designated critical habitat (if
applicable). NLAA determinations for projects made pursuant to this key require no further consultation with the USFWS Raleigh
and Asheville Ecological Services field offices, therefore, consultation is considered complete for this species. For General Permits,
submittal of a Pre -Construction Notification to the USACE will be required for all NLAA determinations.
4Follow link to USFWS RCW Recovery Plan, Appendix 4 for additional information on nesting and foraging habitats, and survey
protocol (https://www.fws.gov/rcwrecoverv/files/RecoveryPlan/survey protocol.pdf)
-'Consultation required — Contact the USACE to begin this consultation process. For a list of USACE representatives please see the
contact list at http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/FO/PMList.pdf. Further consultation with the USFWS Raleigh and Asheville
Ecological Services field offices is necessary to discern if the activity would result in a "no effect," "not likely to adversely affect,"
or "likely to adversely affect" determination.
6Follow links for additional information on conducting FHA (https://www.fws.gov/rcwrecoverv/matrix.html) and for
determining foraging habitat availability (https://www.fws.gov/ncsandhills/files/fha data collection procedures.pdf).
'Follow link for additional information regarding determination for adequate amount of foraging habitat
(https://www.fws.gov/rcwrecoverv/files/RecovervPlan/private lands guidelines.pdf).
a FHA — When an FHA is conducted, the USACE must provide the FHA to USFWS for review and concurrence.
Additional Information
14

RCW SLOPES Manual — North Carolina
March 2022
Appendix C — Conservation Recommendations
These recommendations are optional and, if implemented, would support the agency's goals toward
recovery. These recommendations are to be used at the discretion of the permittee, but any measures that
avoid and minimize effects to the species are highly encouraged by the USFWS.
1. Minimize project impacts within clusters and foraging habitat whenever possible (i.e., conduct large
pine removal outside of nesting season [April 1 to July 31], trim branches instead of complete tree
removal, switch building plans to retain large pines).
2. The USFWS strongly recommends that occupied habitats be avoided and preserved. The first measure
is to modify the project footprint to avoid direct impacts to RCW habitat. This habitat could be
designated as an environmentally sensitive area and set aside by deed restriction, easement, or
another protective covenant. If the occupied habitat on the property exceeds 5 acres (2 hectares),
then a habitat management plan is also recommended. Incorporating these recommendations into
the project design and documenting them in the habitat management plan might result in the project
being not likely to adversely affect the RCW.
3. On -site habitat enhancements are recommended by the USFWS in situations where a project
proposes to impact occupied RCW habitat. If the site has been physically altered by exotic species
invasion, lack of fire, or other anthropogenic actions, these alterations have produced on -site habitat
conditions that have resulted in marginally suitable habitats for RCW's survival and propagation. The
planned action, through project redesign, has avoided impacting a substantial portion of the habitat;
however, some habitat loss will still occur. The project proposes on -site habitat enhancements and
management actions that provide habitat quality improvements that balance losses of small amounts
of marginally suitable habitats. Incorporating these recommendations into the project and
documenting them in a habitat management plan can result in the project being not likely to adversely
affect the RCW.
4. Remove vines and thick underbrush/mid-story to improve site suitability.
5. Provision starts and/or completed cavities in suitable large pines to provide additional housing
opportunities to an RCW cluster.
15

RCW SLOPES Manual — North Carolina
March 2022
AppenaIx A — Kea-cocKaaea wooapecKer Lonsuitation Area
ti t 5 r �Wa
5 .'IR,GINIA
Hirrl••I d. ra;i
G harlestrnr �`v tor� paMla ❑
o N iYJh W
y4 a41 $laurel„i�
a�� P
George I RG INIA
�KY L�Nafion�
Fa e9t � °^ire
Ly—hbfrg pRich—c!
F2oanoke o
C ili,11BERL4Mfl PLATEAU p
Nan Foreste Jeffer sere a131 Cksburg
Redbird P Naicn J
Fore g
n
IC IfIgSpOfio _he rdcee As he kaghan Surty Stokes dingha Caswell Person Warren thartpto h `G
JvlP Namoua WiF{ertfor&'
ilsan Clty Fre Wataug k es — . r : rev ill Hal'rfax -
..Yd�[isl rior5yth Gran- oro
brr rl' e'er. 111 GuOprd
�eldrell
leAla n `FS'�h tii11Nrrs
Metlisvn a"°e cantl Qavre
amhe���� ie Fi aI � tl�� Martin
���I���Art�f Burke retlell itlshn O M rr iWeMe
6unmII Cetaw ba Rowan Randa�h Chetherd�'• Wih on .^r.
rl :7 (3kt
i �NF✓IrFr '- owe Linmin � Johnsjon eene
uth-k" A
barru liernett 1y
Gr6l al Jadsv ntlenv Pvk —I.. Gaston �• Eanly .•�:^4.
ka
", Lenoir
Chervk r -*.—n T nsy Ivan I y tf.i:vtlle Pa
CI eY Uni- Anson
. '' �_ rtlCrl•f IfIB npson Duphn
Bredeit'. 1�
cmxnaus N ;A1I,
_ Nea {a/9a
Aihans su-w Columbia
err, n:wi« II
p Nabon I f_v
Forest SOUTH
AElanla CAR OLI NA �� Rf r✓AG
t
ALP gustap \.
CAM" - Q Frarlcr�
Ne hrn I Mann
Fan �I Nmn
11 P NoNN Forisil
Macon Charleston
-, - P � o
M G ChaliesionlpMt Pleasanl
Lis 7//7/, Red -cockaded Woodpecker Section 7 Consultation Area
Northeastern Coastal Plain ah
-'Sleµ art
Source: USFWS, 2020
hington
N orfolk
D
D Virginia
Beach
11

APPENDIX D: LANDOWNER INFORMATION
Landowner Authorization (LOA)
Memorandum of Option Agreement (MOA)
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
County: Chathmn
Parcel ID
Owner
Deed Book
Page
0000133
Neal C. Tuttle & Mary B. Tuttle (deceased)
909
0170
0080303
Neal C. Tuttle & Mary B. Tuttle (deceased)
1010
0682
0000256
Keith A. Tuttle Farms, Inc.
675
0093
(Keith A Tuttle — President)
0060059
Keith A. Tuttle Farms, Inc.
566
0250
(Keith A Tuttle — President)
0000112
Keith A. Tuttle Farms, Inc.
1434
0563
(Keith A Tuttle — President)
Street Address: 62 Tuttle Ln. Siler City, NC 27344
Property Owner(s) (please print): Keith A. Tuttle Farms. Inc. (Keith A Tuttle — President)
Neal C. Tuttle & MaKy B. Tuttle deceased
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Raymond Holz of Restoration .S stems
Grant Lewis OL Axiom Environmental
to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream and wetland
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). I agree to allow regulatory
agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, to visit the property as part of these environmental
reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address:
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: 336-312-4519
I (We) hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
rty Owner Authorized Signature)
-e_—
y Owner Authorized Signature)
IZZ,-/9- -me)---2-2,
(Date)
IF_ 'e?b Z—
(Date)

BK 2299 PG 0533
FILED
CHATHAM COUNTY NC
LUNDAY A. RIGGSBEE
REGISTER OF DEEDS
FILED Apr 27, 2022
AT 02:27:47 pm
BOOK 02299
START PAGE 0533
END PAGE 0540
INSTRUMENT # 05210
EXCISE TAX (None)
Prepared without title examination by Raymond Holz, 1 101 Haynes St, Suite 211 Raleigh NC
27604
NORTH CAROLINA MEMORANDUM OF
CONTRACT TO PURCHASE
CHATHAM COUNTY A CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Keith A. Tuttle Farms, Inc. (a North Carolina Corporation), Neal C. Tuttle, a natural
person who is a resident of Chatham County, North Carolina, and wife Mary Bell Tuttle
(deceased), hereinafter collectively referred to as as as Seller and Grantor for indexing purposes,
and RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company, and its
assigns, as Buyer and Grantee for indexing purposes, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten
and 00/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, have entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of
Conservation Easement, to sell and to purchase a Conservation Easement containing an area of
approximately 81 acres located over and upon that certain approximately 492.36 acre tract or tracts
of land in Chatham County, North Carolina, with Tax PIN 0000133, 0000256, 0060059, 00001 12,
and 0080303, as more fully described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
The provisions set forth �,kat certain written Agreement for Purchase and Sale of
Conservation Easement dated the 1 day of April, 2022, between the parties, are hereby
incorporated into this Memorandum by this reference. The referenced Agreement has an
examination period of eighteen (18) months from the execution of said Agreement, and Buyer has
the right to extend the examination period for one (1) additional, successive twelve (12) month
period. Closing is expected to occur in thirty (30) days following the examination period.
[Remainder of page left intentionally blank; signatures and acknowledgments follow.]

BK 2299 PG 0534
WITNESS our hands and seals to this Memorandum of Contract to Purchase a
Conservation Easement, this the III day of April, 2022.
SELLER:
KEITH A. TUTTLE FARMS, INC.
By: .�-t� I�GC� (SEAL)
Name: f !'1 A, 7e
Title: 12S l C� C511-l
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF Cti jk,,,,,
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each
acknowledging to me that he or she signed the foregoing document: Keith A. Tuttle
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this IC(_ day of 1�}l�� I , 2022.
``����nnurrnrrrrr %Notary's Official Signature
(Official Seal) .�''Jr1CAN
Z. ' �0� JAR y -� Notary's Printed or Typed Na e
E O ; _ My commission expires: 1 F- S '24
—� PUB\-\G
q�F C ova',.
'''rr„111114101"

BK 2299 PG 0535
WITNESS our hands and seals to this Memorandum of Contract to Purchase a
Conservation Easement, this the /'(" ` day of April, 2022.
SELLER:
hmL a. ' (SEAL)
NEAL C. TUTTLE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF `/haA,
certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each
acknowledging to me that he or she signed the foregoing document: Neal C. Tuttle
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of t; , 2022.
(Official Seal)
JN C AN y -,
OIARY�
=0,
tom
pU B ``G
Notary's Official
Notary's Printed or Typed Namfe
My commission expires: 1 I 15 - 2-6

BK 2299 PG 0536
WITNESS our hands and seals to this Memorandum of Contract to Purchase a
Conservation Easement, this the 111'� day of April, 2022.
BUYER:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
By:i/
��/ 'r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF VQlCL
I certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day,
acknowledging to me that he signed the foregoing document:
Z _Pre e.,-
(Name of Perso (s) Appearing before Notary)
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this /q"4 day of r;1 2021
) j2L Wj
..�""III M Notary's Official Signature
(Official Seal) ,,�`'JNCAN!y,9�''
-[ A R Notary's Printed or Typed ame
c = My commission expires.

BK 2299 PG 0537
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description of Seller's Property
Attached to and made a part of that certain Memorandum of Contract to Purchase a Conservation
Easement dated April J_J`, 2022, by and between RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
("Buyer") and Keith A. Tuttle Farms, Inc., Neal C. Tuttle and wife Mary Bell Tuttle (deceased)
(collectively "Seller").
BEING ALL of the following tracts of land located in Chatham County, North Carolina
Tract One (Chatham County Parcel 1 12):
BEING ALL OF LOT Ij0. I, containing 22.555 acres. more or less as shown on
a plat entitled "Final Plat for Owners Mary C. Arrington and C. L. Arrington,"
recorded in Plat Slide 2008-339, in the office of the Register of Deeds of Chatham
County, N.C., to which plat reference is made for greater certainty of description.
Tract Two (Chatham County Parcel 133):
BEGINNING at an existing iron pipe located in the southern
line of Keith A. Tuttle Farms, Inc. as described in Deed Book
566, Page 250, Chatham County Registry, said iron pipe also
being located in the southeast corner of Lot 6 of a Plat
entitled "A Boundary Survey For Douglas D. Tilford and Kelly R.
Tilford", as recorded in Plat Cabinet Slide 98-461, Chatham
County Registry; thence from said Beginning and running with the
eastern line of Lot 6 North 08 degrees 51 minutes 10 seconds
East 415.94 feet to an existing iron pipe located in the
southern line of Douglas M. Long as described in Deed Book 490,
Page 479, Chatham County Registry; thence with the southern line
of Long South 71 degrees 33 minutes 44 seconds East 318.49 feet
to an existing iron pipe; thence with the eastern line of Long
North 18 degrees 26 minutes 16 seconds East 579.69 feet to an
existing iron pipe located in the northern line of Douglas M.
Long and the southern line of Lot 3 of a Plat entitled "A
Boundary Survey For Douglas D. Tilford and Kelly R. Tilford', as
recorded in Plat Cabinet Slide 98-461, Chatham County Registry;
thence with the eastern line of Lot 3 North 04 degrees 12
minutes 31 seconds East 472.69 feet to an existing iron at a
stone, corner with William v. Smith as described in Deed Book
715, Page 636, Chatham County Registry; thence with the line of
Smith South 79 degrees 19 minutes 45 seconds East 1389.09 feet
to an existing iron pipe at a stone; thence still with the line
of Smith South 05 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds West 537.26 feet
to an existing stone located in the northwest corner of Keith A.
Tuttle Farms, Inc. as described in Deed Book 675, Page 93,
Chatham County Registry; thence with the western line of Keith
A. Tuttle Farms, Inc. South 04 degrees 16 minutes 51 seconds
West 732.02 feet to an existing iron pipe located in the
northern line of Keith A. Tuttle Farms, Inc. as described in
Deed Book 566, Page 250, Chatham County Registry; thence with
the northern line of Keith A. Tuttle Farms, Inc. North 85
degrees 04 minutes 54 seconds West the following two distances:
1366.17 feet to an existing iron pipe; 610.35 feet to the point
and place of Beginning and being all of Lots 4 and 5 of a Plat
entitled "A Boundary Survey For Douglas D. Tilford and Kelly R.

BK 2299 PG 0538
Tract Three (Chatham County Parcel 256):
TRACT 01 : That certain tract of land containing 9.72 acres, more or less, composed
of one contiguous parcel, located in Albright Township, Chatham County. North
Carolina; and bounded, now or formerly, on the North by Willie A. Duncan and
Overman Heirs and Clatie Daffron, on the East by Rocky Friends Meeting Church and
William D. Kivett, on the South by William D. Kivett, and West by Willie A. Duncan
and Overman Heirs, and being more specifically described as follows:.
BEGINNING at a point in the centerline of State Road No. 1300 and in the line of WilliaQ
D. Kivett, said point being located South 67 degrees 58 minutes 09 seconds East 30.08
feet from a new iron pipe in the Northwestern right of way line of State Road No. 1300,
said beginning point also being the Southwestern corner of that certain.5.32 acre tract
or narce.l of land conveyed to Rocky River Friends Meeting Church by deed recorded at Boc
418. 11age 187, Chatham County Registry; thence from said beginning point along the line
of William D. Kivett North 67 degrees 58 minutes 09 seconds West the following
distances: 30.08 feet to a new iron pipe in the Northwestern right of way line of
State Road No. 1300; 541.52 feet to a stone and existing iron pipe, a corner of
William U. Kivett and' that certain 116.38 acre tract or parcel of land previously
conveyed to William V. Smith et ux by deed recorded at Book 416. Page 429, Chatham
County Registry; thence with the line of Smith the following courses and distances:
North 67 degrees 58 minutes 09 seconds West 85.80 feet to an existing iron pipe;
North 01 degrees 48 minutes 18 seconds East 407.90 feet to an existing iron.pipe;
thence South 87 degrees 49 minutes 57 seconds East the following distances: 263.96
feet to an existing. iron pipe; 365.04 feet to an existing iron pipe; 196.00 feet to
an existlui; iron pipe; thence with the line of Clatie Daffron et al, South 89 degrees
12 minutea 39 seconds E-1'st 126.06 feet to n new irnn pipe in the right of way of
State Road No. 13U0: thence South 81 degrees 09 minutes 12 seconds East 26.46 feet
to a point in the centerline of said State Road No. 1300, the Northwestern corner of
the aforesaid 5.97 acre -tract or parcel of land previously conveyed to Rocky River
Friends Meeting -Church; thence with the Western boundary line of said Rocky River
Friends Meeting Church and the centerline of State Road No. 1300 the following courses
and distances: South 34 degrees 48 minutes 54 seconds West 248.95 feet to a point;
South 44 degrees 05 minutes 49 seconds West 125.63 feet to a point; South 22.degrees 05
minutes 13 seconds West 162.19 feet to a point; South 27 degrees 20 minutes 39.seconds
West 194.89 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING, containing 9.72 acres (9.23
acres excluding road right-of-way), more or less.
TRACT N2: That certain tract of land containing 116.33 acres, more or less, composed
of one contiguous parcel, located in Albright Township, Chatham County, North -Carolina;
and bounded, now or formerly, on the North by Sally T. Overman Estate and James C.
Luther, Jr., East by Sally T. Overman Estate and William D. Kivett, and South and
West by Rocky River Friends Meeting Church, and lie ing more specifically described as
follows:
BEGINNING at a point where the center of Rocky River intersects the western margin of
State Road No. 1300 and running thence from said beginning point with the center of
Rocky River the following courses: North 70 degrees 56 minutes 19 seconds West 46.20
feet to a point; South 74 degrees 48 minutes 26 seconds West 113.95 feet to a point;
thence South 35 degrees 38 minutes 25 seconds West 88.85 feet to a point; thence South
7 degrees 02 minutes 20 seconds West 128.80 feet to a point; thence South 78 degrees
19 minutes 43 seconds West 56.35 feet to a point; thence North 63 degrees 15 minutes
41 seconds West 152.88 feet to a point; thence North 70 degrees 07 minutes 16 seconds
West 172.36 feet to a point: thence North 88 degrees 17 minutes 01 seconds West 126.90

BK 2299 PG 0539
feet to a point; thence South 83 degrees 49 minutes 55 seconds West 129.94 feet to a
point; thence Nurth 40 degrees 57 minutes 33 socunda West 13d.28 feet to a paint;
thence North 70 degrees 25 minutes 57 seconds West 116.38 feet to a point; thence North
27 degrees 56 minutes 48 seconds West 98.09 feet to a point; thence North 81 degrees
05 minutes 09 seconds West 219.55 feet to a point; thence South 66 degrees 34 minutes
JI 4i-condN WLHt 64.41 feet to a point; thence South 72 degrees 43 minutes 55 seconds
WUHL 22J.0'1 feet to a pnfnt; thence South 70 degree" 08 minutes 31 seconds West 225.57
feet to a point; thence South 58 degrees 56 minutes 55 seconds West 80.62 feet to a
point; thence North 80 degrees 57 minutes 01 seconds West 76.26 feet to a point; thence
Nnrtn 59 degrees 59 minutes 28 seconds West 84.36 feet to a point; thence North 38
decrees 29 minutes 40 seconds West 116.05 feet to a point; thence North 5 degrees 38
minutes 59 seconds East 73.32 feet to a point; thence North 6 degrees 09 minutes 07
seconds WeFt 79.06 feet to a point; thence North 25 degrees 42 minutes 57 seconds East
294.70 feet to a point; thence North 23 degrees 16 minutes 32 seconds East 282.72 feet
to a point; thence South 85 degrees 58 minutes 57 seconds East 185.45 feet to a point;.
thence North 9 degrees 39 minutes 58 seconds East 159.02 feet to a point; thence North
12 degrees 21 minutes 31 seconds East 56.95 feet to a point; thence North 33 degrees 44
minutes 54 neconds West 48.66 feet to a point; thence North 57 degrees 06 minutes 02
seconds Wert 95.80 feet to a point; thence North 43 degrees 39 minutes 19'.seconds West
113.87 feet to a point; thence North 37 degrees 45 minutes 43 seconds West 175.48 feet
to a point; thence North 43 degrees 38 minutes 46 seconds West 335.06 feet to a point;
thence North 40 degrees 05 minutes 46 seconds West 125.67 feet to a point; thence
North 49 deltreas 27 minutes 23 seconds West 272.94 feet to a point in'said river, a
corner with JamcH C. Luther, Jr.; thence with Luther's line and leaving said rivet,
ngM,v01 00 seconds Ea -sr 20.28 feet to an iron stake on the bank
of said river; thence continuing with said lineNorth39 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds
East 132 feet to an iron stake; thence continuing North 39 degrees 40 minutes 00 secondo
East 341.19 feet to a stone; thence South 85 degrees 43 minutes 56 seconds East 494.30
feet to an iron stake; thence North 54 degrees 26 rnlnutes 21 seconds East 49.50 feet
to an iron stake, the Southwest corner of the 59.91 Sally Overman Estate land; thence
with that line North 54 degrees 26 minutes 21 seconds East 398.34 feet to an existing
iron pipe; thence South 39 degrees 22 minutes 14 seconds East 5"30.15 feet to a post
oak marked With two iron stakes at the base thereof; thence North 65 degrees.01 minutes
20 seconds East 1511.01 feet to an iron stake in the line of Claris Daffron, et al;
thence with that line South 26 degrees•32 minutes 41 seconds East 931.37 feet to an
;.ran stake; thence North 87 degrees 49 minutes 57 seconds West 825 feet to an iron
stake; thence South 1 degree 48 minutes 18 seconds West 407.90 feet to an iron stake;
thence South 67 degrees 58 minutes 09 seconds East 85.80 feet to a stone, a corner
with William 0. Kivett; thence with the Kivett 11no South 01 degree 48 minutes 8
seconds West 1063.77 feet to a stone; thence South 5 degrees 17 minutes 17 seconds
East 189.44 feet to a point in the Western margin of State Road No. 1300; thence
with the Western margin of said road South 36 degrees 08 minutes 20 seconds West
15K.58 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING, containing 116.33 acres, more or
less. as Kh„wn on that certain plat entitled "Survey for Willie A. Duncan 6 Overman
Heirs", Alhrtght Township, Chatham County. N.C., dated June 12, 1978, recorded
in Plat !look 24, Page 49, Chatham County Registry.

BK 2299 PG 0540
auult O d a PAGE 9 7
WMV,YIGI�1c TAACf�n: 1'liat ertain tract of land containing 59.91 acres, more or leas.
composed of one contigunns parcel, located in Albright Township. Chatham County,
North Carolina; and bounded, now or formerly, on the North by Clatie Daffron.
East by Clatie Daffron, South by 116.33 acres tract herein described; and West
by James C: Luther, Jr. and Norman R. Tilford, and being more specifically
described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point, such point being the Northernmost corner of this described
tract A4, such point further being an old corner with Norman R. Tilford and Clatie
Daffron et al; thence along boundary of Clatie Daffron et al South 78 degrees 54
minutes 54 seconds East 1404.36 feet to an iron stake, a corner with Clatie Daffron;
thence continuing along Clatie Daffron et al lands South 26 degrees 32 minutes 41
.aeeonds 1'.agt 1147.63 feet to a point, such point hetng a corner with the 116.33 acres
tract described as Tract A3 herein; thence South 65 degrees 01 minutes 20 seconds
West 1511.01 feet; thence North 39 degrees 22 minutes 14 seconds West 530.15 feet;
thence South 54 degrees 26 minutes 21 seconds West 388.34 feet; thence North 04
decrees 16 minutes 29 seconds East 1755.60 feet to the point of BEGINNING.
containing 59.91 acres, more or less, as shown on that certain plat entitled
"Survey for Willie A. Duncan 6 Overman Heirs", Albright Township, Chatham County,
N.C., dated June 12, 1978, recorded in Plat Book 24. Page 49, Chatham County
Reaistry.
Tract Four (Chatham County Parcel 60059):
BEGINNING at a rock, a corner with Ben N. Smith and Norman Tilford , said rock being located
S 90-00-00 E 212.70' from a new iron pipe on state road #1303; running thence with Norman
Tilford and Clatie Daffron S 90-00-00 E 2665.42' to a rock corner, a corner with said
Daffron and in the line of J. H. Pike and Son, Inc.; running thence with said Pike S 00-38-20
E 1022.69' to an existing iron pipe a corner with said Pike; running thence with said pike
S 49-33-45.W 49.46' to an existing iron pipe, a corner with said Pike; running thence with
said Pike S 89-19-50 W 494.26' to a rock, a corner with said Pike; running.t'hence with said.
Pike S 34-44-35 W 473.11' to an existing iron pipe on the north bank of Rocky River; running
thence with Max Albright S 03-51-45 W 1419.10' to a rock, a corner with said Albright;
running thence with Max Albright S 50-31-00 W 1916.31' to a rock a corner with Max Albright and
of Mary C. Arrington; running thence with said Arrington N 02-50-15 E 2786.76' to a point in
Rocky River, (an iron pipe is set in this line 50.00 from corner in river); running thence
with Rocky River the following courses and distances S 74-21-00 W 34.55'; N 88-08-25 W 474.74;
N 68-52-50 W 53.46'; N 78-06-05 W. 75.24'; S 67-02-50 W 22.21' to a point in Rocky River, a
.corner with Mary C. Arrington; running thence with said Arrington and Ben H. Smith along the
Eastern margin of State Road #1303 N 00-00-00 E 1268.04' to a new iron pipe, a corner with
Ben N. Smith (an iron pipe is set in this line 50.00' from the corner in Rocky River); running
thence with said Smith S 90-00-00 E 212.70' to the point of beginning and containing 154.07
acres more or less as surveyed by David Thompson of Thompson -Simmons, Inc., said survey
being dated December 4, 1985.
Tract Five (Chatham County Parcel 80303):
BEING ALL of that 80.573 acre, more or less, parcel of land shown on plat entitled "Final Plat for
Keith A. Tuttle Farms, Inc.," dated December 19, 2002, bearing Job No. 3151-202, and recorded at
Plat Cabinet 2003, Slide 15, Chatham County Registry, to which plat reference is hereby made for a
more particular description.
The Easement Area shall be a tract of land containing approximately 81 acres out of Seller's larger
tracts described above. The final legal description of the Easement Area will be determined by a
survey prepared by a licensed surveyor selected by Buyer.

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: _ 01659 Page: 0472 County: Chatham
Parcel ID Number: 0072982
Street Address: Staley Snow Camp Road
35.83530L-79.513296
Property Owner (please print): L n and Jeff Richardson
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Raymond Holz of Restoration Systems _
Grant Lewis oL Axiom Environmental
to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream and wetland
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). I agree to allow regulatory
agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, to visit the property as part of these environmental
reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address: PO Box 542 LiberU, NC 27298-0542
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: 336-580-6528
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
(PropA (Vv4NC Authorized Signature)
( Date
4--L7. -LZ
(€'rolS&ty Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)

BK 2299 PG 0528
FILED
CHATHAM COUNTY NC
LUNDAY A. RIGGSBEE
REGISTER OF DEEDS
FILED
Apr 27, 2022
AT
02:27:42 pm
BOOK
02299
START PAGE
0528
END PAGE
0532
INSTRUMENT # 05209
EXCISE TAX
(None)
tint re]-vrne�
Prepared without title examination by Raymond Holz, 1 101 Haynes St, Suite 211 Raleigh NC
27604
NORTH CAROLINA MEMORANDUM OF
CONTRACT TO PURCHASE
CHATHAM COUNTY A CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Lyn Smith Richardson and Jeff Richardson, husband and wife, natural persons who are
residents of Chatham County, North Carolina hereinafter collectively referred to as as as Seller
and Grantor for indexing purposes, and RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC, a North Carolina
limited liability company, and its assigns, as Buyer and Grantee for indexing purposes, for and in
consideration of the sum of Ten and 00/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, have entered into an
Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Conservation Easement, to sell and to purchase a
Conservation Easement containing an area of approximately 7.22 acres located over and upon that
certain approximately 157.40 acre tract of land in Chatham County, North Carolina, with Tax PIN
0072982, as more fully described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
The provisions set forth in that certain written Agreement for Purchase and Sale of
Conservation Easement dated the 3:F- day of April, 2022, between the parties, are hereby
incorporated into this Memorandum by this reference. The referenced Agreement has an
examination period of eighteen (18) months from the execution of said Agreement. Closing is
expected to occur in thirty (30) days following the examination period.
[Remainder of page left intentionally blank; signatures and acknowledgments follow.]

BK 2299 PG 0529
WITNESS our hands and seals to this Memorandum of Contract to Purchase a
Conservation Easement, this the 7-77 day of April, 2022.
SELLER:
By:. '.�r�15e.,(SEAL)
LYN SMITH RICHARDSON
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each
acknowledging to me that he or she signed the foregoing document: Lyn Smith Richardson
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this 27 day of Jet -Pr,, 12022.
Notary's Official Signature
(O�cial Seal) �ANI
N y
0.
_ pUgL
Notary's Printed or Typed Nam
My commission expires: 1 r—js — Z67,4

BK 2299 PG 0530
WITNESS our hands and seals to this Memorandum of Contract to Purchase a
Conservation Easement, this the -Z I day of April, 2022.
SELLER:
4 R i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each
acknowledging to me that he or she signed the foregoing document: Jeff Richardson
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this z7 day of f , 2022.
Notary's Official Slgnalure
�
(Official Seal) CAN _ ,
�0 TA R Y Notary's Printed or Typed Name
' = My commission expires. ZoZG
A G ;

BK 2299 PG 0531
WITNESS our hands and seals to this Memorandum of Contract to Purchase a
Conservation Easement, this the 7-4 day of April, 2022.
BUYER:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
By: � (SEAL)
Name: George Howard
Title: CEO
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day,
acknowledging to me that he signed the foregoing document:
(Name of Pe n(s) Appearing before Notary)
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of /4m , 202Q,.
otary's Official Signature 61
(Official Seal)
N�A`N,,,,," D „
Al, Notary's Printed or Typed ame
My commission expires: (1—
:0; y �:
AUB`\G

BK 2299 PG 0532
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description of Seller's Property
Attached to and made a part of that certain Memorandum of Contract to Purchase a Conservation
Easement dated April 2_;, 2022, by and between RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
("'Buyer") and Lyn Smith Richardson and Jeff Richardson, husband and wife, (collectively
"Seller").
BEING ALL of the following tracts of land located in Chatham County, North Carolina
Tract One (Chatham County Parcel 0072982):
BEING all of Lot 1 as shown on a survey for the Estate of Clatie Mae Daffron by Moore &
Ellis, RLS, Liberty, North Carolihs, dated June 26, 1"6, and revised February 25, 1997,
and April 3, 1997, and recorded at Plat Book 97, page 134, Chatham County Registry, to
which plat reference is made for a more definite description.
The Easement Area shall be a tract of land containing approximately 7.22 acres out of Seller's
larger tract described above. The final legal description of the Easement Area will be determined
by a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor selected by Buyer.

--
0 \
< / /
9
<
E < Cl)
m
e ±
e
\
}
z
/f
±
\ {
2
<
/ *
o
CO
LLj
ƒ
/
E
b
>
m
2
2
z \
2
\�
^
e%
E m
LU
\
CO
\
a
0
}
± 2
\ C)
-00
\
<
4
<
u
w
< 0
D
e
D
w
\
�
E
U
m
w
O
2
«
�
a
2
0
�
\ z
co
>
0 0
w
<
2
O
/ \
0
U
2 <
e
/ §
\
CO
0
/
e
/
/
/
0
\
CO
F
0
0
/
u®
z
e
/§
\
<
�\
Z<
§©
�\
<j
\e
/\
§0
�<
I
j\
/
0-
2
e
§�
m§
= z
}
\
<
2
LU
j
\
3
z
)
LU
�
a
<
CO§
Ir
\
ƒ
\
0
0
§
§
k
\
u
\
\
\
G
ƒ
k
U)
/
0
§
-i
§ §
)q
\
/\^//
a
e/
y
/
7�
m}
0
2
f
j
\
}
/
&
2f
\\
( E
Cl) Cl)
E<
»
E
&
\
\
\
{
.k
\
/
»
§
\
�
/
Go'§
m
2
e
2
2
;
a)
G
E
R
f
§
g
LL_
U)
/
u
LD
} }
§
k
\
R
2
o
��\
f
m
//
0-
cu
0
0
e
o
-
\
LU
2
j
\
3
z
)
LU
�
a
<
CO§
Ir
\
ƒ
\
0
0
§
§
k
\
u
\
\
\
/
ƒ
k
U)
/
0
§
-i
0
\ \
)
/
\
\ \
a
e/
y
/
7�
m}
0
2
f
\ k
}
\~
\
/
2f
\\
( k
E<
\
�
®
\
)
/
G
/
^
C
2
k
0
\
f
k
U
m
k
j
C
%
E
#
z z
]
f
\ j
§
}
®
E E
�
}
/ /
k
\
; ..
j E
\222
f
6m
�I
§-
,
0
7
i e
o
a
0-

-C4
0 \
< / /
9
<
E < Cl)
m
e ±
e
\
}
z
/f
±
\ {
2
<
/ *
CO0
LLj
ƒ
/
E
b
>
m
2
2
z \
2
< ^
e%
E m
LU
\
CO
\
a
0
}
± 2
\ C)
-00
\
<
4
<
u
w
< 0
D
e
0
0
w
E
�
E
U
m
w
O
2
«
�
a
2
0
�
\ z
co
>
0 0
w
<
2
O
/ \
0
U
2 <
/
e
§
\
CO
0
/
e
/
/
/
0
LU
/
CO
/
0
o
/
}/
-
0
of
<
§\
Z<
§©
-\
<m
\e
/\
§/
�<
I
j\
/
0-
2
e
§�
�
m§
= z
}
a j 0
N
2 E
^\22
_
a)
j
0
.(
k
0
-E
0
cu
u
k
,
.
\ E
rr
E �\
2
t E
/ ��
\
m
{ \ §
:
/
2
0 ~ `
§
\ \
U
/
.2 2
\ u
� a
a
u �g
\
077
o
0 )
7 2] 2
ua oƒ
§ 2 CD
° \ 1
C 2 &
/
2
<0
2
77 \/
§) ��z
q 2a $
� � < E
z .0§ o
{ /
ƒ )
///\f
, , o o
a E & ° _
-2 a)-0
/ \ ) G
a) 0)
-0._
% E
t \ .2e
0 7 a
,
® ® z o
#
7 ®/ [
$
0
E
7
0-a „
styƒ/
�3
°
©
®�< 0
%
o
^
=�®_
�7)
/
o
/
/j Er
I
2
±
/ 7>\
=o,=
L)
§
o § & _
t
*
E
6# 0 a)0
0
§a
rr
W\ o
J
0 cu
/ 0
°
.
m
cu
0 ®, o t
�
k
m\\2E
2
z
©
G
0
o ,
f{§]/
r
E
2
w
§
.2
k
2
] § \ ./
Elf
%
<
=
a.
o
Ro0�'/
/
)ƒ
< < 2
e
0
0
°
/
& a d 6
0
0
2
e <
,
u t
§
®
0
u
o) u
a 2
2
k
z
a c
0-

LO
O
Z
O 0
d 0
H w 0
Q ~ N
U
Cl)
LL
Q'
Z
D (6
O N
X
w
U C:
U °)
Q
CD �
Q
CO
LUw
Of LLLo
U
Q
LU
Co
Q
z
z N
O
F Q
Q N
co
F
Q a)
LU a)
LU
LO
z IT
= U
CO
a
v
° '�
Of E
LL 2
O
�-0
LL
Qo
Z N
O
QC
J
LU
Q0
J
C)f w
D
U
0
O
LU
2
�
U
N
w
z
J
a
z
O
�z
a
c�
0 O
U
w
Q
z
O
z =
O
U
D Q
O
U
v
CO
LU
Q
J
Q
LU
LU
J
U_
>
Of
Ir
O
LU
�
CO
F
Z
0
U
D
LU
z
Q
>
H of
(n
Z
J w
Of
J
U Z
Q LL
U C
LLJ
Q co
w
U
LL U
O
Z 0
Q
N
LU
=
J
LU
Y
LU
C00
.
v
Q
co Q
D Z
ii
_
C p
N
N
N C
m
Q O
o
0 rn
m
a) .
ncu
0 o
_
_a
°
>
C m
a) (O
C
O V
— �
m Q
O-
a)
N m
E
m
E Ul
m U
U) U) 3
C -
a) E
cu D
U
g o
a) n
O
3 O
m >, w
C
u 'j
m E
C
a)
— a)
O O
O
E CU
'r
m°
-O m
3
E U
U) c E
o o
0')
U 0 o
V 0
a) x m
N
t `0
Ul
C O N
O O
a)
O 0)
.�
cu
O
N
� M
O
U U
0-Q
�
O
(.0
C
m u1 C
cu
0)E
O Q
N W �
N O_
0 3
N o
c m
E U c
N
U a)
-O U
J p
a�
N
j >
a)
O C m
C
0)-p
m
O U
Qcu
m
A)O 0)
C
> E
O a)
C C
a) -O —
m 0
U Cl)—
a) m (n
Q
� c
0) 3 >
Q
a) Cl)
LL E a)
3
t a)
c U
E
Q
c°
)
.N O
Q O_
00
a) >
wQ
� a)
O-O
ap)
3
—0
CW_
a)
O
O
C p 6
'N m
-6 m
(6 U
p Q
cn
z
a)
a)E C
Cl)
w U x
U 0
U
LU
2 0
CC U)
o�D
H -6 C u) -0
Q �.o
a)
N O
o
N
�- m
� rn.°)a�o.�
��
= m
MH
0 E�
Q rn>
z o o°
m
Q°
U U) -E a�
H 5 rn
z_
� 11
>_
LL U
> E w .0 C
�LLn�0
O t O
� -0 0-
c 2
o
.�
c o 0
a)�
LL Tm�
c >,
0,s ��
0)
o
Q�
N o COU—
c
E
E 3 m
E
LO �j
o
o m
0 '� o>
0O
o
Q
o a
U o
U — m om
fn
° U)
Q U
C Q
E U)O
C C a)
p—
E 'p) O
0 cu .�
Z 0 O
N D
m m C
p m
U O m
cu
cmV
C E 4q
°
C
fn
U)
0') t 3 3
j O C
O U
U) '� Q
w~ U U
o Q
m w
u°)i N
O°
Q a)
E
m
°) n U).�
m
° o
Q m°°
N
fn U
Q 0) m
C
O m U
>,
w C p E
m U
E
0
> a)
m Of
a).� 0--aE
m
a)
Q ai
Q—
a
E E m c
c°) .o
U a) �
�
-6
a) O
N U E u)
N
m C�
t C O O
O O a)
a) -0 — -p
U)
C
rn
o-o-
0 E-0 a)
O>
m0
o
a
m
O m LL
a)E
N
N
U Cp
Q'
O
i
O_ Q O
E
a)
m°
C
p a) 6
C a)
Q-'0-
>
N
C
E
U1 O
cu
>O
O
m
tf
C Q
E
—
UC
CU UCa)
m O U
°_
c
m
DL Oa
aOTQ)
y p
r U) o
u
a)
E 0 Q
a)
a) — m E
-6 O
p) m 3—
U) m
3 C
0 0 U
p
i
E m
N
U U)
o a)
� E a)m
H O
N
N
m -6 U C
O +m+ O_
m O C O_
w C
N m a)
C �C
E
C
3
U
m m(D
Q
w
E °) a)
_Q
LLD U)
�' a) > E
o
°? 0) m U
t 0 E
cu u, a)
Q
cu
m e c
cu p
rnm m
LnQ
_0 0 O
E
cm m ° 0
a
o a) m
a)
U a) °
C 3
_ O N
6 a)0—
o
a)
E
—
m U) m
C fn Q
O m
m
E
m
O O
0 ° .�
p Q
U E m cn
U)
C >' 3
U C
m O a)
a)
U)
'
Q
p
a) a) N
m m 0
C
N a) m
a)
- U a)
Q
t m t
U) H
m >,
O E n
a) O
LL Q .S
O
H O O O
U)
D
m
m

--
0 \
< / /
9
<
E < Cl)
m
e ±
e
\
}
z
/f
±
\ {
2
<
/ *
CO
® ?
L o
ofr
0
<
E
b
>
m
2
2
z Cl)
2
\�
^
e%
E m
LU
\
CO
\
a
0
}
± 2
\ C)
-00
\
<
4
<
u
w
< 0
D
e
D
w
\
�
E
U
m
w
O
2
«
�
a
z
O
± o
�
\z
co
>
0 §
w
<
2
O
/ \
0
U
2 <
e
/ §
\
CO
0
/
e
/
/
/
0
\
CO
F
0
0
/
u®
z
e
/§
\
<
�\
Z<
§©
�\
<j
\e
/\
</
§/
�<
I
j\
/
0-
2
e
u=
\
/§
= z
}
\
<
2
LU
j
\
3
z
)
LU
�
a
<
CO§
Ir
}
<
ƒ
\
0
0
§
§
k
\
u
\
\
\
G
ƒ
k
U)
/
0
§
-i
S }
\
)
0
0
a
©
^
e0
$
/
7�
m}
0
2
a
f
j
\
\
\
2f
\\
( §
/ /
E<
»
E
&
\
\
\
{
.k
\
/
»
§
\
�
/
Go'§
m
2
e
2
2
;
a)
G
FL
R
S
S
-
�
�
\
/ /
/
U
} }
-
j
\
G
4i
\
o
)
f
m
E
0-
cu
0
0
e
o
-
\
LU
2
j
\
3
z
)
LU
�
a
<
CO§
Ir
}
<
ƒ
\
0
0
§
§
k
\
u
\
\
\
/
ƒ
k
U)
/
0
§
-i
'I-
\ \
)
/\^ww
a
e/
t
y
/
7
m}
0
2
f
\ k
j
/
\
LQ
&
2f
jj
( k
E<
\
�
®
\
)
/
G
/
^
C
2
k
0
\
f
k
U
m
k
j
C
%
E
#
z z
]
f
\ j
\
)
_ _
>
LL
\ \
u
(.0/
/
-
2
G_
kJ
;/
jE
\2
f
�m
t222
§-
,
0
7
e
o
a N
0-

-C4
0 \
< / /
9
<
E < Cl)
m
e ±
e
\
}
z
/f
±
\ {
2
<
/ *
® ?CO
L o
E r
0
<
E
b
>
m
2
2
z Cl)
2
< ^
e%
E m
LU
\
CO
\
a
0
}
± 2
\ C)
-00
\
<
4
<
u
w
< 0
D
e
0
0
w
E
�
E
U
m
w
O
2
«
�
a
2
0
�
\ z
co
>
0 0
w
<
2
O
/ \
0
U
2 <
/
e
§
\
CO
0
/
e
/
/
/
0
LU
/
CO
/
0
o
/
}/
-
0
of
<
§\
Z<
§©
-\
<m
\e
/\
</
§/
�<
I
j\
/
0-
2
e
§�
�
m§
= z
}
E
�C)
0
j
0
.(
k
0
-E
0
cu
u
k
,
.
\
rr
[
Z;
2
t
/ ��
\
® k
r
%
2
m
) a)0
/
0 +_
/
2
0 ~ `
§
\ \
/
.2 2
\ u
a
u �g
\
� a
077
0
0 )
7 2] 2
ua oƒ
§ 2 CD
° \ 1
C 2 &
/
2
<0
2
77 \/
§) ��z
q 2a $
� � < E
z .0§ o
{ /
ƒ )
/ E
, , o o
a E & ° _
-2 a) §.�
/ \ ) G
=o2e
_ ._
% E 0 \ .2e
0 � 7 a
ID®z, o
u
7 ®/ [
$
E
0
7
0 „
w
o - z y
=ky=-
J
2
®§<-y
§
/
/f)
g
0
2 .LO 0
&
\
±
\ §0) >
=o,=
§
0
o 0 & _
t
*
E
6# 0 G 0
§
§�\�\
rr
o
J
\ ]
/ § u
°
.
m
cu
0 ®, o t
�
k
m\\2E
2
z
©
;
f{§]/
E
2
§
.2
k
<
2
] § \ ./
<
o
Elf
%
=
a.
R a) U)
/
)
ƒ
< < 2
e
0
°
/
& a d 6
§
0
2
e <
§
®
0
u
o) u
a 2
2
k
z
o c
0-

LO
O
Z
O o
d O
H LU 0
Q ~ N
U
Cl)
LL
Q'
Z
D (6
O N
X
L L,
U C:
U °)
Q
CD �
Q
CO
LLj
LU
0
of LO
U
Q
LU
Co
Q
Z
_
z Cl)
O
Q
Q N
co
F
Q a)
LU a)
LU
LO
z IT
= U
CO
a
v
° '�
Of E
w 2
O
�-0
LL
Qo
Z N
O
QC
J
LU
Q0
J
C' LU
D
U
0
O
LU
2
�
U
N
w
z
J
a
z
O
�z
a
c�
0 O
U
w
Q
z
O
z =
O
U
D Q
O
U
v
CO
LU
Q
J
Q
W
LU
J
U_
>
Of
Ir
O
LUCO
C/)
F
Z
0
U
D
W
z
Q
>
H of
(n
Z
J W
Of
J
U Z
Q LL
U C
LLJ
Q co
w
U J
LL U
O
Z O
Q
Q
o
M
LU
=
V
J
LU
Y
0-
0
v
Q
co Q
D Z
ii
_
C p
N
N
N C
m
Q O
o
0 rn
m
a) .
ncu
0 o
_
_a
°
>
C m
a) (O
C
O V
— �
m Q
O-
a)
N m
� E
m
E Ul
m U
U) U) 3
C -
a) E
O
U
g o
a) n
O
3 O
m >, w
C
u 'j
m E
C
a)
— a)
O O
O
E m
'r cu
m°
-a m
3
E U
U) c E
o o
0')
U 0 o
V 0
a) x m
N
t `0
Ul
C O N
O O
a)
O 0)
.�
cu
O
N
� M
O
U U
0-Q
�
O
(.0
C
m u1 C
cu
0)E
O Q
N W �
N O_
0 3
N o
c m
E U c
N a)
-6 U
J p
a�
N
j >
a)
O C m
O -p
m
O U
Qcu
m
A)O 0)
C
> E
O a)
C C
a) -O —
m O)
U Cl)—
a) m (n
Q
C
0 3>
Q
N Cl
LL E a)
3
t a)
c U
E
Q
c°
)
.N O
Q O_
00
a) >
wQ
c a)
O_O
ap)
3
—0
CW_
E T C
a)
O
O
C p 6
'N m
-6 m
(6 U
p Q
cn
z
a)
a)E C
Cl)
Lu U x
U 0
U
LU
2 0
CC U)
o�D
H 6 C u) 0
Q �.o
N p
N O
o
N
�- m
� rn.°�a�o.�
��
= m
MH
0 E�
Q rn>
z o o°
m
Q°
U U) -E a�
H 5 rn
z_
� 11
>_
LL U
> E w .0 C
�LL��0
O t O
� -0 0-
c 2
o
.�
c o 0
a)�
LL cum
c >,
0,s ���
0)
o
Q�
N o COU—
c
E
E 3 m
E
LO Cj
o
o m
0 '� o>
0O
o
Q
o a
U o
U — m om
fn
° U)
Q U
C Q
E U)
C C a)
O p—
E .T O
0 N .�
Z 0 O
N D
m m C
p m
U O m
cu
cmV
C E 4q
°
C
fn
U)
0') t 3 3
j O C
O U
U) '� Q
w~ U U
o Q
m w
N
O°
Q a)
E
m
rn n U).�
m
° o
Q m°°
N
fn U
Q 0) m
C
O m U
>,
N°
w C p E
C m U
E
U
> a)
m Of
a).� o--o
m
E a)
Q ai
Q—
LL
E E m c
0 .o
U a) �
�
-6
a) O
N U E u)
N
m C�
t C O O
O- O a)
a) -0 — -p
U)
C
rn
o-o-
0 E-0 a)
O>
m0
o
s
m
O a) LL
a)E
N
N
U Cp
Q'
O
i
O_ Q O
E
a)
m°
C
p a) 6
C a)
Q-'0-
>
N
C
E
U1 O
cu
>O
O
m
C Q tf
E
—
UC
CU UCa)
m O U
°_
(
m
DL Oa
aOTQ)
y p
r U) o
6
a)
E 0 Q
a)
a) — m E
-6 O
p) m 3—
U) m
3 C
0 0 U
p
i
E m
N
U U)
o a)
� E a)m
H O
N
N
m -6 U C
O +m+ O_
m O C O_
W C
N m a)
C �C
E
C
3
U
m m(D
Q
w
E °) °)
_Q
LLD U)
a) > E
o-
rn m U
U) cuL
t D E �_
m a)
Q
m
m e c
cu p
rnm m
LnQ
_0 0 O
E
cm m Q °
3
a
a)
_ 0 U)
°) °� U)
�a) E
m 'm
E fn
0)a
O m
o m
E
m
O O
0 ° .�
U 0
U E m (n
U) C >, 3
U C
m O a)
a)
U1
'
Q
p
a) m N
m m- 0
C
N a) m
a)
= a) a)
Q
t m t
U) H
m >,
� O E n
a) O
LL Q .�
O
H O O O
U)
m
M