20220451 Ver 2_UPDATE_SAW-2022-00657_MitigationPlan_Draft_RES_ESA_LincolnCo_BeaverTail_20230920

fires
September 19, 2023
Mr. Steve Kichefski.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
Subject: Catawba Expanded Service Area Beaver Tail Draft Mitigation Plan Submittal (SAW-2022-00657)
Dear Mr. Kichefski,
On behalf of Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) & Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (a RES affiliate), I
am pleased to submit the Draft Mitigation Plan for the Beaver Tail Project, for the RES Catawba Expanded Service
Area (ESA) Umbrella Mitigation Bank. A Prospectus was submitted in October 2022, put on public notice on October
31, 2021, and issued an initial evaluation letter on December 9, 2022.
The attached plan includes minor modifications from the prospectus to incorporate engineered design. The alterations
and updates are summarized below and detailed in the Mitigation Plan:
The draft mitigation plan presents 4,675.110 SMUs (4,276.000 SMUs in the prospectus), through stream
restoration. This increase in SMUs was driven by minor tweaks in alignment and stationing, and through
non-standard buffer width adjustment.
The draft mitigation plan presents 2.689 WMUs (1.699 WMUs in the prospectus). This increase in WMUs
was driven by an expanded wetland area, the creation area is now 4.272 acres, the enhancement area is now
1.527 acres, and the preservation area is now 2.474 acres.
Thank you for your time and consideration for this Project and we look forward to our continued work together as this
Project progresses. Please contact me at 336-514-0927 or bcarrollkres.us if you have any questions or require any
additional information.
Sincerely,
�VZ�7k
Ben Carroll, P.E.
Engineer / Project Manager
res.us

Draft Mitigation Plan
Beaver Tail Mitigation Project
RES Catawba ESA UMBI I USACE Action ID: SAW-2022-006571 DWR # 2022-0451 V2
Catawba River Basin I HUC 03050102 1 Lincoln County, North Carolina
Prepared By: Bank Sponsor:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1052
"This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation Project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and
Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14)."

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Components...............................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Outcomes....................................................................................................................................................1
2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION........................................................................2
2.1 Site Selection.............................................................................................................................................................3
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS.....................................................................................4
3.2 Landscape Characteristics....................................................................................................................................4
3.3 Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future........................................................................................................6
3.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints..............................................................................6
3.5 Existing Reach Conditions....................................................................................................................................9
3.6 Existing Wetland Conditions.............................................................................................................................13
3.7 Existing Hydric Soil Area Conditions..............................................................................................................15
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL..............................................................................................18
4.1 Stream Functional Uplift.....................................................................................................................................18
4.2 Wetland Functional Uplift..................................................................................................................................20
5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES....................................................................21
5.1 Project Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................................21
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN.........................................................................................................23
6.1 Design Parameters................................................................................................................................................23
6.2 Vegetation and Planting Plan...........................................................................................................................28
6.3 Mitigation Summary .............................................................................................................................................30
6.4 Determination of Credits....................................................................................................................................31
7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.....................................................................................................33
7.1 Stream Success Criteria.......................................................................................................................................33
7.2 Wetland Restoration Success Criteria............................................................................................................33
7.3 Vegetation Success Criteria...............................................................................................................................34
8 MONITORING PLAN...................................................................................................................34
8.1 As -Built Survey........................................................................................................................................................35
8.2 Visual Monitoring..................................................................................................................................................35
8.3 Stream Hydrology Events...................................................................................................................................35
8.4 Cross Sections.........................................................................................................................................................35
8.5 Wetland Hydrology...............................................................................................................................................35
8.6 Vegetation Monitoring........................................................................................................................................36
8.7 Scheduling/Reporting..........................................................................................................................................36
9 INVASIVE SPECIES PLAN............................................................................................................39
10 MAINTENANCE PLAN.................................................................................................................40
10.1 Risks and Uncertainties.......................................................................................................................................41
11 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN...............................................................................................42
12 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE.......................................................................................................43
12.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits.............................................................................................................43
12.2 Subsequent Credit Releases..............................................................................................................................43
13 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN...........................................................................................45
14 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES...........................................................................................................46
15 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................47
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan ii September 2023

List of Tables
Table 1. Beaver Tail Project Components Summary........................................................................................................2
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information........................................................................................................3
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information..........................................................................................................4
Table4. Mapped Soil Series.......................................................................................................................................................5
Table 5. Easement Break and Crossing.................................................................................................................................6
Table 6. Federally Protected Species in Lincoln County..................................................................................................7
Table 7. Regulatory Considerations.......................................................................................................................................8
Table 8. Summary of Stream Parameters.........................................................................................................................13
Table 9. Jurisdiction Wetland Information ........................................................................................................................17
Table 70. Functional Benefits and Improvements..........................................................................................................22
Table 17. Design Peak Flow Comparison..........................................................................................................................
24
Table 72. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses..........................................................................
25
Table 73. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities....................................................................................
25
Table 74. Proposed Bare Root Planting Lists...................................................................................................................
29
Table 75. Proposed Live Stake Planting List.....................................................................................................................
30
Table76. Mitigation Credits...................................................................................................................................................32
Table 76. Mitigation Credits (Continued)..........................................................................................................................32
Table 77. Monitoring Requirements.........................................................................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table78. Maintenance Plan..................................................................................................................................................
40
Table 79. Stream Credit Release Schedule........................................................................................................................44
Table 20. Wetland Credit Release Schedule.....................................................................................................................44
Table 27. Financial Assurances.............................................................................................................................................46
List of Figures
Figure 1 —
Service Area
Figure 2 —
Project Vicinity
Figure 3a & 3b — Historical Conditions
Figure 4 —
Landowner Parcels
Figure 5 —
USGS Quadrangle
Figure 6 —
Drainage Areas
Figure 7 —
Land Use
Figure 8 —
LiDAR
Figure 9 —
Mapped Soils
Figure 10
— Existing Conditions
Figure 11
— Project Constraints
Figure 12 — Stream and Wetland Conceptual Design Plan
Figure 13
— Buffer Width Zone
Figures 14a
& 14b — Monitoring Plan
Appendices
Appendix A - Site Protection Instrument
Appendix B - Baseline Information and Correspondence
Appendix C - Data, Analysis, and Supplementary Information
Appendix D - Plan Set
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan iii September 2023

I PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Components
The Beaver Tail Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project (the Project) is located in Lincoln County,
approximately 6 miles northwest of Lincolnton, NC. The Project lies within the Catawba River Basin, United
States Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050102 and North Carolina
Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-08-35 (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The Project is being
designed to help meet compensatory mitigation requirements for stream and wetland impacts within the
Catawba Expanded Service Area (ESA). The Project is specifically located in a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW), 14-digit HUC 03050102040040, within the Indian Creek and Howards Creek Local Watershed Plan
(LWP). The Project proposes to restore 4,506 linear feet (LF) of stream, as well as create 4.27 acres, enhance
1.53 acres, and preserve 2.47 acres of wetlands that will ultimately provide water quality benefits and
ecosystem uplift for the 315-acre Project drainage area. The Beaver Tail Mitigation Project (SAW-2022-
00657) is being submitted as a Mitigation Plan under the proposed RES Catawba Expanded Service Area
Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI). IRT Meeting Minutes were carefully considered in the
preparation of this Mitigation Plan (Appendix B).
The Project area is comprised of a 35.39-acre easement involving one unnamed tributary (01), three
ditches (A, B, and C) and three riparian wetlands (WC, WD, and WE) which drain to Howards Creek near the
southern edge of the Project boundaries. LD1 is split into upstream (US), midstream (MS), and downstream
(DS) sections, roughly based on the three easement sections Howards Creek, a USGS-named stream, drains
southeast to the South Fork Catawba River. These aquatic features will be restored, created, enhanced, and
preserved, to comprise one unnamed tributary and three riparian wetlands, totaling 4,506 LF and 8.27 acres.
The stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized in Table 1. The Project is accessible from
Lutz Dairy Farm Road. Coordinates for the Project are as follows: 35.506483,-81.318693.
1.2 Project Outcomes
The streams, wetlands, and associated riparian areas throughout the Project have been significantly
impacted by lack of sufficient vegetated buffer, cattle access, and historic stream manipulation. Proposed
improvements to the Project will help meet the river basin needs expressed in the 2007 (amended 2013)
Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP), the Catawba 02 watershed, and the Indian Creek and
Howards Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP, 2010a) as well as ecological improvements to riparian corridor
within the easement.
The Project presents 4,506 LF of proposed stream mitigation, generating 4,675.110 Warm Stream Mitigation
Units (SMUs) and 8.272 acres of wetland mitigation generating 2.689 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU)
(Table 1).
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 1 September 2023

Table 1. Beaver Tail Project Components Summary
*SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- "Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator", supplied to Providers in
January 2021, from the USACE. A detailed description of the methodology and calculations is described below in Section 6.4 as
well as Appendix C and Figure 12.
**Areas generating wetland credit are either within the proposed 50-foot stream buffer area, are designated as ineligible areas that
are not viable for additional stream credit or are wholly outside of the Non-standard buffer width areas generating additional stream
credit (greater than 150 feet); therefore, additional stream credit areas and wetland credit areas do not overlap.
2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The Project was selected based on its potential to support the objectives and goals of the DMS 2007
Catawba RBRP (amended 2013). The Catawba RBRP identified several restoration needs for each 8-digit
HUC, within the Catawba Expanded Service Area. Further, the Project watershed was identified as a Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW, HUC 03050102040040, Howards Creek), within the Indian Creek and Howards Creek
Local Watershed Plan (LWP, 2010a). Finally, the Project is located within a priority subwatershed of Howards
Creek in the LWP (subwatershed H-9) for focusing implementation efforts, and the project streams
specifically are identified as a Tier 1 priority restoration/enhancement site (sites R-75 and R-77). The Project
stream reach is a tributary of Howards Creek which flows into the South Fork Catawba River approximately
two miles downstream of the Project. The South Fork Catawba River is the major river in Catawba Expanded
Service Area.
Many of the Project design goals and objectives will address major watershed stressors identified in the
2007 RBRP and the 2010 LWP. Catalog Unit Specific Goals (CU) outlined in the Catawba RBRP:
■ Protect drinking water supplies including the reservoirs of Mountain Island Lake, Lake Norman, and
Lake Rhodhiss
■ Restore impaired biology on creeks impacted by stormwater runoff including Clark, Sugar, Little
Sugar, McAlpine, Fourmile, Catawba, and Crowder creeks
■ Protect important species and significant natural and cultural resources in Dutchman, Lyle, and
Waxhaw creeks
■ Continue restoration and protection efforts on Muddy, Long, McDowell and Lower Creeks
■ Improve agricultural non -point -source pollution impacts on rural Indian and Howards Creek
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 2 September 2023

■ Design a geomorphically stable stream -wetland system characterized by a single channel through
a restored valley;
• Add in -stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored streams;
• Install habitat features such as brush toes, constructed typical riffles, woody materials, and pools of
varying depths to restored streams;
• Reduce bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios;
■ Increase forested riparian buffers on both sides of the project reach with a hardwood riparian plant
community;
■ Enhance and create wetlands by reconnecting the channel with the floodplain;
■ Enhance wetland hydrology by plugging draining ditches
• Treat exotic invasive species; and
■ Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project.
2.1 Site Selection
The Project was identified as a stream and wetland opportunity to improve water quality, habitat, and
hydrology within the Catawba River Basin. The aquatic resources associated with the Project have been
highly manipulated and degraded over time due to a lack of sufficient buffer, cattle access, agricultural
practices, and historic stream modification. In general, all or portions of the project stream do not function
to their full potential. Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of
agricultural land use, especially cattle farming. LD1 is moderately to severely degraded with an incised
channel and eroding banks, a lack of floodplain access, and unbalanced sediment transport. Land use within
the project area is currently comprised primarily of agricultural and forested land uses (Figure 7). Historic
land disturbance started prior to 1950, as portions of the existing riparian area have been deforested for
agricultural purposes since before the oldest aerial photo on record (Figure 3a & 3b). Cattle have had
access to LD1 above and just below Lutz Dairy Farm Road, and the lower portion of LD1 has been historically
modified to improve drainage for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the Project presents an opportunity to
address the RBRP goal of improving agricultural non -point -source pollution impacts to Howards Creek. The
Project will address water quality and habitat stressors by restoring natural channels stabilizing eroding
stream banks, and establishing floodplain connectivity, reducing sediment and nutrient loads, restoring,
and enhancing riparian buffers and wetlands, and protecting aquatic resources in perpetuity. The impact of
the Project to this section of Howards Creek is further bolstered by the proximity to Owls Den Mitigation
Site, which is approximately 500 ft. southeast. Project -specific goals and objectives will be addressed further
in Section S.
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes two parcels
in Lincoln County with the following ownership presented in Table 2 & Figure 4. Once finalized, a copy of
the land protection instrument will be included in Appendix A. The Wilmington District Conservation
Easement model template will be utilized to draft the site protection instrument.
Table 2. Proiect Parcel and Landowner
Bawi Van and Sung lang Cin 3614061508 Upper portion of LD1
David R Lutz 3604947568 Lower Dortion of LD1
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 3 September 2023

3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Watershed Summary Information
3.1.1 Drainage Area and Land Use
The Project area is comprised of one tributary that flows directly to Howards Creek, as well as a large portion
of floodplain and riparian area off the left bank of Howards Creek. The total drainage area for the Project is
315 acres (Figure 5 & 6). Primary land use within the drainage area consists of approximately 48 percent
agricultural land and 27 percent wooded area. Impervious surface areas cover approximately 4 percent of
the total watershed (Figure 7). Historic and current land -use within the immediate Project area has been
agricultural production, including row crops and livestock, since at least 1950. These activities have
negatively impacted both water quality, streambank stability and wetland quality on the Project. The
resulting observed stressors being streambank erosion, channel incision, sedimentation, channel
modification, wetland hydrology modification, and lack of riparian buffers.
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information
Watershed Feature
Level IV Ecoregion
Designation
45b — Southern Outer Piedmont
River Basin
Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03050102
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-di it
03050102040040
DWR Sub -basin
03-08-35
Project Drainage Area (acres)
315
Percent Impervious Area
4%
Surface Water Classification (drains to)
C and WS-IV
3.2 Landscape Characteristics
3.2.1 Physiography and Topography
The Project is located within the Southern Outer Piedmont Level IV ecoregion. The physiography of this
ecoregion includes dissected irregular plains, some low rounded hills, and ridges. The streams are typically
low to moderate gradient with mostly cobble, gravel, and sandy substrates. Geologic formations within this
region include quaternary to tertiary sand and clay decomposition, with Precambrian and Paleozoic granite,
gneiss, schist, and metavolcanic rock. The Project area is more specifically located on the amphibolite and
biotite gneiss formation from the Cambrian and Late Protozoic, which is interlayered with minor layers and
lenses of hornblende gneiss, metagabbro, mica schist, and granitic rock. The most common natural
vegetation found in the ecoregion is white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), black oak
(Quercus velutina), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana), and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinota) (USEPA, 2002). Other trees would include tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), maple (Acersp.) and sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua).
The specific landscape characteristics of the Beaver Tail site are representative of the Southern Outer
Piedmont with a gravel to sandy substrate tributary flowing through low rounded hills that drains into
lower gradient wetland area (Figure 8).
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 4 September 2023

3.2.2 SOBS
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) depicts six soil map units across the Project (Figure 9)
(USDA-NRCS, 2021). The map units and soil characteristics of these map units are summarized in Table 4.
The Lloyd sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes represents the largest composition of soil units,
comprising 50.6% of the study area. Riverview loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes is next with 28.5%. Chewacla
loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes is next with 15.2% of the study area. Helena sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
at 3.8%, Lloyd loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes with 1.5%, and finally Lloyd sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes at 0.5% of the study area.
Table 4. Mapped Soil Series
Map Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name
Percent
Drainage Class
Hydrologic
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2
Somewhat poorly
ChA
percent slopes,
5 %
drained
B/D
Floodplains
frequently flooded
HeB
Helena sandy loam, 1 to
1%
Moderately Well
D
Ridges
6 percent slopes
Drained
LcD
Lloyd loam, 15 to 25
0 %
Well drained
B
Hillslopes on Ridges
percent slopes
Lloyd sandy clay loam, 2
LdB2
to 8 percent slopes,
0 %
Well Drained
B
Interfluves
moderately eroded
Lloyd sandy clay loam, 8
LdC2
to 15 percent,
0 %
Well Drained
B
Hillslopes
moderately eroded
Riverview loam, 0 to 2
RvA
percent, occasionally
5%
Well drained
B
Floodplains
flooded
In addition to the above soil information, a Detailed Hydric Soil Study ("Soil Report") was conducted by a
licensed soil scientist to describe and delineate the extent of soils that are potentially suitable for wetland
creation. The Soil Report also compares specific on -site soil conditions to the NRCS soil mapping and
denotes their similarities and/or differences. Therefore, more detailed soils information is included in
Appendix C.
3.2.3 Vegetation
Current land use around the Project is primarily comprised of cattle pasture, confined animal feeding
operations, cropland, low -density residential areas, and disturbed mixed hardwood and pine forest (Figure
7 & 10). Due to the disruptive land use practices the existing vegetation has been degraded and is lacking
vegetation diversity throughout the site. Apart from row crops and open pasture, existing vegetation
throughout the site includes loblolly pine (Pinus toeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), American sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), American holly (Ilex opoca), white oak (Quercus alba),
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 5 September 2023

American beech (Fagus grandifolia), American elm (Ulmos americana), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana). Greenbriar (Smilax sp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), and ferns
(Polystichum sp.) make up the sub -canopy of the Project. Exotic invasive species are present throughout the
Project, including Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora)
3.3 Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future
Historic aerial imagery indicates that the middle portion of the Project has been cleared since at least 1950,
with forested areas at the most northern and southern ends of the Project. Between 1950 and 1973, those
forested areas within the Project were cleared and converted to cattle pasture, although the lower section
of the easement was allowed to regrow sometime after 1973. There were no major changes in land -use
until four poultry houses were built to the north of Lutz Dairy Farm Road, between 2011 and 2013; then,
two more chicken houses were added east of the first set between 2015 and 2017.
The Project area remains a combination of row crop, pasture, and disturbed riparian forest. The land above
Lutz Dairy Farm Road and just below was recently taken out of cattle production. The land adjacent to the
middle and lower sections of the easement on the eastern side of the Project is used for crop production.
The bottom section of the easement is comprised of mostly disturbed forest area (Figure 3a and 3b). There
is one crossing on LD1, which is a NCDOT culverted crossing for Lutz Dairy Farm Road.
The future land use for the Project will include an established 35.39-acre conservation easement, that will
protect streams, wetlands, and their riparian buffers in perpetuity. Land use outside the easement is
anticipated to remain in agriculture in the future. The most recent land -use plan for the Project area, the
Lincoln County Land Use Plan (2018), projects that the Project and its surrounding area will be classified as
large lot residential. Further, no work is proposed on the NCDOT culvert crossing in the center of the project
in the near future, according to the 2024-2033 State Transportation Improvement Plan Projects Map.
3.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
A number of regulatory considerations and constraints are inherent to the Project. These are detailed below,
and how key regulations have been or will be addressed is summarized in Table 7 thereafter. Supporting
documentation can be found in Appendix B.
3.4.1 Property, Boundary, and Utilities
There are two planned easement breaks within the Project. The first is a required break for Lutz Dairy Farm
Road at the upper third of the Project; this break includes the NCDOT right of way and a co -located
overhead electric utility easement. The second break is for a proposed ford crossing to maintain landowner
access to the property, located in the lower third of the Project.
Table S. Easement Break and Crossing
Reach
Justification Width (ft)
NCDOT
External or Internal Crossing Type
Landowner acces.�
..
3.4.2 Constraints
There are several known constraints at the Beaver Tail Project. The Project contains a portion of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regulatory 100-year floodplain along Howards Creek. The Project
will involve grading in the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) for Howards Creek (Map Number:
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 6 September 2023

3710360400J / Panel: 3604, dated 8/16/2007; Figure 11); this grading is proposed as part of the restoration
effort on LD1. Because earthwork will occur within the FEMA SFHA, a No -Rise certification will be obtained
prior to construction efforts. Additionally, a Lincoln County floodplain development permit will be included
in the No -Rise permit submittal. Further, there is one overhead electric utility, located within the proposed
stream buffer in the northern easement section, that will be relocated outside of the easement. There is an
existing NCDOT culvert under Lutz Dairy Farm Road that will not be removed during construction (Figure
11).
3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under provisions
of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC) database review tool was consulted (accessed
July 20th, 2023) (Appendix B & Table 6), the list of threatened or endangered species potentially affected
by activities in the location of the Beaver Tail project includes Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf (Hexastylis
naniflora), and Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii). Two additional species, tricolored bat (Perimyotis
subflavus), a proposed endangered species, and the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), a species for
federal protection, are listed as well, although neither species has federal protection at this time. No
protected species or potential habitat for protected species was observed during site evaluations.
Table 6. Federally Protected Species in Lincoln County
Common.
Tricolored Bat
Perimyotis subflavus
PE
No
Status
Current
Monarch Butterfly
Danaus plexippus
C
No
Current
Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf
Hexastylis naniflora
T
No
Current
Michaux's Sumac
Rhus michauxii
E
No
Current
E = Endangered, T = Threatened, PE = Proposed Endangered, C= Candidate
In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database was consulted to
determine whether previously cataloged occurrences of protected species were mapped within two miles
of the project site (October 22, 2021). Results from NHP indicate that there is a known occurrence of a state
threatened or endangered species within the project area at the confluence of LD1 and Howards Creek: the
Seagreen Darter. The NCWRC requested that stream work is conducted in the dry and erosion control
measured are followed to have negligible Impacts to the Seagreen Darter. With these precautions, no
impacts to state protected species are anticipated as a result of the proposed project (Appendix B).
The proposed project offers some potential to improve or create suitable habitat for several Federal Species
of Concern, Tricolored Bat, Dwarf Heartleaf, and Monarch Butterfly. Habitat may be improved or created for
species that require riverine habitat by improving water quality, in -stream, and near -stream forage, and
providing stable conditions not subject to regular maintenance. Ultimately, a letter from the USFWS, sent
on December 9, 2022, states the Project is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species or their critical
habitat. Documentation is included in (Appendix B).
3.4.4 Cultural Resources
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service database was reviewed to
determine if any listed or potentially eligible historic or archeological resources in the proposed Beaver Tail
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 7 September 2023

Project existed (October 22, 2021). This search did not reveal any occurrences within the project area.
However, there were three historical sites within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project: Clarence Coon House
(LN0156), Loretz House 1972 (LN005), and Daniel Hoke House (LN0216). No anticipated impacts from
Project activities to these sites are anticipated from the Project activities. A letter was received on November
17, 2022, from the SHPO, stating that there will be no effect on historic resources. Documentation is included
in Appendix B.
The Tribal Historic Preservation Office was consulted to determine if the Catawba Indian Nation had any
concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, or Native American archaeological sites
within the boundaries of the proposed project areas. A letter was received from the Tribal Historic
Preservation Office on December 151", 2022, stating that they had no concern with the project.
Documentation is included in Appendix B.
3.4.5 Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
A survey of existing wetlands was performed in February of 2023. Wetland boundaries were delineated
using current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). Soils were characterized and classified using the Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils in the United States, Version 7.0 (NRCS, 2010). A total of three jurisdictional wetlands were observed
in the proposed Project boundaries (Appendix B, Figure 10, Table 9). Wetlands are labeled as WC (Wetland
C), WD (Wetland D), and WE (Wetland E) depicted in Figure 10 and are described later in Section 3.6 and
Table 9. Wetlands were referred to as W1 (WC), W2 (WD), and W3 (WE) in the soil report and PJD but to
stay consistent with the prospectus they will be referred to as WC, WD, and WE going forward. Wetlands
within the Project vicinity were rated using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM)
(Appendix Q. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) request was sent to the USACE on April 3,
2023. Wetland determinations have not yet been verified, and the PJD has not yet been issued by the USACE.
Wetland data forms are included in Appendix C.
3.4.6 Clean Water Act -Section 4011404
Impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands will be unavoidable, due to the restoration and enhancement
activities proposed. Although these impacts are unavoidable, the proposed stream and wetland treatments
will result in an overall functional uplift of the stream and wetland system, as described in Section 4. The
entirety of reach LD1, as well as a portion of Wetland C (WC), will have permanent impacts due to stream
restoration and stream realignment. Further, Wetland C (WC) and Wetland E (WE) will be temporarily
impacted due to stream construction. All stream and wetland impacts will be accounted for in the Pre -
Construction Notification form.
Table 7. Regulatory Considerations
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 8 September 2023

Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) /Coastal Area Management
No
N/A
N/A
Act (CAMA)
FEMA Flood lain Compliance
Yes
No
N/A**
Magnuson -Stevens Act - Essential
Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
*PCN will be submitted after the Final Mitigation Plan is approved
**A No Rise permit will be acquired prior to construction
3.5 Existing Reach Conditions
The Project area is comprised of three easement sections. The proposed stream channel, one unnamed
tributary to Howards Creek (Figure 10), was identified based on numerous observations in the field and
through desktop review using LiDAR imagery, historical imagery, and the most recent NRCS county soil
survey. Historic aerial photography and historic soil survey maps show the channel (LD1) existed in this
natural drainage since at least 1950, the year of the oldest historic imagery. Regional curve data also
supports the fact that the reach contains sufficient drainage area to support natural channel formation. In
general, LD1 does not function to its full potential. Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat
degradation due to active and historical agricultural land manipulation and cattle farming. This
manipulation has left LD1 unstable, with limited floodplain access and few habitat features. Furthermore,
the buffer is sparce to non-existent, and invasive species are common.
Also, there are three ditches (A, B, and C) that were identified during site visits (Figure 10). Ditch A and
Ditch C currently help to drain wetlands C and D, while Ditch B currently drains into Wetland C. Existing
reach conditions and characteristics based on data collection are discussed in detail in this section and are
summarized in Table 8. The full suite of morphological parameter data can be found in Appendix B.
3.5.1 Existing Channel Morphology
Reach LD1
LD1 is a perennial stream that originates northeast of the Project and flows south through the Project to
confluence with Howards Creek. LD1 is split into upstream (US), midstream (MS), and downstream (DS)
sections, roughly based on the three easement sections.
LD1-US begins at the northernmost extent of the Project and flows south through pasture before entering
a culvert below Lutz Dairy Farm Road. Until recently, cattle have had access to the channel, which has led
to significant degradation of stream stability and habitat. The channel is moderately sinuous (>1.2) with
bedform characterized by short riffles and shallow pools, but is incised, with bank height ratios greater than
4. Bank stability is also poor, with sheer banks and mass wasting evident; bank instability has caused several
trees to topple from the banks. Infrequently, the channel has widened and developed a small, inset
floodplain bench. As the stream approaches Lutz Dairy Farm Road, bank heights gradually lower, with bank
height ratios dropping to around 2. Substrate through this section is generally sand to gravel, although the
stream has cut down to bedrock in some places. The upper half of the reach is lined with larger trees that
provide some channel shading but canopy dissipates through the lower half of the reach before entering
the culvert under Lutz Dairy Farm Road. Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus
altissima) is also common through the limited riparian buffer (Figure 10).
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 9 September 2023

Looking upstream along LD1-US
Looking upstream along LD1-US
LD1-MS splits from LD1-US directly downstream of the culvert crossing on Lutz Dairy Farm Road. The
channel immediately takes a sharp, ninety -degree bend before continuing to flow south. The NCDOT culvert
served as a thoroughfare for cattle to access the pasture downstream of the road, which encompassed
approximately the first 200 LF of the reach. Below that, row crop production along the left bank continues
to almost the top of bank along the rest of the reach, and the right bank is maintained as mowed lawn
almost too top of bank. As a result, the channel through this section has a similar form to just upstream of
the culvert. The valley through this section is less confined than upstream of the culvert; however, the stream
alternately hugs each valley toe of slope as it moves downstream, leading to higher bank heights along
those valley edges. The substrate along this section is predominately sand and gravel. Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) is also common through the limited riparian
buffer.
Looking downstream along LD1-MS
Looking upstream along LD1-MS
LD1-DS splits from LD1-MS shortly downstream from the proposed ford crossing, where the reach appears
to have been historically modified to aid in site drainage. The resulting channel is straight, with berms
present along both banks. Further, the channel is incised with bank height ratios starting around 2 and
increasing to about 3 towards the confluence with Howards Creek and entrenchment ratios ranging from
close to 1 to over 1.5. Bank stability is also poor, with sheer to undercut banks common. Substrate ranges
from sand and gravel at the upper end to gravel and cobble at the downstream end, where the increase in
channel capacity has scoured out the smaller material. The valley becomes less confined moving
downstream, especially as the reach enters the valley of Howards Creek. However, the floodplain and the
riparian buffer along the right bank becomes constricted by Daniels Road before the confluence with
Howards Creek. Riparian buffer along the left bank is limited to what's directly on the bank for the first half,
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 10 September 2023

with a now fallow, row -crop field beyond, before gaining a 25-50 ft buffer for the second half to the
confluence with Howards Creek, similarly with a now fallow, row -crop field beyond. Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) is also
common through the limited riparian buffer
Looking downstream along LD1-DS
Looking upstream along LD1-DS
Howards Creek
Howards Creek is a perennial, mapped stream. The creek enters the Project at the southwestern end of the
easement area and flows southeast to exit the Project at its southeasternmost point. This stream appears
to have been historically straightened and dredged to improve drainage and increase available agricultural
land and spoil from that work appears to be evident along both banks in the LiDAR. Due to landowner
limitations, only the left bank of the stream is captured by the Project easement. Through the Project, the
riparian buffer along the left bank of Howards Creek is limited; trees are only along the bank for
approximately two thirds of the reach, with a narrow (-75' wide) row crop field beyond that, before a larger
patch of forested valley, which includes the Project wetlands WC and WD. The riparian buffer along the
right bank is limited to trees directly along the bank, with agricultural production beyond (Figure 7). Invasive
species present include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
Looking downstream along Howards Creek
Looking upstream along Howards Creek
Ditch A
Ditch A originates on the southern end of WC and flows 189 LF south into Howards Creek. Ditch A was
installed to improve drainage out of WC and currently impacts its hydrology. The riparian buffer along the
left bank is forested riparian area, and the right bank has a narrow forested riparian area (-15 feet) with a
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 11 September 2023

fallow row crop field beyond. Invasive species present include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
Looking downstream along Ditch A
Looking upstream along Ditch A
Ditch B
Ditch B originates off -site and flows southwest towards WC for 359 LF before losing definition. Ditch B is
losing definition and slowly starting to fill in naturally. The riparian buffer along the banks is a forested
riparian area. Invasive species present include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and multiflora rose (Rosa
multi flora).
Looking downstream along Ditch B
Looking upstream along Ditch B
Ditch C
Ditch C originates at the southeast corner of WD and flows 328 LF east before continuing off -property.
Ditch C was installed to help drain WD; however, Ditch C is currently backwatered due to an unknown
obstruction occurring off -site. The riparian buffer along the banks is a forested riparian area. Invasive species
present include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 12 September 2023

Looking downstream along Ditch C
3.5.2 Stream Feature Classifications
Looking upstream along Ditch C
The stream has been classified as perennial using the NCDWR Stream Identification Form version 4.11 and
are G4-E4 stream types as classified using the Rosgen stream classification (Rosgen, 1996). Stream
determinations have not yet been verified by the USACE as no PJD has been issued at this time. Additionally,
streams were rated using the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM). Table 8 summarizes
the stream parameters. NCSAM rating sheets are included in Appendix C.
Table 8. Summary of Stream Parameters
3.6 Existing Wetland Conditions
As mentioned above in Section 3.4.5, wetland delineation identified three jurisdictional wetland areas
within the Project labeled WC, WD, and WE in Existing Conditions: Figure 10 and in the PJD, Appendix B.
There are approximately 4.00 acres of jurisdictional wetlands within the proposed easement area. Wetlands
were rated using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM; Appendix Q. Existing
conditions and areas of each wetland are described below and summarized in Table 9.
3.6.1 National Wetland Inventory
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) does not map any wetland areas within the Project
limits (Figure 11).
3.6.2 Wetland Descriptions
A wetland delineation identified the presence of three jurisdictional wetland areas within the project, labeled
as WC, WD, and WE, which total 4.001 acres (Figure 10). A Professional Soil Scientist performed an
investigation to see if there was an opportunity to expand these wetlands in conjunction with the adjacent
stream restoration (Appendix Q. Soils on -site were found to be suitable for wetland creation, enhancement,
and preservation opportunities. A hydric soil delineation was performed in these areas to evaluate full
wetland uplift potential. Project wetlands were assessed using the NC WAM (Appendix Q.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 13 September 2023

WC
WC is located within the floodplain of Howards Creek and reach LD1. The source of wetland hydrology is
groundwater discharge along the toe of slope. The perching of groundwater appears limited due to the
improved drainage modifications: conversion of WC to pasture, shallow ditching, and surface smoothing
has improved surface drainage and reduced natural hydrology. Further, a deeper ditch (Ditch A) is currently
draining surface water from the wetland south into Howards Creek. Ditch A is also head cutting into WC
and could impact hydrology more in the future. Due to these modifications of WC's hydrology the surface
storage and retention of water and water quality is rated low using NC WAM (Appendix C & Table 9). Soils
within WC were reddish brown in color (5YR 4/4 and 5YR 5/3) with yellowish red (5YR 4/6) mottles in the
matrix. Conditions were sufficient to meet Redox Depressions (F8), Piedmont Flood Plain Soils (F19), and
Red Parent Material (F21) hydric soil indicators. A high-water table (A2) was present at a depth of 3 inches.
There was short term pooling in WC with water -stained leaves throughout. This forested wetland is best
represented as a Headwater Forest in terms of NC WAM wetland types. The habitat condition of WC is
inadequate with the physical structure and landscape patch structure ranking low using NC WAM
(Appendix C & Table 9). The vegetation composition of WC is lacking diversity and quality of species. The
lack of diversity is seen in the hardwood tree species with the stratum being dominated by green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and red maple (Acer rubrum). While lacking other species you would typically like
to find in a headwater forest such as swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), and tulip poplar (liriodendron tulipifera). WC also has several different types of invasive species
present including, tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora), and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum).
Looking along Wetland C
WD
WD is located within the floodplain of Howards Creek, southeast of WC. The source of wetland hydrology
is groundwater discharge along the toe of slope. Historic site modifications have impacted the interaction
of the wetland with its source of hydrology: several short and shallow ditches are throughout the wetland,
and there is a perimeter ditch wrapping around the toe of slope that intersects with Ditch C. Ditch C would
drain off -site to the east, but there is currently an obstruction off -site which is backing up water in the ditch.
Due to these modifications to WD's hydrology is rated low but the water quality and habitat are rated high
using NC WAM, therefore giving the WD an overall rating of high. Soils within WD were yellowish red (5YR
4/6) and dark reddish grey (5YR 4/2) in color with reddish brown (5YR 4/2) mottles in the matrix. Conditions
were sufficient to meet Redox Depressions (F8) and Red Parent Material (F21) hydric soil indicators. A high-
water table (A2) was present at a depth of 6 inches. There was short term pooling in WD with water -stained
leaves throughout. This forested wetland is best represented as a Bottomland Hardwood Forest in terms of
NC WAM wetland types, but Chinese privet is also present in the vegetative community.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 14 September 2023

Looking along Wetland D
WE
WE is a narrow feature located in of the floodplain of reach LD1, along the right bank valley toe of slope.
The source of wetland hydrology is groundwater discharge along the toe of slope. However, the perching
of groundwater appears limited due to the channel incision of LD1. Due to these modifications of WE's
hydrology the surface storage and retention of water and water quality is rated low using NC WAM
(Appendix C & Table 9). Soils within WE were reddish brown in color (5YR 4/4) with dark red (2.5YR 3/6)
and red (2.5YR 4/8) mottles in the matrix. Conditions were sufficient to meet Redox Depressions (F8) and
Red Parent Material (F21) hydric soil indicators. A high-water table (A2) was present at a depth of 2 inches.
This forested wetland is best represented as a Headwater Forest in terms of NC WAM wetland types. The
habitat condition of WC is inadequate with the physical structure and landscape patch structure ranking
low using NC WAM (Appendix C & Table 9). The vegetation composition of WE is lacking diversity and
quality of species due to previous clearing of the area. The lack of diversity is seen in the hardwood tree
species with the stratum being dominated by green ash (Froxinus pennsylvanica) and red maple (Acer
rubrum). While lacking other species you would typically like to find in a headwater forest such as swamp
chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), sycamore (Plotanus occidentalis), and tulip poplar (liriodendron tulipifera).
WC also has invasive species present including, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese stiltgrass
(Microstegium vimineum).
Looking along Wetland E
3.7 Existing Hydric Soil and Surrounding Soil Area Conditions
Areas suspected of containing hydric soil were evaluated by a licensed soil scientist; specifically, the areas
south of Lutz Dairy Farm Road and east of Daniels Road. The evaluation focused on locating and delineating
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 15 September 2023

areas of existing hydric soils as well as soils demonstrating a high potential for successful wetland creation.
Broad factors that were considered include: landscape position, proposed stream restoration design,
existing hydrologic sources, and soil characteristics suitable for wetland creation. Factors specific to wetland
creation were also considered, including the evaluation of general texture and textural changes, focusing
on finer textures or other horizons that can perch a water table. These characteristics are known to affect
infiltration, storage, store/conduct subsurface lateral flow, and perching of a water table. Other observations
include depth to water table, buried hydric soils, depleted, or partially depleted soil horizons, lenses, and
spatial relationships across the floodplain.
The hydric soil study determined that, outside of the jurisdictional wetlands, the areas containing hydric
indicators are very limited. This is due to the lack of sufficient hydrology to produce wetland characteristics
due to human alterations. Some of the findings from the study are discussed below, and the Soil Report
can be found in Appendix C.
3.7.1 Physical Soils
The surface soils were found to have loamy textures ranging from sandy loam to finer silt and clay loams.
The textural and initial color of these soil is related to the upland soil in the contributing watershed. Typical
of the alluvial soil formation process, these soils vary over short distances and have multiple horizons in
texture, thickness, structure, and morphological characteristics.
Soil in the wetland areas exhibit a range of hydric soil indicators while the non -wetland areas have limited
indicators with hydric indicators are mostly absent in the soils. The floodplain soils reflected the redder color
of the upland parent material. Where the water table was near the surface for extended periods hydric
indicators have formed and the wettest areas have begun to darken with accumulated organics. The wetland
soils have reddish brown loamy surface horizons. Yellowish red redoximorphic concentration are present in
most horizons observed.
Soils within the creation area have a reddish loam or clay loam surface underlain by clay loams or silt loams.
Much of the area lacks strong or widespread mottles and complete development of hydric indicators is
absent. The lack of mottles can be attributed to the drainage modifications and not the inability of the soil
to sustain a high-water table. There does not appear to be highly conductive soil in the upper 20 inches of
soil that would negatively impact a sustained hydroperiod in this area and deeper sandy layer appear too
not be contiguous. The full soil report is included in Appendix B
3.7.2 Hydric Soil Indicators
Hydric soil indicators are found throughout the wetlands but are absent or limited within the area
designated for wetland creation. Based on recorded profiles, the common hydric soil indicators are F8-
Redox Depressions, F19-Piedmont Flood Plain Soils, and F21-Red Parent Material. The test indicator F19 is
also present within many areas of the site and appears to be a valid indicator for this site. The F27 indicator
is appropriate due to the dark red nature of the parent materials deposited from the adjacent upland source.
Creation areas have limited mottling in the depressional areas. Groundwater discharging from the toe of
slope in these areas is occurring deeper due to the drainage impact from the incised channel. A few areas
exhibited the F3-Depleted Matrix, but this indicator is limited. The full soil report is included in Appendix B.
3.7.3 Hydrology
Currently, the hydrology through the Project wetlands is being impacted by a series of drainage
modifications. Within WC the soil surface has been smoothed to remove surface water more efficiently, and
Ditch A drains surface water from the wetland to Howards Creek. Ditch A is also head -cutting into the
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 16 September 2023

wetland and threatens to further impact groundwater. Within WD a number of internal, shallow ditches,
including a toe of slope perimeter ditch, have been dug in an attempt to disconnect the source of hydrology
and drain the area. These drain to Ditch C, a relatively large ditch which flows from the wetland off the
parcel to the east. There is currently a downstream, off -property obstruction on ditch C, which is preventing
it from functioning. Further, hydrology of WE has been impacted by the incision of reach LD1, which has
lowered the surrounding water table and prevented frequent over -bank events. However, despite these
modifications, all Project wetlands had sufficient hydrology to develop and/or maintain hydric soils. More
details are included within the full soil report in Appendix B.
Table 9. Jurisdiction Wetland Information
Wetland
NCWAM Rating
Wetland
Area
Vegetation
ID
.-
Tree Stratum:
Hydrology: Medium
Red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima)
Shrub Stratum:
Smooth Alder (Alnus serrulata), buttonbush (Cephalanthus
Water Quality: Low
occidentalis), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
Headwater
Herb Stratum:
WC
Forest
1.32
Soft rush (Juncus effusus), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus),
Habitat: Low
swamp aster (Symphyotrichum puniceum), multiflora rose
(Rosa multifloro), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium
vimineum)
Woody Vine Stratum:
Overall: Low
Common greenbrier (smilax rotundifolia), Muscadine (Vitis
rotundifolia)
Tree Stratum:
Hydrology: High
Red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (eetula nigra)
Shrub Stratum:
Smooth Alder (Alnus serrulata), buttonbush (Cephalanthus
Water Quality: High
Bottomland
occidentalis), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), swamp
azalea (Rhododendron viscosum)
WD
Headwater
2.47
Herb Stratum:
Habitat: High
Forest
Soft rush (Juncus effusus), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides)
Woody Vine Stratum:
Overall: High
Common greenbrier (smilax rotundifolia), Muscadine (Vitis
rotundifolia)
Hydrology: Medium
Tree Stratum:
Red maple (Acer rubrum), Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanico)
Shrub Stratum:
Water Quality: Low
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), Chinese privet
Headwater
(Ligustrum sinense)
WE
Forest
0.22
Herb Stratum:
Habitat: Low
Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum)
Woody Vine Stratum:
Overall• Low
Common greenbrier (smilax rotundifolia), Muscadine (Vitis
rotundifolia)
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 17 September 2023

4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
4.1 Stream Functional Uplift
In order to thoroughly examine the potential functional uplift to stream systems proposed for restoration
and enhancement, the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Framework) (Harman et. al. 2012) serves as a
useful concept to understand streams and their ecological functions. The Framework presents a logical,
holistic view of streams that describes the interrelatedness of fundamental stream functions. The Framework
defines five stream function categories, ordered into a hierarchy, that demonstrates the dependence of
higher -level functions (biology, physicochemical, and geomorphology) on lower -level functions (hydrology
and hydraulics). Functions that affect the greatest number of other functions are illustrated at the base of
the Pyramid, while functions that have the least effect on other functions are illustrated at the top. Further
justifying this hierarchical concept, Fischenich (2006) found that the most critical restoration activities are
those that address stream functions related to hydrodynamic processes, sediment transport processes,
stream stability, and riparian buffers.
Also, as an informative tool, NC SAM was performed for this Project and gives qualitative ratings for streams
in terms of three functional classes: hydrology, water quality, and habitat with more sub -functions under
each class. Ratings for each function help interpret the quality of streams by indicating which functions are
impaired or not and can aid in thinking about the potential functional uplift to be had. NC SAM rating
sheets are provided in Appendix C.
Therefore, principles of the Framework and NC SAM are utilized to discuss and communicate the potential
functional uplift to streams at the Pantera project and to propose realistic, attainable goals and objectives.
However, the determination of credits and performance standards for the Project follow guidance put forth
by the USACE Wilmington District.
The Beaver Tail Mitigation Project will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the
Catawba River Basin by applying an ecosystem restoration approach. The restoration approach at the reach
scale of this Project will have the greatest effect on the hydrology, hydraulic, and geomorphic function of
the system but will benefit the upper -level functions (physicochemical and biology) over time, and in
combination with other Projects within the watershed. Within the Project area, functional benefits and
improvements related to the Function -Based Pyramid Framework are anticipated by realizing site -specific
functional goals and objectives These goals and objectives, as they relate to the Framework, are outlined in
Table 10.
4.1.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
4.1.1.1 Hydrology
The Project is expected to influence hydrology within the Project limits by significantly increasing floodplain
connection and reducing flow velocity. However, it is not anticipated that the Project will have a significant
effect on hydrology beyond the Project watershed.
4.1.1.2 Hydraulic
The greatest potential uplift at the Project will be achieved through establishing floodplain connectivity. By
constructing stream channels back within the natural low point of the valley and sizing them to have low
bank height ratios and high entrenchment ratios, overbank events can occur at a more natural frequency,
and subsequent flooding will reinvigorate the entire floodplain system. Further, by locating stream channels
back to their natural position within the floodplain and raising the channel bed, groundwater/surface water
exchange will be rejuvenated and maintained, further benefitting the stream-wetland-floodplain complexes
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 18 September 2023

where they are intended to exist. Additionally, these stream channels will be designed and constructed with
adequate energy dissipation and grade control to achieve and maintain stable flow dynamics.
4.1.1.3 Geomorphology
Sediment transport will be improved by designing and constructing sinuous channels back within the
natural low point of the valley-floodplain that maintain stable dimension, plan, and profile to allow for
healthy transport of sediment within the channel and floodplain. Channel stability and bedform diversity
will be improved by installing log and rock structures to promote a natural riffle -pool sequence, while brush
toe bank protection and live -stake plantings will further protect stream banks. Transport and storage of
woody debris will be improved by direct installation of woody structures such as log sills and brush toes,
while increasing channel roughness through plantings and riffle creation will promote storage of woody
debris. Furthermore, riparian vegetation condition will be improved by planting trees along reaches that are
currently lacking sufficient forested buffer and by treating invasive species within existing forested buffers.
This will promote riparian buffer processes that will limit sediment to channels, protect stream banks, and
contribute woody debris that will ultimately contribute to dynamic equilibrium of the system. All of these
functional parameters are interconnected and depend on each other; therefore, improving this wide range
of parameters will result in long-term functional geomorphic uplift.
4.1.2 Physicochemical
Although this Project would support the overarching goal in the Catawba RBRP to improve agricultural non -
point -source pollution impacts on rural Howards Creek, it is difficult to measure nutrient and sediment
reduction at this Project level because they can be affected by so many variables. However, many of the
restoration activities intended to improve the hydraulic and geomorphology parameters will also directly
and indirectly affect the physiochemical parameters of the Project streams over time. The primary activities
that will directly affect physiochemical functions include filtering of runoff through buffer areas, the
conversion of active row crop to a forested buffer, the enhancement and creation of riparian wetlands, and
the improved denitrification and nutrient uptake through buffer zones. Additional benefits may also come
from functional uplift of the lower -level stream functions (hydraulics and geomorphology), which will reduce
sediment and nutrients in the system through bank stabilization and reforesting. Activities that will indirectly
benefit physicochemical functions are as follows: Temperature regulation will improve by introducing
canopy tree species that will shade the stream. Oxygen regulation will improve through reducing water
temperature by buffer shading, and by installing drop structures to induce mixing zones where oxygen
dissolves much faster than the passive exchange rate. Organic matter processing will improve once restored
riffles are able to catch twigs and branches that then retain leaves and other particulate organic matter.
Many of these physicochemical benefits will occur slowly and are dependent on multiple variables within
the stream ecosystem. Therefore, it is not practical or feasible to directly measure these parameters within
the monitoring timeframe of this Project. With that said, it is logical to use existing conditions with ongoing
monitoring outcomes using the established stream and wetland performance standards to demonstrate the
positive correlation of hydraulic and geomorphic parameters with physicochemical parameters. For
example, as riparian buffer trees grow, as represented in annual monitoring reports, it is anticipated that
canopy cover is actively shading the stream channel and reducing water temperature. This is not a substitute
for direct physicochemical monitoring, but it is a useful tool to help Project the long-term benefits of the
Project in terms of its functional uplift. Ultimately, any uplift to physicochemical functions at the Project is
assumed and is not measured.
4.1.3 Biology
As mentioned for the physicochemical stream function, it will be difficult to measure the functional uplift of
the biological functions at this site within the monitoring period of the Project. However, since the life
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 19 September 2023

histories of many species likely to benefit from stream and wetland restoration are depending on all the
lower -level functions, the functional uplift from the hydraulic and geomorphic levels would likely have a
positive effect on the biology over time and in combination with other Projects within the watershed is
anticipated. Again, there is no substitute for direct biological monitoring, but it is important to understand
the hierarchy of the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework in order to help Project long-term benefits of
the Project, though only hydraulic and geomorphology parameters will be directly measured during the
seven-year monitoring period. Ultimately, any functional uplift to biology at the Project is assumed and is
not measured.
Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and provide
a travel corridor for wildlife species. Provided measures are taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation
from construction/restoration activities, we do not anticipate the Project to result in significant adverse
impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
4.2 Wetland Functional Uplift
The wetlands on -site range from minimally disturbed, where virtually all functions are intact, to highly
degraded to the point that there is little to no current wetland function. This is demonstrated in the
functional ratings provided by the NC WAM, which was utilized as a tool to assess each wetland associated
with the Project. Like NC SAM, NC WAM gives qualitative ratings for streams in terms of three functional
classes: hydrology, water quality, and habitat with more sub -functions under each class. Sub -function
ratings identify which particular functions are impaired, and then the overall ratings suggest how each of
sub -function affects the entire wetland as a whole. This assessment is especially helpful in justifying
potential functional uplift of a wetland as it may relate to hydrology or vegetation or both. NC WAM rating
sheets are provided in Appendix C.
The stream restoration activities discussed above that will provide stream -related functional uplift will also
provide functional uplift to riparian wetlands within the Project. Especially, by constructing appropriately
sized, meandering channels back through the natural low of their floodplains and removing spoil material
from riparian areas, hydrologic restoration can be attained that will provide numerous water quality and
soil -related functional uplifts. These include re-establishment of natural oxidation-reduction cycling,
improved nutrient and chemical transformations (especially nitrates), and potential immobilization of
phosphorus. Potential sources of these pollutants are present in the watershed from adjacent row crops
and conventional tillage operations. Other benefits include a lower soil and surface water temperature after
vegetative establishment, increased organic carbon sequestration, and increases in diversity of beneficial
microbial and fungal populations important for soil health. Healthy microbial populations in wetlands are
primarily responsible for biochemical transformations of complex organic substances such as ammonia,
molecular nitrogen, nitrite, and nitrate. Large-scale benefits should include peak flood control, sediment
capture, an increase of diverse wildlife habitat, and greater connectivity to the natural aquatic communities.
More details about potential wetland functional uplift can be found in the Soil Report in Appendix C.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 20 September 2023

5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
5.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The purpose of the proposed Beaver Tail Mitigation Project is to generate compensatory mitigation credits
for the Catawba Expanded Service Area as a mitigation bank included in the proposed RES Catawba ESA
UMBI. Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project's maximum functional uplift using the Stream
Functions Pyramid Framework and conclusions drawn from a Detailed Hydric Soil Study conducted by a
licensed soil scientist (Appendix C), specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Project.
These goals clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient stressors identified in the 2010 Indian
Creek and Howards Creek LWP. Further, the Project will address outlined RBRP Goals and CU specific goals
(listed in Section 2).
The project goals address stressors identified in the watershed, which include the following:
■ Channelization and stream dredging (hydrologic modification);
• Incised channels and unstable stream banks;
■ Degraded/deforested riparian buffers;
■ Degraded wetlands (drained, cleared, invasive vegetation);
• Livestock access to riparian buffers and streams;
■ Fecal coliform and nutrient inputs;
• Impervious cover and stormwater runoff; and
■ Accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation from upland sites.
The project goals will address those stressors through the following project objectives:
■ Restore incised and historically modified streams by designing a geomorphically stable stream -
wetland system characterized by a single channel through a restored valley;
■ Reduce bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios;
■ Add in -stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored streams;
■ Install habitat features such as brush toes, constructed typical riffles, woody materials, and pools
of varying depths to restored streams;
■ Increase forested riparian buffers on both sides of the channel along the project reach with a
hardwood riparian plant community;
■ Enhance, create, and preserve wetlands by reconnecting the channel with the floodplain;
■ Enhance and protect wetland hydrology by plugging draining ditches;
■ Treat exotic invasive species; and
■ Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project.
The proposed Project is designed to help meet these goals. The project will address stressors identified in
the watershed through nutrient removal, sediment removal, runoff filtration, and improved aquatic and
terrestrial habitat. These project goals will be achieved through stream restoration, wetland creation,
enhancement, preservation, and buffer reestablishment. Anticipated functional benefits and improvements
within the Project area, as based on the Function Based Framework, are outlined in Table 10.
Limitations to achieving these watershed goals arise by remaining constrained to the Project boundaries.
While restoring the habitat and streams to stable and effective conditions helps achieve the goals within
the Project parcels, the presence of surrounding poor riparian buffers and agricultural impact influences
the effect on the watershed as a whole. However, through this Project's connectivity with other Projects in
the watershed, and responsible stewardship of current restoration Projects, overall watershed functionality
and health will improve to meet the RBRP goals.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 21 September 2023

Table 70. Functional Benefits and Improvements
Function
Goal
Objective
Design a geomorphically stable stream -
wetland system characterized by a single
channel through a restored valley
Add in -stream structures and bank
Hydrology
to transport water from
stabilization measures to protect restored
Transport of water from
the watershed to the
streams
the watershed to the
channel in a non -erosive
channel
manner
Install habitat features such as brush toes,
constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools
of varying depths to restored streams
Maintain appropriate hydroperiod for soil
series
Hydraulic
Transport of water in
to transport water in a
Reduce bank height ratios and increase
the channel, on the
stable non -erosive
entrenchment ratios
floodplain, and through
manner
the sediments
Geomorphology
to create a diverse
bedform and stable
Reduce bank height ratios and increase
entrenchment ratios
Transport of wood and
sediment to create
channels that achieve
diverse bedforms and
dynamic equilibrium and
Increase forested riparian buffers on both
dynamic equilibrium
provide suitable habitat
sides of the channel along the project reach
for life
with a hardwood riparian plant community
Improve stream temperature regulation
to achieve appropriate
through introduction of canopy
levels for water
Increase dissolved oxygen by installing in -
Physicochemical
temperature, dissolved
stream structures to created aeration zones
Temperature and
oxygen concentration,
oxygen regulation;
and other important
Decrease nutrient loading through filtration of
processing of organic
nutrients including but
planted riparian buffer
matter and nutrients
not limited to Nitrogen
and Phosphorus through
Promote sediment filtration, nutrient cycling,
buffer planting
and organic accumulation through natural
wetland biogeochemical processes
Bio oW
to achieve functionality in
Biodiversity and life
levels 1-4 to support the
Install habitat features such as brush toes,
histories of aquatic life
life histories of aquatic
constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools
histories and riparian
and riparian plants and
of varying depths to restored stream
life
animals
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 22 September 2023

6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
6.1 Design Parameters
6.1.1 Stream Mitigation Approach
The restoration plan and design approach were developed based on existing conditions and the Project
goals outlined in Section S. This Project will utilize Priority 1 and 2 restoration, bioengineered bank
stabilization, and natural channel design techniques. Stream restoration designs will produce a single
thread meandering channel consisting of a typical riffle pool relationship with parameters based on data
taken from published empirical relationships and analytical models. Analytical design will be a crucial
element of the project and will be used to determine the design discharge and to verify the overall design.
A conceptual view is provided in Figure 12. Design plan sheets are located in Appendix D.
The restoration plan and design approach for the Project stream reach is detailed below:
LD1
A mix of off-line and in -line, Priority 1 and 2 Restoration is proposed for this reach to address channel
incision, entrenchment, bank instability, historic channel manipulation, and buffer impacts. Priority 2
restoration is necessary on this reach to tie into the existing channel upstream of the Project, to tie into
the NCDOT culvert on Lutz Dairy Farm Road, and to tie into Howards Creek at the downstream end of the
reach. Restoration activities include:
- Grade a new, single thread channel in a new floodplain where necessary (Priority 2) and the
existing floodplain where possible (Priority 1),
- Establish a riffle -pool sequence through the new channel,
- Install rock and log structures to provide grade control,
- Install toe protection on meander bends to provide habitat and bank protection,
- Install brushy berms and bedded logs in the floodplain near WE and through WA to add
floodplain roughness and storage,
- Install a ford crossing near STA 26+75 to maintain landowner access,
- Riparian planting, and
- Invasive treatment
6.1.2 Data Analysis
6.1.2.1 Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reach using multiple methods to determine and
validate the design bankfull discharge and channel geometry required to provide regular floodplain
inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a single
model. Peak flows (Table 11) and corresponding channel cross sectional areas were determined for
comparison to design parameters using the following methods:
• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• AutoCAD's Hydraflow Hydrographs,
• NC, VA, and SC Regional Curves, and
• Existing Conditions Morphology
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 23 September 2023

6.1.2.2 Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby
USGS gauges with drainage areas ranging from 1.08 to 7.45 mil which passed the Dalrymple homogeneity
test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations. Regional flood
frequency equations were developed for the 1.1-, 1.5-, and 2-year peak discharges based on the gauge
data. Discharges were then computed for the design reach. These discharges were compared to those
predicted by the discharge regional curve and the existing conditions morphology.
6.1.2.3 AutoCAD's Hydraflow Express
Hydraflow Express was used to simulate the rainfall -runoff process and establish peak flows for the
watersheds. Rainfall data reflecting a 484 peak shape factor were used along with a SCS 6-hr distribution,
and NRCS hydrology (time of concentrations and runoff curve numbers; USDA NRCS, 1986), to simulate
the rainfall -runoff process.
6.1.2.4 Regional Curve Regression Equations
The Rural North Carolina Piedmont regional curves by Doll et al. (2002); the Virginia Non -Urban Piedmont
regional curves by Lotspeich (2009); and the South Carolina Piedmont regional curve by Jennings
Environmental (2020) for discharge were used in part to determine the bankfull discharge for the Project.
The regional curve discharge equations used for the analysis are:
(1) Qbkf=91.62*(DA)07 (Doll et al., 2002)
(2) Qbkf=43.895*(DA)09472 (Lotspeich, 2009)
(3) Qbkf=36.5*(DA)0699 (Jennings Environmental, 2020)
Where Qbkf=bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mi2).
Table 11. Design Peak Flow Comparison
6.1.2.5 Hydraulic Modeling
A 2-Dimensional HEC-RAS model was developed for the existing and proposed site conditions. This model
was utilized to verify the design discharge and site stability. The model was also used to predict the increase
in overbank flows and floodplain storage provided by the proposed design. Figures C1a and C1b in
Appendix C show the increase in flooded area from the existing to proposed conditions during the 2- and
5-year storm events, respectively.
6.1.2.6 Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a
stable gravel bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically, sediment transport is
assessed to determine a stream's ability to move a specific grain size at specified flows. Various sediment
transport equations are applied when estimating entrainment for sand and gravel bed streams found in
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 24 September 2023

the piedmont. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) report, Stability Thresholds for Stream Restoration
Materials (Fischenich, 2001), was used to obtain permissible shear stresses and velocities. Data found in
this document was obtained from multiple sources using different testing conditions. The following
methods and published documents were utilized during the sediment transport analysis:
• Permissible Shear Stress Approach, and
• Permissible Velocity Approach.
6.1.2.7 Shear Stress Approach
Shear stress is a commonly used tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear stresses are
a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size, and gradation), cohesiveness of
bank materials, vegetative cover, and incoming sediment load. The shear stress approach compares
calculated shear stresses to those found in the literature.
Critical shear stress is the shear stress required to initiate motion of the channels median particle size (Dso).
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
'(Fischenich, 2001)
Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Project design reaches are greater
than the critical shear stress of the existing material (shear stress required to initiate motion). Therefore,
the proposed riffles will be supplemented with larger material to maintain bedform stability.
6.1.2.8 Velocity Approach
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank
materials. A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method to aid
in the verification of channel stability. Table 13 compares the proposed velocities calculated using
Manning's equation with the permissible velocities.
Table 13. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities
'(Chow, 1959) z(Fischenich, 2001)
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 25 September 2023

6.1.2.9 Sediment Supply
In addition to the stability assessment, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply was performed by
characterizing watershed conditions. A combination of field reconnaissance and windshield surveys,
existing land use data, and historical aerial photography were analyzed to assess existing and past
watershed conditions to determine if any changes occurred that would significantly impact sediment
supply. There is significant instability and erosion along the channels, which appear to be a result of historic
cattle access, agricultural practices, and channel modification. There is also significant upland erosion in
the watershed from the current land -use practices. It is anticipated that sediment supply from agricultural
land adjacent to the Project will decrease as buffers are established. Further, sediment supply from the
channel itself will decrease as channel entrenchment and stability is improved.
6.1.3 Wetland Mitigation Approach
The Beaver Tail Project offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity that will revitalize and create
wetlands throughout a highly disturbed floodplain complex. As such, the proposed wetland treatments
are closely tied to the stream restoration. The Project will provide 2.689 WMUs through a combination of
wetland creation, enhancement, and preservation.
Because of the site's observed soil characteristics and landscape position, a combination of wetland
creation, enhancement, and preservation is proposed. The success of wetland creation, at a credit ratio of
3:1, relies upon the expectation that raising the stream bed elevation and plugging surrounding drainage
features will then raise the local groundwater table across the floodplain. In turn, this will connect and
expand these areas of discharge while providing frequent flood events to the surrounding floodplain. Once
hydrology is established, these areas are anticipated to develop wetland functions and display wetland
characteristics. Enhancement areas, at a credit ratio of 1.5:1, aim to improve and protect vegetation in
already jurisdictional wetland areas and improve hydrology through the adjacent stream restoration
activities as well as by plugging ditches. The successful preservation of existing wetland on the Project, at
a credit ratio of 10:1, also relies upon ditch plugging to protect hydrology. These measures will foster
wetland vegetation communities and will improve connectivity throughout the stream and wetland
complex. In areas that are planned to be mostly cleared of trees, decompaction techniques to increase
porosity, specifically ripping these areas 16 to 20 inches, will be performed. Where larger trees are expected
to remain, equipment will be limited, and no ripping will occur. Once ripped, shallow depressions and pools
will be constructed using smaller, low -impact equipment and woody structures will be installed within low
areas of the floodplain to improve flood storage. The decompaction of disturbed soils will improve planting
survival and allow greater infiltration and storage. Along with infiltration and storage, these depressions
will help to establish appropriate wetland vegetation communities and will create diverse habitat
throughout the wetland areas.
Wetland Creation
WA is proposed for wetland creation at a credit ratio of 3:1. WA begins near WE, where the floodplain of
LD1 begins to flatten and become less confined, and continues through the floodplains of LD1 and
Howards creek, connecting to WC and WD. The creation area contains soils similar in texture to those in
the existing wetlands, but lacking in existing hydric indicators, most likely due to the drainage modifications
on -site. This proposed creation area is approximately 4.27 acres. Once the stream bed is raised during
construction, the groundwater discharge from the surrounding valley slopes should quickly raise the local
water table to near the surface for extended periods. Lifting the channel bed will also increase over -bank
events, and floodplain storage within WA will be increased through the installation of woody structures,
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 26 September 2023

including brushy berms and bedded logs, and small floodplain depressions. The hydrologic success
criterion for this area is recommended to be 12 percent hydroperiod (see Section 7.2).
Wetland Enhancement
WC and WE are proposed for wetland enhancement at a credit ratio of 1.5:1. This proposed enhancement
area is approximately 1.53 acres in total. WC has sufficient hydrology to be jurisdictional, but has been
smoothed to improve surface water drainage, is threatened by a ditch (Ditch A) cutting from Howards
Creek, and sections of its forest community were cleared a few years ago. WE also has sufficient hydrology
to be jurisdictional but is currently disconnected from reach LD1. Activities proposed to enhance the
hydrology of the wetlands include lifting the channel bed to increase the frequency of overbank events,
installing shallow depressions in WC to enhance topographic diversity, plugging the remnants of Ditch A
and establishing a conservation easement. These will encourage the connectivity and long-term hydrology
of the jurisdictional features throughout this area. The shallow depressions will be no larger than 200
square feet each and make up no more than 0.02 acres of total wetland area of WC (Appendix Q. Activities
proposed to enhance the vegetation composition of the wetlands include treating invasive species where
necessary, using an appropriate seed mix with wetland species, planting an appropriate tree community in
recently cleared areas and areas lacking diversity.
Wetland Preservation
WD is proposed to generate preservation credit at a ratio of 10:1. This proposed preservation area is
approximately 2.47 acres. This area has been directly impacted by current and historic agricultural practices,
especially the installation of a perimeter ditch around the toe of slope, shallow internal ditches, and ditch
C; that would drain off -property if it weren't currently obstructed. These activities have lowered the
hydrologic function of the wetland; however, indicators such as hydric soil presence, vegetative
communities, and topographic location show that it remains a functioning wetland. Additional actions that
will preserve WD include the installation of a plug in Ditch C to prevent off -site maintenance from
impacting hydrology, treating invasive species, and protecting the feature in a conservation easement. This
will encourage the connectivity and long-term hydrology of the jurisdictional features throughout the
Project and will, in turn, promote the establishment of the surrounding wetlands.
6.1.4 Summary of Approach Changes from Prospectus
This section is intended to identify and explain the reasons for any deviations in the Project approach
between the mitigation plan and prospectus document.
Constraints
The prospectus stated that the Project was not within a FEMA floodway or floodplain. This was in error; as
stated in Section 3.4.2, the Project is within a FEMA 100-year floodplain, and a No Rise permit will be
obtained prior to construction.
The IRT requested that RES either expand the easement to the east on the south side of Lutz Dairy Farm
Road or to implement a BMP there to treat runoff coming from the adjacent livestock pens. RES was not
able to secure a land deal to expand the easement, due to the landowner not being interested. Therefore,
a treatment swale and pool along that slope will be put in to address runoff from the adjacent land use.
Stream Approach
There were no significant changes to the stream treatment approach on the Project since the prospectus.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 27 September 2023

Wetland Approach
The design approaches for the Project wetlands changed based on more detailed data collection: WB was
connected to and combined with WA, and the boundary of WC was expanded. Further, another existing
wetland, WE, was found during the hydric soil survey and added with an Enhancement approach. The
prospectus proposed 6.05 acres of wetland mitigation, generating 1.699 WMUs; the current wetland
approach proposes 8.273 acres of wetlands generating 2.689 WMUs.
6.2 Vegetation and Planting Plan
6.2.1 Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the Project. The selection of plant
species is based on typical native vegetation for the surrounding area, as well as plants that have performed
well in past restoration activities. The upland (Zone 1) within the Project is referencing Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype). The riparian wetland areas (Zone 2) within the project are
referencing Piedmont Alluvial Forest and Piedmont Bottomland Forest (Typic Low Subtype). Some alluvial
processes have a limited influence on vegetation and most characteristic alluvial species are scarce
(Schafale, 2012). Other factors that drove the species selection in Zone 2 were wetland indicator status,
waterlogging tolerance (adapted from Hook, 1984), and general industry experience with the success of
certain species within wetland areas.
Along LD1, the common species found were Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda), Red Maple (Acer rubrum),
American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), American Holly (Ilex opaca)
and Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Greenbriar (Smilax sp.) and ferns (Polystichum sp.) make up
the sub -canopy of the Project. There will be two different planting zones occurring on this Project: Planting
Zone 1 (Upland/Slopes) and Planting Zone 2 (Wetland/Floodplain). Planting Zone 1 will have 10.24 acres
being fully planted and the remaining 9.11 acres will be treated for invasives and planted with
supplemental trees where there is a lack of density or are impacted by construction. Planting Zone 2 will
have 7.08 acres being fully planted and the remaining 6.96 acres will be treated for invasives and planted
with supplemental trees where there is a lack of density or are impacted by construction. Full planting will
occur within currently cleared areas, including actively used paths, and any areas that need to be cleared
for stream construction, while supplemental planting and invasive treatment is proposed for existing
forested areas to enhance the density and/or species composition of the existing buffer, as needed.
Both planting zones have a unique planting plan which was determined using multiple sources. The tree
species lists have been developed and can be found in Tables 14 and 15. Specific planting area zones can
be found in the design plan sheets in Appendix D and Figure 13.
The restoration of plant communities throughout the Project will provide stability and diversity. For rapid
stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), eastern
cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and black willow (Salix nigra) were chosen for live stakes along the restored
channels. Live stakes grow at a faster rate than the species planted around them, providing faster bank
stabilization and contribution of organic matter to the channel than the other planted woody species. As
the community matures, the live stakes will slowly stop growing or die out as the other species outgrow
them and shade them out. The live -stake species will be planted along the outside of the meander bends
out three feet from the top of bank, creating a three-foot section along the top of bank. The live stakes
will be spaced at least one per three linear feet with alternate spacing vertically. The permanent seed mix
shown in the design plan sheets (Appendix D) will also be used on the stream banks and throughout the
floodplain to provide both initial and long-term bank and site stabilization. A pollinator -friendly seed mix
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 28 September 2023

will has been proposed in order to attract and promote pollinator species. This seed mix and planted tree
selection includes pollinator species such as oxeye sunflower (Heliopsis helianthoides), blackeyed susan
(Rudbeckia hirta), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Lanceleaf coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata), flowering dogwood (Cornus
florda), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and buttonbush (Cepholanthus occidentalis). The variety of plant
species to be used in both planting zones will provide a diverse plant community through the stream,
riparian buffer, and wetland complex.
Species with high dispersal rates are not included because of local occurrence, adjacent seed sources, and
the high potential for natural regeneration. Examples of high dispersal species include red maple and
sweetgum. In order to maintain integrity of the mature forested areas adjacent proposed stream
restoration construction corridors, tree clearing will be limited to the greatest extent practicable. It is
anticipated that the construction will be completed by the spring; therefore, vegetation planting will be
completed by March 15, and there will be at least 180 days until the initiation of the first year of monitoring.
Furthermore, any replanting that may occur throughout the monitoring phase of the Project will occur
between November 15 and March 15, per the October 2016 USACE/NCIRT monitoring guidance.
Table 74. Proposed Bare Root Planting Lists
Common Name
American sycamore
10.24 acres full
Scientific Name
Platanus occidentalis
Hardwood
planting plus
Spacing
9x6
Forest (Piedmont
supplemental areas
Unit Wetiand
Type Indicator
Status*
Subtype)
Sub-
Canopy vs
Canopy
Canopy
%
Composition
10
Bare root
FACW
American beech
Fa us grandifolia
9x6
Bare root
FACU
Canopy
10
River birch
Betula ni ra
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
10
Tulip poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
9x6
Bare root
FACU
Canopy
10
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
9x6
Bare root
FAC
Canopy
10
Water oak
Quercus ni ra
9x6
Bare root
FAC
Canopy
10
White oak
Quercus alba
9x6
Bare root
FACU
Canopy
10
Northern red oak
Quercus rubra
9x6
Bare root
FACU
Canopy
10
Flowering dogwood
Cornus florida
9x6
Bare root
FACU
Sub-canop
10
American persimmon
Diosp ros vir iniana
9x6
Bare root
FAC
Sub -Canopy
10
* Based on NRCS-USDA Wetland Indicator Status for Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Zone
Common Name
Overcup oak
2- Piedmont Alluvial Forest
7.08 acres full
Scientific Name
Quercus l rata
/ Piedmont Bottomiand Forest
planting plus supplemental area
Unit Wetiand
Spacing Type Indicator
9x6 Bare root OBL
(Typic Low Subtype)
CanopyPlanting
Sub-
Canopy vs
Canopy
%
Composition
10
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
9x6 Bare root FAC
Canopy
10
Water oak
Quercus ni ra
9x6 Bare root FAC
Canopy
10
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
9x6 Bare root FACW
Canopy
10
Americansycamore
Platanus occidentalis
9x6 Bare root I FACW
Canopy
10
River birch
Betula ni ra
9x6 Bare root FACW
Canopy
10
Tulip poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
9x6 Bare root FACU
Canopy
10
American hornbeam
Carpinus caroliniona
9x6 Bare root FAC
Sub -canopy
10
Green ash
Fraxinus
penns lvanica
9x6 Bare root FACW
Canopy
5
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 29 September 2023

American elm
Ulmus americana
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Canopy
5
Sugarberry
Celtis laevi ata
9x6
Bare root
FACW
Sub -canopy
5
Cephalanthus
Buttonbush
9x6
Bare root
OBL
Sub -Canopy
5
occidentalis
* Based on NRCS-USDA Wetland Indicator Status for Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Table 15. Proposed Live Stake Planting List
* Based on NRCS-USDA Wetland Indicator Status for Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
6.2.2 On Site Invasive Species Management
Initial treatment for invasive species will occur during the construction phase of the Project throughout the
entire easement area. While the whole Project will be evaluated and treated, specific areas along LD1 have
known occurrences of invasive species. Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment
methods, depending on plant phenology and the location of the species being treated. All treatment will
be conducted to maximize its effectiveness and reduce the chances of detriment to surrounding native
vegetation. Treatment methods will include mechanical (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and
chemical (foliar spray, cut stump, basal spray, and hack and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature,
viable seeds will be removed from the Project, and properly disposed. Based on existing conditions,
Chinese Privet, multiflora rose, tree of heaven, and Japanese stiltgrass was observed throughout the
Project. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a certified ground pesticide applicator with a North
Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) license and adhere to all legal and
safety requirements according to herbicide labels, and NC and Federal laws. Management records will be
kept on the plant species treated, type of treatment employed, type of herbicide used, application
technique, and herbicide concentration and quantities used. These records will be included in all reporting
documents.
6.2.3 Soil Restoration
Upon completion of all construction activities and prior to planting, the subsoil will be harrowed, and any
compaction will be disturbed. Applicable areas within the easement will be prepared using a subsoiler to
a minimum depth of 12 inches. Soil testing will be completed prior to construction to determine what
amendments should be applied to the soil. Completing this process will ensure favorable soil conditions
to promote rapid plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the
Project.
6.3 Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been utilized to develop the restoration design described in this
document. A combination of empirical and analytical methods was used in the design for this Project.
These methods were deemed appropriate due to the Project's rural location, the relatively small size of the
watershed, the known causes of disturbance and plan to abate them, and the minimal infrastructure
constraints. The original design parameters were developed from a combination of empirical and analytical
models and were adjusted through an iterative process before being applied to the restoration reach.
Numerical methods such as the modeling of fluvial processes, and the development of bankfull discharge
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 30 September 2023

simulations were used for the iterative analysis and refinement of the design. The restoration design
proposed in this report aims to provide natural Piedmont gravel -bed channel features that will promote
stream bed diversity and improve aquatic communities. The proposed design promotes flow along the
floodplain for storm events that exceed the bankfull stage. The stream corridor, floodplain, and wetland
areas will be planted with a diverse mix of plant and tree species. A complete plant list can be found in
Tables 14 and 15 above as well as in Appendix D.
A large portion of the existing streams will be filled using material excavated from the restoration channels.
A combination of native woody material, biodegradable stabilization materials, and stone will be installed
throughout each restored reach. These materials will reduce bank stress, provide grade control, and
increase habitat diversity.
Wetland creation, enhancement, and preservation are being proposed for the various jurisdictional
wetlands throughout the Project and in areas where existing conditions prove to be appropriate for
establishing wetland communities. These areas will be planted with a diverse mix of plant species
commonly found in wetland complexes.
Forested riparian buffers of at least 30 feet on both sides of the channel will be established and enhanced
along the Project reach in areas currently lacking buffer and those that are impacted during construction.
A combination of Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype), Piedmont Alluvial Forest, and
Piedmont Bottomland Forest (Typic Low Subtype) communities will be established and include a diverse
combination of plant species.
A multitude of sediment control measures will be utilized on site. These sediment control measures include
riparian buffer planting, bank stabilization, stream restoration, wetland creation, and wetland
enhancement. These measures will provide functional uplift of the site by limiting the nutrient input and
sediment from activities outside of the proposed conservation easement.
This Project proposes temporary and permanent impacts to the stream restoration reach and existing
wetland areas. All stream and wetland impacts will be accounted for in the Pre -Construction Notification
(PCN) form.
6.4 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 16 are Projections based upon site design (Figure 12). Upon
completion of site construction, the Project components and credits data will only be revised to be
consistent with the as -built condition if there is a large discrepancy and with an approved mitigation plan
addendum. This will be approved by the USACE, in consultation with the IRT.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 31 September 2023

Table 16. Mitigation Credits
Stream Mitigation
Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Stationing
LD1 Restoration 0+41 to 17+08
Existing Proposed
Length Length
1,866 1,667
Mitigation
Ratio
1:1
SMUS
1,667.000
LD1 Restoration 17+94 to 26+42
941
848
1:1
848.000
LD1 Restoration 26+91 to 46+82
1,769
1,991
1:1
1,991.000
Totals
4,576
4,506
4,506.600
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-202.780
Credit Gain in Required Buffer
371.890
Non -Standard Buffer Width Adjustment*
169.110
Total Adjusted SMUs
4,675.110
*SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- "Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator", supplied to Providers in
January 2027, from the USACE. A detailed description of the methodology and calculations is described below in Section 6.4 as well
as Appendix C and Figure 12.
Table 16. Mitigation Credits (Continued)
MitigationWetland ID
WA Creation
Wetland
4.272
Mitigation
.. .
3:1
WMLI
1.424
WC Enhancement
1.310
1.5:1
0.873
WD Preservation
2.474
10:1
0.247
WE Enhancement
0.217
1.5:1
0.145
Totals
8.273
2.689
**Areas generating wetland credit are either within the proposed 50-foot stream buffer area, are designated as ineligible areas that
are not viable for additional stream credit or are wholly outside of the Non-standard buffer width areas generating additional stream
credit (greater than 750 feet); therefore, additional stream credit areas and wetland credit areas do not overlap.
6.4.1 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths
The latest version of Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator released by the USACE in January
2021, was utilized to calculate functional uplift credit adjustments. To perform this calculation, GIS analysis
was performed to determine the area (in square feet) of ideal buffer zones and actual buffer zones around
all streams within the Project. Minimum standard buffer widths are measured from the top of bank (50 feet
in Piedmont and Coastal Plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties). The ideal buffers are the maximum
potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated
using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The actual buffer is the square feet in each buffer zone,
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 32 September 2023

as measured by GIS, excluding non -forested areas, all other credit types (e.g., wetland), easement
exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. The stream
terminal ends are where the streams exit or enter the project boundary, not including internal stream
crossings. Terminal ends are exempt when they are located at the edge of a parcel boundary or public
road crossing. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are
more than 150 feet from creditable streams were not included in this measurement. The stream lengths,
mitigation type, ideal buffer, and actual buffer are all entered into the calculator. This data is processed,
and the resulting credit amounts are totaled for the whole Project (Figures 13).
As mentioned earlier, areas generating wetland credit are designated as ineligible areas that are not viable
for additional stream credit or are wholly outside of the Non-standard buffer width areas generating
additional stream credit (greater than 150 feet); therefore, additional stream credit areas and wetland credit
areas do not overlap.
7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Project will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in the 2016
USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update and subsequent agency
guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
7.1 Stream Success Criteria
7.1.1 Bankfull Events
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
7.1.2 Cross Sections
There should be little change in as -built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -cutting or
erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified
using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. The bank height ratio shall not
exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be greater than 2.2 within restored riffle cross sections (for C
and E streams).
7.2 Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
The NRCS does not have a WETS table for Lincoln County with a long enough record which to base the
average growing season (based on 30-year averages). The closest data station with sufficient data was
determined to be the WETS station in Cleveland County along Polkville Road approximately 0.5 mi south
of Shelby Bypass East in Shelby, NC, which is approximately 19 miles southwest of the Project. This station
determines the growing season to be 223 days long, extending from March 26 to November 4, and is
based on a daily minimum temperature greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years.
The hydric soils in the floodplain of this project reflect most characteristics expected to occur at this site
and also shown on the NRCS map. The occurrence of soils similar to Wehadkee soil was found in
depressional areas having a significant source of hydrology capable of supporting a high-water table.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 33 September 2023

The remaining floodplain soils are similar to Chewacla soil. Based on mitigation guidance for Piedmont
soils (US Army Corps of Engineers 2016), the Wehadkee series (Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts) is expected
during the growing season where the water table is within 12 inches of the surface to have a natural
hydroperiod of between 12 and 16 percent. The Chewacla soil is not considered hydric due to lack of
development of hydric indicators but is expected to have a natural hydroperiod that ranges between 10
and 12 percent during the growing season. A Riverview type soil may have hydroperiods of 7 to 9 percent.
Upland soil surrounding the floodplain is not included in the Corps guidance and are not anticipated to
have significant hydroperiods.
Based on the soil's similarity to the NRCS mapped units, a general success criterion of 10-16% may be
expected across both existing wetlands (WC, WD, WE) and the wetland creation (WA). Due to the current
drainage modifications, it may take up to a year for the site to become completely saturated and reach the
target hydroperiods. For the first two years after construction, it may be reasonable to expect a lower
hydroperiod of 9%, depending on final construction timing and rainfall (assuming at least average seasonal
rainfall, antecedent conditions, and over bank flow frequency). These suggested hydroperiods are subject
to factors related to stream design and frequency of flooding, construction accuracy, local topography,
and local drainage after construction. Therefore, hydrology success criterion for the Project is to restore
the water table so that it will remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least nine
percent of the growing season (approximately 20 days) in monitoring year one, and 10 percent of the
growing season (approximately 22 days) in monitoring years two, three, four, five, six, and seven at each
groundwater gauge location. These success criteria assume normal precipitation during the monitoring
year. More details about wetland restoration success criteria can be found in the Soil Report in Appendix
C.
7.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project will
follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the survival of at
least 320 planted three -year -old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, a minimum of 260 five -year -old trees
at 7 feet in height at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per acre
with an average height of 10 feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to
species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports. In order for a volunteer tree to count towards
success criteria, it must be a species on the approved planting list and be present at least two growing
seasons. Moreover, any single species can only account for up to 50 percent of the required number of
stems within any vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50 percent will be shown in the monitoring table
but will not be used to demonstrate success. Additionally, invasive species will be monitored and
controlled to under five percent of the easement area.
S MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring will be conducted for seven years post -construction. Annual monitoring data will be reported
according to NC IRT monitoring guidance. The monitoring report shall provide a Project data chronology
that will facilitate an understanding of Project status and trends, research purposes, and assist in decision
making regarding Project close-out. Monitoring reports will be prepared annually and submitted to the
USACE. Monitoring of the Project will adhere to metrics and performance standards established by the
USACE's April 2003 Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the IRT's October 2016
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Table 17 outlines the links
between Project goals, objectives, and treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and
performance standards. The monitoring plan is presented in Figure 14a & 14b.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 34 September 2023

8.1 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank to
compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual monitoring
reports unless requested by USACE.
8.2 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year (MY)
by qualified individuals. To document vegetative conditions, a series of photos over time should indicate
successional maturation of riparian vegetation and will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species,
and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete stream -walk
and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to record each
monitoring event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Fixed image locations will exist
at each cross section, vegetation plot, stage recorder, wetland gauge, crossing, and culverts entering the
Project. Results of visual monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of
problem areas and digital images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation
or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of channel structures.
Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive
increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation
of the banks over time.
8.3 Stream Hydrology Events
One continuous stage recorder, a device that utilizes an automatic -logging pressure transducer, that is
capable of documenting the height, frequency, and duration of bankfull events, will be installed on the
Restoration reach LD1 (Figure 14a & 14b).
8.4 Cross Sections
Permanent cross -sections will be installed at approximately one per 20 bankfull widths with half in pools
and half in riffles on Reach LD1. Only riffle cross-section measurements will include bank height ratio and
entrenchment ratio. There should be minimal changes in the annual monitoring cross sections from the
as -built cross sections. If changes do take place, they will be evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a less stable condition (for example downcutting or erosion) or are minor changes that
represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or
decrease in width/depth ratio). Channel stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of four
bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring period. Cross-section surveys will occur in
monitoring Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. A total of 18 cross sections are proposed for this Project (Figure 14a &
14b).
8.5 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydrologic conditions in the wetland creation and
enhancement areas. This will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges
installed in representative locations across the restoration areas as well as the preservation wetland areas
for reference conditions. Gauge installation will follow current NCIRT guidance. The gauges will be
downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be calculated during the growing season. Visual
observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators will also be recorded during quarterly
site visits.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 35 September 2023

A total of eight groundwater gauges are proposed across the Project; five in created wetlands and three
in enhanced or preserved, jurisdictional wetlands, serving as hydrologic references. Soil data including
borings, horizon information, and wetland gauge measurements will be collected during the as -built site
setup and again during monitoring year 7 (MY7), for comparison to check for development of hydric soil
characteristics. Due to lack of widespread hydric indicators and the redder, high iron soils, the formation
of hydric indicators will likely be slow. Evidence most likely observable will be mottles along soil pores and
root channels. This data will be included in both the as -built report and the final close-out monitoring
report.
If, by the fifth year of monitoring, successful hydroperiods of created wetlands are not achieved, RES staff
will perform a second wetland delineation to locate created and existing areas of jurisdictional features.
Additional photos and site notes will be included in yearly monitoring reports when necessary.
An ambient pressure transducer will be installed on site that will be used to correct the wetland hydrology
and stream hydrology data. This will be placed at an easily accessed location and will be downloaded at
each monitoring event (Figure 14a & 14b).
8.6 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring plots will be 100 square meters, or 0.025 acres, in size and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be 15 plots in total within the project area. Plots will be a mixture
of fixed and random plots, with 11 fixed plots and 4 random plots. Of the fixed plots, six plots will be within
Zone 1 planting areas (10.24 ac), four plots within the Zone 2 planting areas (7.08 acres), and one plot that
is split between Zone 1 and Zone 2. The four random vegetation plots will alternate locations each year
(Figure 14a & 14b). Planted area indicates all areas in the easement that will be planted with trees, but
not supplemental areas that are currently forested. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the
fixed plots: species, height, planting date (or volunteer), and grid location. For random plots, species and
height will be recorded for all woody stems. The location (GPS coordinates and orientation) of the random
plots will be identified in the annual monitoring reports. Vegetation will be planted, and plots established
at least 180 days prior to the initiation of the first year of monitoring. Monitoring will occur in Years 1, 2,
3, 5, and 7 between July 1st and leaf drop. Any revegetation or replanting should be conducted between
November 151" and March 151". Invasive and noxious species will be monitored so that none become
dominant or alter the desired community structure of the Project. If necessary, RES will develop a species -
specific treatment plan.
8.7 Scheduling/Reporting
A baseline monitoring report and as -built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be
developed within 60 days of the planting completion on the Project. The report will include all information
required by IRT mitigation plan guidelines, including elevations, photographs and sampling plot locations,
gauge locations, a description of initial species composition by community type, and verification of the
installation of conservation easement markers and signage. The report will also include a list of the species
planted and the associated densities and will document any changes from the planting plan in Section
6.3.1. Baseline vegetation monitoring will include species, height, date of planting, and grid location of
each stem. The baseline report will follow USACE guidelines. In addition, the baseline monitoring report
will also include red -line drawings comparing the recorded drawings to the final mitigation plan design
sheets.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the success
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 36 September 2023

of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final success
criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports must be completed for all seven years. Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall
of each year and submitted to the IRT no later than April 111 of the year. The monitoring reports will include
all information and be in the format required by USACE.
Table 17. Monitoring Requirements.
Monitoring Device
ComponentMitigation
Metric
Quantity
Success Criteria
Stage recorders:
Four bankfull events occurring in
Downloaded
1
semiannually
separate years
Entrenchment ratio shall be no less
Cross sections:
than 2.2 within restored reaches
Stream
Surveyed in
18
Bank height ratio shall not exceed
MY 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
1.2
As -built stream profile
N/A
N/A
Visual monitoring:
Photos at each cross
Identify and document significant
Performed at least
section, stage recorder,
stream problem areas
semiannually
flow gauge, and crossing
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 37 September 2023

Water table within 12 inches of the
ground surface for:
Groundwater gauges:
8
9% of growing season (z 20 days)
Downloaded quarterly
in MY1
10% of growing season (z 22 days)
Wetland
in MY2, MY3, MY4, MY5, MY6, MY7
Visual monitoring
including integrity of
Photos at each
Identify and document significant
ditch plugs/fill:
groundwater gauge
wetland problem areas
Performed at least
semiannual)
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
Vegetation plots:
15 Total
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall
Surveyed in
(11 Fixed, 4 Random)
canopy species)
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall
Vegetation*
canopy species)
Visual monitoring:
Photos at each
Identify and document significant
Performed at least
vegetation plot
vegetation problem areas
semiannual)
Visual assessment of
Conservation
established
Inspect signage and fencing.
Easement
conservation signage
N/A
Identify and document any
and fencing: Performed
damaged or missing signs/fencing
at least semiannual)
* Success of component applies to success of Stream, Headwater stream, and Wetland components
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 38 September 2023

9 INVASIVE SPECIES PLAN
Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
Project. These site inspections may identify the presence of invasive vegetation. RES will treat invasive
species vegetation within the Project area and provide remedial action on a case -by -case basis.
Common invasive species vegetation throughout the Project, such as Chinese privet and multiflora rose,
will be treated to allow native plants to become established within the conservation easement. Invasive
species vegetation will be treated by approved mechanical and/or chemical methods such that the
percent composition of exotic/invasive species is less than five percent of the total riparian buffer area.
Any control methods requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. If areas of invasive species exist within the
easement, they will be monitored yearly as part of the monitoring protocol and treated if necessary. If
required, problem areas will continue to be treated until the Project easement shows overall trending
towards meeting all monitoring requirements.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 39 September 2023

10 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The Project will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection will be conducted a minimum
of once per year throughout the post construction monitoring period until performance standards are
met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction
and may include the following:
Table 78. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in -
stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the
channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel may
Stream
also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head cutting. Stream
maintenance activities will be documented and reported in annual monitoring
reports. Stream maintenance will continue through the monitoring period. If any
repairs result in a change from the approved plans, RES will notify the IRT of the
tanned repairs.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant
Vegetation
species shall be treated by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation
control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. Vegetation maintenance
activities will be documented and reported in annual monitoring reports.
Vegetation maintenance will continue through the monitoring period.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between
the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be marked with signs
identifying the property as a mitigation site and will include the name of the long -
Project Boundary
term steward and a contact number. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will
be repaired and/or replaced on an as -needed basis. Easement monitoring and
stakin /si na e maintenance will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by Conservation
Road Crossing
Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor
agreements. Crossings in easement breaks are the responsibility of the landowner
to maintain.
Routine site visits and monitoring will be used to determine if beaver management
is needed. If beaver activity poses a threat to Project stability or vegetative success,
Beaver
RES will trap beavers and remove impoundments as needed. All beaver
management activities will be documented and included in annual monitoring
reports. Beaver monitoring and management will continue through the monitoring
period.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 40 September 2023

ioa Risks and Uncertainties
While RES is committed to restoring the stream system and protecting its associated riparian areas
throughout the Project, it is acknowledged that potential risks and uncertainties may arise. Risks during
design and planning have been addressed throughout the design parameters, Section 6.2 and in the
plan sheets found in Appendix D. Monitoring these risks will ensure the success of the Project. General
risks that are common on restoration Projects are discussed above in Table 18 as they are typical
maintenance activities that occur throughout the monitoring period.
By understanding and monitoring these risks, RES is better equipped to combat areas of concern not
only throughout the Beaver Tail Mitigation Site, but also future project sites that may require similar
considerations. In addition to the general risks associated with stream and wetland mitigation projects,
there are potential project -specific risks:
NCDOT Culvert on Lutz Dairy Farm Road
While no work is currently proposed on the culvert along LD1 through 2033, it is likely that the culverts
will require maintenance and/or replacement at some point in the future. For this to occur, LD1 would
be impacted within the areas just upstream and downstream of the road, outside of the proposed
conservation easement. While it is anticipated that this work would result in temporary stream impacts,
long-term impacts are not likely given the proposed grade control structures to be installed just outside
the potential impact area.
Wetland Creation
There is some uncertainty associated with wetland creation work and the feasibility of created wetlands
establishing successful hydroperiods in the years following stream and wetland construction. These
created wetlands should begin to provide some of the typical wetland functions once vegetation is
established. It may take up to two years for the full extent of the creation areas to become completely
saturated and reach the target hydroperiods. For the first two years after construction, it is reasonable
to expect a hydroperiod between 9 and 10 percent, depending on final construction timing and rainfall.
Due to the nature of wetland creation, the hydroperiod may be depressed into the second year. RES
believes these created wetlands will meet performance criteria of a minimum 10 percent hydroperiod;
however, the duration of time in which it takes to establish these hydroperiods is uncertain and will be
monitored accordingly. If, by the fifth year of monitoring, successful hydroperiods of created wetlands
are not achieved, RES staff will perform a second wetland delineation to locate created and existing
areas of jurisdictional features. Additional photos and site notes will be included in yearly monitoring
reports when necessary.
By understanding and monitoring these risks, RES is better equipped to combat areas of concern not
only throughout the Beaver Tail Mitigation Project, but also future Project sites that may require similar
considerations.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 41 September 2023

11 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of Project construction, RES will implement the post -construction monitoring
protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described
previously in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is determined that the site's
ability to achieve performance standards arejeopardized or if a repair will result in a change to approved
plans, RES will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. Once the Corrective
Action Plan is prepared and finalized RES will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Prepare Corrective Action Plan for review and approval by IRT.
5. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
6. Provide the IRT a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 42 September 2023

12 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved mitigation
plan of the Project. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
DA authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise
provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for
construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the IRT, will determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release
schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be
released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended,
depending on the extent to which the Project fails to meet the specified performance standard. The
release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described in Table 19 and Table 20.
i2.i Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the IRT
with written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a) Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
b) Approval of the final mitigation plan;
c) Mitigation site must be secured;
d) Delivery of financial assurances;
e) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
f) Issuance of the 404-permit verification for construction of the site, if required;
g) Documentation of the establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow account
12.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
The second credit release will occur after the completion of implementation of the Mitigation Plan
and IRT approval of the Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey. All subsequent credit
releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a determination that
required performance standards have been achieved. As Projects approach milestones associated with
credit release, the Sponsor will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with
documentation substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This
documentation will be included with the annual monitoring report.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 43 September 2023

Table 19. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Release
Stream Credit Release Schedule
Interim
Total
Milestone
Credit Release Activity
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated above)
Release
15%
Released
15%
1
Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey
15%
30%
2
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being
10%
40%
3
met.
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
10%
50%
4
being met.
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being
10%
60%
5
met.
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
5%
65%*
6
being met.
(75%**)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being
10%
75%
7
met.
(85%**)
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being
5%
80%*
8
met.
(90%**)
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
10%
90%
being met, and Project has received close-out approval.
(100%**)
9
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring years unless otherwise stated by the
Mitigation Plan or directed by the IRT. **70% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Table 20. Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Release
Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Interim
Total
Milestone
Credit Release Activity
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated above)
Release
15%
Released
15%
1
Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey
15%
30%
2
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
40%
3
are being met.
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
50%
4
standards are being met.
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
60%
5
are being met.
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
5%
65%*
6
standards are being met.
(75%**)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
75%
7
are being met.
(85%**)
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
5%
80%*
8
are being met.
(90%**)
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
90%
standards are being met, and project has received close-out
(100%**)
9
approval.
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring years unless otherwise stated by the
Mitigation Plan or directed by the IRT. **70% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 44 September 2023

13 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval of the Project by the IRT, the Project will be transferred to Unique Places to Save (UP2S):
Unique Places to Save
(919)-428-2040
PO Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
hwww.uniqueplacestosave.org
UP2S will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Easements will be stewarded
in general accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land Trust Alliance. Specific
responsibilities include:
a. Monitoring of site is conducted on an annual basis.
b. An on -site inspection is conducted once per year.
C. Visits to the site are coordinated with landowner when possible.
d. Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible.
e. Signage for the easement boundary is maintained.
f. Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are
promptly communicated to the landowner.
Unique Places To Save (UP2S) will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Project to ensure that
restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld.
Easements held by the UP2S are stewarded in general accordance with the guidelines published by the
National Land Trust Alliance. These guidelines include annual monitoring visits to easements and
related communication with the landowner(s). During the visit a standard report is completed, and
pictures taken for the record. If violation of the easement terms is found within the Project area, UP2S
works with the landowner to ensure the problem is rectified. When appropriate UP2S pursues legal
action to enforce the easement terms. UP2S typically requires the Project developer to install standard
UP2S Signage as part of the easement transfer package. This includes well marked corners of the
easement boundary, as well as plastic or metal signs identifying the easement. The current sign standard
is a six -inch -by -six-inch aluminum sign with contact information. Signs are refreshed as needed.
Typically, a sign will last five to ten years before it is no longer legible due to fading from the sun.
UP2S requires an endowment for each easement it agrees to hold. Endowments are sized so that the
interest from the principal will pay the expected monitoring costs for that easement. This assumes a
seven-year monitoring period for the Project during which UP2S will not incur any expenses. It also
assumes a five percent annual return. This flat fee includes a property walkthrough, report, pictures,
sign installation, etc. Funding will be provided upfront to UP2S upon the easement closing in the
amount of $56,158.00. This fee ensures annual Site inspections occur and the terms of the conservation
easement are legally defended into perpetuity. An overview of the UP2S Easement Stewardship
program and the details on the specific endowment fee is included in Appendix A.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 45 September 2023

14 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $1,150,000 Construction Performance
Bond to the USACE to assure completion of mitigation construction and planting. Construction and
planting costs are estimated to be at or below $1,150,000 based on the Engineer's construction
materials estimate and recent bid tabulation unit costs for construction materials. Following completion
of construction and planting the Construction Performance Bond will be retired and a $200,000
Maintenance and Monitoring Performance Bond will be provided to assure completion of seven years
of monitoring and reporting, and any remedial work required during the monitoring period. The
$200,000 amount includes contingency and estimated monitoring costs from the Engineer. The
Maintenance and Monitoring Performance Bond will be reduced by $28,571 following approval of each
annual monitoring report. The Maintenance and Monitoring Performance Bond will be retired in total
following official notice of site close-out from the IRT. Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby
trust or other designee at the direction of the obligee. Financial assurances structured to provide funds
to the USACE in the event of default by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable. A financial assurance must
be in the form that ensures that the USACE receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any
termination or revocation. The Performance Bonds will be provided by a surety listed with the U.S.
Treasury and has an A.M. Best Rating of B or above. All Performance Bonds will be submitted to the
USACE in draft form for approval prior to execution. In the event of Sponsor default, UP2S has agreed
to receive the funds and ensure the work is successfully completed.
Table 27. Financial Assurances
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc.)
$100,000
Sitework
$400,000
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs, logs, rocks, coir, etc.)
$200,000
Crossings
$50,000
Vegetation
$200,000
Miscellaneous/Admin Fees
$200,000
Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Set -Up, As -Built, & Equipment
Total $1,150,000
$30,000
Year 1 Monitoring and Report
$10,000
Year 2 Monitoring and Report
$10,000
Year 3 Monitoring and Report
$10,000
Year 4 Monitoring and Report
$10,000
Year 5 Monitoring and Report
$10,000
Year 6 Monitoring and Report
$10,000
Year 7 Monitoring and Report
$10,000
Maintenance and Contingency
$100,000
Total $200,000
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 46
September 2023

15 REFERENCES
Cluer, B. and Thorne, C. 2014. A Stream Evolution Model Integrating Habitat and Ecosystem Benefits.
River Research and Application: 30: 135-154. Wiley Online Library.
https:Hdoi.org/l 0.1002/rra.2631
Doll, Barbara. Et al. 2002 "Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams throughout the
Piedmont of North Carolina" Journal of the American Water Resources Association Vol 38,
No3. June 2002
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2007. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map: Panel
3710360400J. https:Hmsc.fema.ciov/portal/search.
Fischenich, C. 2001. "Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials." ERDC Technical Note No.
EMRRP-SR-29, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Miss.
Fischenich, J.C., 2006. Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration, EMRRP Technical Notes Collection
(ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-52), US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. (available online at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr52.pdf)
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -Based
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Hook, Donald D. 1984. "Waterlogging Tolerance of Lowland Tree Species of the South." Southern
Journal of Applied Forestry, Volume 8, Issue 3. August 1984.
Jennings Environmental. 2020. Stream geomorphology data collection and analysis: South Carolina
ecoregions 66, 45, 65, 63. Columbia, SC: Jennings Environmental for South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from
https://www.dnr.sc.ciov/environmental/streamrestoration.htmI
Lincoln County. 2018. Lincoln County Land Use Plan. LUP- Layout- Letter- FINALweb (lincolncounty.org)
Lotspeich, R.R., 2009, Regional curves of bankfull channel geometry for non -urban streams in the
Piedmont Physiographic Province, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2009-5206, 51 p.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2023. State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP): 2024-2033.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2010. "Methodology for Identification of
Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins." NC DWR.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeg/Water%20Quality/Surface%20Water%20Protection/401/Policies Gu
ides Manuals/StreamlD v 412ointl1 Final sept 01 2010.12df
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 47 September 2023

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (NCDNCR). 2021. "NC State Historic
Preservation Office." NCSHPO. https://www.ncdcr.ciov/about/history/division-historical-
resources/nc-state-historic-preservation-office
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007 (amended 2013). Catawba River Basin
restoration priorities. M. Herrmann and H. Bryson (Eds.). Retrieved from:
https://www.deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-
planning-documents/catawba-river-basin-documents
NCEEP. 2010a. Indian Creek and Howards Creek local watershed plan: Final watershed management
plan. H. Bryson and M. Herrmann (Eds.).
NCEEP. 2010b. Indian Creek and Howards Creek local watershed plan: Watershed assessment Report.
M. Herrman and H. Bryson (Eds.).
North Carolina National Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2021. North Carolina Natural Heritage Data
Explorer. https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/. (Accessed October 2021).
Resource Environmental Solutions. 2021. Beaver Tail Project Final Prospectus.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology, 2 d edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2, December 24,
2002.
USACE. 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
USACE. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern
mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0), eds. J.F Berkowitz, R.W. Lichvar, C.V. Noble,
and J.S. Wakeley. ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.
USACE. 2022. Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator.
USACE. 2021. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
United State Department of Agriculture — Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). Web
Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. "Ecoregions of North Carolina and
South Carolina." US EPA. https://www.epa.clov/eco-research/ecoreclion-download-files-state-
reclion-4. (Accessed November 2021).
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 48 September 2023

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. "Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina." North Carolina Ecological Services.
httpss://ipac.ecosphere.fws.ciov/location/TTZT7UFHKNE2HM5AU2H5Ll3B34/resources.
(Accessed October 2021).
USFWS. 2022. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C. http://www.fws. gov/wetlands/.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.
USDA NRCS. National Water and Climate Center. Agricultural Applied Climate Information System
(AgACIS). http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=37163
USDA NRCS. 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH 654), USDA
USDA NRCS. 1995. Soil Survey of Lincoln County, North Carolina.
USDA NRCS. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W.
Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.
Beaver Tail Mitigation Plan 49 September 2023

Supporting Figures
Figure i —
Service Area
Figure 2 —
Project Vicinity
Figure 3a
& 3b — Historical Imagery
Figure 4 —
Landowner Parcels
Figure 5 —
USGS Quadrangle
Figure 6 —
Project Drainage Areas
Figure 7 —
Land Use
Figure 8 —
LiDAR
Figure 9 —
Mapped Soils
Figure 10
— Existing Conditions
Figure ii
— Project Constraints
Figure 12
— Conceptual Design
Figure 13
— Buffer Width Zones
Figure 14a & 14b — Monitoring Plan

Cherokee 221
on City National Forest
64
74
221
Proposed Easement
NC 14-Digit HUC - 03050102040040
Catawba Expanded Service Area
NC 8-Digit HUC
Q 03050101
Q 03050102
03050103
� Leriolr
0� gp 64
Morganton
0
Beaver Tail
Mitigation Project
Shelby
0
1S
176
W
0
m
18 A.
m
❑5
0
cko
321
Rock H
0
L
Ile
`ono d
N
A Reference: Project limits are approximate. The
Figure 1 property boundaries depicted on this map have
not been surveyed and are for prospect
Service Area assessment purposes only. This information is not
1in = 12 mi to be used as final legal boundaries.Beaver Tail .,an Printed at 8.5xtr Data Source: N/A
02.5 5Spatial Reference:Lincoln County, North Carolina m NAD19832011StatePlaneNorthCarolinaFIPS p!es
res.us
81.441°W 35.5525°N Miles 3200 Ft US
Cartographer: hgadai I POC: BC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\105546_Beaver_Tail\PRO\3_Permitting\3_Mitigation Plan\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTailNEW\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTail.aprx I Layout: Figure 1 - Service Area - Beaver Tail I Date Exported: 8/24/2023

RQepsville Rrt
L13
G`
er
c`
1,85
My ,
Howards Cfeek
,W In
lea
Q
QRazzberry's Hair Salon C
e
Q �9
Fa
QProposed Easement
DMS Mitigation Site (Owls Den)
NC 14-Digit HUC - 03050102040040
Catawba Expanded Service Area
O�
a
�eePsV,11ead Da 'el Lutheran Church
11,3 19
4
- 1I04
1204
a
11E5 O
3
0
Ic Farm
9 ,
Sunny Ridge Farmv
1203
I
Reepccillf R.+
1203
Howards eek
n
e
Morganton Hi
J
„84 Reel Counseling Servinas 0
Norris S. Childers
Elementary School r--
Gaffney
Brads concrete finishing Q anbur O g
BlueLineDelai y
FM_
F
Y
1113
9 Rebecca'S
o`
r
P�
°tea
C11 D&D Automobilla Q
F°
r°
a
O�
O'
100E
yokel
V
d a°k
atesville
•Rock Hill
AM
N
A Reference: Project limits are approximate. The
Figureproperty boundaries depicted on this map have
•ro_Vicinity ct
not been surveyed and are for prospect
assessment purposes only. This information is not p!es
1in = 1,Booft to be used as final legal boundaries.when Pelted at 8.5xir.Data Source: USGS, GoogleMapsBeaver Tail 49W
0 900 1,800Spatial Reference:Lincoln County, North Carolina NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS res.us
81.3147°W 35.4995°N Feet 3200 Ft US
Cartographer: hgadai I POC: BC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\105546_Beaver_Tail\PRO\3_Permitting\3_Mitigation Plan\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTailNEW\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTail.aprx I Layout: Figure 2 -Project Vicinity -Beaver Tail I Date Exported: 8/31/2023

Proposed Easement
N Reference: Project limits are approximate. The
Figureproperty boundaries depicted on this map have not
been surveyed and are for prospect assessment
Historical .•' purposes only. This information is not to be used as
final legal boundaries.
1 in = 1,000 ft Data Source:USGS Earth ExplorerBeaver Tail whenpri-dat8-11 Spatial Reference:
0 500 1,000 NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet
Lincoln County, North Carolina Date Exported:7/31/2023 p!es
res.us
81.3189°W 35.5004°N Feet
Cartographer: hgadai I POC: BC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\105546_Beaver_Tail\PRO\3_Permitting\3_Mitigation Plan\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTailNEW\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTail.aprx I Layout: Figure 3a - Historical Imagery- Beaver Tail I Date Exported: 7/31/2023

99 88 �l:. 2008
— `... rOv
AL
'AAA 111110�
1 ,
Ili...
2013
-
2017
�
F Y �4 i � Y,• �
4„ 1 I
a'
T,
a
_A.,Ill
II III'°� 1 j p,
a,
I l l III ,l;l
i
+
•f e CYp
Se ' I �. 1 III
IIIII�
x
Q Proposed Easement .
veyeu a„u dle — Pl—p— a»r»,r,r11,
• .Imagery purposes only. This information is not to be used as
final legal boundaries.1 in = 1,000 ft Data Source: USGS Earth Explorer
Beaver Tail wh-pri- ta-11 Soatial Reference:
0500 1,000 NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet
Lincoln County, North Carolina Date Exported:7/31/2023 p!es
res.us
81.3189°W 35.5004°N Feet
Cartographer: hgadai I POC: BC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\105546_Beaver_Tail\PRO\3_Permitting\3_Mitigation Plan\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTailNEW\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTail.aprx I Layout: Figure 3b - Historical Imagery- Beaver Tail I Date Exported:7/31/2023

Fi
Proposed Easement
Project Parcel
LAdjacent Parcel
'7'
Landowner
1, not been surveyed and are for prospect
ry assessment purposes only. This information is not
1in = 60o ft to be used as final legal boundaries.
.,an Printed at 8.5xtr Data Source: N/ABeaver Tail 0 300 600 Spatial Reference:
Lincoln County, North Carolina NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane North Carolina RIPSp!es
res.us
81.3188°W 35.5004°N Feet 3200 Ft US
Cartographer: hgadai I POC: BC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\105546_Beaver_Tail\PRO\3_Permitting\3_Mitigation Plan\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTailNEW\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTail.aprx I Layout: Figure 4 - Landowner Parcels - Beaver Tail I Date Exported: 8/24/2023

Al
a s°
832
iels
goo
Y.
00
� Howards
o
4xb
1
• - n —c==� _ - `,•� r \�� by '\
Ile —
Proposed Easement � i111�, • \ �'�
� 1
N
Figure 5 Reference: Project limits are approximate. The
property boundaries depicted on this map have
QuadrangleUSGS not been surveyed and are for prospect
assessment purposes only. This information is not p!es
1 in = 2,o0o ft to beused as final legal boundaries.
when Printed at 8,501 Data Source: USGSBeaver Tail 0 1,000 2,000 Spatial Reference:
Lincoln County, North Carolina NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS res.us
81.3186°W 35.5009°N Feet 3200 Ft US
Cartographer: hgadai I POC: BC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\10SS46_Beaver_Tail\PRO\3_Permitting\3_Mitigation Plan\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTailNEW\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTail.aprx Layout: Figure 5 - USGS Quadrangle - Beaver Tail I Date Exported: 8/31/2023

m
Figure 6
Project Drainage Areas
Ah

M-
t4�
ow
LJ Proposed Easement
QProject Drainage Area (315 ac.)
Land Use
= Agriculture - 150.77 ac
- Forest - 63.06 ac
Brush - 32.42 ac
- Residential - 20.76 ac
Sparse Woods - 17.52 ac
Open Space - 18.27 ac
CAFO - 10.23 ac
- Road - 2.72 ac
N
A Reference: Project limits are approximate. The
Figure 7 property boundaries depicted on this map have
Lan
_ not been surveyed and are for prospect
assessment purposes only. This information is not
1in = 1,00o to be used as final legal boundaries.when Pft rmtedata.5xtr Data Source:N/A
Beaver Tail 0 500 1,000 Spatial Reference:
Lincoln County, North Carolina NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane North Carolina RIPSp!es
res.u5
81.317°W 35.5059°N Feet 3200 Ft US
Cartographer: hgadai I POC: BC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\105546_Beaver_Tail\PRO\3_Permitting\3_Mitigation Plan\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTailNEW\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTail.aprx I Layout: Figure 7 - Land Use - Beaver Tail Date Exported: 8/31/2023

N
Reference: Project limits are approximate. The
Figure 8 property boundaries depicted on this map have
LiDAR not been surveyed and are for prospect
assessment purposes only. This information is not
1in = 500 ft to be used as final legal boundaries.
wnen Printed at 8.5xtr Data Source:NOAA
Beaver Tail 0 250 500 Spatial Reference:
Lincoln County, North Carolina NAD 19832011 StatePlane North Carolina RIPSp!es
reS.uS
81.3189°W 35.5004°1 Feet 3200 Ft US
Cartographer: hgadai I POC: BC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\105546_Beaver_Tail\PRO\3_Permitting\3_Mitigation Plan\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTailNEW\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTail.aprx I Layout: Figure 8 - LiDAR - Beaver Tail I Date Exported: 8/25/2023

N
A Reference: Project limits are approximate. The
Figure 9 property boundaries depicted on this map have
not been surveyed and are for prospect
Mapped Soils assessment purposes only. This information is not p!es
1in = soo ft to be used as final legal boundaries.wnen Printed at s.5xtr Data Source: NRCSBeaver Tail 0 250 500 Spatial Reference:
Lincoln County, North Carolina NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS reS.uS
81.3189°W 35.5004°1 Feet 3200 Ft US
Cartographer: hgadai I POC: BC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\105546_Beaver_Tail\PRO\3_Permitting\3_Mitigation Plan\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTailNEW\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTail.aprx I Layout: Figure 9 - Mapped Soils - Beaver Tail I Date Exported: 7/31/2023

Aproperty boundaries depicted on this map have
N not been surveyed and are for prospect
Existing Conditionsassessment purposes only. This information is not
1in = soo ft to be used as final legal boundaries.
.,an Printed at 8.5xtr Data Source: USFWS, FEMABeaver Tail 0 250 500 Spatial Reference:
Lincoln County, North Carolina NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane North Carolina RIPSp!es
reS.uS
81.3189°W 35.5004°1 Feet 3200 Ft US
Cartographer: hgadai I POC: BC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\105546_Beaver_Tail\PRO\3_Permitting\3_Mitigation Plan\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTailNEW\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTail.aprx I Layout: Figure 10 - Existing Conditions - Beaver Tail I Date Exported: 8/25/2023

N
A Reference: Project limits are approximate. The
Figureproperty boundaries depicted on this map have
Pro
_ not been surveyed and are for prospect jConstraints assessment purposes only. This information is not
1in = soo ft to be used as final legal boundaries.
.,an Printed at a.5xtr Data Source: USFWS, FEMA
Beaver Tail 0 250 500 Spatial Reference:
Lincoln County, North Carolina NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane North Carolina RIPSp!es
reS.uS
81.3189°W 35.5004°N Feet 3200 Ft US
Cartographer: hgadai I POC: BC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\105546_Beaver_Tail\PRO\3_Permitting\3_Mitigation Plan\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTailNEW\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTail.aprx I Layout: Figure 11 - Project Constraints - Beaver Tail I Date Exported: 9/1/2023

Beaver Tail
Stream Credits
Proposed
Mitiation
Reach
Mitigation Type
SMUs
Length (LF)
Ratio
LD1
Restoration
1,667
1:1
1,667.00
LD1
Restoration
848
1:1
848.000
Total Adjusted SMUs
4,675.110
Beaver Tail Wetland Credits
MitigationWMUs
Wetland
Mitigation Type
Total Acres
Ratio
WA
Creation
4.272
3:1
1.424
WC
Enhancement
1.310
1.5:1
0.873
WD
Preservation
2.474
10:1
0.247
WE
Enhancement
0.217
1.5:1
0.145
Powerline Relocation
.Ilk a
Proposed Easement (35.39 ac.)
Wetland Approach
_ Creation (3:1)
Enhancement (1.5:1)
® Preservation (10.1)
Stream Restoration (1:1)
No Credit (Howard's Creek)
Ditch B (No Credit)
Overhead Powerline
Q Existing Culvert
Q Ditch Plug
N
A Reference: Project limits are approximate. The
Figure 12 property boundaries depicted on this map have
e _ e tual Design
_ e not been surveyed and are for prospect
assessment purposes only. This information is not
1in = soo ft to be used as final legal boundaries.
.,an Printed at a.5xtr Data Source: N/A
Beaver Tail 0 250 500 Spatial Reference:
Lincoln County, North Carolina NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane North Carolina RIPSp!es
res.us
81.3188°W 35.5004°N Feet 3200 Ft US
Cartographer: hgadai I POC: BC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\105546_Beaver_Tail\PRO\3_Permitting\3_Mitigation Plan\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTailNEW\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTail.aprx I Layout: Figure 12 - Conceptual Design - Beaver Tail I Date Exported: 8/25/2023

Beaver Tail
Lincoln County, North Carolina
79.9082°W 35.2633°N
MProposed Easement
- Proposed Top of Bank
Buffer Width Zones (ft.)
- 0-15
- 16-20
21-25
- 26-30
31-35
- 36-40
41-45
- 46-50
51-75
76-100
-A 101-125
- 126-150
® Ineligible Areas
{ Exempt Terminal End
N 1 in = 500 ft
when printed at 1107"
0 250 500
Feet
Reference: Project limits are approximate. The
property boundaries depicted on this map have not
been surveyed and are for prospect assessment
purposes only. This information is not to be used as
final legal boundaries.
Data Source: N/A
Spatial Reference:
Date Exported.8/25/2023
Cartographer: hgadai I POC: BC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\105546_Beaver_ Tail\PRO\3_Permitting\3_Mitigation Plan\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTailNEW\NC_MitPlan_BeaverTail.aprx I Layout: Figure 13 - Buffer Width Zones

Figure 14a
Monitoring Plan
mom
am
■■■■■■■ I■■v
logo an i■■r
was
Mongol
/n■■■NZ
u■■■■ �a�i■
GOS not
■■■■',■NNE ■■1
■■■i ■■■me
.■■■■. a■. -
■.
■■■■..■■was
k
mom am
ago
1■■■I
�■■■■
1■■ ■■■/
n■■ru■■a
%I
u
C
Pla
Wetlan
C
C
Stream
Gauge
•
Ah

so
w
j - f
i
JIMMOM
Figure 14b
Monitoring Plan
An

AppendixA
Site Protection Instrument

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S
USE
PERMANENT CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") made
this day of , 202_ by and between
("Grantor") and _ ("Grantee").
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said
parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural,
masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated,
lying and being in County, North Carolina, more particularly
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property");
WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not -for -profit or educational
corporation, association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of
the Internal Revenue Code, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq., the purposes
or powers of which include one or more of the purposes (a) — (d) listed below;
(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -space aspects of

real property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational,
educational, or open -space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic,
natural, or aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the
following natural communities: [add or delete as appropriate: coastal wetlands,
non -riparian wetlands, riparian wetlands, perennial and intermittent streams
and riparian buffers]. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain
streams, wetlands and riparian resources and other natural values of
approximately acres, more or less, and being more
particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated fully herein
by reference (the "Conservation Easement Area"), and prevent the use or
development of the Conservation Easement Area for any purpose or in any
manner that would conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition.
WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the
Conservation Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI) and Mitigation Plan for the
Mitigation Bank, Department of the Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW-
, entitled "Agreement to Establish the
Mitigation Bank in the River Basin within the State of North
Carolina", entered into by and between [enter Sponsor name], acting as the
Bank Sponsor, and the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in
consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The
Mitigation Site has been approved by the Corps for use as
a mitigation bank to compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts
authorized by DA permits.
WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the
Conservation Easement Area is also a condition of the approval of the
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI) and Bank Parcel Development Package (BPDP) or
Mitigation Plan forthe Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset
Mitigation Bank, North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
Project ID# , which was approved by the NCDWR, and will
be made and entered into by and between [enter Sponsor name], acting as
the Bank Sponsor, and the NCDWR. The Riparian Buffer
and Nutrient Offset Site is intended to be used to compensate for riparian
buffer and nutrient impacts to surface waters.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District ("Third -
Parties," to include any successor agencies), and may be exercised through the
appropriate enforcement agencies of the United States and the State of North
Carolina, and that these rights are in addition to, and do not limit, the rights of
enforcement under the NCDWR Project ID# and the
Department of the Army instrument number SAW-

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

are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction,
harming, cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan and
BPDP/Mitigation Plan. Mowing of invasive and herbaceous vegetation for
purposes of enhancing planted or volunteer trees and shrubs approved in the
Mitigation Plan and BPDP/Mitigation Plan is allowable once a year for no more
than five consecutive years from the date on page 1 of this Conservation
Easement, except where mowing will negatively impact vegetation or disturb
soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed by [enter Sponsor name] and
shall not violate any part of Item L of Article II.
Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or
walkways on the Conservation Easement Area; nor enlargement or
modification to existing roads, trails orwalkways.
G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation
Easement Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying
the conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving
directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Conservation
Easement Area and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of the
Conservation Easement Area.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes,
garbage, waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous
substances, or toxic or hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or
aboveground storage tanks or other materials on the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.
I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading,
filling, excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand,
gravel, rock, peat, minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography
of the land in any manner on the Conservation Easement Area, except to
restore natural topography or drainage patterns. For purposes of restoring and
enhancing streams and wetlands within the Conservation Easement Area,
[enter Sponsor name] is allowed to perform grading, filling, and excavation
associated with stream and wetland restoration and enhancement activities as
described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by Department of the Army
Nationwide Permit 27.
J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking,
draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related
activities, or altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or
disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns.
In addition, diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or
underground water into, within or out of the easement area by any means,
removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or
wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been

encumbered or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be
transferred pursuant to a transferable development rights scheme or cluster
development arrangement or otherwise.
[Not required, but may be added if Grantor and Grantee agree:]
L. Subdivision. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the Conservation
Easement Area currently consists of within
separate parcels. The Grantor may not further subdivide the
Conservation Easement Area, except with the prior written consent of the
Grantee. If Grantor elects to further subdivide any portion of the Conservation
Easement Area, Grantor must provide the Grantee the name, address, and
telephone number of new owner(s) of all property within the Conservation
Easement Area, if different from Grantor. No subdivision of the Conservation
Easement Area shall limit the right of ingress and egress over and across the
Property for the purposes set forth herein. Further, in the event of any
subdivision of the Property (whether inside or outside of the Conservation
Easement Area) provision shall be made to preserve not only Grantee's
perpetual rights of access to the Conservation Easement Area, as defined
herein, but also Grantee's right of perpetual access to any conservation
easements on properties adjacent to the Property which form a part of or are
included in the Mitigation Plan or BPDP/Mitigation Plan. Creation of a
condominium or any de facto division of the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited. Lot line adjustments or lot consolidation without the prior written
consent of the Grantee is prohibited. The Grantor may convey undivided
interests in the real property underlying the Conservation Easement Area. The
Grantor shall notify the Grantee immediately of the name, address, and
telephone number of any grantee of an undivided interest in any property within
the Conservation Easement Area.
M. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not
limited to, motorcycles, dirt bikes, all -terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is
prohibited other than for temporary or occasional access by the [enter Sponsor
name], the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors, assigns, NCDWR,
and the Corps for purposes of constructing, maintaining and monitoring the
restoration, enhancement and preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian
areas within the Conservation Easement Area. The use of mechanized
vehicles for monitoring purposes is limited to only existing roads and trails as
shown in the approved in the Mitigation Plan and BPDP/Mitigation Plan.
N. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the
Conservation Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the
purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area
substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental
systems, is prohibited.
ARTICLE III.
GRANTOR'S RESEVERED RIGHTS
The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation
Easement Area for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation

Easement, including, but not limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the
Conservation Easement Area, the rights of ingress and egress, the right to
hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement Area, the right to sell,
transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement Area, in whole or
in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to the terms
of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, including [enter Sponsor name] acting as the Bank
Sponsor, the right to construct and perform activities related to the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within
the Conservation Easement Area in accordance with the approved
Mitigation Plan, the approved
BPDP/Mitigation Plan, and the two Mitigation Banking
the Recitals of this Conservation Easement.
Instruments described in
Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, the following rights in the areas labeled as "Internal
Crossing" on the plat [insert plat name and recorded plat book page number] in
the Conservation Easement Area: vehicular access, livestock access, irrigation
piping and piping of livestock waste. All Internal Crossings that allow livestock
access will be bounded by fencing and will be over a culvert.
ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE'S RIGHTS
The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns,
the Corps and NCDWR, shall have the right to enter the Property and
Conservation Easement Area at all reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting the Conservation Easement Area to determine if the Grantor, or his
personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, is complying with the
terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation Easement.
The Grantee, [enter Sponsor name], and its authorized representatives,
successors and assigns, the Corps and NCDWR shall also have the right to
enter and go upon the Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making
scientific or educational observations and studies, and taking samples. The
easement rights granted herein do not include public access rights.
ARTICLE V.
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, the Corps,
and NCDWR are allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation
Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to
require the restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Easement
Area that may be damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the
terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of
the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The
Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of such notice to correct the conditions
constituting such breach. If the breach remains uncured after 30 days, the
Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by appropriate legal

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

consent and approval of the Corps.
C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of
this Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however
that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or
assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will
be a qualified holder pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34
et seq. and § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the
Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or
assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to
continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The combined Mitigation
Banking Instruments: MBI with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and MBI with
corresponding BPDP/Mitigation Plan, and this Conservation Easement sets
forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation
Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings
or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found
to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder
shall continue in full force and effect.
E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate
taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall
keep the Property free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations
incurred by Grantor, except those incurred after the date hereof, which are
expressly subject and subordinate to the Conservation Easement. Grantee shall
not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the ownership,
operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as
expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits
that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
F. Long -Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term
management activities associated with fencing. These activities include the
maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic
resource functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are
sustained.
G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render
impossible the continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the
conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement may only be extinguished,
in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.
H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation
Easement Area is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to
substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this Conservation
Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time of
such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and direct
damages due to the taking.
Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property

interest immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the
Conservation Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted
following an extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall
be entitled to the fair market value of this Conservation Easement as
determined at the time of the extinguishment or condemnation.
J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other
communication required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by
registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such
address as may be hereafter specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):
To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]
To the Corps:
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
To NCDEQ -DWR:
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to
enforce this Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified
grantee, and if within a reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of
these events Grantee fails to make an assignment pursuant to this
Conservation Easement, then the Grantee's interest shall become vested in
another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate proceeding in a
court of competent jurisdiction.
L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but
only in a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment
does not affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of
the Grantee under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation
purposes of this grant.
M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The
wetlands, scenic, resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of
the Conservation Easement Area, and its current use and state of
improvement, are described in Section of the Mitigation Plan, prepared
by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and Grantee to be complete and
accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee have copies of this
report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any future changes in the use
of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with the terms of this
Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude the

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

Beaver Tail Conservation Easement - CONFIDENTIAL
Staff time to monitor mitigation easement, including file review,
travel time, on site time, post visit report production _ 34.41 11 $65.00 Annual $715.00
Staff time needed to address minor violations or issues N/A 10 $650.00 Once every 10 yrs. $65.00
Mileage 326 N/A $0.66 Annual $213.53
Lodging Costs 0 N/A $100.00 Annual $0.00
Meal Costs 2 N/A $20.00 Annual $40.00
Sign Replacement 10 N/A $2.00 Annual $20.00
Insurance 1 N/A $100.00 N/A $100.00
Total Annual Funding Amount $1,153.53
Capitalization Rate _3.50%
g Endowment $3
Accepting and Defending the Easement in Perpetuity A 2
'Staff time for major violations N/A 80 P$65.00 N/A $5,200.00
4
Legal Counsel N/A N/A N/A N/A $10,000.00
Other Incidentals N/A N/A N/A N/A $5,000.00
Stewardship Complexities (# of owners) N/A N/A N/A N/A $0.00
Monitoring Endow $20.200.00

Authentisign ID: 949E58CA-52C7-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
STEWARDSHIP AGREEMENT
THIS STEWARDSHIP AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") made as of the Effective Date set
forth below, between Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC ("EBX"), a wholly owned subsidiary of
Resource Environmental Solutions, and Unique Places to Save ("UP2S"), a 501(c)3 North Carolina
Non -Profit Corporation.
WITNESSETH
A. EBX is the mitigation bank site sponsor ("Bank Sponsor") of a certain proposed
conservation easement property as shown on the attached map as Exhibit A (the
"Property"). EBX intends to work with the owners of the Property and UP2S to place a
conservation easement over the Property pursuant to the development of a mitigation
bank ("Mitigation Bank") as described in the "RES Catawba ESA Umbrella Mitigation Bank:
Beaver Tail Mitigation Project, Final Prospectus."
B. The legal owners of the Property, Bawi Van, Sung Lang Cin, and David Lutz, intend to grant
a conservation easement over the Property to UP2S, which will protect, in perpetuity,
certain mitigation and conservation values on the Property (the "Conservation
Easement").
C. EBX shall afford UP2S the opportunity to review and suggest potential changes to the
draft of the Conservation Easement deed prior to review by other parties. EBX shall
provide a final, negotiated draft of the Conservation Easement deed to UP2S at least
fourteen (14) calendar days prior to recordation of the Conservation Easement deed in
Lincoln County, North Carolina.
D. EBX, as Bank Sponsor of the Mitigation Bank, intends to sell compensatory restoration
mitigation credits generated by the Mitigation Bank.
E. The Mitigation Bank is authorized by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
("USACE") in consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team as
Department of Army Action ID Number SAW-2022-00657.
F. USACE requires the Conservation Easement to be held by a party other than the Permittee
of the Mitigation Bank.
G. UP2S agrees to hold the Conservation Easement and serve as the perpetual steward of
the Conservation Easement and EBX agrees to financially endow UP2S to act as grantee
of the Conservation Easement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
11111-11 cti

Authentisign ID: 949E58CA-52C7-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
Agreement to hold title and perform stewardship function. Subject to the terms and
conditions set forth herein, UP2S agrees to accept title to the Conservation Easement
interest in the Property as referenced herein and assumes the obligations of grantee
thereunder, including exclusively serving as the perpetual steward of the Conservation
Easement in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and the Conservation
Easement deed.
2. Administrative Fee. To help cover administrative costs associated with this Agreement
and as a condition of this Agreement, EBX shall pay to UP2S an initial administrative fee
payment ("Admin Fee") in the amount of $3,000.00 within ten (10) business days of the
Effective Date, as defined in Paragraph 22 of this Agreement.
3. Bond Fee. UP2S has agreed to act as bond obligee for the Mitigation Bank. For this
service, UP2S requires a $1,000.00 bond fee ("Bond Fee") for accepting responsibility for
bonding and administrative fees associated with bond obligee services. Bond Fee is due
within ten (10) business days of the Effective Date, as defined in Paragraph 22 of this
Agreement.
4. Endowment Payment. In addition to the Admin Fee and Bond Fee set forth above, EBX
shall pay UP2S a financial endowment to cover UP2S's costs and expenses for its
responsibilities as the perpetual steward of the Conservation Easement (the "Endowment
Payment"). The total sum of the Endowment Payment shall be Fifty Six Thousand One
Hundred and Fifty Eight and 00/100ths Dollars ($56,158.00) to be held and managed by
UP2S in a stewardship endowment fund for said responsibilities. The Endowment
Payment is due from EBX to UP2S within 30 days of recording the Conservation Easement
deed in Lincoln County, North Carolina. UP2S shall be responsible for establishing and
managing the stewardship endowment fund set forth herein.
5. Monitoring Period and Closeout Notice. It is acknowledged by the parties that EBX shall
be responsible for all long-term management activities for approximately seven years
following the completion of the Restoration Activities (the "Monitoring Period"). The
Monitoring Period will end upon EBX's receipt of notice from USACE that the Mitigation
Site has met success criteria (the "Closeout Notice"). EBX will provide a copy of the
Closeout Notice to UP2S within seven (7) business days after EBX's receipt of the
Closeout Notice.
6. Annual Monitoring Report. During the Monitoring Period, EBX shall deliver to UP2S an
annual monitoring report on or before December 31 S1 of each calendar year (the "Annual
Report"). The Annual Report shall include documentation of EBX's annual inspection of
the Property, which inspection will set forth any encroachments or violations of the
Conservation Easement. EBX shall use UP2Save's pre -closeout annual monitoring form
template for annual monitoring report purposes.
7. Enforcement of Conservation Easement. At all times during the Monitoring Period, EBX
shall be responsible for and shall have the right, on behalf of UP2S, to enforce the terms
11111-11 cti

Authentisign ID: 949E58CA-52C7-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
of the Conservation Easement in close coordination with UP2S. Upon transfer of
obligations under Paragraph 8 below, UP2S, as the grantee of the Conservation Easement,
shall assume the responsibilities of the grantee thereunder and shall have the right to
enforce the terms of the Conservation Easement. UP2S shall at all times be entitled to
act to maintain, enforce, and verify compliance with the Conservation Easement.
8. Transfer of Obligations. Upon full payment of the Admin Fee, Bond Fee, completion of the
Monitoring Period, full payment of the amount of the Endowment Payment, and receipt of
the Closeout Notice; UP2S shall assume full responsibility and liability for the perpetual
monitoring activities of the Conservation Easement. Upon UP2S's receipt of the Closeout
Notice, EBX shall have no other obligations for monitoring the Conservation Easement or
under this Agreement.
9. Representations and Warranties of UP2S. UP2S represents and warrants that it is a tax-
exempt organization qualified under Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code and
is qualified to be the grantee of a conservation easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §
121-34, et. sec. and Internal Revenue Code Section 170 (h), and that USACE has deemed
UP2S qualified to hold the Conservation Easement.
10. Indemnification of UP2S. EBX agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless
UP2S and its members, managers, partners, officers, directors, shareholders and
employees, and each of them and their respective successors and permitted assigns from
and against any and all Claim occurring incident to or resulting in whole or in part from,
the activities or omissions of EBX or any of EBX's members, managers, partners, officers,
directors, shareholders or employees in connection with this Agreement, to the extent that
the Claims are caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of EBX or EBX's members,
managers, partners, officers, directors, shareholders or employees during the Monitoring
Period. This indemnity shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
11. Indemnification of EBX. UP2S agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless
EBX and its respective members, managers, partners, officers, directors, shareholders
and employees, and each of them and their respective successors and permitted assigns
from and against any and all Claim occurring incident to or resulting in whole or in part
from, the activities or omissions of UP2S or any of UP2S's members, managers, partners,
officers, directors, shareholders or employees in connection with this Agreement, to the
extent that the Claims are caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of UP2S or
UP2S's members, managers, partners, officers, directors, shareholders or employees
subsequent to the Monitoring Period. This indemnity shall survive the expiration or
termination of this Agreement.
12. Notices. All notices required by this Agreement shall be in writing, shall be given only in
accordance with the provisions of this Section, shall be addressed to the Parties in the
manner stated below, and shall be conclusively deemed properly delivered: (a) upon
receipt when hand delivered during normal business hours; (b) upon the day of delivery if
the notice has been deposited in an authorized receptacle of the United States Postal

Authentisign ID: 949E58CA-52C7-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
Service as first-class, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, with a return receipt
requested; (c) one business day after the notice has been deposited with either Fed Ex or
United Parcel Service to be delivered by overnight delivery; or (d) if sent by email, upon
receipt of an acknowledgement email sent to the sender's email address in which the
party receiving the email notice acknowledges having received that email. An automatic
"read receipt" is not acknowledgement for purposes of this section. The addresses of the
parties to receive notices are as follows:
UP2S: Unique Places to Save
PO Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
EBX: Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
13. Dispute Resolution. In the event of any dispute, claim, question or disagreement arising
out of or relating to this Agreement, EBX or UP2S may invoke the Dispute Resolution
provisions of this section by notifying the other party in writing of the matter in dispute
and of the party's intention to resolve the dispute under this section. The parties shall
then attempt to resolve the dispute informally for a period of 15 calendar days from the
date of the notice. The period of informal negotiations may be extended 15 calendar days
by written agreement of the parties to the dispute.
14. Mediation. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute through informal negotiation,
any party may invoke formal dispute resolution through mediation. The parties will agree
to mediate all disputes in good faith and shall agree on a North Carolina Superior Court
Certified Mediator to mediate the dispute. The mediation process shall commence within
60 days of the selection of a mediator and the costs of mediation shall be borne equally
by both parties. In the event mediation fails to resolve the dispute between the parties,
either party may seek judicial resolution of the dispute in a Court of the State of North
Carolina sitting in Wake County, North Carolina having jurisdiction.
15. Attorneys' Fees. If any party institutes any action or proceeding against another arising
out of this Agreement, each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs, including
any appeal from an action or proceeding.
16. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by UP2S without EBX's prior written
consent, which may be withheld in either party's sole discretion. Any such assignment
will require the assignee to assume and agree to perform and be bound by all the terms,
covenants, conditions and obligations of this Agreement and the obligations of the
Grantee under the Conservation Easements.
17. Modification; Waiver. No amendment of this Agreement will be effective unless it is in
writing and signed by the parties. No waiver of satisfaction of a condition or failure to

Authentisign ID: 949E58CA-52C7-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
comply with an obligation under this Agreement will be effective unless it is in writing and
signed by the party granting the waiver, and no such waiver will constitute a waiver of
satisfaction of any other condition or failure to comply with any other obligation.
18. Mutual Agreement. This is a mutually negotiated agreement and regardless of which party
was more responsible for its preparation, this Agreement shall be construed neutrally
between the parties.
19. Governing Law. The laws of the State of North Carolina, without giving effect to its
principles of conflicts of law, govern all matters arising out of this Agreement.
20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, but all of which, together, constitute one and the same instrument. A
signed copy of this Agreement delivered by electronic mail in portable document format
(".pdf" format) shall have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signed copy of
this Agreement. This Agreement may also be signed by electronic means. Subject to
applicable law, electronic signatures shall have the same legal validity and effect as
original hand-written signatures.
21. Entire Agreement. Each party acknowledges they are not relying on any statements made
by the other party, other than in this Agreement, regarding the subject matter of this
Agreement. Neither party will have a basis for bringing any claim for fraud in connection
with any such statements.
22. Effective Date. This Agreement will become effective on the date the last party executes
this Agreement.
ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC
By: [iAuthenti
-it. 6.M
Benton Carroll, Engineer/Project Manager
Date: 03/21 /23
UNIQUE PLACES TO SAVE
a North Carolina Non -Profit corporation
Authenti
B Y:
Clark Harris, Executive Director
Date:
03/20/23

Authentisign ID: 949E58CA-52C7-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
EXHIBIT A: MAP OF PROPERTY
L
'x AutlxnEsicx "'

Authentisign ID: 949E58CA-52C7-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
Li
xAutlxnEsicx cH

Appendix B
Baseline Information and
Correspondence

\I� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
- WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
December 9, 2022
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2022-00657
Re: NCIRT Initial Review of the RES Catawba ESA Umbrella Mitigation Banking
Instrument and Beaver Tail Mitigation Site Prospectus
Mr. Ben Carroll
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Dear Mr. Carroll:
This letter is regarding your prospectus document dated October 2022, for the
proposed RES Catawba ESA Umbrella Mitigation Bank and associated Beaver Tail
Mitigation Site. The proposal consists of the establishment and operation of a private
commercial umbrella mitigation bank, and the associated 34.41-acre Beaver Tail
Mitigation Site, located on Lutz Dairy Farm Road, approximately four miles southwest of
Lincolnton, in Lincoln County, North Carolina (35.5025760 N,-81.3202770 W). The
proposed Beaver Tail Mitigation Site would include stream restoration and wetland
enhancement, creation and preservation activities within the South Fork Catawba
watershed, in the Catawba River Basin (8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC): 03050102).
The Corps determined the Prospectus was complete and issued a public notice (P/N
# SAW-2022-00657) on October 31, 2022. The purpose of this notice was to solicit the
views of interested State and Federal agencies and other parties either interested in or
affected by the proposed work. Incorporated in this email and attached are comments
received in response to the public notice from the North Carolina Department of Natural
and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the NC Division of Water Resources. The Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians may choose to submit comments separately during the draft mitigation plan
review stage.
IRT COMMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN:
1. USFWS Comments, Byron Hamstead:
Based on the information provided, suitable habitat does not occur onsite for any
federally listed species and we would not object to a "no effect" determination from the
action agency. Moreover, our concurrence is not required for "no effect" determinations
from the action agency. We require no further information and we consider consultation

to be complete at this time. Please be aware that further coordination and/or
consultation may be required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) if: (1)
information reveals impacts of this identified action which may affect or may have
affected listed species or critical habitat, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Monarch butterfly
Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a candidate species, and we appreciate the
project proponent's consideration of monarch butterfly when evaluating the action area
for impacts to federally listed species and their habitats. The species is not subject to
section 7 consultation, and an effects determination is not necessary. General
recommendations for pollinators can be provided and would be protective of monarch
butterfly should the project proponent like to implement them in the future.
Official IPaC Species List
We ask that the Applicant visit our IPaC website to generate a species list and
project code for the proposed action and provide an IPaC project code to this office.
Attached is guidance for generating an official species list in IPaC.
2. NCWRC Comments, Travis Wilson:
The Seagreen darter is a state -listed Significantly Rare species that is present in
Howards Creek at the confluence of the restoration reach. As long as stream work is
conducted in the dry and sedimentation and erosion control measures are followed,
impacts to the species should be negligible.
3. NCWRC Comments, Olivia Munzer:
If there is milkweed onsite, it is best to preserve those plants since it is difficult to
grow milkweed from seed. However, I know that may be impossible, so seeds or even
seedlings are the next best thing for Monarchs. In general, we do like to have several
pollinator species in the various seed mixes.
4. NCDWR Comments, Erin Davis:
DWR has particular concerns regarding the easement boundary south of the road on
the sloped area where cattle were congregating. The IRT requested to make the
access crossing internal to the easement. The proposed wetland approaches should be
clearly justified in the draft mitigation plan (creation vs. reestablishment), as discussed
during the IRT site visit.
5. USACE Comments, Kim Isenhour:
a.) During the site visit we discussed expanding the project to include the stream
channel north of the proposed easement boundary. This would allow the channel to be

raised adequately for full -restoration. I realize that different project managers are now
managing this site; please confirm whether this expansion was sought. b.) The
easement south of Lutz Dairy Farm Road should be expanded to include the ridge top
(southeast side) in the easement. c.) The crossing in the southern portion of the
project should be an internal easement break. d.) The Service Area for this bank
should align with the current approved Service Area Map. Please contact me for
language on a proposed extended service area.
The Corps has considered the comments received from members of the
Interagency Review Team (IRT) and information that was discussed during an IRT site
review on March 23, 2022. We have determined that the proposed umbrella
mitigation bank appears to have the potential to restore aquatic resources within the 8-
digit HUC 03050102 of the Catawba River Basin; however, we request that you
address the enclosed agency concerns in the draft mitigation plan. Therefore, the
bank sponsor may proceed with preparation of a draft Umbrella Mitigation Banking
Instrument
(UMBI).
Please provide a response to the attached comments with your draft UMBI and
mitigation plan submittal. We appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting
waters of the United States. If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact
me at [phone] or by email at Kimberly. D.Browninq(a-)usace.army.mil.
Sincerely,
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division - Wilmington District
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Jamey McEachran—RES

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
November 17, 2022
Kim Isenhour
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
USACE
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
Kimberly.D.Browning_(d)usace. aIM.mil
Re: RES Catawba ESA Umbrella Mitigation Bank: Beaver Tail mitigation project,
Lutz Dairy Farm Road, Lincolnton, Catawba County, SAW-2022-00657, ER 22-2516
Dear Ms. Isenhour:
Thank you for your public notice of October 31, 2022, concerning the above -referenced undertaking. We
have reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
(} State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

fires
MEMORANDUM
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite ioo
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX'7'7401
Main: 713.520•5400
TO: NCIRT
FROM: Patrick Korn — RES
DATE: April 18, 2022
RE: SAW-2022-00657 — Beaver Tail UMBI Catawba ESA, Lincoln County, Prospectus Site Visit
Attendees
Kim Browning - USACE
George Lankford — George K Lankford, LLC
Patrick Korn — RES
Casey Haywood — USACE
Grayson Sanner — RES
Brad Breslow — RES
Erin Davis — NCDWR
Ben Carroll — RES
Date & Time
1000 April 6, 2022
General Summary
- Site visit was scheduled to discuss draft prospectus submitted March 1, 2022.
- RES provided an overview of the site, land use, and project constraints.
- RES will include a proposed stream alignment in addition to the current alignment in the final prospectus.
- RES will include on -site roads, ditches, and flow paths to the existing conditions figure.
- IRT was concerned with surrounding land use, specifically what will be happening in the future immediately adjacent to the
easement, and what is done with the livestock waste from the adjacent farming facilities. RES will address this concern in the
MBI.
- IRT noted that encroachment has become a larger issue across sites as of late and suggested utilizing horse tape or planting
larger trees along the easement boundary to assist in easement identification. RES will take this into account and mark the
easement boundary so that it is sufficiently visible.
- IRT mentioned that the Ashville USFWS Field Office does not typically respond to public notices. RES will send a separate
scoping letter to the Asheville Field Office to address potential endangered species habitat on site, specifically the bog turtle,
sea color shiner, and Schweinitz's sunflower.
- IRT suggested that the easement immediately south of Lutz Dairy Farm Rd. be expanded to the east to the top of the incline
west of the cattle pens. RES will explore gaining additional easement in this area and will include it in the MBI if it is feasible.
If it is not possible, RES will explore implementing a BMP to protect against run-off from adjacent livestock pens.
- IRT suggested bringing the crossing into the easement so that it will be protected. RES will consider this and address it in the
MBI.
- IRT was concerned that the privet abutting the outside of the easement creating a hard to manage privet source in the future.
RES will work with adjacent landowners to explore treating the privet abutting the easement.
- IRT expressed concern that the soils left after grade adjustment will be lacking necessary nutrients for healthy riparian buffer
growth. RES will utilize appropriate soil amendments informed by a soils test when grade is reached.
- IRT suggested establishing hydrology performance standards for the creation wetlands. RES will reference George K Lankford,
LLC's recommendations in the final soil report, that will be completed for inclusion in the MBI, and suggest appropriate
performance standards.
res.us

A
IRT suggested establishing a soil performance standard to document trending towards hydric soils. RES will reference George
K Lankford, LLC's recommendations in the final soil report, that will be completed for inclusion in the MBI, and suggest
appropriate performance standards.
- Wetland WB will be modified to creation from re-establishment, pending George K Lankford, LLC's final soil report.
- Gauges to monitor ground water will be installed in all wetland creation and enhancement areas.
- A vegetation inventory of WC will be conducted to provide justification for ecological uplift via planting.
The ditch south of wetland WC will be evaluated for jurisdiction with the USACE.
The forest road east of wetland WB and north of wetland WD will be tilled and planted.
Use of a pollinator seed mix will be considered throughout the site to promote monarch butterfly habitat.
IRT did not suggest any reach treatment changes.
Next Steps
- RES will engage George K Lankford, LLC to complete a hydric soils report to inform wetland treatments.
- RES will make changes to Prospectus and send to USACE for distribution to IRT.
- USACE will begin Public Notice Process

Roy Cooper, Governor
�00■0 INC DEPARTMENT OF
■ ■
■■u■■ NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■■■
October 22, 2021
Matthew DeAngelo
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: Beaver Tail
Dear Matthew DeAngelo:
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Micky Buchanan
Deputy Director, Natural Heritage Program
NCNHDE-16132
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
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 documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Di rectory_/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.
Also please note that 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 an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is 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(a)ncdcr.clov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPAR71MEN7 OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
fl 121 W. JONES STREET, RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 16S1 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH. Nc 27699
OFC 919.707.9120 • FAX 919.707,9121

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Beaver Tail
October 22, 2021
NCNHDE-16132
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area _
axonomic Scientific am ommon Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Freshwater Fish32498 Etheostoma Seagreen Darter 2012-05-01 E 3-Medium --- Significantly G4 S3
thalassinum Rare
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
No Managed Areas Documented within the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httos://ncnhde.natureserve.orq/helr). Data query generated on October 22, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2021.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Beaver Tail
October 22, 2021
NCNHDE-16132
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name ast Element
Group Observation Occurrence
Date Rank
Freshwater Fish32498 Etheostoma Seagreen Darter 2012-05-01 E
thalassinum
Vascular Plant 12037 Rhus michauxii Michaux's Sumac 1917-Pre H
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Accuracy Federal State Global State
Status Status Rank Rank
3-Medium --- Significantly G4 S3
Rare
5-Very Endangered Endangered G2G3 S2
Low
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httos://ncnhde.natureserve.orq/helr). Data query generated on October 22, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2021.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE-16132: Beaver Tail
Cotrr
r farm Pd
KE�epsvilU: �-
N
}
_ O
= Howards Creek
r'
ro
O
z
N
W+E
S-
October 22, 2021
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
1:28,873
0 0.25 0.5 1 mi
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 km
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
FAONPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,
WTI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community
Page 4 of 4

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Office 803-328-2427
December 15, 2022
Attention: Kim Isenhour
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re. THPO # TCNS # Project Description
2023-56-2 SAW-2022-00657
Dear Ms. Isenhour,
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

7/20/23, 3:10 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
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 V444
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
Lincoln County, North Carolina
or
►{-0w®rde Greek _
_ T
f
Y
C
Local office
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
k. [phone]
JEJ [phone]
1 An 7illirna gtrPPt
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MEIGROJIIZDD70ANJ27JTAWN2E/resources 1/13

7/20/23, 3:10 PM
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MEIGROJIIZDD70ANJ27JTAWN2E/resources 2113

7/20/23, 3:10 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis
of project level impacts.
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. 0
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. a k :,
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 speciesl 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).
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MEIGROJIIZDD70ANJ27JTAWN2E/resources 3/13

7/20/23, 3:10 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
NAME
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
Insects
IV_EVAIN
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
STATUS
Proposed Endangered
0
STATUS
Candidat
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Flowering Plants -0
NAME IaG STATUS
Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Wherever found A
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2458
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
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.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MEIGROJIIZDD70ANJ27JTAWN2E/resources 4/13

7/20/23, 3:10 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on
all above listed species.
Bald &Golden Eagles
There are no documented cases of eagles being present at this location. However, if you
believe eagles may be using your site, please reach out to the local Fish and Wildlife Service
office.
Additional information can be found using the following links: 1�4
• Eagle Managment https://www.fws.gQv//program/eagle-management
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds 10< \0'
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-
migratory-birds Ir
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-
measures.pdf'.r+r
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified
location?
The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN).. The
AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey., banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried
and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 1Okm grid cell(s) which your project
intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in
that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your
project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my
specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other
species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge
Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey., banding, and citizen science
datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid
cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because
they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a
particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.
It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially
present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MEIGROJIIZDD7OANJ27JTAWN2E/resources 5/13

7/20/23, 3:10 PM
What if I have eagles on my list?
IPaC: Explore Location resources
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating
the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if
you have questions.
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Acts 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.
0
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 https://www.fws.gov//program/migratory-birds/species
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-
migratory-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-
measures.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 see
exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around
your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date
range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional
maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your
list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other
important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and
use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization
measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF
PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MEIGROJIIZDD70ANJ27JTAWN2E/resources 6/13

7/20/23, 3:10 PM
present and breeding in your project area.
IPaC: Explore Location resources
NAME
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
BREEDING SEASON
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25
Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 20
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
.00<
Breeds May 10 to Sep 10
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Rusty Blackbird Eu ha us carolinus 'k Beds elsewhere
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10 to Aug 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely
to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your
project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and
understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before
using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-
week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey
effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One
can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also
high.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MEIGROJIIZDD70ANJ27JTAWN2E/resources 7/13

7/20/23, 3:10 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events
for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted
Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in
week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of
presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence
at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of
presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the N
probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds
across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your
project area.
'oft "N
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of
surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The
number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are
based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Chimney Swift -- - -
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MEIGROJIIZDD70ANJ27JTAWN2E/resources 8/13

7/20/23, 3:10 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Kentucky i I ++— +— ----
Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Prothon
Warbler otary I i I — +— IIII IIII IIII IIII +--- — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — —
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Red-headed + -- ++'—----
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Rusty Blackbird i — . . . — i i i i i — — i - -- - - - - - — — — — — — — ----
BCC -BCR
Wood Thrush , -- +++— ++i IIII IIII
BCC Rangewide r1■■ ■A
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all
birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds
are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the
locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.
To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of
Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity
you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
�.* I N
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other
species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge
Network (AKN).. The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey., banding, and citizen science
datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid
cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because
they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a
particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.
It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially
present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially
occurring in my specified location?
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MEIGROJIIZDD70ANJ27JTAWN2E/resources 9/13

7/20/23, 3:10 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by
the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN).. This data is derived from a growing collection of survey., banding, and
citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes
available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret
them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering,
migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps
provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird
on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? -.4p X 0
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their
range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in
the continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either
because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in
offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or
longline fishing). f"Nv
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in
particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of
rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and
minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Nma
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and
groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data
Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to
you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal
maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird
Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the
year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional
information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study_ and the nanotag studies or contact
Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MEIGROJIIZDD70ANJ27JTAWN2E/resources 10/13

7/20/23, 3:10 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating
the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of
priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what
other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory
birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability
of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project
footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black
vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is
the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as
more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a
lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there,
and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look
for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to
avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn
more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement
to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources
page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must
undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the
individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
\�4 %10
There are no refuge lands at this location.
Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MEIGROJIIZDD70ANJ27JTAWN2E/resources 11/13

7/20/23, 3:10 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to
determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
RIVERINE
R2UBHx
R4SBC
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory
website
NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on -site delineation to determine whether
wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.
Data limitations 6 u
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of
high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A
margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular
site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image
analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work
conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any
mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There
may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted
on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of
aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MEIGROJIIZDD70ANJ27JTAWN2E/resources 12/13

7/20/23, 3:10 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and
nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also
been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial
Imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe
wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or
products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local
government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.
Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should
seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory
programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/MEIGROJIIZDD7OANJ27JTAWN2E/resources 13/13

fires
April 18, 2023
Steve Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Dear Mr. Kichefski,
3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612'
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) is pleased to present this request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination for the Beaver Tail Mitigation Project (the "Project") (SAW-2022-00657) located in Lincoln
County, North Carolina (35.502576°,-81.320277 °). This mitigation bank will provide mitigation credits
to offset unavoidable impacts to stream and wetland resources within the Catawba River Basin (8-digit
USGS HUC 03050102). As part of this scope of work, RES is submitting this request to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for a confirmation of the limits of Waters of the U.S. on the subject site.
The Project consists of three parcels totaling 35.39 acres of conservation easement. Please note the parcels
containing the Project study area are not currently owned by RES. The Project will involve the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of one unnamed tributary to Howard's Creek. The Project's existing land -
use is primarily characterized by agriculture, forests, and low -intensity residential areas.
The proposed Project will provide improvements to water quality, hydrologic function, and habitat and will
address stressors identified in the watershed by reducing non -point source nutrient and sediment pollution,
restoring, and improving wetland functions, and improving aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me at (919)
345-3034 or jschmidkres.us if you have any additional question regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Schmid I Senior Ecologist
Attachments: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form, Jurisdictional Determination Request Form,
Vicinity Map, USGS Topographc Map, Soils Map, National Wetlands Inventory Map, FEMA Map,
LiDAR Map, Potential Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map, Wetland Determination Data Forms
res.us

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

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: Near 1560 Lutz Dairy Farm Road
City, State:
Lincolnton, NC
County: Lincoln
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 3614061508, 3604947568
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Jeremy Schmid, RES
Mailing Address: 3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone Number: 919.345.3034
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
✓❑ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant'
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: RES Aster, LLC
Mailing Address: 3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone Number: 561.762.2334
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
' Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 3157 Page:430 County: Lincoln
Parcel ID Number: 3614061508
Street Address: 1753 Lutz Dairy Farm Road, Lincolnton, NC 28092
Property Owner (please print):
Property Owner (please print):
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Department of Environmental Quality, and the US
Army Corps of Engineers, their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above
referenced property for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s).
Property Owners(s) Address: 1753 Lutz Dairy Farm Road, Lincolnton, NC 28092
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number:
432-978-8640
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)
V J
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
PIN Number: 3614053556
Street Address: 1560 Lutz Dairy Farm Road Lincolnton NC 28092
Property Owner (please print): ( t,Z-
Property Owner (please print):
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Department of Environmental Quality, and the US
Army Corps of Engineers, their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above
referenced property for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s).
Property Owners(s) Address:
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number:
I/W ereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Property Owner Authorize gnature) (Date)
(Date)

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
❑� I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other "affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
❑ I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
✓❑ Size of Property or Review Area 35.39 acres.
❑✓ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude:
Longitude
35.502576
81.320277
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than I Ix17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
■ North Arrow
■ Graphical Scale
■ Boundary of Review Area
■ Date
■ Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
■ Jurisdictional non -wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non -Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
■ Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non -
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non -Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or "Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Wetland and non -wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non -wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
❑ Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled "Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations" to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re ulatory-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'
❑ Vicinity Map
a Aerial Photograph
❑ USGS Topographic Map
Soil Survey Map
❑ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
❑ Landscape Photos (if taken)
❑ NCWAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
❑ NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
❑ Other Assessment Forms
' www.saw.usace.gM.mil/Portals/59/docs/re ug latorregdocs/JD/RGL 08-02_App_A_Prelim _JD_Form _fillable.pdf
' Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re ug latory-Permit-Proaram/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 4/3/2023
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: ,Jeremy Schmid
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: CESAW-RG-C
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Lincoln City: Lincolnton
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 35.502576 Long.:-81.320277
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name of nearest waterbody: Howard's Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non -wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
see attached table

Waters —Name
11MIgLin
Code I HGM_Code I Meas
Local Waterway
W1
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
1.316832 ACRE
DELIN.PJD-404
35.49708400-81.31929600
W2
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
2.510247 ACRE
DELIN.PJD-404
35.49636300-81.31766500
W3
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.217129 ACRE
DELIN.PJD-404
35.49931200-81.32062900
LD1
NORTH CAROLINA
R3
Linear
4925.68561 FOOT
DELIN.PJD-404
35.50121300-81.32074500
Ditch A
NORTH CAROLINA
Linear
207.18647 FOOT
DELIN.PJD-404
35.49657800-81.31893300
Ditch B
NORTH CAROLINA
Linear
359.273095 FOOT
DELIN.PJD-404
35.49751800-81.31847500
Ditch C
NORTH CAROLINA
Linear
329.577879 FOOT
DELIN.PJD-404
35.49542000-81.31727700

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

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
❑■ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:Vicinity, USGS, NWI, Soil, Existing conditions, WOUS
❑E Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
❑■ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 2K, Reepsville (1973) and Lincolnton West (1979)
❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑■ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
G
100-year Floodplain Elevation is:
Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Jeremy Schmid oe o,eoa=„oo==soaao ,,�s
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

—A.
4 V
41,
-74.1
res
Restoring a Resilient Earth for a Modem World
N
W E
S
0 225 450
Feet
Potential Wetland
or Non -Wetland Waters
of the U.S. Map
Beaver Tail
Mitigation Project
Lincoln County, NC
Date: 3/30/2023 Drawn by: H RG
Checked by: JS 1 in = 450 feet
Legend
Existing Stream Type
Perennial
Ditch
Existing Wetland
Study Area - 35.39 ac
Surveyed Project Parcel
Upland Datapoint
Wetland Datapoint
REFERENCE
1) Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Zone 17N
2) Map Projection is NAD 1983-StatePlane
North Carolina-FIPS 3200-Feet

,211
t-�
day
dg da �
V�
�.a z
l
\!r/ ` Q 7R �
me
9Warlick's Shortstop illow Creek Inn
zoo � -
x
d
s BoutiqueQ
�44 r va DayQ
ch
da
1636
D iel Lutheran Chu h New Vision Ministries
i
�e�a R�As�i//P t 204 R�s
qd 1203 1
6�jP �jt
4
3c
0
m
t202 �
West Lincoln 151219
High Sch I
b ,20,
2
Y Granite Falls
1185 Bob's Superetc,_ Morganton
ACo ver
Legend Nevi,
Proposed Easement
14-Digit HUC: 03050102040040 - TLW Den-ver
8-Digit HUC: 03050102 olnto
NC NHP Element Occurrence (NC NHP July 2021) "
- NC DMS Conservation Easement (NCDMS June 2021)
- Other Managed Area (NC NHP July 2021) Shelby
C 5 Mile Aviation Zone Ki gs G a
Mountain
® Airports ..........
W
® Project Location Blacksburg
" Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Date: 3/28/2023
w E Beaver Tail Drawn by: HG res
0 0.s , Mitigation Project Checked by:l5
Mile Lincoln County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1 mile Restoringoresdient earth for o modern world

1
M,, •i, 1
6.
Figure 2 - Parcel Access
Beaver Tail
Mitigation Project
Lincoln County, North Carolina
Date: 3/28/2023
ores
Restoringa resilient earth fora modern world
Drawn by: HG
Checked by:l5
1 inch = 500 feet

low
400
900
V/.
832
41*
• r � . + Y• •o � i� � •� o Cam'' � - ..
B,o ---
�: _
Ce l t
t r' a1
i
13
■ a4
8.•� '-'� a� .... -.f - Oa I '�� f 3' - I n
Howard , — •�o�' ` , 5- - j
__Creek
• • B3 / • p_- p .�-
IN
Le end �� _ �� __ • � - �` \ s'z�-�
Proposed Easement i l
LD1 - 384 ac t. `
" Figure 5 - USGS Quadrangle Date: 3/20/2023
Reepsville (1973) and Lincolnton West (1979)
w Beaver Tail Drawn by: HRG ores
0 1,000 2,000 Mitigation Project Checked by: MDD
Feet Lincoln Count , North Carolina rl inch=2,000 feet Restoring a resilient earth fora modern world

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Beavertail Mitigation Bank City/County: Lincoln
Applicant/owner: Resource Environmental Solutions
State: N C
Sampling Date: Feb 2 2022
_ Sampling Point: 13 W1-wt
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): linear - concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.497454 Long:-81.319645
Soil Map Unit Name: RvA: Riverview loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes = No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No 0
Are Vegetation 0, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
_ Slope (%): 1 %
Datum: WGS 84
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes = No
Remarks:
MLRA 136 Southern Piedmont
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
F-1 Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑✓ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑✓ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑✓ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0
No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): -4
n
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches): -4
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 13 W1-wt
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
3.
6.
50% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
3.
4.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20" radius )
1. Symphyotrichum puniceum
2. Scirpus cyperinus
3.
6.
7.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
2
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
2
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
100
(A/B)
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
20% of total cover:
_
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
20% of total cover: 0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
= Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
20% of total cover:
— Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
65 YES OBL (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
10 NO FACW Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
75 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 38 20% of total cover: 15
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes F71 No=
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
woody vegetation absent for large area -much of area is currently early successional herbaceous
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 13 W1-wi
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type'
Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-10
5 YR 4/4
90
5 YR 4/6 10 C
PL
CL
10-24
5 YR 5/3
80
5 YR 4/6 15 C
PL
CL
24-33
5 YR 4/1
75
5 YR 5/3 5 C
PL
SiL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Dark Surface (S7) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 21 No El
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Beavertail Mitigation Bank City/County: Lincoln
Applicant/owner: Resource Environmental Solutions
State: N C
Sampling Date: Feb 2 2022
_ Sampling Point: 16 W1-wt
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): linear - concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.497043 Long:-81.319398
Soil Map Unit Name: RvA: Riverview loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes = No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No 0
Are Vegetation 0, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
_ Slope (%): 1 %
Datum: WGS 84
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes = No
Remarks:
MLRA 136 Southern Piedmont
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
F-1 Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑✓ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑✓ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑✓ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0
No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): -3
n
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches): -3
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 16 W1-wt
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30" radius ) % Cover Species? Status
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 40 YES FACW
2. Acer rubrum 10 YES FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
50 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 25 20% of total cover: 10
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30" radius )
0 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 Alnus serrulata
5 YES OBL
0 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
2 Cephalanthus occidentalis 5 YES 013L
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
10 = Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 5
20% of total cover: 2
30" radius
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Juncus effusus
3 YES OBL
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Scirpus cyperinus
3 YES FACW
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
6 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 2
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes F71 No=
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 16 W1-wi
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox
Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist)
%
Type'
Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-6
5 YR 4/3
90
5 YR 4/6
10
C
PL
CL
6-8
5 YR 4/3
75
2.5 YR 4/8
25
C
PL
SCL
8-20
5 YR 4/4
100
SCL
20-31
5 YR 4/4
81
5 YR 4/6
15
C
PL
CL
--
--
--
5 YR 2.5/2
4
C
PL
--
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) 0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type: poorly structured SCL
Depth (inches): 6 to 20 inches
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 21 No El
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Beavertail Mitigation Bank City/County: Lincoln
Applicant/owner: Resource Environmental Solutions
State: N C
Sampling Date: Feb 2 2022
_ Sampling Point: 23 W2-wt
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): linear - linear
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.496068 Long:-81.317149
Soil Map Unit Name: ChA: Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes = No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No 0
Are Vegetation 0, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
_ Slope (%): 1 <%
Datum: WGS 84
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes = No
Remarks:
MLRA 136 Southern Piedmont
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
F-1 Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑✓ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
M Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0
No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): -6
n
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches): -6
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 23 W2-wt
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30" radius )
1. Betula nigra
2. Acer rubrum
3.
6.
50% of total cover: 50
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
5.
6.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
55 YES FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4
45 Y tJ t-At-
100 = Total Cover
20% of total cover: 20
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30" radius )
1 Alnus serrulata 5 YES OBL
2 Rhododendron viscosum 2 YES OBL
3. Ligustrum sinense 2 YES FACU
4.
50% of total cover: 5
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
6.
7.
9 = Total Cover
20% of total cover: 2
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes F71 No=
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 23 W2-wt
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-5
5 YR 4/6
100
C PL CL
5-21
5 YR 4/2
90
5 YR 4/4 10 C PL CL
21-25
5 YR 4/1
100
SiL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type: poorly structured SiL
Depth (inches): 21 inches
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑.� No El
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Beavertail Mitigation Bank City/County: Lincoln
Applicant/owner: Resource Environmental Solutions
State: N C
Sampling Date: Oct 27 2022
_ Sampling Point: 35 W3-wt
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave - concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.499733 Long:-81.320638
Soil Map Unit Name: RvA: Riverview loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes = No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No 0
Are Vegetation FTI Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
_ Slope (%): < 1 %
Datum: WGS 84
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes = No
Remarks:
MLRA 136 Southern Piedmont
difficult to represent the vegetation community due to the narrow width of this wetland -much of the vegetative cover is
rooted at the edge or outside of the wetland
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
F-1 Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑✓ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
0 Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0
No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): -21
n
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches): -21
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 35 W3-wt
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: -40" length )
0 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 Cephalanthus occidentalis
5 YES OBL
0 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
❑ 4 Morphological Adaptations'
2
- (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
v
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5 = Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
—40" length
Herb Stratum (Plot size: g )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Microstegium vimineum
60 YES FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9.
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
60 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes F71 No=
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
difficult to document appropriate vegetation due to narrow width of wetland area -use — 40' linear length
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 35 W3-wi
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-6
5 YR 3/4
95
5 YR 4/6 5 C PL
SiL
6-32
2.5 YR 3/4
100
SL
32-36
2.5 YR 4/1
100
2.5 YR 4/4 15 C PL
SL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Dark Surface (S7) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 21 No El
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Beavertail Mitigation Bank City/County: Lincoln
Applicant/owner: Resource Environmental Solutions
State: N C
Sampling Date: Feb 3 2023
_ Sampling Point: 55 W3-up
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): linear - concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.498311 Long:-81.320736
Soil Map Unit Name: RvA: Riverview loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes = No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No 0
Are Vegetation 0, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
_ Slope (%): < 1 %
Datum: WGS 84
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes = No
Remarks:
MLRA 136 Southern Piedmont
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
F-1 Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑✓ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
M Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No ❑ Depth (inches): -4
n
Saturation Present? Yes Q No ❑ Depth (inches): -4
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
recent rainfall saturated soils and provided upland runoff to area.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 55 W3-up
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20" radius )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Acer rubrum
15
YES FAC
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2. Carya ovata
15
YES FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 71 4 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
30 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 15
20% of total cover: 6
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20" radius )
0 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 Ligustrum sinense
5 YES FACU
0 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
2 Diospyros virginiana 5 YES FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 YES FACW
3
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
15 = Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 8
20% of total cover: 3
20" radius
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Verbesina alternifolia
10 YES FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Panicum anceps
3 YES FAC
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
13 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 7 20% of total cover: 3
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes F71 No=
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 55 W3-ur
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-10 2.5 YR 4/6 100 L
10-18 2.5 YR 3/4 100 S
18-28 2.5 YR 4/4 85 2.5 YR 4/8 15 C PL CL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Dark Surface (S7) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Beavertail Mitigation Bank City/County: Lincoln
Applicant/owner: Resource Environmental Solutions
State: N C
Sampling Date: Feb 3 2023
_ Sampling Point: 56 W3-wt
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): linear - concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.499031 Long:-81.320714
Soil Map Unit Name: LdC2: Lloyd sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately e NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes = No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No 0
Are Vegetation FTI Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
_ Slope (%): < 1 %
Datum: WGS 84
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes = No
Remarks:
MLRA 136 Southern Piedmont
difficult to represent the vegetation community due to the narrow width of this wetland -much of the vegetative cover is
rooted at the edge or outside of the wetland
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
0 High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑✓ Drainage Patterns (1310)
0 Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
0 Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No ❑ Depth (inches): -2
n
Saturation Present? Yes Q No ❑ Depth (inches): -2
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
recent rainfall saturated soils and provided upland runoff to area.
small areas have minor scouring and small wrack lines present along the narrow linear depresson
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 56 W3-wt
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20" radius )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
Fraxlnus enns Ivanica
1. p Y
25 YES FACW
2
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
87 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 44
20% of total cover: 18
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species 25 x 2 = 50
1.
FAC species 5 x 3 = 15
2.
FACU species 5 x 4 = 20
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: 35 (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.43
6.
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20" radius )
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 Ligustrum sinense
5 YES FACU
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
❑ 4 Morphological Adaptations'
2
- (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
v
6.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6 = Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2.
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 20" radius )
1, Vitis rotundifolia 5 YES FAC
4.
Hydrophytic
5
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: present? Yes F71 No=
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 56 W3-wi
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6
5 YR 4/4
98
2.5 YR 3/6 2 C PL L
6-12
5 YR 4/4
85
2.5 YR 4/8 15 C PL CL
12-26
2.5 YR 3/6
100
CL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Dark Surface (S7) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 21 No El
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Beavertail Mitigation Bank City/County: Lincoln
Applicant/owner: Resource Environmental Solutions
State: N C
Sampling Date: Feb 3 2023
_ Sampling Point: 57 W1-up
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): linear - concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.497926 Long:-81.320746
Soil Map Unit Name: RvA: Riverview loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes = No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No 0
Are Vegetation 0, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
_ Slope (%): < 1 %
Datum: WGS 84
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes = No
Remarks:
MLRA 136 Southern Piedmont
recent rainfall likely contributing to elevated water table
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
F-1 Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑✓ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
M Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No ❑ Depth (inches): -1 1
n
Saturation Present? Yes Q No ❑ Depth (inches): -25
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
recent rainfall contributing to temporary elevation of groundwater
initial boring observation indicated soil not saturated above 25 inches -within 15 minutes the water table had risen to -11 ".
the clay loam horizon may be acting to confine water table
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 57 W1-up
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20" radius )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Betula ni g ra
55 YES FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5 NO FACW
3. Prunus serotina
5 NO FACU
Total Number of Dominant
5
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
65 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 33
20% of total cover: 13
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20" radius )
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 Acer rubrum
5 YES FAC
0 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
2
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5 = Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
20" radius
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Microstegium vimineum
70 YES FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
70 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 20" radius )
1. Vitis rotundifolia 5 YES FAC
9 Lonicera iaDonica 5 YES FAC
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
10
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2 Present? Yes F71 No=
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 57 W1-ur
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-7 2.5 YR 3/4 100 L
7-26 2.5 YR 3/6 100 CL
26-30 2.5 YR 3/6 85 2.5 YR 2.5/2 2 C PL S
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type: poorly structured CL
Depth (inches): 7 to 26 inches
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Beavertail Mitigation Bank City/County: Lincoln
Applicant/owner: Resource Environmental Solutions
State: N C
Sampling Date: Feb 3 2023
_ Sampling Point: 58 W1-up
Investigator(s): G Lankford Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): linear - linear
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.496588 Long:-81.319538
Soil Map Unit Name: RvA: Riverview loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes = No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No 0
Are Vegetation FTI Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
_ Slope (%): < 1 %
Datum: WGS 84
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes = No
Remarks:
MLRA 136 Southern Piedmont
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
F-1 Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0
No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): -29
1:1
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches): -29
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
recent rainfall
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 58 W1-up
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20" radius )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
Fraxlnus enns Ivanica
1. p Y
10 YES FACW
4
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2. Acer negundo
10 YES FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
20 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 10
20% of total cover: 4
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
0 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1
0 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
❑ 4 Morphological Adaptations'
2
- (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
v
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
20" radius
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Verbesina alternifolia
40 YES FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Panicum anceps
35 YES FAC
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9.
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
75 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 38
20% of total cover: 15
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes F71 No=
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 58 W1-ur
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6
7.5 YR 3/3
100
fSL
6-9
7.5 YR 3/4
100
SL
9-31
5 YR 4/3
92
5 YR 4/6 8 C PL SL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Dark Surface (S7) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
PIN Number: 3614053556
Street Address: 1560 Lutz Dairy Farm Road Lincolnton NC 28092
Property Owner (please print): ( t,Z-
Property Owner (please print):
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Department of Environmental Quality, and the US
Army Corps of Engineers, their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above
referenced property for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s).
Property Owners(s) Address:
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number:
I/W ereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Property Owner Authorize gnature) (Date)
(Date)

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 3157 Page:430 County: Lincoln
Parcel ID Number: 3614061508
Street Address: 1753 Lutz Dairy Farm Road, Lincolnton, NC 28092
Property Owner (please print):
Property Owner (please print):
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Resource Environmental Solutions, the NC Department of Environmental Quality, and the US
Army Corps of Engineers, their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above
referenced property for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s).
Property Owners(s) Address: 1753 Lutz Dairy Farm Road, Lincolnton, NC 28092
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number:
432-978-8640
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)
V J
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)

Appendix C
Data, Analysis, and Supplementary
Information

Beaver Tail Morphological Parameters
Existing
LD1 (US)
LD1 (MS)
LD1 (DS)
Feature
Run Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Drainage Area ac
269
288
315
Drainage Area mil
0.42
0.45
0.49
NC Regional Curve Discharge cfs 2
50
52
55
VA Regional Curve Discharge cfs 3
19
21
22
SC Regional Curve Discharge cfs 4
20
21
22
Design/Calculated Dischar e cfs l
-
-
-
Dimension
BKF Cross Sectional Area ft2
9.7
11.3
10.2
11.8
BKF Width ft
8.4
9.6
8.6
10.4
BKF Mean Depth ft
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
BKF Max Depth ft
1.6
2.0
1.7
1.5
Wetted Perimeter ft
9.7
11.2
9.9
11.9
Hydraulic Radius ft
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Width/Depth Ratio
7.3
8.2
7.3
9.2
Floodprone Width ft
29.5
29.2
14.7
11.4
Entrenchment Ratio
3.5
3.0
1.7
1.1
Bank Height Ratio
4.0
1.8
1 2.1
2.8
Substrate
Description D50
Sand
Gravel
Gravel
D16 (mm)-
-
-
D50 (mm)-
-
-
D84 (mm)-
-
-
Pattern
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Channel Beltwidth ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
Radius of Curvature ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
Radius of Curvature Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
Meander Wavelength ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
Meander Width Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
Profile
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Riffle Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Run Length ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pool Length ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pool -to-Pool Spacing ft
-
I-
-
-
-
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
1476
777
1573
Channel Length ft
1866
941
1771
Sinuosity
1.26
1.21
1.13
Valley Slope ft/ft
0.014
0.004
0.006
Channel Slope ft/ft
0.008
0.008
0.008
Ros en Classification
G4 to E4
G4
G4
1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2002)
3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Lotspeich (2009)
4 SC Regional Curve Equations source: Jennings Environmental (2020)

Beaver Tail Morphological Parameters (Cont.)
Design
LD1 (US)
LD1 (MS/DS)
Feature
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Drainage Area ac
269
315
Drainage Area mil
0.42
0.49
NC Regional
Curve Discharge cfs 2
50
55
VA Regional
Curve Discharge cfs 3
19
22
SC Regional
Curve Discharge cfs 4
20
22
Design/Calculated Discharge cfs l
30
32
Dimension
BKF Cross Sectional Area ft2
9.3
17.4
11.7
19.0
BKF Width ft
10.8
14.1
12.4
14.9
BKF Mean Depth ft
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.3
BKF Max Depth ft
1.3
2.1
1.3
2.1
Wetted Perimeter ft
11.2
14.9
12.9
15.7
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.8
1.2
0.9
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
12.6
11.4
13.1
11.7
Floodprone Width ft
>50
>50
>50
>50
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Substrate
Description D50
Cobble
Cobble
D16 (mm)-
-
D50 (mm)-
-
D84 (mm)-
-
Pattern
Min
Max
Min
Max
Channel Beltwidth ft
18
34
16
49
Radius of Curvature ft
22
32
25
37
Radius of Curvature Ratio
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
Meander Wavelength ft
95
121
84
133
Meander Width Ratio
1.7
3.1
1.3
4.0
Profile
Min
Max
Min
Max
Riffle Length (ft)
14
37
10
35
Run Length ft
-
-
-
-
Pool Length ft
23
47
11
68
Pool -to-Pool Spacing ft
49
74
13
91
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
1481
2496
Channel Length ft
1667
2888
Sinuosity
1.13
1.16
Valley Slope ft/ft
0.011
0.008
Channel Slope ft/ft
0.007 - 0.010
0.005 - 0.0075
Ros en Classification
I
C3
C3
1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2002)
3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Lotspeich (2009)
4 SC Regional Curve Equations source: Jennings Environmental (2020)

Upstream
Downstream
Reach UT1 - XS1 (Run)
95
94
93
92
91
C 90
0
89
88
w
87
86
85
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach UT1 - XS2 (Riffle)
96
00
95
94
93
w
c
0 92
m
d
91
w
90
89
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
f
F
a
Downstream
Reach UT2 - XS3 (Riffle)
97
96.5
96
95.5
95
Y
94.5
C
94
r
93.5
_y
w 93
92.5
92
91.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach UT2 - XS4 (Riffle)
97
96
95
$ 94
c
0
93
>
m
w 92
91
90
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Existing Conditions
71P
I.
Cartographer: sfasking I POC: BRC I Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\105546_Beaver_Tail\PRO\8_WorkMaps\Workmap_SCF_BeaverTail\Workmap_SCF_BeaverTail.aprx I Layout: Figure C1a -Inundation (2-yr Storm)
�I
H
Beaver Tail
Lincoln County, North Carolina
Proposed Easement
Stream Top of Bank
- Inundation Boundary
Wetland Approach
® Creation
® Enhancement
® Preservation
Woody Floodplain Structures
N 1 in = 200 ft
when printed at 11x17"
0 100 200
Feet
Reference: Project limits are approximate. The
property boundaries depicted on this map have not
been surveyed and are for prospect assessment
purposes only. This information is not to be used as
final legal boundaries.
Data Source: NCOneMap
Spatial Reference:
Date Exported: 9/18/2023

Figure Cl b
Inundation (S-yr Storm)
El
-BeawrTail\l
book
re Clb - Inundation (5-yr Ston.)
4.K
i1
M
Ah

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: SAW-2022-00657 NCDWR #: 2022-0451 V2
Project Name Beaver Tail Date of Evaluation 1-11-2022
Applicant/Owner Name RES- Jeremy Schmid Wetland Site Name WC
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid- RES
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Howards Creek
River Basin Catawba USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03050102
County Lincoln NCDWR Region Mooresville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? , - Yes ; No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes ]: No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
I— Anadromous fish
F_ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F_ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
r Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F_ Publicly owned property
F_ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
F_ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
F_ Designated NCNHP reference community
F_ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
F_ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) i Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? f- Yes is No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes : No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ;: Yes ; No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B ;: B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
f" A C A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
f: B (± B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
f - C f C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A f ' A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
{- B {- B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
f- C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D f— D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. i A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
i' B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape

feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon >- 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A ii A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B ; B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C ; C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F_ A F_ A F_ A >- 10% impervious surfaces
f✓ B R1 B (✓ B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C R' C r--' C >- 20% coverage of pasture
D (✓ D (✓ D >- 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F E F E F E >- 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F R F R F >- 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F G F G F G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
i': Yes ; No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A >- 50 feet
i` B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
` D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
<- 15-feet wide i' > 15-feet wide ; Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
i` Yes is No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
,': Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
,`- Exposed - adjacent open water with width >- 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
Forest only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
is A f- A >- 100 feet
C- B C B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C C: C From 50 to < 80 feet
C- D C D From 40 to < 50 feet
C E C E From 30 to < 40 feet
C- F C F From 15 to < 30 feet
C` G C G From 5 to < 15 feet
f H C` H < 5 feet
9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
1 C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).

(: A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
C B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
r' C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
(- A C A C A >_ 500 acres
(- B C B (- B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
(- D (- D (- D From 25 to < 50 acres
C E C E C E From 10 to < 25 acres
(-* F (. F (- F From 5 to < 10 acres
C G C G C G From 1 to < 5 acres
( H (' H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
(- I ( I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
( J C J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
r K r K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
1'_ A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
i'- B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
i'`- A C- A >_ 500 acres
i'` B ,:` B From 100 to < 500 acres
` C :` C From 50 to < 100 acres
` D : D From 10 to < 50 acres
E i` E < 10 acres
i'- F 1'_ F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
i Yes 1 No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
(" A 0
(+ B 1 to 4
r' C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
` A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
{ B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
(` C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure - assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
is Yes 1 No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
i`- A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
,'- B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace
above the
assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA
WT
o`
A
` A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B
` B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U
: C
is C
Canopy sparse or absent
A
,`` A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
i` B
` B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C
: C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

i A f A Dense shrub layer
is B is B Moderate density shrub layer
i` C i` C Shrub layer sparse or absent
is A is A Dense herb layer
�5 i` B i` B Moderate density herb layer
= i` C i` C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
,:` A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
(` A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
(- B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
{: C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
r A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
(- B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
r A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
(— B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
r C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
(: D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WC
Date
1/11/2022
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jeremy Schmid- RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: SAW-2022-00657 NCDWR #: 2022-0451 V2
Project Name Beaver Tail Date of Evaluation 1-11-2022
Applicant/Owner Name RES- Jeremy Schmid Wetland Site Name WD
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid- RES
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Howards Creek
River Basin Catawba USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03050102
County Lincoln NCDWR Region Mooresville
C' Yes C: No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? (- Yes [f No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? C' Yes f:` No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
F Anadromous fish
F Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
F Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F Publicly owned property
F N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
F Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
F Designated NCNHP reference community
F Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
C' Blackwater
C: Brownwater
F Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) C' Lunar C' Wind C' Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? C' Yes Co— No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? C' Yes Ce No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Ce Yes C' No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
C: A Ce A Not severely altered
C' B (- B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf
Sub
C' A
C' A
Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
f: B
ff B
Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C' C
(7 C
Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief— assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA
WT
3a. (—A
C' A
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
C' B
C' B
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C: C
[: C
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C' D
C' D
Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. C' A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
C' B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
f: C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for

regional indicators.
4a. (—. A Sandy soil
C: B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C' C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
C' D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
C' E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. f- A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
f: B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. C: A No peat or muck presence
C' B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
G A Co— A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
(- B [- B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
(- C [" C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
I— A r A r A >_ 10% impervious surfaces
I✓ B r B r B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
I✓ C r C r C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
I✓ D r D r D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
I— E r E r E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
I✓ F r F r F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F G r G r G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
(*— Yes (-''No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
[- A >_ 50 feet
[: B From 30 to < 50 feet
[- C From 15 to < 30 feet
[- D From 5 to < 15 feet
[" E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
,'<_ 15-feet wide [: > 15-feet wide [- Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
(- Yes [: No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
(: Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
(' Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
Forest only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A >_ 100 feet
C B t— B From 80 to < 100 feet
f C i' C From 50 to < 80 feet
( D (" D From 40 to < 50 feet
i E i' E From 30 to < 40 feet
i' F i' F From 15 to < 30 feet
i' G i' G From 5 to < 15 feet
i' H i' H < 5 feet
9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
(- A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
(- B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
(: C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
f: A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
C' B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C' C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.

11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
(' A (" A (' A >_ 500 acres
(' B (' B (' B From 100 to < 500 acres
i' C (' C (' C From 50 to < 100 acres
(' D (' D (' D From 25 to < 50 acres
(' E (' E (' E From 10 to < 25 acres
(: F (: F (' F From 5 to < 10 acres
i' G (' G G From 1 to < 5 acres
(' H (- H (: H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
r I (' I r I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
i'J ('J ('J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
(' K (' K (' K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
r A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
r B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
(' A (" A >_ 500 acres
(' B (" B From 100 to < 500 acres
i' C (- C From 50 to < 100 acres
(' D (: D From 10 to < 50 acres
(: E (- E < 10 acres
(- F (- F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
r Yes r No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
(' A 0
(i B 1 to 4
('C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
(o A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
r B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
r C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
(' A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
(' B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
(' C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
r Yes r No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
(' A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
(' B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace
above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA
WT
or
A
r A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
@
(i B
(o B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U
r C
r C
Canopy sparse or absent
o
(' A
(' A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
�?
(: B
(: B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C
(" C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
r A
r A
Dense shrub layer
L
6 B
(o B
Moderate density shrub layer
v)
r C
r C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
(' A (' A Dense herb layer
r (' B (" B Moderate density herb layer

— 4 C 4 C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
t`- A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
t`i B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
(i A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
(' C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
(*- A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
(' B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C f- D
�i
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
(i A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
i D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WD
Date
1-11-2022
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jeremy Schmid- RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions
(Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
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
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: SAW-2022-00657 NCDWR #: 2022-0451 V2
Project Name Beaver Tail Date of Evaluation 1-11-2022
Applicant/Owner Name RES- Jeremy Schmid Wetland Site Name WE
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jeremy Schmid- RES
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Howards Creek
River Basin Catawba USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03050102
County Lincoln NCDWR Region Mooresville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? , - Yes ; No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes ]: No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
I— Anadromous fish
F_ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F_ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
r Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F_ Publicly owned property
F_ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
F_ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
F_ Designated NCNHP reference community
F_ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
F_ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) i Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? f- Yes is No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes : No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ;: Yes ; No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B ;: B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
f" A C A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
f: B (± B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
f - C f C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A f ' A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
{- B {- B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
f- C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D f— D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. i A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
i' B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape

feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon >- 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A ii A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B ; B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C ; C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F_ A F_ A F_ A >- 10% impervious surfaces
f✓ B R1 B (✓ B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C R' C r--' C >- 20% coverage of pasture
D (✓ D (✓ D >- 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F E F E F E >- 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F R F R F >- 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F G F G F G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
i': Yes ; No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A >- 50 feet
i` B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
` D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
<- 15-feet wide i' > 15-feet wide ; Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
i` Yes is No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
,': Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
,`- Exposed - adjacent open water with width >- 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
Forest only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
is A f- A >- 100 feet
C- B C B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C C: C From 50 to < 80 feet
C- D C D From 40 to < 50 feet
C E C E From 30 to < 40 feet
C- F C F From 15 to < 30 feet
C` G C G From 5 to < 15 feet
f H C` H < 5 feet
9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
1 C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).

(: A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
C B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
r' C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
(- A C A C A >_ 500 acres
(- B C B (- B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
(- D (- D (- D From 25 to < 50 acres
C E C E C E From 10 to < 25 acres
(-* F (. F (- F From 5 to < 10 acres
C G C G C G From 1 to < 5 acres
( H (' H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
(- I ( I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
( J C J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
r K r K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
1'_ A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
i'- B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
i'`- A C- A >_ 500 acres
i'` B ,:` B From 100 to < 500 acres
` C :` C From 50 to < 100 acres
` D : D From 10 to < 50 acres
E i` E < 10 acres
i'- F 1'_ F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
i Yes 1 No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
(" A 0
(+ B 1 to 4
r' C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
` A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
{ B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
(` C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure - assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
is Yes 1 No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
i`- A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
,'- B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace
above the
assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA
WT
o`
A
` A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B
` B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U
: C
is C
Canopy sparse or absent
A
,`` A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
i` B
` B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C
: C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

i A f A Dense shrub layer
is B is B Moderate density shrub layer
i` C i` C Shrub layer sparse or absent
is A is A Dense herb layer
�5 i` B i` B Moderate density herb layer
= i` C i` C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
,:` A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
(` A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
(- B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
{: C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
r A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
(- B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
r A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
(— B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
r C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
(: D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WE
Date
1/11/2022
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jeremy Schmid- RES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

FINAL
Detailed Hydric Soils Study
Beavertail Mitigation Bank
Lincoln County NC
Prepared for:
Ben Carroll
Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Prepared by:
George K Lankford Soil Scientist, LSS #1223
George K Lankford, LLC
238 Shady Grove Rd
Pittsboro, NC 27312
February 2023
Soil Scientist Seal
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Beavertail Mitigation Bank in Lincoln County, NC. Any
subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring the complete report, including figures, maps,
appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Beavertail Mitigation Bank
Study Objectives and Scope
The purpose of the study was to evaluate and delineate the extent of soils potentially suitable for
hydrologic restoration and mitigation. The potential for hydrologic restoration of the soil is evaluated
considering both historic and existing land use, current conditions, and the potential for establishing a
hydroperiod suitable for its landscape setting and soils.
This evaluation focuses on the potential to use practical technical solutions that will support the
enhancement, reestablishment, and creation of natural wetland hydrology. Along with proposed stream
restoration raising the local groundwater, the potential for hydrologic restoration assumes an appropriate
design and ability to construct site modifications necessary to restore adequate hydrology in this
landscape. Modifications suggested generally take advantage of available natural hydrologic sources and
removal of drainage modifications. Changes suggested may include, but are not limited to, surface
modifications such as plugging drainage ditches, removal of fill materials, and microtopographic
alteration such as surface roughening and enhancement of existing floodplain depressions.
Recommendations for hydrologic enhancements and wetland mitigation follows the Principles of Wetland
Restoration (USEPA 2000) that promote successful development of a functioning wetland community by
restoring ecological integrity through reestablishment/creation of natural structure and function. This
report presents an evaluation of the subject property based upon a detailed field investigation for the
purpose of confirming the presence of and delineating the extent of hydric soil. Additionally, soils located
within an appropriate landscape that lack hydric indicators, but are suitable for Wetland Creation, were
also identified.
This report describes these findings, conclusions, and recommendation for wetland reestablishment,
enhancement, and creation at the Beavertail Mitigation Bank. The observations and opinions stated in this
report reflect conditions apparent on the subject property at the time of the site evaluation. My findings,
opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on professional experience, soil morphology,
drainage patterns, site conditions, and boundaries of the property as evident in the field.
Project Information and Background
The project is located in Lincoln County approximately 3.5 miles northwest of Lincolnton, NC and south
of Lutz Dairy Farm Road (SR 1203) and east of Daniels Road (SR 1185). The area to be evaluated is
approximately 20 acres on the floodplain of Howards Creek and an unnamed tributary to Howards Creek
(UT) (Figure 1). The land use of the contributing watershed community is rural, consisting of agricultural
farmland, areas of undeveloped forest land, and scattered residential homes (Figure 2). The project
includes areas of jurisdictional wetlands.
Project Approach
The mitigation approach is to restore a natural hydroperiod to establish and improve the overall biological
functions common to natural wetland systems.
Additional considerations are necessary in areas having a landscape with soils suitable for wetlands, but
do not contain hydric soil currently due to current drainage conditions. The approach to these areas will
be similar with the establishment of a wetland hydroperiod and the biological functions common to
natural wetland systems. Within these areas the soil will be evaluated for internal drainage and the
potential for supporting successful hydroperiods.
Both establishment and creation areas should sustain hydroperiods appropriate for the landscape and
available hydrology sources. Within the project, wetlands were identified and delineated (Figure 2). An
official concurrence with the Corps of Engineers is being sought to verify the jurisdictional resources.
February 2023
Page 2 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Beavertail Mitigation Bank
NRCS Soil Mapping
NRCS Soil Survey
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey provides county level data that can be
used in general planning for farms and larger areas. The soil survey provides maps showing soil map units
and gives a brief description for each of the major soil types along with their characteristics. The soil
mapping units identify areas of soil expected to have similarly defined soil properties and physical
characteristics and provides management criteria based upon these properties. Soil surveys delineate
natural soil bodies (Soil Survey Manual) as map units across a site and are useful for general planning.
The larger scale of the NRCS Soil Survey map units includes inclusions of smaller areas of dissimilar
soils not discernable without a detailed site evaluation. A soil survey map unit can be made up of either a
single major soil type (consociation) and miscellaneous minor components, or it can be made up of two or
more soil series that are not mapped separately (complex). Sometimes a map unit is an undifferentiated
group that is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually, but
are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management.
Soil map units are identified by the major component soil series and often a phase (such as slope class,
flooding frequency, and if eroded). Map units also contain inclusions of dissimilar soil and provide
estimated ratios for the major soil types and significant inclusions. Mapping unit descriptions describe the
potential soil types and ranges of soils characteristics that may be found within a landscape or landscape
position. The properties described provide a useful background for interpreting soil properties that may be
encountered at the site and become a starting point for this soil evaluation. Determining soil
characteristics at a specific location requires an actual site evaluation. The Soil Survey map units shown
often correlate closely with soils observed at a location, but have limitations because soils represent the
natural conditions and gradients and are influenced by geology, slope, and past land management
practices. The NRCS Soil Survey program is structured to identify soils for specific uses, often excluding
or minimizing the wetter soils because they are inherently unsuitable for agricultural, building, and
similar uses as well as their typically narrow, linear nature in the landscape.
NRCS Mapping Units Within the Project Area
Within the immediate project limits the NRCS Soil Survey indicates two soil map units that characterize
the alluvial soils along the floodplain of Howards Creek and the UT. Alluvial floodplain soils form in
material deposited from erosional material derived upland soils of the contributing watershed. Textures of
alluvial soils can vary widely depending on source materials and changing depositional patterns.
At the Beavertail Mitigation Bank, two flood plain map units are shown. These map units are a Chewacla
loam and Riverview loam (Appendix Q. Found along drainage ways and on floodplains, a Chewacla soil
is frequently flooded. The Chewacla soil unit is somewhat poorly drained with the natural ground water
table elevation expected to be between 6 inches and 24 inches below the ground surface for much of the
year. This map unit lies on flat, nearly level surfaces and has a loamy surface underlain mostly by finer
textured sandy clay loams. The Riverview soil unit is well drained with the natural ground water table
elevation expected to be between 36 inches and 60 inches below the ground surface for much of the year.
This map unit lies on nearly level surfaces and often at slightly higher elevations. It is mostly loamy
throughout. Both of these soil map units have inclusions of poorly drained Wehadkee soil. The Wehadkee
soils are found within depressions and backwater areas where the water table is expected to be between 0
and 12 inches for a significant portion of the growing season.
Drainage and flooding are the most limiting factors for typical uses in these floodplain soils. The internal
drainage found in these soils is moderately high to high, enabling drainage modification to often be
effective. Due to frequent flooding and the wetness limitations, these soils are usually drained for
agricultural use. The Chewacla and Riverview soils are not classified as hydric, but the Wehadkee
February 2023
Page 3 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Beavertail Mitigation Bank
inclusions are classified as hydric by the NRCS. The water tables are expected to range from 0 to 12
inches for the Wehadkee, 6 to 24 inches for the Chewacla, and 36 to 60 inches for a Riverview (Table 1).
Upland soils surrounding the site are well drained Lloyd soils. In addition to slope differences, some
phases of the upland soils adjacent to the site are moderately eroded. It is noted that these upland soils are
classified as Rhodic Kanhapludults. A Rhodic soil naturally has very red colors indicating high iron and
the floodplain soils can be expected to reflect these redder parent materials. A general summary of
characteristics for the NRCS mapping units for the Beavertail site are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. NRCS Hydric Soil Map Units at the Beavertail Site.
Series
Taxonomic
Drainage
Hydric
Landscape setting
Class
Class
(Hydric Rating)
down across
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (ChA) (Consociation)
Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing
season— (found on flood plains/toe slopes)
Parent material - alluvium
Depth to water table - 6 to 24 inches Floodin — Frequent Pondin - none
Chewacla (80%)
Fluvaquentic
somewhat
No
linear - linear
D strude is
oorl
B/D
Wehadkee (5%)
Fluvaquentic
poorly
Yes
linear - linear
Endoa ue is
B/D
Riverview loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded (RvA) (Consociation)
All areas Prime Farmland — (found on floodplains)
Parent material - loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Depth to water table - 36 to 60 inches Flooding — occasional to none Pondin - none
Riverview (85%)
Fluventic
well
No
convex - linear
D strude is
B
Wehadkee (5%)
Fluvaquentic
poorly
Yes
concave - linear
Endoa ue is
B/D
Lloyd sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded (LdC2) (Consociation)
Farmland ofstatewide importance — (found on hillslopes)
Parent material - saprolite derived from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase and/or gneiss
Depth to water table — greater than 80 inches
Lloyd (80%)
ic
well
Bo
linear - convex
KanRhodudults
Source-NRCS Web Soil Survey (2022 11 02)
Methodology
The detailed hydric soil investigation for the Beavertail Mitigation Bank Site was completed in February
of 2023 and the wetlands were delineated. Appropriate landscapes were also evaluated for the soils
potential to support a wetland hydrology. A series of approximately 58 soil borings were evaluated across
the site to described and characterize the soils. These borings identified the hydric soil extent along with
areas suitable for wetland creation (Figure 3). Soil texture was used as a guide for estimating general
permeability. Finer textures typically indicate slower permeability and the potential to perch a water table.
Deeper soil horizons were evaluated for general ability to impact a perched water table. Soil boring
February 2023
Page 4 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Beavertail Mitigation Bank
descriptions do not contain adequate detail for classification to an individual soil series, but is generally
referenced to the most similar local NRCS Soil Mapping Units.
To determine hydric indicators and evaluate current hydrology, soils were evaluated using observed
morphologic characteristics and following criteria based on "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
United States" (USDA, NRCS, 2018, Version 8.2). Where drainage and tillage have altered the historic
condition, the presence of hydric soil indicators may not reflective the current hydrology and the hydric
indicator may be relict. The morphological interpretation of relict indicators follows Vepraskas (1994).
Hydric soil indicators used are valid for the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0 within Major Land Resource
Area (MLRA) 136 (Southern Piedmont) and Land Resource Region (LRR) P- South Atlantic and Gulf
Slope Cash Crops, Forest, and Livestock Region.
A hydroperiod success criteria is proposed based upon Corps mitigation guidelines (US Army Corps of
Engineers 2016) along with specific site conditions where appropriate. Soil boring locations examined
during the field evaluation were approximately located using the Terrain Navigator Pro smart phone
application by Trimble and figures were produced from the same software. Boundary points were located
using EOS Arrow 100, a submeter GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) by RES staff.
All boundaries shown are based on the detailed field evaluation.
Current soil characteristics were evaluated and described using hand auger soil borings. These borings
were used to delineate the extent of soil suitable for wetland reestablishment, rehabilitation, enhancement,
and creation. Hydric indicators typically occur within the upper 18 inches, but selected borings extended
to greater than 30 inches in depth. In some areas, borings extend beyond the proposed project boundaries
to evaluate the wider range of site conditions. Representative profiles are described to document the range
of characteristics observed (Appendix A). The current hydrologic condition was evaluated by:
an assessment of the existing drainage modifications (both anthropogenic and natural),
the visible pattern and presentation of soil color and mottles, existing vegetation, and
the current water table where observed.
General surface conditions and drainage patterns representative of this floodplain were noted. The
discussion describes relevant soil characteristics, current hydrology, and land management. Observed
modifications that may affect potential hydrologic restoration are identified. Selected photographs of soils
and the landscape are shown in Appendix B.
For potential wetland creation areas, general guidelines considered for site suitability follow the USDA-
NRCS Conservation Practice Standard: Wetland Creation Code 658. This guidance states that potential
areas be located within an appropriate landscape that will receive adequate hydrologic contributions. This
landscape should provide an ability to temporarily store or have the potential to be modified to store
ground and surface water for extended periods. Potential sources of hydrology at this site are identified
and discussed with emphasis on principal sources and other available sources that can support wetland
hydrology within the proposed creation area. The presence of existing wetlands or hydric soil provide
additional criteria for site suitability. The site should also have appropriate soils that can sustain a high
water table and not be subject to rapid subsurface drainage. The soils should also be capable of supporting
a wetland vegetative community. Where past land use has compacted or degraded the soils, surface
permeability may need to be addressed through ripping and introduction of surface roughening to improve
vegetative survival and provide diverse micro habitat.
February 2023
Page 5 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Beavertail Mitigation Bank
This report describes these findings, conclusions, and recommendation for wetland mitigation at the
Beavertail Mitigation Bank. The discussion identifies the observed relevant soil characteristics, current
hydrology, and land management with observed drainage modifications that may affect potential
hydrologic restoration. Constraints on stream restoration may limit the extent of potential hydrologic
restoration shown.
Results and Discussion
Landscape Setting
This project site is within the Southern Outer Piedmont (45b) ecoregion of the Piedmont physiographic
region. The landscape within this ecoregion is mostly low hills with irregular plains. Geology within the
project and surrounding area is mapped as metamorphic rock that is interlayered having minor layers and
lenses of hornblende gneiss, metagabbro, mica schist, and granitic rock. It is covered with deep saprolite
with mostly red, clayey subsoils. Historic farming practices in the area have resulted in many area with a
moderately eroded upland slopes.
This site is located approximately 3.0 miles upstream of its confluence with the South Fork of the
Catawba River near Lincolnton. Howards Creek and the UT in the vicinity of the project are classified as
Class C Waters and meet water quality standards. The UT is a first order stream and Howards Creek is a
large order stream. The project lies on the floodplain of an UT to Howards Creek with the lower portion
along the left floodplain of Howards Creek. Land use in the contributing watershed consists of small
farms, residential homes, and undeveloped land (Figure 2). Within the proposed project limits, land use is
livestock operations, row crops, and silvicultural land. Past land clearing and conversion to agricultural
uses have removed the shallow depressions and low hummocks typical to a floodplain landscape. Surface
smoothing for agricultural typically removes obstructions and improves surface drainage. Ditches and
swales increase the rate of runoff, often lowering local groundwater and shortening hydroperiods. The
stream project begins on the UT above Lutz Dairy Road, flowing south under the road and to Howards
Creek. Approximately 700 feet below Lutz Dairy Road the UT gradient lessens and the floodplain begins
to widen before merging with Howards Creek.
Project Area Description
Three areas of hydric soil were delineated (wetlands W 1, W2, and W3) and are awaiting the Army Corps
of Engineers jurisdictional concurrence. The wetlands lie within depressional areas with semipermanent
to seasonal saturation. The source of wetland hydrology for these wetlands is groundwater discharge
along the toe of slope. The perching of groundwater appears limited due to the improved drainage
modifications. Conversion of W 1 to pasture and shallow ditching has improved surface drainage and
reduced natural hydrology. This has also limited potential expansion of hydric indicators beyond the
boundaries. Within W2, the ditching intercepts toe of slope discharge. The W3 wetland is a narrow
feature along the toe of slope that has hydrology limited by the adjacent incised stream. Adjacent to the
wetlands, an area of soil with similar textural characteristics suitable landscapes, but lacking hydric
indicators was delineated that appears suitable for creation. This area appears to be able to support
appropriate hydrology for wetland creation.
The creation area begins approximately where the valley slope of the UT begins to flatten and the
floodplain becomes wider. This has resulted in a small area of sandier textured soil occurring at the
upstream end of the creation area with decreasing particle size toward the downstream end to Howards
Creek. The soils were found to have textures similar to the wetlands, but with a more diverse
microtopography. Soils located adjacent to the incised stream show a lower groundwater table. The
stream is incised three to four feet and limits saturation and inundation periods.
The contributing upland soils have a very red color indicating high Fe content. Some upland soil map
units also indicate moderate erosion in the past has eroded into the subsoils. The surrounding upland map
February 2023
Page 6 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Beavertail Mitigation Bank
units indicate a Lloyd soil is the dominant soil series with eroded soils on the side slopes. Based on the
NRCS soil map, a loamy surface is expected on the ridge tops and shoulders with the side slopes eroded.
The side slopes have lost the loamy surface and now exhibit a clay loam or clay. The loamy surfaces and
potentially portions of the underlying clayey textured soil that were eroded has been deposited on the
floodplains. The geologically young soils have not had time for the growth of mature trees that may tip
and create multiple small, deeper depressions and development of more heterogenous features of mature
floodplains, including wetlands is minimal.
The incised streams limit flooding and lower the water table adjacent in floodplain. The upstream portion
has areas underlain by a sandy loam below 20 inches, but does not appear to be continuous throughout the
floodplain. The incised stream likely intercepts the limited sandy lenses, providing additional subsurface
drainage. A shallow swale follows along the right bank toe of slope. Within this area soils exhibits limited
hydric indicators. The left bank floodplain is cultivated outside of a narrow, wooded buffer.
Site Soils
The surface soils at the Beavertail Mitigation Bank were found to have loamy textures ranging from
sandy loam to finer silt and clay loams. Textural and initial color of these soil is related to the upland soil
in the contributing watershed. Typical of the alluvial soil formation process, these soils vary over short
distances and have multiple horizons that in texture, thickness, structure, and morphological
characteristics. The morphologic characteristics of color patterns and redoximorphic features appears to
be related primarily to soil moisture and hydroperiod.
Soil in the wetland areas exhibit a range of hydric soil indicators while the non -wetland areas have limited
indicators with hydric indicators mostly absent in the soils. The floodplain soils reflected the redder color
of the upland parent material. Where the water table was near the surface for extended periods hydric
indicators have formed and the wettest areas have begun to darken with accumulated organics. The
wetland soils at the Beavertail site have reddish brown loamy surface horizons over dark gray more
restrictive silty or clayey loams. Yellowish red redoximorphic concentration are present in most horizons
observed. The wetlands currently occur within concave landscapes that concentrates and potentially pools
surface water, making drainage modifications less effective. Wetlands also have areas with groundwater
discharging along the adjacent slope, making these areas less dependent on the stream as a source of
water.
Soils within the creation area have a reddish loam or clay loam surface underlain by clay loams or silt
loams. Much of the area lacks strong or widespread mottles and complete development of hydric
indicators is absent. The lack of mottles can be attributed to the drainage modifications and not the
inability of the soil to sustain a high water table. There does not appear to be highly conductive soil in the
upper 20 inches of soil that would negatively impact a sustained hydroperiod in this area and deeper
sandy layer appear to not be contiguous.
Hydric Soil Indicators
Hydric soil indicators are found throughout the wetlands, but are absent or limited within the area
designated for wetland creation. Based on recorded profiles, the common hydric soil indicators are F8-
Redox Depressions, F19-Piedmont Flood Plain Soils, and F21-Red Parent Material. The test indicator
F19 is also present within many areas of the site and appears to be a valid indicator for this site. The F21
indicator is appropriate due to the dark red nature of the parent materials deposited from the adjacent
upland source. Creation areas has limited mottling in the depressional areas. Groundwater discharging
from the toe of slope in these areas is occurring deeper due to the drainage impact from the incised
channel. A few areas exhibited the F3-Depleted Matrix, but this indicator is limited.
February 2023
Page 7 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Beavertail Mitigation Bank
Current Hydrologic Alterations
To improve agricultural operations, hydrologic modifications are common in low lying areas. Currently, a
number of modifications are present that impact surface drainage and lower the local groundwater. Within
W 1 the soil surface has been smoothed and contoured to remove surface water. A deeper ditch from
Howards Creek extends through the levee up to W 1 and is head cutting into the wetland where it is
draining surface water and threatening to further impact groundwater. The W2 wetland has a perimeter
ditch along the toe of slope to intercept and drain the groundwater discharge. Within this wetland are a
number of internal, shallow ditches that can also potentially drain this wetland. A relatively large ditch
drains form W2 to the property line to the east. There appears to be a downstream obstruction, possibly
beaver, that was not observed and its long-term flooding is not assured.
The UT has incised to a depth three to four feet below the floodplain surface, preventing frequent
flooding events and the incision contributes to a lower surrounding water table. At the downstream
portion of the project, a substantial levee separates Howards Creek from the project. Spoil along the
channel and ditches was not obvious, but limited spoil was observed the edge of the floodplain to the west
in the forested buffer. Historic aerial photography indicates between the 1970 through the 1980s the
floodplain was in agricultural uses, most likely livestock. Soil impacts from this land use most likely
persist despite some woody regrowth.
Potential Hydroperiod for Restored Soils
The hydric soils in the floodplain of this project reflect most characteristics of the NRCS map units
expected to occur at this site. The occurrence of soils similar to a Wehadkee soil was found in backwater
and depressional areas having a significant source of hydrology capable of supporting a high water table.
The remaining floodplain soils are similar to a Chewacla soil. Areas more similar to the Riverview appear
to be limited to the higher levee area. Based on mitigation guidance for Piedmont soils (US Army Corps
of Engineers 2016), the Wehadkee series (Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts) is expected during the growing
season where the water table is within 12 inches of the surface to have a natural hydroperiod of between
12 and 16 percent (Table 2). The Chewacla soil is not considered hydric due to lack of development of
hydric indicators, but is expected to have a natural hydroperiod that ranges between 10 and 12 percent
during the growing season. A Riverview type soil may have hydroperiods of 7 to 9 percent. Upland soil
surrounding the floodplain are not included in the Corps guidance and are not anticipated to have
significant hydroperiods.
Within the Wehadkee soils, restoration or enhancement of the hydrology should result in meeting a
natural hydroperiod of between 12 and 16 percent. Both the Wehadkee and a Chewacla soils have very
similar textural characteristics, identical hydraulic saturated conductivity ranges, and mostly flat (linear —
linear) landscapes. A Wehadkee may tend to having more or larger depressional areas. A significant
difference between a Wehadkee and a Chewacla soil is the depth to the water table. Once the incised
channel is plugged properly, the soils should not negatively impact a high water table. Raising the local
groundwater to improve the hydrology of a Chewacla soil should result in a hydroperiod range similar to
the Wehadkee.
After restoration, due to natural variation in local topography and internal drainage of soils in the
floodplain, a local hydroperiod slightly higher or lower than this referenced guidance is expected. Where
present, larger depressional areas should exhibit longer hydroperiods and could potentially exceed 16
percent in some years, depending on local topography, the project design, and construction. The final
location and elevation of the UT to Howards Creek will significantly impact final hydrology of the
surrounding landscape.
February 2023
Page 8 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Beavertail Mitigation Bank
Table 2. Potential Success Criteria for Compensatory Wetland Mitigation
Beavertail Mitigation Bank — Lincoln County, NC
Mapping
Taxonomic
Seasonal
Topographic
Drainage
Hydroperiod
Unit Series
Classification
High Water
Slope Setting
Range
Table(down/across)Classification
Wehadkee
Fluvaquentic
0 to 12 inches
linear - linear
poorly
12-16%
Endoa ue is
Worsham
Typic
Endoa uults
0 to 12 inches
concave - concave
poorly
10-12%
Chewacla
Fluvaquentic
6 to 24 inches
linear - linear
somewhat poorly
10-12%
D strude is
Riverview
Fluventic
36 to 60 inches
convex - linear
well
7-9%
D strude is
*Hydroperiod follows US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016
For the first year after construction, it may be realistic to expect a shorter hydroperiod if rainfall patterns
are below normal as deeper soil horizons becomes saturated and a higher groundwater table becomes
established across the floodplain. These suggested hydroperiods are subject to factors related to stream
design and frequency of flooding, construction accuracy, final topography, and surface drainage after
construction.
Long-term, areas with greater hydroperiods restored should begin to develop hydric soil indicators. Due
to high iron within the soils at this site, complete formation of indicators may be slower. The natural
organic content in these younger, alluvial soils are often limited, but when the saturation periods are
increased and the vegetative community is established and begins providing organic input, the rate of
formation for some indicators will improve. The addition of organic amendments is not necessary, but
may be considered in selected area (depressions) to improve biogeochemical processes and increase the
rate of redoximorphic feature formation in these areas.
Functional Uplift from Improving Soil Hydrology
Successful establishment of wetland hydrology at this site can provide numerous functional uplifts related
to soils and water quality. These include, accumulation of organic matter, establishment of natural
oxidation-reduction cycling, improved nutrient and chemical transformations (especially nitrates), and
potential immobilization of phosphorus (Table 3). Potential sources of these pollutants are present in this
watershed from row crop production and livestock operations. After vegetative community establishment,
other potential benefits include lowering of soil temperatures, increasing organic carbon sequestration,
and an increased diversity of beneficial microbial and fungal populations important for soil health. The
establishment of a wetland community will allow the natural accumulation of organic materials in the
soil, and provide associated soil biological processes and chemical transformations that will improve
water quality. Healthy microbial populations in wetlands are primarily responsible for biochemical
transformations of complex organic substances such as ammonia, molecular nitrogen, nitrite and nitrate.
Large scale benefits should benefit peak flood control, sediment capture, a more diverse wildlife habitat,
and connect to the natural aquatic communities along Howards Creek. The overall functional benefits for
wetland creation and enhancement at the Beavertail Mitigation Bank can provide a moderate to high
functional uplift.
February 2023
Page 9 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Beavertail Mitigation Bank
Table 3. Potential Functional Soils Uplift for Enhancement/Establishment of Wetland Hydrology
Function
Improvement Potential
Water Quality
Sediment Trapping
Moderate to High
Presence of adjacent row crops
Livestock operation in watershed
Chemical Transformations
Nitrates
Moderate to High
Presence of adjacent row crops
Livestock operation in watershed
Ammonium-N
Moderate to High
Sequestration of Pollutants
Phosphorus,
Moderate to High
Presence of adjacent row crops
Livestock operation in watershed
Some metals
Moderate
Carbon
Moderate to High
Improved vegetation
Extended high water table
Hydrology
Flood Water Retention
High
Frequent stream access to floodplain
Ground Water Exchange
Moderate
Increased h dro eriods
Surface Depressions/Roughness
Surface storage
Habitat
Wildlife
Moderate
Habitat improvement
Soil structure/microhabitats
Aquatic Community - On -site
High
Aquatic Community - Off -site
Moderate
Overall water quality improvement
Summary Observations
The Beavertail project is located within a suitable landscape position on the floodplain of a small tributary
to Howards Creek and on a portion of the floodplain to Howards Creek. At the project site, past land
clearing and conversion to agricultural fields have smoothed the surface by removal of shallow
depressions and low hummocks typical in a floodplain landscape. The NRCS soil mapping shows alluvial
soils with potential for the occurrence of hydric soils within the project. Soils observed across the
floodplain are within the range of characteristics corresponding to the NRCS Chewacla mapping unit.
Areas with hydric soil similar to the Wehadkee inclusion are located where in depressional areas and
backwater landscape and appear to have natural hydrology sources not completely altered by stream
incision. Adjacent soils are present that appear capable of supporting wetland hydrology, but lacking
hydric indicator are also present. These areas lack hydrology due to lowering of the water table through
stream incision, the loss of frequent natural overbank events, and a loss of surface storage from land
clearing/use.
Soils throughout were observed to be mostly finer textured within the upper 24 inches and capable of
sustaining longer hydroperiods. The most common hydric soil indicators observed are the F8-Redox
Depressions, F19-Piedmont Flood Plain Soils, F21-Red Parent Material. The test indicator F19 is also
present within many areas of the site and appears to be a valid indicator for this site. The F21 indicator is
appropriate due to the red parent material derived from the upland soils. The location of these indicators
suggest wetlands can occur where adequate hydrology is present. There is an absence of frequent
overbank flooding. The hydrology of the existing wetlands appears to primarily groundwater discharge.
Soils outside of the current wetlands appear capable of supporting wetland hydrology where a source can
be applied such as frequent flooding from the UT. The wetland creation proposed provides connectivity to
the existing wetlands, allowing for a larger wetland complex that can provide additional functional uplift
February 2023
Page 10 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Beavertail Mitigation Bank
and a more resilient wetland ecosystem. The existing wetlands appear suitable for hydrologic
enhancement and habitat improvement. Observed hydrologic alterations impacting local groundwater
include the incised UT to Howards Creek, surface smoothing, and ditching. The ditches are placed to
drain the depressional wetland and divert groundwater discharge at the toe of slope and intercept upland
runoff. The floodplain appears to have been smoothed to improve surface drainage.
Due to the redder color found across the site, a high soil iron content is likely and the development of
reducing conditions is expected to take longer in this environment. This can result in the slower
formation of hydric indicators. Where the groundwater table is raised to with 12 inches of the ground
surface, soil in these areas should restart formation of hydric indicators. In the creation areas lacking
mottles, raising of the groundwater should start developing reducing conditions suitable for the formation
of hydric indicators.
Summary Recommendations
Recommendations
This site is located within an appropriated landscape, contains adequate sources for hydrology, and soils
that can support wetland hydrology and wetland vegetation. This project provides opportunities for
Wetland Enhancement and adjacent Wetland Creation. Practical methods of hydrologic restoration and
enhancement by elevating local ground water through raising the stream bed and plugging/filling the
ditches. Additional modifications include establishment of a more natural, rough surface with small
surface depressions for natural storage and planting an appropriate vegetative community.
Based on the soil's similarity to the NRCS mapped units, a general success criterion of 10 to 16% may be
expected across both existing wetland and the wetland creation. Due to the current drainage
modifications, it may take up to a year for the site to become completely saturated and reach the target
hydroperiods. For at least the first year after construction, it may be reasonable to expect a hydroperiod
between 9 and 12 percent, depending on final construction timing and rainfall (assuming at least average
seasonal rainfall, antecedent conditions, and over bank flow frequency). The wetland and stream design
should emphasize frequent flooding and surface storage.
All heavy equipment and construction schedules should be limited to dryer periods or the use of tracked
equipment to limit loss of soil structure. Where vegetation is absent due to past agricultural uses or
removed for staging/construction, shallow ripping to 12 inches while maintaining any depressional
features is strongly suggested. In these finer textured soils, ripping will improve infiltration, storage, and
increase planting survival.
Conclusions
This site's soils exhibit a high potential to provide successful wetland creation and to enhance three small
wetlands having past hydrologic modification. This project can provide a larger, more resilient wetland
community. The successful construction of this stream and wetland project has the potential to provide
numerous benefits to water quality. Functional uplift across this site will result from enhancement of
existing wetlands or the establishment of wetland hydrology within areas currently lacking hydrology and
provide interconnectivity of wetland habitats. These improvements will complement the stream
restoration portions of this project. Located within a watershed having an active livestock operation, the
potential is present for improving water quality.
At the Beavertail Mitigation Bank site, the topographic setting and presence of suitable soil is appropriate
for a successful hydrologic mitigation project. The soils observed across this floodplain appear suitable
for Wetland Enhancement and Wetland Creation and adequate hydrology appears to be present. Stream
restoration can raise the local water table while providing opportunities for more frequent or naturally
February 2023
Page 11 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Beavertail Mitigation Bank
occurring overbank flooding events to support wetland hydrology. This project can create and restore lost
and degraded aquatic resources that will provide functional uplift to downstream waters, establish natural
wetland habitat, and provide connectivity across the larger floodplain landscape.
Given the observed soil characteristics and presence of hydric soil indicators within a favorable landscape
position, this site is suitable for hydrologic Wetland Enhancement and Wetland Creation of aquatic
resources. Based upon this detailed study of soils and current conditions observed at this site, this appears
to be a site with appropriate conditions for Wetland Enhancement and Wetland Creation.
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Beavertail Mitigation Bank Site in
Lincoln County, NC. Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring the
complete report, including figures, maps, appendices, with all attachments and disclaimers.
References
NTCHS. 2003. Technical Note 13: Altered Hydric Soils. Deliberation of. National Technical Committee
for Hydric Soils.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Web Soil Survey. Available online at the following link: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
Accessed [February/2023].
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0, ed. J. F. Berkowitz, J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook,
title 430-VI. https:Hdirectives.sc.egov.usda.gov (accessed day month year).
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators
ofHydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.).
USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. July 2022.
Conservation Practice Standard.: Wetland Creation Code 658 (ac). Available online at the following
link: https://www.nres.usda.gov//. Accessed [January/2023].
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016. SAW-2013-00668-PN
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPennitProgram/
USDA 1995. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Soil
Survey of Lincoln County North Carolina. January 1995)
USEPA. 2000. Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Resources. EPA841-F-00-003.
Office of Water (4501F). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 4 pp.
(https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/principles-wetland-restoration).
USEPA. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina. G. E. Griffith et. al. EPA, USDA, NRCS Regional
collaborative. Available online at https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-state.
August 31, 2002.
Vepraskas, M. J. 1994. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. Tech. Bulletin 301.
North Carolina Ag. Research Service, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina.
February 2023
Page 12 of 13

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
FINAL- Detailed Hydric Soils Study — Beavertail Mitigation Bank
FIGURES
APPENDICES
Appendix A Soil Boring Log
Appendix B Photos
Appendix C NRCS Web Soil Survey Report
February 2023
Page 13 of 13

NIOQF'y
0
OaU 2
05
zC
n)\
Y'.
Lv
L Ue
1110
4
Q� \ Q 1 f_ 1 ry j�J Vill—
'CO \J
CD 0/
58
Q) X\ 01-0
(D
U)
-0
" ) Z
(n
CD
p CDe
0
J
t
X
IRS, if
I �/ :
4
HD Wo
J
Declination
N
fa O%A
�ead
-N 0. 18' W
MN 7.50'W
N
Legend
Project Area - Proposed Easement
UP (C) Copyright M16, Trimble Navi ati Limited{ OpenstreetMaoqontributors
Map Name: REEPSVILLE Scale: 1 inch =2,000 ft. Base Map Scale: 24,000
Figure 1. USGS Vicinity Map SCALE 1:24000
00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 60
Beavertail Mitigation Bank I I
Lincoln County, NC 0 Feet 1
RAH�

1 I
r #'
r 1. Iti
4i W3 7
L ■-ai'
�lil i■
Jon 6.ill
,d■■■I
■■■■■I
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■
'itl■■■■
NOON■
'NONE
!MEN
-IE■■■■I
r■■■■■■I
7■■■■■■00000
JENNE■■
NOON■■
NOON■■
■■■■
NONE
s ■■■■■■■
,N■■■■■■
n.� NOON■■■
j " NOON■■■
NOON■■■
NOON■
I: NOON
i NOON■
i - - NOON■■■
NOON■■■
a
r r
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■m 3
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N' 1
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E
MEMEMEM It
■■■■■■■■■■■■ 4�6
+ ■��F �' t W2
iir. t .
00,
OEM
owards Creek r ,"
'113
X
Al
7.
■
.v"
t,
J

Y �
MENEM
q■■■■■■ .
■NONE■
■■■■■■■■
■� ■■.■ No nn
- ■i■iiii; `�6
■■■■■■■■■■■Li■ 9
�. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■r�• p
■■■■■■■■■■■■■I.�A.�
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■lL 3 "
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E' t
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E
■■■■■■■■■■■■■I
MMMMMMMMMMMM■■■■■■■■■■■■r-_;
■■■■■■■■■■■■■e > W
■■■■■■■■■■■■r i 4'
mom ■Eiji
e7 — o _
■■m
{
I
owards Creek * +
'113
PP
LEGEND
�!
Proposed Easement

Appendix A
Beavertail Mitigation Bank, Lincoln County NC
Soil Boring Profiles
Representative Soil Profiles at the Beavertail Mitigation Bank Site
(Grouped by soil mapping unit)
Depth
Color
Mottle Percentage
(Location*)Texture**
Notes
(inches)
Matrix
Mottle
Hydric Indicators WT -4"
SB 13 - (wetland Wl)
F8-Redox Depressions
February 2, 2022
F21-Red Parent Material
concave landform sub'ect to short term pooling, water -stained leaves
0-10
5 YR 4/4
5 YR 4/6
10% PL
CL
10-24
5 YR 5/3
5 YR 4/6
15% PL
CL
24-33
5 YR 4/1
5 YR 3/3
5% (PL)
SiL
Hydric Indicators WT -3"
SB 16 - (wetland Wl)
F8-Redox Depressions
February 2, 2022
F19-Piedmont Flood Plain Soils
F21-Red Parent Material
0-6
5 YR 4/3
5 YR 4/6
10% PL
SL
6-8
5 YR 4/3
2.5 YR 4/8
25% PL
SCL
8-20
5 YR 4/4
SCL
20-31
5 YR 4/4
5 YR 4/6
15% (PL)
CL
5 YR 2.5/2
4% PL
Hydric Indicators WT -6"
SB 23 - (wetland W2)
F8-Redox Depressions
February 2, 2022
F21-Red Parent Material
concave landform sub'ect to short term pooling, water -stained leaves
0-5
5 YR 4/6
CL
5-21
5 YR 4/2
5 YR 4/4
10% PL
CL
21-25
5 YR 4/1
SiL
SB 35 - (wetland W3)
Hydric Indicators WT 21"
November 27, 2022
F8-Redox Depressions
0-6
5 YR 3/4
5 YR 4/6
5% PL
SiL
6-32
2.5 YR 3/4
SL
32-36
2.5 YR 4/1
SL
SB 56- (wetland W3)
Hydric Indicators WT -2" (recent rainfall)
F8-Redox Depressions
February 3, 2023
F21-Red Parent Material
0-6
5 YR 4/4
2.5 YR 3/6
2% PL
L
6-12
5 YR 4/4
2.5 YR 4/8
15% PL
CL
12-26
2.5 YR 3/6
5 YR 4/6
15% (PL)
CL
Appendix A
Page 1 of 3
February 2023

Appendix A
Beavertail Mitigation Bank, Lincoln County NC
Soil Boring Profiles
Representative Soil Profiles at the Beavertail Mitigation Bank Site
(Grouped by soil mapping unit)
Depth
Color
Mottle Percentage
(Location*)Texture**
Notes
(inches)
Matrix
Mottle
SB 34 - (W 1)
February 2, 2022
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
No h dric soil indicators
0-2
5 YR 2.5/2
L
2-10
5 YR 3/4
L
10-17
5 YR 3/4
5 YR 4/6
15% PL
L
17-33
2.5 YR 3/6
2.5 YR 3/3
20% PL
LS
33-41
2.5 YR 4/4
5 YR 4/6
2.5 YR 2.5/2
2% (PL)
1% PL
SL
SB 40 - (C 1/WI) upland pt
November 27, 2022
Hydric Indicators WT 36"
No h dric soil indicators
0-10
5 YR 3/3
SiL
10-16
2.5 YR 3/4
SiL
16-30
2.5 YR 3/4
CL
30-40
2.5 YR 3/4
2. YR 2.5/1
5% PL
SiL
SB 43 - (C 1/W2) upland pt
November 27, 2022
Hydric Indicators WT 26"
No h dric soil indicators
0-36 1 5 YR 5/4
1 SL
SB 55 - (C1/W 3) upland pt
Februa 3, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT -4" (recent rainfall)
No h dric soil indicators
0-10
2.5 YR 4/6
L
10-18
2.5 YR 3/4
S
18-28
2.5 YR 4/4
2.5 YR 4/8
15% PL
CL
Appendix A
Page 2 of 3
February 2023

Appendix A
Beavertail Mitigation Bank, Lincoln County NC
Soil Boring Profiles
Representative Soil Profiles at the Beavertail Mitigation Bank Site
(Grouped by soil mapping unit)
SB 57 - (Cl)
Februar 3, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT -11" (recent rainfall)
No h dric soil indicators
0-7
2.5 YR 3/4
L
7-26
2.5 YR 3/6
CL
26-30
2.5 YR 3/6
2.5 YR 2.5/2
2% PL
S
SB 58 - (Wl) upland pt
Februar 3, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
No h dric soil indicators
0-6
7.5 YR 3/3
fSL
6-9
7.5 YR 3/4
SL
9-31
5 YR 4/3
SL
»Indicators valid for NRCS Land Resource Region 136 (Southern Piedmont) and Land Resource Region P.
WT = observed apparent water table
*PL =pore lining, M = matrix, UCSG = uncoated sand grains
**Texture (follows USDA textural classification)
S = sand, L = loam, Si = silt, C = clay
f = fine, c = coarse (textural modifiers for sandy soils)
Appendix A
Page 3 of 3
Soil Scientist Seal
February 2023

Appendix B
Beavertail Mitigation Bank Site — Lincoln County, NC
Photo Log
February 2023
1. Hydric profile in wetland W1. Meets the F8-Redox Depressions, and F21-Red Parent Material
indicators. S13#13.
2. Landscape in herbaceous vegetation of wetland WI. SB# 13.
1
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix B
Beavertail Mitigation Bank Site — Lincoln County, NC
Photo Log
3. Landscape in woody vegetation of wetland W 1. SB# 13.
4. Ditch draining wetland 1 through levee at Howards Creek.
2
February 2023
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix B
Beavertail Mitigation Bank Site — Lincoln County, NC
Photo Log
February 2023
5. Hydric profile in wetland W3. Meets the F8-Redox Depressions, and F21-Red Parent Material
indicators. S13#56.
6. Landscape in narrow wetland W3 along edge of floodplain at toe of slope. S13#56.
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

3
N
m
470100
35' 30' 47' N
8
rz
N
8
35' 29' 18" N
470100 470400 470700 471000 471300
3
lV
Map Scale: 1:13,300 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Meters
m IN0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
U}DA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
Soil Map —Lincoln County, North Carolina
(Beavertail Mitigation Bank)
470400 470700 471000 471300
471600
471600
03
M
471900
35' 30' 47' N
r>
35° 29' 18" N
471900
3
O
10/26/2022
Page 1 of 3

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
im 0
Soil Map Unit Lines
0
Soil Map Unit Points
Special
Point Features
Vo
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
+
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
4
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
oa
Sodic Spot
Soil Map —Lincoln County, North Carolina
(Beavertail Mitigation Bank)
MAP INFORMATION
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Stony Spot
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Very Stony Spot
measurements.
Wet Spot
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
4�,
Other
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
•�
Special Line Features
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Water Features
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
Streams and Canals
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
Transportation
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
Rails
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
Interstate Highways
of the version date(s) listed below.
US Routes
Soil Survey Area: Lincoln County, North Carolina
Major Roads
Survey Area Data: Version 27, Sep 12, 2022
Local Roads
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Background
®
Aerial Photography
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 22, 2022—May
10, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
UUsDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2022
limm Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Soil Map —Lincoln County, North Carolina
Beavertail Mitigation Bank
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
ChA
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent
120.2
13.4%
slopes, frequently flooded
Helena sandy loam, 1 to 6
HeB
20.0
2.2%
percent slopes
LcD
Lloyd loam, 15 to 25 percent
37.0
4.1 %
slopes
LdB2
Lloyd sandy clay loam, 2 to 8
441.9
49.1 %
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
LdC2
Lloyd sandy clay loam, 8 to 15
196.8
21.9%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
RvA
Riverview loam, 0 to 2 percent
68.0
7.6%
slopes, occasionally flooded
W
Water
0.2
0.0%
WoA
Worsham fine sandy loam, 0 to
15.6
1.7%
2 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
899.6
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2022
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

Site Name: Beaver Tail
USACE Action ID: SAW-2022-00657
NCDWR Project Number: 2022-0451 V2
Sponsor: EBX, LLC
Number of Exempt Terminal Stream Ends': 4
County: Lincoln
Minimum Required Buffer Width': 50
Mitigation Type
Restoration 11:1)
Enhancement I ,(I. ':I)
Enhancement II 12":1)
Preservation (5:1)
Other(7.5:1)
Other (20:2)
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals
Buffer Zones
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)'
Ideal Buffer (square feet)`
Actual Buffer (square feet)'
Zone Multiplier
Buffer Credit Equivalent
Percent of Ideal Buffer
Credit Adjustment
Total Baseline Credit
4506.00
Mitigation Ratio Creditable Stream Include in Buffer
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Buffered Stream Credit From Buffered
Baseline Stream Credit Length Streams
4506.00 4506.00 4506.00
4506.00 4506.00 4506.00 4506.00
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
less than 15 feet
>IS to 20 feet
>20 to 25 feet
>25 to 30 feet
>30 to 35 feet
>35 to 40 feet
>40 to 45 feet
>45 to 50 feet
>50 to 75 feet
>75 to 100 feet
>100 to 125 feet
>125 to 150 feet
136593
46159
46473
46787
47101
47415
47729
48043
244925
252775
260625
268475
141321.91
47720.22
47895.55
47876.42
47406.96
47020.69
46699.44
46408.54
229075425
22769048
22897946
231429438
135392.61
45090.15
44919.84
44543.73
43882.7
43199.23
42583.59
41942.79
150743.12
88248.07
54716.6
43577.29
50%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
5%
7%
5%
4%
4%
2253.00
450.60
450.60
450.60
225.30
225.30
225.30
225.30
315.42
225.30
180.24
180.24
96%
96%
95%
95%
95%
94%
94%
93%
66%
39%
24%
19%
-83.68
-19.87
-21.67
-23.67
-12.16
-12.99
-13.81
-14.92
207.56
87.32
43.07
33.94
Credit Loss in Required Credit Gain for Net Change in
Total Credit
Buffer Additional Buffer Credit from Buffers
-202.78 371.89 169.11 4675.11
'Number of terminal stream ends, including all points where streams enter or exit the project boundaries, but not including internal crossings even if they are not protected by the easement.
'Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet -to -credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
°Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.
sThis amount is the maximum buffer area passible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width and no internal crossings. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
6Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The inner zone (0-15') should be measured from the top of the OHW M or the edge of the average stream width if OH W M is not known. Non -creditable stream reaches
within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
'Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non -forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are more than
150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non -creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.

Appendix D
Design Plan Sheets

d
PROJECT LOCATION
� Counry �;yG
©.ems
GJ`
c
-. lifhie uy .
�� Sorinys
is, hcllads '
Fosciand
Luny Sho�6
VICINITY MAP
NTS
PROJECT LOCATION P^'"'T
0
0
�00
Know what's below.
Call before you dig
NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DIGGING, OR EXCAVATION THE
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE) THAT MAY EXI5T AND CR055 THROUGH
THE AREA(5) OF CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER INDICATED ON THE PLANS
OR NOT. CALL "8 1 1 " A MINIMUM OF 72 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING OR
EXCAVATING. REPAIRS TO ANY UTILITY DAMAGED RESULTING FROM
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONTRACTOR.
PROJECT DIRECTORY
DESIGNED BY:
RE50URCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC
3000 GLENWOOD AVE, SUITE 100
RALEIGH, NC 27G 12
SURVEYED BY:
ASCENSION LAND SURVEYING, PC
G WILLIAM5 ROAD
MOCK5VILLE, NC 27028
PROJECT TOPOGRAPHY AND EX15TING CONDITIONS
PLANIMETRIC5 SURVEY WAS PROVIDED BY
ASCENSION LAND SURVEYING, PC (NC I=1RM LICENSE
NUMBER C-4288, CHRI5TOPHER L. COLE, NC PL5
L-5008), DATED OCTOBER 3, 2022
BEAVER TAIL MITIGATION SITE
LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(35-506483,-81-318693)
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN/HUC: 03050102
AUGUST 2023
RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC
3600 GLENWOOD AVE, SUITE 100
RALEIGH, NC 27612
\ 6,
Sheet List Table
Sheet Number
Sheet Tale
--
COVER
A I
OVERALL AERIAL
E I
NOTES
E2
EX15TING CONDITIONS
E3
EX15TING CONDITIONS
51
REACH LD 1
52
REACH LD 1
53
BEACH LD 1
54
REACH LD 1
55
BEACH LD
5G
BEACH LD 1
57
BEACH LD 1
58
BEACH LD 1
59
5WALE
P I
PLANTING PLAN
P2
PLANTING PLAN
W 1
WETLAND PLAN
D I
D ETAI L5
D 2
D ETAI L5
D 3
D ETA I L5
D4
DETAI L5
D5
DETAI L5
DG
DETAI L5
D7
DETAI L5
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
w
N
O
� N
0 N
CL 00
z
0
U
Z
0
U
0
LL
I-
0
z
0 0-1
o z
0
�
(n
W J
W
>
-j
cr
M
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:

Fd:
DANIEL
i
tz;ate
=Q
QF
<Q,
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite
100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C3
FULL SCALE: 1 "=150
0
150
300
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I\
bi
Q co
N
O
� N
O
J N
00
Z
O
U)
Z
O
U
IY
O
LL
-
O
Z
O
Q
Z
0
Z
O
Lu
Cn
(n
Q
W
J
ED
W
W
Cr
CC
0_
Q
Z
W
J
0
U
�
Z
U
p
J
T-
Q
�
Q
w
C�
O
Q
—
J
Q
Q
W
O
Q�
O
U
w
Z
Lu <
Lu
W
O
-1a
z m
U
~
w
Z
z
O
J
Q
I
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
Al

STREAM CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
1. ALL PROPOSED CHANNELS AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT CROSSINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN
A DRY CONDITION VIA Off LINE CONSTRUCTION WHERE POSSIBLE. PUMP AROUND OPERATIONS
SHOULD BE LIMITED TO AREAS WHERE THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED CHANNEL ALIGNMENTS OVERLAP.
2. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND PUMPING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREAM AT THE END
OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY
THE ENGINEER. WITH APPROVAL, A PUMP AROUND MAY BE ALLOWED TO RUN CONTINUOUSLY IF THERE
IS NO FORECAST FOR RAIN OVERNIGHT, AND/OR THE PUMP APPARATUS IS MAINTAINED AND
MONITORED CONTINUOUSLY.
3. CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE CHANNEL FIRST, WORKING IN AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
4. TOP OF BANK LINES SHOWN ON PLAN SHEETS ARE BASED ON PROPOSED TYPICAL RIFFLE WIDTHS AND
MAY NOT REFLECT FINAL PROPOSED WIDTHS THROUGH POOL SECTIONS. REFER TO TYPICAL CROSS
SECTIONS ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS FOR ACTUAL PROPOSED DIMENSIONS.
5. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL WITHIN AREAS THAT ARE TO BE CUT 9" OR MORE BELOW EXISTING
GRADE. STOCKPILED TOPSOIL IS TO BE PLACED ALONG THE FLOODPLAIN BENCHES.
G. STRUCTURES ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN SHEETS (AS INDICATED ON THE
STRUCTURE TABLES) USING METHODS DESCRIBED IN THE DETAIL SHEETS. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING,
OBTAIN APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER ON INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.
7. SUBSTRATE MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE BED OF ALL PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS. SEE
TYPICAL RIFFLE DETAIL FOR RIFFLE MATERIAL COMPOSITION (DETAIL DG). RIVER ROCK OF EQUIVALENT
SIZE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED UPON APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.
8. BRUSHY BERMS AND BEDDED LOGS (SHEET D2) MAY BE ADDED, SWAPPED, OR RELOCATED UPON
APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.
9. ALL QUARRY STONE SHALL MEET NCDOT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
10. UPON COMPLETION OF FINE GRADING, INSTALL STREAM BANK STABILIZATION INCLUDING, EROSION
CONTROL MATTING OR SOD MATS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS.
1 1. FILL AND STABILIZE ABANDONED SEGMENTS OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL PER PLAN SHEETS AND DETAIL
D3.
I F(,FNf)
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING STREAM
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
50
--4G
50
42
— — — — TB----- TB
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK — — — — — BB----- BB —
EXISTING FLOOD HAZARD AREA sFhA 51FHA
EXISTING FLOODWAY----rLooDwAY-
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITY LINE o E o E0
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING FENCELINE —X X X X X—
EXISTING TREELINE C�"
EXISTING TREE r �
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK — — — —
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF CHANNEL
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT LCE
PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG
(SEE DETAIL D3)
PROPOSED WETLAND '
BRUSH TOE PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL D4)
STONE PROTECTION '....'
(SEE DETAIL D7)
COI R LOG
BRUSHY BERM ° o
(SEE DETAIL D2)
BEDDED LOG
(SEE DETAIL D2)
V��
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL D4)
ROCK SILL
(SEE DETAIL D5)
LOG J-HOOK
(SEE DETAIL D4)
ROCK A -VANE
(SEE DETAIL D5)
■
CASCADE
(SEE DETAIL D7)
■
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
(SEE DETAIL D7)
LOG STRUCTURE
(PROFI LE)
ROCK STRUCTURE
(PROFI LE)
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
w
Q M
� N
0
N
O
J N
0- 00
z
O
U
H
z
O
U
O
ILL
O
z
aC
}
O
Q
0
z_
O
U)
U)
W
J
LU
>
W
J
W
cr
rr
D_
Q
z_
W
J
F____O
Cn
�
Q
z
U
O
<
O
U)
z
W
O
J
z
Q
z
~
D
O
w
CU
J
W Q
J
Q w
O
F-
z m
U
1=
U
z
z
Lu
O
—
J
Q
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
El

I
/ I
/ I
/ I/
I
I
NOW OR FORMERLY /
NAPOLEON AND COKONON
I
CRUZ /
PARCEL ID: 3614079715 / I
DEED BOOK N/A /
PAGE N/A /
/ I
I
/ I NOW OR FORMERLY
PARCEL ID: 3G 14053073
DEED BOOK84792 A
I
NOW OR FORMERLY
VAN BAWI
IANG SUNG
PARCEL ID: 36/406/508 I
DEED BOOK 3157
PAGE 430
v v v v ri
-
r
LLJ
\ / �'—_'-- �\ I � v A— I A —_ \� A\vim � Af� — ��� � A— --1 � —��v .•A � �—v_—"�.� � :—�v_V -- 3
--__ �___� VA�� h V A I V A� V ( �_ _-v VAS �b AA �� ��� - �� �•-� _-•__� ��-
_---__=_ - NOW OR FORMERLY �
LLJ
UTZ L DAVID LJ
UTZ7568 Z NOW OR FORMERLY
COFFEE REVOCABLE LIVING
PARCEL ID:
DEED BOOK I G59
,vvlV //Av�,
PAGE 532
TRUST �LLJ
PARCEL ID:3604971583 L
DEED BOOK 2499 �.
\
PAGE754
—
—v—�--_—�— —--
^.50 _ �— — i — / \ _--- __ ---- ��—�--�—
\ �—
—
A L-
_ U� �� fTl
NOW OR FORMERLY �> v vv;I� _ v v v`vv`�- v - vv - v �� - /) ' P i / A -
v A AA _ �� V �" aq��GM v 1� --.vi;�i3----
SAMUEL AND TONYA a _ _
RATLIFF
PARCEL ID: 3604963932-
DEED BOOK 2905 _
I NOW OR FORMERLY
PAGE 645
JO/JN AND 5U3AN NICKL
PARCEL ID: 3604962681
DEED BOOK 3 14 7
\`--
PAGE 277
�0
\ NOW OR FORMERLY \-
ROBERT SARI NEAU
\ PARCEL ID: 3604962095 DOS DOR FORMERLY NOW OR FORMERLY I
\ DEED BOOK 1648 \ LUTZ
PARCEL ID: 3604952G5G DAVID LUTZ PAGE 303 DEED BOOK 543 PARCEL ID: 3604947565
I I
PAGE 345 DEED BOOK 1659 I
PAGE 532
(
I
I
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite
100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C:
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100
200
2" = FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
w
Q M
0 N
O
N
O
J N
IL 00
Z
O
U)
Z
O
O
LL
1—
Z
i
LL
Q
66
M
Z
O
U)
U)
Q
w
J
LLI
Q
z_
W
J
�n
I..L
V)
V
U
0
0
f n
V
O
z
z
J_
(D
Q
z
z
0
U)
U
LLI
z
W
w Q
J
W
Q w
0
z m
U
~
w
Z_
Z
O
J
Q
o_
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
E2

d�
na
NOW OR FORMERLY
3UNNYRIDGE FARM, INC
PARCEL ID: 3G 14 1357 13 J
DEED BOOK 2290
PAGE 455 -
�� A I� ) v vvv �� - --/�✓, _ �I vim/ / // _I<4,1D
TC� l/ /
— v //Fm
' - - - - N�
/// /� v l ^11 �/ // / ✓ A
/� ���� / /�1 JIl �I V A \— vv As\ v \vI \ III o /—� i�✓� / , i /�i'% �\
'
lIII�II l /�� Jr II/�� / �� AI A �\ V A vV A I I
y �\ I�
11
////l11 � / _�� ./ — 1 v v� / I / ✓
y
y — / �/ < it �� / v� /v /� ✓ i
y_—�
J/
/ ��_,
NOW OR FORMERLY -V
% 1 /'/ /'// i/%l y -\ y WD -V -✓
JEREMY AND BRITTANY SMITH / / 'r / / /,/ // / / h I ' 1 !� �v .v v` '� / '�CP
NOW OR FORMERLY l I l _I Ir i i i / / �' ('� \ >v �v '1 �' �1 / �r
PARCEL ID: 3G l 4043595 / / //'/ I -I I ) -v-� y ) ^ r y V > `,I ��/ ' - -
CIIARLE5 AND MAYLEY REEF DEED BOOK 25 10
PARCEL ID: 3614053013 I PAGE 8 12 / / / 1 / l 1 I ' I v w� ^
I / (I i �'
DEED BOOK 2792 (/ / !1 r �y /
PAGE 154 1 1 / > 7 j 1 / l l / r / ✓ y / — v . �' eN�s
_�Zv�v �V / 1 ) / I 11 I I III (ll// I � / / / / I (\ II 11 7v �>3I— ✓A � y
J
-V
1 V A I , 11 �1IA V� v 1 I 1 f l III ( I \ �y A v 1 '�/ T >!�-' ✓ � ice'
-'-vVV o°�
dfl
A �__�-' / / ( I I 1 1 A v A � IV > V Av�9 v A\ -� I ��" II) 2 II( v�---�`---'' ✓v � tom/, /�/ C� �_ v - �� ' J I
n I I I � \� , _
/ 1�-vA `-- //
�<-�J/II�A��
Ilia
00/
DITCH A If I I/
a� ��
Ced
�% ��� /
/-h� �\ d I / ��/�_-�_� 11
��
DITCH B ,
I \ _ NOW OR FORMERLY
v I, l 1 v 1 1 II I � l i _ ,- >�� a l _----� v i �, y I I /' ' /d� // //
ppp - MICIIAEL 5AIN
`, v PARCEL ID: 3604939290
DEED BOOK 2767
y/
l((6,// /l/ /' / v /� - j �/ �l PAGE7G1
NOW OR FORMERLY
DAVID LUTZ / / ( ��v, -y �' I y
PARCEL ID: 3604947565 — ' / / I i I i I // I v `-Vi — /'-V
DEED BOOK 1659 y WC
I Irl /�q� _ y
PAGE B32 ; I I I 1 I v��I '�
EXISTING PATH 11
ILEAC H LD I 2(1
/_,- / -> _
I I/ 1 I 1 I�`���
\/ / I \ y
(APPROX.) I I I ; I � III v I,I � � � t / � , gPhA
(t ys
'
--� `--- --'
I /
_
VtA
-\ /i 1 II � _� ✓ � � / /-'' tea' /
- /-� 1 I- � - / 1 -- .za--. I\ �S _ 1 1 =✓ __ _� i-� /' �/ /i /i jam' h
i
l
Z')r V
11 1 � Jr
fL-
WE - _ T
NOW OR FORMERLY
MICIIAEL AND TRACEY
LIVING5TON
PARCEL ID: 3GO495007I z
DEED BOOK 2633 l
PAGE 4GO I /
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite
100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C:
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100
200
2" = FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6j
Q co
O
N
O
J N
IL 00
z
O
U)
z
0
O
LL
1—
z
O
Q
LL
66
0
z
Z
O
U)
W
Q
W
J
LLI
W
W
Q
z
LLI
J
U)
Q
CO
U
O
O
f n
O
z
O
�z
J_
0
Q
z
z
1 I
O
U/
U
LLILLI
z
LL]
w Q
J
W
z LLIO
m
()
z
z_
IU
�
J
�
W
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
E3

M
0
w
Q
U)
0)
0
J
O
LO
LO
(3
0
m
LO
LO
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
U)
N
m
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
Q M
C) N
O
N
O
J N
CL -
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
0
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
Z
W
J
�_O
Q
Z
U
O
Q
0
U
O
o
z
=
J
F--
Q
z
�
�
O
�
U
W
Z
Lu
<
Lu
Q W
O
J
z Im
U
w
Z_
z
O
J
Q
o=
Cr
IL
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S 1

M
0
w
Q
U)
0)
0
J
O
LO
LO
(3
0
m
LO
LO
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
U)
N
m
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
Q M
C) N
O
N
O
J N
CL -
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
0
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
Z
W
J
�_O
Q
Z
U
O
Q
0
U
O
o
z
=
J
F--
Q
z
�
�
O
�
U
W
Z
Lu
<
Lu
Q W
O
J
z Im
U
w
Z_
z
O
J
Q
o=
Cr
IL
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S2

M
0
w
Q
U)
0)
0
J
O
LO
LO
(3
0
m
LO
LO
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
U)
N
m
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
Q M
C) N
O
N
O
J N
CL -
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
0
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
Z
W
J
�_O
Q
Z
U
O
Q
0
U
O
o
z
=
J
F--
Q
z
�
�
O
�
U
W
Z
Lu
<
Lu
Q W
O
J
z Im
U
w
Z_
z
O
J
Q
o=
Cr
IL
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S3

M
0
w
Q
U)
0)
0
J
O
LO
LO
(3
0
m
LO
LO
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
U)
N
m
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
Q M
C) N
O
N
O
J N
CL -
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
0
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
Z
W
J
�_O
Q
Z
U
O
Q
0
U
O
o
z
=
J
F--
Q
z
�
�
O
�
U
W
Z
Lu
<
Lu
Q W
O
J
z Im
U
w
Z_
z
O
J
Q
o=
Cr
IL
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S4

M
0
w
Q
U)
0)
0
J
O
LO
LO
(3
0
m
LO
LO
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
U)
N
m
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
Q M
C) N
O
N
O
J N
CL -
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
0
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
Z
W
J
�_O
Q
Z
U
O
Q
0
U
O
o
z
=
J
F--
Q
z
�
�
O
�
U
W
Z
Lu
<
Lu
Q W
O
J
z Im
U
w
Z_
z
O
J
Q
o=
Cr
IL
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S5

M
0
w
Q
U)
0)
0
J
O
LO
LO
(3
0
m
LO
LO
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
U)
N
m
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
Q M
C) N
O
N
O
J N
CL -
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
0
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
Z
W
J
�_O
Q
Z
U
O
Q
0
U
O
o
z
=
J
F--
Q
z
�
�
O
�
U
W
Z
L
Q W
O
J
z Im
U
w
Z_
z
O
J
Q
o=
Cr
IL
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S6

M
0
w
Q
U)
0)
0
J
O
LO
LO
(3
0
m
LO
LO
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
U)
N
m
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C3
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
Q M
C) N
O
N
O
J N
CL -
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
0
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
Z
W
J
�_O
Q
Z
U
O
Q
0
U
O
o
z
=
J
F--
Q
z
�
�
O
�
U
W
Z
Lu
<
Lu
Q W
O
J
z Im
U
w
Z_
z
O
J
Q
o=
Cr
IL
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S7

M
0
w
Q
U)
0)
0
J
O
LO
LO
(3
0
m
LO
LO
0
U
m
2
0
co
U
U)
N
m
o�
W
a
z
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I`
6i
Q M
C) N
O
N
O
J N
CL -
z
_O
U
I—
z
O
U
IY
O
LL
O
z
oC
}
o
Q
0
z
o
�
(n
W
J
W
>
W
-j
W
fr
Q_
Q
Z
W
J
�_O
Q
Z
U
O
Q
0
U
O
o
z
=
J
F--
Q
z
�
�
O
�
U
W
Z
Lu
<
Lu
Q W
O
J
z Im
U
w
Z_
z
O
J
Q
o=
Cr
IL
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S8

M
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C)
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0
30
60
2"
"
= FULL SCALE
1
= HALF SCALE
w
Q M
� N
0
N
O
J N
00
z
_O
U
H
z
O
U
O
ILL
O
z
aC
}
o
Q
0
z
o
U
U)
W
J
LU
>
W
J
W
cr
rr
D_
Q
Z
W
J
F---
O
Cn
�
Q
Z
U
O
<
CD
O
w
Z
J
J
(n
Q
Z
D
�O
C)
w
J
W Q
J
Q w
O
F-
z m
U
1=
U
Z
z
Lu
O
—
J
Q
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
S9

PLANTING
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
EXISTING TREELINE
PROPERTY LINE
RIPARIAN PLANTING
(TOTAL AREA: 17.3 AC)
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING/INVA5IVE5 CONTROL
(TOTAL AREA: 16. I AC)
PLANTING ZONE I
(TOTAL AREA: 19.4 AC)
PLANTING ZONE 2
(TOTAL AREA: 14.0 AC)
LIVE STAKE PLANTING
PLANTING NOTES
LEGEND
\�
I
Lce Lce
/
I
I
I/
I
RMERLY
ICOKONON /
I
7 /
DK N/A /
I14079715
I
N/A
,
I
I
/
I
/
I
I
I --
' _
NOW OR FORMERLY
VAN BAWI
IANG SUNG
�`-7 ��^A�
PARCEL ID: 36 1406 1505
DEED BOOK 3157 I
PAGE 430
REAC
RE
I
- _
— _ \
SWIN
. .:.. . __,��a����ss®�=�►�����������.,'��®-�.r,.�,�►�►��►�►®`fps ._ ��
VE FA A
*,`1�0®��P IV ��I3I�����������3►��������LVA, FA LWA ����'��VNIM-W ������♦���®�����®��®eZ��`�:i�►° .
k
1
--�1vv� --
NOW OK FORMERLY-
5AMUEL AND TONYAv-
KATLIFF
ALL PLANTING AREAS PARCEL ID: 3604963932 I , \ \ _,� _ _ _,— `\ \ / \ a \ 7 \
NOW OR FORMERLY
CIIARLE5 AND I1AYLEY KEEP
PARCEL ID: 36/4053073
DEED BOOK 2732
PAGE 154
NOW OR FORMERLY
DAVID LUTZ
PARCEL ID: 3604947565
DEED BOOK 1659
PAGE 832
- _ - - - -------- -- - --- ----
CV
I-
ILLJ
LLJ
Z
V J
ILJ
z_
J
Z
Q
01
DEED BOOK 2905 \ \\ - \ -
1. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION v � � v v �-� _-v �'-vv v�_ -v _-= � _ _ v_ v � - v �� i vv ` �v � � v
NOW OR FORMERLY - \ \ - \ \ \ \
IS ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ATTHE END OF EACH WORKING DAYTO ENSURE MEASURES ARE PAGE 645 I J011N AND 5U3AN NICKL\-
FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. PARCEL ID: 3604962681 ; vvvv
DEED BOOK 3 14 7
2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10 IPAGE 277
/
WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN. V�
— ___ - _- —
�C _ v
3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE HARROWED TO A DEPTH OF 3 - 4 INCHES PRIOR TO SEEDING.
ANY DISTURBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR HARROWING BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BEAPPROVED BY BY THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER. / -�` _b-�„ `` _ ,%__- --------
-----------
PLANTING
TABLE \Y -_
4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RIPPED ALONG TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS WITH A 51-15501LER `\ `'N, O - _ _-----
PRIOR TO BARE ROOT PLANTING. SUBSOILER DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES AND - `--
SPACING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF GFT. ANY DISTURBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR RIPPING BY
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER.
5. ALL NON -FORESTED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT SHALL BE RIPPED ALONG
TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS WITH A SUBSOILER PRIOR TO BARE ROOT PLANTING. SUBSOILER
DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES AND SPACING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF GFT. ANY
DISTURBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR RIPPING BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY
THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER.
G. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D3. LIVE
STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D3.
7. BARE ROOT AND LIVE STAKE TREE SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO THE TABLE
SHOWN TO THE RIGHT, BUT SPECIES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BASED ON AVAILABILITY.
8. TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LE55 THAN G" DBH SHALL
BE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.
9. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO G PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES ARE
GROUPED TOGETHER.
10. BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY 15 APPROXIMATELY 800 STEMS PER ACRE.
1 1. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH
BANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.
12. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS PER EROSION CONTROL
SHEETS.
13. PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
14, PERMANENT FESCUE SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
15. SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE APPLIED TO RIPARIAN PLANTING AREA PER SOIL TESTS OR APPLY
2,000 LB/ACRE GROUND AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE AND 1,000 LB/ACRE 1 0-1 0- 10 FERTILIZER.
Zone I - Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
American sycamore
Platanu5 occ7dentah5
10%
American bech
Fagus grand7foha
10%
River birch
Betula n7gra
10%
Tulip poplar
Linodendron tuhp7fera
10%
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
10%
Water oak
Quercus n7gra
10%
White oak
Quercus alba
10%
Northern red oak
Quercus rubra
10%
Flowering dogwood
Cornus flonda
10%
American Persimmon
D105pyro5 vrglniana
10%
Zone 2 - Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
1 5%
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
10%
Water oak
Quercus n7gra
10%
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus m7chaux77
10%
American sycamore
Platanus occ7dentah5
10%
River birch
Betula n7gra
10%
Tulip poplar
Linodendron tulip7fera
10%
American hornbeam
Carpnus carchrnana
10%
Green ash
Frax7nu5 pennsylvanica
5%
American Elm
Ulmu5 americana
5%
5u6jarberry
Celti5laevigata
5%
Buttonbu5h
Cephalanthus occidentaII5
5%
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Virginia wildrye
Elymu3 virg7n7cu5
1 5%
5wltchcgra55
Panicum v7rgatum
1 5%
Little bluestem
3ch7zachyr7um scopanum
10%
Big bluestem
Andropogon 3erardn
10%
Blackeyed Susan
Rudbeck7a h7rta
10%
Oxyey sunflower
Mchcpsis hel7antho7des
10%
Lanceleaf coreop5i5
Coreop575 lanceolate
10%
Lurid sedge
Carex lunch
10%
Soft rush
Juncu5 effu3u3
5%
Fox sedge
Carex vulp7no7dea
4%
Swamp milkweed
A56epia5 incarnata
3%
Purple coneflower
Ech7nacea purpurea
3%
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Black willow
5al7x n7gra
40%
Eastern cottonwood
Populus delto76Ie5
30%
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
30%
\\-" NOW OR FORMERLY
\ ROBERT SARI NEAU ,' NOW OR FORMERLY
\ PARCEL 1D: 3604962095 DAVID LUTZ NOW OR FORMERLY
DEED BOOK 1645 PARCEL ID 3604952686 DAVID LUTZ
\ PAGE 303
DEED BOOK 543
PAGE 345
PARCEL ID: 3604947565
DEED BOOK 1659
PAGE 532
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C INN
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100 200
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I\
w
Q co
Q N
0
� N
O
J N
—00
z
O
V)
z
O
Of
O
ILL
z
i
o
Q
0
z
O
cn
U)
Q
w
J
ED
Cr
C
Z
J
`W
1�
O
n
V
Z
U
O_
Z
~
~
J
r<n
V
O
ffnn
V
J
z
Z
J
O
LU
Z
LU
<
LU
a W
O
J
z m
U
~
Z
z
IU
O
J
Q
IL
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
P 1

oil
W
IVIIC,rIHCL HNL/ I KHC,CY
LI VI NGSTON
PARCEL ID: 3GO4950071
DEED BOOK 2633
PAGE 4GO
NOW OR FORMERLY
SUNNYRIDGE FARM, INC
d NHS
PLANTING LEGEND
/ LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT CE cE
r
EXISTING TREELINE
n PROPERTY LINE --------
RIPARIAN PLANTING
(TOTAL AREA: 17.3 AC)
PARCEL ID: 3G 14 1357 13
J
DEED BOOK 2290
PAGE 485
,�'
ij
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING/INVA51VE5 CONTROL
(TOTAL AREA: I G. I AC)
PLANTING ZONE I
(TOTAL AREA: 1 0.4 AC)
-- PLANTING ZONE 2
v (TOTAL AREA: 14.0 AC)
`t
C> LIVE STAKE PLANTING
� o
% � //ice ✓ ��i � vvl � � � /
i
v
/
19
"'"C°° /
T�
i
xe%aoo��
/
ado
i
%i jai
N _
NOW OR FORMERLY
MICOAEL 5AIN
PARCEL ID: 3604939290
DEED BOOK 2767
PAGE 76 1
°° /
r �
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Virginia wildrye
Elymue virgmicue
1 5%
5witchgra55
Panicum virgatum
1 5%
Little blue5tem
5chizachyrium 5coparium
1 0%
Big blue5tem
Andropogon gerardu
1 0%
Blackeyed 5u5an
Rudbeckia hirta
1 0%
Oxyey Sunflower
Hehopsi5 helianthoide5
1 0%
Lanceleaf coreop5i5
Coreop5i5 lanceolate
1 0%
Lurid sedge
Carex lunch
1 0%
Soft rush
Juncue effu5u3
5%
Fox sedge
Carex vulpinoidea
4%
Swamp milkweed
A5clepia5 incarnata
3%
Purple coneflower
Echinacea purpurea
3%
Live 5takmcJ and Live Cuttmcg5 Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Black willow
5ahx nigra
40%
Eastern cottonwood
Populue deltoidee
30%
51lky dogwood
Cornus amomum
30%
PLANTING TABLE
Zone I - Bare Root Planting Tree 5pecie5
Common Name
5cientific Name
Percent
Composition
American sycamore
Platanus occidentali5
1 0%
American bech
Fagu5 grandifolia
1 0%
River birch
Betula nigra
1 0%
Tulip poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
1 0%
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
1 0%
Water oak
Quercus nigra
1 0%
White oak
Quercus alba
1 0%
Northern red oak
Quercus rubra
10
Flowering dogwood
Cornus florida
1 0%
American Persimmon
D105pyro5 vircginiana
1 0%
Zone 2 - Bare Root Planting Tree 5pecie5
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
1 5%
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
1 0%
Water oak
Quercus nigra
1 0%
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
1 0%
American sycamore
Platanus occidental15
1 0%
River birch
Betula nigra
10%
Tulip poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
1 0%
American hornbeam
Carpinue carchniana
1 0%
Green ash
Fraxmu3 penn5ylvanica
5%
American Elm
UImu5 americans
5%
5ugarberry
CeIti5laevigata
5%
Buttonbu5h
Cephalanthu5 occidentali5
5%
PLANTING NOTES
ALL PLANTING AREAS
1. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION
15 ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE
FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.
DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10
WORKING DAY5. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ER0510N CONTROL PLAN.
ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE HARROWED TO A DEPTH OF 3 — 4 INCHES PRIOR TO SEEDING.
ANY D15TUR5ED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR HARROWING BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER.
ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RIPPED ALONG TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS WITH A 5UB501LEP
PRIOR TO BARE ROOT PLANTING. 5UB501LER DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES AND
SPACING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF GFT. ANY DISTURBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR RIPPING BY
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER.
ALL NON -FORESTED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT SHALL BE RIPPED ALONG
TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS WITH A 51-15501LER PRIOR TO BARE ROOT PLANTING. 51-15501LER
DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES AND SPACING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF GIFT. ANY
DISTURBED AREAS DEEMED UNFIT FOR RIPPING BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY
THE CONSTRUCTION PM AND ENGINEER.
BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D3. LIVE
STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D3.
BARE ROOT AND LIVE STAKE TREE SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO THE TABLE
SHOWN TO THE LEFT, BUT SPECIES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BASED ON AVAILABILITY.
TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVA51VE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LE55 THAN G" DBH SHALL
BE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.
SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED 5UCH THAT 3 TO G PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES ARE
GROUPED TOGETHER.
BARE ROOT PLANTING DEN5ITY 15 APPROXIMATELY 800 STEMS PER ACRE.
LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUT5IDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH
BANKS OF 5TRAIGHT REACHE5 ADJACENT TO POOLS.
TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL D15TUR5ED AREAS PER ER0510N CONTROL
SHEETS.
PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LB5/ACRE.
PERMANENT FESCUE SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LB5/ACRE.
501L AMENDMENTS SHALL BE APPLIED TO RIPARIAN PLANTING AREA PER 501L TESTS OR APPLY
2,000 LB/ACRE GROUND AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE AND 1,000 LB/ACRE 1 0- 1 0- 10 FERTILIZER.
Ores
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100 200
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I\
LLI
Qco
N
0
� N
O
J N
—00
z
O
I—
U
I—
U)
z
ON
Of
O
LL
z
i
O
0�
IL
Z
z
O_
0
c/
LL
Lu
ED
ED
cr
Cc
D_
Q
z_
W
J
O
U
z
U
O
z
~
~
J
Q
�O
z
z
C�
G
J
z
z
J
O
/
z
L U Q
J
Q LU
O
J
z m
U
~
U
z
z
I
O
J
Q
IL
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
P2

na
NOW OR FORMERLY
SUNNYRIDGE FARM, INC
PARCEL ID: 3G 14 1357 13 J
DEED BOOK 2290
PAGE 455 -
INSTALL CHANNEL PLUG
(SEE DETAIL D3)
DITCH C
LCE LCE LCE EE
vV � /� A v v 1)//1 ///l J v 1 // i �.� ��-_ �� �4 �--'v �v_ i l \. � t � ,�� lam/ -" i �� � - ✓ / j� /
//_
l i mart /`�'' v�A ✓� /z /
if
If
v
v-- � _ 'J l s —
i31 � �� -- / i / ) / � — /v /� ✓ i
NOW OR FORMERLY — v _ / — ✓ �i /%
/ii / / /ll -�1 // /� ��i�� /�% 11/ ov
y \ — — /i oP
JEREMY AND BRITTANY SMITH � f , I i I'i ,'Jl�r l i � I w' / � ^'� '� � � / �/'%' %''' ���
NOW OR FORMERLY
PARCEL ID: 3G 14043595
WETLAND LEGEND
y
WETLAND PRESERVATION: 2.474 AC y
y
y
/
WETLAND CREATION: 4.272 AC
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT: 1.527 AC
CIIARLE5 AND MAYLEY BEEP , 1 G I DEED BOOK 25/O / I/III I I� /y —/
PARCEL ID: 3614053013
DEED BOOK 2792 I I r I I l l l / y y— I // ✓ v . _ / e
PAGE 812 / / f
PAGE 154
II (APPROX.) I A2� v y �nI y �_�/__/ ( ��o/ / /�v\ �1 o / / / // / / v�/ �✓T� ��
�000
1 V �✓/ �-� I ���.�/ '�/ / /' V / // [�� _/��� V� //
a1A 1 // / inoownr
`1� \ � � �-y /< / 7 l /'/ ) /�
0 IV� l l 1I�1 !//
s VcA
�
\ \ \ 1 \ \-
nll\Q} IL-�v - �� 1 ��� v V / u
1<_�J/�A� yol
!�
HOWARDS CREEK
INSTALL WETLAND
31
D ITC H A
DEPRE55ION5 _- -- _-
(SEE DETAIL D5)
'z,/
�, v I l � 1 � I/ i it li / � /l— �✓ � '� _ ' '%`�/ , d�—_—_—/_'a_= �� I � f/ /I II i ,// ���'� i/ / NOW OR FORMERLY
MICIIAEL SHIN
PARCEL ID: 3604939290
DEED BOOK 2767
IN5TALL BRUSHY BERMS PAGE7G1
(SEE DETAIL D2)-
�� ,/
PARCEL ID: 3604947` `' /��' // r 1 // I if I I
DEED BOOK 165,9 — / l l //l l lI l / _ / ' / 0 / 0
I INSTALL CHANNEL PLUG
PAGE B32 we / '� ` / `� // i / / r i
1 �v / >/ v _ / / IIvI
�, - �I nl �� (SEE DETAIL D3)
I \ \ I A A 1 / / , ' / / /�� / a
REACH LD I / / ' 1 - / , „ �1111
1
�= A—�_ — — — — — — — — — — — — — --'
-' - - - - - ---- -- - '-- - -
�
— --
Pq Pr
lo,
/%
le
_____-______ _--_-- _=_____, IN5TALL BEDDED LOG5
--- ----_�-- ----- __�/,=-, /= -__ (SEE DETAIL D2)
—= _ _____ Jl��rlr/
NOW OR FORMERLY
MICIIAEL AND TRACEY
LI VI NGSTON
PARCEL ID: 3GO4950071 z
DEED BOOK 2633
PAGE 4GO I /
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main:
919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C:
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0
100 200
2"
= FULL SCALE
1 "
= HALF SCALE
I\
li.i
Q co
N
O
� N
O
J N
—00
z
O
N�
U)
z
O
IY
O
LL
O
0�
LL
Z
0
z
O
Lu
c/)
(n
Q
LU
J
LU
Cr
C
Q
z
O
U
Z
U
O
Z
O
0-
z
0
~
W
O
w
U
Z
Lu
<
Lu
a W
O
J
z m
U
~
w
z
z
O
J
Q
o
I
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
W 1

WHEN AND WHERE TO USE IT
51LT FENCE IS APPLICABLE IN AREAS:
1.25 LB./LINEAR IT. STEEL POSTS
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SHEET OR OVERLAND FLOW PATH LENGTH TO THE FENCE 15 1 00-FEET.
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SLOPE STEEPNESS (NORMAL [PERPENDICULAR] TO FENCE LINE) IS 2H: I V.
EXTRA STRENGTH
THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CONCENTRATED FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 CF5.
FILTER FABRIC
DO NOT PLACE 51LT FENCE ACROSS CHANNELS OR USE IT AS A VELOCITY CONTROL BMP.
�\ `WjT*
s
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:
I . USE A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC OF AT LEAST 95% BY WEIGHT OF POLYOLEFIN5 OR POLYESTER, WHICH IS
CERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER A5 CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN A5TM D G4G I
.
SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE A
MINIMUM OF G MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF O° TO 1 20' F. BACKFILL TRENCH WITH
2. ENSURE THAT POSTS FOR SEDIMENT FENCES ARE 1.33 LB/LINEAR FT STEEL WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 5 FEET. COMPACTED EARTH
MAKE SURE THAT STEEL POSTS HAVE PROJECTIONS TO FACILITATE FASTENING THE FABRIC.
CONSTRUCTION:
I . CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENT BARRIER OF EXTRA STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRICS.
2. ENSURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND SURFACE.
(HIGHER FENCES MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE OF THE STRUCTURE.)
3. CONSTRUCT THE FILTER FABRIC FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO AVOID USE EITHER FLAT -BOTTOM
JOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER CLOTH ONLY AT A SUPPORT P05T WITH 4
FEET MINIMUM OVERLAP TO THE NEXT POST. OR V-BOTTOM TRENCH
4. EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC WITH G FEET POST SPACING DOES NOT REQUIRE WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE. SHOWN BELOW
SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC DIRECTLY TO POSTS. WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES SHOULD HAVE MINIMUM 50
POUND TENSILE STRENGTH.
5.
EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES WIDE AND 8 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE PROPOSED LINE OF POSTS
AND UP51LOPE FROM THE BARRIER.
G.
PLACE 12 INCHES OF THE FABRIC ALONG THE BOTTOM AND SIDE OF THE TRENCH.
7.
BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH 501L PLACED OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT. THOROUGH COMPACTION OF
FILTER FABRIC
THE BACKFILL 15 CRITICAL TO 51LT FENCE PERFORMANCE.
8.
DO NOT ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES.
COMPACTED
EARTH
MAINTENANCE:
PUNC
I .
INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS
IMMEDIATELY.
�p =
2.
SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OK BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE IT
-
PROMPTLY.
3.
REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN AND
TO REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT.
4.
REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE AND
STABILIZE IT AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED. FILTER
FABRIC 4"
FLAT -BOTTOM TRENCH DETAIL
STEEL P
WIRE FENCING
(IF APPLICABLE)
WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
I�
I.I I
I
4.' MAX
■■■III
• - • • -
r • • - : • - PA : • II
II■■■
�MEN111
i
,�►..
♦
O '
►e
U.- 4v►4 ?b.F -
.,
II N
♦ -I
NOTES:
I . SEDIMENT FILTER OUTLET AND HARDWARE CLOTH SHALL BE I G INCHES HIGH BUT NO TALLER
THAN 181NCHE5.
2. HARDWARE CLOTH SHALL BE ANCHORED TO THE STEEL POSTS SECURELY USING APPROPRIATE
ANCHORS. HARDWARE CLOTH SHALL BE KEYED IN A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES IN LENGTH AND
BACKFILLED PROPERLY A5 SHOWN IN ABOVE DETAIL. HARDWARE CLOTH TO BE SAME A5 STD.
#30.09 (1 9 GAUGE, 114" SPACING).
3. POSTS SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 4 FEET APART.
4. 51TE OUTLETS AT ANY POINT SMALL CONCENTRATED FLOWS ARE ANTICIPATED AND AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE INSPECTOR.
5. ONE ACRE MAXIMUM DRAINAGE AREA PER OUTLET.
INSTALLATION NOTES:
51TE PREPARATION
I . GRADE AND COMPACT AREA.
2. REMOVE ALL ROCKS, CLODS, VEGETATION, AND OBSTRUCTIONS 50 THAT MATTING WILL
HAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL.
3. PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL ABOVE FINAL GRADE.
4. TEST SOILS FOR ANY NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND SUBMIT 501L TEST RESULTS TO THE
ENGINEER. APPLY ANY TREATMENT SUCH AS LIME OR FERTILIZERS TO THE 501L IF NEEDED.
SEEDING
1. SEE PLANTING SHEETS FOR SEEDING REQUIREMENTS.
2. APPLY SEED TO 501L BEFORE PLACING MATTING.
INSTALLATION - STREAM BANK
I . SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND DETAIL SHEETS FOR
INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE COIR MATTING.
2. OVERLAP ADJACENT MATS G" (IN DIRECTION PARALLEL TO FLOW) AND ANCHOR EVERY 1 2"
ACROSS THE OVERLAP. THE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE DOWNSTREAM
MAT.
3. EDGE5 SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER.
4. LAY MAT LOOSE TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT.
5. ANCHOR MAT USING BIODEGRADABLE STAKES.
G. EXTEND MAT 2 TO 3 FEET PAST TOP OF BANK.
7. PLACE ADJACENT ROLLS IN THE ANCHOR TRENCH WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" OVERLAP.
SECURE WITH BIODEGRADABLE STAKES, BACKFILL ANCHOR TRENCH, AND COMPACT SOIL.
8. STAKE AT 1 2" INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP.
9. IF MORE THAN ROLL 15 REQUIRED TO COVER THE CHANNEL FROM THE TOP OF BANK DOWN
TO THE TOE, THEN OVERLAP MATTING BY A MINIMUM OF 1'.
SILT FENCE OUTLET
NT5
2.0'
MIN.
EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
• 100 % COCONUT FIBER (COIR) TWINE WOVEN INTO A
HIGH STRENGTH MATRIX.
• THICKNESS - 0.30 IN. MINIMUM.
• SHEAR STRESS - 4.G3 LBS/SQFT
• FLOW VELOCITY- OBSERVED I G FT/SEC
• WEIGHT - 2G.55 O7_/5Y
PEN AREA -
• OLOPE5-UP A� SOMAXIMUM Of 1:1 COIR MATTING
NT5
SILT FENCE INSTALLATION
FI LTER FABRIC ----
COMPACTED
EARTH
RUB
co
v
N
0
co
HEAVY DUTY PLASTIC TIE
FOR STEEL POSTS
BURY FABRIC
FILTER FABRIC
V-SHAPED TRENCH DETAIL
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
NT5
STEEL POST
HARDWARE CLOTH
WASHED STONE
(NCDOT #5 OR #57)
I
4"
FLOW
ANCHOR SKIRT;
EXCAVATE TRENCH AND
COMPACT BACKFILL
MAINTENANCE:
I . FILTER OUTLETS SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY OR
HI5 AGENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING
PROLONGED RAINFALL. ANY REPAIRS NEEDED SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY.
2. THE STONE SHALL BE REPLACED PROMPTLY AFTER ANY EVENT THAT HAS CLOGGED
OR REMOVED IT.
3. SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN DEP051T5 REACH HALF THE
HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER THE
51LT FENCE OUTLET 15 REMOVED SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM TO THE EXISTING
GRADE, PREPARED AND SEEDED.
KEY -IN MATTING
STAKE MATTING JUST
ABOVE CHANNEL TOE
AND BACKFILL W/
RIFFLE MATERIAL
----------------
MAINTENANCE:
I . INSPECT ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS (RECP) AT
LEAST WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT (2 INCH OR
GREATER) RAIN FALL EVENT. REPAIR IMMEDIATELY
2. GOOD CONTACT WITH THE GROUND MUST BE MAINTAINED AND
EROSION MUST NOT OCCUR BENEATH THE RECP
3. ANY AREAS OF THE RECP THAT ARE DAMAGED OR NOT IN
CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE GROUND SHALL BE REPAIRED AND
STAPLED
4. IF EK0510N OCCURS DUE TO POORLY CONTROLLED DRAINAGE,
THE PROBLEM SHALL BE FIXED AND THE ERODED AREA
PROTECTED
5. MONITOR AND REPAIR THE RECP A5 NECESSARY UNTIL GROUND
COVER 15 ESTABLISHED
FLOW
B
A A
B
PLAN VIEW
�'CC AI/lTC I /llA /C!"'T 1-J /"11A IT
SECTION A -A
MAINTENANCE:
1. PERIODICALLY INSPECT SANDBAG DIKE FOR
DAMAGE AND LEAKS AND REPAIR A5 NEEDED
2. REMOVE IMPOUNDED TRASH AND SEDIMENT
MIDDLE LAYER
BOTTOM LAYER
ENDS OF BAGS IN
ADJACENT ROWS
BUTTED SLIGHTLY
GROUND LEVEL TOGETHER
SECTION B-B
TOP LAYER
EARTH SURFACE
TRENCH 0.25' DEEP
ONLY WHEN
PLACED ON EARTH
SURFACE
EARTH SURFACE NOTES:
I . END OF DIKE AT GROUND LEVEL TO BE HIGHER THAN THE LOWEST
POINT OF FLOW CHECK
2. SUFFICIENT SANDBAGS ARE TO BE PLACED TO PREVENT SCOURING
3. SANDBAG BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THREE LAYERS OF
SANDBAGS. THE BOTTOM LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 3 ROWS OF
BAGS, THE MIDDLE LAYER SHALL CON515T OF 2 ROWS OF BAGS AND
THE TOP LAYER SHALL CON515T OF I ROW OF BAGS
4. THE RECOMMENDED DIMENSION OF A FILLED SANDBAG SHALL BE
APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT X 0.5 FT X 1 .5 FT
SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS DIKE
NTS
PURPOSE:
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE U5ED AT ALL POINTS WHERE TRAFFIC WILL BE LEAVING A
CONSTRUCTION SITE AND MOVING DIRECTLY ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD. INSTALL A CULVERT PIPE ACROSS THE ENTRANCE,
WHEN NEEDED, TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE.
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:
I . CLEAR THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AREA OF ALL VEGETATION, ROOTS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL AND
PROPERLY GRADE IT.
2. PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE LARGE TRUCKS.
3. PLACE THE GRAVEL TO THE SPECIFIC GRADE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DETAIL AND SMOOTH IT.
4. PROVIDE DRAINAGE TO CARRY WATER TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET.
5. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRICS BECAUSE THEY IMPROVE STABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION IN LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO
SEEPAGE OR HIGH WATER TABLE.
MAINTENANCE:
I . MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION
SITE. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2-INCH STONE.
2. AFTER EACH RAINFALL, INSPECT ANY STRUCTURE USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT A5 NECESSARY.
3. IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS SPILLED, WASHED, OK TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC
ROADWAYS, OR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS.
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
NT5
NOTES: FLOW
n # 5 WASHED STONE
1. CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDEQ EROSION CONTROL MANUAL
2. KIPKAP SHALL BE CLA55 I
�B
3. PLACE ROCK DAM A5 SHOWN ON PLAN5. EXTEND CLA55 B RIP RAP ROCK
APRON 2 FEET DOWNSTREAM FROM TOE OF ROCK DAM
MAINTENANCE:
A
I . INSPECT CHECK DAM PERIODICALLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT
RAINFALL EVENT FOR DAMAGE AND SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION
2. AT A MINIMUM, REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN ACCUMULATIONS REACH
ONE-HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE I .O' THICK CLA55
3. REPLACE OR CLEAN SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE A5 NEEDED TO B ROCK
APRON
ALLOW WATER TO DRAIN THROUGH THE DEVICE BETWEEN RAINFALL
B
EVENTS
PLAN
W (SPILLWAY)
MIN. /3 STREAM WIDTH
_I
SPILLWAY CREST
CLASS B RIP RAP
1 .0' THICK CLA55 -
B ROCK APRON
CUTOFF TKENCH
•
r •
I•I•I•I•IMIN-
, . •
FILTER FABRIC
SECTION B-B
RIP RAP TI
TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM
NT5
J
NOTES:
I . EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY IN DRY AND/OR ISOLATED SECTIONS OF CHANNEL.
2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAM FLOW.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED IN ONE
WORKING DAY. A MAXIMUM OF 200 FEET MAY BE DISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING PUMP SIZE SUFFICIENT TO
PUMP BASE FLOW.
5. DIKE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON -ERODIBLE MATERIALS SUCH A5 SANDBAGS.
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION:
1 . INSTALL STILLING BA51N AND STABILIZED OUTFALL USING CLA55 A RIP RAP AT THE
DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY PIPING
THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK AREA TO THE
STABILIZED OUTFALL.
3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM
DIVERSION.
4. INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND DEWATERING PUMPING APPARATUS IF
NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE
SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA. THI5 WATER WILL ALSO BE
PUMPED TO AN OUTFALL STABILIZED WITH CLASS A RIP RAP.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE
REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE. WHEN DEWATERING AREA, ALL DIRTY WATER MUST BE
PUMPED THROUGH A SILT BAG. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND TEMPORARY
FLEXIBLE h05E/PIPING STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.
G. ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE ALL RIP RAP AND IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND
STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH.
7. ALL WORK IN CHANNEL MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE REMOVING IMPERVIOUS DIKE.
DE-WATEKIN(
PUMI
IMPERVIOUS
DIKE
SILT BAG
LOCATIOI`
STABI
CLASS A STONE
FILTER FABRI
STABILIZED OUTFALL
CLA55 A STONE
HOSE
PUMP AROUND
PUMP
J5 DIKE
:GE H05E
LD BE
NORK
-CHARGE
5E
L/�IJ I IIVV
CHANNEL
SILT BAG PROFILE
PUMP AROUND � DEWATERING DETAIL
NT5
Ores
3600 Glenwood
Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
co
N
O
W
N
Q
N
00
H
O
J
11
Z
O
U
F_
Z
0
O
IL
H
O
Z
aC
I
}
O
ILL
Q
66
0
Zz
O
LU
U)
U)
W
J
LU
>
W
J
Lu
Cc
Q
z_
w
J
O
Q
z
U
O
Q~/
LD
O
J
z
Q
w
z
Q
O
U
w
LU >
z
w
O
F-
z m
U
C)
Z
Lu
z_
J
Ir
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
D1

MIN 12.0'
EXISTING
GRADE
SLOPE
CLASS B RIP RAF
TIMBER MAT INSTALLED
PERPENDICULAR
MINIMUM 9" EROSION
CONTROL COIR WATTLE/LOG
Two �c nnnly
PLAN VIEW
EROSION CONTROL
WATTLE/ SILT FENCE
EXISTING
GRADE
TYPICAL HAUL ROAD
NT5
INSTALL WATTLE IN
2" TO 3" TRENCH
ER05ION CONTROL WATTLE
SEDIMENT RAIL
MIN HEIGHT = 4"
CARRIAGE BOLT TIMBER MAT INSTALLED
(TYP) PERPENDICULAR
CLASS B RIP RAP TOP OF BANK NISTBALLLEDER APARALLEL
FILTER FABRIC
TOE OF BANK
(TYP)
APPROXIMATE BASE FLOW
WATER SURFACE
I . INSPECT TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS AFTER
RUNOFF -PRODUCING RAINS TO CHECK FOR BLOCKAGE IN CHANNEL,
EROSION OF ABUTMENTS, CHANNEL SCOUR, RIPRAP DISPLACEMENT,
OR PIPING. MAKE ALL REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT FURTHER
DAMAGE TO THE INSTALLATION
2. MATS WHICH BECOME COVERED WITH SOIL OR DEBRIS SHALL BE
CLEANED AND THE MATERIALS REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF IN AN
UPLAND LOCATION. THE MATERIALS SHALL BE SCRAPED AND
SHOVELED INTO PROTECTED AREAS
3. MATS WHICH BECOME IMBEDDED MUST BE RESET OR LAYERED
SUCH THAT THE MATS ARE ABOVE ADJACENT GROUND ELEVATIONS
SECTION VIEW
NT5
NOTES
1. MAINTAIN HAUL ROAD DURING CONSTRUCTION
2. RETURN TO ORIGINAL GRADE AT THE COMPLETION OF WORK
3. VEGETATE ALL DISTURBED AREAS
4. REMOVE COMPOST FILTER SOCK UPON ESTABLISHMENT OF VEGETATION
NOTES:
I . EROSION CONTROL WATTLES OR COIR LOG5/WATTLE5 MAY BE
USED IN PLACE OF SILT FENCE
2. INSTILL A MINIMUM OF 2 UP5LOPE STAKES AND 4 DOWN5LOPE
STAKES AT AN ANGLE TO WEDGE WATTLE IN PLACE
I . INSPECT WATTLE PERIODICALLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT
RAINFALL EVENT FOR DAMAGE AND SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION
2. REPLACE OR CLEAN WATTLE AS NEEDED TO ALLOW WATER TO
DRAIN THROUGH THE NATURAL FIBERS BETWEEN RAINFALL EVENTS
ff3ER MAT INSTALLED
ALLEL
:ARRIAGE BOLT
TIMBER MAT
(TYP)
I . TIMBER MATS SHALL BE USED FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
TO TRAVERSE WET AND/OR MUDDY ARE5 ADJACENT TO THE STREAM AND
TO CROSS THE STREAM AND OTHER CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS.
2. THE STREAM CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A DRY CONDITION WHEN
FLOW IS LOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO DISTURBANCE OF THE
CHANNEL BED AND BANKS AS A RESULT OF INSTALLING THE APPROACHES
OR CROSSING.
3. THE LENGTH OF TIMBER MAT REQUIRED TO CROSS THE STREAM OR
CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE TIMBER MAT
EXTENDS PAST THE TOP OF BANK ON EACH SIDE OF THE CROSSING A
SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO SUPPORT THE MAXIMUM EQUIPMENT SIZE USING
THE CROSSING.
4. STREAM CROSSINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT LENGTHS
ORIENTED PERPENDICULAR TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS. TIMBER
MAT STREAM APPROACHES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT
LENGTHS ORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS.
5. TIMBER MATS SHALL HAVE A SOLID DECK WITH NO GAPS OR SPACES
ALLOWED BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL BOARDS/TIMBERS.
G. A 4" MINIMUM HEIGHT SEDIMENT RAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED AT STREAM
CROSSINGS TO PREVENT TRACKED SEDIMENT FROM FALLING INTO THE
STREAM BED.
7. STREAM CROSSING APPROACHES FROM DRY AREAS SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED USING CLASS B RIP RAP PLACED OVER FILTER FABRIC.
8. ALL TIMBER MATS, FILTER FABRIC, AND RIP RAP SHALL BE COMPLETELY
REMOVED FROM THE SITE WHEN THE CROSSING IS REMOVED.
TIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CK055ING
NT5
t
•
FLOW
I\/F GTA`
PLAN VIEW
FLOW
LIVE STAKES
A COMPACTED SOIL
•
B
OPTIONAL
HARDWOOD
STAKES
A
PLAN VIEW
BEDDED LOG
NT5
)MPACTED SOIL
SHALLOW
TRENCH
SMALL BRANCHES,
BRUSH, AND 50ILL
STAKES
BRU5HY BERM
NT5
SEE DESIGN
SHEETS APPROX.
TOP ELEVATION
LIVE STAKES
COMPACTED SOIL
NOTES:
LIVE STAKE:
COMPACTED SO
E
L
C
"ALL BRANCHES,
JSH, AND 501LL
°E DESIGN
1EET5 FOR TOP
EVATION
NOTES:
I . DIG A SHALLOW TRENCH THE LENGTH OF THE BRUSHY BERM. THE TRENCH
SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 0.5' DEEP AND 3' WIDE.
2. PLACE AN EVEN MIX OF HARDWOOD LOGS, LIMBS, BRUSH, AND SOIL
ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE TRENCH, AS SHOWN,
3. TOP ELEVATION (SHOWN ON DESIGN SHEETS) SHOULD BE UNIFORM.
4. PLACE AND COMPACT FILL ON UP- AND DOWNSTREAM FACE OF THE
BRUSH.
5. FILL SHOULD BE PLACED AT A UNIFORM HEIGHT EQUAL TO THE TOP OF THE
BRUSH.
G. SEE PLANTING TABLE ON SHEET P I FOR ACCEPTABLE LIVE STAKE SPECIES.
FLOW
OPTIONAL
HARDWOOD
STAKES
I . DIG A SHALLOW TRENCH THE LENGTH OF THE LOG. THE TRENCH SHALL BE
APPROXIMATELY 0.5' DEEP AND 3' WIDE.
2. PLACE THE LOG INTO THE TRENCH, BEDDING THE ROOTS IN AS NEEDED, AS
SHOWN.
3. PLACE AND COMPACT FILL ON UPSTREAM FACE OF THE LOG.
4. FILL SHOULD BE PLACED AT A UNIFORM HEIGHT EQUAL TO THE TOP OF THE
LOG.
5. SEE PLANTING TABLE ON SHEET P I FOR ACCEPTABLE LIVE STAKE SPECIES.
pres
3600 Glenwood
Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
co
N
O
W
N
Q
N
00
H
O
J
11
Z
O
U
VJlHl^
Z
O
U
O
IL
F
O
Z
O
Q
0
Z_
O
U)
U)
LU
J
W
>
W
—j
W
Q
Z
W
J
Q
Q
Z
U
O
=
O
U)
J
Z
Q
w
z
Q
D
O
U
w
Lu >
Z
zw
O
F-
m
U
z
C)
Lu
z_
J
Ir
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
D2

NOTES:
1. SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLING
COIF, MATTING.
TYPICAL BANK GRADING
NTS
BANK
JNEL BANK
1STING
1ANNEL BED
ZI ES
SEE PLAN SHEETS
FOR WIDTH
O
z_
7
PLAN VIEW
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
I .5' MINIMUM
COMPACTED BACKFILL
(1 2" LIFTS)
INSTALL LIVESTAKES
0.75" TO 2"
AROUND OUTSIDE OF
MEANDER BENDS
INSTALL LIVESTAKES
FLAT TOP END
+ +
AROUND STRUCTURES +
++
+++
j--TW
++
+ +
+
++LATERAL
+ +
+
+
BU
C
A
SIDE BRANCH
REMOVED AT
+
SLIGHT ANGLE �
++
++
+
...... + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
WATER TABLE
+ + + + + + + +
PLAN VIEW
c
n
ME
IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL
(PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER)
(SEE NOTE 1)
COIR FIBER
MATTING
45 DEGREE
TAPERED BUTT END
LIVESTAKE
COIR FIBER
MATTING
EXISTING CHANNEL
TOP OF BANK EXISTING CHANNEL
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING CHANNEL
BOTTOM
MIN. 50'
(1 2" TOv1 8'"' LIFTS)`
TYPICAL SECTION
CHANNEL ABANDONMENT AND BACKFILL
BANKFULL ELEVATION
NTS
NOTES:
I . IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING CHANNEL IS TO BE ABANDONED, FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL TO TOP OF BANK ELEVATION WHEN POSSIBLE.
2. CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED IN 1 2" TO 18" LIFTS AND COMPACTED
ACCORDINGLY.
3. WHEN SPOIL DOES NOT EXIST IN ORDER TO COMPLETELY FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL TO TOP OF BANK ELEVATION, FILL CHANNEL TO AN ELEVATION G"
ABOVE TOP OF BANK ELEVATION FOR AT LEAST 50 LF OUT OF EVERY 150
LF SEGMENT. REMAINING CHANNEL SECTIONS ARE TO BE FILLED TO A
DEPTH OF NO LESS THAN 1 4" FROM TOP OF BANK ELEVATION.
4. IN AREAS WHERE THE EXISTING CHANNEL IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT, THE CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED COMPLETELY IN
1 2" LIFTS.
50'-1 00'
NEW CHANNEL TO BE �
FINISHED GRADE NEW CHANNEL BANK SHALL CONSTRUCTED 0
BE TREATED AS SPECIFIED
IN PLANS
10' MIN
TYPICAL SECTION
OLD CHANNEL TO BE
PROPOSED DIVERTED OR ABANDONED
CHANNEL INVERT
TOE PROTECTION
CHANNEL PLUG
NTS
DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD
U51NG THE K13C, PLANTING BAR
V
1. INSERT
2. REMOVE
3. INSERT
PLANTING BAR AS
PLANTING BAR
PLANTING BAR 2
SHOWN AND PULL
AND PLACE
INCHES TOWARD
HANDLE TOWARD
SEEDING AT
PLANTER FROM
PLANTER.
CORRECT DEPTH.
SEEDING.
4. PULL HANDLE OF
BAR TOWARD
PLANTER, FIRMING
SOIL AT BOTTOM.
5. PUSH
HANDLE
FORWARD
FIRMING SOIL
AT TOP.
PLANTING NOTES:
NWS PLANTING BAG I
DURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALL
BE KEPT IN A MOIST CANVAS BAG OR
SIMILAR CONTAINER LARGE CHANNEL ROOTS SYSTEMS FROMODRYING. THE
SPACING KBC PLANTING BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADE
WITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION,
AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4
2.0' INCHES WIDE AND I INCH THICK AT
LIVESTAKE CENTER.
TYPICAL SECTION 1.01 ROOT PRUNING
ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOT
1 PRUNED, IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NO
ROOTS EXTEND MORE THAN 10
NOTES: O TOB INCHES BELOW THE ROOT COLLAR.
I . SEE TABLE ON PLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE SPECIES AND COMPOSITION. COIR FIBER
2. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE 2 TO 3 FEET LONG AND 0.75 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER. MATTING
3. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ON I .5' ALTERNATING SPACING ON LARGE
CHANNELS (POOL DEPTH > 21FT) AND 1.01 ALTERNATING SPACING ON SMALL
CHANNELS (POOL DEPTH < 21FT).
4. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ON ALL RESTORATION REACHES AND ALONG ALL NWS
ENHANCEMENT REACHES AS SHOWN ON LIVE STAKE SHEETS.
SMALL CHANNEL
SPACING
LIVE STAKING
NTS
G. LEAVE
COMPACTION
HOLE OPEN.
WATER
THOROUGHLY.
NOTES:
REFER TO THE PLANTING SHEETS
FOR SPECIES AND SPACING
INFORMATION.
BARE ROOT PLANTING
NTS
PLAN VIEW
CHANNEL PLUG
NOTE:
1. IF IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL
IS NOT FOUND ON SITE, SUITABLE
MATERIAL MUST BE OBTAINED
FROM AN OFF -SITE SOURCE.
3' MAXIMUM STREAM CHANNEL
" BANK HEIGHT 1 MI
IV�II IN��I� i II
SURFACE FLOW
DIVERSION
o
I I ptl i o 0
O a/0 o/ o
(III ��III o G j o
'
Ili oo
II --
,li11 I�� i14
STONE APPROACH
SECTION: NO STEEPER
THAN 5: 1 SLOPE ON ROAD
CLASS A STONE OVER
FILTER FABRIC
SURFACE FLOW
DIVERSION
EXISTING STREAMBANK
1 o I I it l
i
CLASS ASTONE — —
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
I . CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-51TE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAM BANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATE
CHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.
5. GRADE SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN 5: 1
G. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT
ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
7. A STABILIZED PAD OF NATURAL CLASS A STONE, G TO 9 INCHES THICK, LINED WITH
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES.
8. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT.
9. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (5'MIN.) TO ACCOMMODATE THE
LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO
EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
1 1. TEMPORARY CROSSINGS ARE TO BE ABANDONED IN PLACE.
FORD CROSSING
NTS
pres
3600 Glenwood
Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
N
O
N
Q
N
00
H
O
J
11
z
O
U
H
z
O
U
O
IL
H
O
I
O
ILL
Q
0
z
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
W
W
cr
Ir
Q
z_
W
J
O
U
z
U
O
Q
O
J
z
Q
�
>
J
�
W
z
Q
Q
D
O
C)
LU
Lu /
Z
z w
O
F-
Co
U
C
U
z_
Lu
z
J
Ir
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
D3

NON -WOVE
GEOTEXTILE FABRi
(NCDOT TYPE
SILL LOG OR
ROOT WAD
BP
LOG BURIED IN
C-,FrT1nN1 A Al
NOTES:
CHANNEL BOTTOM
OF BAND
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2
BAN KFULL NON-WOVEl'
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
(NCDOT TYPE I I
LIVE STAKES
(TYP.)
BAN KFULL
TOIL -
.FILL � � � � HEADER LOGECT
VEN
SRIC
'E 11)
STREAMBED
FOOTER LOG
RF('Tln�l R_R'
STREAM BED
ELEVATION
SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL
(MIX OF COARSE AGGREGATE
AND #5 STONE)
1. LOGS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS AS FOLLOWS:
MIN DIAM = 10"
MIN LENGTH = 30'
2. ALL LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND LIMBS SHALL BE TRIMMED FLUSH.
3. FOOTER LOGS/BOULDERS ARE LOGS/BOULDER PLACED TO PROVIDE A FOUNDATION AND SCOUR PROTECTION FOR THE HEADER
LOGS/BOULDERS.
4. HEADER LOGS/BOULDERS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER LOGS/BOULDERS UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
5. HEADER LOGS ARE THE TOP MOST LOGS USED IN EACH LOG STRUCTURE. ALL HEADER LOGS CAN BE SEEN PROTRUDING FROM
THE WATER SURFACE DURING EXTREMELY LOW FLOWS.
G. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE OFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTING LOGS WHERE SCOUR POOLS ARE ANTICIPATED TO
FORM AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL.
7. SILL LOGS SHALL BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO THE BANKFULL FLOW DIRECTION.
8. THE FOOTER LOGS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE SILL LOG TO THE END OF THE HEADER LOG TOWARD THE BANK.
9. HOOK BOULDERS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE HEADER LOG TO BEYOND BANKFULL WIDTH.
10. SET INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS.
1 1 . HEADER LOG SHALL TIE INTO THE STREAM BANK AT A MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF -L DMAX (MEASURED AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE) BELOW BANKFULL ELEVATION AND A MINIMUM ELEVATION OF 2 DMAX (MEASURE AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE)
BELOW BANKFULL ELEVATION UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
12. CUTTING OF THE SILL LOG ROOTWAD BAY BE REQUIRED TO PREVENT THE ROOTWAD FROM PROTRUDING ABOVE THE BANKFULL
ELEVATION.
13. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN I INCH BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTING LOGS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH LIMBS AND/OR
BRUSH ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GEOTEXTILE.
14. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN I INCH BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTING BOULDERS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH GRAVEL AND
COBBLES.
15. ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE LOGS AND/OR BOULDERS, NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN IN
PLANVIEW AND IN SECTION B-B'. PLACE SELECT BACKFILL FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE LOG AND BOULDER HOOK.
I G. BACKFILL STRUCTURE WITH SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL AS SHOWN SHOWN IN PLANVIEW AND IN SECTION B-B'.
17. SELECT BACKFILL AND SOIL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLEMENT OF THE MATERIAL IS
KEPT TO A MINIMUM.
18. NAIL NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE USING 3" 1 OD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL TO EDGE OF HEADER LOG AND BACKFILL AS SHOWN IN
THE GEOTEXTILE PLACEMENT AND SELECT BACKFILL DETAIL.
LOG J-HOOK
NTS
POINT REFERENCE[
IN STRUCTURE TABLE
TOLERANCE ± 0. 1
INSTALL TOE PROTECTION
SEE PLAN SHEET FOR
TYPE AND LENGTH
POOL
CHANNEL
OF L r1ly
KEY COIR MATTING
INTO BANK
112 WOODY DEBRIS
DEPTH
112 WOODY DEBRIS
DEPTH
SMALL LOGS AND/OR
LARGE BRANCHES WITH A
DIAMETER OF 4" to G"
NOTES:
PROPOSED
STREAM BED
FLOW
BACKFILL WITH COARSE
AGGREGATE (SEE NOTE #2)
o BACKFILL WITH FINE
N AGGREGATE (SEE NOTE #3)
`n NON -WOVEN -
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
(NCDOT TYPE 11)
TACK FABRIC
TO LOG
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAIL
SEE DWG D 1
MAINTAIN TYPICAL POOL
TOP OF BANK WIDTH
COMPACTED 501L LIFT
LIVE STAKES
BOTTOM OF SOIL LIFT SHOULD
MATCH HEAD OF DOWNSTREAM
I?IFFI F FI F\/ATIr)KI
CF!'T1nK1 A A
TOE PROTECTION
(LARGER CHANNELS)
1. MAINTAIN TOP OF BANK WIDTH PROVIDED IN TYPICAL SECTION.
2. OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACE LARGER BRANCHES AND LOGS
(HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) IN A CRI55-CRO55 PATTERN. LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING G
IN TO 12 IN OF THE LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS.
3. PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS (HARDWOOD
SPECIES ONLY) AND COMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO LOCK IN PLACE.
4. PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE SMALL BRANCHES AND BRUSH. SEE TABLE ON PLANTING SHEET
FOR ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTING AND LIVE STAKE SPECIES AND COMPOSITION. CUTTINGS SHOULD
BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.
5. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTED SOIL PER DIRECTION OF
ENGINEER. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE KEYED INTO TOP OF BANK.
G. INSTALL I TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYER PER DIRECTION OF
ENGINEER.
7. LIVE CUTTINGS AND BRUSH SHOULD NOT EXTEND PA5T/3 OF CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH.
COIR MATTIM
HEADER LO
LOG SILL
NTS
TYPICAL POOL
CR055-5ECTI ON
TOP OF BANK
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK
CHANNEL,
OF BANK
NOTES:
MIN. 5.0'
SCOUR POOL
SEE PROFILE FOR
POOL DEPTH
INSTALL COARSE AGGREGATE
SPLASH PAD IN BOTTOM OF
POOL (SEE NOTE #2)
RF("'T1n1\1 A Al
C.F('Tlrlf`I R R�
I . LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED
2. COARSE AGGREGATE MATERIAL SHALL CON515T OF AN EQUAL MIX OF 4" - G" STONE, AND 8" - 1 2" STONE.
3. FINE AGGREGATE BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF ABC STONE AND NATIVE MATERIAL.
4. BACKFILL SHOULD BE CONPACTED IN 8" LIFTS.
5. TOE PROTECTION IS TO BE INSTALLED ON THE DOWNSTREAM LOW 51DE OF ALL LOG SILLS AND SHOULD ABUT
THE DOWNSTREAM FACE OF THE LOGS.
G. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 1 OD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1 .5' ALONG THE LOG
7. INSTALL SPLASH PAD AT A 2.5: 1 SLOPE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER LOG AND EXTENDING TO
THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL
8. HIGH SIDE OF LOG SHALL BE APPROX. 0.2' HIGHER THAN LOW END
9. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIAM. = 1 2"
MIN LENGTH = 18'
BRUSH TOE
NTs
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
TTING
pres
3600 Glenwood
Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
co
N
0
W
N
Q
N
00
H
O
J
z
_O
H
U
H
z
O
U
O
LL
H
O
z
DC
�
O
Q
66
0
Z_
O
U)
U)
W
J
W
>
W
J
W
cr
D_
Q
z_
W
J
O
U
Q
z
U
O
Q~/
O
J
z
Q
Cam_
G
>
J
�
w
z
Q
Q
D
O
U
w
LUi
Z
w
O
z m
U
F-
0
zLu
z_
J
Ir
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
D4

CHANNE
5TRUCTUR
CONTRC
COAR5EAGGR
BACKFILL (SEE NO
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED
STREAM BED
FLOW
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (5EE NOTE #2)
FLOW
PLAN VIEW
STRUCTURE TABLE
CONTROL POINT
HEADER BOULDER
MIN. 5.0' SEE PROFILE FOR
POOL DEPTH
_/
BACKFILL WITH FINE FOOTER BOULDER
AGGREGATE (SEE NOTE #3) J INSTALL COARSE AGGREGATE
SPLASH PAD IN BOTTOM OF
FILTER FABRIC SECTION A -A' POOL (SEE NOTE #2)
(804.2. 1 1 CLA55 2)
TOE OF BANK, TYPICAL
BANKFULL, TYPICAL
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)
FILTER FABRIC
20' TO 30'
q
FILTER FABRIC
RIGHT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT p
CONTROL POINT
B
MIN
5.0.
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)
FLOW
%3 C1 ANNEL %3 CHANNEL %3 CHA NE
IDTH WIDTH - WID H
I
I �
POOL
4
POOL
PLAN VIEW
BANKFULL
STREAM BANK, TYPICAL
CRO55 VANE INVERT
CONTROL POINT
MIN
5.0' STEP INVERT
CONTROL POINT
HEADER AND FOOTER
BOULDERS
FILTER FABRIC
— � B
LEFT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
LEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
FLOW VARIES
O' TO 0.8'
\__ _ --- — _
i /i POOL %/\14 POOL
FILTER FABRIC
FOOTER ROCKS
PROFILE VIEW
FL
HEADER ROCKS
PROPOSED
STREAM BANK
TOP OF BANK
NOTES:
STRUCTURE TABLE
CONTROL POINT
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
1 . SEE STRUCTURE BOULDER SIZE TABLE FOR MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF BOULDERS. THE UPPER LIMIT FOR
BOULDER SIZES SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN 20% GREATER THAN THE SPECIFIED MINIMUM SIZE AND
SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE STRUCTURE.
2. COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL COMPOSITION SHALL MATCH THE RIFFLE COMPOSITION TABLE PROVIDED
IN THE TYPICAL RIFFLE DETAIL. A MIXTURE OF WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL MAY BE MIXED INTO AGGREGATE
BACKFILL IN ORDER TO HELP SEAL STRUCTURE.
3. FINE AGGREGATE BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF ABC STONE AND NATIVE MATERIAL.
4. BOULDERS AT TOE OF BANK SHALL BE INSTALLED SLIGHTLY HIGHER (APPROX. 0. 11) IN ORDER TO PROMOTE
LOW FLOW INTO CENTER OF CHANNEL.
5. THE BOULDER SILL 15 GENERALLY CONSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS:
A. PLACE FOOTER BOULDERS. A LAYER OF BEDDING MATERIAL UNDER THE POOTER BOULDERS MAY BE
SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. THERE SHALL BE NO GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS.
B. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC.
C. PLACE FINE BACKFILL BEHIND THE FOOTER BOULDERS.
D. INSTALL HEADER BOULDERS ON TOP OF AND SET SLIGHTLY BACK FROM THE FOOTER BOULDERS (SUCH
THAT PART OF THE HEADER BOULDER IS RESTING ON THE FINE BACKFILL). HEADER BOULDERS SHALL
SPAN THE SEAMS OF THE FOOTER BOULDERS. THERE SHALL NOT BE A SEAM IN THE CENTER OF THE
STREAM BED (AT THE THALWEG). THERE SHALL BE NO GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS. IF ONLY ONE
BOULDER SPANS THE CHANNEL BOTTOM, THE LOW 51DE OF THE BOULDER SHALL DIRECT LOW FLOW
INTO THE TOE PROTECTION.
E. PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND HEADER BOULDERS ENSURING THAT ANY VOIDS BETWEEN THE
BOULDERS ARE FILLED.
F. INSTALL SPLASH PAD AT A 2.5: 1 SLOPE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER LOG AND
EXTENDING TO THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL.
5. BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED IN 1 2" LIFTS.
ROCK SILL
BANKFULL
TOE OF BANK
FILTER FABRIC
VANE ARM BA
INTERCEPT CONTR
PO
NTS
STREAM BANK
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
STREAM BED
IN POOL
VARIES "
O' TOY3 WIDTH
SECTION A -A'
Y3 CHANNEL %3 CHANNEL Y3 CHANNEL
JK
VANE
DL
INTERc
NT
POINT
j - — J �I
FILTER r r r
FABRIC
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
ROCK A -VANE
NT5
4RM BANK
;EFT CONTROL
EXISTING GROUND
3 PRIMARY ROCK DIMENSIONS:
X. LONGEST DIMEN5ION
Y. SHORTEST DIMENSION
Z. INTERMEDIATE DIMENSION
STRUCTURE MINIMUM BOULDER SIZE
REACH
DIMENSION
LENTGH (IN.)
XI
X
18
Y
12
Z
18
X2
X
24
Y
18
Z
18
1 —
0.3' TO 0.5' DEPTH
30 FT MIN.
EXCAVATED SHALLOW DEPRE551C­
N OTE5:
1. DEPRESSIONS SHALL MAKE UP NO MORE THAN 0.02 ACRES OF WETLAND AREA (APPROX. 1 .7%)
2. INDIVIDUAL DEPRE5510N5 SHALL BE NO LARGER THAN 200 FT2
NOTES:
I . SEE STRUCTURE BOULDER SIZE TABLE FOR MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF BOULDERS. THE
UPPER LIMIT FOR BOULDER SIZES SHOULD BE NO MORE THAT 20% OF THE SPECIFIED
MINIMUM SIZE AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
OF THE STRUCTURE.
2. COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL COMPOSITION SHALL MATCH THE RIFFLE COMPOSITION
TABLE PROVIDED IN THE TYPICAL RIFFLE DETAIL. A MIXTURE OF WOODY DEBRIS AND
SOIL MAY BE MIXED INTO AGGREGATE BACKFILL IN ORDER TO HELP SEAL STRUCTURE.
3. BOULDERS AT TOE SHALL BE INSTALLED SLIGHTLY HIGHER (APPROX. 0. 1) IN ORDER TO
PROMOTE LOW FLOW INTO CENTER OF CHANNEL.
4. CROSS VANES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO THAT ADJOINING BOULDERS TAPER IN AN
UPSTREAM DIRECTION, FROM THE BANKFULL ELEVATION TO THE STREAM INVERT. THE
UPSTREAM END OF THE CROSS VANE IS SET AT AN ANGLE OF 20 TO 30 DEGREES
TANGENT TO THE PROJECTED STREAM BANK DIRECTION. THE TOP ELEVATION OF BOTH
VANES WILL DECREASE TOWARD THE CENTER OF THE CHANNEL.
5. THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE CROSS VANE SHALL BE KEYED INTO THE STREAMBANK
AT THE BANKFULL ELEVATION. THE CROSS VANE SHALL BE KEYED A MINIMUM OF FIVE
FEET INTO THE STREAMBANK. THE UPSTREAM END OF CROSS VANE SHALL BE KEYED
INTO THE STREAMBANK AT THE DESIGNED STKEAMBED INVERT ELEVATION.
G. VANE BOULDERS SHALL BE PLACED IN A LINEAR FASHION SO AS TO PRODUCE THE
SLOPING CROSS VANE, AND SHALL BE PLACED WITH TIGHT, CONTINUOUS SURFACE
CONTACT BETWEEN ADJOINING BOULDER. BOULDER SHALL BE PLACE SO AS TO HAVE
NO SIGNIFICANT GAPS BETWEEN ADJOINING BOULDER.
7. VANE BOULDERS SHALL BE PLACED 50 AS TO HAVE A FINAL SMOOTH SURFACE
ALONG THE TOP PLANE OF THE CROSS VANE. NO VANE BOULDER SHALL PROTRUDE
HIGHER THAN THE OTHER BOULDER IN THE BOULDER VANE. A COMPLETED CROSS
VANE HAS A SMOOTH, CONTINUOUS FINISH GRADE FROM THE BANKFULL ELEVATION
TO THE STREAMBED.
8. AS THE CROSS VANE IS CONSTRUCTED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHINK ALL VOIDS
BETWEEN THE FOOTER BOULDERS, AND BETWEEN THE FOOTER BOULDERS AND VANE
BOULDERS. VOIDS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH SMALLER ROCK SUCH THAT NO VOIDS
GREATER THAN FOUR INCHES IN SIZE WILL BE PRESENT.
WETLAND DEPRESSION
SEE PLAN SHEET
FOR POOL WIDTH
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK
CHANNEL BOTTOM
OF BANK
PLAN VIEW
NTS
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANK
MATTING PROPOSED 5WALE
SEE PLAN SHEET
FOR X5 DIMENSIONS
PROPOSED BED
\A1 AND / K
`MATTING
PROPOSED 5
5EE PLAN
FOR XS DIMEN
�c x
PROPOSED TRFATMENT F ,.,
NOTES:
I . COIR MATTING SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL
CHANNEL BOTTOMS AND CHANNEL AND POOL
BANKS PER THE COIR MATTING DETAIL
2. CHANNEL AND POOL BANKS SHALL BE LIVE
STAKED PER THE LIVE STAKING DETAIL. SEE
TABLE ON PLANTING 5HEET(5) FOR ACCEPTABLE
SPECIES AND COMPOSITION.
3. CHANNEL AND POOL SHALL BE SEEDED PER THE
RIPARIAN SEED MIX FOUND ON THE PLANTING
PLAN 5hEET(5)
PROFILE
MAINTENANCE:
I . INSPECT ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS (RECP) AT LEAST
WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT (Y2 INCH OR GREATER) RAIN
FALL EVENT. REPAIR IMMEDIATELY
2. GOOD CONTACT WITH THE GROUND MUST BE MAINTAINED AND
ER0510N MUST NOT OCCUR BENEATH THE RECP
3. ANY AREAS OF THE RECP THAT ARE DAMAGED OR NOT IN CLOSE
CONTACT WITH THE GROUND SHALL BE REPAIRED AND STAPLED
4. IF EROSION OCCURS DUE TO POORLY CONTROLLED DRAINAGE, THE
PROBLEM SHALL BE FIXED AND THE ERODED AREA PROTECTED
5. MONITOR AND REPAIR THE RECP A5 NECESSARY UNTIL GROUND
COVER IS ESTABLISHED
TREATMENT POOL
NTS
pres
3600 Glenwood
Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
N
0
W
N
Q
N
00
H
O
J
Z
_O
H
H
Z
0
O
IL
H
O
Z
f
O
Q
66
0
Z_
O
U)
(n
W
J
W
>
_j
Cc
z_
J
wO
I—
U)
Uz
O
=
Q
W
O
J
z
Q
Q
Q
z
O
w
U
>
Z
w
H
z m
p
U
z
C)
z_
J
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
D5

SMALL POOL
A' r
LARGE COBBLE/
SMALL BOULDERS
ANCHOR BOULD
E
LARGE COBBLE/
SMALL BOULDERS
FLOW
1
I A
4" - G" LOGS
COMPACTED
501 L LIFT, TYP
4.0'
TYP
T/-771 > j�lj7,�
0.5' MIN
I .O' MIN
4" - G" LOGS
ANCHOR BOULDER
POOL
RIFFLE MATERIAL;
SEE TABLE I
BEGIN RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
GLIDE
/\i \/
4" - G" LOGS -
LARGE COBBLE/5MALL
BOULDERS, TYP
CHANNEL 4.01
BOTTOM WIDTH _ , TYP
/x� - /x�
PROPOSED
TOE OF BANK
\ RIFFLE MATERIAL;
SEE TABLE I
GRADE CONTROL ROCK
CROSS SECTION A -A' 50/50 MIX OF CLA55 A
AND CLA55 B RIPRAP
VARIES PER PROFILE
PROFILE
PROPOSED TOP
OF BANK
END RIFFLE CONTROL POINT
/-- RUN
GRADE CONTROL ROCK
50/50 MIX OF CLA55 A
AND CLA55 B RIPRAP
RI FELE GRADE CONTROL
CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH
NTs
LARGE COBBLE/5MALL
BOULDERS, TYP
TOP OF BANK
//\\//\\/
A 0.75MIN
\N /\\\ \\\ \\ \\\ PROPOSED
TOE OF BANK
RIFFLE MATERIAL;
SEE TABLE I
BEGIN RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
RIFFLE MATERIAL;
SEE TABLE I
GLIDE
POOL
CROSS SECTION A -A'
VARIES PER PROFILE
'\1%/; ///\/,//W%
MAX 2"-3"
BRANCHES
FLOW ON
PROFILE
TYPICAL RIFI=LE
NTs
PROPOSED TOP
OF BANK
—END RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
RUN
-- POOL
POOL
NOTES:
I . RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY
GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN SHEETS.
2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE
BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TO ESTABLISH PART OF THE
PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE
REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A
TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.
3. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A 50/50 MIX OF
CLASS A AND B RIPRAP. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACED
SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OF RIFFLE
MATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.
4. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ROCKS AND LOGS. THE
ROCK MATERIAL COMPOSITION SHALL MATCH TABLE 1. RIFFLE
MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE -USED FROM
ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. ROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL OBTAINED
OFFSITE SHALL BE SLIGHTLY ROUNDED, "RIVER -TYPE" ROCK, UNLESS
OTHER ROCK CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
CHANNEL.
5. SPACING AND NUMBER OF LOGS SHOULD BE BASED ON RIFFLE
LENGTH AND MAY VARY BASED ON LOG AVAILABILITY. LOGS SHOULD
BE SPACED EQUALLY AND ANCHORED TO THE CHANNEL BED WITH
BOULDERS.
G. THE PLACEMENT OF GRADE CONTROL ROCK AND/OR RIFFLE MATERIAL
SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TO CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH
NO ABRUPT "JUMP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM
POOL -GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT "DROP"
(TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND THE DOWNSTREAM
RUN -POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL
SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON
THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOME VARIABILITY OF THE
THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALL POOLS AND LOGS.
7. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER
IN -STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL, J-HOOK, ETC.). NO LOGS SHOULD
BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
8. THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM
BANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED BY THE DESIGNER. THE "KEY"
SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK FOR THE LENGTH OF THE
RIFFLE.
9. WRAPPED SOIL LIFTS ARE TO BE INSTALLED OVER "KEYED" AREAS IN
ORDER TO MAINTAIN BANK STABILITY. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL
(COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTED SOIL WITH I TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE
STAKES (SEE DETAIL D3). COIR MATTING SHALL BE KEYED INTO TOP
OF BANK.
TABLE I - STONE COMPOSITION
REACH
STONE SIZE
%
LD I -US
2" - 4"
50
G" - 10"
50
LD I -MS/DS
2" - 4"
50
4" - 8"
50
NOTES:
I . TYPICAL RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL
SECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
ON PLAN SHEETS.
2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE
BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TO ESTABLISH PART OF THE
PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE
REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A
TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.
3. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF 75% ROCKS AND 25%
WOODY MATERIAL. WOODY MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF LOGS,
BRANCHES, AND BRUSH NO GREATER THAN 3" IN DIAMETER. THE
ROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL
WHEN POSSIBLE. NATIVE MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED,
STOCKPILED, AND RE -USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. IF
A SUITABLE QUANTITY OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL CANNOT BE
HARVESTED, CONTRACTOR MAY SUBSTITUTE THE RIFFLE MATERIAL
WITH ROCK MATCHING THE COMPOSITION IN TABLE 1.
4. THE PLACEMENT OF RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TO
CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT "JUMP" (TRANSITION)
BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM POOL -GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE
NO ABRUPT "DROP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND THE
DOWNSTREAM RUN -POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE
RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND
DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOME
VARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALL
POOLS AND LOGS.
5. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER
IN -STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL, J-HOOK, ETC.). NO LOGS SHOULD
BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
TABLE I - STONE COMPOSITION
REACH
STONE SIZE
%
LD I -US
2" - 4"
50
G" - 10"
50
LD I -MS/DS
2" - 4"
50
4" - 8"
50
pres
3600 Glenwood
Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental Operating Company, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
N
0
W
N
Q
N
o
00
H
O
J
11
z
O
U
H
C0
z
O
U
O
LL
O
z
o121�
W
Q
0
z
o
U
(n
W
J
W
>
W
_j
W
cr
rr
D_
Q
Z
W
J
Z
U
O
_
Q
O
U)
J
Z
Q
Cam_
G
>
w
z
Q
D
O
101�
CU
w
Lui
Z
LLJ
O
F-
z Co
U
U
zLu
z_
J
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
D6

COURSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (SEE NOTE 2)
KEY COIR MATTING
INTO BANK
MIN 2.0'
112 MAX POOL DEPTH
MIN 0.5
Al
NOTES:
I . LOGS SHALL BE OF A MINIMUM OF 10" IN DIAMETER AND LONG ENOUGH TO EXTEND 4' INTO
EACH BANK. LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. 2' x 2' x 1 .5' BOULDERS SHOULD BE U5ED IN PLACE OF LOGS PER THE PLAN AND PROFILE
SHEETS
3. COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL COMPOSITION SHALL MATCH THE RIFFLE COMPOSITION TABLE
PROVIDED IN THE TYPICAL RIFFLE DETAIL. A MIXTURE OF WOODY DEBRIS AND 501L MAY BE
MIXED INTO AGGREGATE BACKFILL IN ORDER TO HELP SEAL STRUCTURE.
4. A SINGLE LOG MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF A HEADER/FOOTER LOG COMBINATION IF DIAMETER 15
SUFFICIENT, PER APPROVAL OF DESIGNER.
5. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAP5 BETWEEN THE LOG(5) AND THE STREAM
BED, UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN
THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED, TUCKED, OR TRIMMED A5 NEEDED.
G. FILTER FABRIC SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS FOR NCDOT WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
7. TOE PROTECTION SHOULD BE INSTALLED A5 SHOWN IN PLAN VIEW AND THIS DETAIL. THI5 TOE
PROTECTION IS CONSIDERED PART OF THE CASCADE AND IS THEREFORE NOT IN THE
I
I
STRUCTURE TABLES. I 6 I
POINT REFERENCED IN
STRUCTURE TABLE;
TOLERANCE ± 0. 1'
FILTER FABRIC
FROFILE VIEW
MIN
2.0'
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
5EE PROFILE FOR
POOL DEPTH (TYP.)
CASCADE
INSTALL COIR
MATTING PER DETAIL
LIVE STAKES
\ COMPACTED SOIL LIFT
LIVE CUTTINGS
ROCK SHALL BE EVEN WITH DESIGNED BANK
SLOPE. AVOID EXCE551VE ROCK PROTRUSION
FROM BANK.
MINIMUM 1 2" INTERMEDIATE
DIAMETER STONE \ \\\\
— NWS
FILTER
FABRIC
STONE TO E
NT5
NT5
TOP OF BANK
BOTTOM I \ \
OF BANK I
TOP OF BANK
STONETOE
(SEE SHEET D3)
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
POINT REFERENCED IN
STRUCTURE TABLE;
TOLERANCE ± 0. 1'
I . OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL.
INSTALL FILTER FABRIC, HALF STONE LAYER AND COMPACT.
INSTALL REMAINING STONE LAYER, BACKFILL AND COMPACT
TO LOCK IN PLACE.
2. PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE RIP RAP. SEE TABLE ON
PLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTING AND LIVE
STAKE SPECIES AND COMPOSITION. CUTTINGS SHOULD BE
RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.
3. INSTALL COMPACTED 501L LIFT. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE
WRAPED UNDER 501L LIFT AND KEYED INTO TOP OF BANK.
4. INSTALL LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYER PER
THE LIVE STAKING DETAIL.
5. FILTER FABRIC SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS FOR NCDOT
WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
RES Environmental
Operating Company,
LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
W
H
Q M
� N
O
N
O
J N
Q- 00
z
_O
z
0
O
IL
O
O
ILL
Q
0
Z_
O
U)
U)
W
J
w
LU
ED
cr
r
Q
Z
W
J
F---
0
Cn
�
Q
Z
U
O
~
Q
LD
O
Z
Q
w
Q
z
D
�O
C)
w
Z
W Q
J
Q w
O
F-
z m
U
F-
w
Z
z
J
Q
O
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
105546
PROJECT MANAGER:
BRC
DESIGNED:
SCF
DRAWN:
SCF
CHECKED:
BRC
SHEET NUMBER:
D7