20160366 Ver 2_Draft Mitigation Plan_20170119

MITIGATION PLAN
Final Draft
January 2016
MARTIN DAIRY MITIGATION PLAN
Orange County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 6831
DMS ID No. 97087
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
USACE Action ID No. 2016-01702
RFP #: 16-006447
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
PREPARED BY:
w
WIL.Isi ANDS
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]

PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
FINAL DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
MARTIN DAIRY MITIGATION SITE
Orange County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 6831
DMS ID No. 97087
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
USACE Action ID No. 2016-01702
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
WILDLA NDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
This mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title
33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2)
through (c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
Contributing Staff:
Angela Allen, PE, Project Manager and Designer
John Hutton, Principal in Charge
Kenton Beal, Existing Conditions Analysis
Abigail Maloof, EI, GIS and Mapping
Win Taylor, PWS, Wetland Delineations
Coy Mckenzie, Construction Documents
Christine Blackwelder, Lead Quality Assurance

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................1
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection....................................................................................1
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions............................................................................................... 2
3.1 Landscape Characteristics............................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Land Use/Land Cover....................................................................................................................3
3.3 Existing Vegetation....................................................................................................................... 4
3.4 Project Resources......................................................................................................................... 4
4.0 Watershed and Channel Disturbance and Response..................................................................5
5.0 Functional Uplift Potential........................................................................................................ 6
5.1 Hydrology......................................................................................................................................6
5.2 Hydraulics..................................................................................................................................... 6
5.3 Channel Geomorphology..............................................................................................................
7
5.4 Physicohemical.............................................................................................................................7
5.5 Biology.......................................................................................................................................... 8
5.6 Overall Functional Uplift Potential...............................................................................................8
5.7 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift............................................................................................. 9
6.0 Regulatory Considerations........................................................................................................ 9
6.1 Biological and Cultural Resources.................................................................................................9
6.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass.............................................................10
6.3 401/404......................................................................................................................................10
7.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives.......................................................................................
10
8.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan............................................................................
11
8.1 Design Approach Overview........................................................................................................11
8.2 Reference Streams......................................................................................................................12
8.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters...............................................................................13
8.4 Design Discharge Analysis...........................................................................................................
15
8.5 Sediment Transport Analysis......................................................................................................17
8.6 Project Implementation..............................................................................................................
18
8.7 Vegetation and Planting Plan.....................................................................................................
20
8.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties....................................................................................................
20
9.0 Performance Standards...........................................................................................................
21
9.1 Streams.......................................................................................................................................21
9.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................
22
9.3 Visual Assessments.....................................................................................................................
22
10.0 Monitoring Plan......................................................................................................................
22
10.1 Monitoring Components............................................................................................................
24
11.0 Long -Term Management Plan.................................................................................................
25
12.0 Adaptive Management Plan....................................................................................................
26
13.0 Determination of Credits.........................................................................................................
26
14.0 References..............................................................................................................................
27
TABLES
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97087 Page i January 2016

Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1—
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site........................................................1
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2 —
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site........................................................2
Figure 2
Table 3: Project Attribute Table Part 3 —
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site........................................................5
Watershed Map
Table 4: Summary of Stream Functions —
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site .......................................................
7
Table 5: Project Attribute Table Part 4 —
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site........................................................9
Existing Conditions Map
Table 6: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands
— Martin Dairy Mitigation Site.......................................10
Figure 8
Table 7: Mitigation Goals and Objectives
— Martin Dairy Mitigation Site..................................................11
Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Table 8: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters — Martin Dairy Mitigation
Site..............................................................................................................................................................
Table 9: Summary of Morphological Parameters for Martin Dairy — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site ...........
Table 10: Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT1— Martin Dairy Mitigation Site .......................
Table 11: Summary of Design Discharge Analysis — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site ......................................
Table 12: Results of Competence Analysis — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site .................................................
Table 13: Functional Impairments and Restoration Approach — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site ..................
Table 14: Monitoring Plan — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site..........................................................................
Table 15: Monitoring Components — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site............................................................
Table 16: Long-term Management Plan — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site ....................................................
Table 17a: Project Stream Asset Table — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site ......................................................
Table 17b: Project Buffer Asset Table — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site ........................................................
FIGURES
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Site Map
Figure 3
Watershed Map
Figure 4
LIDAR Map
Figure 5
Soils Map
Figure 6
Existing Conditions Map
Figure 7
FEMA Flood Map
Figure 8
Concept Design Map
Figure 9
Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Figure 10
Discharge Analysis
Figure 11
Riparian Buffer Concept Map
Figure 12
Monitoring Components Map
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 2
Approved JD and supporting USACE Assessment Forms
Appendix 3
DWR Stream Identification Forms
Appendix 4
Data, Analysis, Supplementary Information, Figures and Maps
Appendix 5
Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
Appendix 6
Plan Sheets
Appendix 7
Maintenance Plan
Appendix 8
Credit Release Schedule
Appendix 9
Financial Assurance
12
14
14
17
18
18
23
24
25
26
27
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97087 Page ii January 2016

1.0 Introduction
The Martin Dairy Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Orange County approximately eight miles northeast
of Hillsborough, NC and eight miles south of Caldwell, NC (Figure 1). The project is located within the NC
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) targeted watershed for the Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Unit (HU)
03020201030030 and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-04-01. The Site was selected
by DMS to provide stream mitigation units (SMUs) and buffer credits in the Neuse River Basin 03020201
(Neuse 01). The project involves the restoration of 1,814 existing linear feet of incised and straightened
streams from two unnamed tributaries to Buckwater Creek. These streams have been given names by
Wildlands to facilitate labeling and communication in this mitigation plan and for the life of the project
(Figure 2). The mainstem is hereafter referred to as Martin Dairy and its tributary as UTI. Restoration of
these reaches will provide 2,135 SMUs. The project will also restore 10.14 acres of riparian buffer on-
site, which will provide 394,742 buffer credits. The Site will be protected by an 11.155 -acre conservation
easement. The Site Protection Instrument detailing the easement is located in Appendix 1.
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1— Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Project Information
Project Name
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
County
Orange
Project Area (acres)
11.155
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36° 7'25.76"N 79'0'14.26"W
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted)
10.14
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
The 2009 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan lists major stressors in Subbasin 03-04-01 to be
total suspended solids (TSS), nutrients, and chlorophyll a. The 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP) highlights the importance of riparian buffers for stream restoration projects. Riparian
buffers retain and remove nutrients and suspended sediments. Of the 123 miles of streams in the Neuse
01 CU, 23% do not have adequate riparian buffers. The RBRP states that "priority [restoration] projects
should increase or improve buffers." Another goal of the RBRP for the Neuse 01 HU is to support the
Falls Lake watershed plan. Falls Lake is the receiving water supply water body downstream of the Site
and is classified as water supply waters (WS -IV) and nutrient sensitive waters (NSW). The RBRP also
states that a goal for the Neuse 01 CU is to, "...promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural
areas by restoring and preserving wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers." The Martin Dairy Mitigation
Site was selected because of its location within the targeted watershed and its potential to address the
goals of the RBRP through stream restoration and buffer restoration.
Restoration of streams on the Site will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in the RBRP by
creating stable stream banks, restoring meandering pattern, and restoring a forested buffer. The project
will slow surface runoff, increase retention times, provide shade to streams, and reconnect the streams
to their historic floodplains and riparian wetlands, which should reduce sediment and nutrient loads
which contribute to the production of chlorophyll a in downstream waters. In addition, restoration will
provide and improve instream and terrestrial (riparian) habitats while improving stream stability and
overall hydrology.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 1 January 2016

3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
The Site watershed (Table 2 and Figure 3) is located in a northwestern HU of the Neuse 01 CU. It is
situated in the rural countryside in Orange County near Hillsborough, NC, upstream of the intense
growth and development pressure associated with the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area. The
following sections describe the existing conditions of the watershed and watershed processes, including
disturbance and response.
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2 — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Slate Belt
River Basin
Neuse River
USGS HUC (8 digit, 14 digit)
03020201, 03020201030030
NCDWR Sub -basin
03-04-01
Project Drainage Area (acres)
526
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
0.40%
CGIA Land Use Classification
59.0% forested, 40.6% cultivated, 0.4% impervious
3.1 Landscape Characteristics
3.1.1 Physiography and Topography
The Site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The Piedmont Province is
characterized by gently rolling, well rounded hills with long low ridges and elevations ranging from 300-
1500 feet above sea level. The Site topography and relief are typical for the region, as illustrated in
Figure 4. Martin Dairy has a gentle (0.65%) alluvial valley that transitions from moderately confined at
60 feet wide at the upstream end of the Site to unconfined at over 200 feet wide at the downstream
end of the Site. UT1 transitions from a steep (1.81%) confined valley (<50 feet wide) at the upstream
project limit to a moderately confined valley (>100 feet wide) as it approaches its confluence with
Martin Dairy. Due to the valley shape in conjunction with dredge spoil present along the right bank of
Martin Dairy (from when the channel was straightened and deepened), a swath of wetlands developed
at the toe of the right valley slope. The wetland position and extents within the landscape has been
consistent according to available historic aerial topography dating back to 1938. These wetlands are in
danger of draining should Martin Dairy continue to incise.
3.1.2 Geology and Soils
The Site is located in a portion of the Piedmont known as the Carolina Slate Belt (NCGS, 1985). The rocks
in this region are primarily volcanic and sedimentary rocks that underwent low-grade metamorphism
giving them a slaty cleavage. Coarse-grained intrusive granites comprise the rest of the Slate Belt rocks
(Rogers, 2006). The geology of this area has important effects on Site hydrology, hydraulics,
geomorphology, and sediment transport. Streams in the Carolina Slate Belt tend to go dry during late
summer and early fall as a result of geologic, topographic, and climatic factors. A study by Guise and
Mason (1993) states that the, "Carolina slate belt has among the lowest potential for sustaining
baseflow in streams" throughout the year as compared to other regions of North Carolina. Median low
flows in the Carolina Slate Belt, defined by the study as the 7Q10 (the annual minimum 7 -day
consecutive low flow), can be as low as 0.005 ft3/s/mi2 of drainage area (Guise and Mason, 1993). If
streambank vegetation is not well established it can die back in late summer when flows are low, leaving
banks exposed to erosive storm flows. This process appears to happen during the summer months and
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 2 January 2016

periods of drought along Martin Dairy and UT1. Existing streambank vegetation is dominated by pasture
grasses that die back for a portion of the year. The exposed banks lack the roughness necessary to
reduce channel velocities. High channel velocities and shear stresses increase bed scour during these
times. This has resulted in the process of channel incision followed by widening. There is evidence of
bank sloughing along the length of Martin Dairy, forming temporary benches that eventually mobilize
through the system. These erosional processes deliver sediment and its adsorbed nutrients
downstream. It is likely that these processes are occurring on the livestock operation east of Schley
Road, which drains into UT1, and on other unbuffered streams within the watershed. There is currently
no evidence that aggradation is occurring in the system.
The Martin Dairy floodplain is dominated by Chewacla loams (Figure 5). While this soil frequently floods
and is poorly drained, aiding in the maintenance of wetlands, the loamy soil is greater than 80 inches
deep. This depth to bedrock provides no natural grade control within the streambeds. Without
intervention, channel incision would likely continue to degrade the Site streams until the channels reach
the underlying bedrock.
It is Wildlands' experience that small streams in the Slate Belt are low bedload sediment supply systems.
These streams commonly have small gravel and sand bed material that is derived from highly weathered
parent material. Largely forested watersheds with low rolling topography will often result in low
sediment supply. Without naturally high bedload supply to drive morphologic change, these streams are
relatively slow to adjust without manipulation or watershed disturbance.
3.2 Land Use/Land Cover
Land use and land cover were investigated throughout the watershed using historical aerials of the Site
and adjacent parcels from 1938-2016 and a watershed reconnaissance survey. The watershed is 60%
forested. The most common historical and current land uses in the watershed are silviculture and
agriculture. While 40% of the watershed has been previously cleared, recent logging events in the
watershed have been infrequent and limited in disturbed acreage. The largest recent event noted on
historical aerials was of 3.6 acres cleared between 2009 and 2010. This constitutes less than one percent
of the watershed. The Site itself has been used for livestock grazing or maintained as managed
herbaceous cover since at least before 1938. The limits of riparian buffers and agricultural land on Site
have remained consistent over that time. In recent history, the Site was an active dairy farm. The
livestock were removed and the Site transitioned to hay production over three years ago. There are no
signs of impending land use changes or development pressure that would impact the project in the
Martin Dairy watershed.
This consistency in land use within the project watershed over the past 78 years indicates that
watershed processes affecting hydrology, sediment supply, and nutrient and pollutant delivery have not
varied widely over time. With a lack of developmental pressure, watershed processes and stressors from
outside the project limits are likely to remain consistent throughout the implementation, monitoring,
and closeout of this project. These stressors and processes are discussed further in Section 4, below.
Aerial photographs from 1938 -present depict the Site in a managed open field condition with the stream
maintaining its location. The lack of sinuosity on Martin Dairy, and the presence of dredge spoil material
along the top of banks suggests that the channels were straightened for agricultural purposes prior to
1938. Ditches, located along the right floodplain of Martin Dairy, partially drain the riparian wetlands.
Both Martin Dairy and UT1 enter the project via culverts. The channel has incised over a foot
downstream of the culverts, creating a barrier for aquatic organism passage to upstream reaches within
the watershed.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 3 January 2016

3.3 Existing Vegetation
Streamside vegetation consists primarily of herbaceous plants and grasses such as fescue (Fescue spp.)
smartweed (Polygonum spp.), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and purple lovegrass (Eragrostis
eragrostis) with some broom sedge (Carex scoparia), golden rod (Solidago spp.), ironweed (Vernonia
altissima), and cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis). There are also some young sweet gums (Liquidambar
styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and small black willows (Salix
nigra) present near the top of the stream bank. Portions of UT1 are choked with cattail (Typha latifolia).
Invasive species include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Chinese privet (Lagustrum sinense) with
Johnson grass and cattail considered nuisance species.
The watershed has likely been logged multiple times since pre -disturbance although recent logging (post
1938) has been limited. Most tree species located in surrounding riparian areas are mid -successional or
planted pine. The species in these areas are not necessarily indicative of what would have been on-site
pre -disturbance.
3.4 Project Resources
On May 19, 2016, Wildlands investigated on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the proposed
project easement area. Jurisdictional areas were delineated using the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is defined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual and the subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional
Supplement. All jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were located by sub -meter GPS. Wetland determination
forms representative of on-site jurisdictional areas as well as non -jurisdictional upland areas are
included in Appendix 2.
The wetland delineation was confirmed on Site by USACE staff on July 28, 2016 and the jurisdictional
determination was approved on December 9, 2016. There are four jurisdictional wetland features
located on-site (A -D). These wetland features are classified as seeps using the evaluator's best
professional judgement. The wetlands occur in the side slopes and the floodplains that drain to Martin
Dairy. These features exhibit a high water table, pockets of shallow inundation, saturation within the
upper 12 inches of the soil profile, and a low chroma matrix. Common hydrophytic vegetation includes
wild mint (Mentha arvensis), longhair sedge (Carex comosa), and common rush (Juncus effuses). Much
of these areas are impacted from farming practices including hay production.
The Site contains two perennial streams: Martin Dairy and UT1. It also contains a short potion of an
ephemeral channel (E1) at the downstream end of the Site. This feature was confirmed as ephemeral by
staff from the DWR on April 5, 2016. NC DWR Stream Identification Forms (Version 4.11) are in Appendix
3 along with a confirmation letter from DWR regarding the ephemeral reach. US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) forms are in Appendix 2. Stream features are described in more detail in Section 5.
Table 3 provides a summary of water resources within the project limits. Existing conditions are also
illustrated in Figure 6.
E1 exhibits little erosion and appears to be relatively stable. The downstream end of the reach holds
water for part of the year and it has been delineated as a wetland (Wetland A). Martin Dairy's stream
type classification is most nearly described as varying between an incised and straightened E4 and C4
stream type, as the top width widens and narrows along the length of the stream. UT1 is best classified
as an incised and straightened E4. The dominant bed material in both reaches is a small gravel. Cross-
sections 1-4 are located along Martin Dairy and cross-sections 5 and 6 are on UT1 (Figure 6). Cross-
section and reach -wide pebble count results are located in Appendix 5.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
law DMS ID No.97087 Page 4 January 2016

Table 3: Project Attribute Table Part 3 — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Reach Summary Information
Parameter
Martin Dairy
UT1
E12
Length of Reach (If)
1,676
138
128
Valley Confinement (confined,
Moderately Confined
Confined to
Moderately Confined
moderately confined, unconfined)
to Unconfined
Moderately Confined
Drainage Area (acres)
526
141
15
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
P
P
E
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS -IV
Stream Classification (Existing and
Incised/ Straightened
Incised/ Straightened
Proposed)'
C4/E4(proposed
E4 (proposed C4/E4)
N/A
C4/E4)
Evolutionary Trend (Simon)
IV: Degradation and Widening
N/A
FEMA Classification
N/A
Wetland Summary Information
Parameter
A
B
C
D
Size of Wetland (acres)'
0.013
1.430
1.283
0.122
Wetland Type (non riparian, riparian
riverine or riparian non-riverine)
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Herndon
Herndon/ Chewacla
/
TatumTatum la
Chewac
Chewacla
Drainage Class
Well Drained
Well to Poorly
Well to Poorly
Poorly
Drained
Drained
Drained
Soil Hydric Status
No
No / Yes
No / Yes
Yes
Source of Hydrology
Hillside Groundwater Seep
Restoration or enhancement method
N/A
(hydrologic, vegetative, etc)
1. The Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1994) is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by
livestock and man and therefore may not fit the classification category as described by this system. Results of the
classification are provided as a basis for discussion of existing channel form.
2. The Ephemeral reach E1 will not be restored for mitigation credit; however, it will be re -aligned as needed to tie in to the
new alignment for UT1.
3. Wetland areas are not proposed for restoration or enhancement credit.
4.0 Watershed and Channel Disturbance and Response
As discussed above in Section 3.2, there has been very little change in the watersheds of Martin Dairy
and UT1 for several decades. Some clearing of forest has occurred but these minor disturbances are the
not the main driver of the degradation of the Site. The primary cause of degradation on the Site was the
original clearing of the Site and channelization of Martin Dairy and UT1, which occurred prior to 1938
(the date of the earliest available aerial photo). The channelization involved straightening and
deepening of the stream (as indicated by the amount of dredge spoil in the floodplain). This
manipulation led to increased shear stresses which caused incision, especially in Martin Dairy where the
upstream culvert is now one foot above the channel bed. UT 1 is less incised because its down -cutting
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 5 January 2016

was arrested by the base level of the receiving stream. Over time, the incision reduced the overall
channel slope in Martin Dairy which resulted in decreases in stream power. As incision slowed the
channels began to widen through mass wasting and livestock trampling. Though livestock are no longer
grazed on the Site, signs of on-going bank sloughing are apparent in both channels. Although less
incision occurred in UTI after channelization, both streams are overly deep, widening, sloughing, and
devoid of riparian vegetation (other than pasture grass) due to agricultural uses of the Site.
5.0 Functional Uplift Potential
The potential for functional uplift is described in this section according to the Stream Functions Pyramid
(Harman, 2012). The Stream Functions Pyramid describes a hierarchy of five stream functions, each of
which supports the functions above it on the pyramid (and sometimes reinforces those below it). The
five functions in order from bottom to top are hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology, physicochemical,
and biology.
5.1 Hydrology
The major watershed disturbance, prior to 1938, has been deforestation and conversion of 40% of the
watershed to agricultural land uses. These alterations in land cover typically result in reductions in
rainfall interception and evapotranspiration which lead to increases in runoff and water yield (Dunne
and Leopold, 1978). A primary result of these changes is an increase in both peak flows and base flows,
though the magnitude of this effect is likely small in watersheds of this size. Initial increases in water
yield usually change over time as vegetation regrows and crops are planted. There are no stream gauges
within this watershed and, thus, no way to know the degree to which clearing of 40% of the land
affected this particular watershed other than to say that water yields have almost certainly increased.
However, these changes primarily occurred several decades ago (prior to available aerial photography)
and additional clearing in the watershed has been limited. The watershed has adjusted to its hydrologic
regime and is stable now. Population growth in this rural area is essentially non-existent. Therefore,
future alteration to the land cover and associated effects on hydrology are not expected in the
foreseeable future. No measurements of existing conditions in hydrology have been made to date for
this project. However, due to the stability of the watershed the Site hydrology is assumed to be
functioning (Table 4).
A stream restoration project performed at a specific Site does not often result in uplift to hydrology
(Harman, 2012). Even though trees will be planted within the conservation easement, this will not result
in improvements to the rainfall -runoff relationship at the watershed scale. Therefore, there is no
opportunity to improve the hydrology function. However, it is currently rated as functioning (Table 4).
5.2 Hydraulics
The streams on the Site are channelized and incised and not connected to their floodplains. This has
resulted in reduced hydraulic functioning of the channels. The bank height ratios on Martin Dairy range
from 1.4 (functioning -at -risk) to 1.9 (not functioning). On UTI, the bank height ratio is 2.1 (not
functioning). However, the entrenchment ratios on Martin Dairy range from 14.2 to 14.3 (functioning)
and on UT1 the entrenchment ratio is 2.2 (functioning). Estimated bankfull flow velocities for Martin
Dairy range from 3.8 to 5 feet per second (functioning) and on UT1 the estimated bankfull velocity is 4.7
(functioning). Because the streams are severely incised but flow dynamics are functional, the overall
rating for hydraulics on the Site is functioning -at -risk (Table 4).
The channel will be reconstructed and will be connected to its floodplain so that stream flows above
bankfull stage will flood the floodplain. The bank height ratios for both streams on the Site will be 1.0
(functioning). Bankfull flow velocities and shear stress will be maintained at functioning levels and
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 6 January 2016

groundwater exchange and adjacent wetland hydrology will be improved as a result of the increased
frequency of floodplain inundation. Hydraulics will transition from functioning -at -risk to functioning
(Table 4).
Table 4: Summary of Stream Functions — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Resource
Martin Dairy - R1
Martin Dairy - R2
UT1
Functional Category
Existing
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
Hydrology
F
F
F
F
F
F
Hydraulics
FAR
F
FAR
F
FAR
F
Geomorphology
NF
F
NF
F
NF
F
Physiochemical
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Biology
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Overall
FAR
F
FAR
F
FAR
F
5.3 Channel Geomorphology
The past channelization, incision, and on-going sloughing and widening described in Section 4 places the
streams on the Site at Stage IV of the Simon Channel Evolution Model which is classified as not
functioning. Currently, Martin Dairy exhibits scour along 31% of the reach. Martin Dairy is moderately
incised over 75% of its length. Over half of the length of UTI is incised (54% of the stream length), with
bank height ratios averaging 2.1. Nearly half of the streambanks exhibit signs of active scouring (48%).
The channel bottom of this straightened tributary is choked with cattail and common rush. The bedform
is inconsistent on Martin Dairy and pool to pool spacing ratios (1.6 - 10.6) vary widely over the project
length (not functioning). UT1 has more consistent bedform, however the pool to pool spacing ratio
(average 6.5) indicates the bedform is functioning -at -risk. There is little to no large woody debris (LWD)
in either of the streams on-site (not functioning). Bank migration and lateral stability were not measured
for this project due to its straightened status. Overall, the existing geomorphology function on the Site is
very poor and is classified as not functioning (Table 4).
There is an opportunity to improve the geomorphology function on the site. The incision and bank
erosion will be corrected. Bedform will be diversified and spaced with appropriate design ratios. LWD
will be added to the system through construction of instream structures and bank revetments and a
riparian buffer will be planted. The geomorphology function will be restored to functioning (Table 4).
5.4 Physicohemical
No water quality sampling has been conducted on the Martin Dairy Site and there are no water quality
monitoring stations within the watershed. The 2009 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan lists
major stressors in Subbasin 03-04-01 to be TSS, nutrients, and chlorophyll a. Since the watershed land
use is similar to the greater Subbasin, the Site likely has similar physicochemical concerns as those
stated in the Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Potential sediment sources in the watershed include
streambank erosion, bed scour, and runoff from agricultural fields. Potential sources of nutrients within
the watershed are the livestock operation located east of the project along Schley Road, a livestock
operation in the northeast quadrant of the watershed, the horse farm located west of the project, and
runoff containing fertilizers applied to fields in the northern portion of the watershed. The suspected
high nutrient load and lack of shade within the riparian corridor may contribute to elevated levels of
chlorophyll a. There are, however, no observed algal blooms present within the project streams to
indicate severe degradation in water quality or noticeably high levels of chlorophyll a. Although it is not
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
law DMS ID No.97087 Page 7 January 2016

mentioned in the Water Quality Plan, fecal coliform is another likely source of pollution within the
watershed due to livestock operations. Water in UT1 is stagnant because of vegetation on the channel
bed that causes ponded water. Because no water quality data are available to evaluate the current level
of physicochemical functioning, this function is not rated (Table 4).
There is potential to improve the physicochemical functioning of the project streams. Water will flow
over instream structures that will provide aeration, trees will be planted in the riparian zone to
eventually shade and cool stream flow and help filter runoff, the stream will be reconnected to its
floodplain and adjacent riparian wetlands to provide storage and treatment of overbank flows, and
streambank erosion will be greatly reduced to nearly eliminate a source of sediment and nutrients.
However, the potential improvements to physicochemical functioning will not happen immediately and
some aspects will not occur until a mature canopy is established. Therefore, physicochemical
improvements will not be included in the project success criteria for the seven-year monitoring period
and the functional uplift potential is not rated (Table 4).
5.5 Biology
There are no available biological data for the Site, however, the habitat conditions on the Site are poor.
While the riffle material is well -mixed small gravel and the pools contain fine to coarse sand, the stream
contains very little woody debris or organic material necessary to support diverse macro invertebrate
and fish communities. There are no downed trees or larger woody debris masses that would create
habitat features. UT1 has some riffle -pool sequences, but the majority of stream length is choked with
macrophytes, which results in stagnation and sedimentation, likely lowering dissolved oxygen levels and
covering the bed habitat. Additionally, the perched culverts at the upstream limits of both Martin Dairy
and UT1 act as a barrier to aquatic organism passage. While the riparian wetlands provide habitat
diversity in the floodplain, they are regularly mowed, removing shade and refuge areas. The riparian
zone of the project provides little habitat for terrestrial species other than pasture grass. However,
because no data on the existing communities are available to evaluate the current level of biologic
functioning, this function is not rated (Table 4).
There is opportunity to improve the instream and riparian habitat in addition to the physicochemical
function described in Section 5.4. Habitat will be improved by adding instream structures with a variety
of rock and woody materials, adding woody bank revetments, reducing the abundance of nuisance
macrophytes, providing a riparian buffer to shade the stream and improve terrestrial habitat, creating
pools of variable depths, and cutting of sources of fine sediments. The culvert outlets will be addressed
to improve aquatic organism passage. The biological response of the system will be tied to the
physiochemical response post -restoration. As the physiochemical response may be delayed, the
ultimate level of improvement in biology may not occur until after the completion of the seven-year
monitoring period and, therefore, the functional uplift potential will be not rated (Table 4).
5.6 Overall Functional Uplift Potential
Overall, the Martin Dairy Mitigation Site can be considered as Functioning -at -Risk but the functional
uplift potential is a reclassification as Functioning (Table 4). This change in overall classification is related
to improvements in hydraulics and geomorphology between the existing and proposed conditions. The
hydrology function will not be improved by the project because watershed -scale reforestation would be
required to drive improvement in this function. Physicochemical and biological improvements are a
likely result of the project. However, there is no existing basis for classifying the existing condition of
these functions and the likely improvements will occur gradually after construction. Therefore, these
functions are not rated and not considered in the overall functional rating. Project goals are tied only to
hydraulics and geomorphology.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 8 January 2016

5.7 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift
An overhead electric utility line crosses the Site near the upstream extents of the project. The 30 -foot
easement associated with the line will be an internal break in the conservation easement. This break is
the only one within the project limits. The stream will be restored and stabilized through this break,
however no trees will be included in the vegetation plan for this swath to allow maintenance access.
The culverts at the upstream ends of the project are outside of the project limits. Due to this, repairs to
hydraulic function and aquatic organism passage can only be addressed from the culvert outlets. There
are no other man-made constraints within the project area that affect or reduce uplift potential.
The valley width on the Site will allow for the development of pattern and channel dimensions to
restore stable, functioning streams and there are no other known constraints to the functional uplift
described above in this section. The degree to which the physicochemical and biology functions can
improve on the Site is limited by the watershed conditions beyond the project limits, upstream water
quality, and the presence of source communities upstream and downstream of the Site.
0.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 5, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site. These considerations are
expanded upon in Sections 6.1-6.3.
Table 5: Project Attribute Table Part 4 — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
PCN'
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
PCN
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 5
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 5
Coastal Zone Management Act
No
No
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
1. PCN to be provided to DMS with Final Mitigation Plan
6.2 Biological and Cultural Resources
A Categorical Exclusion for the Martin Dairy Mitigation Site was submitted to DMS on May 27, 2016, and
approved on June 3, 2016. This document included investigation into the presence of threatened and
endangered species on Site protected under The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as well as any
historical resources protected under The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The biological
conclusion for the Site, according to the Categorical Exclusion research and response by US Fish and
Wildlife Service, is that the, "proposed action [in this project] is not likely to adversely affect any
federally listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species
currently proposed for listing under the Act." All correspondence with USFWS and a list of Threatened
and Endangered Species in Orange County, NC is included in Appendix 5. The conclusion for cultural
resources according to the Categorical Exclusion research and response by the State Historic
Preservation Office is that there are no historic resources that would be affected by this project. For
additional information and regulatory communications please refer to the Categorical Exclusion
document in Appendix 5.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
law DMS ID No.97087 Page 9 January 2016

6.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
Martin Dairy and UT1 are not FEMA mapped streams within the Site, as illustrated on the Orange
County Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 9896 and in Figure 7. Therefore, no modeling will be required
for this project. Martin Dairy is mapped downstream of the Site at its confluence with Buckwater Creek.
6.4 401/404
The natural low point in the valley for Martin Dairy is currently a wetland area. The proposed stream
channel is re-routed through this area. Any wetlands within the conservation easement and outside of
the limits of disturbance will be flagged with safety fence during construction to prevent unintended
impacts. This will be denoted in the final construction plans on the Erosion and Sediment Control plan
and Detail plan sheets, as well as in the project specifications. The majority of floodplain grading will be
considered a temporary impact to wetlands. Wildlands expects a net gain of wetland area, as
construction of the new channel will fill the majority of the old channel to the elevation of the existing
wetlands and remove the overburden along the right bank of the existing Martin Dairy stream, creating
a wider overall floodplain and riparian wetland area. Table 6 estimates the anticipated impacts to
wetland areas on this project. The Pre -Construction Notification, including this data, will be provided to
DMS in the Final Mitigation Plan.
Table 6: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
7.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives
The project will improve stream functions as described in Section 5 through stream restoration and
riparian buffer re -vegetation. Project goals are desired project outcomes and are verifiable through
measurement and/or visual assessment. Objectives are activities that will result in the accomplishment
of goals. The project will be monitored after construction to evaluate performance as described in
Section 11 of this report. The project goals and related objectives are described in Table 7.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
law DMS ID No.97087 Page 10 January 2016
Permanent (P) Impact
Temporary (T) Impact
Jurisdictional
Feature
Classification
Acreage
Type of
Impact Area
Type of
Impact Area
Activity
(acres)
Activity
(acres)
Wetland A
0.013
Stream
0.003
0.007
Channel
Wetland B
1.429
0.155
0.140
Riparian
Re-
Floodplain
Wetland C
Riverine
1.283
alignment
0.226
Grading
0.355
Gravel
Wetland D
0.122
drive
0.014
0.000
Total P
Total T
Impact
0.399
Impact
0.502
7.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives
The project will improve stream functions as described in Section 5 through stream restoration and
riparian buffer re -vegetation. Project goals are desired project outcomes and are verifiable through
measurement and/or visual assessment. Objectives are activities that will result in the accomplishment
of goals. The project will be monitored after construction to evaluate performance as described in
Section 11 of this report. The project goals and related objectives are described in Table 7.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
law DMS ID No.97087 Page 10 January 2016

Table 7: Mitigation Goals and Objectives — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Goal
Objective
Expected Outcomes
Function(s) Supported
Reconstruct stream channels
Raise water table and
Reconnect channels
with designed bankfull
hydrate riparian wetlands.
with floodplains and
dimensions and depth based
Allow more frequent flood
riparian wetlands to
on reference reach data.
flows to disperse on the
Hydraulic
allow a natural
Remove existing dredge spoil
floodplain. Support
flooding regime.
to reconnect channel with
geomorphology and higher
adjacent wetlands.
level functions.
Construct stream channels
Reduce sediment inputs
Improve the stability
that will maintain stable cross-
from bank erosion. Reduce
of stream channels.
sections, patterns, and
shear stress on channel
Geomorphology
profiles over time.
boundary. Support all stream
functions above hydrology.
Reduce sediment inputs
from bank erosion and
Restore and enhance
Plant native tree and
runoff. Increase nutrient
Hydrology (local),
native floodplain and
understory species in riparian
cycling and storage in
Hydraulic,
streambank
zones and plant native shrub
floodplain. Provide riparian
Geomorphology,
and herbaceous species on
habitat. Add a source of LWD
Physicochemical,
vegetation.
streambanks.
and organic material to
Biology
stream. Support all stream
functions.
Install habitat features such as
Increase and diversify
constructed riffles, lunker
available habitats for
logs, and brush toes into
macroinvertebrates, fish, and
Improve instream
restored/enhanced streams.
amphibians leading to
Geomorphology
habitat.
Add woody materials to
colonization and increase in
(supporting Biology)
channel beds. Construct pools
biodiversity over time. Add
of varying depth.
complexity including LWD to
the streams.
Protect Site from
Hydrology (local),
Permanently protect
encroachment on the
Hydraulic,
the Site from
Establish conservation
riparian corridor and direct
Geomorphic,
harmful uses.
easements on the Site.
impact to streams and
Physicochemical,
wetlands. Support all stream
Biologic
functions.
8.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
8.1 Design Approach Overview
The design approach for this Site was developed to meet the goals and objectives described in Section 7
which were formulated based on the potential for uplift described in Section 5. The design is also
intended to provide the expected outcomes in Section 7, though these are not tied to performance
criteria. The project streams will be reconnected with an active floodplain and the channels will be
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 11 January 2016

reconstructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile that will transport the water and sediment
delivered to the system. The adjacent floodplain and riparian wetlands will be planted with native tree
species. Instream structures will be constructed in the channels to help maintain stable channel
morphology and improve aquatic habitat. The entire project area will be protected in perpetuity by a
conservation easement.
The design approach for this Site utilized a combination of analog and analytical approaches for stream
restoration. Reference reaches were identified to serve as the basis for design parameters. Channels
were sized based on design discharge hydrologic analysis. Designs were then verified and/or modified
based on a sediment transport analysis. This approach has been used on many successful Piedmont and
Slate Belt restoration projects (Underwood, Foust, Holman Mill, Maney Farm, and Agony Acres
Mitigation Sites) and is appropriate for the simple goals and objectives for this Site.
8.2 Reference Streams
Reference streams provide geomorphic parameters of a stable system, which can be used to inform
design of stable channels of similar stream types in similar landscapes and watersheds. Five reference
reaches were identified for this Site and used to support the design of Martin Dairy and UT1 (Figure 9).
These reference reaches were chosen because of their similarities to the Site streams including drainage
area, valley slope, morphology, and bed material. The reference reaches are all located within the
Carolina Slate Belt region of the Piedmont. Geomorphic parameters for these reference reaches are
summarized located in Appendix 4. The references to be used for the specific streams are shown in
Table 8. A description of each reference reach is included below.
Table 8: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
8.2.1 Long Branch
Long Branch is located in Orange County, northwest of Chapel Hill. Long Branch was previously identified
as a reference and discussed in the Collins Creek Restoration Plan (KCI Technologies, 2007). The Long
Branch watershed is low-density residential, agricultural, and forested land. The valley slope is 0.6% and
channel slope is 0.4%. The stream maintains an entrenchment ratio above 2.5. Wildlands visited the
reference site to verify the data presented in the KCI report. Two riffles were surveyed during the site
visit. These riffles had a width to depth ratio of 9.4 and 8.0 with entrenchment ratios of 11.7 and 12.1,
respectively. The cross-sections surveyed are more typical of E stream types, however KCI identified the
stream as a C4 in their previous analysis. The stream likely varies between a C4 and E4.
8.2.2 Spencer Creek Reach 2
Spencer Creek Reach 2 is located in western Montgomery County near Ophir, NC, less than two miles
from the Spencer Creek reference site (Buck Engineering, 2004). This site was classified as an E4 stream
type and has a drainage area of 0.96 square miles. This reach flows through a mature forest and has a
valley slope of 1.1% and a channel slope of 0.47%. The morphological parameters reported for the riffle
cross-section include a width to depth ratio from 5.8 to 7.1 and an entrenchment ratio of 5.5 and 10.2.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 12 January 2016
Agony Acres On -
Long
Spencer
Foust
UT to Polecat
UT to Varnals
Site Reference
Branch
Creek 2
Creek
Creek
Creek
Reach (UT1-R3)
Stream Type:
C4/E4
E4
C4
E4
C4/E4
E4
Martin Dairy
X
X
X
UT1
i
i
i
1 X
X
X
8.2.1 Long Branch
Long Branch is located in Orange County, northwest of Chapel Hill. Long Branch was previously identified
as a reference and discussed in the Collins Creek Restoration Plan (KCI Technologies, 2007). The Long
Branch watershed is low-density residential, agricultural, and forested land. The valley slope is 0.6% and
channel slope is 0.4%. The stream maintains an entrenchment ratio above 2.5. Wildlands visited the
reference site to verify the data presented in the KCI report. Two riffles were surveyed during the site
visit. These riffles had a width to depth ratio of 9.4 and 8.0 with entrenchment ratios of 11.7 and 12.1,
respectively. The cross-sections surveyed are more typical of E stream types, however KCI identified the
stream as a C4 in their previous analysis. The stream likely varies between a C4 and E4.
8.2.2 Spencer Creek Reach 2
Spencer Creek Reach 2 is located in western Montgomery County near Ophir, NC, less than two miles
from the Spencer Creek reference site (Buck Engineering, 2004). This site was classified as an E4 stream
type and has a drainage area of 0.96 square miles. This reach flows through a mature forest and has a
valley slope of 1.1% and a channel slope of 0.47%. The morphological parameters reported for the riffle
cross-section include a width to depth ratio from 5.8 to 7.1 and an entrenchment ratio of 5.5 and 10.2.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 12 January 2016

8.2.3 Foust Creek
The Foust Creek reference reach is located approximately 600 feet upstream of the northernmost
conservation easement boundary on the Foust Creek Mitigation Site in Alamance County, NC. It was
identified by Wildlands in the Foust Creek Mitigation Site 2014 Mitigation Plan (Wildlands Engineering,
2014). Foust Creek has a gravel bed and a valley slope of 0.75%. The Foust Creek reference reach is
classified as a Rosgen C4 stream type. This reach flows through a mature forest and although it is stable
it lacks sinuosity. It was used in this project to inform the cross-section and profile parameters.
8.2.4 UT to Polecat Creek
The UT to Polecat Creek reference reach is located in northern Randolph County. The site was identified
by Wolf Creek Engineering and used as a reference reach for the Holly Grove Restoration Site (Wolf
Creek Engineering, 2007). Wildlands conducted a site visit and reference reach survey in March, 2013, to
confirm the geomorphic parameters listed in the Holly Grove Restoration Site Plan. The UT to Polecat
Creek reference reach is classified as a Rosgen E4 stream type.
8.2.5 UT to Varnals Creek
The UT to Varnals Creek reference reach is located in south central Alamance County, NC near the Cane
Creek Mountains. The site was identified by Ecologic Associates and used as a reference reach for the
Reedy Branch Stream Restoration Site (Ecologic Associates, 2002). Wildlands visited UT to Varnals Creek
in September 2014 and visually confirmed that the land use is unchanged from reported conditions and
that the stream is laterally and vertically stable. Wildlands conducted a detailed morphological survey in
October 2014. UT to Varnals Creek has a drainage area of 0.41 square miles and is classified as a Rosgen
B4/E4b stream type for the majority of the reach. UT to Varnals Creek has a similar channel and valley
slope to UT1.
8.2.6 Agony Acres On -Site Reference Reach (UT1-Reach 3)
The Agony Acres On -Site Reference Reach (UT1— Reach 3) is located in northeast Guildford County, NC.
It was identified by Wildlands as a high quality preservation component of the nearby Agony Acres
Mitigation Site in the March 2014 Mitigation Plan (Wildlands Engineering, 2014) and was used as a
reference reach for that project. It was selected as a reference reach due to its similarity in slope and
drainage area to UT1. A detailed survey was conducted in March of 2013. UT1— Reach 3 has a drainage
area of 0.3 square miles and classified as an E4 stream type.
8.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
Reference reaches were a primary source of information to develop the pattern and profile design
parameters for the streams. Ranges of pattern parameters were developed within the reference reach
parameter ranges with some exceptions based on best professional judgement and knowledge from
previous projects. For example, radius of curvature ratio is kept above 1.8 on all reaches and meander
width ratio is kept above a 2.4 in the moderately to unconfined valleys of Martin Dairy. Wildlands has
found these minimum ratios to support stable geometry. Reference reaches were also used to inform
the design of the cross-sections on the streams. The streams were designed with pool widths to be
approximately 1.3 times the width of riffles to provide space for point bars and riffle pool transition
zones. Designer experience was used for pool design as well. Pool depths were designed to be a
minimum of 1.5 times deeper than riffles to provide habitat variation. Cross-section parameters such as
area, depth, and width were designed based on the design discharge and stable bank slopes. The width
to depth ratio was increased beyond some of the reference parameters for UT1 in order to provide
stable bank slopes prior to the development of a fully vegetated streambank. Key morphological
parameters for the Site are listed in Tables 9 and 10 for Martin Dairy and UTI respectively. Complete
morphological tables for existing, reference, and proposed conditions are located in Appendix 4.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 13 January 2016

Table 9: Summary of Morphological Parameters for Martin Dairy - Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Table 10: Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT1- Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Parameter
Existing Parameters
Reference Parameters
Proposed Parameters
Parameter
UT to
Polecat
UT to Varnals
Long
Spencer
Foust
95
-
65
Reach 1
Reach 2
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
141
262
Reach 1
Reach 2
141
Channel/Reach Classification
E4
Branch
Creek 2
Creek
C4/E4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
Valley Width (ft)
121
110
-
-
-
121
110
Contributing Drainage Area
1.0-1.2
0.7
Design Discharge Area (ft')
5.7
5.4-12.4
10.3-12.3
10.7-11.3
(acres)
344
525
954
614
883
344
525
Channel/Reach Classification
C4/E4
E4
C4/E4
E4
C4
C4/E4
C4/E4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
8.6
14.0
14.8-18.6
10.7-11.2
18.5-19.4
15.0
16.2
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.3-2.1
1.6-1.8
1.3-1.4
1.1
1.2
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
10.0
16.1
25-34.6
17.8-19.7
23.9-24.1
16.8
20
Design Discharge Velocity
>3.9
2.2-5
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip /
disp (mm)
0.048, 3, 5.1, 6.7,
8.9, 13, -, -
0.095, 0.4, 8,
87,150,-,-
(ft/s)
5.0
3.8
3.6-4
4.9-5.4
2.9-3.7
2.8
3.2
Design Discharge (cfs)
47
1 63
101-124
97
88
47
63
Water Surface Slope
0.009
0.007
0.0040
0.0047
0.0090
0.005
0.0055
Sinuosity
1.05
1.09
1.3
2.3
1.1
1.25
1.28
Width/Depth Ratio
7.3
12.2
7.9-13.8
5.8-7.1
13.9-14.2
13.4
13.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.5
1.4
1.2-1.5
1
1
1
1
Entrenchment Ratio
14.2
14.3+
>3.4
5.5 - >10.2
2.6-3.4
2.2-5
2.2-5
2.4, 8.1,
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
0.13, 1.3,
11, 15,
<0.063, 3,
D50= 10.6,
Dso = 10.6,
dip /disp (mm)
2.6, 4.6,
33,54,-
-
8.8, 42, 90,
-
Dioo =64,
Dioo = 88,
7.7, 11, -, -
-,
D;=23-643
D; = 35-87
Table 10: Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT1- Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Parameter
Existing
Parameters
Reference Parameters
Proposed
Parameters
UTI
UT to
Polecat
UT to Varnals
Agony Onsite
Reference
Reach UT1-R3
UT1
Valley Width (ft)
95
-
65
-
95
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
141
262
262
189
141
Channel/Reach Classification
E4
E4
C4/E4
E4
C4/E4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
5.7
5.3-10.9
9.3-10.5
9.1-10.4
9.4
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
1
1.0-1.1
1.1-1.2
1.0-1.2
0.7
Design Discharge Area (ft')
5.7
5.4-12.4
10.3-12.3
10.7-11.3
6.7
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
4.7
2.2-3.5
4.4-5.2
2.2-2.4
3.6
Design Discharge (cfs)
24
20
54
25
24
Water Surface Slope
0.016
0.012
0.017
0.0028-
0.0039
0.005
Sinuosity
1.05
1.4
1.2
1.35
1.14
Width/Depth Ratio
5.7
5.2-9.6
8.1-9.3
7.3-10.1
13.2
Bank Height Ratio
2.1
1.0-1.1
1.0
1
1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2
3.2-8.3
5.7-10.0
>3.9
2.2-5
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip /
disp (mm)
0.048, 3, 5.1, 6.7,
8.9, 13, -, -
0.095, 0.4, 8,
87,150,-,-
Dso = 5, Dloo =
50, D;=16-48
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 14 January 2016

Both Martin Dairy and UT1 are incised, actively widening, and lack a natural pattern, habitat diversity,
and a forested riparian buffer. These factors have led to the impairments discussed in Sections 3 and 4.
To address these impairments and the stressors on the system, restoration is proposed for Martin Dairy
and UT1. Both channels were designed to be Rosgen stream type C4/E4, with width -to -depth ratios on
the low end of the typical range for that stream type. Narrow and deeper channels are common in slate
belt reference reaches; however, the reference channels have established vegetation that maintain
stability on steeper streambanks. The design channels will begin with flatter side slopes that will be
more stable without established vegetation. Constructing channels with higher width -to -depth ratios
and flatter side slopes will allow for sediment deposition on the banks and bank protection as the
streambank vegetation establishes. The complete design morphological parameters for Martin Dairy
and UT1 are located in Appendix 4 and summaries of key parameters are shown in Tables 9 and 10.
8.4 Design Discharge Analysis
Multiple methods were used to develop bankfull discharge estimates for each of the project restoration
reaches: the NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999), NC Piedmont/Mountain Regional
Curve (Walker, unpublished), a Wildlands Regional USGS Flood Frequency Analysis, a Site Specific
Reference Reach Curve, existing bankfull indicators using Manning's Equation, and data from previous
successful design projects. The resulting values were compared and best professional judgment was
used to determine the specific design discharge for each restoration reach.
8.4.1 Published Regional Curve Data
Discharge was estimated using the published NC Rural Piedmont Curve (Harman et al., 1999) as well as
the updated curve for rural Piedmont and mountain streams, also known as the Walker Curve (Walker,
unpublished).
8.4.2 Wildlands Regional USGS Flood Frequency Analysis
Wildlands developed a regional flood frequency analysis tool that tailored the USGS 2009 publication
Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, through 2006 to the
Piedmont of North Carolina. Of the 103 stations referenced in the publication, 23 were used in the
development of the tool. To fill gaps in data, five additional stations were added by Wildlands to
represent streams with drainage areas less than one square mile. The Hosking and Walls homogeneity
test was performed in R° to identify a selection of hydrologically similar gages based on homogeneity
(Hosking and Walls, 1993). The gages used were:
• USGS 02096740 — Gun Branch near Alamance, NC (DA = 4.06 miZ)
• USGS 02096846 — Cane Creek near Orange Grove, NC (DA = 7.54 mi')
• USGS 02097010 — Robeson Creek near Pittsboro, NC (DA = 1.71 miZ)
• USGS 02101030 — Falls Creek near Bennett, NC (DA = 3.43 miZ)
• USGS 0210166029 — Rocky River at SR1300 near Crutchfield Crossroads, NC (DA = 7.42 mi')
The data from these 28 gage stations were used to develop flood frequency curves for the 1.2 -year and
1.5 -year recurrence interval discharges. These relationships can be used to estimate discharge of those
recurrence intervals for ungauged streams in the same hydrologic region, and were solved for each
project reach's discharge with the drainage area as the input.
8.4.3 Site Specific Reference Reach Curve
Six reference reaches were identified for this project (Section 4.2). Each reference reach was surveyed to
develop information for analyzing drainage area -discharge relationships as well as development of
design parameters. Stable cross-sectional dimensions and channel slopes were used to compute a
bankfull discharge with the Manning's equation for each reference reach. The resulting discharge values
were plotted with drainage area and compared the other discharge estimation methods.
I Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 15 January 2016

8.4.4 Existing Bankfull Indicators (Manning's Equation)
A riffle cross-section was surveyed on each design reach on the Site, totaling three cross-sections. In
addition to this, three cross-sections were surveyed on the reaches directly upstream of the project.
Bankfull indicators were identified in the field during this survey. Manning's equation was used to
calculate a corresponding discharge using the pebble count information for roughness and the survey
data for channel slope. The upstream cross-sections off the project were used to calibrate bankfull
depth. It can be difficult to identify clear bankfull indicators on incised and degraded channels, so the
highest quality indicators were used to calibrate others. The highest quality indicators were identified on
UT1 and on Martin Dairy upstream of the project site.
8.4.5 Design Discharge Analysis Summary
A design goal of Martin Dairy is to maintain the existing riparian wetlands on the right floodplain while
encouraging the development of riparian wetlands on the left floodplain. Removing the existing dredge
spoil material within the floodplain is the first step in this process. The second is establishing a design
discharge that will support the riparian wetlands.
The results of the design discharge analysis provided a range of discharge values with the NC Rural
Piedmont Regional Curve producing the highest and the Walker Curve producing the lowest. The NC
Rural Piedmont Regional Curve discharge estimates were higher than the other estimation methods on
Martin Dairy. The Walker Curve discharge estimates were lower (up to 29 cubic feet per second (cfs))
than all other estimation methods. For these reasons, the regional curve estimation methods were not
considered further in the selection of a design discharge for Martin Dairy. There was concurrence
between the Wildlands Regional USGS Flood Frequency Analysis (1.2 -year event), the existing bankfull
indicators using Manning's Equation, and the Site Specific Reference Reach Curve for Martin Dairy
Reaches 1 and 2. These three values were averaged and then that value was compared to other
successful projects in the Slate Belt with similar drainage areas and similar design goals (Agony Acres,
Holman Mill, and Maney Farm). Those project values confirmed the selected design discharge.
The design discharge analysis for UTI produced a fairly even spread of values across the estimation
methods and lacked concurrence between any group of methods. Because of this, the aforementioned
past projects within the Slate Belt were used for further evaluation. Creating a rating curve from past
successful projects of similar drainage area gave a design discharge of 24 cfs for UT1. This value was
incredibly close to the average of all estimation methods (26 cfs). For this reason, 24 cfs was chosen as
the design discharge. Table 11 gives a summary of the discharge analysis. Figure 10 illustrates the design
discharge data.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 16 January 2016

Table 11: Summary of Design Discharge Analysis — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
8.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
As discussed in Section 3.1.2, small Slate Belt streams are generally low bedload sediment supply
systems. To confirm that the streams on this Site are low bedload streams, Wildlands performed a
qualitative assessment of the sediment load volume and sources in the project watershed. For this
project, the watershed was assessed through aerial photography and field reconnaissance to
characterize past and current land cover and potential sediment sources. There are two prominent
potential sediment sources within the watershed: runoff from agricultural fields and streambank erosion
and bed scour. There is evidence of streambank erosion on UT1 upstream of the project on the adjacent
farm. However, the pond at the downstream end of the property serves as a sink for the excess
sediment and limits the amount of sediment delivered to the Site. There is minimal evidence of
streambank erosion from the upstream reaches of Martin Dairy delivering large sediment loads. Ponds
on the northwest branch serve as a sink for sediment input and the northeast branch is in a wooded
area. On-site streams were visually inspected several times during 2015 and 2016 to qualitatively assess
aggradation and degradation within the channels. Streams exhibited evidence of on-going fluvial erosion
on stream banks on Martin Dairy and UT1. There was no evidence of sediment deposition and
accumulation throughout these reaches, indicating that aggradation within the reaches is not an issue.
Once the project is constructed, on-site sediment sources will be addressed by protecting streambanks
and reducing shear stress in the channels.
The watershed assessment indicates that the bedload supply is not high enough to cause the project
streams to be capacity limited. The focus of sediment transport analysis for this design was verify that
the designed channels will be stable over time and have the ability to pass sediment from the
watersheds. A competence analysis was performed on the streams to aid in the development of the
final channel designs.
8.5.1 Competence Analysis
Competence analyses were performed iteratively during design for each of the restoration reaches by
comparing shear stress associated with the design bankfull discharge, proposed channel dimensions,
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 17 January 2016
Martin Dairy
Reach 1
Martin Dairy
Reach 2
UT1
DA (acres)
344
526
141
DA(sq. mi.)
0.54
0.82
0.22
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs)
57
77
30
Alan Walker Curve (cfs)
34
48
17
Wildlands Regional USGS Flood
Frequency Analysis (cfs)
1.2 -year event
49
67
35
1.5 -year event
71
96
51
Site Specific Reference Reach Curve
43
63
19
Manning's Equation from Surveyed XS
(cfs)
X53
50
XS4
61
XS5
27
Prediction from nearby design projects (cfs)
47
64
24
Selected Design Discharge
47
63
24
8.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
As discussed in Section 3.1.2, small Slate Belt streams are generally low bedload sediment supply
systems. To confirm that the streams on this Site are low bedload streams, Wildlands performed a
qualitative assessment of the sediment load volume and sources in the project watershed. For this
project, the watershed was assessed through aerial photography and field reconnaissance to
characterize past and current land cover and potential sediment sources. There are two prominent
potential sediment sources within the watershed: runoff from agricultural fields and streambank erosion
and bed scour. There is evidence of streambank erosion on UT1 upstream of the project on the adjacent
farm. However, the pond at the downstream end of the property serves as a sink for the excess
sediment and limits the amount of sediment delivered to the Site. There is minimal evidence of
streambank erosion from the upstream reaches of Martin Dairy delivering large sediment loads. Ponds
on the northwest branch serve as a sink for sediment input and the northeast branch is in a wooded
area. On-site streams were visually inspected several times during 2015 and 2016 to qualitatively assess
aggradation and degradation within the channels. Streams exhibited evidence of on-going fluvial erosion
on stream banks on Martin Dairy and UT1. There was no evidence of sediment deposition and
accumulation throughout these reaches, indicating that aggradation within the reaches is not an issue.
Once the project is constructed, on-site sediment sources will be addressed by protecting streambanks
and reducing shear stress in the channels.
The watershed assessment indicates that the bedload supply is not high enough to cause the project
streams to be capacity limited. The focus of sediment transport analysis for this design was verify that
the designed channels will be stable over time and have the ability to pass sediment from the
watersheds. A competence analysis was performed on the streams to aid in the development of the
final channel designs.
8.5.1 Competence Analysis
Competence analyses were performed iteratively during design for each of the restoration reaches by
comparing shear stress associated with the design bankfull discharge, proposed channel dimensions,
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 17 January 2016

and proposed channel slopes with the size distribution of the existing bed load. The analysis utilized
standard equations based on a methodology using the Shields (1936) curve and Andrews (1984)
equation described by Rosgen (2001). Channel slope and design dimensions were varied until the
resulting design verified that the stream reach could move the bed load supplied to the stream. The
results of the analysis are shown in Table 12.
Table 12: Results of Competence Analysis — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
The initial competence analysis was based on the size material naturally found in the stream in order to
mimic potential bed load. The results were used to inform further design of the reach. The excess shear
noted on UT1 influenced the design of rock and wood step structures to provide grade control and
increase roughness within the channel. Riffles with larger materials, such as chunky riffles, were also
integrated into the design as grade control. A second competence analysis was done to size the
proposed Dso and Dsoo for the constructed riffles on all stream reaches. Riffles materials was sized so
that the reconstructed channels will not produce enough shear stress to entrain the largest particles in
these structures. This will ensure a stable pavement while allowing for bed load material to be active
within the system.
8.6 Project Implementation
The majority of Martin Dairy will be raised through Priority I restoration (Table 13). This will raise the
water table, improve hydrologic connection to the riparian wetlands, allow for frequent inundation of
the floodplain, and a reduction of shear stress on the channel. The majority of UT1 will be a Priority II
due to restrictions in Site topography and the elevation of the upstream culvert in relation to the
floodplain. A floodplain will be graded in at a bankfull elevation. The floodplain will not meander along
with the stream pattern but will be relatively straight.
Table 13: Functional Impairments and Restoration Approach — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Resource
Martin Dairy - R1
Martin Dairy - R2
UT1
Dbkf (ft)
1.10
1.20
0.7
Schan (ft/ft)
0.0050
0.0055
0.0140
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (Ib/sq ft)
0.33
0.41
0.60
Dmax Bar/Subpavement (mm)
55
75
38
Dcrit (ft)
1.7
2.2
0.4
Scrit (ft/ft)
0.0079
0.0099
0.0078
Movable particle size (mm)
67.9
78.7
104.1
Predicted Shear Stress to move Dmax
0.25
0.38
0.15
The initial competence analysis was based on the size material naturally found in the stream in order to
mimic potential bed load. The results were used to inform further design of the reach. The excess shear
noted on UT1 influenced the design of rock and wood step structures to provide grade control and
increase roughness within the channel. Riffles with larger materials, such as chunky riffles, were also
integrated into the design as grade control. A second competence analysis was done to size the
proposed Dso and Dsoo for the constructed riffles on all stream reaches. Riffles materials was sized so
that the reconstructed channels will not produce enough shear stress to entrain the largest particles in
these structures. This will ensure a stable pavement while allowing for bed load material to be active
within the system.
8.6 Project Implementation
The majority of Martin Dairy will be raised through Priority I restoration (Table 13). This will raise the
water table, improve hydrologic connection to the riparian wetlands, allow for frequent inundation of
the floodplain, and a reduction of shear stress on the channel. The majority of UT1 will be a Priority II
due to restrictions in Site topography and the elevation of the upstream culvert in relation to the
floodplain. A floodplain will be graded in at a bankfull elevation. The floodplain will not meander along
with the stream pattern but will be relatively straight.
Table 13: Functional Impairments and Restoration Approach — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Resource
Functional Impairments
Restoration Approach
Martin Dairy
Incision, erosion, lack of riparian vegetation, lack of habitat
Restoration — Priority I
UT1
Incision, erosion, lack of riparian vegetation, lack of habitat
Restoration — Priority II
Martin Dairy has been separated into two reaches for the restoration design, separated by the
confluence with UTI. The proposed stream will be realigned to the low point in the existing valley and
the top of bank is set at an elevation matching the base of the overburden material on the existing
floodplain. The perched culvert at the top of the reach will allow for a Priority 1 restoration approach
through this area. The alignment travels through an existing wetland that formed between the toe of
the valley slope and the overburden. The overburden material will be removed during construction to fill
I Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 18 January 2016

the old channel it is anticipated that additional wetlands will form across the valley floor creating an
interconnected stream and wetland complex on the Site. UT1 will also be relocated into the natural low
point in its valley. Due to the upstream culvert elevation, UT1 will follow a Priority II approach. A
floodplain will be excavated at a lower level so that the stream bed is not raised for this short reach. A
structure will be placed at the top of the reach to hold the bed elevation at that of the culvert invert so
as to improve aquatic organism passage on this reach.
Martin Dairy and UT1 will be sinuous (K=1.14) and the beds will be comprised of riffle -pool sequences
with some log and rock drop structures. In -stream structures will include various types of constructed
riffles, log sills, boulder sills, lunker logs, and j -hooks. The structures will reinforce channel stability and
serve as habitat features. The constructed riffles will be comprised of excavated on-site riffle material
from the adjacent hillslopes where the presence of Tatum Silt loam soil indicates bedrock is located
(Figure 5). The riffles will also incorporate woody brush material and logs. The diverse range of
constructed riffle types will provide grade control, diversity of habitat, and will create varied flow
vectors. Log -j-hooks will deflect flow vectors away from banks while adding to habitat diversity. Log sills
will be used to allow for small grade drops across pools and provide extra grade control. At select outer
meander bends, the channel banks will be constructed with brush toe revetments to reduce erosion
potential, encourage pool maintenance, and provide varied pool habitat. Lunker logs in combination
with sod mats will also be used to provide pool habitat variability. Due to the availability of sod on site, it
will be used extensively to provide immediate bank protection. The concept plan for Site restoration is
illustrated in Figure 8.
Wildlands has completed several projects within the Slate Belt and has found that riffle grade control
material can be harvested from weathered parent material on valley sideslopes to mitigate for the
natural lack of grade control. This method, along with the introduction of woody debris, has been
successful at providing a heterogeneous mixture of riffle material that increases channel roughness and
improves channel hydraulics and geomorphology. The gradation of material provides varied pore spaces
within the riffles and structures, which benefits hyporheic exchange processes and habitat niche
formation. According to soil descriptions, the Tatum silt loam, located along the right valley wall of
Martin Dairy, contains weathered bedrock at a depth of 50 inches. This area will be used to source
habitat and grade control structures during construction.
One of the secondary objectives of this project will be to improve aquatic organism passage through the
culvert at the upstream end of Martin Dairy by raising the stream bed to elevation of the culvert and
eliminating the existing nick point barrier. Also as part of this project, a new culvert is to be added to the
Site, downstream of the conservation easement, to allow the landowner access to the back half of their
parcel. The culvert will be designed as to not impede aquatic organism passage onto the Site.
The restoration of Martin Dairy is likely to increase the wetland footprint on-site to include the old
channel bed and newly created floodplain. This, along with the development of a riparian forest, should
increase the Site's ability to cycle and store nutrients. The efficacy of nutrient cycling is likely to increase
as the forest matures and develops a seasonal input of organic material into the system. An estimate of
the percent reduction in nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (TP) was made using a simplified version of the
Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Calculation Sheet, which estimates typical nutrient loading based on land use. Pre -
project conditions reflected managed pasture while post -project conditions modeled the project area as
wooded. The area within the channel was not included in either model (calculations in Appendix 4). The
worksheet estimated that the land use conversion would result in a 54% reduction in TN and a 77%
reduction in TP from on-site sources. This equates to an annual load reduction of 5.3 lbs of TN and 2.3
lbs of TP. These numbers do not include the probable reductions associated with riparian wetlands.
Despite the potential increase in the Site's ability to cycle nutrients post -restoration, the Site may still be
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 19 January 2016

considered to be functioning-at-Risk with a trend towards Functioning in regards to pollutants. The
restoration will not address pollutant sources within the greater watershed, and the Site is not large
enough to provide substantial enough nutrient sinks or denitrification from hyporheic exchange.
The Site is connected to a wooded parcel downstream. Once a riparian buffer is established on-site,
mammalian and avian species will likely migrate to the newly forested area.
8.7 Vegetation and Planting Plan
The objective of the planting plan is to establish, over time, a thriving riparian buffer composed of native
tree species. This restored buffer will improve riparian habitat, help the restored streams stay stable,
shade the streams, and provide a source for LWD and organic material to the streams. The Site will also
generate Riparian Buffer Credits as well as SMUs for the Neuse 01 CU in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B
.0295. The Site will be planted to the extents of the conservation easement, to include the additional
buffer areas as shown in Figure 11. Riparian buffers will be seeded and planted with early successional
native vegetation. The specific species composition to be planted was selected based on the community
type, observation of occurrence of species in riparian buffers adjacent to the Site, and best professional
judgement on species establishment and anticipated Site conditions in the early years following project
implementation. Species chosen for the planting plan are listed on Sheet 2.0 of the Draft Plans located in
Appendix 6. The Draft Plans also contain additional guidance on planting zones, Site preparation, and
Site stabilization during construction.
The riparian buffer areas will be planted with bare root seedlings. In addition, the top of banks will be
planted with live stakes and the channel toe will be planted with multiple herbaceous species. Livestakes
will not be located on UT1 due to the size of the channel. Permanent herbaceous seed will be spread on
streambanks, floodplain areas, and all disturbed areas within the project easement. Permanent
herbaceous seed will also be placed within the internal easement break for the utility crossing.
To help ensure tree growth and survival, soil amendments may be added to areas of the floodplain
along Martin Dairy where overburden material is removed. Soil tests will be performed in areas of cut
and fertilizer and lime will be applied based on the results. Additionally, topsoil will be stockpiled,
reapplied, and disked before permanent seeding and planting activities take place.
Species planted as bare roots will be planted a 12-foot by 6-foot spacing (targeted densities after
monitoring year 3 are 320 stems per acre). Live stakes will be planted on channel banks at 6-foot
spacing. Live stakes will be installed above base flow elevation.
The presence of invasive species on Martin Dairy Mitigation Site is limited to the streambanks on
existing streams. The most prevalent species, Chinese privet (Lagustrum sinese), is spread throughout
the length of the project. Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) is also scattered along the existing stream
banks, but in much lower quantities. Cattail (Typha latifolia) is present in small quantities and is limited
to the stagnant area on UT1.
The goal of this project is to treat and remove as much existing invasive species as possible before and
during construction. Post construction, the presence and extents of invasive species will be monitored.
Treatment of invasive species will continue as necessary throughout the life of the project to ensure
project stability and success of the riparian and streambank vegetation. Additional monitoring and
maintenance issues regarding vegetation a Sections 9 and 10 and Appendix 7.
8.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties
This project is low risk. The land use surrounding the project is currently in hay production, so there is
not a potential for accidental livestock access. There is one break in the easement for the maintenance
of an overhead utility line. This area may be mowed or maintained periodically by Piedmont Electric
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 20 January 2016

Membership Corporation. It is very unlikely that utility maintenance personnel would cross the stream,
as there is access to the western utility pole by the gravel drive located at the north end of the project. A
riffle was designed in this easement break to ensure channel bank and bed stability. Due to the rural
nature of the area, there is very little risk that changes in land use upstream in the project watershed
would alter the hydrology or sediment supply to the degree that the project is put at risk.
9.0 Performance Standards
The stream and wetland performance standards for the project will follow approved performance
standards presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (version 2.3, 12/18/2014), the Annual
Monitoring Template (April 2015), and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued April 2003 by the USACE
and DWR. Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the
finished project. Specific performance standard components are proposed for stream morphology,
hydrology, and vegetation. Performance standards will be evaluated throughout the seven-year post -
construction monitoring. If all performance standards have been successfully met and two bankfull
events have occurred during separate years, Wildlands may propose to terminate stream and/or
vegetation monitoring after monitoring year five.
9.1 Streams
9.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross-sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Per DMS guidance, bank height ratios
shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored C and E channels to be
considered stable. All riffle cross-sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the
designed stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the
stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg
or eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or
enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase
in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward
stability.
9.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Visual assessments and photo documentation should indicate that streams are remaining stable and do
not indicate a trend toward vertical or lateral instability.
9.1.3 Substrate
Channel substrate materials will be sampled with the pebble count method along Martin Dairy and UT1.
Restoration reaches should show maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller
particles in the pool features. A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration reach
each monitoring year for classification purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed
riffle to characterize the pavement.
9.1.4 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross-
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent of mid -channel bars or vertical incision. Grade control
structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable.
Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 21 January 2016

9.1.5 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events and geomorphically significant events will be documented throughout
the monitoring period. Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring
period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Also, two geomorphically significant
events must be documented during the monitoring period as well. For these purposes, a geomorphically
significant event is a flow event that is between 66% of the two-year discharge. These events may occur
in the same year. Stream monitoring will continue until performance standards in the form of two
bankfull events in separate years and two additional geomorphically significant events have been
documented.
9.2 Vegetation
Vegetative performance for riparian buffers associated with the stream restoration component of the
project (buffer widths 0 — 50ft) will be in accordance with the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued April
2003 by the USACE and DWR. The success criteria is an interim survival rate of 320 planted stems per
acre at the end of monitoring year three (MY3) and a final survival rate of 260 stems per acre at the end
of monitoring year 5 (MY5).
Vegetative performance for buffer restoration areas (Figure 11) will be in accordance with 15A NCAC
02B .0295(n)(2)(B), € and (n)(4). The final vegetative success criteria for the buffer restoration areas will
be the survival of 260 planted stems per at the end of the required monitoring period (MY5) (no interim
success criteria required).
If these performance standards are met by MY5 and stem density is trending towards success (i.e., no
less than 260 five-year-old stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the Site may be terminated
provided written approval is provided by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review
Team (NC IRT).
The extent of invasive species coverage will be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the
required monitoring period (MY5 or MY7).
9.3 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above.
10.0 Monitoring Plan
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are
met and project goals and objectives are achieved. Annual monitoring data will be reported using the
DMS Annual Monitoring Reporting Template (April 2015). The monitoring report shall provide project
data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, ease population of
DMS databases for analysis and research purposes, and assist in close-out decision making.
Using the DMS As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template (February 2014), a baseline monitoring
document and as -built record drawings of the project will be developed within 60 days of the planting
completion and monitoring installation on the restored site. Monitoring reports will be prepared in the
fall of each monitoring year and submitted to DMS by November 30. These reports will be based on the
DMS Annual Monitoring Template (April 2015) and Closeout Report Template (March 2015). Closeout
monitoring period will be seven years beyond completion of construction or until performance
standards have been met.
Table 14, below, describes how the monitoring plan is set up in order to verify project goals and
objectives have been achieved.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 22 January 2016

Table 14: Monitoring Plan — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
W Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 23 January 2016
Performance
Monitoring
Likely Functional
Goal
Treatment
Outcome
Standards
Metric
Uplift
Reconstruct stream
Reconnect
channels with
channels with
designed bankfull
Two bankfull
Crest gauges
Multiple
Dispersion of high
floodplains
dimensions and
events and two
and/or pressure
bankfull and
flows on the
floodplain, increase
and riparian
depth based on
geornorphically
transducers on
geomorphically
in biogeochemical
wetlands to
reference reach
significant
Martin Dairy
significant
cycling within the
allow a
data. Remove
events within
and UT1
events within
system, and
natural
existing berm to
monitoring
recording flow
monitoring
recharging
flooding
reconnect channel
period.
elevations.
period.
riparian wetlands. ands.
regime.
with adjacent
wetlands.
Entrenchment
ratio stays over
Stable stream
Reduction in
Construct stream
2.2 and bank
channels with
sediment inputs
Improve
channels that will
height ratio
Cross-section
entrenchment
from bank erosion,
stability of
maintain stable
below 1.2 with
monitoring and
ratios over 2.2
reduction of shear
stream
cross-sections,
visual
visual
and bank
stress, and
channels.
patterns, and
assessments
inspections.
height ratios
improved overall
profiles over time.
showing
below 1.2.
hydraulic function.
progression
towards stability.
Reduction in
210 planted
floodplain
stems per acre
One hundred
sediment inputs
at MY7. Interim
square meter
Planted stem
from runoff,
Restore and
Plant native tree
survival rate of
densities will
enhance
and understory
320 planted
vegetation
e at or above b
increased bank
plots will be
stability, increased
native
species in riparian
stems per acre
placed on 2% of
210 planted
LWD and organic
floodplain
zones and plant
at MY3 and 260
the planted
stems per acre
material in
and
native shrub and
at MY5. For
at MY7, with
area the
streams, increased
streambank
herbaceous species
buffer credit
volunteer trees
ct
project and
biogeochemical
vegetation.
on streambanks.
areas, survival
growing on Site
monitored
cycling in
rate of 260
as well.
annually.
floodplain, and
stems per acre
improved riparian
at MYS.
habitat.
Install habitat
The RSAT score
features such as
Complete a
for instream
Increase in
constructed riffles,
con str
Rapid Stream
aquatic habitat
available habitat
lun logs, and
There is no
Assessment
would progress
niches for
Improve
brush toes into
required
instream
restored/ enhanced
performance
Technique
from a poor
macroinvertebrates
(RSAT) score for
condition to a
and fish leading to
habitat.
streams. Add woody
standard for this
materials to channel
metric.
aquatic
good or
an increase in
beds. Construct
instream
excellent
biodiversity over
pools of varying
habitat
condition over
time.
depth.
time.
W Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 23 January 2016

Goal
Treatment
Performance
Standards
Monitoring
Metric
Outcome
Likely Functional
Uplift
Monitoring Feature
Martin
Martin
Visually inspect
Frequency
Notes
Dairy
the perimeter
No harmful
Protection of the
Permanently
Establish
R1
R2
Prevent
of the Site to
encroachment
Site from
protect the
conservation
Dimension
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
1
Site from
easements on the
easement
ensure no
into the
encroachment into
1
1
encroachment.
easement
conservation
the conservation
harmful uses.
Site.
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
N/A
encroachment
easement.
easement.
Reach wide (RW),
is occurring.
10.1 Monitoring Components
Project monitoring components are listed in more detail in Table 15. Approximate locations of the
proposed vegetation plots and groundwater gage monitoring components are illustrated in Figure 12.
Table 15: Monitoring Components — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
1. Cross-sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during as -
built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations indicate lack of stability and profile survey is warranted in
additional years.
3. Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected quarterly or semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be
documented with a photo when possible. Transducers, if used, will be set to record stage once every 2 hours. The
transducer will be inspected and downloaded semi-annually.
4. Vegetation monitoring will follow CVS protocols.
5. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
6. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
W Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 24 January 2016
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Martin
Martin
Frequency
Notes
Dairy
Dairy
UTI
R1
R2
Riffle Cross-sections
1
1
1
Dimension
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
1
Pool Cross-sections
1
1
1
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
Reach wide (RW),
Substrate
Riffle (RF) 100
1
1
RF
1
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
pebble count
1 RVF
1 1
RF
Crest Gage and/or
Hydrology
1
1
Semi- Annual
3
Transducer
Vegetation
CVS Level 2
8
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
4
Visual
Y
Y
Y
Semi -Annual
Assessment
Exotic and
nuisance
Semi -Annual
5
vegetation
Project
Semi -Annual
6
Boundary
Reference
Photographs
8
2
Annual
Photos
1. Cross-sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during as -
built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations indicate lack of stability and profile survey is warranted in
additional years.
3. Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected quarterly or semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be
documented with a photo when possible. Transducers, if used, will be set to record stage once every 2 hours. The
transducer will be inspected and downloaded semi-annually.
4. Vegetation monitoring will follow CVS protocols.
5. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
6. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
W Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 24 January 2016

11.0 Long -Term Management Plan
The site will be transferred to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Stewardship Program (or 3r1 party if approved). This party shall serve as conservation easement holder
and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure that
restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by the
responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is established. The NCDEQ
Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the non -reverting, interest-bearing
Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account will be
governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A -232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund
may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land
transaction costs, if applicable.
The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary markings as
needed. Any livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility the owner
of the underlying fee to maintain.
The Site Protection Instrument can be found in Appendix 1.
Table 16: Long-term Management Plan — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Long -Term Management Activity
Long -Term Manager Responsibility
Landowner Responsibility
The landowner shall report
damaged or missing signs to the
long-term manager, as well as
The long-term steward will be
contact the long-term manager if
Signage will be installed and
responsible for inspecting the Site
a boundary needs to be marked,
maintained along the Site
boundary and for maintaining or
or clarification is needed
boundary to denote the area
replacing signage to ensure that the
regarding a boundary location. If
protected by the recorded
conservation easement area is clearly
land use changes in future and
conservation easement.
marked.
fencing is required to protect the
easement, the landowner is
responsible for installing fencing
that meets the objectives of the
mitigation project.
The long-term manager will be
responsible for conducting annual
inspections and for undertaking
The Site will be protected in its
actions that are reasonably calculated
The landowner shall contact the
entirety and managed under the
to swiftly correct the conditions
long-term manager if clarification
terms outlined in the recorded
constituting a breach. The USACE, and
is needed regarding the
their authorized agents, shall have the
restrictions associated with the
conservation easement.
right to enter and inspect the Site and
recorded conservation easement.
to take actions necessary to verify
compliance with the conservation
easement.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 25 January 2016

12.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of Site construction, Wildlands will implement the post -construction monitoring
defined in Sections 9 and 10. Project maintenance will be performed during the monitoring years to
address minor issues as necessary (Appendix 7). If, during the course of annual monitoring it is
determined the Site's ability to achieve Site performance standards are jeopardized, Wildlands will
notify the DMS of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. Once the Plan of Corrective Action is
prepared and finalized Wildlands will:
• Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions;
• Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE;
• Obtain other permits as necessary;
• Implement the Corrective Action Plan; and
• Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed.
13.0 Determination of Credits
The final stream and buffer credits associated with the Site are listed in Tables 17a and 17b respectively.
Stream Restoration is at a ratio of 1:1. All buffers meet the minimum 50 -foot requirement. The first 100
feet of the buffer is credited at a 1:1 ratio. The next 100 feet is credited at a ratio of 3:1, according to
DWR guidelines. The credit release schedule is located in Appendix 8.
Table 17a: Project Stream Asset Table — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian
Wetland
Type R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals 2,135
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Restoratio
Approac
n (R) or
Restoratio
Project
Existing
Proposed
Component or
Footage/Acrea
Stationing
h
Restoratio
n Footage
Mitigatio
Propose
Reach ID
ge
Location
(P1, P2,
n
or
n Ratio
d Credit
etc)
Equivalen
Acreage
t (RE)
100+13-
101+38,
Martin Dairy
101+78-
R1
503
107+61
P1
R
708
1
708
Martin Dairy
107+61-
R2
1173
119+71
P1
R
1210
1
1210
200+33 -
UTI
138
202+50
PH
R
217
1
217
Component Summation
Riparian
Riparian
Non-Riparian
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Wetland
(Acres)
Wetland (AC)
Restoration
2135
N/A
N/A
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No.97087 Page 26
Final Draft Mitigation Plan
January 2016

Table 18b: Project Buffer Asset Table — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Mitigation Credits
Riparian Buffer
R
RE
394,742
N/A
Project Components
Project Component or
Reach ID
(P1, P2, etc)
Restoration (R)
or Restoration
Equivalent (RE)
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit
Buffer Area A (30-100')
planting, CE
R
371,297
1
371,297
Buffer Area B (100-
200')
planting, CE
R
70,336
3
23,445
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Buffer (sq.ft.)
Upland (AC)
Restoration
441,633
N/A
14.0 References
Dunne, T. and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company. New
York.
Giese, G.I and Robert R. Mason Jr. 1993. Low -Flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2403.
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.
Harman et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. AWRA
Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D. S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer
Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resources
Management. 1996. Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) Field Methods. Montgomery County,
Maryland.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2011. Web Soil Survey.
http://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale.
Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, NCGS.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Orange County, NC.
Rogers, John J.W., 2006. The Carolina Slate Belt. In Steponaitis, V.P., Irwin, J.D., McReynolds, T.E., and
Moore, C.R. (Ed.), Stone Quarries and Sourcing in the Carolina Slate Belt (pp. 10 — 15). Retrieved from
http://rla.unc.edu/Publications/pdf/ResRep25/Ch2.pdf
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 27 January 2016

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal
Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March 2001.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Shields, D. F., Copeland, R. R, Klingman, P. C., Doyle, M. W., and Simon, A. 2003. Design for Stream
Restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129(8): 575-582.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), 2010. HEC -RAS River Analysis
System User's Manual, Version 4.1. Accessed online at:
http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/documentation/HEC-RAS_4.1_ Users_Manual.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2010. Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant
Load, version 4.1. http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/steplweb/models$docs.htm
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2014. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal
Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Orange County, NC.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/orange.html
Walker, Alan, unpublished. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No.97087 Page 28 January 2016

Appendix 1
Site Protection Instrument

1.0 Site Protection Instrument
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed in Table 1. A conservation easement is recorded on the parcels and
includes streams being restored along with their corresponding riparian buffers. A temporary
construction access easement is also recorded on the parcels. The recorded easement is included in this
appendix.
Table 1: Site Protection Instrument — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Landowner
PIN
County
Site Protection
Instrument
Deed Book and
Page Number
Acreage to be
Protected
Ted H Martin
9896-83-0483
Orange
116
76
10.289
Ted H Martin
9896-83-9111
Orange
116
76
0.866
All site protection instruments require 60 -day advance notification to the USACE and or DMS prior to
any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by
the State.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087 Page 1

�0
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
,I IXcrlse `* . 'ups -00
ORANGE COUNTY
SPO File Number: 68 -DE
DMS Project Number: 97087
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
N�pI"y�I��tl�I�gIINf C
20161109000236720 SIINS
Bio : RB6218 P9:270
1 5109! 2016 09:W29 RM 1113
FILED Mark Chilton
Register of Deeds, Orange Co,NC
Recording Fae. 26.00
NC Real Estate K: 3268.00
DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
,q894 8 344,93
f.f9.683 ?111moij
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this I day cif l ioye�n bcr , 2016, by Ted H. Martin and wife Ruby Martin
, ("Grantor"), whose mailing address is 7205 Schley Road, Hillsborough, NC, to the State of
North Carolina, ("Grantee"), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of
Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. The
designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs,
successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as
required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et sea., the State
of North Carolina has established the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 1 of 11

G�IIR116218 271 2/13�Yllin'IVPI'IN
protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Wildlands
Engineering, Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
to provide stream, wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number
6831.
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, (MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU
recognized that the Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory
mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring,
enhancing and preserving the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) is to provide for compensatory mitigation by
effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing
and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service entered into an agreement to continue the In -Lieu Fee operations of the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources' Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem
Enhancement Program) with an effective date of 28 July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces
the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8`h day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this
instrument; and
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 2 of 11

VIRBS218 272 3/13
��I' �I�' 1�19119�11911 Y
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real properties situated, lying, and being in
Eno Township, Orange County, North Carolina (the 'Property"), and being more
particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 42.92
acres and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 4973 at Page 348
and that certain parcel of land containing approximately 3.52 acres and
being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 197 at Page 783 of the
Orange County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of
Access over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the
use of the areas of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and
conditions and purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement
and Access Rights. The Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of
the waters of unnamed tributaries to Buckwater Creek.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions,
and restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby
grants and conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a
Conservation Easement along with a general Right of Access.
The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:
Easement Areas 1 and 2 containing a total of 11.155 acres as shown on the plats of survey
entitled "Conservation Easement for the State of North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services, Project Name: Martin Dairy Stream Mitigation, SPO File No. 68 -DE, DMS Project
Site No. 97087, Property of Ted H. Martin and wife Ruby Y. Martin, dated September 1, 2016
Elisabeth G. Turner PLS Number 4440 and recorded in the Orange County, North Carolina
Register of Deeds at Plat Book I I & Page r] b
See attached "Exhibit A", Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
"Conservation Easement Area"
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the
Conservation Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to
prevent any use of the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these
purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 3 of 11

RBS218 ?73 4113
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation. Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area
by the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units,
derived from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong
to the Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation
Easement Area for the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey
plat.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this
Conservation Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such
purposes including organized educational activities such as site visits and observations.
Educational uses of the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded
survey plat and as related to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or
vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 4 of 11

lipil JiijJJqq11aII iIIII I ill
RB6216 274 W13
All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat.
I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except
interpretive signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the
Conservation Easement, signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the
use of the Conservation Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
rock, peat, minerals, or other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering
or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or
shortage of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may
temporarily be withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the
Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ("fee") that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non-transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 5 of 11

I��I `IIVp91111'iIRIIEIRB6218 275 611a
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to restore, construct, manage,
maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other riparian resources in
the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long-term
management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the
rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in -stream, above ground, and subterranaous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock within conservations easements damages the
investment and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which
would cause financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are
required to restrict livestock access to the Conservation Easement area. Repeated failure to do so
may result in the State (Grantee) repairing or installing livestock exclusion devices (fences)
within the conservation area for the purpose of restricting livestock access. In such cases, the
landowner (Grantor) must provide access to the State (Grantee) to make repairs.
E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or
features in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized
activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the
Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the
Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by
such breach. If the breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may
enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an
action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 6 of 11

I��4�I�NIII!IIWII'lllRB6218 276 7113
power and authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Conservation Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek darnages
from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the
immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other
appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the
benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee
acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights
and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all
other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at
reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying
with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from
any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. if any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 7 of 11

I��p III`NVNIIIIIIIIININRB6218 277 8113
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing
sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any
request to void or modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification
requests shall be addressed to:
Division of Mitigation Services Program Manager
NC State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
and
General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 8 of 11

uR86218 278 9113��uiimimiu
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet
enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 9 of 11

iRB6218 279 10113
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
(SEAL)
` TI (SEAL)
NORTH CAROLINA
COLW7T OF
& y a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that 7 -ed H. r" a.- f #"' , Grantor, personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of /70-ew,ber- '20/6 —
Notary Public
My commission expires:
9 -073.'2/
FROBEH t BUGG
NOTARY PL.' •>>_1C
Mecklenburg C. unty
North Caraiina
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 10 of 11

lRa6218 280 11/13
IR:'I�;'I'�191Y;�YYIII IN�pllll
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF (rqr+
1, 130bert t.J. dvl qt a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify tha V13-4 ' M or +%, , Grantor, personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of 110--c-" b e, 20/0
Notary Public
My commission expires:
V -;R 3-.21
ROBERT W. BUGG
NOTARY PUBLJC
Mecklenburg
North Carolina
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 11 of 11

eiM1ei1 �R86d21Ml�l12/13
gp41UY�uCilq
Description for conservation easement for the State of North Carolina, Division of Mitigation
Services on the property of Ted H. Martin and wife, Ruby Y. Martin, located in Eno Township,
Orange County, North Carolina. (All references to the Orange County Register of Deeds unless
otherwise noted.)
PiN:9896-83-0483
Easement Area 1
Beginning at a 5/8" rebar with CE cap (Corner #1) within the property of Ted H. Martin and
wife, Ruby Y. Martin (now or formerly, see Deed Book 4973, Page 348 and Plat Book 112,
Page 51, Lot 1), said rebar being located S 88°42'05" W a distance of 35.53' from a GPS Site
Control Point (existing 1/2" rebar) with NCGS Grid Coordinates [NAD83(2011)]
N=864,568.16 usft,
E=1,998,993.46 usft;
thence, from the point of Beginning, S 03°55'46" E the following distances:
60.78' to a 5/8" rebar with CE cap (Corner #2), said rebar being the northeast comer of a
30' wide reserved stream crossing; 30.64' to a 5/8" rebar with CE cap (Corner #3), said rebar
being the southeast corner of said crossing; 932.18' to a 5/8" rebar with CE cap (Corner #4);
thence S 85°01105" W a distance of 133.64' to a 5/8" rebar with CE cap (Corner #5); thence S
04'l 5'59" E a distance of 112.08' to a 5/8" rebar with CE cap (Corner #6) on the Martin's
common line (Deed Book 4973, Page 348 and Deed Book 197, Page 783);
thence, with said common line, S 85°35'56" W a distance of 52.26' to an existing 1 %z" iron pipe
(Corner #14), said pipe being a common corner of the Martin properties;
thence, with the common line, S 02°25'19" E a distance of 141.67' to a calculated point (Corner
#15); thence S 20°01'54" W a distance of 134.44' to a calculated point (Corner #16); thence S
35'16'02" W a distance of 192.62' to a calculated point (Corner #9); thence, leaving said
common line, S 89°41'23" W a distance of 102.13' to a 5/8" rebar with CE cap (Comer #10);
thence N 03°58'37" E the following distances:
1,411.24' to a 5/8" rebar with CE cap (Corner #11), said rebar being the southwest corner of a
30' wide reserved stream crossing; 31.85' to a 5/8" rebar with CE cap (Corner #12), said rebar
being the northwest corner of said crossing; 140.64' to a 5/8" rebar with CE cap (Corner #13);
thence S 88042'05" E a distance of 250.39' to the point of Beginning;
containing 10.289 acres, more or less, and shown as Easement Area 1 on a plat by Turner Land
Surveying, PLLC (P-0702) of Swannanoa, NC, titled "Conservation Easement for the State of
North Carolina, Division of Mitigation Services, Martin Dairy Stream Mitigation" dated
October 26, 2016 and recorded in Plat Book-) I , Page 0 of the Orange County
Register of Deeds.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 12 of 11

RB6218 282 13113
PIN: 9896-83-9111
Easement Area 2
Beginning at an existing 1'/z" iron pipe (Comer #14) at the northwest comer of Ted H. Martin
and wife, Ruby Y. Martin (now or formerly, see Deed Book 197, Page 783, and Plat Book 13),
said pipe being a common corner with Lot 1 of Plat Book 112, Page 51, and located S 07004'01"
W a distance of 1,156.55' from a GPS Site Control Point (existing 1/2" rebar) with NCGS Grid
Coordinates [NAD83(2011)] N=864,568.16 usft, E=1,998,993.46 usft;
thence, from the point of Beginning, with the common line, N 85°35'56" E a distance of 52.26' to
a 5/8" rebar with CE cap (Corner #6); thence, leaving said common line, S 0495'59" E a distance
of 252.24' to a 5/8" rebar with CE cap (Corner #7); thence S 23°47'27" W a distance of 193.22'
to a 5/8" rebar with CE cap (Comer #8); thence S 89°41'23" W a distance of 144.21' to a
calculated point (Corner #9) on the Martin's common line; thence, with the common line, N
350161021, E a distance of 192.62' to a calculated point (Comer #16);
thence N 20101'54" E a distance of 134.44' to a calculated point (Corner #15); thence N
02°25'19" W a distance of 141.67' to the point of Beginning;
containing 0.866 acres, more or less, and shown as Easement Area 2 on a plat by Turner Land
Surveying, PLLC (P-0702) of Swannanoa, NC, titled "Conservation Easement for the State of
North Carolina, Division of Mitigation Services, Martin Dairy Stream Mitigation" dated October
26, 2016 and recorded in Plat Book f I G , Page ji� _of the Orange County Register of Deeds.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 13 of 11

10 P111 1llil I i�fiI��II��I
201611:9000236730 SIINS
Bk:RB6218 Pg:283
11l09l2C16 09:40:30 AM 1/7
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN
RECORDED MAIL. TO:
FILED Bark Chilton
Register of Deeds, Orange Co,NC
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. NC Real
Fat; TX: $,
NC Real Estate TX: $,00
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Attention: Lee Knight Caffery
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
This temporary construction easement is between is between Ted H. Martin and wife Ruby
Martin ("Grantor"), individuals, and WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC., a North Carolina corporation
("Grantee"). This temporary construction easement will become effective when all parties have signed
it.
A. Grantor is the owner of certain real property comprised of two parcels located at 7205 Schley
Road, in Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina and recorded in the Orange County Register of
Deeds (the "Property"). The Property is also identified as Tax Parcel Numbers 9896830483 and
9896839111.1 /��
B. The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services has contracted with Grantee to restore and
enhance the portions of an unnamed stream located on the Property (the "Stream Restoration
Project").
C. Grantor has agreed to grant Grantee a temporary construction easement across the Property
during the construction of the Stream Restoration Project.
Grantor and Grantee therefore agree as follows:
1. Grant of Temporary Construction Easement. In consideration of the sum of $10.00, (the
"Purchase Price") Grantor grants to Grantee, a temporary construction easement in, upon, over, under
and across the Property in two areas shown on the plat titled Conservation Easement for the State of
-1-

I�pp;�'llf �'�UI�J�III'IUI'1Id116VIIIYRB6218 284 2/7
North Carolina, Division of Mitigation Services, recorded in Orange County, North Carolina in plat book
I1, page NO . The temporary construction easement areas are shown on the plat as 0.112 acres on
Tax Parcel Number 9896830483, 0.079 acres on Tax Parcel Number 9896830483 and 0.585 acres on Tax
Parcel Number 9896839111.
2. Payment of Purchase Price. Prior to the commencement of "Construction Activities," as
defined, Grantee shall deliver the Purchase Price to the Grantor in immediately available funds.
3. Construction Activities. Grantee and its contractors, agents and assigns shall have the
right to utilize the temporary construction easement for the purpose of providing a staging area,
temporary work space, and construction site access for and during the Stream Restoration Project (the
"Construction Activities"). Grantee has the right to deposit tools, implements and other materials in
the temporary construction easement and to transport fill dirt to be used in the Stream Restoration
Project. Construction Activities include building a gravel construction entrance on and over the 0.112
acre and the 0.585 acre temporary construction easement at the south end of the Property off Schley
Road, and that gravel construction entrance will remain after the conclusion of the Construction
Activities. Construction Activities also include building a gravel construction entrance on and over the
0.079 acre temporary construction easement from Schley Road, on Tax Parcel Number which temporary
construction easement will be used to complete restoration of a small tributary and to access the
permeant conservation easement from Schley Road during construction. At the conclusion of the
Construction Activates, Grantee will remove all gravel and debris from the 0.079 acre temporary
construction easement and will seed, fertilize and straw the area.
4. Indemnification. Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold Grantor harmless from any
and all damages, claims, liabilities expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) arising out of or as a
result of the entry onto the Property by Grantee, its contractors, agents and assigns.
5. Dispute Resolution. In the event of any dispute, claim, question or disagreement arising
out of or relating to this temporary construction easement, Grantor or Grantee may invoke the Dispute
Resolution provisions of this section 5 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.
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 North Carolina Court.
b. Attorney's Pees. If either party institutes any action or proceeding against the other
arising out of this temporary construction easement, the non -prevailing party in such
action or proceeding shall reimburse the prevailing party for such party's reasonable
-2-

IRB6218 ,85 3/7
'Ia�IIV�IiillYlll IIIIII{IIIIB
attorneys' fees and all costs and disbursements incurred, including any appeal from an
action or proceeding.
6. Termination. The temporary construction easement shall terminate upon the earlier of
(a) the completion of the Construction Activities and the removal of any sedimentation and erosion
control measures, (b) or on 12/31/2018. Grantee agrees that the Stream Restoration Project shall be
pursued as diligently and as expeditiously as reasonably possible and that upon completion of the
Stream Restoration Project, the property shall be evenly graded, stabilized and seeded such that it may
be mowed and all construction debris will be removed. Upon the termination of the temporary
construction easement, the Grantee shall have no further obligation or liability in connection with the
Property.
Assignment. Grantee may assign Grantee's rights in the temporary construction
easement.
8. Covenants stunning with the Land. This temporary construction easement and
covenants created by this temporary construction easement shall be deemed to be covenants running
with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, successors and
assigns of the parties.
9. Right to Convey. Grantor covenants that he has the right to convey this temporary
construction easement.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
-3-

II�IV!VIIIu4V��lllllllll IIIIIIIIII IRB621e 286 4/7
Each party is signing this temporary access and construction agreement on the date stated
below that party's signature.
GRANTEE:
WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC.,
a North Carolina corporation
By: D.
5 wn D. Wilkerson, President
Date:g1u'lb
ICI.L1011follf
TED H. MARTIN and RUBY Y. MARTIN
By: r jjj
T H. Martin
Date: 11—S-1
By: t, 1, /1
Ruby Y.in
-4-
Date: 11~- Y- /

I�VII�pp��i��V�V,I�IYf161111V11'IWIIRB6219 287 517
/)']eek/C.,6 County, North Carolina
I certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that he
or she signed the foregoing document:
Name of principal
Date: // - `/ -;ZO/i
(Official Sea[)
ROBERT W. BUGG
NOTARY PUBLIC
Mecklenburg County
North Carolina
Official Sign oturotary
dbe,-4 ty, 6,,!q
tr
Notary's printed or typed name
My commission expires:
-5-
5-,?3-;o-;z/

County, North Carolina RB6218 288 6/7
I certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that he
or she signed the foregoing document:
Name of principal
Date: //—,?—/6
(official Seal)
ROBERT W. BUGG
NOTARY PUBLIC
4. ;L County
Nortl"ii Carolina
Official Signature ^0tary
Notary's printed or typed name
My commission expires: 3-,W3-.21
9.1

County, North Carolina 218 289 717
yN�IV�Jl41I.I�VB61'�91IIIIIII II
I certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that he
or she signed the foregoing document:
l?iJb� d. r� or 4)n
Name of principal
Date: //- SP -16
(Official Seal)
M
W. BUGGY PUBLICurg CountyCarolina
poll
Official Signature q14Kotory
./ aber 4 tV. &w, Q q
Notary's printed or typed name
My commission expires: $- d,3—,7j
-7-

(A lll�Ill�1�1 IGuNII��IJ(1Vllll►INIf PL ussa 6 anT ,.i FIT.
m
m
00 y
m I
21O
Mz V7Z
D0.TD o0
m -� m -n
�0 0>
?D W;ui
O
D
–� O C o
Z m–
� o. a 0
myfn mZ
zm c) 'o
0;u��_
=c�
0
Ca
o{�1
z
O
W>> m
O
Z m
O
—11
9p prsp nc+y
i+mP P^PpaR�P
� ali�
ml �
n
,
ups
gm
aggu
+waa-ten
n
''
•.�, 'P MY
�
4
y1519Spa
w m JY Gtr' • �COd. WP11 me 3 4a..^bTOS
\ fed
Y
—e-
1111 1
I Ijj'+�I
C, 00
�p
k.wX
O
vm
ao®°
Sn� y�
zrom 3 om90
e n 8 s�
BMW
Ll
f?=. lh— . -
� 1l pL SR
11 Eup
9-5 gi
s= $ o
N
m
g
a -
Ga
_ +wrsaljr� 4 � p1
I -Iva 7Y era,
gm
�m� +
''
•.�, 'P MY
�
4
w m JY Gtr' • �COd. WP11 me 3 4a..^bTOS
1111 1
I Ijj'+�I
C, 00
�p
k.wX
O
vm
ao®°
Sn� y�
zrom 3 om90
e n 8 s�
BMW
Ll
f?=. lh— . -
� 1l pL SR
11 Eup
9-5 gi
s= $ o
N
m
g
a -
Ga
rA
gm
A �r
1111 1
I Ijj'+�I
C, 00
�p
k.wX
O
vm
ao®°
Sn� y�
zrom 3 om90
e n 8 s�
BMW
Ll
f?=. lh— . -
� 1l pL SR
11 Eup
9-5 gi
s= $ o
N
m
g
a -
Ga
rA
1111 1
I Ijj'+�I
C, 00
�p
k.wX
O
vm
ao®°
Sn� y�
zrom 3 om90
e n 8 s�
BMW
Ll
f?=. lh— . -
� 1l pL SR
11 Eup
9-5 gi
s= $ o
N
m
g
a -
Ga

Appendix 2
Approved JD and Supporting USACE Assessment Forms

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2016-00874 County: Orange U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Caldwell
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Land Owner: Mr. Ted Martin and Ms. Ruby Martin
Address: 7205 Schley Road
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Applicant/Agent: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Mr. Win Taylor
Address: 497 Bramson Court, Suite 104
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
Size (acres) 9.5 Nearest Town Hillsborough
Nearest Waterway Buckwater Creek River Basin Neuse
USGS HUC 03020201 Coordinates Latitude: 36.12329
Longitude: -79.00402
Location description: The Martin Dairy Mitigation Site is located on an approximate 9.5 acre tract of land near
Hillsborough in Orange County, North Carolina. Orange County, North Carolina Parcel Index Numbers: 9896830483 and
9896839111. Waters on-site drain into Buckwater Creek, an indirect tributary of the Neuse River.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including
determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other
resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that
would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part
331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further
instruction.
_ There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33
USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters, including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be used in the
permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an effective
presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction overall of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area, which is not sufficiently
accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters of the U.S. on your
property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to
obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC §
1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to
exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

_ We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish
this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by
the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been verified
by the Corps. If you wish to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon completion. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five
years.
_ The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed
by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Basis For Determination: On June 13, 2016, Wildlands Engineering, Inc. submitted a preliminary iurisdictional
determination (JD) to our office for review. Representatives from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. participated in an on-site field verification conducted on July 28, 2016. During this investigation
the Corps requested additional information required to accuracy describe and delineate waters within the Martin Dairy
Mitigation Site. Final revisions were received by our office on August 5, 2016.
Based on a review of the June 13, 2016 report submitted to our office, on-site field verification on July 28, 2016, and final
revisions received on August 2016, this office has determined that 1,840 linear feet of perennial stream channel and 2.848 acres
of emergent wetland are present within the Martin Dairy Mitigation Site proiect boundary. Refer to the enclosed Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination Form, Aquatic Resource Table, and Figure 3 Site Map for a detailed summary of waters on-site.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdiction determinations as indicated in B and
C above).
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdiction determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**

DAI LEY.SAMANT
HAII 387567948
Corps Regulatory Official:
SAMANTHA DAILEY
Date of JD: 12/09/2016
Expiration Date of JD:
Digitally signed by
DAILEY.SAMANTHA.J.1387567948
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD,
ou=PKI, ou=USA,
cn=DA 1 LEY.SAMANTHA.J.1387567948
Date: 2016.12.13 07:58:46 -05'00'
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/Pp=136:4:0.

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Mr. Win Taylor
File Number: SAW -2016-00874
Date: 12/09/2016
Attached is: See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
❑ PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
❑ PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
® PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at hitp://www.usace.gM.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Re ug lato ProgramandPermits.gwx
or Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
CESAD-PDO
Attn: Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Samantha Dailey, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
December 9, 2016
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Land Owner: Mr. Ted Martin and Ms. Ruby Martin
Address: 7205 Schley Road
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Applicant/Agent: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Mr. Win Taylor
Address: 497 Bramson Court, Suite 104
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington, Martin Dairy Mitigation Site, North Carolina
Division of Mitigation Services, Orange County, SAW -2016-00874
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Orange City: Hillsborough
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.123290N, Long. 79.00402° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest water body: Buckwater Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 1,840 linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Cowardin Class: Riverine
Stream Flow: Perennial
Wetlands: 2.848 acres.
Cowardin Class: PEM
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10 waters:
Tidal:
Non -Tidal:
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLIES):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: December 9, 2016
® Field Determination. Date(s): July 28, 2016
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the United States on the subject site, and the permit
applicant or other affected party who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site. Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in this instance and at this time.
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 approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby
made aware of the following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a preliminary JD, which
does not make an official determination of jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved JD
before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD
could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that 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) that 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) that
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an approved JD constitutes the
applicant's acceptance of the use of the preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is practicable;

(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 preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all wetlands and other water bodies on
the site affected in any way by that activity are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes 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 approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD will be processed as soon as
is practicable. Further, an approved JD, 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, and that in any administrative appeal,
jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33 C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary to make
an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters
on the site, the Corps will provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there "may be" waters of the United States on the subject project site, and identifies all aquatic
features on the site that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply - checked items should be included in case
file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.,
submitted a Jurisdictional Determination Request on June 13, 2016, with revisions received on August 5, 2016.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ 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: 1:24K, NC -Caldwell
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil Survey: October 31, 2016.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Corps of Engineers SimSuite — July 27, 2016.
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): June 13, 2016 Jurisdictional Determination Request.
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ 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.
Digitally signed by
DALY.SMNTHA.J.1 37567948
DAILEY.SAMANT DNI c=USAo AU.S. Government,
HADA 387567948 DADEY.SAMANTHAJ1387567948
Date: 2016.12.13 07:56:26 -05'00'
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
N
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
Impracticable)

Table 1. On-site Aquatic Resources identified within the
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
SAW -2016-00874
Site Number
Latitude
(ON)
Latitude
(OW)
Estimated Amount of
Aquatic Resources in
Review Review Area
Class of Aquatic Resource
Linear Feet
Acres
Martin Dairy
Creek
36.124811
79.003791
Perennial
1,702
-
non -section 10, non -wetland
UT1
36.124074
79.003574
Perennial
138
-
non -section 10, non -wetland
Wetland A
36.121275
79.004516
Seep
-
0.013
non -section 10, wetland
Wetland B
36.122015
79.004170
Seep
-
1.430
non -section 10, wetland
Wetland C
36.124474
79.004046
Seep
-
1.283
non -section 10, wetland
Wetland D
36.121242
79.003963
Seep
-
0.122
non -section 10, wetland

Figure 3 Site Map
W I LD L, A N D S 0 150 300 Feet Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I Neuse 03020201
Orange County, NC

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Martin Dairy City/County: Hillsborough/Orange Sampling Date: 5/19/2016
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: WetlandA -DPt
Investigator(s): Win Taylor Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.121274 Long: W 79.004516 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Herndon Silt Loam (HrC) NWI classification: n/a
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Woody, mature vegetation absent within assessment area due to land maintained for hay
production. Linear, ditch feature.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
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 (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ 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 (134)
_ 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 (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 1
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 0 - 12+
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 0 - 12+
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 — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Wetland A - DP1
Sampling Point:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% 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:
7
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
0
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1
No FACW
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
2.
3.
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
1_
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Juncus effusus
40
Yes FACW
—
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Rhynchospora macrostachya 5 No OBL
3 Persicaria lapathifolia 5 No FACW
q Mentha arvensis
2
No FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree –Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5 Carex comosa 2 No OBL
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb – All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
54 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1 Toxicodendron radicans
5
Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
5
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point: Wetland A - DP1
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
0-2 2.5Y 4/2 100
Silt Loam
2-10 2.5Y 5/2 98
10YR 5/6 2 C PL
Silt Loam
10-12 2.5Y 5/2 80
10YR 5/6 20 C PL
Silt Loam
'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)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
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)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Martin Dairy City/County: Hillsborough/Orange Sampling Date: 5/19/2016
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: Wetland B-DP2
Investigator(s): Win Taylor Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.121473 Long: W 79.004301 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Herndon Silt Loam (HrC) NWI classification: n/a
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Woody, mature vegetation absent within assessment area due to land maintained for hay
production.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
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 (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ 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 (134)
_ 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 (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 0.5
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 0 - 12+
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 0 - 12+
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 – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Wetland B - DP2
Sampling Point:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
0
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
2.
3.
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
0—
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Mentha arvensis
35
Yes FACW
—
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Rhynchospora macrostachya 10 No OBL
3 Juncus effusus 10 No FACW
q Saururus cernuus
10
No OBL
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree –Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5 Carex comosa 5 No OBL
6 Vernonia noveboracensis 5 No FACW
7 Sambucus nigra
5
No FAC
height.
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
g Persicaria lapathifolia 2 No FACW
g.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb – All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
82 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
0
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point: Wetland B - DP2
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
0-2 2.5Y 4/2 100
Silt Loam
2-4 2.5Y 5/2 95
10YR 5/6 5 C PL
Silt Loam
4-10 2.5Y 5/1 95
10YR 4/6 5 C PL
Silt Loam
10-12 2.5Y 5/1 80
10YR 4/6 20 C PL
Silt Loam
'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)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
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)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Martin Dairy City/County: Hillsborough/Orange Sampling Date: 5/19/2016
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: Wetland C-DP3
Investigator(s): Win Taylor Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.125367 Long: W 79.004012 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla Loam (Ch) NWI classification: n/a
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Woody, mature vegetation absent within assessment area due to land maintained for hay
production.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
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 (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ 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 (134)
_ 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 (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 0 - 12+
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 0 - 12+
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 – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Wetland C - DP3
Sampling Point:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
0 = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
0-
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Mentha arvensis
60 Yes FACW
-
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Carex comosa 20 No OBL
3 Juncus effusus 15 No FACW
q Carex albolutescens
2 No FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
97 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
0 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point: Wetland C - DP3
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
0-4 2.5Y 5/1 95
10YR 5/6 5 C PL
Loam
4-12 2.5Y 5/2 80
10YR 5/6 20 C PL
Loam
'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)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
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)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Martin Dairy City/County: Hillsborough/Orange Sampling Date: 7/28/2016
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: wetland D - DP5
Investigator(s): win Taylor Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.121242 Long: W 79.003963 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla Loam (Ch) NWI classification: n/a
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Woody, mature vegetation absent within assessment area due to land maintained for hay
production.
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)
_ 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 (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ 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 (134)
_ 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 (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 10 - 12+
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 — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Wetland D - DP5
Sampling Point:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
0 = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
0—
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Murdannia keisak
30 Yes OBL
—
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Carex comosa 30 No OBL
3 Juncus effusus 15 No FACW
q Cyperus haspan
10 No OBL
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree –Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb – All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
85 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
0 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point: Wetland D - DP5
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
0-4 10YR 5/1 98
10YR 5/6 2 C PL
Loam
4-12 10YR 5/2 90
10YR 5/6 10 C PL
Loam
'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)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
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)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Martin Dairy City/County: Hillsborough/Orange Sampling Date: 5/19/2016
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: Upland - DP4
Investigator(s): Win Taylor Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.123472 Long: W 79.003959 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla Loam (Ch) NWI classification: n/a
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area /
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes Noy
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Woody, mature vegetation absent within assessment area due to land maintained for hay
production.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
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 (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ 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 (134)
_ 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 (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
V(Saturation
Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
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 – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Upland - DP4
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
0
OBL species 0 x 1= 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
= Total Cover
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
FAC species 1 x 3 = 3
2.
FACU species 72 x 4 = 288
3.
UPL species 5 x 5 = 25
Column Totals: 78 (A) 313 (B)
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.0
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
0-
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Festuca arundinacea
60 Yes FACU
-
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Andropogon virginicus 10 No FACU
3 Plantago lanceolata 5 No UPL
q Amaranthus spinosus
2 No FACU
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5 Rubus arvensis 1 No FA C
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
g.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
78 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
0 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: Upland - DP4
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 10YR 4/4 100
Loam
6-12 10YR 4/3 100
Loam
'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)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
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)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Appendix 3
DWR Stream Identification Forms

1.0 DWR Stream Classification
The results of the DWR Stream Classification Forms are listed in the table below. DWR forms can be
found in this appendix and in the digital submission to DMS. DWR forms were completed by Wildlands
for Martin Dairy and UTI. On April 5, 2016 a DWR representative came to the site and classified E1, an
ephemeral reach, on the property and provided the total stream score to Wildlands. DWR noted that
riparian buffer credit could be applied to this reach during design if so desired. Wildlands has not
requested credit for buffer along this reach.
Table 1: DWR Form Summary— Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
1. During the proposal stage for this project and at the time of the DWR stream classification UTI was named UT2.
This was changed in the mitigation plan when the former UT1 was not selected to be part of the project. The
original data sheet is named UT2.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087 Page 1
Geomorphology
Hydrology
Biology
Stream
Total Score
Score
Score
Score
Martin Dairy
15
10.5
8.25
36.75
UTV
15.5
8
7.25
30.75
t
E1
Not provided
Not provided
14.5
prov
1. During the proposal stage for this project and at the time of the DWR stream classification UTI was named UT2.
This was changed in the mitigation plan when the former UT1 was not selected to be part of the project. The
original data sheet is named UT2.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087 Page 1

r CI DWQ Siraam Identification Ifianm Version 4,-I.l OP2
Date: )/3I-zc PaojectlSite: rhn Latitude:
'Js. 7E I n!
E►ahiator. Ap
County. Grun Loi glitude: 71, 2 L t.t p bei
Total Points:
9tniatriis atfaaatlntermttlent atreani i etermin�tion (aiscla one) C ther
if>_ 19 orperennial if? 30" 1 •71 8F herneral Intem ittent � 11 .,g. Quad Mama: Martin D
fl. Geomorphology (Subtotal: -(es_)
Absent.
Weak
Moderate
1Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
:. Sinuosity of c angel along thalweg
a
1
3. In -channels truature: e). riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri 10- 2001 sequence
fl
1
C
. Pa rlia le s is ie of stre am , t bs trate
0
fl. Active/relict floodplain
fl
2
2
6. Depositional bars a ban f e:
0
7
7• Re ce n t a Ili via I deposits
0
d
8. Headcuts
®
1
9. Gra da can trot
0
0.9
(D
1fl. Natural valley
cl
0.:1
C
11. Sa ca nd or greater c rdfi r cl E rine l
a
No - 0
y
artificial IBM I e 3 are i of rated; see discussions is manual
8. H drolo Subtotal - r
12. F rei c nae o f Bas el a v i
1
2
13. Iron oxidizEacteria
1
0
1� I. l.a E f litter
iO
0.5
A.
SeSet lini a nt Edebris0.519.
Organic d
Q 91;1.
Soil basedEaHNo
:
yt
05=3
Strong
0
3
3
3
7
1,J
1.9
C
3
0
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stream Identification Fe tins Vetlsion 4.11
W to: 7 j i rt & Projec t/Site: 1' Latitude
Ei aluator: 11"6V f , Count1j: �Iii e l an itnde: a
g .I . 4 tl- T
Tota I points:
9tniernlsetlaaaiintermiElent Stream DeN rrr !nation (c ira le an e) Clti e r
c
if 2t 19 or perennial if >_ 30* '� a -� Ept a mi na I In to rmitti i t Peri n nial a.94 qt ac I Name:
/+. Uevrnvr €tole (ut7totat = F
13- Continuity of channel bed and aaO
Absent
a
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
G3}
2. Sinuosity of aha nna I along thalweg
0
1
14. Leaf litter
3
3. ln-channei structure: ax. riffle -pool, ata rl-pa al,
ripple -pool sequence
Q
�y
2
3
4. Particle size of stream aut atrate
0
1J
Ya
3
!. Active/relict floodplain
0
0.9
]
3
9, Depositional t arse or t eaahaa
0
0.5
7
:I
7. Recent allu, llal deposits
0
dj
7
1.J
8. Headguts
0
0.5
]
1.1
9. Grac a control
(01
0.9
1
1.5
10. P k tura l valley
11. Second or greater or( e r ct a i n e I
0
0.9
(9)
Yea =:
1.5
B. Hvdrotoav (Suhtntal - Z- rG V y t.
11. Preseioe of Baseiomi
D O
2
3
11. lron oxidizing bacteria
Co 1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1:9 1
0
0
19. Sediment a n plants a r de t ris
1A. Organic del ris linea or piles
0
0 .5
1
1
1.8
1.9
17. Soil -based evidence of high wafer table?
o =
Ya
18. Fibrous rc ots in stye an,t ec
3
(-2
1
0
i9. Ricte( upland plants in strean be(
3
1
II
10. N aarobantl CS (note diversity and abundance)
b�
1
11. Aquatic Mollusks
4� +
1
7
12. Fish(0)
0.9
1
1.5
23, Crayfish
(0
0.5
1
1.5
34. Amphibians
0)
0.9
1
1.J
35. Algae
do)
0.5
1
1.1
� 6. Wetic nc plants in stream bed
FACW - 0.75; OBL = 1.9
Other = 0
*perennial strea ms may als, I c do ntll ie (I using off , r mott oda,
5t a p. ! of manual.
Notes:
& etct :
Vo 7
_._____ -._. _. _ . _.._....__ _. .......
('
flit%I -
........_. _-y ---.._.- ----....._.__.-.___...-.......
_ __..... ,_.

NU DWQ ,SI rea in Id entircation Fonn
Version 4.11
pp 3
Date: `l4'Z.o1 4
ProjeatfSiti : irb��
I atitudc: 36• i 1`ili�f A
Eva lug to r:
Y,l
Coun t ;I vrA.,
Iongituide: ,I'I,a01':lr
Gd
Total Points:
Stream is at lea.it Intannillent 34 7 `.I
Strn a m Di tc rm Ina tion (circ a one .
Ott c r
UT2
if?19or erenniafff�30" ,
titenicral Intermittent ferenniai
e.g.gcieclNarne:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =__1 q .5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
10* Continuity of channel I E d a nd t an k
0
1
2. Sinuosity of a N r nE I along thalweg
0
1
3. In-channel Itructure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
3
ripple-pool se uence
0
1
C)
3
, . Partick size of strE an a it strate
U
1
2
!. Activelreliat floodplain
fl
Q
9. Depositional ba ra a r ben cl c s
1
3
. Reaent alluvial deposits
CEJ
1
2
2
E. HE adauts
1
2
3
9. Gracie aontrc1
t)
5
1
3
1.5
10. PleItiraI valley
0
0,5
1.5
11. Seaou d or greater a rcler c han nel
PIC = Q
fl'e s =
artificialclitct4s are actrated, -ei disa ,9aians Jr manual
B. H drolo Subtotal
12. Pr( E en ca of f E sE fla w
0
13. Ira n oxidizing br OE ria
1
11.4.
l eaf litler
1.5
1
Ues=_8
0
15. Se dimon t on plants or del ris
0
0.516.
Organic cIE bris ME s a r piles
`017.
Soil-based e, aide n ce of high m lata r tat ie!
No - 0
Cl. Biology Subtotal = 7 ,z
18. Fibrous routs in Etre, mi ed
3
2}
1
11. Rootc d upland plants in E tr( amt ed
9
1
Q
2q. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
U
21. Aquatic N ollu9k3
f
1
1
21. Fi91
(�
0,!
1
3
1.!
:13. Crayfish
0
1
1.s
V. Amphibians
0
19. Algae
0
1
1.9
16. Watla nd plants in streambed
ACW = 0,7 , OBL = 1.9 Cltl E r = Q
'gerannial Etrejnis may alfa I c idantilE I I using 0 er matt od,i, Seep. 2!I of manual_
Notes:
3 N etcl :

Wetter Resources
£NNIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 15, 2016
John Hutton
Wildlands Holdings Il, LLC
312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
(via electronic wail)
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
.Serretarl
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Dll'ec'!OJ'
DWR Project* 2016-0366
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient {Offset -- Martin Dairy Creek
Located on Schley Rd across from Martin Hill Ln, Hillsborough, NC
{grange County
Dear John,
On April 5, 2016, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), assisted you and
ethers from Wildlands Engineering Inc. at the proposed Martin Dairy Mitigation Site (Site) in
Hillsborough, NC. The Site is located in the Upper Falls Watershed for the: Neuse River Basin
within the 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201, The Site is being proposed as part of a full -
delivery stream restoration project for the Division of Mitigation Services (RFP #16-006477).
The Interagency Review Team (IRT) was also present onsite. At your request, Ms. Merritt,
performed a site assessment of the two features onsite, which are more accurately shown in the
attached aerial signed by Ms. Merritt on April 15, 2016. If approved, mitigating this site could
provide stream mitigation credits, riparian buffer credits and/or nutrient offset credits.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features for buffer and nutrient offset mitigation pursuant to Rule
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective November 1, 2015) and Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0240 is
provided below:
Martin Dairy Creek and UT2
• Features are streams.
• Land use within the riparian areas (0 to +/- 200') adjacent to both sides of the streams
comprise of managed fescue.
• The riparian areas along the streams are viable for riparian restoration and suitable for
buffer mitigation only.
• Stream restoration is proposed on these streams. Therefore, riparian restoration efforts
shall occur in conjunction with the stream restoration and not before.
• For nutrient offset viability to be determined, the landowner must provide proof in
writing that the land is being used for agriculture or has been used for agriculture
previously. Dates supported by photos or other written records trust be included to
document any uses of the land not observed during the site visit on April 5, 2015.
401 and Buffer Penmitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1817
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org

Martin Dairy Creels
April 15, 2016
Page 2 of 2
Ephemeral Reach
• The feature is a modified natural channel located within a topographic crenulation indicative
of a natural drainage on the 1:24,000 quad topographic map prepared by the U.S. Geologic
Survey. Ms. Merritt rated the channel using the NC DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11. The rating she received on the form was a 14.5; Therefore, the feature is
ephemeral.
• Land use within the riparian areas (0 to +1- 200') adjacent to both sides of the streams
comprise of managed fescue.
• The riparian areas along the streams are viable for riparian restoration and suitable for
buffer mitigation only.
• For nutrient offset viability to be determined, the landowner must provide proof in.
writing that the land is being used for agriculture or has been used for agriculture
previously. Dates, supported by photos or other written records, must be included to
document any uses of the land not observed during the site visit on April 5, 2016.
Maps showing the project site and the features are provided and signed by Ms. Merritt on April
15, 2016. This letter should be provided in all future mitigation plans for this Site. In addition,
all vegetative plantings, performance criteria and mitigation requirements for riparian restoration
must following the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to be eligible for buffer and nutrient
offset credits.
For any areas depicted as not being viable for nutrient offset credit, one could propose a different
measure other than riparian restoration, along with supporting calculations and sufficient detail
to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to determine viability for nutrient
offset according to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
KAWkm
Attachments: Site Aerial Map and Topographic Map
cc:File Copy (Katie Merritt)
DMS — Jeff Schaffer (via electronic mail)

IF -
A
f
..........
Project Site
Proposed conservation Easement
Powerline (Based on GPS data)
Powerline Relocation
—Stream Restoration
CMovee
_0
,.,II
I qk
T.
A
C
Figure 11 Concept Map - Option I
WILDLANDS t Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 300 Feet Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

Figure 4 Topographic Map
W I L D T__. A N D S Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 800 Feet Neuse River Basin 03020201

Appendix 4
Pre Construction Notification

nliii� --c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ❑Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: No. 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
2b.
County:
Orange
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Hillsborough, NC
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Martin, Ted H. & Ruby;
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
DB 4973 PN 348 & 341,
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
NCDENR - North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
Contact: Tim Baumgartner, Deputy Director DMS
3d. Street address:
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
3e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
3f.
Telephone no.:
919-707-8543
3g.
Fax no.:
919-707-8976
3h.
Email address:
Tim. [e-mail]
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Tim Baumgartner
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
NCDENR — Division of Mitigation Services
4d.
Street address:
217 W. Jones St, Suite 3000A
4e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
4f.
Telephone no.:
919-707-8543
4g.
Fax no.:
919-707-8976
4h.
Email address:
Tim. [e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Win Taylor
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
497 Bramson Court, Suite 104
5d.
City, state, zip:
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
5e.
Telephone no.:
843-277-6221
5f.
Fax no.:
843-212-2101
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 12

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
PIN# 9896830483, 9896839111
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36.123353° N Longitude: 79.003978° W
1 c. Property size:
Final protected easement acreage will be 11.14 Acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Buckwater Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class WS -IV;
2c. River basin:
Neuse: 03020201
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application: The project area is located within a rural watershed of Orange County, NC. Martin Dairy and UT1 have been
impacted by straightening, past agricultural activities, and historic livestock grazing. The streams run through historic
pasture and have a history of straightening and ditching. While the streams within the project site are not named/
Wildlands assigned the names Martin Dairy Creek and Unnamed Tributary 1 (UT1) to facilitate labeling and
communication in the mitigation plan and for the life of the project.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
The project site includes four jurisdictional wetlands, approximately 2.85 acre in size.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 1,814 linear feet of perennial channel within the project area.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The primary goal for the project is to reclaim the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain and stream channel
within Martin Dairy Creek and UT1 through restoration activities and riparian buffer re -vegetation.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Grading and planting bank slopes with native riparian species, excavation of new channel and floodplain, excavation of
riffle and pool bedform features and installation of in -stream structures. A trackhoe will be used for in -stream work.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
® Yes E]No ElUnknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
®Preliminary El Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Win Taylor— Wildlands Engineering
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A Request for Jurisdictional Determination was approved by Samantha Dailey of the USACE on December 9, 2016. A
copy of the approved Jurisdictional Determination is included in Appendix 5 (Action Id. SAW -2016-00874).
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Tempora T
W1- Wetland A
Floodplain
Seep
El Yes
® Corps
0.007
El ® T
Grading
® No
® DWQ
Excavation —
W2 -Wetland A
construction of
Seep
El Yes
® Corps
0.003
® P ❑ T
restored stream
® No
® DWQ
channel
W3- Wetland B
Floodplain
Seep
El Yes
® Corps
0.197
El ® T
Grading
® No
® DWQ
Excavation —
W4- Wetland B
construction of
Seep
El Yes
® Corps
0.184
®P ❑ T
restored stream
® No
® DWQ
channel
W5- Wetland C
Floodplain
Seep
El Yes
® Corps
0.355
El ® T
Grading
® No
® DWQ
Excavation —
W6- Wetland C
construction of
Seep
El Yes
® Corps
0.226
®P ❑ T
restored stream
® No
® DWQ
channel
W7- Wetland D
Gravel Drive
Seep
❑ Yes
® Corps
0.014
® P El
Creation
® No
® DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.986
2h. Comments: Permanent impacts to wetlands areas were avoided to the extent possible during the design phase.
Permanent impacts will occur where excavation is necessary to construct restored channels. Permanent impacts will total
0.427 acres which represents approximately 15% of the site's existing wetlands. Temporary impacts include floodplain
grading to restore floodplains to historic elevations resulting in floodplain connectivity. On site wetlands are significantly
degraded and the project will result in an overall net uplift in wetland function. Furthermore, the enhanced wetlands will be
protected by a permanent conservation easement.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑ P ®T
Restoration
Martin Dairy Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
8.6-14
1,676
S2 ❑ PET
Restoration
UT1 to Martin
® PER
® Corps
5.7
138
Dairy Creek
❑ INT
® DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
1,814
Page 4 of 12

3i. Comments: Impacts to on-site streams include restoration activities and will result in a net gain of 321 linear feet of
perennial stream channel and will promote ecological uplift to the degraded aquatic and riparian resources at the Site.
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or purpose
of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 5 of 12

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian
buffer, then complete the chart below.
If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation,
then you MUST fill out Section D
of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse
❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba
❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number—
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
re uired?
B1 ❑P❑T
F-1 Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T
F-1 Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 12

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1a.
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The project constitutes a positive impact, restoring stream function and habitat by improving bed features in the streams
and establishing flood storage. Wetland and buffer habitat will also be enhanced through replanting of native vegetation.
Biodegradable coir fiber matting and native vegetation will be used to stabilize the newly graded banks throughout the
project.
1 b.
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
2.
Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a.
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a.
Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b.
Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a.
Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e.
Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f.
Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h.
Comments:
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 12

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The project is located in the Neuse River Watershed (HUC 03020201)
❑ Yes ❑ No
which isn't included with the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules.
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: This
project involves the restoration and
enhancement of on-site jurisdictional stream channels and wetlands, no increase in impervious cover will result from the
construction of this project.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
® Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
® Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
® Yes
❑ No
Comments: The approved Categorical Exclusion is attached in Appendix 7 of the
mitigation plan.
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a stream and wetland restoration and enhancement project and will not cause an increase in development
nor will
it negatively impact downstream water quality.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
® Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Utilized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) databases in order
to identify federally listed Threatened and Endangered plant and animal species for Orange County, NC. There are 11
federally endangered or threatened species listed for Orange County including: the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicose),
atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), savannah
lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), carolina creekshell (Villosa vauganiana), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and the
michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). Review and comment from the USFWS was requested on potential project impacts to
threatened and endangered species. The USFWS commented that "the subject project is not likely to adversely affect any
federally-listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated habitat, or species currently proposed for listing."
Correspondence with the USFWS is included in Appendix 6 of the mitigation plan.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The NC Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) was contacted for comment related to fish and wildlife issues
associated with the proposed stream mitigation project. The NCWRC responded on 5/5/16 and didn't anticipate the
project to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic or terrestrial wildlife resources (see correspondence in Appendix
6 of the mitigation plan).
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted regarding the presence historic properties or cultural
resources within the project area (see correspondence in Appendix 6 of the mitigation plan).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Martin Dairy Creek and UT1 are not mapped within a FEMA
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). There are no hydrologic trespass concerns or risks associated with the proposed
project activities. The NC DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist is included in Appendix 7 of the mitigation plan.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Panel 9896
Page 11 of 12

Tim Baumgartner Date
Deputy Director, NCDENR - DMS
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.
Page 12 of 12

Appendix 4
Data, Analysis, Supplementary Information, Figures, and Maps

Appendix 4 Table
of Contents
1. Figures
a. Vicinity Map
b. Site Map
c. Watershed Map
d. LIDAR Map
e. Soils Map
f. Existing Conditions Map
g. FEMA Map
h. Concept Design Map
i. Reference Reach Vicinity Map
j. Discharge Analysis
k. Riparian Buffer Concept Map
I. Monitoring Components Map
2. Historic Aerial Photographs
3. Existing Conditions Photographs
4. Existing Geomorphology Data
5. Proposed Geomorphology Data.
6. Nutrient Loading

- Project Location
=County Boundary
��:^r Hydrologic Unit Code (14 Digit)
)
Water Supply Watershed
Targeted Local Watershed
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
::: NC Historic Preservation Areas
303d Listed Streams
© Airports
4
03020201020020
130201030010
Orange County
Open Space
03020201020010
Little River (Orange/Durham)
Aquatic Habitat
Triangle Lar
Conservanc
,���� �► Forrest Creek Preserve
%-00� Beaver Pond � ti
03020201030020
Space
03020201030030
r
YMarys Road"
t;F?li l;H,Wwic.3istrict: +
r
Eno River/Cafes
Ford Slopes and Uplands
1
1
� 1
10
10302020101(
t
03020201010030
030220101005
J ��
r—LJfittl:Ri
Uplands
(03020201020040
` 03020201020030
r
4
J �
L
f •r�
03020201030040
t 1 —%,
� WILDL.AND S
%FNGINFFRING
03030002060110
A
,V3020201
03020201
1
I
irl'
j y -03020201056010 •`
X11
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
0 2.5 Miles Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

ro
r......... .rte
&�F
■
11 I
■
�
11
■
11A
■��� Project Location
.MI
■ �r� Proposed Conservation Easement
Powerline Easement
Powerlines
Project Streams
Ephemeral Streams
Perennial Streams
Reach Break
eft
WILDLANDS 0 300 Feet
ENGINEERING I I I I I
Figure 2 Site Map
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

41
S ti . m I Proposed Conservation Easement
s �c° • • • - • . HUC Boundaries (14 Digit)
• • ... • „ • .. , • • , • .. • . • „ • ... ... „ _ • _ • • .. , . , • _ Martin Dairy Reach 2 (526 acres)
:: ... , , , ... ......... ... ... ... .... ... ...... ......... ::: Martin Dairy Reach 1 (344 acres)
:. ......... ...... .. ... . .: , : , : ::: ::: : „ ::: :.: :.: ::: :.. ®UT1 (141 acres)
.. , , . , ... ... ... ... ... ... . . . ... ... ... ... .. . ... Project Streams
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Existing Streams
.. ... ... ... .:. �: :: ::. ; : ; .:: : . ... .... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... : Roads
, e V
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9n-
.. ... ., • • • •.. ... ... ... ...
FI.
-
s
n
v 4:
1 `
r
Figure 3 Watershed Map
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
WILDLANDS 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet Neuse River Basin 03020201
ENGINEERING
Orange County, NC

WO.PwWILDLAND5
ENGINEERING
Figure 4 LIDAR Map
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
0 1,000 Feet Neuse River Basin 03020201
l i l i l
Orange County, NC

e,.
r
WILDLLANDS
ENGINEERING
'A � }
1
ITaID Ck
1
i �!
1
1
1
1
1
i Ta D
i
i
1
1
1 �
1
1
1
1
i
Ch
i
Figure 5 Soils Map
0 300 Feet Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
I I I I I Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC
Proposed Conservation Easement
Internal Easement
'r
Ch- Chewacla loam
H.r
- HrB- Herndon silt loam, 2-6% slopes
00-
HrC- Herndon silt loam, 6-10% slopes
Tal) -Tatum silt loam, 8-15% slopes
Project Streams
Ht$
Ephemeral Streams
1
Perennial Streams
I
1
1
1
1
a
Ch
i
Figure 5 Soils Map
0 300 Feet Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
I I I I I Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

i.l ,.1.1.1.1.1.1 ,1.1■��` ^t
mwpaffi�dl%
■
■y
i
,.�
.rim 1
■1 1 � Project Location
.1.1
Proposed Conservation Easement
Internal Easement
Existing Wetlands
Powerline Easement
Powerlines
Project Streams
Ephemeral Streams
Perennial Streams
Surveyed Cross -Sections
Reach Break
Jp - -
■ � 1.1.1.1 1.1�
WILDLANDS 0 300 Feet
ENGINEERING I I I I I
r
f. 4
Figure 6 Existing Conditions Map
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

Figure 7 FEMA Map
WILDLANDS1 Martin Dairy Mitigation Site l 1 0 300 Feet
ENGINEERING I Neuse River Basin 03020201
�1�' I I I J
Orange County, NC

Figure 8 Concept Design Map
' WILD LANDS 0 300 Feet Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I i Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

. I ~..~.��
�
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
to
Reference Reach
Ill I PAI VAI 11
VIRGINIA
Re"rvair
_J_ 7c 7AiTC
NORTH CAROLINA'
Lakc
V, KI 11( 31 ANI
k AsWELL
888 (r
Agony Acres On -Site Reference Reach (UTI -Reach 3)
Martin Dairy Mitigatio n- Site
LIT to Varnals Creek Reference Reach
Dwham
*--,Long
flit
Branch Reference Reach
Foust Creek Reference Reach
to Polecat Creek Reference Reach
C
R L vert, ft
CHATHAM Pribitl
------------- Spencer Creek Reach
2 Reference Reach� IT
Concord
Fort Bragg
Rockingham
Figure 9Reference ReachVldnhyK8ap
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site���I.��I.����%��
sms`wesn/wG 0 10 20 30 yWi|ao Neuse River Basin O3OZOZO1

K" WILDLANDS
kx� ENGINEERING
Figure 10 Discharge Analysis
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC
Martin Dairy Design Discharge Plot
1000 -
it
100
w
V
d
al
R
tU
N
6
MEN— N-1
10
W R'=0.9069
mom
W 0.7644
1-�M�W�MEILMEN
0.1
1
Drainage Area (square miles)
10
•
•
•
Rural Data
Reference Reaches
Design Discharges
Power (Reference Reach Curve)
— — — Rural Upper 95% Limit
USGS Rural Piedmont 1.2 -yr Predictions
• Alan Walker Curve
Power (Alan Walker Curve)
— — — Rural Lower 95% Limit
x Reference Reach Curve
Power (Rural Data)
K" WILDLANDS
kx� ENGINEERING
Figure 10 Discharge Analysis
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

C,D Project Location
=I .-
'Proposed Conservation Easement
Internal Easement
Stream Restoration (0.9 acres)
Buffer Restoration - TOB - 100' (8.4 acres)
Buffer Restoration - 101'-200' (1.7 acres)
Ephemeral Streams
Perennial Streams
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 11 Riparian Buffer Concept Map
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
0 300 Feet Neuse River Basin 03020201
I I I I
Orange County, NC

W
1
1
1
fl
11 1
%&k. I L D L A N D S 0 300 Feet
W ENGINEERING I I I
L,— 1 Project Location
_M I ._
�rProposed Conservation Easement
Internal Easement
Powerline Easement
Powerlines
Stream Restoration
Ephemeral Streams
Perennial Streams
Proposed Cross Section
❑ Proposed Vegetation Plot
Proposed Photo Point
Proposed Crest Gage/Tranducer
Figure 12 Monitoring Components Map
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

F
41 a 41
YEAR: 1938 N
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
LT
A�

r
r r:
i
�• I
7 y
r
t Zf2
. all
cz
co
r a N
W
Dz1
DI
5;?o
02 c
z I 02
C z t
YEAR: 1955 N
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site s. .,... A

Y
YEAR: 1966 � N
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
*A I%mbm%o

IL
41 A
J
4F - .,61L.A
ik r/

_ 15_
rr
`�� 1+ '� „ ter, ^• r •�.• ,
Martin Dairy Reach 1 and UT1
Martin Dairy Reach 2
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087

Martin Dairy Reach 2 and Riparian Wetlands
UT1
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
Martin
Dairy
R1
Martin
Dairy
R2
UTI
Parameter
Notation
Units
min
I
max
min
F
max
min
I
max
stream type
C4/E4
C4/E4
C4/E4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.54
0.82
0.22
bankfull cross
Abkf
SF
10
16.1
5.7
sectional area
avg velocity
during bankfull
Vbkf
fps
5
3.8
4.7
event
width at
wbkf
feet
8.6
14.0
5.7
bankfull
maximum depth
dmax
feet
2.1
2.4
1.4
at bankfull
mean depth at
dbkf
feet
1.2
1.2
1.0
bankfull
bankfull width
w bkf/dbkf
73
12.2
5.7
to depth ratio
low bank height
feet
3.3
3.4
3.0
bank height
BHR
1.5
1.4
2.1
ratio
floodprone area
Wfpa
feet
121.4
200+
12.7
width
entrenchment
ER
14.2
14.3+
2.2
ratio
max pool depth
dp°°I
feet
2.7
3.5
2.0
at bankfull
pool depth ratio
dP°°I/dbkf
2.3
2.9
2.0
pool width at
wP°°I
feet
13.7
10.9
8.7
bankfull
pool width ratio
Wpool/wbkf
1.6
0.8
1.5
Bkf pool cross
AP°°I
SF
18.9
22.8
6.7
sectional area
pool area ratio
Apool/Abkf
1.9
1.4
1.2
pool -pool
P -P
feet
16.0
91.0
22.0
108.0
27.0
44.0
pacing
pool -pool
p p/Wbkf
1.9
10.6
1.6
7.7
4.7
7.7
i
spacing ratio
valley slope
Svalley
feet/ foot
0.0080
0.0078
0.0181
channel slope'
Scha-I
feet/ foot
0.0090
0.0070
0.0160
sinuosity
K
1.05
1.09
1.05
belt width
wbif
feet
15.0
20.0
17.0
28.0
9.0
19.0
meander width
wbif/wbkf
1.7
2.3
1.2
2.0
1.6
3.3
ratio
meander length
Lm
feet
46.0
74.0
46.0
114.0
35.0
47.0
meander length
Lm/wbkf
5.3
8.6
3.3
8.1
6.1
8.2
ratio
Linear
LW
43.0
63.0
45.0
107.0
35.0
40.0
Wavelength
Linear
LW/wbkf
5.0
7.3
3.2
7.6
6.1
7.0
Wavelength
radius of
R
feet
11.0
32.0
7.0
46.0
4.0
13.0
curvature
radius of
Rwbkf
J
1.3
3.7
0.5
3.3
0.7
2.3
curvature ratio
1. Channel slope is steeper than valley slope on Martin Dairy Reach 1 as a result of active incision
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087

Martin Dairy Reach 1
XS1 - Riffle
C
Z 94
iO
a)
w 92
90 I TITI
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Width (ft)
Bankfull
Dimensions
100
99
c 98
0
97
W 96
95
Flood Dimensions
10.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
121.4 W flood prone area (ft)
8.6
width (ft)
14.2 entrenchment ratio
1.2
mean depth (ft)
3.3 low bank height (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
1.5 low bank height ratio
9.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.3
width -depth ratio
XS2 - Pool
i
I i
0 5 10 15
Bankfull
Dimensions
18.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.7
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.7
max depth (ft)
15.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
9.9
width -depth ratio
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087
Materials
11 D50 Riffle (mm)
33 D84 Riffle (mm)
37 threshold grain size (mm):
20 25 30 35 40 45
Width
Flood Dimensions
- W flood prone area (ft)
- entrenchment ratio
3.9 low bank height (ft)
1.5 low bank height ratio

Martin Dairy Reach 2
XS3 - Riffle
MA
41
95
S
c 94
0
93
m
Lu 92
411
0
10 20
30 40
50 60
width (ft)
- entrenchment ratio
Width (ft)
mean depth (ft)
Bankfull
3.5
max depth (ft)
1.2 low bank height ratio
Dimensions
wetted parimeter (ft)
Flood Dimensions
Materials
16.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
11 D50 Riffle (mm)
14.0
width (ft)
14.3 entrenchment ratio
33 D84 Riffle (mm)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
3.4 low bank height (ft)
22 threshold grain size (mm):
2.4
max depth (ft)
1.4 low bank height ratio
15.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.2
width -depth ratio
XS4 - Pool
100
99
c 98
0
M 97
a�
U' 96 _
95
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions Flood Dimensions
22.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
- W flood prone area (ft)
10.9
width (ft)
- entrenchment ratio
2.1
mean depth (ft)
4.2 low bank height (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
1.2 low bank height ratio
14.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.5
hyd radi (ft)
5.2
width -depth ratio
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087

UT1
XS5 - Riffle
98
96
94
0
.6
w 92
90
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
Bankfull
Dimensions
x -section area (ft.sq.)
Flood Dimensions
Materials
5.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.7 W flood prone area (ft)
11 D50 Riffle (mm)
5.7
width (ft)
2.2 entrenchment ratio
33 D84 Riffle (mm)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
3.0 low bank height (ft)
37 threshold grain size (mm):
1.4
max depth (ft)
2.1 low bank height ratio
width -depth ratio
6.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
DMS ID No. 97087
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
5.7
width -depth ratio
XS6 - Pool
100
99
98
0 97
—CO 96 -
� 1
w 95
94
93
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions Flood Dimensions
6.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
- W flood prone area (ft)
8.7
width (ft)
- entrenchment ratio
0.8
mean depth (ft)
4.1 low bank height (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
2.1 low bank height ratio
10.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
11.2
width -depth ratio
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087

Riffle Surface Pebble Count, Martin R1, XS1
cumulative %
100% OIILI,Iay I aai iu iavci �UUc vvuiuci
90%
---------- —
80%
CO 70% I
� I
a`) 60% I
c
c 50% --- — — — — --
a) 40%
0_ I
30%
I
20%
I
10% I
I
0%
0.01 0.1
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087
1 10 100
particle size (mm)
Size (mm)
Type
D16
0.13
silt/clay
16%
D35
1.3
sand
28%
D50
2.6
gravel
55%
D65
4.6
cobble
1%
D84
7.7
boulder
0%
D95 11
18
16
14
12
C:
3
10 m
0
8
v
6 �
CD
4
2
0
1000 10000

Riffle Surface Pebble Count, Martin Dairy R2, XS3
cumulative %
100% aal lu 1 U V UI L.PUUIc U UIUUI
90%
80%
CO 70%
� I
a) 60% I
� I
50% — ------ --- I
a I
Q 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087
1 10 100
particle size (mm)
Size (mm)
Type
D16
2.4
silt/clay
2%
D35
8.1
sand
13%
D50
11
gravel
84%
D65
15
cobble
1%
D84
33
boulder
0%
D95
54
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1000 10000
3
Cr
CD
0
v
CD

Riffle Surface Pebble Count, UT1, XS5
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
C: 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
—cumulative %
anu�aa �aiiu IQVUI uvvvic vvuiuci
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
0
0.01 0.1
10000
30
25
20
07
CD
15 0
v
10 0
m
5
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087
1 10 100
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Type
D16 0.48 silt/clay 2%
D35 3 sand 26%
D50 5.1 gravel 72%
D65 6.7 cobble 0%
D84 8.9 boulder 0%
D95 13
1000
D95 13
1000

Weighted pebble count by bed features , Martin Dairy Reachwide
50% riffle 50% pool
tweighted percent Riffle Pool Run t Glide # of particles
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
`~ 50%
0-30%
20%
10%
�11UuIuy I oaiiu iavci "VUIU01
---— — — — — — — -----
I
I
I
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
particle size (mm)
Size
(mm)
Type
D16
0.062
silt/clay
16%
D35
4.2
sand
16%
D50
8.3
gravel
64%
D65
14
cobble
4%
D84
31
boulder
0%
D95
61
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087
18%
16%
14% m
c0
12% C
10% CD
0
CD
8% 3
0
6%
v
4%
CD
Cn
2%
v
0%
cc
1000 10000 CD

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087
Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
Notation
Units
Martin Dairy R1
Martin Dairy R2
UTI
Typical
Section
Values
Min
Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min
Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min
Max
stream type
C4/E4
C4/E4
C4/E4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.54
0.82
0.22
design discharge
Q
cfs
47
63
24.0
bankfull cross-
sectional area
Abkf
SF
16.8
20
6.7
average velocity
during bankfull event
vbkf
fps
2.8
3.2
3.6
Cross -Section
width at bankfull
vbkf
feet
15
16.2
9.4
maximum depth at
bankfull
dmax
feet
-
1.3
1.7
1.4
1.8
-
0.8
1.3
mean depth at
bankfull
dbkf
feet
1.1
1.2
-
0.7
bankfull width to
depth ratio
Wbkf/dbkf
13.4
13.2
13.2
max depth ratio
dmakdbkf
feet
-
1.2
1.5
-
1.2
1.5
-
1.2
1.8
bank height ratio
BHR
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
floodprone area
width
Wfp
feet
33
75
36
81
21
47
entrenchment ratio
ER
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
Slope
valley slope
Syalle,
feet/foot
0.0080
0.0078
0.0136
channel slope
Schr,l
feet/foot
0.0048
0.0052
0.0053
0.0057
0.005
0.006
Profile
riffle slope
Snffle
feet/foot
0.006
0.018
0.006
0.019
0.006
0.024
riffle slope ratio
Srlffe/S�h,l
1.2
3.4
1.2
3.4
1.2
4
pool slope
Sp
feet/foot
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.002
pool slope ratio
SP/Schni
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.40
pool -to -pool spacing
LP -P
feet
60
105
64.8
113.4
37.6
56.4
pool spacing ratio
Lp_p/wbkf
4
7
4
7
4.0
6.0
pool cross-sectional
area
A Pool
SF
18.5
33.6
22.0
40.0
7.4
13.4
pool area ratio
Apool/Abkf
1.1
2
1.1
2
1.1
2.0
maximum pool depth
dpool
feet
1.3
3.3
1.4
3.6
0.8
2.2
pool depth ratio
dpool/dbkf
1.2
j 3.0
j
1.2
j 3.0
j 1.2
3.1
pool width at bankfull
wpool
feet
15
24
16.2
25.9
9.4
14.1
pool width ratio
Wpool/Wbkf
1.0
1.6
1.0
1.6
1.0
1.5
Pattern
sinuosity
K
1.25
1.28
1.14
belt width
Wblt
feet
30
75
32.4
81
18.8
65.8
meander width ratio
wbit/Wbkf
2
5
2
5
2
7
linear wavelength
(formerly meander
length)
LW
feet
60
165
64.8
178.2
47
141
linear wavelength
ratio (formerly
meander length ratio
LW/wbkf
4.0
11.0
4.0
11.0
5.0
15.0
meander length
Lm
feet
60
225
64.8
243
56.4
155.1
meander length ratio
1-4Wbkf
4.0
15.0
4.0
15.0
6.0
16.5
radius ofcurvature
Rc
feet
18.0
75.0
19.4
81.0
14.1
51.7
radius ofcurvature
ratio
Rd w bkf
1.2
5.0
1.2
5.0
1.5
5.5
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087
Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Martin Dairy Reference
UT1 Reference
Agony On-site
Reference
Long Branch
Spencer
Creek 2
Foust
Creek
UT to Polecat
Creek
UT to Varnals Creek
Notation
Units
Reach - UTI - Reach 3
min
max
min
I max
min
I max
min
I
max
Min
I Max
min
max
stream type
C/E4
E4
C4
E4
C4/E4
E4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
1.49
0.96
1.38
0.41
0.41
0.30
design discharge
Q
cfs
101
124
97
88
20
54.0
25
bankfull cross-
sectional area
Abkf
SF
25
34.6
17.8
19.7
23.9
24.1
5.4
12.4
10.3
12.3
10.7
11.3
average velocity
during bankfull
vbkf
fps
3.6
4
4.9
5.4
2.9
3.7
2.2
3.5
4.4
5.2
2.2
2.4
event
Cross -Section
width at bankfull
vbkf
feet
14.8
18.6
10.7
11.2
18.5
19.4
5.3
10.9
9.3
10.5
9.1
10.4
maximum depth
dmax
feet
1.9
2.9
2.1
2.6
1.8
2.1
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.8
at bankfull
mean depth at
dbkf
feet
1.3
2.1
1.6
1.8
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.2
bankfull
bankfull width to
wbkf/dbkf
7.9
13.8
5.8
7.1
13.9
14.2
5.2
9.6
8.1
9.3
7.3
10.1
depth ratio
depth ratio
dmax/dbkf
feet
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.8
bank height ratio
BHR
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
floodprone area
wfpa
feet
>50
60
>114
49
63
25
65
60
100
>36
width
entrenchment
ER
>3.4
5.5
>10.2
2.6
3.4
3.2
8.3
5.7
10.0
>3.9
ratio
Slope
valley slope
Salle},
feet/foot
0.006
0.0109
0.0095
0.017
0.0200
0.010
0.034
channel slope
Seh„i
feet/foot
0.004
0.0047
0.0090
0.012
0.0170
0.0039
0.028
Profile
riffle slope
S,;ffle
feet/foot
0.013
0.012
0.013
0.015
0.035
0.004
0.047
0.024
0.057
N/A
N/A
riffle slope ratio
Srfle/Seh„
3.3
3
2.8
1.7
3.9
0.3
4
4.2
10.0
N/A
N/A
pool slope
Sp
feet/foot
0.0003
0.003
0.0007
0.0009
0.0008
0.0034
0.017
0.000
0.015
N/A
N/A
pool slope ratio
Sp/S,h„ I
0.1
0.8
0.15
0.19
0.09
0.38
1.4
0.00
2.63
N/A
N/A
pool -to -pool
Lp.p
feet
50
105
71
49
91
34
52
8
82
N/A
N/A
spacing
pool spacing
Lp_p/wbkf
3.4
7.1
6.3
6.6
2.6
4.7
0.3
3.2
0.5
5.6
N/A
N/A
ratio
pool cross-
Ap_i
SF
25.5
33.4
24.5
29.2
34.9
9.3
22.0
22.7
14.5
sectional area
pool area ratio
App/Abkf
1
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.4
0.8
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.3
maximum pool
dpppi
feet
2.2
3.3
2.5
2.9
1.8
2.5
2.6
2.5
depth
pool depth ratio
dp..I/dbkf
0.8
1.2
1.8
1 2.0
1.9
2.1
1.6
1.8
3.0
3.1
2.3
pool width at
wpool
feet
16.2
18.8
17.5
15.3
20.5
8
15.1
18.6
9.4
bankfull
pool width ratio
wp�i/wbkf
0.9
1.3
1.6
0.8
1.1
0.7
1.5
1.0
1 1.3
1.0
Pattern
sinuosity
K
1.3
2.3
1.1
1.4
1.20
1.35
belt width
wba
feet
60
38
41
-
-
28
50
15
45
21
93
meanderwidth
wbi</wbkf
3.2
4.1
3.4
3.6
-
-
3.0
5.3
1.0
3.0
2.3
8.9
ratio
linear
wavelength
LR,
feet
66
191
46
48
-
-
56
85
16
47
121
171
(formerly
meander length)
linear
wavelength ratio
(formerly
Lm/wbkf
4.5
10.3
4.1
4.4
-
-
6.0
9.0
1.1
3.2
13.3
16.4
meander length
ratio)
meander length
feet
---
---
--
--
-
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
meander length
---
--
--
-
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
ratio---
radius of
R,
feet
16
87
11
15
-
-
19
50
8
47
14
60
curvature
radius of
R,/wbkf
1.1
4.7
1.3
1.4
-
-
2.0
5.3
0.6
3.2
1.5
5.8
curvature ratio
Particle Size Distribution from Reach -wide Pebble Count
d5o Description
Medium Gravel
dis
mm
<0.063
0.095
d,,
mm
3
0.4
d,
mm
8.8
8
clan
mm
42
87
d,,
mm
90
150
d,.
mm
256
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Pre-Proiect Nutrient Loading Estimate (Option 21
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Type of Land Cover
Easement
S.M. Formula
Average EMC of TN
Column
Average EMC of TP
Column
77%
Acreage
(0.46 + 8.31)
(mg/L)
(2) * (3) * (4)
(mg/L)
(2) * (3) * (6)
Transportation impervious
0.00
0.46
2.60
0.00
0.19
0.00
Roof impervious
0.00
0.46
1.95
0.00
0.11
0.00
Managed pervious
(lawn/landscape)
0.00
0.46
1.42
0.00
0.28
0.00
Managed pervious
0.00
0.46
4.25
0.00
1.23
0.00
(cropland)
Managed pervious
10.52
0.46
2.04
9.87
0.62
3.00
(pasture)
Wooded pervious
0.00
0.46
0.94
0.00
0.14
0.00
Area taken up by BMP
0.00
0.46
1.95
0.00
0.11
0.00
Fraction Impervious (1) =
0.00
TN Load (Ib/yr) =
9.87
TP Load (Ib/yr) =
3.00
TN Export
TP Export
Total Project Area =
10.52
0.94
0.29
(Ib/ac/yr) =
(Ib/ac/yr) =
Post-Proiect Nutrient Loading Estimate (Option 21
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Type of Land Cover
Easement
S.M. Formula
Average EMC of TN
Column
Average EMC of TP
Column
77%
Acreage
(0.46 + 8.31)
(mg/L)
(2) * (3) * (4)
(mg/L)
(2) * (3) * (6)
Transportation impervious
0.46
2.60
0.00
0.19
0.00
Roof impervious
0.00
0.46
1.95
0.00
0.11
0.00
Managed pervious
(lawn/landscape)
0.00
0.46
1.42
0.00
0.28
0.00
Managed pervious
0.00
0.46
4.25
0.00
1.23
0.00
(cropland)
Managed pervious
0.18
0.46
2.04
0.17
0.62
0.05
(pasture)
Wooded pervious
10.12
0.46
0.94
4.38
0.14
0.65
Area taken up by BMP
0.00
0.46
1.95
0.00
0.11
0.00
Fraction Impervious (1) =
0.00
TN Load (Ib/yr) =
4.54
TP Load (Ib/yr) =
0.70
TN Export
TP Export
Total Project Area =
10.30
0.44
0.07
(Ib/ac/yr) =
(Ib/ac/yr) =
Nutrient Loading Reduction Summary (Option 2)
Note: Project Area varies from Existing to Proposed based on the change in area attributed to the
stream from top of bank to top of bank
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087
TN (Ib/yr)
TP (Ib/yr)
Pre -Project
9.87
3.00
Post -Project
4.54
0.70
Reduction
54%
77%
Note: Project Area varies from Existing to Proposed based on the change in area attributed to the
stream from top of bank to top of bank
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087

Appendix 5
Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
ect Name:Martin Dairy Mitigation she
my Dame' Orange County
97097
r; Wildlands Engineering, Inc
t Name• Andrea S. Eckardt
Address; 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203
E-mail: [e-mail]
nager: Jeff Schaffer
e Martin Dairy Mitigation Site is a stream mitigation project located in Orange County, NC. The project is located
two unnamed tributaries to Buckwater Creek approximately eight miles northeast of Hillsborough, NC and eight
es south of Caldwell, NC. The project site was previously an active dairy farms. After dairy operations ceased,
duse transitioned to horse pasture and hay production. The project will provide stream mitigation units to the
ision of Mitigation Services in the Neu" River Basin (03020201).
Reviewed By:
O{ a
Conditional Approved By:
Date
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
—L -I&
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
aohLrator
FHWA

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

Part 3: Ground -Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question ..
American Indian Reli ious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians? ❑✓ No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
0 No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
0 Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
❑ No
0 N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect' the species and/or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
0 N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A

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

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
SUMMARY

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a
Federal "Superfund" to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous -waste sites as well as accidents,
spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment.
As the Martin Dairy Mitigation Site is a full -delivery project; an EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck
was ordered for the site through Environmental Data Resources, Inc. on April 14, 2016. Neither the
target property, nor immediately adjacent properties, were listed in any of the Federal, State, or Tribal
environmental databases searched by EDR. Overall, there was one Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) site and one Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites found in the databases searched. The LUST
site is the same physical location as the UST site, 7500 Schley Road. These two locations are
approximately 1,500 feet downstream from the specific project area.
Overall, the assessment revealed no evidence of any "recognized environmental conditions" in
connection with the target property. The Executive Summary of the EDR report is included in the
Appendix. The full report is available if needed.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
The National Historic Preservation Act declares a national policy of historic preservation to protect,
rehabilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American
architecture, history, archaeology, and culture, and Section 106 mandates that federal agencies take
into account the effect of an undertaking on a property that is included in, or is eligible for inclusion in,
the National Register of Historic Places.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) requested review and comment from the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) with respect to any archeological and architectural resources related to the
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site on April 15, 2016. SHPO responded on May 12, 2016 and stated they were
aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project. All correspondence related to
Section 106 is included in the Appendix.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
These acts, collectively known as the Uniform Act, provide for uniform and equitable treatment of
persons displaced from their homes, businesses, non-profit associations, or farms by federal and
federally -assisted programs, and establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site is a full -delivery project that includes land acquisition. Notification of the
fair market value of the project property and the lack of condemnation authority by Wildlands was
included in the signed option agreement for the project property. A copy of the relevant section of the
option agreement is included in the Appendix.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the
Secretary of the Interior or of Commerce, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species.
The Orange County listed endangered species include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (BGPA),
dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) and the
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The USFWS does not currently list any Critical Habitat Designations
for any of the Federally -listed species within Orange County. Wildlands requested review and comment
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion
1V DMS #97087

from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on April 15, 2016 in respect to the Martin Dairy
Mitigation Site and its potential impacts on threatened or endangered species. USFWS responded on
May 5, 2016 and stated the "proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed
endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat or species currently
proposed for listing under the Act". All correspondence with USFWS is included in the Appendix.
As a result of a pedestrian survey conducted on September 3, 2015, no individual species, suitable
habitat or critical habitat were found to exist on the site for any of the listed species. It was determined
that the project would result in "no effect" on the listed species.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
The FPPA requires that, before taking or approving any federal action that would result in conversion of
farmland, the agency must examine the effects of the action using the criteria set forth in the FPPA, and,
if there are adverse effects, must consider alternatives to lessen them.
The Martin Dairy Mitigation Site includes the conversion of prime farmland. As such, Form AD -1006 has
been completed and submitted to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The completed
form and correspondence documenting its submittal is included in the Appendix.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The FWCA requires consultation with the USFWS and the appropriate state wildlife agency on projects
that alter or modify a water body. Reports and recommendations prepared by these agencies document
project effects on wildlife and identify measures that may be adopted to prevent loss or damage to
wildlife resources.
The Martin Dairy Mitigation Site includes stream restoration. Wildlands requested comment on the
project from both the USFWS and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on April
15, 2016. NCWRC responded on May 3, 2016 and stated they "do not anticipate the project to result in
significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources". The USFWS responded on May
5, 2016 and had no objections to the project. All correspondence with the two agencies is included in
the Appendix.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or
export any migratory bird. The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs is covered by
the MBTA, so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute a taking.
Wildlands requested comment on the Martin Dairy Stream Mitigation Site from the USFWS in regards to
migratory birds on April 15, 2016. USFWS responded on May 5, 2016, but had no comments regarding
migratory birds. All correspondence with USFWS is included in the Appendix.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion
DMS #97087

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
APPENDIX

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
7205 Schley Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Inquiry Number: 4592771.2s
April 14, 2016
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
www.edrnet.comt.com Shelton, CT 06484
(rEDR'5Environmental Data Resources Inc Toll Free: 2.0050
FORM-LBD-CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary
ES1
Overview Map-----------------------------------------------------------
2
DetailMap--------------------------------------------------------------
3
Map Findings Summary
4
MapFindings------------------------------------------------------------
8
Orphan Summary
18
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - GR -1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum
A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary
A-2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map-------------------------------------------
A-5
Physical Setting Source Map------------------------------------------------
A-16
Physical Setting Source Map Findings
A-18
Physical Setting Source Records Searched
PSGR-1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2016 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC4592771.2s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
7205 SCHLEY ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
36.1235660 - 36° 7'24.83"
79.0039200 - 79° 0' 14.11"
Zone 17
679636.3
3999298.2
502 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map:
Version Date:
Northeast Map:
Version Date:
Southeast Map:
Version Date:
Northwest Map:
Version Date:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
5947925 HILLSBOROUGH, NC
2013
5945265 ROUGEMONT, NC
2013
5945261 NORTHWEST DURHAM, NC
2013
5947438 CALDWELL, NC
2013
Portions of Photo from: 20120531
Source: USDA
TC4592771.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Target Property Address:
7205 SCHLEY ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS
MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
DATABASE ACRONYMS
RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ELEVATION DIRECTION
Al
ST MARY'S SCHOOL
7500 SCHLEY ROAD
LUST, UST
Higher
2317, 0.439, SSE
A2
KANTNER SCHOOL (FORM
7500 SCHLEY ROAD
LUST TRUST, IMD
Higher
2317, 0.439, SSE
A3
ST. MARY'S SCHOOL
7500 SCHLEY ROAD
IMD
Higher
2317, 0.439, SSE
4592771.2s Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL National Priority List
Proposed NPL________________ Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY ---------- Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS -ARCHIVE Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS__________________ Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG------------------ RCRA- Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls /engineering controls registries
LUCIS Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS --------- Engineering Controls Sites List
TC4592771.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US INST CONTROL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS------------------------ Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI Old Landfill Inventory
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST_________________________ Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
UST__________________________ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST AST Database
INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL-------------- No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
VCP Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS______________ Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill/ Solid Waste Disposal Sites
HIST LF Solid Waste Facility Listing
SWRCY______________________ Recycling Center Listing
TC4592771.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INDIAN ODI------------------ Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
ODI Open Dump Inventory
DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL---------------- Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS-----------------------
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS
Spills Incident Listing
SPILLS 90
SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80-------------------.
SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR
RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
FUDS
Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD-------------------------
Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR
Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST-----------.
EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION
2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA
Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS-------------------------
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD
Records Of Decision
RMP-------------------------
Risk Management Plans
RAATS
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP
Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS------------------------
PCB Activity Database System
ICIS
Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS
Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE
Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA--------------
Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER
PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO
Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS-------------------
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS
Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV-------------
Indian Reservations
FUSRAP
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS ------------
Lead Smelter Sites
US AIRS
Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES
Mines Master Index File
FINDS-----------------------.
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
TC4592771.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COAL ASH___________________
Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS
Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance
Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES-----------------------
NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC
Underground Injection Wells Listing
ECHO
Enforcement & Compliance History Information
FUELS PROGRAM-----------
EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto EDR Exclusive Historic Gas Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . EDR Exclusive Historic Dry Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases.
Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on
a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been
differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property.
Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed
data on individual sites can be reviewed.
Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incidents Management Database contains an inventory
of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the Department of Environment, &
Natural Resources' Incidents by Address.
A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/05/2016 has revealed that there is 1 LUST
site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction / Distance Map ID Page
ST MARY'S SCHOOL 7500 SCHLEY ROAD SSE 114 - 112 (0.439 mi.) Al
TC4592771.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Incident Phase: Response
Incident Phase: Closed Out
Incident Number: 23192
Incident Number: 23504
Current Status: File Located in Archives
Current Status: File Located in House
LUST TRUST: This database contains information about claims against the State Trust Funds for
reimbursements for expenses incurred while remediating Leaking USTs.
A review of the LUST TRUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 01/08/2016 has revealed that there is
1 LUST TRUST site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction / Distance Map ID Page
KANTNER SCHOOL (FORM 7500 SCHLEY ROAD SSE 114 - 112 (0.439 mi.) A2 15
Facility Id: 0-002591
Site ID: 23192
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Records of Emergency Release Reports
IMD: Incident Management Database.
A review of the IMD list, as provided by EDR, and dated 07/21/2006 has revealed that there are 2 IMD
sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction / Distance Map ID Page
KANTNER SCHOOL (FORM 7500 SCHLEY ROAD SSE 1/4 - 112 (0.439 mi.) A2 15
Facility Id: 23192
ST. MARY'S SCHOOL 7500 SCHLEY ROAD SSE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.439 mi.) A3 16
Facility Id: 23504
TC4592771.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
TC4592771.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8

OVERVIEW MAP - 4592771.2S
SITE NAME: Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Target Property
CLIENT: Wildlands Eng, Inc.
o Iia
1i2 1 Miles
A,
Sites at elevations higher than
INQUIRY #: 4592771.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.1 23566 / 79.00392
or equal to the target property
Indian Reservations BIA
Hazardous Substance
�
Sites at elevations lower than
Power transmission lines
Disposal Sites
the target property
0
100 -year flood zone
1
Manufactured Gas Plants
0
500 -year flood zone
ElNational
Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0
National Wetland Inventory
0
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
CLIENT: Wildlands Eng, Inc.
ADDRESS: 7205 Schley Road
CONTACT: Ian Eckardt
Hillsborough NC 27278
INQUIRY #: 4592771.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.1 23566 / 79.00392
DATE: April 14, 2016 4:40 pm
Copyright (o 2016 EDR, Inc. (c) 2015 TornTom Rel. 2016.

DETAIL MAP - 4592771.2S
0 1/16 1/e 1/4 Miles
0 Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
0 100 -year flood zone Disposal Sites
0 500 -year flood zone
National Wetland Inventory
0 State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Target Property
CLIENT: Wildlands Eng, Inc.
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
Hillsborough NC 27278
Sites at elevations lower than
INQUIRY #: 4592771.2s
the target property
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
r
Sensitive Receptors
Copyright (o 2016 EDR, Inc. (c) 2015 TomTom Rel. 2016.
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/16 1/e 1/4 Miles
0 Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
0 100 -year flood zone Disposal Sites
0 500 -year flood zone
National Wetland Inventory
0 State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
CLIENT: Wildlands Eng, Inc.
ADDRESS: 7205 Schley Road
CONTACT: Ian Eckardt
Hillsborough NC 27278
INQUIRY #: 4592771.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.1 23566 / 79.00392
DATE: April 14, 2016 4:41 pm
Copyright (o 2016 EDR, Inc. (c) 2015 TomTom Rel. 2016.

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database (Miles) Property
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2 - 1
> 1
Plotted
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Proposed NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
NPL LIENS TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal CERCUS list
FEDERAL FACILITY 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
SEMS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS -ARCHIVE 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-SQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-CESQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Federal institutional controls /
engineering controls registries
LUCIS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US INST CONTROL 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal ERNS list
ERNS TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State and tribal landfill and/or
solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
OLI 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
TC4592771.2s Page 4

Database
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target Total
(Miles) Property < 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
LUST 0.500
0
0
1
NR
NR
1
INDIAN LUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LUST TRUST 0.500
0
0
1
NR
NR
1
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
US CDL
TP
Local Land Records
0
LIENS 2
TP
FEMA UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
AST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
INDIAN UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
State and tribal institutional
control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL 0.500
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP 0.500
VCP 0.500
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS 0.500
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
0
US BROWNFIELDS
0.500
Local Lists of Landfill/ Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
NR
HIST LF
0.500
SWRCY
0.500
INDIAN ODI
0.500
ODI
0.500
DEBRIS REGION 9
0.500
Local Lists of Hazardous waste /
Contaminated Sites
NR 0
US HIST CDL
TP
US CDL
TP
Local Land Records
0
LIENS 2
TP
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS
TP
SPILLS
TP
I M D
0.500
SPILLS 90
TP
SPILLS 80
TP
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR
0.250
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0 0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
2
NR
NR 2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
NR
NR
NR 0
TC4592771.2s Page 5

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
EDR Hist Auto 0.125 0 NR NR NR NR 0
EDR Hist Cleaner 0.125 0 NR NR NR NR 0
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TC4592771.2s Page 6
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database
(Miles) Property
< 1/8
1/8 - 1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2 - 1
> 1
Plotted
FUDS
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
DOD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US FIN ASSUR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
EPA WATCH LIST
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
2020 COR ACTION
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
TSCA
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
TRIS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
SSTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ROD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
RMP
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RAATS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PRP
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PADS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ICIS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FTTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
MLTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH DOE
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH EPA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
PCB TRANSFORMER
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RADINFO
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
HIST FTTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
DOT OPS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
CONSENT
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
INDIAN RESERV
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
FUSRAP
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
UMTRA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LEAD SMELTERS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
US AIRS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
US MINES
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
FINDS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
DRYCLEANERS
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Financial Assurance
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
NPDES
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
UIC
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ECHO
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FUELS PROGRAM
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
EDR Hist Auto 0.125 0 NR NR NR NR 0
EDR Hist Cleaner 0.125 0 NR NR NR NR 0
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TC4592771.2s Page 6

Database
RGA LF
RGA LUST
- Totals --
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
(Miles) Property
TP
TP
0
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC4592771.2s Page 7
Total
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2 - 1 > 1
Plotted
NR
NR
NR
NR NR
0
NR
NR
NR
NR NR
0
0
0
4
0 0
4
TC4592771.2s Page 7

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
April 15, 2016
Renee Gledhill -Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Subject: Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Orange County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the Martin Dairy
Mitigation Site. A USGS site map and aerial map with approximate project areas are enclosed.
The southern border of the Site is adjacent to the Saint Mary's Road Rural Historic District
according to The National Register with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly
degraded. This will be a stream restoration project only. The site has historically been
disturbed due to agricultural use, primarily for livestock production.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence
of any historic properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning the project.
Sincerely,
Ruby M. Davis
Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 - (P) 704-332-7754 - (F) 704-332-3306

btu. STATE ai
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
May 12, 2016
Ruby Davis
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Martin Dairy Mitigation Site, Orange County, ER 16-0697
Dear Ms. Davis:
Thank you for your letter of April 15, 2016, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review(a),ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
6"K Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

As sift ri ni a rrt. Clpi io n e e has 'I [ E rig 1'I to z sj ign 1 hi:i a gre emeni without 11 ( can: ( n l c fl apl ionor. No
assignment it all be( fleatiue unless the assignee I as deliver( c to Clplionor a wriiie n aisumpl ion o -I Clilltionae's
c [ liga 1 ions under 1:1 is aglrea rn( nt. Opt ion or I a ra I �l ra lea -las Ont is ri E c Ira ni i ny obligations under 11- is agr( emenl arising
a It( rihe(fleathia dale o-1awl amignmeni ollFisigrfleMent kyClgtiauea.
_ .11 Va Iue of Dor servation Ea! emert; No Powen o'1 Eminenl Domair . In Ian ae mitt th( Uniilorrn
Relocation Aasialanae anc Heal Propeit}l�laquiaitian [clicies Aci o1197a, (tpiionee I areb),I notiflies Clntianarlhai: (i)
Opt ionee b( lic ve! 11 at the flair rn a I-1 at value ol1 he Con! erual ion Easement is an amount equal 10 i he Purcl a se PniGE ;
and (ii) Clptiona( ca(is Rat I auel[e power oileminant ( orni in.
_ A N oclilliaatioi; %aivan. Noamem nit tit olihia agreement will I ellecliva unless it it in wrilingi nc
sigh a c k y 1 he pa rties. No via iver oil as tisllaction al a condil ion on Iailure lo ca ni ll 11l wii h a it all: ligal ion unden 1 l N
agreement will I a eifa al iva kinks!it is in wiiil ing a n c sign e c l y l [ e part ll granl ing i he via iver, and no s ucl waiver will
(ion!tituie a miaiverollaaiislaatia n ulanyollercondiiion or'lailure to conipl�lwilh an)l oil arabligaiion.
IA Ailonne)ls'Ioas.Ii(itherparty +iarnnitinaeaana+itionagain:tthaother toinlernratorenlloroean�lollla
t( nma oftl is a€ reanranl an baaauae altl a I ret ah byth( other part}l of anyof th( t( rm: oftl is agfneenrant, the Easing
part).l shall paylolleprevailing party reaaarralleallorn(�Is'fla(s,e)incnsas,+iaurl casts,litillalian co!V andan}lo-[er
expenjes inaunn( d in conneation will tie praseautian arch fl( weollauah action, wheihen or not the aolion is nrasecuied
to a Iinal jtidglrnerrt.
..1 Namonandumol Option Plgneernert.aanaurnenllywill it signing oil I[ isagrEcMEn1,Opiioneeand
Opi ionor agree to :iil]n a Memorandum oI Cllltion vsi[ ich will be remande( altain.rt 1:1 a 1 roperiy in the Register oll E eac s al
tl a aaunt)]sialed in panalralfl Awiii in liveda)ls after Ihe Efleciive Dat( .
1.1 LandownenPhlttoninalion. aanaurrentlywii[ IiE si€ningoil Itisagreemenl,Oplionoragreeitosigfntla
NCDN9 Larl(l(IvsinerArrthoriaatiarl Rorrn iniia Icrni altiAibil C.
1A GrititePlgneemeni. Eaal pant) Iaci nawledge! ilcyare not relyinllon anyslal(m(nts ma( a Mite 011er
narbI, ctl in than in this agreernatit, regarding the subjeat rnatier o111 isafro aMEnt. Plaithatr partywill hav( a baiislor
Iringing an}lclaini florllnaudinaann(clionwith arr�Iauahatalemeni:r.
:.1(I Mutual Plgieemenl.Tlis is a mutually negatiated agraernantand rEgardless o11wl iah paiil)lwas mor(
nasponsitla Ianitsi pr( paralion,tlisagraernentshall IE conitnuednet iiiall5llfltweeniteparli(s.
.11 Governing law. T1 a laws of 11( Stale o l No rt 1 Carolina, wiitt a ut jiving (fleat to its principles oil
con-lli+ita of law, llavenn all matters arising aiii oilihia agreement.
: A] cam ieiparti. Thij agreement may I e sig nad in oatinterpairls, each ollwhi(h sl all be (learned an
anigfinal, but all aflmi[ich,togathen,asnsli uta ane and lheaamc inatrumenl. Aaigned+iailllol'itisilira( Mont dalivened
1�leleatroniamail inVariablecaarirncntfonmal (".IldV larniat)i[allhiiia 11asame legalefilaal asdaliveryalanorifiinal
signed copyaIIhij agreement.
[9IGNATURI RAGE ICILWAS]
6
ill10-1-19 CRI
aEric M. e
0 Ftic no _ (� (Iftionnr

WILDLANDS
E NG I N E E RI"G
April 15, 2016
Dale Suiter
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Subject: Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Orange County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Suiter,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to endangered species, migratory birds or other trust resources associated
with the proposed Martin Dairy Mitigation Site. A USGS map and aerial maps showing the
approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the
Hillsborough and Caldwell, 7.5 -Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Martin Dairy Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as
significantly degraded. This will be a stream restoration project only. The site has
historically been disturbed due to agricultural use, primarily for livestock production.
According to your website (http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species-by-current-range-
county), the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) and the Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii) are the federally -listed species in Orange County. We are requesting that you
provide any known information on these species.
If we have not heard from you in 3o days we will assume that you do not have any comments
regarding associated laws and that you do not have any information relevant to this projects at
the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Ruby M. Davis
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
USGS Topographic Map
Aerial Map
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, INC 28203 ° (P) 704-332-7754 ° (F) 704-332-3306

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 5, 2016
Ruby Davis
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Martin Dairy Mitigation Site — Orange County, NC
Dear Mrs. Davis:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally -protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally -protected species.
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concern' that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in detennining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www,fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
' The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species, As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Enviromnental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personriel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above -referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the infon-nation provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
reconunend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby dawn -gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary),
2

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Kathy Matthews of this
office at [phone] ext. 27.
Sincerely,)�
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor

List of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alamance
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Chatham
Chowan
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Jolulston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
4
Perquimans
Person
Pitt
Randolph
Riclunond
Robeson
Rockingham
Sampson
Scotland
Tyrrell
Vance
Wake
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Wilson

USDA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
May 23, 2016
North Carolina
State Office
Mr. Ian Eckardt
4407 Bland Road
Environmental Scientist
Suite 117
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27609
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Voice 919-873-2171
Fax [phone] Charlotte, NC 28203
Dear Mr. Eckardt
Thank you for your letter dated August 4, 2015, Subject: AD 1006 Form - Martin
Dairy Mitigation Site - Orange County, NC. The following guidance is provided
for your information.
Projects are subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements
if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to non-
agricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a
federal agency. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section
1540(c)(1) of the FPPA or farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or
unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture to be farmland of statewide local importance.
For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland,
and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA
requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be
forestland, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up
land.
Farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development
or water storage. Farmland already in urban development or water storage
includes all such land with a density of 30 structures per 40 -acre area. Farmland
already in urban development also includes lands identified as urbanized area
(UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a tint overprint
on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, or as
urban -built-up on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Important Farmland Maps.
The area in question meets one or more of the above criteria for Farmland.
Farmland area will be affected or converted. Enclosed is the Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating form AD 1006 with PARTS II, IV and V completed by
NRCS. The corresponding agency will need to complete the evaluation,
according to the Code of Federal Regulation 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection
Policy Act.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources mission.
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

Mr. Ian Eckardt
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Milton Cortes, Assistant State Soil Scientist at
919-873-2171 or by email: milton.cortes&nc.usda. og_v.
Again, thank you for inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by MILTON CORTES
MILTON CORTES DAgd,,11 ,, MILTON CORTESDepartment
o(: -US,,— m=MILTONCORTES,
0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1=12001000080173
Date: 2016.05.2212:23:29 -04'00'
Milton Cortes
Assistant State Soil Scientist
cc:
Kent Clary, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Raleigh, NC

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site C
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 4/14/16
Name Of Project Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Federal Agency Involved FHWA - NCDMS
Proposed Land Use Stream Restoration
County And State Orange County, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
0.0
Date Request Received By NRCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). 0 ❑
Acres Irrigated
- N/A
Average Farm Size
88 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 245,406 % 96
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 203,636 %90
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Orange Co., LESA
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
None
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
May 23, 2016 By email
PART III T b I t d b F d I A
Alternative Site Rating
t a comp e e y e era gency) Site A Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 9.5
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site 9.5 0.0
0.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 6.1
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 3.4
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 0.0047
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 61.0
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion 84
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
15 14
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
10 10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
20 20
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20 20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
15 0
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
15 0
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
10 10
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
10 0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
5 5
10. On -Farm Investments
20 15
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
10 0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
10 0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160 94 0
0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100 84
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160 94 0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
260 178 0
0
0
Site Selected:
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Date Of Selection Yes ® No
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff 1 Lei•

WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
April 15, 2016
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Orange County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Deaton,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with the proposed
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site. A USGS map and aerial maps showing the approximate
project area are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Hillsborough
and Caldwell, 7.5 -Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Martin Dairy Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified
as significantly degraded. This will be a stream restoration project only. The site has
historically been disturbed due to agricultural use, primarily for livestock production.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Ruby M. Davis
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
USGS Topographic Map
Aerial Map
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203 - (P) 704-332-7754 � (F) 704-332-3306

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
3 May 2016
Ms. Ruby M. Davis
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Subject: Martin Dairy Mitigation Site, Orange County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Davis:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
information. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes
(G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The proposed project includes stream restoration. Several sections of channel have been
identified as significantly degraded. The site has been used primarily for livestock production. The
mitigation site will provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts.
The project site includes an unnamed tributary to Buckwater Creek in the Neuse River basin.
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.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposed project. If we can provide further
assistance, please contact our office at [phone] or shari.bryant(kncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
ZL'�
Shari L. Bryant
Western Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Division
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
FIGURES

Project Parcel
Q
I I
1iQen��rnt
�i
4
fryer
k�'arh
i
I
mod
@=E
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Vicinity Map
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
0 2 Miles Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

_,_._.
.r . . _. _._._..:._...._,
�', „4
Project Parcel
Project Area
4 Project Streams
sa* 1 j Non -Project Existing Streams
r i j Topographic Contours 4'
� � 1
W
r 1MJ= Glib 00
#40"- 1
1
� � 1
■ �! l
�.. T
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Overview Site Map
0 200 Feet Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
I I I I I Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

Project Site
j Project Area
141
•
Hillsborough and Caldwell +' 7n
USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles" '
1 cJ% ..r— .
0 WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
USGS Topography Map
0 800 Feet Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

JProject Parcel
... y
■i.i� Proposed Conservation Easement
1 Project Soils
= Ch- Chewacla loam
` - HrB- Herndon silt loam, 2-6% slopes
HrC- Herndon silt loam, 6-10% slopes
„.+ TaD- Tatum silt loam, 8-15% slopes
...1 azzo
Existing Streams
Project Streams
1 r �
C� 1 ■
H -
- 1
■ � 1
�i
� � 1
■ ■ 1 f
■ 1
■ H91
4 a�e �� ■ ■ i
r t, ■
.�'"` ■ r i
HrC
N �. P• II
.NIL, 14 'A i 1
IN
1 4 a
WILDLANDS
EPJGINIEERING
W TTIW-IH41iZL"
Acres in Percent in
Soils Map
0 300 Feet Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
I i i I Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

Appendix 6
Plan Sheets

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, North Carolina
for
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
r d
N �� GCOJe GY`�roh R
ma
��psc
0
Martin Hills Ln
Cl)
m
PROJECT LOCATION
Cn
w
O
Saint Marys Rd - SR 1002
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
BEFORE YOU DIG!
CALL 1-800-632-4949
N.C. ONE -CALL CENTER
IT'S THE LAW!
PRELIMINARY PLANS
Issued January 2016
Stream Origins
Stream Latitude Longitude
Martin Dairy N 360 0731.65" W 790 00'13.78"
UT1 N 360 07 26.69" W 790 00'12.28"
Sheet Index
Title Sheet 0.1
Project Overview 0.2
General Notes and Symbols 0.3
Plan and Profile 1.1-1.6
Planting Plan 2.0
Erosion Control Plan Not Included
Details 4.1-4.7
Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Angela N. Allen, PE
919-851-9986
Surveying:
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
P.O. Box 148
Swannanoa, NC 28778
919-827-0745
Owner:
NCDEQ Division of
Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Jeff Schaffer
919-707-8308
DEQ Contract No. 6831
DMS ID No. 97087
v�m-L
¢2o
aw viz
aZ
�m�.,v
Qz
ra-i w 3 s
N
u

Existing Features
Proposed Features
Existing Property Boundary
CE
— CE — CE
Proposed Conservation Easement
------------------------------ Existing 5' Major Contour
TCE
TCE
Proposed Temporary Construction Entrance
Proposed Silt Fence
------ M
See Detail 1, Sheet 4.5
10+00
Proposed Stone Outlet
Proposed Transplanted Sod Mats
Existing 1' Minor Contour
i
Proposed Temporary Stream Crossing - TimberMat
Proposed Stream Alignment
See Detail 2, Sheet 4.3
Existing Thalweg
Proposed Haul Road
_ _ _
Proposed Bankfull
LOo
Existing Utility Easement
SAF
Proposed Tree Protection Fencing
Proposed 5' Major Contour
Proposed Brush Toe
See Details 3 and 4, Sheet 4.3
Existing Overhead Electric Line
Proposed 1' Minor Contour
Existing Edge of Pavement
ca -NM
Proposed Native Material Constructed Riffle
See Detail 1, Sheet 4.1
Proposed Rock Outlet
Existing Overhead Electric Pole
See Detail 2, Sheet 4.6
R -w
{
Proposed Woody Riffle
See Detail 2, Sheet 4.1
Proposed Permanent Culvert Crossing
Existing Wetlands
CR -1Z
O
Proposed Jazz Riffle
See Detail 3, Sheet 4.1
RAL
Proposed Angled Log Riffle
Existing Treeline
See Detail 4, Sheet 4.1
CR -CH
Proposed Chunky Riffle
Existing Tree
See Detail 1, Sheet 4.2
Proposed Lunker Log
See Detail 2, Sheet 4.2
Proposed Angled Log Drop
See Detail 3, Sheet 4.2
Proposed Boulder Sill
See Detail 4, Sheet 4.2
Q
Proposed Log J -Hook
See Detail 1, Sheet 4.3
Erosion Control Features
i
4�
0 ,o
Existing
5�
N
u
�1
Proposed Pump Around
Q
See Detail 3, Sheet 4.4
Proposed Construction Entrance
�w
See Detail 4, Sheet 4.4
aw
Proposed Silt Fence
------ M
See Detail 1, Sheet 4.5
ri w
Proposed Stone Outlet
®
See Detail 2, Sheet 4.5
i
Proposed Temporary Stream Crossing - TimberMat
F—
See Detail 3, Sheet 4.5
_I
Proposed Haul Road
Proposed Stockpile/ Staging Area
LOo
Proposed Limits Of Disturbance
SAF
Proposed Tree Protection Fencing
See Detail 4, Sheet 4.5
i
4�
0 ,o
Existing
5�
N
u
�1
Q
m
�w
z
aw
Z d
2
aZzrE
ri w
3 LL
i
4�
0 ,o
Existing
5�
N
u
�1

510
505
500
495
100+00
O M N
cn
+ 1+i
00
zD 9M
oe,1
F wO . d
-,t�lW
Z -
;°
=0001 u
STA =101+58
ELEV
m
505
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
N m
N
I1
_____
+ o
o n
1`"n
+
o
a,
t
o
m ti
c N c
u 11 II
N
n
w
o 0
o
n W
J
w
0
o II
n W
J
o
n
a
o I+o+
11 11
a w
a w
00
++ Ili
II
II >>
II w
+
a o
u
F J
N w
VOl
a
II w
a
F J
n
w
STA = 101+78
ELEV =
504.44.
m
loo,
F
iA
N
II
W
�
O
10
N
+
O
—
-D.0%
/
_
\
f T\
-0.7%
1.595
STA = 100+00
ELEV = 504.81
EXISTING
GROUND
ry
a N$
vpoi
O
c N
m
++
o
'^
II
II a
II n
+
v
0
m
+
PROPOSED
GRADE
a >
100+50
101+00
101+50
102+00
102+50
BANKFULL WIDTH 14.8- - - BANKFULL WIDTH =20.0'
4.6' 5.1'
TBANKF 11.2' 3.2' S.6' TBANKF
3,1 Dmax=1.7' PROPOSED - - _ - - - _ 7 _ - - _ PROPOSED
PROPOSED
BANKFULL Dmax=2.8' 2:1 BANKFULL
4�1
GRADE PROPOSED
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 1 - TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE GRADE
STA 100+15 TO 107+80
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 1- TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA 100+15 TO 107+80
103+00
103+50
104+00
510
cn
00
zD 9M
C�mw
0
of Z.
F wO . d
-,t�lW
Z -
=0001 u
r -I w 3 LL
m
505
500
495
104+40
BANKFULL WIDTH = 20.0'
15.8''V_-
-2.5PROPOSED
Dmax=BANKFULL
PROPOSED
GRADE
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 1 -TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA 100+15 TO 107+80
\ /BEGIN MARTIN DAIRY
REACH 1(RESTORATION)
j 1
„ 1
1
STA. 100+13
MARTIN DAIRY
w-----------
CR-CH -CR-CH
CR -NM
103+00 CR -WD -111
'SOS----
103+00
OS____
1 i
70 I f
_I 1
1 U
l
I
1
/ I
1
60" RCP
I INV=505.49
I
I
1
I 1
� I 1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I 1
I
I 1
/
i
/ END INTERNAL EASEMENT BREAK
60" RCP ��'"J MARTIN DAIRY REACH 1
INV=504.81
BEGIN INTERNAL EASEMENT BREAK
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 1
- -- - STA. 101+38
STA.101+78
j
--------------------------
'yJ
d
m /
�m J
�-
tm yJ
0' 3' 6' 9'
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60
p10RrzoNTAE1
-I
_____-
I1
_____
i _
t
\ /BEGIN MARTIN DAIRY
REACH 1(RESTORATION)
j 1
„ 1
1
STA. 100+13
MARTIN DAIRY
w-----------
CR-CH -CR-CH
CR -NM
103+00 CR -WD -111
'SOS----
103+00
OS____
1 i
70 I f
_I 1
1 U
l
I
1
/ I
1
60" RCP
I INV=505.49
I
I
1
I 1
� I 1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I 1
I
I 1
/
i
/ END INTERNAL EASEMENT BREAK
60" RCP ��'"J MARTIN DAIRY REACH 1
INV=504.81
BEGIN INTERNAL EASEMENT BREAK
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 1
- -- - STA. 101+38
STA.101+78
j
--------------------------
'yJ
d
m /
�m J
�-
tm yJ
0' 3' 6' 9'
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60
p10RrzoNTAE1
-I

510
505
500
495
104+40104+50
105+00
105+50
106+00
106+50
107+00
BANKFULL WIDTH = 14.8' - BANKFULL WIDTH = 20.0' -
T
5.1' 4 5'_
' 5.1'
- 11.2' - 3.2' S.6' BANKF
TOP OF
3.1 - - Dmax=1.7' - - 3.1 PROPOSED _ _ - - - - - t - _ - - PROPOSED
BANKFULL Dmax=2.8' 14 BANKFULL
PROPOSED 41
GRADE PROPOSED
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 1 - TYPICAL SECTTON: RIFFLE GRADE
STA 100+15 TO 107+80
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 1- TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA 100+15 TO 107+80
107+50 108+00 108+50
BANKFULL WIDTH = 20.0'
15.8' --2.
4 S 1 Dmax
PROPOSED
GRADE
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 1- TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA 100+15 TO 107+80
I 1
I I
i
i CR NMS \ I
I %
I
I
I
1
'I
505'.- _ --/ _ \S� i CR-ALRI - ry
_
` - - _ - __ -
:r ;;_
-SPS ' �_ � 500
___505_____ _ _- ___, _ _- - 500
o____
/ kpp -
i.10� 500
- —_� - - - -
i ` --- END UTl
202+50 100
`-
O
MARSTA.2o2+50
TIN DAIRY
1 _ �CR-NM CR -NM Q
I N7,
W -
Z END MARTIN DAIRY - W
REACH 1(RESTORATION)
--BEGIN MARTIN DAIRY�-
U
F- --- - -
� REACH �(RESTORATIOt�)
- STA. 10 +61 SEE SHEET
-- Q I 1.3 FOR REACH 2 TYPICAL IOg -- �~
- TIONS)
- 505 ____--'1 ____-___ -
0p i
' ------------
------ ----r
i
505-_ -- q LUMP ----_SPLANT WILLOW ____ -'
I ALONG TOP OF BANK - I
--
1-----------------
-----------------
-------------
-------------
50!
------ --- _
-
510
m "
zD 900
�wo
Z.
awmuuz
aZ �zrE
r -I w 3 LL
505
m
+
g
'^
ry
u++i
m
N EXISTING
GROUND
�.
a
J
a
w
o
o N
m
a
o+rq
�no
N
+
N
PROPOSED
BANKFULL.
II
c
c
w
a
a w
w
e
a
N
ti
-1.2%
i
PROPOSED
GRADE
STA
=10S+15
STA =106+17
:ELEV=
.500.98
ELEV = 500.82
STA
ELEV
=107+16
= 500.00
I
I
STA
= 108+02
= 499.66
ELEV
105+00
105+50
106+00
106+50
107+00
BANKFULL WIDTH = 14.8' - BANKFULL WIDTH = 20.0' -
T
5.1' 4 5'_
' 5.1'
- 11.2' - 3.2' S.6' BANKF
TOP OF
3.1 - - Dmax=1.7' - - 3.1 PROPOSED _ _ - - - - - t - _ - - PROPOSED
BANKFULL Dmax=2.8' 14 BANKFULL
PROPOSED 41
GRADE PROPOSED
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 1 - TYPICAL SECTTON: RIFFLE GRADE
STA 100+15 TO 107+80
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 1- TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA 100+15 TO 107+80
107+50 108+00 108+50
BANKFULL WIDTH = 20.0'
15.8' --2.
4 S 1 Dmax
PROPOSED
GRADE
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 1- TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA 100+15 TO 107+80
I 1
I I
i
i CR NMS \ I
I %
I
I
I
1
'I
505'.- _ --/ _ \S� i CR-ALRI - ry
_
` - - _ - __ -
:r ;;_
-SPS ' �_ � 500
___505_____ _ _- ___, _ _- - 500
o____
/ kpp -
i.10� 500
- —_� - - - -
i ` --- END UTl
202+50 100
`-
O
MARSTA.2o2+50
TIN DAIRY
1 _ �CR-NM CR -NM Q
I N7,
W -
Z END MARTIN DAIRY - W
REACH 1(RESTORATION)
--BEGIN MARTIN DAIRY�-
U
F- --- - -
� REACH �(RESTORATIOt�)
- STA. 10 +61 SEE SHEET
-- Q I 1.3 FOR REACH 2 TYPICAL IOg -- �~
- TIONS)
- 505 ____--'1 ____-___ -
0p i
' ------------
------ ----r
i
505-_ -- q LUMP ----_SPLANT WILLOW ____ -'
I ALONG TOP OF BANK - I
--
1-----------------
-----------------
-------------
-------------
50!
------ --- _
-
510
O 4 C,
500 ������
G
495
108+80
PROPOSED
0' 3' 6' 9'
CTr�_
0' 2' 4' 6'
Iveancul
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZON )
N
LJ
E
3 "
Q m
zD 900
�wo
Z.
awmuuz
aZ �zrE
r -I w 3 LL
505
m
O 4 C,
500 ������
G
495
108+80
PROPOSED
0' 3' 6' 9'
CTr�_
0' 2' 4' 6'
Iveancul
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZON )
N
LJ
E
3 "

505
500 -
495 -
490
108+80
109+00
109+50
110+00
110+50
BANKFULL W IDTH =16.2BANKFULL WIDTH = 21.0'
TOP OF TOP OF
5.7' 4.f8' _ _ 5.7' BANK 12.0' 3.0' 6.0' BANK
Dmax =1.9' PROPOSED
PROPOSED 3Z 3'1 BANKFULL Dmax=3.0' PROPOSED
til BANKFULL
GRADE PROPOSED 4:1
GRADE
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 2 - TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA 107+80 TO 119+87
.._ 500
4' 6'
5 00 �
m
0 �
40' 60'
W
z°rymLL
o
Uuz
aw
t
Q 0
az
o
6 +
m
o
m
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
j n
m
m
STA = 110+66
^
N
\
r
h
ELEV= 499.19
.+H
r
4
w
m
tO
¢
v
N
m
a
\
a
STA = 111+36
w
w
-0.5%
_
\
EL EV= 498.84
_
s
n
mm
Lil 77
+ ry
EXISTING GROUND
+ c
15
+
+
O
o
m 6
o v
o
o v
u II
w
>
�
F
o
>
n
n
m
If
m
0
STA
=112+65
a
J
�
v
ELEV
= 49_5._86
PROPOSED
GRADE
~
109+00
109+50
110+00
110+50
BANKFULL W IDTH =16.2BANKFULL WIDTH = 21.0'
TOP OF TOP OF
5.7' 4.f8' _ _ 5.7' BANK 12.0' 3.0' 6.0' BANK
Dmax =1.9' PROPOSED
PROPOSED 3Z 3'1 BANKFULL Dmax=3.0' PROPOSED
til BANKFULL
GRADE PROPOSED 4:1
GRADE
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 2 - TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA 107+80 TO 119+87
.._ 500
4' 6'
5 00 �
m
0 �
40' 60'
W
z°rymLL
o
Uuz
aw
t
Q 0
az
— v m
�zrE
LLJ
/Z
3 LL
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 2 - TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA 107+80 TO 119+87
MARTIN DAIRY
— -100
11p'00...,
CR -CH � � -
-----
----------------- ---
I-505-----
I
I
I
112+00
112+50
WIDTH =
113+00
— — — — — — — — — —Dma x= E
PROPOSED S:1
GRADE
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 2 - TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA 107+80 TO 119+87
- 505
500
- 495
490
113+20
/\_PROPOSED
,y BANKFULL
i
0' 3' 6' 9'
�)M
0' 2'
4' 6'
Iv[Rnca�l
m
0' 20'
40' 60'
(HORIZON—)
z°rymLL
o
Uuz
i
i
yr�y
.r
O4-1
C) U
O
F-1
X,
O
4j to
Qo
H
M
Q
m
zD
900
�w
z°rymLL
o
Uuz
aw
t
Q 0
az
— v m
�zrE
r -I w
3 LL
i
i
yr�y
.r
O4-1
C) U
O
F-1
X,
O
4j to
Qo
H
M

505
500
495
490
113+20
113+50
114+00
114+50
115+00
115+50
116+00
BANKFULL WIDTH= 16.2BANKFULL WIDTH= 21.0'
TOP OF TOP OF
5.7' 4..8' 5.7' BANK 12.0' _ _ _ 3.0' _ _ 6.0' BANK
Dmax�= 1.9' PROPOSED (II
PROPOSED 3:1 3.1 BANKFULL Dmax=3.0' ,� PROPOSED
'L BANKFULL
GRADE PROPOSED 4.-1
GRADE
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 2 - TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA 107+80 TO 119+87
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 2 - TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA 107+80 TO 119+87
I CE CE
CE CE -
f CE CE
,CE SCE T
— CR CE 1
CE
CE ,-
f500 __ --
-
\.-'
_ � � \ � �—. 6� ecu _
--------------- - - - - ------ 2S+o0
`z7 -a O1oroCOo
o
-
-
-
awUuz
Z d
2
9
aZ E
r -I w 3 LL
�
I
---I.
- ------ ------
114+� �
_
------------
f-
-------- ----- -------
o
m
n
a
w
m 6
n
+vy
m
e
?
o
?
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
N
16
m
ro
r
m rn
*
u n
¢ w
n
a
n
w
In
v
m
a
n
r
a
vri
w
rI
u
n
N
N
+
"1
¢
w
¢
w
..
a
1.4%
EXISTING
GROUND
1.4%I
I
'o.0
ti
PROPOSED
GRADE
STA =116+56
ELEV = 493.98
113+50
114+00
114+50
115+00
115+50
116+00
BANKFULL WIDTH= 16.2BANKFULL WIDTH= 21.0'
TOP OF TOP OF
5.7' 4..8' 5.7' BANK 12.0' _ _ _ 3.0' _ _ 6.0' BANK
Dmax�= 1.9' PROPOSED (II
PROPOSED 3:1 3.1 BANKFULL Dmax=3.0' ,� PROPOSED
'L BANKFULL
GRADE PROPOSED 4.-1
GRADE
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 2 - TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA 107+80 TO 119+87
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 2 - TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA 107+80 TO 119+87
I CE CE
CE CE -
f CE CE
,CE SCE T
— CR CE 1
CE
CE ,-
f500 __ --
-----
-
\.-'
_ � � \ � �—. 6� ecu _
-----
-
NeancA�I
0' 20'
"
--------------- - - - - ------ 2S+o0
`z7 -a O1oroCOo
o
-
-
-
awUuz
Z d
2
9
aZ E
r -I w 3 LL
�
I
---I.
- ------ ------
114+� �
_
------------
f-
-------- ----- -------
110+50 117+00 117+50
BANKFULL WIDTH = 21.0'
17.5
C
PROPOSED S:1
GRADE
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 2 - TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA 107+80 TO 119+87
MARTIN DAIRY
4
\ CE I \
------------------------
C)
---------------- O
Iey
\4'9S� IQ
F-
/
CR -ALR
W
16 - CR NIVI
A
505
A
NeancA�I
0' 20'
"
----------------
`z7 -a O1oroCOo
o
-
-
-
awUuz
Z d
2
9
aZ E
r -I w 3 LL
�
I
505
ti' 0�
.o
495po
������
490
117+75
/�PROPOSEC
ti BANKFULL
0' 3' 6' 9'
z
0' 2'
4' 6'
NeancA�I
0' 20'
Q m
IHORIZONTAQ
`z7 -a O1oroCOo
o
o
� w zLL
awUuz
Z d
2
9
aZ E
r -I w 3 LL
500
ti' 0�
.o
495po
������
490
117+75
/�PROPOSEC
ti BANKFULL
0' 3' 6' 9'
z
0' 2'
4' 6'
NeancA�I
0' 20'
40' 60'
IHORIZONTAQ
M

495
490
o m
PROPOSED BANKFULL
n
+
�
m
EXISTING
GROUND
STA =118+29
Q. w
°
wi1
ELEV = 494.01
+
+
–
–
–
F
–-1.0%
F
L
PROPOSED
GRADE
A
m
�
n
v
a
'^
w
a
~
+
�
ri
11
ry
�
>
H
n
w
F
Q m
zD 90-0
�w z°rymw
o
awo uuz z ' v
Z Oeg
0Q 9
aZ �zrE
r -I u, 3 LL
495
490�p
GO
485 485
117+75 118+00 118+50 119+00 119+50 120+00 120+50120+60
BANKFULL WIDTH= 16.2 BANKFULL WIDTH=21.0' BANKFULL WIDTH= 21.0'
TOP OF TOP OF a-+ �
5.T 4.f8' S.T BANK 12.0' 3.0' 6.0' BANK 17.5' 1.8' 1.T
_ – Dmax=1.9' [�::
– PROPOSED _ – _ – – – I– _ – _ – – – – – _ – – – – PROPOSED
PROPOSED 3'1 3'Y BANKFULL Dmaz=3.0' ,1 PROPOSED ti BANKFULL O U N
7:- BANKFULL Dmaz=3.5'
GRADE PROGRADE 4.1 PROPOSED S:1
GRADE (�,,
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 2 - TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE 8.0 ,
STA 107+80 TO 119+87 ,}
MARTIN DAIRY REACH 2 - TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA 107+80 TO 119+87 MARTIN DAIRY REACH 2 - TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA 107+80 TO 119+87 0' 3' 6' 9'
/1
---------
60' TEMPORARY bA
\ . CONSTRUCTION
\ ENTRANCE
�9
USE WILLOW CLUMPS AS
TRANSPLANTS ALONG BEND
- _____ \rte '9
Jl 495 –
r
495—
c,
95,c,
– ` CR - GE- CE- 495-
---
-------------
2 x 60" CULVERT 2x60"CULVERT w
N ' LENGTH =25' r
n �I ( _ :NV.UP=491.50'
/ -
_----- y ,� 491.25
DECK ELEV..498.001
MARTIN DAIRY
u 1. r,,. END MARTIN DAIRY
REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
\ y \ STA. 119+71 Q Qz
0 2 4 6 \
Qt
\
tC l 0' 40'
L
\ 20' 60'

510
c
c
505
500
495
200+00
200+50
201+00
201+50
202+00
510
/ /
1
Q m
n
z0 900
O
�lw z°rymW
j
II
O�d
F wyOZ.
2
mA u
EXISTING
GROUND
r -I w 3 LL
505
m
/
J�
4
END UT1
ry '
i
o�
m
/
/
�r
vmoi
+
ry
ry
m
urvoi
°'
m
PROPOSED
N
BANKFULL
II II
y
W
Q w
W J
ry
II
N
Q w_
NJ
h—^i
N—N
Q w
w
N
+
-0.6%/-
-1.4%
1.745
I
I
I
I I
( I
1/
O O
o N
ry
ro
o
In
�
+
H w
N
O
Ooq
rv0
N N
w
Orvi
+
O
II II
II II
II
N N
I I
I I r
N
Q J
II II
N
J
IN,
II
PROPOSED
GRADE
200+50
201+00
201+50
202+00
510
0�,
500
GO
495
202+50
BANKFULL WIDTH= 9.4' BANKFULL WIDTH= 12.0' BANKFULL WIDTH= 12.0'
2.8 TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK 1.0'
3.3' T 3.3'6.8' f 1.8' 3.4' 9.9' 1.1'
Dmax=1.1'
3+1 3'.1
PROPOSED PROPOSED Dmax=1.7' 7,1 PROPOSED ,�. PROPOSED
GRADE BANKFULL PROPOSED 4;1 BANKFULL 4.5;1 Dmax=2.2' y BANKFULL
O'
GRADE PROPOSED
GRADE
UTI - TYPICAL SECTION: RIFPLE
STA 200+33 TO 202+50
62" CMP
62" CMP
INV=503.18
UT1 - TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA 200+33 TO 202+50
/ /
r
Q m
n
z0 900
O
�lw z°rymW
j
II
O�d
F wyOZ.
2
mA u
I I CR -JZ
_
r�Z �zrE
r -I w 3 LL
505
m
0�,
500
GO
495
202+50
BANKFULL WIDTH= 9.4' BANKFULL WIDTH= 12.0' BANKFULL WIDTH= 12.0'
2.8 TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK 1.0'
3.3' T 3.3'6.8' f 1.8' 3.4' 9.9' 1.1'
Dmax=1.1'
3+1 3'.1
PROPOSED PROPOSED Dmax=1.7' 7,1 PROPOSED ,�. PROPOSED
GRADE BANKFULL PROPOSED 4;1 BANKFULL 4.5;1 Dmax=2.2' y BANKFULL
O'
GRADE PROPOSED
GRADE
UTI - TYPICAL SECTION: RIFPLE
STA 200+33 TO 202+50
62" CMP
62" CMP
INV=503.18
UT1 - TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA 200+33 TO 202+50
i
UT1
loo --Z, ---
i CR -NM /01x0 CR -NM
��! CR -NM CR -WD
BEGIN UT1
r (RESTORATION)
STA.200+33
/ /
r
I I CR -JZ
r 1
r
Q
RIGHT-OF-WAY
/
i
UT1
loo --Z, ---
i CR -NM /01x0 CR -NM
��! CR -NM CR -WD
BEGIN UT1
r (RESTORATION)
STA.200+33
UT1- TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA 200+33 TO 202+50
III
I I
I I CR -JZ
r 1
r
Q
RIGHT-OF-WAY
/
J�
TEMPORARY
END UT1
i
(RESTORATION)
STA. 202+50
CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS EASEMENT
/
/
�r
UT1- TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA 200+33 TO 202+50
END MARTIN DAIRY
0' 2' 4' 6'
REACH 1(RESTORATION) ,/
BEGIN MARTIN DAIRY
REACH 2(RESTORATION) �
STA. 107+61
0' 2' 4' 6'
NeancaLl
0' 20' 40' 60'
(Imnrzorvrnl{
M
LJ
III
I I
I I CR -JZ
r 1
r
Q
1 n,
END UT1
i
(RESTORATION)
STA. 202+50
I
END MARTIN DAIRY
0' 2' 4' 6'
REACH 1(RESTORATION) ,/
BEGIN MARTIN DAIRY
REACH 2(RESTORATION) �
STA. 107+61
0' 2' 4' 6'
NeancaLl
0' 20' 40' 60'
(Imnrzorvrnl{
M
LJ

Streambank Planting Zone
(See Detail 1, Sheet 4.4)
/ Buffer Planting Zone & Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
(See Detail 2, Sheet 4.4)
Utility Easement Planting Zone
(Permanent Riparian Seed Mix)
® ® ® ® Easement Perimeter Additional Planting
1 Gallon Stems
Notes:
1. Utility Easement Planting Zone to be seeded with permanent
riparian seed mix. No trees are to be planted in this zone.
2. 10 1 -gallon stems of Eastern Redbud and Flowering Dogwood to be
spread out along the Easement Perimeter Planting zone. This area is
to be interspersed with species from the Buffer Planting Zone to get
the appropriate planting density for the Buffer Planting Zone of 6-12
ft. spacing on center.
3. Permanent Seeding Outside Easement to be used in areas outside
of the Conservation Easement but within the Limits of Disturbance.
/ --------
--
-- --- - - - - - - -
- -- --
Easement Perimeter Additional Planting
Streambank Planting Zone
CommonStratum Density
Date
Bare Root
Name (Ibslacre)
Live Stakes
Species
Common Name
Max Indiv.
Spacing Spacing
Min.
CaliperSizeCercis
Stratum E#of Stems
canadensis
Eastern Redbud
24 ft. 12-24 ft.
1 gallon
Canopy5
Comus floods
Flowedng Dogwood
24 ft. 12-24 ft.
1 gallon
Canopy5
/ --------
--
-- --- - - - - - - -
- -- --
Approved
Streambank Planting Zone
CommonStratum Density
Date
JINoxizearnn
Name (Ibslacre)
Live Stakes
Festuca
Bare Root
Secale cereals Rye Grain Herb
Species
Common Name
Max Indiv.
Spacing Spacing
Min. Size
Stratum
% of Stems
Salix nigra
Black Willow
8 ft. 2-8 ft.
0.5"-1.5" cal.
Shrub
15%
Comus ammomum
Silky Dogwood
8 ft. 2-8 ft.
0.5"-1.5" cal.
Shrub
35%
Salix sencea
Silky Willow
8 ft. 2-8 ft.
0.5"-1.5" cal.
Shrub
35%
Physocarpos
opulifolius
Ninebark
8 ft. 2-8 ft.
0.5"-1.5" cal.
Shrub
15%
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
100
10%
Lidodendron
tulipifera
Herbaceous Plugs
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Juncus effusus
Common Rush
5 ft.
3-5 ft.
1.0"- 2.0" plug
Herb
40%
Carex slate
Broadwing
Sedge
5ft.
3-5 ft.
1.0"- 2.0" plug
Herb
40%
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
5 ft.
3-5 ft.
1.0"- 2.0" plug
Herb
20%
Canopy
1%
*Comus Honda
Flowering
Dogwood
24 ft.
100%
/ --------
--
-- --- - - - - - - -
- -- --
*Note: These species to be planted along easement perimeter. Space
evenly throughout perimeter, mixing with other above species.
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Approved
Buffer Planting Zone
CommonStratum Density
Date
JINoxizearnn
Name (Ibslacre)
All Year
Festuca
Bare Root
Secale cereals Rye Grain Herb
arundinacea
May 1 - Aug 15
Species
Common Name
MaxIndiv.
Spacing
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum
# of Stems
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
10%
Platens
occidentalis
Sycamore
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
20%
Betula nigra
River Birch
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
15%
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
10%
Lidodendron
tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
15%
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25'=1.0"
Canopy
10%
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica
Green Ash
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
18%
*Cercis
canadensis
Eastern Redbud
24 ft.
12-24 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
1%
*Comus Honda
Flowering
Dogwood
24 ft.
12-24 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
1%
0.2
<6.8
1%
All Year
Gaillardia
pulchella
Annual Gaillardia
100%
*Note: These species to be planted along easement perimeter. Space
evenly throughout perimeter, mixing with other above species.
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Approved
Species Name
CommonStratum Density
Date
JINoxizearnn
Name (Ibslacre)
All Year
Festuca
Tall Fescue Herb 40
Secale cereals Rye Grain Herb
arundinacea
May 1 - Aug 15
P/
i
0�,
e�
0
Z -- -
1
Temporary Seeding
Permanent Riparian Seeding
160'
Pure Live Seed
JINoxizearnn
Approved Date
Species Name Common Name Stratum
Density
(lbs/acre)
Aug 15 - May 1
Secale cereals Rye Grain Herb
140
May 1 - Aug 15
Setaria italica German Millet Herb
50
P/
i
0�,
e�
0
Z -- -
1
0'
Permanent Riparian Seeding
160'
240'
JINoxizearnn
Pure Live Seed (20165/
acre)
Approved
Date
Species Name
Common Name
Stratum
Density
(Ibslacre)
pH
\
All Year
Panicum
rigidulum
Redtop
Panicgrass
P/
i
0�,
e�
0
Z -- -
1
0'
Permanent Riparian Seeding
160'
240'
JINoxizearnn
Pure Live Seed (20165/
acre)
Approved
Date
Species Name
Common Name
Stratum
Density
(Ibslacre)
pH
Percentage
All Year
Panicum
rigidulum
Redtop
Panicgrass
Herb
1.5
5.0-7.5
5%
All Year
Agrostis hyemalis Winter Bentgmss
Herb
4.0
5.0-7.5
20%
All Year
Chasmanthium
latitolium
River Oats
Herb
2.0
5.0-7.0
10%
All Year
Rudbeckia hirta
Blackeyed Susan
Herb
1.0
6.0-7.0
5%
All Year
Coreopsis
lanceolata
Lanceleaf
Comopsis
Herb
1.0
6.0-7.0
5%
All Year
Carex
vulpinoidea
Fox Sedge
Herb
3.0
6.8-8.9
15%
All Year
Panicum
clandestinum
Deenongue
Herb
3.5
4.0-7.5
20%
All Year
Elymus virginicus
Virginia Wild Rye
Herb
2.0
5.0-7.4
10%
All Year
Asclepias synca
Common
Milkweed
Herb
0.2
5.5-7.3
1 %
All Year
Baptisia australis Blue False Indigo
Herb
0.2
<6.8
1%
All Year
Gaillardia
pulchella
Annual Gaillardia
Herb
1.0
7.0-8.5
5%
All Year
Echinacea
purpurea
Pale Purple
Coneflower
Herb
0.6
6.5-7.2
3%
100%
P/
i
0�,
e�
0
Z -- -
1
0'
80'
160'
240'
JINoxizearnn

HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
8" LAYER OF COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL MAY BE
SALVAGED ON-SITE
Profile A -A'
t
FLS OW
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
r— B
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
Plan View
B
HEAD
)F RIFFLE
CR -1Z �
g z
p W O
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
A,
0QG
8" LAYER OF COBBLE/GRAVEL
LL3g
BED MATERIAL MAY BE
z
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
/ 8" LAYER OF COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL MAY BE
SALVAGED ON-SITE
RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
- THALWEG 0.1'-0.2' DEEPER T\wT,� \
THAN REST OF RIFFLE
TO PROVIDE LOW FLOW PATH] TOP AF BANK (TYP)
Section B -B' RIFFLE MATERIAL TO EXTEND
3" UP TOE OF BANK (TYP.)
1 Native Material Constructed Riffle
4.1 Not to Scale
8" LAYER OF COBBLE/GRAVEL
FLOW BED MATERIAL MAY BE
SALVAGED ON-SITE
Profile View
A -A'
LOG STRUCTURE
EXPOSED UNTIL
TOPOFBANK CENTER OF CHANNEL
n ?
,zs
TOE OF SLOPE
RIFFLE MATERIAL TO EXTEND
3" UP TOE OF BANK
Log Section B -B'
NOTES:
• STRUCTURES SHOULD VARY IN SIZE
AND TYPE WITHIN EACH RIFFLE.
• ROCK MAYBE SUBSTITUTED FOR
LOGS AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION.
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE 3
1 c'
BURY INTO BANK S' MIN. (TYP)
3 Jazz Riffle
4.1 Not to bcale
Plan View
NOTES:
1. NO WOOD SHALL BE INSTALLED PARALLEL
TO FLOW DIRECTION
2. INSTALL WOOD FIRST AND THEN BACKFILL
WITH CHANNEL GRAVEL AND COBBLE
3. WOODY MATERIAL AND SNAGS SHOULD
NOT PROTRUDE MORE THAN 4"INTO THE
CHANNEL CROSS-SECTION ABOVE
PROPOSED GRADE.
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
A
Z
p10
G1. u FLOW
m O J y.�
LL3g
3" - 6" DIAMETER WOODY DEBRIS
MATERIAL WORKED INTO RIFFLE
SUBSTRATE PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW
CR -NM
CR -WD
CR -1Z �
CR -ALR
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
B
RIFFLE
— B' V
MICRO POOL HABITAT
BEHIND LARGER
WOODY DEBRIS
Plan View
3" TO 6" DIAMETER WOODY DEBRIS
WORKED INTO RIFFLE SUBSTRATE MICRO POOL HABITAT
BEHIND LARGER WOODY DEBRIS
04!
S" LAYER OF COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL MAY BE
SALVAGED ON-SITE
Section A -A'
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
THALWEG 0.1'- 0.2' DEEPER THAN
REST OF RIFFLE TO PROVIDE
LOW FLOW PATH
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
3" TO 6" BRUSHY MATERIAL
TOP OFBANK
WORKED INTO ROCKY SUBSTRATE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
r
TOE OF SLOPE
8" LAYER OF COBBLE/GRAVEL
0
LOG EXPOSED 1" TO 3" ABOVE
BED MATERIAL MAY BE
FINISHED RIFFLE ELEVATION
SALVAGED ON-SITE
FLOW
Section B -B'
2 Woody Riffle
4.1 Not to Scale
HEAD OF RIFFI F FI FVATION
POIN
a BURY INTO BANK 5' MII
ON 80T
i_�
Plan View
3. MINIMUM ONE LOG PER 10 LF OF Angled Log Riffle
RIFFLE LENGTH OR ONE LOG PER 0.3'
OF DROP, WHICHEVER 15 LESSER Not to ca e
DISTANCE.
' TO 65°
(TYP)
BANKFULL
DIAMETER OR
EATER (TYP)
AT
B" LAYER OF COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL MAY BE
SALVAGED ON-SITE
I
(t
Q
BANKFULL
n
THALWEG
FLOW
TOP OF BANK 8" LAYER OF COBBLE/GRAVEL
NORMAL WATER BED MATERIAL MAY BE
SURFACE SALVAGED ON-SITE
S. MIN.
(TYP)
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
B
Profile View
NLL
AA=A' o y
z
�m
TOE
EOEF
TOP OF BANK
-A%
ROCK VANES MAYBE USED
IN PLACE OF LOGS AT
St
ENGINEER'S DISCRETION
EXCAVATE SMALL POOLS 0.3' IN
Log Section B -B' FOR STRUCTURES WHERE THERE
- DEPTH DOWNSTREAM OF
15 A DROP OVER THE DOWNSTREAM
IMBEDDED LOGS AND ROCKS
POOL. PLACE LOG AT TAIL OF RIFFLE
NOTE: ACCORDING TO ELEVATION IN PROFILE
- TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
1. BOULDER MATERIAL CAN BE
SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE OF
ANGLED LOGS WITH APPROVAL
OF ENGINEER.
2. MINIMUM LOG DIAMETER 12".
i_�
Plan View
3. MINIMUM ONE LOG PER 10 LF OF Angled Log Riffle
RIFFLE LENGTH OR ONE LOG PER 0.3'
OF DROP, WHICHEVER 15 LESSER Not to ca e
DISTANCE.
' TO 65°
(TYP)
BANKFULL
DIAMETER OR
EATER (TYP)
AT
B" LAYER OF COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL MAY BE
SALVAGED ON-SITE
I
(t
Q

LENGTH VARIES PER PLAN
CHUNKY MATERIAL: PLACE TO
MAINTAIN THALWEG WITHIN
CENTRAL}OF CHANNEL.
TOP OF BANK (TVP) B
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP) r_1
HEAD OF RIFFLE - TAIL OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE PER PROFILE
O O O O O
D D'
CLASS 1 STONE
8" LAYER OF COBBLE/GRAVEL OR SALVAGED
BOU
ONSITE BOULDERS
BED MATERIAL MAY BE MIN SIZE 0.5'xl'xl.5'
SALVAGED ON-SITE
3" MAX
NOTE: CHUNKY MATERIAL ELEVATION
SHALL BE 0" TO 8" ABOVE RIFFLE MATERIAL
BASED ON ENGINEER'S DISCRETION.
10°-15°ANGLE i
A
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TVP)
A
L
FLOW
BACKFILL
B'
Plan View
Section B -B'
i Chunky Riffle
4.2 Not to Scale
RIFFLE MATERIAL TO EXTEND
3" UP TOE OF BANK
CR -CH
,LOW
8" LAYER OF COBBLE/GRAVEL
SILL ELEVATION
BED MATERIAL MAY BE
12" - 15" DIAMETER LOG
.SALVAGED ON-SITE
CLASS 1 STONE
OR SALVAGED
RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
ONSITE BOULDERS
MIN SIZE 0.5'xl'x1.5'
r TOP OF BANK (TYP)
r 3" MAX {
Section B -B'
i Chunky Riffle
4.2 Not to Scale
RIFFLE MATERIAL TO EXTEND
3" UP TOE OF BANK
CR -CH
,LOW
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
12" - 15" DIAMETER LOG
,LOW
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
12" - 15" DIAMETER LOG
POOL LENGTH PER PROFILE
BACKFILL
STREAMBED
i
POOL DEPTH PER PROFILE
A'
/ I NONWOVEN FILTERi RIC iOi i
MATTING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER
IPOOL / f�
1 / TOE OF SLOPE (TYP
VTTXOl,.
P OF BANK (TYP)
b_B' AVATE BANK AROUND POOL
Plan View 5%BANKFULL WIDTH
COVER WITH SOD MAT OR
TRANSPLANT MATERIAL
NOTE: WILLOW TRANSPLANTS
ONLY TO BE USED ON MARTIN
DAIRY. NOT FOR USE ON UTl.
EMBED LOG
4' (MIN.)
3
Angled Log Drop
42 Not to Scale
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
CHANNEL SOD MAT
BOTTOM WIDTH
ffl
_ SILL ELEVATION 12" -15" DIAMETER LOG
PER PROFILE (TYP)
Section B - B'
Plan View
COVER LOG TO BE SET AT ELEVATION 0.2'
/ HIGH OF UPSTREAM RIFFLE
21
SOD MAT s.
,4�19q:7N1�
FOOTER
BURIED 6""BELOW BELOW
MAX POOL DEPTH
Section A -A'
2 Lunker Logy
42 Not to Scale
zw
0I .4 A
1
A' I
B
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
12" NOMINAL THICKNESS
/OF EQUAL PARTS
CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
Plan View Profile A -A'
TOP OF BANK SILL ELEVATION PER PROFILE
HEADER ROCK
1.5' MIN FOOTER ROCK
EMBED 5'
INTO
NOTES: BANK (TVP)
1. MINIMUM SILL MATERIAL IS CLASS 1. Section 13-13'2. FOOTERS NOT NECESSARY IF ROCK IS CLASS 2 OR GREATER.
4 Boulder Sill
42 Not to Scale
FILTER FABRIC
EXTEND FILTER
FABRIC 5' M I N.
UPSTREAM
TRANSPLANT/BRUSH TOE TO
HEAD OF DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE
D nm oao
z
JW �rym
aW
o zz w
Ogw
Z
Qmm u
�Z �zrE
W 3 LL
m
,2WE N
E w
m

PLACE HEADER BOULDERS
WITH V TO 2' CLEAR SPACE
BETWEEN ROCKS
FLOW B
INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
PLACE HEADER BOULDER
TO PREVENT LOG FROM SHIFTING.
EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
----SCOUR
POOL
A
lXJ
Plan View
S" LAYER OF COBBLE/GRAVEL
i
BED MATERIAL MAY BE
_
SALVAGED ON-SITE
TOP
HEADER LOG
,LOW
x
Qmm
Z W
��zrE
3°/-51A
�o ,moo
3 LL
m
Section B -B'
B'
1 Lo J -Hook
4.3 Not to Scale
OFFSET HEADER LOG
0.25' TO 0.5' UPSTREAM
OF FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG /
FOOTER LOG
FILTER FABRIC
EXTENDS 5' MIN.
FOOTER LOG
8" LAYER OF COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL MAY BE
SALVAGED ON-SITE
TOE OF -OPE
�J NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
Section A -A'
Op
o�
DENSELY PACK BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL
IN BETWEEN BASE LOGS 1
i
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
BASE LOGS PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW
BASE LOGS PARALLEL TO FLOW
_
zZ
TOP
0rym o
0Jw
aWzogw
Z
o z v
a
Qmm
Z W
��zrE
�liyPl
3 LL
m
TOE OF
P�� P
t1
SVOPO
ELEV. 6" BELOW
OP
jOE �lP�
A'
BRUSH MATERIAL TO BE
1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL).
gPN�I
Plan View
INSTALLED FLUSH
2. INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF
OP OP
WITH BANK
SPACE. LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS LAYER.
3'
WIDTH PER TYPICAL
SECTIONS
POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM.
-
TOP OF
TOP OF BANK
BACKFILL
5. INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ACCORDING TO TYPICAL
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
6"
TO BE TOPPED WITH SOD IF AVAILABLE TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL)
ELEV. 6"ABOVE
DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE INVERT
\ V
DENSELY PACKED BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS
AND SOIL
'7
1111 444-Y HIA
BASE LOG
OF SLOPE
4"-6" DIAMETER
�r
_TOE _
- \\
\ BASE LOG
4-6" DIAMETER
BACKFILL
NOTES:
3'
1. OVEREXCAVATE OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL).
2. INSTALL BASE LOGS PARALLEL TO FLOW AT TOE OF SLOPE. DIAMETER 6"-12".
ELEV. 6" BELOW
2 NATIVE
SOIL
3. INSTALL BASE LOGS PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW AT INTERVALS ALONG
POOL DEPTH
BANK, RESTING ON TOP OF PARALLEL BASE LOGS. BASE LOGS SHALL
BE 6"-12" DIAMETER.
4. INSTALL DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF
SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS COLLECTED ON-SITE AND SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID
Section A -A'
SPACE. LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS LAYER.
5. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY PARALLEL AND IS INSTALLED
POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM.
6. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING OVER BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS.
7. INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL OVER EROSION CONTROL MATTING ACCORDING TO
TYPICAL SECTION DIMENSIONS.
8. SEED, MULCH AND WRAP EROSION CONTROL MATTING OVER. STABILIZE EROSION
CONTROL MATTING WITH STAKES.
Brush Toe - Martin Dairy
4.3
Not to Scale
TRANSPLANTED SOD AND ROOTMASS
TOP OF BANK
TAIL OF RIFFLE
Section View
Riffle Installation
NOTES:
1. PREPARE THE BANK WHERE THE SOD MAT WILL BE TRANSPLANTED
BY RAKING & FERTILIZING.
2. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANTSOD MATS WITH A WIDE BUCKETAND AS
MUCH ADDITIONAL SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE.
3. OVER EXCAVATE PROPOSED BANK SO THAT SOD MAT WILL BE
PLACED TO ACHIEVE FINAL GRADE SHOWN ON PLANS.
4. PLACE TRANSPLANT ON THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED.
5. SECURE WITH SOD STAPLES.
6. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.
7. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
B. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT THEY
TOUCH.
'LOW
�- POOL
n Transplanted Sod Mats
4.3 Not to Scale
3' WIDTH PER TYPICAL SECTIONS
BACKFILL
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
6" _--- TO BE TOPPED WITH SOD IF AVAILABLE
MATTING
55
OFBANK
/ HEAD OF RIFFLE
TOE OF SLOPE
Y PACKED WOODY DEBRIS
MATERIAL TO BE INSTALLED
KITH BANK
ELEV. 6" ABOVE
I -I
m
zZ
Q
0rym o
0Jw
aWzogw
Z
o z v
a
Qmm
Z W
��zrE
3 LL
m
ELEV. 6" ABOVE
DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE INVERT
j
DENSELY PACKED BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL -;
TOE OF
t1
ELEV. 6" BELOW
NATIVE SOIL NOTES:
POOL DEPTH
1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL).
2. INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF
SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS COLLECTED ON-SITE AND SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID
SPACE. LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS LAYER.
Section A -A' 3. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY PARALLEL AND IS INSTALLED
POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM.
-
4. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING OVER BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS.
5. INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ACCORDING TO TYPICAL
SECTION DIMENSIONS.
6. SEED, MULCH AND WRAP EROSION CONTROL MATTING. STABILIZE EROSION
CONTROL MATTING WITH STAKES. o ¢ C 3
t'J
r4Brush Toe - UT1 d -I
4.3 Not to Scale
E m
,pY

TOP OF BANK
II
TOE OF SLOPE --.
6' SPACING FOR HERBACEOUS PLUGS
6' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
NOTE:
1. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS AS
SHOWN ON PLANS AND AS DIRECTED BY
THE ENGINEER.
IMP
(`•
TOP OF
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
(SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET4.6)
HERBACEOUS PLUG (TYP) ,
Yti7xi7fi[iT7�
1 r
No 11w20
O
1/2" TO 2" J a
DIAMETER O
O.
N¢
T :..,. c...v,, n,....a
1 Live Staking & Herbaceous Plugs
\,L4�1 Not to Scale
(StLINSLI .'A") (SEE INSET "C")
HIGH STRENGTH
DOUBLE STITCHED
"J" TYPE SEAMS.
i PLACED ON
) OR STRAW.,
m
BUFFER WIDTH DIBBLE BAR e o
VARIES FFF---rrr
LIVE STAKE (NP) DIBBLE BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADE z° ry "-6
SEE PLAN VIEW BANKFULL WITH ATRIANGULAR NOTES: l
CROSS-SECTION, AND SHALL BE 12 I -y w o ,
FOR SPACING INCHES LONG, 4INCHES WIDE AND //�� Z a _ 4
�� '��� 1 INCH THICK AT CENTER. 1. ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFER N� -
RESTORED PLANTING AREA SHALL BE DISKED, AS Z r E
-TOP OF BANK CH NNEL �i i Y� i� REQUIRED, PRIOR TO PLANTING. ry w 3
l�T�^ 2. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROPERLY
HANDLED PR INSTALLATION TO
ROOTING PRUNING
ENSURE SURVIVAL.
SPACING PER ALL ROOTS SHALL BE PRUNED TO
PLANTING PLAN AN APPORIATE LENGTH TO
Section View PREVENT J -ROOTING.
O O
61
M
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR
PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE TO
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN
SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE
SHOVEL, SEVERAL INCHES IN
SHOVEL, DOWN TO THE
CLOSE THE BOTTOM OF THE
INTO THE SOILTO THE FULL
SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP INTO
FRONT OF THE SEEDLING
FULL DEPTH OF THE BLADE.
PLANTING HOLD. THEN PUSH
DEPTH OF THE BLADE AND
THE PLANTING HOLE. PULLTHE
AND PUSH THE BLADE
FORWARD TO CLOSE THE TOP,
PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE
SEEDLING BACK UP TO THE
HALFWAY INTO THE SOIL.
ELIMINATING AIR POCKETS
TO OPEN THE PLANTING
CORRECT PLANTING DEPTH
TWISTAND PUSH THE
AROUND THE ROOT.
HOLE. (DO NOT ROCK THE
(THE ROOT COLLAR SHOULD BE
HANDLE FORWARD TO
SHOVEL BACK AND FORTH
1 TO 3 INCHES BELOW THE SOIL
CLOSE THE TOP OF THE SLIT
AS THIS CAUSES SOIL IN THE
SURFACE). GENTLYSHAKETHE
TO HOLD THE SEEDLING IN
PLANTING HOLE TO BE
SEEDLI NGTOALLOWTHE
PLACE.
COMPACTED, INHIBITING
ROOTS TO STRAIGHTEN OUT.
ROOTGROWTH.
DO NOTTWIST OR SPIN THE
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE ROOTS
J -ROOTED.
SEWN IN SPOUT EXISTING TERRAIN DEWATERING BAG
HIGH STRENGTH STRAPPING 8" OF CLASS B RIPRAP
DEWATERING FOR HOLDING HOSE / FOR WIDTH OF PAD
BAG IN PLACE _ STREAM BED
_--WATER FLOW FROM PUMP
FLEXIBLE
DISCHARGE HOSE FILTER FABRIC
15' to 20'
Inset°A" NOTE:
Dewatering Bag
1. PROVIDE STABILIZED OUTLET TO
STREAMBED.
SANDBAG
(24'X 12" X 6")
OR STONE.
IMPERVIOUS SHEETING
FLOW
V �
Inset "B"
-RVIOUS DIKE Impervious Dike
INSET "B")
STABILIZED OUTLET USING CLASS B
RIPRAP TRENCHED INTO EXISTING
GROUND A MINIMUM OF 6". SIZE AND
LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE
FIELD BY THE ENGINEER.
FLEXIBLE DISCHARGE HOSE FROM
10' MIN. PUMP AROUND PUMP HELD IN PLACE
WITH SAND BAGS AS NEEDED.
)UTLET
APAND
R FABRIC.
Plan View !l�Yal� FILTER FABRIC
Pum Around System O 'liSet
3 Stabilized Outlet
4.4 Not to Scale
M
Bare Root Planting
4.4 Not to Scale
2"-3" DIAMETER C
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND FIRM
UP THE OPENING WITH YOUR
HEEL. BE CAREFULTO AVOID
DAMAGING THE SEEDLING.
8" MIN. DEPTH
NOTES:
1. PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENTTO ACCOMMODATE LARGE
TRUCKS.
2. LOCATE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ALL POINTS OF INGRESS AND
EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED. PROVIDE FREQUENT CHECKS OF THE
DEVICE AND TIMELY MAINTENANCE.
3. MUST BE MAINTAINED INA CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING
OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD ONTO STREETS. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH
STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.
4. ENTRANCE WILL BE EXTENDED AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
SEDIMENT REMOVAL.
S. ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUST BE CLEANED
IMMEDIATELY.
6. USE 2"-3" DIAMETER COARSE AGGREGATE STONE APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER.
7. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BENEATH STONE.
n Construction Entrance
4.4 Not to Scale

8' MAX. WITH WIRE
MIDDLE AND VERTICAL WIRES
SHALL BE 127' GAGE MIN.
FILTER FABRIC
TOP AND BOTTOM STRAND 24" MAX
SHALL BE 10 GAUGE MIN. — - -- (18" MIN.)
WIRE
1 Temporary Silt Fence
45 Not to Scale
RUBBER STALL MAT
TIMBER MATS
EXISTING GROUND
Fx
ao
wo
�ry
NOTES
1. STRUCTURAL STONE SHALL BE (CLASS "B") STONE FOR
EROSION CONTROL PURPOSES.
2. SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE SHALL BE NO. S OR NO. S7
STONE.
mal
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
COMPACTED FILL
1. USE WIRE A MINIMUM OF 32" IN WIDTH AND
SUPPORT LOG
WITH A MINIMUM OF 6 LINES OF WIRES WITH 12"
FILTER FABRIC
STAY SPACING.`r.ivJ'Y;.T�
,
2. USE FILTER FABRIC A MINIMUM OF 36" IN WIDTH
a0
AND 18" IN HEIGHT, AND FASTEN ADEQUATELY
STONE
TO THE WIRES AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
3. EXTEND FILTER FABRIC A MINIMUM OF 4" INTO
4
TRENCH.
EXTEND FABRIC
4. PROVIDE S'STEEL POST OF THE SELF -FASTENER
INTO TRENCH
ANGLE STEEL TYPE.
1 Temporary Silt Fence
45 Not to Scale
RUBBER STALL MAT
TIMBER MATS
EXISTING GROUND
Fx
ao
wo
�ry
NOTES
1. STRUCTURAL STONE SHALL BE (CLASS "B") STONE FOR
EROSION CONTROL PURPOSES.
2. SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE SHALL BE NO. S OR NO. S7
STONE.
mal
�
1
S
SUPPORT LOG
FILTER FABRIC
F- 5' WATER DIVERSION CHANNEL
3 Temporary Stream Crossing - Timber Mat
4S Not to Scale
REMOVE
DEBRIS FROM
SILT FENCE
SEDIMENT
CONTROL
STON E 1' - 6" MIN.
FLOW L1
T MAX.
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
STRUCTURAL
STONE
2 Stone Outlet
4.5 Not to Scale
RRUR4
Section View
Tree Protection Fencing
4.5 of to Scale
ERS SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR
ATION. _
ALL TREE PROTECTION
N
Q
1
S
SUPPORT LOG
FILTER FABRIC
12" DIAMETER MIN.
CLASS B
STONE
NOTE:
1.
CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW 15 AT NORMAL
BASEFLOW.
2.
MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT
EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM.
3.
INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW.
4.
MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD
DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
5.
STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE OF THE
MUD MAT.
6.
CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE
ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
7.
MINIMIZE SPACES BETWEEN LOGS ON TIMBER MAT.
B.
SILT FENCE TO BE INSTALLED AT 45° ANGLE TO THE ROAD WITH
STONE OUTLET AT EACH CORNER OF THE TEMPORARY CROSSING
TO FILTER ANY SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS FROM HAUL ROAD FROM
ENTERING THE STREAM.
3 Temporary Stream Crossing - Timber Mat
4S Not to Scale
REMOVE
DEBRIS FROM
SILT FENCE
SEDIMENT
CONTROL
STON E 1' - 6" MIN.
FLOW L1
T MAX.
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
STRUCTURAL
STONE
2 Stone Outlet
4.5 Not to Scale
RRUR4
Section View
Tree Protection Fencing
4.5 of to Scale
ERS SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR
ATION. _
ALL TREE PROTECTION
N
Q

WOOD STAKE
WOOD STAKE
STRAW WATTLE
STRAW WATTLE
EXISTING GROUND
EXISTING GROUND
6" NORMAL THICKNESS
WELL GRADED MIXTURE OF
?�//�{tel{{� �%T
CLASS A AND CLASS B STONE.
g
�%
�iT�/� -/TIS 'i{��.��/��
YFLOW
z
� Al
N
LENGTH VARIES
SEE PLAN SHEETS
Section View
Section View A -A'
Section A -A'
6" NORMAL THICKNESS
WELL GRADED MIXTURE OF
w w
CLASS A AND CLASS B STONE.
z=
T OVERLAP
°
x z 6" NORMAL THICKNESS
WOODSTAKE
STRAW WATTLE
° °
B °
a WELLED MIXTURE OF
z ,wy, CLASSA AND CLASS B STONE.
B' v�
NONWOVEN
�
FILTER FABRIC
T-4'
A'
A
Section 13-13'
NOTE:
Plan View
1. SECURE THE WATTLE WITH 24" STAKES EVERY 3'-4'AND WITH A STAKE
ON EACH END. STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF
THE WATTLE LEAVING AT LEAST 2"-3" OF STAKE EXTENDING ABOVE THE
WATTLE. STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE FACE.
2 Rock Outlet
Temporary
Straw Wattle
4.6 Not to Scale
1
4.6 Not to Scale
�Xl
r rvPICAL
DRIVE GALVANIZED
1' MIN. OVERLAP IN
16D NAIL THROUGH
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION
STAKE2" FROM TOP
AT MAT ENDS
STAKE (TYP) TOP OF BANK
,..
Sp,GCN� d a
R
Typical Top &
z
TOE OF SLOPE
Bottom Stake
Plan View����
—11,25"
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING (TYP)
TOP OF BANK
SECURE MATTING IN •6"
6"DEEPTRENCH
STAKE (TYP)
11"
TOE OF SLOPE
2x CONTAINER WIDTH
Tical Stake
Section View
NOTE:
1. PER SPECIFICATIONS, ALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING
SHALL BE COMPOSED OF NATURAL FIBERS.
2. USE 2"X2"X18" STAKES AT TOP AND TOE OF SLOPE
4 Containerized Planting
4.6 Not to Scale
Erosion Control�Erosion Control
Mattinn
4.6 Not to Scale

10' OVERFLOW CHANNEL 10' OVERFLOW CHANNEL
1' DEEP 50/50 MIX ROAD CREST 15' TOP 4" ABC STONE. ROAD
TYPE 2 WOVEN FILTER EXTENDS TO EDGE OF
TOP 4" ABC STONE. ROAD CLASS A AND CLASS B CREST EL. 948.0 1' DEEP 50/50 MIX CLASS A AND CLASS
EXTENDS TO EDGE OF RIP RAP. ELEVATIONS FABRIC / CONSERVATION EASEMENT
/CONSERVATION EASEMENT PER GRADES SHOWN ON B RIP RAP. ELEVATIONS PER GRADES
110 - X10 SHOWN ON PLANS. CORNERS
F\
aiv
x
PLANS. -iCORNERS 77
i
\
\ \
\ia\. ��
O Gi�O
i
iAN VA iiia
EXISTING GRADE ` i _ VAS\iAiAAi``MINIMUM 12" COVER
50/50 MIX CLASS A AND A���s ��%vAA INITIAL BACKFILL, OVER PIPE cp
CLASS B RIP RAP PER PLACED IN 6" LIFTS,
GRADES SHOWN ON 6" MIN. BEDDING, #57 STONE AASHTO CLASS II
PLANS. MATERIAL
EMBED CULVERT VAS V2X60"CMP
SHOWN ON PROFILE. INV. EL: 491.50' U/S
BACKFILL WITH 50/50 INV. EL: 491.25' D/S
MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP
MATERIAL.
Cross -Section View
SCALE: 1" = 5'
,i
DITCH RE -ALIGNMENT
INV. IN'. ELEV 491.50'
INV. OUT ELEV. 491.25'
s
I
a
TIE IN TO EXISTING CHANNEL
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED STREAM CHANNEL �T
/ CONSERVATION EASEMENT
EXISTING STREAM CHANNEL'.
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
MAXIMUM 2(H):1(V) SIDE SLOPES
COVERED IN MINIMUM CLASS B STONE
ROAD TOP WIDTH =
15' COVERED WITH
' r 4" ABC STONE.
%s° , ° ROAD EXTENDS TO
EDGE OF EASEMENT
OUTLET STATION CORNERS.
120+06 D APPROXIMATE ROAD
LENGTH 245'.
OVERFLOW CHANNEL.
SEE CROSS—SECTION
FOR DIMENSION
71
rn__ v.__._
SCALE: 1" = 20'
� Martin Dairy Culvert Crossing Station 119+81
4.7
IN

Appendix 7
Maintenance Plan

1.0 Maintenance Plan
The site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a
minimum of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require
routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two (2) years
following site construction and may include the following:
Tablel: Maintenance Plan — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in -stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental
Stream
installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where
storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent bank erosion.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
Vegetation
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species
shall be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control
requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
Site boundary
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.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087 Page 1

Appendix 8
Credit Release Schedule

1.0 Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided
written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of
the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release
schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be
released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended,
depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release
of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows:
Table A: Credit Release Schedule — Stream Credits — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring
Interim
Total
Credit Release Activity
Year
Release
Released
0
Initial Allocation — see requirements below
30%
30%
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
1
10%
40%
standards are being met
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
2
standards are being met
10%
o
50/0
(additional 10% released at second bankfull event in a separate year)
(60%)
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
60%
3
standards are being met
o
10%
(70%)
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
65%
4
standards are being met
5%
(75%)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
75%
5
standards are being met
10%
(85%)
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
80%
6
standards are being met
5%
(90%)
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
90%
7
standards are being met and project has received closeout approval
o
10%
(100%)
1.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by DMS
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan.
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property.
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; per the DMS Instrument, construction means
that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built
report has been produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087 Page 1

1.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
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. For stream projects a reserve
of 10% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bankfull events have occurred, in
separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event
that less than two bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the
DMS 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.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087 Page 2

Appendix 9
Financial Assurance

1.0 Financial Assurances
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Service's In -Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided
the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to
satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all
mitigation projects implemented by the program.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97087 Page 1