20050634 Ver 1 - RichlandCrk(Paschal)_276_CloseOutRpt_2017 - 4/7/2017

Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek)
DMS ID 276
USACE ACTION ID #200520699
DWQ 401 #05-0634
CLOSEOUT REPORT: Stream and Riparian Buffer
Prosect Settinq & Classifications
Meeting XY Coordinates: 35.981783, -78.520229
County
Wake
General Location
Wake Forest
River Basin:
Neuse
Physiographic Region:
Piedmont
Ecoregion:
Northern Outer
Piedmont
USGS Hydro Unit:
03020201
NCDWQ Sub -basin:
03-04-02
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
N
Project Performers
Dec 2013
Source Agency:
DMS
Designer:
EcoLogic Associates,
PC
Construction:
River Works
Monitoring Firm
KCI
Stream Repair Design:
KCI
Repair Contractor
Fluvial Solutions, Inc.
Supplemental Planting
Contractor:
Carolina Silvics
Pine Thinning
Contractor:
HARP
Approved for transfer to
Stewardship
Yes
Stewards
NC DEQ Stewardship
Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Project Instituted
Jan 2004
Permitted
June 2005
Construction Completed
April 2010
As -built survey
Dec 2010
Monitoring Year -1
Dec 2011
Monitoring Year -2
Dec 2012
Pine Thinning
Aug 2013
Monitoring Year 3
Dec 2013
Supplemental Planting
Feb 2014
Monitoring Year 4
Nov 2014
Stream Repairs
Mar 2016
Beaver removal
May 2016 —
present
Monitorin Year 5
Nov 2016
Closeout Submission
Feb 2017

DMS Planning Context:
The Richland Creek stream and buffer restoration project is located within HUC03020201070060, the Richland Creek
Watershed, which is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the 2010 River Basin Restoration Priority Plan as
well as the March 2016 Neuse 01 Catalog Unit Update.
The 2010 River Basin Restoration Priorities describes the Richland Creek watershed as developed with over 8%
imperviousness. Portions of Raleigh, Wake Forest, and Youngsville account for most of this imperviousness are subject to
Phase II stormwater regulation. The 2015 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) update identified impervious
surfaces, disturbed buffer, water quality impairments and proposed transportation improvement projects as problems
within this watershed. Priorities for the Richland Creek watershed are to reestablish buffers, stormwater treatment, and
stream restoration/stabilization.
Proiect Settin! and Backiround Summary
The Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site restored a total of 2,919 linear feet of stream and
60,961 square feet of buffer in the Neuse River Basin. The project runs the length of Paschal Golf Course beginning at
Stadium Drive and ending at Durham Road (Hwy 98). The pre -restoration reach was highly modified. Development and
management of the golf course involved straightening the creek and draining the adjacent floodplain with ditches and
buried tiles. The project drainage area is approximately 7.8 square miles and is developing with residential subdivisions.
The restoration design was a Priority 2 restoration largely due to channel relocation constraints based on adjacent
landowners and the shallow slope of the valley. At the start of the project, a proprietary rock fish ramp structure was
constructed to reconnect Richland Creek at the project site with upstream to promote aquatic organism passage.
Construction and planting of the site was completed in April 2010.
The vegetation monitoring success criterion for the planted stream riparian zone is a density of 260 stems/acre and the
criterion for the buffer restoration is 320 stems/acre. The vegetation monitoring followed the Level 2 CVS-EEP vegetation
monitoring protocol. The site's average density for this monitoring period was 324 planted stems/acre, including live stakes,
and 306 planted stems/acre, excluding live stakes. Including volunteers, the site averaged 3,070 total stems/acre. Two of
seven plots did not meet 260 stems/ac when considering only planted stems; when volunteers are included all plots meet
the criterion. Plots 2,3,4 are located in buffer mitigation zones and subject to 320 stems per acre at year five. Two of these
three plots met success with planted stems only; all plots met this with volunteers.
There were many loblolly pine and sweetgum volunteers throughout the easement; in certain areas, these volunteers were
extremely dense. In late summer of 2013, after the vegetation monitoring, the loblolly pine density was reduced to improve
the condition of the site for the planted vegetation. In February 2014, a site wide supplemental planting of 750 woody stems
and 1100 livestakes was done to address areas of low stem density and bank erosion. See Supplemental Planting Plan map
in Appendix D for more specific information. Since most of the sediment and streambanks at the site have a high sand
content and the watershed is urban/suburban and flashy, immediately following construction, the stream was susceptible to
bank erosion. Over the first few years of monitoring six areas of bed and bank instability and erosion were identified. The
repairs completed in March 2016 focused on repairing eroding banks with vegetated soil lifts, removing a failed structure,
and installing a constructed riffle in one location to provide bed stability. All of these repair areas have become well
vegetated and appear stable a year after construction and after multiple bankfull events. See the Remediation Map for the
repair areas.
Fifth -year monitoring found Richland Creek to be mostly stable, with only minor changes from the baseline conditions.
The stream has two areas of localized bank erosion near station 14+50 and 26+15. All other areas of erosion or mass
wasting reported in previous years' reports were repaired in March 2016. Several beaver dams were noted during the 2016
monitoring. As of the end of year site visit on 11/28/16, beaver dams were present at station 13+40 and 16+90, but APHIS
was contacted to trap and remove dams. The longitudinal and cross-sectional data also reflect the overall stability in the
project stream. As a part of the stream success criterion, the stream must experience at least two bankfull events, each in
separate monitoring years. The site has experienced multiple bankfull events since construction.
DMS holds an 8.53 -acre conservation easement on parent tracts owned by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
(Paschal Golf Course) and Horsecreek Associates, Inc. DMS has provided maintenance areas within the easement for
Paschal Golf Course operations that include maintenance of vegetation height in a play over area and around the edge of a

green at the stream crossing. DMS also has a Non -Binding Letter of Intent with Progress Energy regarding the restriction
of non -emergency cutting of woody vegetation and to restrict the application of herbicide within their 160 -foot -wide
transmission line right-of-way. See transfer illustration and copy of the letter of intent found in property portfolio link in
Appendix A and Appendix D.
Goals and Obiectives:
Project Goals
• Restore a stable channel morphology and floodplain to the project stream that is capable of moving the flows and
sediment provided by its watershed.
• Improve water quality by reducing bank erosion and bed degradation.
• Provide a riparian management zone that is compatible with the surrounding uses (golf course and electrical
transmission corridor) and yet retains the ecological function of the riparian zone.
• Enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the stream corridor.
Project Objectives
• Restore 2,919 linear feet of stable stream channel with the appropriate pattern, profile, and dimension that can support
efficient sediment transport.
• Plant native trees and shrubs throughout the site.
• Grade a floodplain adjacent to the stream.
Success Criterion
Success Criteria
Measured Parameter
Criteria Met
Streams
Yes — Areas of severe stream bank erosion reported
• stable stream system based
6 permanent cross-sections (4 riffle
during the project have been repaired. Cross-section
on measurements of
and 2 pool); pebble counts; and 11
survey data indicates that the channel geometry has
dimension, pattern, profile
permanent photo points
remained stable since the repairs.
and visual assessments
Yes — Plots 1 and 7 did not meet the success criteria of
260 stems per acre for the streamside area. The average
for planted stems for the 4 plots in the streamside area
is 253 stems/acre, however, when including volunteers,
Vegetation
the average is 3,437 stems/acre.
• Minimum of 260 stems/acre
7 vegetation plots measured using
ms
in year 5 streamside area
the CVS Level II protocol; Plots 1, 5,
In the riparian buffer restoration area, only plot 4 did
• Minimum of stems/acre
6 & 7 in streamside area; Plots 2, 3
not meet the success criteria of 320 stems/acre.
in year 5 riparian buffer
& 4 in riparian buffer restoration
However, the average planted stems/acre in the three
area
plots is 378 stems/acre and when including volunteers,
restoration area
the average is 2,347 stems/acre (excluding livestakes)
All plots meet vegetative success when considering
volunteer species.
Hydrology
Yes — Success criteria were met throughout the
• documentation of two
1 crest gauge and photo
monitoring period with a total of 8 documented
bankfull channel events
documentation of bankfull events
bankfull events.

Asset Table:
Table Ia. Project Components
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No. 276
Project
fisting
Restoration
Stream (If)
Linear Footage
Buffer (Ac) BMP
Mitigation
Mitigation
BNIP
Component or
Feet/Acres
Level
Approach
or Square Feet *
Stationing
Ratio
Credits'
Flements
Comment
Reach ID
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
0 0
In -stream structures, including offset rock cross
2,919
0 0 0
1.399 0
MU Totals
2,766
0 0 0
1.399 0
vanes, riffle grade controls, and rock sills, were
Richland Creek
N/A
R
P2
2,919
10+00 - 39+80
1:1
2,766
used to stabilize restored channel. Planted a
riparian buffer.
Buffer
R
1
1 60,961
1
1 1:1
60,961
i
Buffer was planted with native vegetation.
*Linear footage does not include the stream length that runs under a golf cart bridge through an easement exception. Square feet ofbuffer are limited to the areas ofthe buffer
that meet the regulatory criteria for buffer restoration credit. See Figure 2 for the locations of the creditable buffer.
+The credits have been reduced to account for areas where the streamflows through vegetation management zones within the easement. These management areas are depicted
on Figure 2. They include a utility right ofway and a play over area for the golf course. Under the utility right ofway the buffer will be allowed to grow to a height of 12'. Due to
this restriction the 309 mitigation credits that would be generated by the stream in the right ofway is reduced by 25% to 231 stream credits. The vegetation in the play over area
will be trimmed to a few feet high. Due to this restriction, the 151 mitigation credits that would be generated by the stream in the play over area are reduced by 501/o to 76 stream
credits. There is 2,4591f of stream that does not have any reductions and will generate 2,459 credits.
Table lb. Component Summations
Paschal Golf Course Richland Creek /Project No. 276
Restoration Level
Stream (If)
Riparian Wetland (Ac) Non-Ri r (Ac) and(Ac)
Buffer (Ac) BMP
Riverine Non-Riwrine
Restoration
2,919
1.399
Enhancement
EnhancementI
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
0 0
Totals (Feet/Acres)
2,919
0 0 0
1.399 0
MU Totals
2,766
0 0 0
1.399 0

Richland Creek Asset & Monitoring Station Map
Buffer mitigation totals ExtstAng Ve!gelalion 2099 ac
I ( ]
60,961 srq-fftt. (1-399 ac.) of restoration
PowerfinePolAon
3 55 ff 2220 330 440 F�--DCEting_WetIwW
L P13YDyerPdm?wb

Soils Map
Mc�D2
M�D2•
Ce�2
CaC2
EnC2
AD
Vel
VVwF
i,
CM tia
CsB2
CcC2
ApC2
AfA: Altavista fine sandy laam, 0 to fi% slopes, rarely flooded
ApC2: Appling sandy loam, 6 to 10% slopes moderately eroded
Mo
��©� AsC2: Appling fine sandy loam, 6 to 10% slopes moderately eroded
CeB2: Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 6% slopes, moderately eroded
CeC2:Cecil sandy loam, 6 to 10% slopes, moderately eroded
Cm: Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2%° slopes, frequently flooded
MC2 EnC2: Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 6% slopes, moderately eroded
MdD2: Madison sandy loam, 10 to 15% slopes, moderately eroded
Me: Mantachie sandy loam, 0 to 2% slopes, rarely flooded
WwF: Wilkes loam, 20 to 45% slopes
Figure 3. Soils Map
Project Easement
KCIo sao
ASSOCIATES OF NC
Source: U.SGSDRU
w Feet
.00 Wake County, North Carolina

Remediation Map

Stream Morphology Data: Cross sections, Longitudinal Profiles, and Morphology Table
265
Neuse River Basin, Richland Creek, MY -05, XS -1, Riffle
262
261
-------------------------------------------------------------
264
260
263 ---
262
--------------------------------------------
-----
258
w
257 ----- ------ ----------------------
w 261
0
256
260
-
0
- - - - - - - - -------- - -- ----------------------------
255
259
258
W
0
254
W
253
257
252
256
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
252
Station (feet)
255
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
90 100 110
- Bankfiill - - -
MY -02 —e -a MY -001 58/3/10
65/8/3/12 3 MY -04/14/14
MY -01, 7/1/11
MY -05 8/12/16
Neuse River Basin, Richland Creek, MY -05, XS - 2, Riffle
258
262
261
-------------------------------------------------------------
260
256
259
258
w
257 ----- ------ ----------------------
0
256
d
255
W
0
254
253
253
252
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
252
Station (feet)
Bankfiill Flood Pmne Area MY -00, 8/3/10 MY -01, 7/11/11
251
MY -02, 8/3/12 MY -03, 6/5/13 MY -04,5/13/14 - MY -05, 8/12/16
Neuse River Basin, Richland Creek, MY -05, XS - 3, Pool
258
257
256
---------
255
d
254
0
253
m
W
252
251
250
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
r- - - Bankfull MY -00, 8/4/10 MY -01, 7/11/11 MY -02, 8/3/12 MY -03, 6/5/13 MY -04, 5/13/14 MY -05, 8/12/1

Neuse RiverBasin, Richland Creek, MY04, XS - 5, Pool
256
255
Neuse RiverBasin, Richland Creek, MY -05, XS - 4, Riffle
254
260
254
-- --------------------------- - --------------
253
w
259
1
252
°
°
251
251
W
------------------------------------------------------------
248
258
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
249
BankfW1 - I Flood Prone Area MY -00, 8/4/10 MY -01, 7/13/11
248
257
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
Bank'u MY -00, 8/4/10 MY-Ol, 7/13/11 MY -02, 8/3/12
MY -03 6/11/13 MY -04 05/14/14 - MY -OS 8/12/16
256
m
A
255
-----------------
-----------------------
------ ------
N-
254
253
W
252
251
250
0 10
20 30 40 50
60 70
Station (feet)
rfar
Flood Prone Area MY -00,8/4/10
MY -01,7/13/11
03 8/3/12
MY -03 6/10/13 MY - 04 05/14/14
- MY -05 8/12/16
Neuse RiverBasin, Richland Creek, MY04, XS - 5, Pool
256
255
254
255
254
-- --------------------------- - --------------
253
w
1
252
°
°
251
251
W
249
250
248
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
249
BankfW1 - I Flood Prone Area MY -00, 8/4/10 MY -01, 7/13/11
248
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
Bank'u MY -00, 8/4/10 MY-Ol, 7/13/11 MY -02, 8/3/12
MY -03 6/11/13 MY -04 05/14/14 - MY -OS 8/12/16
Neuse RiverBasin, Richland Creek, MY04, XS - 6, Riffle
256
--------------------------------------------------------------
255
254
253
w
1
252
°
251
j 250
249
248
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
BankfW1 - I Flood Prone Area MY -00, 8/4/10 MY -01, 7/13/11
-MY-02,8/3/21012 MY -03,6/11/13 MY -04,5/14/14 -MY-05,8/12/16

262
261
260
259
258
257
E
256
z
255
254
W
W
W 253
252
251
250
249
248
258
257
256
255
[r 254
w
z 253
O
252
W 251
ra
W
250
249
248
247
246
245
Longitudinal Profile
Richland Creek
EEP Project Number 304- W-05
Stations 0+00 - 10+00
■
■ _ -0.0017. + 260.03
y=_0_0034x +257.89
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
STATION (FT)
--- Water Surface ■ BKF Slope MY -00, 8/3/10 MY -01, 7/11/11 MY -02, 8/3/12
MY -03 6/5/13 MY -04 5/14/14 tMY-05 8/12/16 ----- WSSlope BKFSlope
Longitudinal Profile
Richland Creek
DMSProject Number 304, W-05
Stations 10+00 - 20+00
■
■ SBKF = -0.0028x + 260.85
— — '------ 5=-0.0029x +257.74
TV
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
STATION (FT)
--- Water Surface ■ Bankfull MY -00,8/3/10 MY -01,7/11/11
MY -02 8/3/12 MY -03 6/5/13 MY -04 5/14/14 t MY -05 8/12/16

256
255
254
253
252
F
251
z
0
F 250
W 249
W
248
247
246
Longitudinal Profile
Richland Creek
DMS Project Number 304, MY -05
Stations 20+00 - 30+00
■
■
S." = -0.0025x + 260.36
\
` Sws = -0.0029x + 257.7
vq
24s
2000
2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000
STATION (FT)
—' Water Surface ■ Bankfull MY -00, 8/4/10 MY -01, 7/13/11
MY -02,8/3/2012 MY -03, 6/11/13 MY -04,5/14/14 MY -05, 8/12/16

Cross -Section 6
Based on fixed baseline
- Base I MYl I MY2 MY3 I MY4 MYS MY+
Bankfull Width (ft) 32.2 32.6 33.3 32.3 31.9 29.7
Floodorone Width (11) >60 >60 >60 >60 >61 >61
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.7
1 2.5
2.3
2.2
1 2.2 2.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.5
3.4
Table Ila. Monitoring - Cross -Section Morphology Data
3.2
3.3 3.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional
Area (ft')
85.6
82.2
77.9
70.2
69.7 58.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.1
12.9
14.2
14.8
14.6 15.0
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No. 276
>1.9
>1.8
>1.9
>1.9
>1.9 >1.9
Dimension and Substrate
Cross -Section I (Riffle)
Cross -Section 2 (Riffle) Cross -Section 3 (Pool)
Cross -Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 5 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MY+
Base
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MY+
elevation
Bankfull Width (ft) 34.4
33.6
35.4
34.0
33.1
26.4
31.9
35.2
35.6 33.6 31.9 30.431.4
33.9 36.1 33.2 31.3 31.3
32.1
31.9
31.9
31.5
32.2
31.4
31.5
32.5 31.9
30.5
29.7
29.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
>90
>90
>90
>90
>90
>90
>70
>70
>70 >70 >70 >70
- - - - - -
>68
>68
>68
>68
>68
>68
-
- -
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.8
2.5
2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2
3.3 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.7
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.9
2.8 2.7
2.4
2.5
2.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.3
3.5
3.4
3.8
3.8
3.7 3.7 3.7 3.9
5.6 5.0 5.0 4.3 4.3 4.8
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.5
4.3
4.7 4.1
4.2
4.1
3.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional
Area (ft')
81.7
79.9
78.5
72.1
63.8
55.5
89.3
88.5
87.6 84.0 76.3 65.6
104.0 99.2 97.8 86.3 78.9 85.2
80.2
76.5
73.1
66.6
67.2
63.8
90.8
90.6 85.0
74.4
73.3
76.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.5
14.1
16.0
16.0
17.2
12.5
11.4
14.0
14.5 13.5 13.3 14.1
- - - - - -
12.8
13.3
13.9
14.9
15.4
15.5
-
- -
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment
>2.0
>2.0
>2.2
>2.2
>2.8
3.4
>2.0
>1.8
>2.0 >2.0 >2.0 >2.3
>2.0
>2.1
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.0
Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height
Ratio*
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
- - - - - -
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
- -
-
-
-
Cross -Sectional Area
477.5
478.0
477.4
460.5
479.8
457.3
111.4
108.6
114 110.9 85.4 89.2
135.7 134.2 135.6 123.3 123.0 116.9
100.1
100.6
96.2
105.9
100.1
80.2
106.4
110.6 107.4
99.8
103
85.2
Between End Pins .ftZ
d50 (mm)
2.0
19.0
20.0
20.0
6.0
30.0
34.0
17.0
15.0 7.9 7.1 28
0.4 0.8 1.7 2.2 2.0 0.2
46.0
42.0
53.0
51.0
11.0
12.0
1.7
1 0.4 1 1.31.1
1.6
2.0
Cross -Section 6
Based on fixed baseline
- Base I MYl I MY2 MY3 I MY4 MYS MY+
Bankfull Width (ft) 32.2 32.6 33.3 32.3 31.9 29.7
Floodorone Width (11) >60 >60 >60 >60 >61 >61
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.7
1 2.5
2.3
2.2
1 2.2 2.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.3 3.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional
Area (ft')
85.6
82.2
77.9
70.2
69.7 58.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.1
12.9
14.2
14.8
14.6 15.0
Bankfull Entrenchment
>1.9
>1.8
>1.9
>1.9
>1.9 >1.9
Bankfull Bank Height I 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Ratio
Cross -Sectional Area
_. .-,, 1 94.3 94.1 92.1 87.1 81.2 64.6
d50 (nun) 144.0 124.0 122.0 123.0 17.7 123.0
monitored bankfull elevations were established at the top of bank during baseline monitoring, there have been no significant changes in bank height or indications that the bankfull elevation of the channel has changed. There have been small depositional features of sand
and fine sediment that have formed along some parts of the floodplain, but these are considered transient and not permanent changes to the bank heights. Therefore the bank height ratio has remained at 1.0 throughout the course of monitoring.

*=Since monitored bankfull elevations were established at the top of bank during baseline monitoring there have been no significant changes in bank height or indications that the bankfull elevation of the channel has changed. There have been
small dep ositional features of sand and fine sediment that have formed along some parts of the floodplain, but these are considered transient and not p ennanent changes to the bank heights. Therefore the bank height ratio has remained at 1.0
throughout the course of monitoring
Table 11b. Monitoring - Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No. 276
Richland Creek (2,919 ft.)
Parameter
MY01 (2011)
MY02 (2012)
MY03 (2013)
MY04 (2014)
MY05 (2015)
Dimension
Min
Mean Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD
n Min
Mean Med Max SD n
Min
Mean Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
31.9
34.2
33.1 35.2
3.0
4
31.9
34.1 34.4 35.6 1.8
4 30.5
32.5 32.8 34.0 1.3 4
31.5
32.9 33.0 34.0
1.2
4
26.3
28.7 28.5 31.4
2.4
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
68
72
69 90
13
4
60
72 69 89 12
4 60
73 69 92 12 4
60
70 70 90
13
4
60
70 70 90
13
4
BankfuH Mean Depth (ft)
2.3
2.4
2.4 2.5
0.1
4
2.2
2.3 2.3 2.5 0.1
4 2.1
2.3 2.3 2.6 0.2 4
2.1
2.2 2.2 2.5
0.2
4
2.0
2.1 2.1 2.1
0.05
4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.2
3.5
3.4 3.8
0.3
4
3.2
3.4 3.4 3.7 0.2
4 3.1
3.6 3.5 4.3 0.5 4
3.1
3.4 3.4 3.7
0.3
4
3.2
3.5 3.4 3.9
0.3
4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftz)
76.5
81.8
81.1 88.6
5.1
4
73.1
79.3 78.2 87.6 6.1
4 66.6
75.6 73.3 86.3 7.9 4
66.6
73.2 71.2 84.0
7.5
4
55.3
59.6 59.7 63.8
4.7
4
Width/Depth Ratio
12.9
14.3
13.7 16.8
1.8
4
13.9
14.7 14.4 16.0 0.9
4 13.5
14.8 14.9 16.0 1.0 4
13.5
14.8 14.9 16.0
1.0
4
12.5
13.8 13.6 15.5
1.3
4
Entrenchment Ratio
1.8
1.9
1.9 2.1
0.2
4
1.8
2.1 2.1 2.6 0.3
4 1.9
2.2 2.2 2.7 0.3 4
L9
2.2 2.2 2.7
0.3
4
2.0
2.5 2.2 3.4
0.6
4
Bank Height Ratio*
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
0.0
4
1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0
4 1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4
1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.0
4
1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.0
4
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
37
78
83 116
25
9
Radius of Curvature (ft)
g0
91.1
90 100
9
9
Rad. of Curv.: Bankfull Width
(ft/ft)
2.5
2.7
2.7 2.6
Meander Wavelength (ft)
259
321
312 395
45
11
Meander Width Ratio
1.2
2.3
2.5 3.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
18.1
40.6
30.3 103.0
22.6
17
16.7
33.0 25.5 65.8 15.5
18 13.7
29.1 25.0 78.2 16.0 18
8.8
24.7 22.9 56.3
13.0
21
14.1
27.1 21.0 56.1
12.0
19
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.001 0.010 0.008 0.020
0.006
17 0.002 0.010 0.010 0.030 0.010
18 0.001
0.023 0.008 0.010 0.006 18
0.001 0.615 0.017 12.591
2.744
21 0.003 0.013 0.013 0.032 0.008
19
Pool Length (ft)
31.0
71.8
73.6 121.5
24.5
17
11.5
67.8 77.8 119.9 30.7
17 8.9
77.6 73.7 128.5 32.4 16
7.2
25.4 24.8 45.5
10.0
17
9.8
27.1 23.5 63.3
t5.8
24
Pool Max Depth (ft)
4.7
4.9
- 5.0
-
2
4.1
4.6 - 5.0 -
2 4.2
4.3 - 4.3 -
2
4.1
4.2 - 4.3
-
2
3.9
4.4 - 4.8
-
2
Pool Spacing (ft)
85.6
172.4 168.8 261.9
44.9
16
51.3
160.6 159.0 256.0 53.5
16 129.9
185.2 165.3 278.2 47.2 15
47.2
127.2 150.2 245.3
65.0
16
24.5
121.8 123.7 273.4 68.3
23
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
2,710
2,710
2,710
2,710
2,710
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,919
2,919
2,919
2,919
2,919
Sinuosity
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0032
0.0034
0.0034
0.0034
0.0033
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0029
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0026
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C5
C5
C5
SC% / Sa°/a / G% / C% / B% / Be%
0.33%/36%/47%/16%/0.67%
0%/29%/54%/16%/1%
0%/25`/`/67`/`/12%/0%/0%
0%/39%/55%/6%/0%
1%/33%/43%/21%/1%/1%
d16 / d35 / d50 / d65/ d84 / d95
1.1/10/17/65/110
4.6/13/19/31/66/135
6.7/12/18/25/50/86
0.7/2.1/5.9/13.3/25.8/71.3
0.7/8.1/16/35/61/266
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
1%
2%
5%
3%
1%
*=Since monitored bankfull elevations were established at the top of bank during baseline monitoring there have been no significant changes in bank height or indications that the bankfull elevation of the channel has changed. There have been
small dep ositional features of sand and fine sediment that have formed along some parts of the floodplain, but these are considered transient and not p ennanent changes to the bank heights. Therefore the bank height ratio has remained at 1.0
throughout the course of monitoring

Hydrology Data:
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No. 276
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo #
5/17/2010
5/17/2010
Photographed on site
1, See Below
9/28/2011
9/16/2011
Crest gauge
None
11/5/2012
unknown
Crest gauge and indicators of storm event
None
6/10/2013
6/7/2013
Photographed on site
2, see below
11/15/2013
unknown
Photographed on site
3, see below
5/28/2014
unknown
Photographed on site
4, see below
11/10/2014
unknown
Photographed on site
5, see below
11/29/2016
10/8/2016
Nearby automatic rain gauge recorded 6.44"
of rain, photos taken on site
6, see below
Photo #1 - Bankfull Event, 5/17/2010
'15/2013
lines), 6/10/2013
,8/2014
Photo #5 — Bankfull Evidence (wrack lines), 11/10/2014 Photo #6 — Bankf ill Evidence (wrack lines), 11/29/2016

Vegetation Data:
Table 5. Vegetation Plot Data by Plot and Year
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek)/DMS Project #276
MY01 (2011)
MY02 (2012)
MY03 (2013)
MY04 (2014)
MY05 (2016)
Plot#
Planted Total
Planted Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
1
243 364
121 445
162
769
162
688
243
567
2
567 1,255
526 4,452
526
5,140
647
4,735
364
1942
3
526 526
445 4,330
486
4,694
567
2,266
486
1538
4
607 647
526 4,492
526
11,655
486
9,834
283
3561
5
607 1,619
567 9,227
405
14,771
445
10,846
364
6677
6
324 324
243 5,908
243
6,273
283
5,504
283
4209
7
324 971
283 6,595
162
7,122
121
8,984
121
2995
Average
457 815
387 5,064
359
7,203
387
6,122
306
3,070
Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Proiect No. 276
Current Plot Data (MY5 2016)
Scientific Name
30401-0001
Common Name Species Type PnoLS P -all T
30401-0002
PnoLS P -all T
30401-0003
PnoLS P -all T
304-01-0004
PnoLS P -all T
30401-0005
PnoLS P -all T
30401-0006
PnoLS P -all T
30401-0007
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
boxelder Tree
1
Acer rubrum
red maple Tree
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder Shrub
1
1
1 1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry Shrub
1
1
1
3
3
3
Baccharis
baccharis Shrub
5
2
3
Baccharishalimifolia
eastern baccharis Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch Tree
24
5
1
Carya illinoinensis
pecan Tree
1
Celtis
hackberry Tree
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry Tree
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry Tree
Cephalanthus occidentals common buttonbush Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cerciscanadensis
eastern redbud Tree
1
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweetpepper Shrub
1
1
1
Cornus
dogwood Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood Shrub
3
3
3
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon Tree
1
1
2
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash Tree
4
4
4
2 2
2 2
2
2
1
1
3
Juniperusvirginiana
eastern redcedar Tree
5
Uquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum Tree
6
4
6
7
61
36
39
Liriodendrontulipifera
tuliptree Tree
1
1
1 1
1
1
8
3
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle shrub
2
Myrica gale
sweetgale Shrub
1
1
Nyssasylvatica
blackgum Tree
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine Tree
2
30
20
39
73
47
22
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4 4
4
4
5 5
5
4
2
2
3
3 3 9
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak Tree
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak Tree
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
wateroak Tree
Quercus palustris
pin oak Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak Tree
3
3
Salix nigra
black willow Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow Shrub
1
3
3
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry Shrub
Ulmus alata
winged elm Tree
Ulmus americana
American elm Tree
1
UnknownShrub
or Tree
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwoo Shrub
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
6
4
6
1
0.02
4
243
14
6
567
9
6
3641
12 48
1
0.02
7 10
4861 19421
12
5
4861
12 38
1
0.02
5 7
4861 1538
7 7 88
1
0.02
2 2 8
283 3561M
9
6
9 165
1
0.02
6 14
3641 6677
71
4
2831
7 104
1
0.02
4 13
2831 4209
3 3 74
1
0.02
1 11 6
1211 2995

CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Proiect No. 276
Annual Means
Scientific Name
MYS (2016)
Common Name Species Type PnoLS P -all T
MY4 (2014)
PnoLS P -all T
MY3 (20 3)
PnoLSIP-all T
MY2 (20 2)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1(2011)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2010)
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
boxelder Tree
1
1
3
Acer rubrum
red maple Tree
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder Shrub
2
2
2
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry Shrub
4
4
4
7
7
7
9
9
9
13
13
13
7
7
7
Baccharis
baccharis Shrub
10
1
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis Shrub
13
Betula nigra
river birch Tree
30
116
63
33
1
Carya illinoinensis
pecan Tree
1
Celtis
hackberry Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Celtislaevigata
sugarberry Tree
2
2
2
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry Tree
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentali common buttonbush Shrub
4
4
4
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
31
3
31
31
5
5
5
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud Tree
1
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweetpepper Shrub
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Cornus
dogwood Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
Cornusamomum
siIkydogwood Shrub
31
4
4
5
7
8
5
9
9
5
11
11
9
19
19
18
54
54
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon Tree
1
1
5
2
2
7
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
41
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash Tree
9
9
111
91
9
131
61
6
81
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
J u n i p e ru s v i rgi n i a n a
eastern redcedar Tree
5
7
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum Tree
159
366
135
84
2
Liriodendrontulipifera
tuliptree Tree
2
2
13
4
4
10
1
2
2
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle shrub
2
6
Myrica gale
sweetgale Shrub
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum Tree
2
2
7
4
41
71
5
51
5
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine Tree
1
233
1
414
952
657
10
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore Tree
19
19
30
19
19
33
19
19
32
19
19
32
19
19
31
20
20
20
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
wateroak Tree
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak Tree
3
3
4
4
4
12
3
3
31
31
3
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
Salix nigra
blackwillow Tree
41
3
Salix sericea
silky willow Shrub
1
31
31
11
3
3
1
4
4
1
4
8
1
20
20
1
21
21
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry Shrub
1
1
1
12
12
Ulmusalata
1winged elm ITree
2
Ulmus americana
jAmerican elm ITree
1
18
Unknown
I 15hruborTree
1
1
81
10
10
28
401
40
Viburnum dentatum
Isouthern arrowwoo Shrub
11
11
1t387439
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
53
15
306
56 531
7
0.17
15 27
324 3070
67
15
387
71
7
0.17
15
410
1059
24
6122
62
14
358
69
7
0.17
14
399
1240
20
7169
79
15
457
111
7
0.17
16
642
141 114
20 17
815 ,
193 193
7
0.17
17 17
1116 1116

DMS Recommendation and Conclusion
The Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site is has developed into a stable, well vegetated, stream
restoration project. Given the site constraints of being in a golf course and having a flashy urban/suburban flow regime,
combined with a heavy sand bed load, the site demonstrates significant functional uplift from the pre -restoration condition.
There are only two areas of active bank erosion that do not appear to be significantly worsening or affecting the channel
outside of the immediate bank area. The areas that were repaired in early 2016 are stable and functioning well.
While there are a few vegetation plots not meeting the success criteria for planted stems, they are all meeting those criteria
when including volunteers. Overall the site is well vegetated and all areas are growing well.
The visual indicators of stream stability and the site's vegetation condition indicate that it is on a path to success. DMS
recommends that the Richland Creek (Pascha; GC) site be closed out to provide 2,766 SMU and 60,961 RBMU as
requested.
Contingencies
None

Pre & Post Construction Photos:
Station 1-+-50, 2/27/2008, pre -construction
Station 2+00, 2/27/2008, pre -construction
Station 13+50, 2/27/2008, pre -construction
Station 23+00, 2/27/2008, pre -construction
Station 1+50, 5/17/2016, MY -05
Station 2+00, 11/29/2016 MY -05
Station 13+50, 11/29/2016 MY -05
Station 23+00, 11/29/2016 MY -05

Appendix A: Property Ownership Information & Verification of Protection Mechanism
The site protection instrument for this mitigation project includes the following document(s), available at the specified
County Register of Deeds office, and is linked to the property portfolio at:
http://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Mitigation Services/Document Management Library/Property/Property
Portfolio/276 PaschalGC(RichlandCk) PD 2006.pdf
Total project conservation acres 8.53
Project Name
County
Grantor Name
Deed Info 11
Property Rights
Paschal GC (Richland Ck)
(G) Wake
Southeast Baptist Theological Seminary DB 12137, P 1048 Conservation Easement
Paschal GC (Richland Ck)
(G) Wake
Horsecreek Associates, Inc. DB 12101, P 2680
Conservation Easement
Long-term stewardship of this property is managed by the NC DEQ Stewardship Program.

1 W Progress Energy
October 10, 2011
Jan Eason
Land Protection Section
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mall Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Re: Non -Binding Letter of Intent
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Property SPO #92 -CT
Richland Creek at Paschal Golf Course; EEP ID #276
Falls -Henderson 11 5k Transmission Line, Structures 78 — 79
Falls-Franklinton 11 5k Transmission Line, Structures 142 — 143
Wake Forest 69kV Feeder, Structures 19 - 20
Dear Mr. Eason,
Pursuant to the request identified in the attached Non -Binding Letter of Intent I am
forwarding the signed original letter for your files. This Letter of Intent has been signed
by Rufus S. Jackson, Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC) General Manager
Transmission Maintenance.
It is the responsibility of EEP to insure plant material installation in Zone 1, Electric
ROW, was in compliance with the Final Engineer Approved Plant List. Both the Plant
List and As -built Planting Zones are attachments to the September 30, 2011 letter to me
from Jeff Jurek. Please e-mail or call me at [phone] if you have questions.
Harold F. Wagner
Ao4ntract2n �and Agent
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
1408 Mechanical Blvd.
Garner, NC 27529
OCT 1 1 2011
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

Non -Binding Letter of Intent
Richland Creek at Paschal Golf Course
EEP Project Identification # 276
SPO File #: 92 -CT
County: Wake
Property: Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., Deed Book 1794, Page 441 of the Wake County Registry
Transmission Line Easement at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Project: Stream, riparian buffer and wetland restoration project along Richland Creek
Owner: Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
Please complete the section below and return one covv of this form to:
Jan Eason
Land Protection Section
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Vegetative Cutting. Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. PEC voluntarily agrees to restrict non -emergency cutting of
woody vegetation and to restrict the application of herbicides within their 160 -foot wide transmission line right-of-
way where it overlaps the EEP project area. PEC intends to provide EEP or the Town of Wake Forest, or their
successors and assigns, notice at the addresses shown above prior to conducting any pruning, mowing, spraying or
cutting of native species planted by EEP, its contractors or assigns .
PEC intends not to cut vegetation within the conservation easement area shown on the conservation easement survey
plat recorded in the Wake County Book of Maps page 2006, page 1279-1282, to the extent such vegetation is of a
variety that does not typically mature at a height greater than 12 feet above ground level, except as needed in cases
of emergency repairs or to control volunteer or invasive exotic vegetation. In addition, care will be taken to protect
native vegetation growing within the conservation easement area from herbicide spray and drift.
PEC will make reasonable efforts to avoid any damage to native vegetation (except for vegetation that typically
matures at a height greater than 12 feet) within the transmission right-of-way during construction, maintenance,
operation and removal of its transmission line, but PEC will not be liable for any damage that might occur during the
performance of these activities. EEP and NCDENR recognize that PEC is not forfeiting any of its rights under the
transmission line right-of-way, as referenced in Deed Book 1794, Page 441, and in Book of Maps 2003, at page
1600, of the Wake County Registry. The parties expressly acknowledge that should the easement area become
overgrown with volunteer vegetation or vegetation, whether native or exotic, that typically matures at a height
greater than 12 feet, PEC may choose to exercise its rights under the easement to completely clear the easement
area, including by mechanical means or by use of herbicides.
Emergency Conditions. PEC voluntarily agrees to notify EEP, successors or assigns, and the Town of Wake
Forest prior to routine maintenance work, but such notification may not be possible under conditions that PEC
deems to constitute an emergency. For purposes of the preceding sentence, an emergency shall include, but not be
limited to, ice storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, wind storms, fires, or vandalism to PEC facilities, and any other
conditions that PEC judges to cause or threaten to cause an interruption of service to PEC customers. PEC agrees to
notify EEP of any emergency repair of maintenance work within the conservation easement area within a reasonable
time thereafter under the circumstances.
Utility Maintenance. At this time, PEC does not have plans to impact the transmission line easement area with new
underground or overhead utilities. PEC agrees that any future installation of utilities within the conservation
easement area will be avoided to the greatest extent practicable.
This Non -Binding Letter of Intent is merely an expression on the part of PEC to assist EEP and the Town of Wake
Forest in their efforts regarding vegetation within the easement area. It is not a contract and does not create any
legally binding obligations for PEC. PEC reserves the right to exercise all rights granted to it in the utility easement.

_ I am in agreement with this Non -Binding Letter of Intent, in reference to the above referenced property
interest, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
After reviewing the attached Non -Binding Letter of Intent referenced above, I have the following concerns:
I hereby affirm that I am authorized to a cute this document on behalf of PEC
Signed: 612, ld ac%/c014 Date: 1-20
Printed Name: Rufus S. Jackson
Title: General Manager Transmission Maintenance
PEC

.ji7'wk
- NR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Michael Ellison, director John E. Skvarla, II I
Governor Ecosystem Enhancement Program Secretary
July 18, 2014
Ryan Hutchinson, Executive VP for Operations
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
PQ Box 1880
Wake Forest, NG 27588-18$0
RE: Vegetation Maintenance Agreement for Golf Course Purposes
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary property (SEBTS)
Wake Forest, Wake County, NC
Mr. Hutchinson:
Thank you for meeting with North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ("EEP") to
discuss the Richland Creek stream restoration project. EEP entered into an agreement
with SEBTS in August of 2007 regarding construction of the stream restoration project,
costs associated with the project and the development of a vegetative management plan.
The Paschal Golf Course (PGC) has contacted EEP about maintaining vegetation in
certain areas of the easement to facilitate health of the greens, safe access to irrigation
lines, obstruction of playover areas and general aesthetics. These conversations made it
apparent that a formal vegetative maintenance plan was needed as discussed in the
notarized letter from August 2007.
This letter is to formalize the agreement between Southeastern Baptist Theological
Seminary ("SEBTS"), and EEP regarding the vegetative maintenance plan to be
implemented on Richland Creek at SEBTS property occupied by PGC. This agreement is
a result of the joint meeting on July 8, 2014, attended by Ryan Hutchinson and Travis
Williams of the SEBTS; Heather Smith and Lindsay Fairchilds of EEP and Bobby Crocker
of PCG. At that meeting, it was agreed that.
Irrigation Box Access: There are two irrigation box controls inside the State
conservation easement_ PGC is allowed to mow an area 8' wide, perpendicular to the
easement, to the irrigation control box. Maintenance is restricted to mowing only (no
herbicide treatment) to a height of no less than 1", to facilitate the safety of the PGC
staff to access the boxes on a regular basis. See attached map with areas labeled
"Irrigation Box Maintenance"
2. Manicured Areas: There are two areas within the State's conservation easement that
are used as part of the active play on the golf course. These areas are allowed to be
maintained as a manicured area conducive to use within a golf course. The areas
don't have height restrictions on the cutting of vegetation; however the areas must
remain vegetated. See attached map with areas labeled "Manicured Areas"
1652 Mai{ Service Center, Raleigh, North cafoba 77699-1652
Phone: 919=797-89761 Internet www.ncdenf.gov
!;n E4uW Opporlurity 1 AfrYrmalve AcrJorr €mployer - Mada In part by recycled paper

3. Rough Maintenance 12-24": There are two areas within the State's conservation
easement that are allowed to be maintained to a vegetation height of 12-24". The
established trees within these areas are not to be cut, pruned or otherwise removed
within the easement. The intent of area I is for the herbaceous layers behind the
green to be maintained to a maximum width of 5' extending perpendicular from the
easement toward the stream, with an allowable height of 12-24" to allow for air flow and
decrease vegetation overhang onto the green. The intent for area 2 is to allow
clearance for the golfers immediately in front of the tee box and allowed to maintain a
vegetative height of 12-24" _ See attached wrap with areas labeled "Rough
Maintenance 12-24".
4, Playover: There are two areas with the State's conservation easement that are
allowed to be maintained to a height of 3'. The 3' height is to be measured from the
elevation of the outer edge of the conservation easement. This allows trees down
along the stream side and floodplain to attain heights greater than 3'. This area runs
perpendicular to the easement as identified on the map. See attached map with areas
labeled "Playover" and "Illustration of Playover Vegetation Maintenance".
5. Shrub Planting: PGC/SEBTS may plant native shrubs within the easement area. The
shrub species must be pre -approved by either EEP or the steward of the project prior
to planting_ See attached map with areas labeled "Shrub Planting"
SEBTS has the right to petition EEP or the conservation easement steward to amend this
Vegetation Maintenance Agreement. However, once the project has been accepted by the
regulatory agencies, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Borth Carolina Division of
Water Resources, changes to this agreement may have financial implications if mitigation
credits are negatively affected due to vegetation maintenance.
By my signature, I am in agreement with the items stipulated in this letter.
Soan R_ Hutchinson, Executive VP for Operations
utheastern Baptist Theological Seminary
im Baumigartner_,_De u Director,
North Carolina cosyste Enhancement Program
t�
Da e
Date

Attachment A
Vegetation Maintenance Agreement and Map
By my signature, I am in agreement with the items stipulated in the attached letter, dated
18 July 2014, regarding the Right of Access and Use of Southeastern Baptist Theological
Seminary Pro
;,;�an R. Hut`ctrin n Rate
`S�ie�L.sid�rrtfcfir-g�i�tess-�°drwrit�i#�#ia�r
Southeastern Baptist Theological Semina
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF 4 �(
I, F r%/,e, a Notary Public for c% i- e - County, North
Carolina, do ereby certify thatri R•s' A15a Al personally appeared
before me this day and aeknowle ged the execution of the attached instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
% day of L,./ , 200 y—
Notary P is,�+n*�""•+•r,#ti
H
My commission expires:
'•I'
�y (� �{ y
err 60TAR,f +�i
L�1** -
r / PORM

1l .: =t4AMELMMO
3 E
Richland Creek
Vegetation Maintenace agreement Map
17
l71 •� \ rt
iTrn•ym. '�, �Y '
r
wy t
tr
A Area 1 ,
Area 2
r a a t. tki
Legend l
- Irrigation Box Maintenance
SEBTS Signature & Date
j Rough Maintenance 12-24"
Conservation Easement
EEP Signature & Date
_ Playover
_NX - Shrub Planting
Q 30 60 120 180 240 y Man icu red Areas
Feet1
t N- Q'ne' rater"f graphic Information a
i

LU
E
V)
w
M
4
cry
�
4-j
C
aj
Qa
0
cU
n�
o
ago
0
—
a
CL
E
M
4-J
W
—0<U
}`
Q
fu
4-1
U
>
(L)
C)
W
u
—_
:,
o
•
a
>
4-J
c
C
'm
a
u
au
>
Q
4
+,
m
0
W
c] x
ai
q--
L
bD
IV
�
.F
cry
T -j
+-j
—0
cu

Appendix B: Permits & Jurisdictional Determinations
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ArA
WILMINGTON DISTRICT Wma`
Action ID: 200520699 County: Wake
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner. NC Ecosystem Eabancement Program
Attn: Salam Murtada
Mailing Address: 1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Authorized Agent:
Mailing Address:
Telephone No.: [phone]
Telephone No.:
Location of property (mad name/number, town, etc,): Richland Creek Mitigation Site; on Paschal Golf Course; south
of SR 1930 (Stadium Drive) and north of NC 98; west of Wake Forest, North Carolina
Site Coordinates: 35.981 IN 78.522 °W
Waterway: Richland Creek
USES Quad: Wake Forest
River Basin: Neuse RUC. 03020201
Description of projects area and activity (sec; page 2 for a sumtnary of authorized impacts): Richland Creels Mitigation
Site: Discharge of fill material for stream mitigation, as shown in the plans and drawings received on April 15,
2005.
Applicable Law: JR Section 404 (Chart Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Sectio:; 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403) .
Authorization: Nationwide or Regional Creneral Permit Number(s): 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished ut strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified,
suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or
modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration dato identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of
the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide perrnl , activities which have coirunenced (i.e., are
under construction) or are under contract to eonmmeace in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the
activity is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, umodificauon or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
This Department of the Army verification docs not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals/pen-nits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Eric Alsmeyer at telephone [phone], eat 23.
Corps Regulatory OfficialLit ��_ Date: 06/13/2005 Verification Expiration Date: 03/123/2007
Copy Furnished:
Page 1 if 2
OAA /inn •.T 1T&44 LNgv rt%-rV 4"1We'n n7M^ ^)A ET& XT, IPT f -^Al PT'LIMA

Appendix B: Permits & Jurisdictional Determinations
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
POST -CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE FORM
Action ID Number: 200520699
County: Wake
Permittee: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program Richland Creek Mitigation Site; south of SR 1930 (Stadium Drive)
and north of NC 98; wast of Wake Forest, North Carolina
Date Permit Issued: 06/13/2005
Project Manager: brit Alsmeyer
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit, sign this
certification and return it to the following address:
US Army Corps Of Engineers
Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Otiice
6508 Falls Of The Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit you are subject to permit suspension,
modification, or revocation.
1 hereby certify that the work authorized- by the above referenced pernut has been completed in accordance
with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in accordance with the
permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Date

Appendix B: Permits & Jurisdictional Determinations
Determination of Jurisdiction:
❑ Basad on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above described project aria.
This preliminary detennination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process
(Reference 33 CER Part 331),
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States withui the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless thera is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination nay be rolie3d upon for a period not to exceed five years from the data of this
notification.
® There are waters of the US and/or wotlands within the above described project area subject to the permit mquirernents of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC if 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
datemtination may be relied upon for a period not to oxceed live years from the date of this notification.
❑ Tho jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action. Please reference the
jurisdictional determination issued on (Action ID: ).
Basis of Jurisdictional Derernunadon: The int act area contains a streaon channel of Richland Creek, a tributary of the Neuse
Corps Regulatory Official Date: 06/13/2005 Determination Expiration Date: 06/13/2010
tiurnmary of Authorized Impacts and ReatYi.red Mitization
Action ID NWP 1 GP O n Water ac
#E # Temporary Permanent
Wetland ac Unim orm t Steam 00 1 'iWortant Stream 1
Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent
200520699 27
0.11
2,800
In act Totals 0 0
0.009 0.11 0 0 0
T 2 8011
Total Loss of Waters of the U.S. ac
0.016 Total Loss of Waters of the U.S. (in
2,800
Required Wetland Mitigation ac 0
1 Required Stream Mitigation 1
Additional Remarks and/or Special Permit Conditions:
The permittee shall include appropriate measures to minimize indirect impacts to the hydrology of the wetland that is not
directly impacted, such as a levee or other means of reducing the potential for accelerated surface and/or groundwater
runofflseepage into the new channel from the remaining wetland.
No compensatory stream or wetland mitigation is required, other than that created by the proposed stream
mitigation authorized by this permit; however, this nationwide permit verification does not imply approval of the
suitability of this property for compensatory mitigation for any other particular project.
Note: This verificatiiotl does not include additional 11111 impacts to waters of the United States from any borrow sites
or spoil disoosal. Impacts on additional, waters of the United States world have to be permitted sepnratelv-if they
became necessary. _
Page2of2

endix B: Permits & Jurisdictional Determinations
E: PRELIMINARY XGUSDICTIONAL 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
M (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 Ja
IFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCL•SS AND
UEST FOR APPEAL
F
icant: NC Ecosystem Enbaneement File Number: 200520699
Date: 06113/2005
ram Attn: Salam Murtada I Richland Creek Mitigation Site
Attached is:
See Section below
-9
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
A
ernussion
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 htM://www.usace.anny.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg 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 rorum it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Latter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the IAP 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, ineludinb its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional detenninadons 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 lI 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 latter, the disaict 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 pivmit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and recur it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Pemlission (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 accapt the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms aid conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline tho 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 It of this fonn
and sending the form to the division engineer. This forth 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 Enginoers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section lI of this form and sending the form to the division engineer_ 11his farm 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 Coags to accept an approved M. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved ID 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 Frocess by completing Section 11 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.
E: PRELIMINARY XGUSDICTIONAL 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
M (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 Ja

endix B: Permits & Jurisdictional Determinations
SECTION 11 - RE VEST 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.
P01NT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact:
may also contact:
Eric Alsmeyer
Mr. Michael Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
CESAD-ET-CO-R
US Army Corps of Engineers
H.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M 15
Raleia, North Carolina 27615
1 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
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 time appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
invesfi ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Si ture of appellant oragent.
DIVISION LNGWEER:
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer Divisio% South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490

Appendix B: PoeerMss Jurisdictional Determinations
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
April 28, 2005
` WQ Project # 05-0634
ph Wake County
i,S
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program AY 4 . Z���
Attn: Salam Murtada
1652 Mail Service Center�,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 PFj� w
Subject Property: Richland Creek Stream Restoration Project ''""`''�w�l
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Murtada:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
within or otherwise impact 0.11 acres of wetlands and 2,800 feet of streams for the purpose of stream
restoration at the subject property, as described within your application dated April 12, 2005 and received
by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on April 14, 2005. After reviewing your application, we
have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number(s) 3495
(GC3495). The Certification(s) allows you to use Nationwide Permit(s) 27 when issued by the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, you should obtain or otherwise comply with any other
required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited
to) Erosion and Sediment Control, and Non -discharge regulations. Also, this approval to proceed with
your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application shall expire
upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold,
the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of
wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved (Units) Plan Location or Reference
Stream 2,800 (feet)
404/LAMA Wetlands 0.11 (acres)
401 OversightlExpress Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone]/ FAX [phone] /Internet http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer -50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
NofthCarolina
Naturally

Appendix B: Permits & Jurisdictional Determinations NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Page 2 of 3
April 28, 2005
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the Forth Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the .Porth Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids,. or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre -Construction Notification. All construction
activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion
control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality
standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and seaters
is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date
that the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
5. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit. North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
6. Sampling for Macroinvertebrates
Sampling of macroinvertebrates shall be done at 3 sites (1 above the restoration reach, 1
approximately '/z way down the reach and one at the bottom of the reach). Macro sampling shall
occur at pre -construction and at years 1, 3 and 5, post construction.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct

Appendix B: Permits & Jurisdictional Determinations NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Page 3 of 3
April 28, 2005
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or
stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh at 919-
733-9721 or Eric Kulz or Mike Horan in the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office at 919-571-4700.
Sincerely,
a.
AWKlcbk
Enclosures: GC 3495
Certificate of Completion
cc: USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
rme
Filename: f05-0634 Richland Creek Stream Restoration (Wake) 401

Appendix B: Permits & Jurisdictional Determinations
Mitigation Project
Richland Creek (Paschal GC)
DMS ID
272
River Basin
NEUSE
Cataloging Unit
03020201
Applied Credit Ratios: 1.05531:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 10:1
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 03/21/2017
o
c
c
15
c•4
c
.c
o
E
m
4
E
U
y
jp
a
E
V
o
to
N
O
C
GM
d
N
'
A
N
N
UO
C
n1
d
N
;
M
01
0
d
U
L
d
0
L)
C
L
c
N
a
01
U
L
L
C
W
d
a
C
w
O.
E
C
W
c
W
a`
w
C
`m
w
o
C
`m
m
N
W
N
L
O
r2
m
m
E
E
m
°'
•`m
1°
a
a
'�
0
`m
a
°°
ro
m
v
m
v
0
n
K
a
A
a
C
o
m
m
w
m
g
m
E
m
E
E
�
h
o
Z
Z
o
Z
0
Z
o
U
0
m
0
y
°
U
E
N
d
N
to
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
2,919.00
60,961.00
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
2,766.00
60,961.00
NCDOT Pre -DMS Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
DMS Debits (feet and acres):
DWR Permit No
USACE Action IDs Impact Project Name
1999-0490
1996-02359 NCDOT - 195 NC 50 interchange
408.41
1996-01917 / 1997 NCDOT - Northern Wake
1996-0319
00884 Expressway
304.28
2001-20708 / 2000 NCDOT - Widening of 1-85,
2000-10401
20902 Ellerbee & South Ellerbe
742.42
2000-1128
1999-21144 NCDOT - Edwards Mill Extension
163.58
2001-0013
2001-20354 Butner Correctional Institute
58.21
NCDOT ILF Credit Purchase
1,242.10
Riparian Buffer ILF Credit Purchase
60,961.00
Remaining Balance (feet / acres / square feet)
0.00
0.00
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)
0.00
0.00
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 03/21/2017

Appendix B: Permits & Jurisdictional Determinations
Mitigation Project Richland Creek (Paschal GC)
DMS ID 276
River Basin NEUSE
Cataloging Unit 03020201
Comment: This ledger shows the debits for the amount of mitigation that the NCDOT ILF Program purchased from the Statewide ILF Program.
The beginning balance represents the amount purchased and not the total mitigation credits available on the site.
1.05531:1 1.51 2.5:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 03/21/2017
o
c
°
v
o
4
c
aci
o
c
m
c
m
o
-
o
c
v
im
m
d
o
m
u
v
c
v
ori
r
c
v
U
t
K
c
W
d
t
W
a
y
d'
E
IL
c
w
y
w
c
c
m
m
y
m
m
N
Z
0
2
O
U
U
p
U
O
U
Beginning Balance (square feet)
1,242.10
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
1,177.00
NCDOT Pre -DMS Debits (feet and acres):
DMS Debits feet and acres :
DWR Permits USACE Action IDs Impact Project Name
NCDOT TIP R-2000AA / AB /
AC - 1-540 Northern Wake
2003-0918 2000-21863 Expressway
1,242.10
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
0.00
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)
0.00
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 03/21/2017

Appendix B: Permits & Jurisdictional Determinations
Mitigation Project Name Richland Creek (Paschal GC)
IMS ID # 276
River Basin NEUSE
Cataloging Unit 03020201
Comment: This ledger shows the debits for the amount of mitigation that the Riparian Buffer ILF Program purchased from the Statewide ILF Program.
The beginning balance represents the amount purchased and not the total mitigation credits available on the site
Applied Credit Ratios: 1:1 3:1
19.163 297.541
c
�
c
m
m
�
�
N
G,
r
c
W
O _A
1n c
O
OI
0
O
t
N
>
;
w
Oo
E
m
o o
Z
z
E
y
m
m
Beginning Balance (square feet) 60,961.00
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits) 60,961.00
DMS Debits (credits):
DWR Permits Impact Project Name
2004-1055 NCDOT - Widening of US 1/64 60,961.00
Remaining Balance (square feet) 0.00
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits) 0.00
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 03/21/2017

Appendix D: Additional Data

Supplemental Planting Plan
Paschal Golf Course
EEP #276imp ;
few Wake Forest, NC
May 2013
t J,
IPA
�W lunipemAv ' al '
't�` •. !.
tiV
r.44i`v F . • 3*4.4.
" hi rti.' "s
;— •� + Y 14� "}``°` i� 4 �t i� . t%� a S'4 , I,� tr'4 sq'�f,• t T• h•+y- a 1� c`1 _ -
�ti- a�.o7 �F,'} ,y .�7t 4.. � . �'tli�"�t7'��$�`. t45 1y.' i a1�.: t ,��'1
,� � 1 555 Stadium Drive
Wake Forest NC 27587
1rvt� r i 4 ,s` ` ► ; 2`t'
•, . 'i''i!•6 A' Q4 � - �-�:.-a.�-t�'� Y�s}.'1�'alH p� t.. � j x
1 -
10 r. -
J �,yrts�
Legend40.
Conservation Easement► x"•
2013_01 Planting ZonesPlant Zone
-.
Riparian
Wetland (Bottomland) -i PLANTING SUMMARY TABLE
y
© Wetland (Obligate) r
Site Zone Quantity Area
Site Entry
Pascha1485 3 200 1.8
Ly
Pascha1485 2 250 1.8 • �' � `
OStaging Area EAST WEST 2 Pascha1485 4 120 0.5
Pascha1485 1 130 0.7
�,' NOTES:
�
�����Site Access F Pascha1485 5 50 0.3 Paschal is an active golf course. Unless otherwise agreed upon,
no planting allowed on weekends or during special events.'
LIVE STAKES: 1100 live stakes will be installed along both sides of ` ca
the creek at locations idenitified by EEP staff at time of installation.
0 112.5 225 450 r Staging area is in vicinity of the clubhouse with {f.
Feet ,. limited 4 -wheeler access to planting areas- " Rd � y
�+ ock Spring