20160385 Ver 2_Draft Mitigation Plan_20170601

Mitigation Plan
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Johnston County, North Carolina
FINAL DRAFT VERSION
NCDEQ DMS Project Identification # 97081
NCDEQ DMS Contract # 6826
Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201)
USACE Action ID Number: SAW -2016-00876
Contracted Under RFP # 16-006477
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
J
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
May 2017
Prepared by:
WATER TEf LAND SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 119, Raleigh, IAC 27614
X919) 614-5111 1 walerlondsolutions_com

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.
• North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), "Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule", Rule 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, Effective November 1, 2015, for all Riparian Buffer Mitigation.
These documents govern NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services operations and procedures for the
delivery of compensatory mitigation.
William "Scott" Hunt, III, PE
Senior Water Resources Engineer
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Table of Contents
1 Project Introduction..............................................................................................................................1
2 Watershed Approach and Site Selection..............................................................................................2
3 Baseline Information and Existing Conditions Assessment..................................................................4
3.1 Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions...........................................................................5
3.1.1 Watershed Context...............................................................................................................5
3.1.2 Surface Water Classification.................................................................................................6
3.1.3 Aquatic Resource Health and Function.................................................................................6
3.1.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Aquatic Habitat................................................................6
3.1.5 Pollutant Load Considerations..............................................................................................7
3.2 Landscape Characteristics and Regional Controls......................................................................10
3.2.1 Physiography and Geology..................................................................................................10
3.2.2 Soils.....................................................................................................................................10
3.2.3 Climate................................................................................................................................11
3.2.4 Existing Vegetation.............................................................................................................12
3.3 Land Use and Development Trends............................................................................................14
3.4 Watershed Disturbance and Response.......................................................................................15
3.4.1 Existing Reach Condition Summary....................................................................................16
3.4.2 Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment..................................................................19
3.4.3 Channel Evolution...............................................................................................................
21
3.4.4 Sediment Supply, Delivery and Storage..............................................................................22
3.4.5 Jurisdictional Stream and Wetland Impacts.......................................................................22
4 Functional Uplift Potential..................................................................................................................23
4.1.1 Function -Based Parameters and Measurement Methods..................................................23
4.1.2 Performance Standards and Functional Capacity...............................................................24
4.1.3 Restoration Potential..........................................................................................................25
4.1.4 Function -Based Goals and Objectives.................................................................................26
5 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives.............................................................................................27
5.1.1 Project Benefits Summary...................................................................................................28
6 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan.......................................................................................30
6.1 Stream Design Approach............................................................................................................31
6.1.1 Proposed Design Parameters..............................................................................................31
6.1.2 Design Reach Summary.......................................................................................................33

6.2 Reference Reach Selection..........................................................................................................36
6.3 Flow Regime................................................................................................................................37
6.3.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge..............................................................................................38
6.3.2 Regional Curve Comparison................................................................................................38
6.3.3 Channel Forming Discharge................................................................................................39
6.3.4 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis...........................................................41
6.4 Wetland Design Approach..........................................................................................................42
6.5 Riparian Buffer Design Approach................................................................................................42
6.5.1 Proposed Vegetation Planting............................................................................................44
6.5.2 Planting Materials and Methods.........................................................................................45
6.6 Agricultural Best Management Practices....................................................................................46
6.7 Water Quality Treatment Features.............................................................................................47
6.8 Site Construction Methods.........................................................................................................48
6.8.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements............................................................................48
6.8.2 In -stream Structures and Site Improvement Features.......................................................48
6.8.3 Construction Feasibility.......................................................................................................49
7 Performance Standards......................................................................................................................50
7.1 Streams.......................................................................................................................................50
7.2 Wetlands.....................................................................................................................................51
7.3 Vegetation...................................................................................................................................51
8 Monitoring Plan..................................................................................................................................51
8.1 Visual Assessment Monitoring....................................................................................................52
8.2 Stream Assessment Monitoring..................................................................................................52
8.2.1 Hydrologic Monitoring........................................................................................................53
8.2.2 Geomorphic Monitoring.....................................................................................................53
8.2.3 Flow Duration Monitoring...................................................................................................54
8.3 Wetland Monitoring...................................................................................................................55
8.4 Vegetation Monitoring................................................................................................................55
9 Adaptive Management Plan...............................................................................................................57
10 Long -Term Management Plan............................................................................................................57
10.1 Additional Easement Management............................................................................................58
11 References..........................................................................................................................................59

Tables
Table 1. Project Asset Summary...................................................................................................................1
Table 2. Project Attribute Data and Baseline Summary Information...........................................................4
Watershed Context Map
Table 3. Total Annual Pollutant Loadings and Removal Estimates from STEPL Model................................7
Existing Geology Map
Table 4. Fecal Coliform Bacteria Reduction Estimates.................................................................................9
USGS Topographic Map
Table 5. Project Soil Type and Descriptions................................................................................................11
NRCS Soils Map
Table 6. Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts vs. Long-term Averages.............................................12
LiDAR Map
Table7. Existing Site Vegetation.................................................................................................................13
Current Conditions Map
Table 8. Existing Channel Morphology Summary.......................................................................................20
Historic Aerial Map
Table 9. Existing and Proposed Functional Condition Assessment Summary............................................24
FEMA Floodplain Map
Table 10. Functional Lift Scoring Summary.................................................................................................25
Mitigation Assets & Monitoring Features Map
Table 11. Restoration Potential Summary..................................................................................................26
Buffer Mitigation Map
Table 12. Function -Based Goals and Design Objectives Summary.............................................................26
Wetland Impacts Map
Table 13. Project Benefits Summary...........................................................................................................28
Table 14. Mitigation Components and Proposed Credit Summary............................................................30
Table 15. Proposed Design Parameters......................................................................................................32
Table 16. Reference Reach Data Comparison.............................................................................................36
Table 17. Flow Level and Ecological Role....................................................................................................37
Table 18. North Carolina Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations.........................................................39
Table 19. Design Discharge Analysis Summary...........................................................................................40
Table 20. Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power..................................................................................41
Table 21. Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root and Live Stake Plantings...................................................44
Table 22. Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding............................................................................46
Table 23. Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary..........................................................................................56
Figures
Figure1.......................................................................................................................................Vicinity Map
Figure 2...................................................................................................................
Watershed Context Map
Figure3........................................................................................................................
Existing Geology Map
Figure4.....................................................................................................................
USGS Topographic Map
Figure5..................................................................................................................................
NRCS Soils Map
Figure6.........................................................................................................................................
LiDAR Map
Figure 7....................................................................................................................
Current Conditions Map
Figure 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d........................................................................................................
Historic Aerial Map
Figure9.......................................................................................................................
FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 10...............................................................Proposed
Mitigation Assets & Monitoring Features Map
Figure 11.......................................................................................................Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Map
Figure12.....................................................................................................................
Wetland Impacts Map

Appendices
Appendix1....................................................................................................................................Plan Sheets
Appendix 2.......................................................................... Site Data/Analysis/Supplementary Information
Appendix 3........................................................................................................... Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 4............................................................................................................... Credit Release Schedule
Appendix5...................................................................................................................... Financial Assurance
Appendix6......................................................................................................................... Maintenance Plan
Appendix 7 .................................... DWR Stream Identification Forms, Determination and Viability Letters
Appendix 8................................................................................ USACE District Assessment Methods/Forms
Appendix 9....................................................................................................... Jurisdictional Wetland Forms
Appendix10.................................................................................................................. Invasive Species Plan
Appendix 11.............................................................................Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
Appendix 12....................................................................................DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Appendix 13..............................................................................Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan Supplement

Water & Land Solutions
1 Project Introduction
The Lake Wendell Mitigation Project ("Project") is a North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ), Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) full -delivery stream and riparian buffer mitigation project,
contracted with Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS), on March 18, 2016 in response to RFP 16-006477 and
RFQ 16-006826. The Project will provide stream and riparian buffer mitigation credits in the Neuse River
Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201). The Project is located in Johnston County, North Carolina between the
Community of Archer Lodge and the Town of Wendell at 35° 44' 14.60" North and 78° 21' 13.69" West.
The Project site is located in the NCDEQ Sub -basin 03-04-06, in the Upper Buffalo Creek Sub -watershed
030202011502 study area for the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan (RWP), in the Wake -Johnston
Collaborative Local Watershed Plan, and in the Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050, all of the
Neuse River Basin.
The Project will involve the potential restoration, enhancement, preservation and permanent protection
of five stream reaches (R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5) and their riparian buffers, totaling approximately 4,247
linear feet of existing streams, approximately 374,948 square feet of riparian buffers. In addition, "project
clusters", or combinations of different practices or measures, will include riparian wetland restoration,
riparian buffer restoration, and various best management practices (BMPs).
The Project will provide significant ecological improvements and functional uplift through stream and
aquatic habitat restoration, and through decreasing nutrient and sediment loads within the watershed.
See Section 5 for detailed benefits summary and Table 1 for a summary of project assets. Figures 10 and
11 illustrate the project mitigation components and assets.
Table 1. Project Asset Summary
Stream Restoration (PI)
Stream Restoration (PI)
Stream Restoration (PI)
Stream Preservation
Stream Enhancement
Level II
Stream Restoration
(PI/PII)
Stream Enhancement
Level II
Riparian Buffer
Restoration
Riparian Buffer
Enhancement
Riparian Buffer
Preservation
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
DMS Project #97081
806 LF
1:1
1,038 LF
1:1
1,230 LF
1:1
711 LF
10:1
111 LF
2.5:1
210 LF
1:1
144 LF
2.5:1
342,530 SF
1:1
44,852 SF
2:1
104,103 SF 10:1
May 30, 2017
806
995
1,208
71
44
210
58
342,530
22,426
10,410 SF
Page 1

Water & Land Solutions 4
Note 1: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
The project streams are all unnamed tributaries to Buffalo Creek, a tributary to the Little River, which is a
tributary to the Neuse River. The project site is located in the Northern Outer Piedmont ('45f') US
Environmental Protection Agency Level IV Ecoregion and the North Carolina Piedmont Physiographic
Province (Omernik, 2014). The project is one of three DMS full delivery projects (Lake Wendell Mitigation
Project, Pen Dell Mitigation Project, and Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project) on properties owned by the
same landowners. Each of these sites involve a series of adjacent direct headwater tributaries to Buffalo
Creek, which will provide maximum ecological uplift due to our comprehensive watershed approach.
2 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
In an effort to revise its watershed prioritization process, DMS developed a Regional Watershed Plan
(RWP) for the upper Neuse River Basin within Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03020201. The purpose of the Neuse
01 RWP is to identify and prioritize potential mitigation strategies to offset aquatic resource impacts from
development and provide mitigation project implementation recommendations to improve ecological
uplift within the Neuse 01 subbasin. The recommendations include traditional stream and wetland
mitigation, buffer restoration, nutrient offsets, non-traditional mitigation projects such as stormwater and
agricultural BMPs, and rare, threatened, or endangered (RTE) species habitat preservation or
enhancement (Neuse 01 RWP — Phase 11, 2015).
The Project site is situated in the lower piedmont where potential for future development associated with
the 1-540 corridor and rapidly growing Johnston County area is imminent, as described in the RWP. The
USGS 2011 National Land Cover Data (NLCD, 2011) GIS Dataset was used to estimate the impervious cover
and dominant land use information for the project catchment area. Currently, the catchment area has an
impervious cover estimated to be less than one percent and the dominant land uses are agriculture and
mixed forest. The Project site is located adjacent to Lake Wendell, which is classified as a Natural Heritage
Natural Area (NCNHP, 2016). Currently, the surrounding headwater tributaries that flow directly into the
lake and Buffalo Creek are largely undeveloped and privately owned. The project will extend the wildlife
corridor and protect diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the area through a permanent conservation
easement, ahead of the anticipated development.
The proposed dam removal and in -stream restoration practices will improve habitat diversity (e.g. restore
floodplain and spring -fed wetlands, provide deeper pools and backwater areas) and promote native
species propagation throughout the conservation easement (FISRWG, 1998). Additionally, agricultural
BMPs such as livestock fencing and watering systems will be installed to remove direct effluent inputs and
pollutant contamination from the Project streams and wetlands.
As recommended in the Neuse 01 RWP, the Project site was selected to provide a unique opportunity for
implementing "project clusters", or combinations of different practices or measures, as part of a
comprehensive watershed approach to improve and protect aquatic resource functions, as outlined in the
DMS Compensation Planning Framework (CPF) and the Federal Mitigation Rule (USACE, 2008). Expected
benefits to water quality, ecology, and hydrology functions, as a result of implementing these "project
clusters" are further described in the Neuse 01 RWP and Section 5.1.1. Developing specific goals and
objectives that directly relate to functional improvement is a critical path for implementing a successful
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 2
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
restoration project. The expected functional uplift is discussed further and in more detail under "Section
4: Functional Uplift Potential", and project goals and objectives are further described and discussed under
"Section 5: Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives". The graphic below illustrates the project clusters
with easement boundaries and corresponding catchment areas.
Graphic 1: Graphic shows watershed boundaries of all three projects that are protected by
three conservation easements.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 3
DMS Project #97081
Legend
Project Drainage Areasconservation Easements
Lake Wendell LwP-2049-55
Pen Ddl TLw: 03020201180050
Edwards Johnssmn Johnston County Hydrography
Neuse River Basin
= 7k'
WAKEurF L)R W&AoEi.r
1.5 3
5 Mil
r�
I r
1
w
bi
D
W
� r
v
�O
N
0 750
1,500
3,000 Feet
Graphic 1: Graphic shows watershed boundaries of all three projects that are protected by
three conservation easements.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 3
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
3 Baseline Information and Existing Conditions Assessment
WLS performed an existing conditions assessment for the Project by compiling and analyzing baseline
information, aerial photography, and field data. The purpose of this assessment was to determine how
aquatic resource functions have been impacted within the catchment area. Parameters such as
watershed drainage area, percent impervious cover, land use, climate, and hydrology (rainfall/runoff
relationships) were evaluated, along with the analysis of physiography (soils and local geology),
topographic position (basin relief, landforms, valley morphology), flow regime (discharge, precipitation,
evapotranspiration, controlling vegetation, substrate, open stream channel, storm water infrastructure),
as well as agrarian, forestry, and other land use practices and development trends.
Combined with historical context, the processes of hydrology and geomorphology must be linked to
evaluate current physical and biological conditions and system responses to human activities within the
riparian ecosystem (Montgomery and Bolton, 2003). Identifying the hydrogeomorphic variability, site
constraints, and cause -and -effect relationships plays a key role in determining the functional loss and
maximizing potential uplift (Harman, 2012). The following sub -sections further describe the existing site
conditions, degrees of impairment, and primary controls that were considered for developing an
appropriate restoration design approach. Table 2 represents the project attribute data and baseline
summary information.
Table 2. Project Attribute Data and Baseline Summary Information
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
35.7373910 N, -78.3538050 W
2.01.03, 413, 4.99 (61% pasture, 31% mixed forest, 3% pond)
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 4
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
33
64
83
102
10
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Intermittent
C; NSW
C; NSW
C; NSW
C; NSW
C; NSW
G5c, C5b
E5/F5, C5
N/A (pSond),
E5, E5
G5, C5b
II (upper),
II (lower), III
II
III/IV
N/A
I
(upper)
(lower)
N/A
Regulatory
N/A
Considerations
N/A
Zone AE
N/A
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Docs?
Categorical
Yes
Yes
Exclusion
Categorical
Yes
Yes
Exclusion
No
N/A
Categorical
Exclusion
No
N/A
Categorical
Exclusion
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Categorical
Exclusion
No
N/A
Categorical
Exclusion
3.1 Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions
3.1.1 Watershed Context
Spatial and temporal variability of hydrologic and geomorphic processes, as well as excess sediment and
nutrient inputs have influenced the overall system response and stability trends in multiple valley
segments across the Project site. Measurable changes in the landscape ecology, including native buffer
vegetation removal, man-made impoundments, and erosion dynamics/sediment supply have negatively
impacted stream and wetland functions at the site. Evidence of these observed changes were
documented throughout the watershed as increased channel widths/depths and bank height ratios,
decreased riffle -pool frequency and bedform diversity, as well as limited floodplain connectivity and
hyporheic zone interaction. Additionally, direct cattle access to the streams and surrounding agricultural
fertilization has likely increased fecal coliform bacteria and nutrient levels within the watershed. These
ecological impacts and the rates of systematic responses within the watershed have increased
considerably over the past few decades.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 5
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
3.1.2 Surface Water Classification
The main unnamed tributary that flows to Lake Wendell and Buffalo Creek is classified as a C; NSW (Stream
Index 7-57-16-3). Class 'C' waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic
life propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class V. A Nutrient Sensitive Water
(NSW) classification represents water bodies that require nutrient management to reduce water quality
impacts likely due to excessive vegetation and nitrogen/ phosphorus levels.
3.1.3 Aquatic Resource Health and Function
WLS reviewed DWR biological and water quality data within the Upper Buffalo Creek watershed to identify
any potential stressors near receiving waters. Currently, one DWR water quality monitoring station exists
well upstream of Lake Wendell. However, no benthic or fish monitoring sites are currently active in Upper
Buffalo Creek Watershed. A future monitoring site is proposed within the Lower Buffalo Creek watershed
and additional sites may be added as land use changes (i.e., land development) have direct impacts to
water quality throughout the watershed.
It is generally accepted that nutrient loading and sedimentation from streambank erosion is a significant
pollutant to water quality and aquatic habitat. However, there can be data uncertainties and excessive
costs for monitoring nutrient levels and sediment delivery in streams (HESS, 2014). Without an extensive
nutrient monitoring and management plan, types, application rates, groundwater leaching and lag times
can vary considerably, making it difficult to effectively determine water quality improvements in response
to various restoration practices. Additionally, measuring in situ sediments that deposit or collect in
ponds/reservoirs over time can often have longer transport times and legacy effects that can mask the
water quality improvements and biologic functions related to common stream and wetland restoration
activities (Bain, 2012).
3.1.4 Benthic Macroin vertebrates and Aquatic Habitat
WLS conducted sampling of benthic macroinvertebrate communities and aquatic habitat within the
watershed. Macroinvertebrates are useful biological monitors because they are found in all aquatic
environments, are less mobile than many other groups of organisms, and easily collectable (DWR, 2001).
The samples were collected in October 2016 with Larry Eaton (Eaton Scientific, LS, Inc.) and followed
methods and procedures defined by DWR's "Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis
of Benthic Macroinvertebrates" (DWR, 2016). Using the Small Stream Criteria for Piedmont Streams (DWR,
2015), the stream site has a Biotic Index value of 7.7, and a habitat assessment score of 42 (out of 100).
Therefore, the bioclassification rating is considered 'Poor' overall.
It should be noted that Midges (Genus Goeldichironomus and Apedilum) and Beetles (Genus Helochares)
were collected at the Project site. These are considered pond edge taxa and can indicate that portions of
the site streams lack habitat diversity and have problems maintaining flow for much of the year. This result
is likely due to the backwater conditions from the existing farm pond, seasonal flow durations, minimal
buffer vegetation and riffle habitat (woody debris) and channel incision characteristic of impaired
headwater stream systems. Additional sampling will be conducted again in Spring/Summer 2017 prior to
restoration activities to document a full adult life cycle. The sampling data forms and results are shown in
Appendix 2.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 6
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
3.1.5 Pollutant Load Considerations
STEPL Model: Based on these considerations, WLS first utilized the Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating
Pollutant Loads (STEPL v4.3, 2015) to help quantify how the project may reduce pollutant loads into Lake
Wendell and the Buffalo Creek Watershed. The STEPL model was developed for the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, Tetra Tech, 2015) and was used in the Neuse 01 RWP to
estimate sediment and nutrient load reductions from the implementation of agricultural BMPs, such as
vegetated filter strips, wetland detention, and bank stabilization/stream restoration. Model inputs
include land use information, Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)/runoff curve numbers, eroded
streambank length, streambank height, lateral recession rates, soil type/weight, and BMP type/efficiency
applicable to the agricultural piedmont area. The summary of total annual pollutant loadings and removal
estimates are shown in the table below.
Table 3. Total Annual Pollutant Loadings and Removal Estimates from STEPL Model
102 4,037 1,148 69.2 1,024.4 138.3 41.0, 240.7, 55.0,39.8%
59.3% 23.5%
Note 1: Soil Texture Class is predominantly loam, sandy clay loam.
Note 2: Average Bank heights in scour areas ranged 2 to 3 feet and did not include ponded areas.
Note 3: Lateral Recession Rates (ft/yr) ranged from slight category (0.01 to 0.05) to moderate (0.06 to 0.13)
Note 4: Agricultural BMP input used for streambank stabilization/restoration and cattle (^BO) exclusion fencing.
Although the STEPL model data is more empirically based, it is intended to be used as basic planning tool.
Inherently, there are certain assumptions and limitations that must be considered when refining model
inputs and evaluating the results. For example, water quality calculations and sediment loading are highly
dependent on actual BMP efficiencies, sophisticated algorithms, regression analysis, and not calibrated
field measurements.
BANCS Method: As a comparison to the STEPL results for sediment loading, WLS then predicted
streambank erosion rates and annual sediment yields using the Bank Assessment for Non -point -source
Consequences of Sediment (BANCS) method (Rosgen 1996, 2001a) which considers two streambank
erodibility estimation tools: The Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near Bank Stress (NBS). This rating
method is used to describe existing streambank conditions (i.e., bank migration and lateral stability) and
quantify the lateral erosion potential of a stream reach in feet per year. The components of the BANCS
methodology can be subjective and vary based on the region's climatic condition, geologic controls, and
the experience level and professional training of the observers. However, it is a repeatable estimation
method and the intent is to be used as a relative comparison for pre- and post -restoration conditions.
WLS used the unpublished NC piedmont BEHI and NBS ratings curve (personal communication with NRCS,
Walker, 2016) to estimate annual sediment loss based on local observations and streambank
measurements taken on September 20, 2016. The BEHI/NBS estimates for the existing conditions (pre -
construction) suggest that the project reaches contribute approximately 100.5 tons of sediment per year
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 7
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
to Lake Wendell, which is 31.3 tons higher than the STEPL estimates. The BEHI ratings varied from
'moderate' to 'high' with the lower reach segments rating 'low' category based changes in the velocity
gradient, backwater ponding, minimal shear stress, and stream bed/bank stability and controlling
vegetation. These ratings and observations are typical of a degraded stream system with active bank
erosion. See Appendix 2 for sediment loading assessment sheets.
Hurricane Matthew Observations: On October 8th, 2016, Hurricane Matthew delivered over 10" of rain
to the project site in less than 12 hours. Locally, the recurrence interval was estimated to be greater than
a 500 -year storm event (NOAA, NWS, 2016). After Hurricane Matthew and prior to subsequent rain
events, WLS visited the site on October 20th, 2016 to measure sediment deposits in two distinct
depositional areas or sinks, consisting of mostly fine sand material. The aggregational areas were
measured above and below the existing farm pond (upper Reach R3) to quantify the approximate
sediment deposited by the storm event. For better accuracy, depositional areas were delineated using
existing conditions survey basemap and grid areas/cross-sections were measured and compared with a
cloth tape and hand -augured borings. The cubic footage was then converted to cubic yards to estimate
tonnage. The total sediment yields were estimated to be approximately 52 tons upstream of the pond
and 36 tons downstream of the pond, indicating the size of the pulse of sediment was mobilized through
the system as a result of Hurricane Matthew.
Before (left photo) of the stream reach leading down to the pond and after (right photo) of the same
area after Hurricane Matthew 2016.
This comparative analysis was not intended to generate a sediment rating curve since spatial and temporal
variations make curve development especially challenging; nor does it represent the total sediment load
(suspended washload and bedload particles) transported from all upstream supply sources. However, it
was a useful exercise for validating the model estimates and evaluating the annual loading estimates and
resulting sediment wave delivered from a large hydroclimatic event (James, 2010). Based on watershed
reconnaissance, bed and bank conditions and cross-section comparisons before and after the Hurricane
Matthew storm event, most of the contributing sediment sources are coming from eroding streambanks
as compared with overland flow across upland areas.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 8
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
Soil Samples: In addition to collecting water quality samples and estimating pollutant loads, composite
soil samples were collected across the Project site to examine the basic soil properties in the adjacent
floodplains, agricultural fields, riparian buffers/reference areas, and stream bed and bank sediments. The
core samples were taken from the ground surface elevation to approximately 12" depths and sent to the
NCDA&CS Agronomic Division for lab analysis. The pre -restoration sample locations are shown on Figure
10 and the test results summary is located in Appendix 2. The intent of collecting this data is to examine
soil characteristics such as nutrient capacity and soil fertility (i.e., humic matter, Phosphorus, pH, CEC)
across the site and compare existing wooded and/or reference areas with agricultural field areas. This
will allow us to determine if any soil amendments are necessary for post -construction planting and to
document any relative changes throughout the monitoring period as buffer vegetation vigor and density
becomes established after restoration activities. For example, initial soil sample results indicate the
average pH is approximately 5.5, which is slightly below the optimal range for plant growth (5.8-6.5),
therefore, no lime amendments are anticipated for post -construction planting. In addition, Nitrogen (N)
is not typically measured since it is very unstable, however, Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K) levels were
compared for determining fertilization rates. At the time of this report, no soil amendments are
anticipated for post -construction planting.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria: Pollutant load reduction performance standards for nutrients and fecal coliform
bacteria are not proposed nor required for this project, however, WLS is interested in evaluating how the
proposed project could reduce pollutant loads into the Buffalo Creek Watershed. Based on DMS
referenced studies represented in Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock Exclusion and
Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration (DMS, 2016), WLS expects that implementation of
this project could reduce Fecal Coliform Bacteria colonies (col), by as much as 50% as shown on Table 4.
Table 4. Fecal Coliform Bacteria Reduction Estimates
11.6 9.0 459.4 38.1 5.98E+11 2.96E+11
Note 1: Applicable for a minimum restored buffer width of 50ft from the top of streambanks.
Note 2: NC Division of Water Quality - Methodology and Calculation (1998) for determining nutrient reductions
associated with Riparian Buffer Establishment (DWR, 1998). TN reduction (lbs/yr) = 51.04 (lbs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
and TP reduction (lbs/yr) = 4.23 (lbs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
Note 3: Fecal Coliform Reduction from Direct Cattle Input (colonies) = 2.2 x 10^11 (col/AU/day) x AU x 0.085 and
assumes -80 black beef cattle (ave. 400 lbs/each)
Note 4: Fecal Coliform Reduction from Buffer Filtration (colonies) = Runoff's fecal coliform concentration (col/gal)
x Runoff volume (Gal) x 0.85 and assumes pastures are under continual grazing year-round (1.894 *JOA 6), runoff
curve number (CN) for Soil Group Vin pastureland is -72 fora 1 inch -24 hr storm event.
Based on existing condition assessments, findings indicate the overall stream health is considered 'Poor',
which is consistent with model estimates and comparisons with numerous referenced studies. WLS
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 9
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
expects that the implementation of this restoration project will significantly reduce pollutant loads,
including sediment and nutrients, improving the overall aquatic functions and water quality in Lake
Wendell and Upper Buffalo Creek. WLS will conduct pre- and post -restoration sampling to document
improvements directly related to sediment loading and fecal coliform bacteria reductions. WLS
understands that such monitoring activities are not tied performance standards nor required to
demonstrate success for credit release. However, collecting and evaluating pollutant reduction data aligns
with the goals and objectives of the project. We believe selecting applicable monitoring and evaluation
methods will help develop a more function -based assessment and improve our project implementation
process, thereby contributing positively to the advancement of the practice of ecosystem restoration.
3.2 Landscape Characteristics and Regional Controls
3.2.1 Physiography and Geology
The Project site is located in the Raleigh Belt region of the eastern Piedmont physiographic province in a
transitional zone near the Eastern Slate Belt and Inner Coastal Plain. More specifically, the geologic unit
is classified as 'PPmg' and lies within the Rolesville batholith (Rg) or pluton, which contains igneous
intrusive bedrock formations (USGS, 2016). The lithologic unit is described as foliated to massive granitic
rock and exposed outcrops were observed in the project vicinity east of Lake Wendell (See Figure 3 and
Photographic Log in Appendix 2). Additionally, various upland areas near the Project site are in the Coastal
Plain (Tt) and contain pockets of unconsolidated sedimentary rocks and terrace deposits of coarse-grained
sands, fine gravel and clayey sand (USGS, 1998).
The Piedmont province in this transitional zone or 'fall line' is generally characterized by gently rolling,
well-rounded hills and low ridges, with elevations near the project site ranging from 230 to 350 feet above
sea level. The surface topography and dendritic drainage patterns within these alluvial valleys are
consistent along many first order or headwater streams mapped in this region, with average valley slopes
ranging from 1 percent to just over 2 percent (Russell, 2008). The narrow valley confinement and steeper
side slopes (approximately 8 to 15 percent) typically decrease as the contributing drainage areas increase
near the confluence of larger stream systems (i.e., Buffalo Creek).
3.2.2 Soils
Soils at the project site were initially determined using NRCS soil survey data for Johnston County (NRCS
Johnston County Soil Survey, 1994). The soils within the project area were verified during on-site field
investigations. Figure 4 illustrates soil conditions throughout the project area and the soil descriptions
are provided below in Table 5.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 10
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
Table 5. Project Soil Type and Descriptions
Yes, A Poorly drained soils formed mainly on floodplains along headwater streams
in the Piedmont Region that are frequently flooded. Slope ranges from 0 to
2% on landscapes with low relief and predominance of hardwoods. Loamy
surface layer and loamy subsoil or sandy underlying material.
Yes, B Moderate to well drained soils formed in uplands on the Coastal Plain. Slope
ranges from 0 to 2% on landscapes with lower relief. Typically the surface
layer is sandy loam (-8 inches) and subsoil is sandy clay loam. Permeability
and water capacity are moderate with slow surface runoff. Most areas are
used for cropland with small areas used for woodland or pasture.
No Well drained soils formed on narrow ridges and side slopes that are
dissected by drainageways. Mapped areas are generally irregular in shape.
Typically the surface layer is brown sandy loam (-9 inches) and subsoil is
brown sandy clay loam. Small areas of this soil contain a gravelly surface
layer and a bedrock depth of 60 inches. Slopes range from 2 to 8% in the
uplands on the Piedmont. Permeability, water capacity and shrink -swell are
moderate with medium surface runoff. Many areas used for woodland and
the rest is well suited for pasture and row crops given moderate runoff and
erosion potential.
No Well drained soils formed on side slopes that are dissected by drainageways.
Mapped areas are commonly long, narrow, and irregular in shape. Typically
the surface layer is grayish sandy loam (-9 inches) and subsoil is brown
sandy clay loam. Slopes range from 8 to 15% in the uplands on the
Piedmont. Permeability, water capacity and shrink -swell are moderate with
rapid surface runoff. Most areas are used for woodland or pasture since it is
poorly suited to cropland given runoff and erosion potential.
The soils within the floodplain and riparian areas are predominantly mapped Wehadkee Loam (Wt, Hydric
A). The hydric soil properties have been degraded by historic agricultural and silvicultural activities and
more recent cattle disturbances (i.e., hoof trampling) have resulted in a significant loss of wetland
function, surface/groundwater interaction, and increased streambank erosion and sedimentation.
3.2.3 Climate
Johnston County, NC has a warm humid temperate climate with hot summers, minimal snowfall and no
dry season (NRCS, 1994). The average growing season for the Project site is 227 days, beginning on April
6t" and ending November 4t" (NRCS Johnston County Soil Survey, Weather Station: Smithfield, NC). The
average annual precipitation in this area is approximately 47.43 inches with a consistent monthly
distribution, except for convective storm events or hurricanes that occur during the summer and fall
months. In 2016, the area received over 57 inches as shown on WETS Table 6. Over the past 48 months,
the Smithfield weather station (COOP 317994) has recorded over 221 inches of rain, which is
approximately 31 inches above the total observed average.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 11
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
Table 6. Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts vs. Long-term Averages
9
Throughout much of the southeastern US, average rainfall often exceeds average evapotranspiration (ET)
losses and areas experience a moisture excess during normal years. Excess water leaves the Project site
by groundwater flow, surface runoff, channelized surface flow, or seepage. Annual losses due to seepage,
or percolation of water are not considered a significant loss pathway for excess water. However,
groundwater flow and the hyporheic exchange is critical in small headwater stream and wetland systems,
as most excess water is lost via surface and shallow subsurface flow.
The streams drainage density relative to the geomorphic/geologic character and hydrologic regime is
common given the seasonal rainfall patterns, runoff rates, topographic relief, groundwater recharge, and
infiltration capacity/depth to impermeable bedrock layer (USGS,1998). Further observations of perennial
flow frequency, response time to storm events, pond level fluctuations, streambank erosion and
groundwater saturation over the past year support this conclusion.
3.2.4 Existing Vegetation
Based on field observations, GIS mapping, desktop research, and discussions with landowners, historic
land management surrounding the Project area has been primarily for agricultural and silvicultural
purposes. Prior to anthropogenic land disturbances, the riparian vegetation community likely consisted
of Mesic Mixed Forest (Piedmont Subtype) in the uplands with Alluvial Forest and Piedmont Bottomland
Forest in the lower areas and floodplains (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Riparian buffer vegetation can
have a controlling influence on geomorphic variability of stream channels. Specifically, streambank
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 12
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
vegetation and rooting depth can be a critical controlling factor for channel pattern and stability (Millar,
2000).
The existing vegetation within and adjacent to the project area consists of successional forest, pasture,
agricultural fields, and some disturbed pine forest. Many of the riparian and upland areas have a narrow
tree canopy and lack understory vegetation due to heavy livestock use and grazing. Widespread channel
degradation is likely a result of the alteration of natural drainage patterns and the significant removal of
native species vegetation.
Table Z Existing Site
Red maple
Acer rubrum
Yellow poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
Black gum
Nyssa sylvatica
American sycamore
Plantanus occidentalis
Sweetgum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Black willow
Salix nigra
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
Persimmon
Diospyros virginiana
Poison ivy
Toxicodendron radicans
Virginia creeper
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
False nettle
eoehmeria cylindrical
Broadleaf arrowhead
Sagittaria latifolia
Jewelweed
Impatiens capensis
Greenbrier
Smilax rotundifolia
Fescue
Fescue spp.
Maintained/Disturbed:
This community is primarily located
along the middle and upper portions of
the Project area and contain
successional deciduous vegetation
which are periodically mowed for hay
production. Species such as Sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), Pines (Pinus
spp), Tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) and Red maple (Acerrubrum)
are the dominant regenerating
deciduous trees located in these areas.
In some areas, small ditches, spoil piles,
and other evidence of land disturbance
suggest portions of the forested areas
were harvested in the past for timber
production and pasture use.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 13
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
Agricultural Fields and Pasture Areas:
Currently, the majority of pasture areas are used as grazing for cattle production. The vegetation within
open fields and pasture areas is primarily comprised of fescues, clovers, and some dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium). In smaller wooded riparian areas within the pastures and fields, the canopy is dominated
by Red maple (Acer rubrum), Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and understory species consist of Eastern red
cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Black willow (Salix nigra), Sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua). Woody shrub
and vine species include Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia). Herbaceous species consist of Dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) and Soft rush
(Juncus effusus).
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest: The mature canopy is dominated by Red Oak (Quercus rubra), American
sycamore (Platanus occidentalus), Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), American Beech (Fagus grandifolia), but
also includes White Oak (Quercus alba), Swamp chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii), Sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
Back willow (Salix nigra), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), Red maple (Acer rubrum), American
holly (Ilex opaca), and River birch (Betula nigra). Woody shrub and vine species include Poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and Blackberry (Rubus spp.). Herbaceous
species include Jewelweed (Woodwardia areolata) and Common juncus (Juncus effuses).
Invasive Species Vegetation: The invasive species vegetation present on the Project site are primarily
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Microstegium (Microstegium vimineum) and Multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), which were found interspersed primarily throughout the riparian buffer areas and a few areas
along the streambanks. Invasive species vegetation will be sprayed, cut and painted, or grubbed in areas
within the easement. Treatments will be conducted to control the invasive species vegetation within the
easement during the monitoring period as described in Section 8.4.
3.3 Land Use and Development Trends
The USGS 2011 National Land Cover Data (NLCD, 2011) GIS Dataset was used to estimate the current
impervious cover and land use information for the project catchment area. The 102 -acre catchment area
has an impervious cover estimated to be less than one percent and the dominant land uses are
approximately 61 percent agriculture (cropland and pasture) and 31 percent mixed forest. WLS
conducted extensive field reconnaissance to verify the current land use practices within the catchment,
which include active agricultural land managed as pasture for cattle grazing, hay/crop production and
forested areas at the downstream end and fragmented areas along the upper fringes.
Prior to the 1930s, most of the watershed was forested as illustrated on historic aerials (See Figure 8a).
WLS was unable to obtain land use information prior to the 1930s. However, it is not uncommon to
discover legacy sediment in numerous man-made ponds and floodplains in the mid-Atlantic Piedmont
(Jacobson and Coleman, 1986). In this setting and context, legacy sediment can be defined as alluvium
that was deposited following human disturbances in a watershed that represent episodic erosion in
response to the colonization of land by European settlers (James, 2013). Interest in legacy sediment and
its ecological implications have grown in recent years, as we understand how these deposits influence
lateral channel connectivity, sediment budgets, water quality, and appropriateness of geomorphic
restoration practices.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 14
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
By the early 1970s, almost the entire area was cleared for agriculture and two small ponds were built
along the drainageway. The impoundments' size and location have remained unchanged since they were
built and are currently used as a source for crop irrigation. The larger pond was drained for a short period
during the mid-1990s. Over time the natural stream and wetland processes and aquatic resource
functions have been significantly impacted because of these historic anthropogenic disturbances.
As described in the Neuse 01 RWP, potential for land use change and/or future development in the areas
adjacent to the Project site is moderate to high, given the proximity to existing development and growth
trends associated with the 1-540 corridor and rapidly growing Johnston County areas. As a design
consideration, WLS coordinated with the landowner to extend the easement boundary to capture
additional wetland areas and natural drainage features within the Project corridor. Increasing the Project
footprint will provide wider riparian buffers and allow the implementation of agricultural best
management practices, which ultimately improve floodplain functions and pollutant removal
effectiveness.
3.4 Watershed Disturbance and Response
To determine what actions are needed to restore the riparian corridor structure and lift ecological
functions, it is critical to examine the rates and type of disturbances, and how the system responds to
those disturbances. Across the Project site, landowners historically cleared large portions of mature forest
and manipulated, piped and/or straightened streams and ditched riparian wetland systems to provide
areas for crop production and cattle grazing. Additionally, farm ponds used for irrigation have significantly
altered the natural flow regime for over fifty years. The ponds have caused changes to historic channel
patterns, sediment transport, in -stream habitat and restriction of fish movement, thermal regulation, and
dissolved oxygen (DO) content.
Cleared portions of the riparian buffer area and pond locations are shown on historical aerial photographs
(See Figures 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d). A majority of the Project reaches has been heavily impacted from these
historic and current land use practices, including livestock production, agriculture, and silviculture. Within
the Project area, approximately 76% of the streambanks have inadequate (less than 50 feet wide) riparian
buffers. Figure 8d shows the most recent aerial photography with clearly narrow and/or absent riparian
buffers throughout much of the project area.
Continuous livestock intrusion and associated hoof shear have severely impacted the streambanks along
the Project stream reaches. The stream channel above the pond is actively incising and the floodplain
connection has been lost in many locations. The lack of adequate and high quality buffer vegetation, past
land use disturbances, active channel degradation, minimal impervious cover, and current agricultural and
livestock practices present a significant opportunity for water quality and ecosystem improvements
through the implementation of this project.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 15
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
3.4.1 Existing Reach Condition Summary
The streams at the Project site were categorized into five reaches (111, R2, R3, R4, and R5) totaling
approximately 4,175 linear feet of existing streams. Reach breaks were based on drainage area at
confluences, valley length along an existing pond, changes in existing condition, restoration/enhancement
approaches, and/or changes in intermittent/perennial stream status. Field evaluations conducted at the
proposal stage and during existing conditions assessments determined that Project reaches R1, R2, R3,
and R4 are perennial streams and R5 was determined to be an intermittent stream. Determinations were
based on NCDWQ's Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their
Origins, (NCDWQ v4.11, Effective Date: September 1, 2010) stream assessment protocols. Copies of the
stream ID forms are included in Appendix 7 and reach condition summaries are provided below.
Photo of R1 showing severe cattle trampling and lack
of riparian buffer vegetation.
I
R1 is a small perennial headwater
tributary that extends from the
upstream terminus of the Project near
Wendell Road, downstream to the
confluence with R2 and R5. R1 has a
stream length of approximately 875
feet, valley slope of 2.5 percent, and
drainage area of 33 acres. R1
originates at the outlet of a culverted
pipe crossing that flows west from a
small one -acre pond located
immediately east of the Wendell Road
60 -foot right-of-way (ROW). A 30 -
foot -wide utility easement crossing
was identified parallel to and along the
western edge of the Wendell Road
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 16
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
The existing one -acre pond in the upper
catchment intercepts overland flows and
attenuate storm events, while reducing
sediment supply and transport capacity
to the downstream reaches. The channel
is slightly incised and a headcut was
observed immediately downstream of
the road crossing. R1 riparian buffer and
habitat features along this segment have
been degraded through the removal of
riparian buffer vegetation along the left
bank. Moderate streambank erosion and
bed scour was observed for
approximately 150 feet before the
channel enters a concrete pipe system.
9
Per the landowner, the channel was Looking at right bank erosion and sediment deposition
historically manipulated in this area to along R2. Note the lack of deep rooted vegetation.
accommodate residential housing and a
road crossing built in the 1930s. The dilapidated pipe system extends for over 200 feet before the
straightened and culverted channel daylights near an existing hay storage barn. In this area, the channel
formation is poor as the slope flattens and the degree of incision is low, with bank height ratios near 1.1
and a very low sinuosity (k=1.03). Mature woody vegetation is absent along this entire segment and cattle
have unrestricted access to over 60 percent of R1. R1 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly
in the form of cattle trampling and
minimal riparian buffer widths. Based
on the existing channel conditions and
anthropogenic disturbances, it was
difficult to accurately classify the R1
stream type throughout its entire
length, but it resembles a G5c stream
type in the upstream portion that has
- _ not been piped.
R2 begins at the confluence of R5 and
t J R1 and flows west for approximately
1,029 feet toward an existing farm
pond. The valley slope is
approximately 1.9 percent and the
drainage area is 64 acres. R2 appears
Looking up the valley at man-made farm pond along R3. to be vertically and laterally
unstable, with active headcuts
present and bank height ratios ranging from 1.5 to greater than 2.0. The active erosion was observed on
40 to 50 percent of the streambanks.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 17
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
Most of the erosion is in the form of bank scour and slumping caused by high near bank stresses during
storm flows and the lack of deep rooting vegetation. The sinuosity is 1.09 and floodplain alterations were
observed, mainly evidenced in the form of spoil piles along the right bank, and portions of the stream also
appear to have been manipulated. Cattle have unrestricted access to this stream reach and the riparian
buffer is narrow (<30 feet) throughout its entire length. Although R2 only has a few mature trees
interspersed along the streambanks, the trees of significance will be saved and incorporated as part of
the restoration design. Based on the existing conditions assessment and coarse sand/fine gravel
substrate, R2 is classified as an incised E5/F5 stream type.
R3 begins downstream of R2 and flows west for approximately 150 feet before experiencing backwater
effects from a man-made farm pond dam located 945 feet down valley before the stream flow exits at the
outlet of a failing existing pond spillway system. Prior to the farm pond construction, the natural valley
slope in this area was approximately 1.6 percent. The pond depth at the upstream base of the dam was
measured at approximately 10 feet deep. The entire pond perimeter is subject to active water quality
stressors, mainly resulting from hoof shear from unrestricted cattle access and riparian buffers less than
10 feet in width.
Photo on the left shows pre -Hurricane Matthew looking upstream along R4, photo on the right shows
post- Hurricane Matthew looking downstream, the downed tree in the right photo can be seen in the
top left corner of the photo on the left.
R4 begins at the farm pond spillway outfall near the base of the pond dam and continues for
approximately 822 feet to the littoral zone of Lake Wendell. R4 has a drainage area of approximately 102
acres near Lake Wendell. The channel is mostly stable along the entire reach with native woody riparian
buffer vegetation corridor greater than 50 feet on both sides of the channel, except for approximately
120 feet. In this location, the bank erosion and toe scour has increased significantly after Hurricane
Matthew knocked down a few large canopy trees in the floodplain. These infrequent disturbances are
localized and do not impact stability across the entire channel segment. The channel slope is 1.2 percent
along this reach, bank erosion is low and most scour is localized along a few meander bends. The valley
floor widens in this area and the stream has a connection to its floodplain. Relic channel features were
observed along this reach and the channel sinuosity (k=1.25) is appropriate for the valley type. Cattle do
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 18
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
not have access to this reach and historically this area has remained relatively undisturbed. The typical
bank height ratio ranges from 1.0 to 1.2 and the channel is classified as an E5 stream type.
R5 is a small intermittent headwater tributary that
begins at a spring head behind a low density residential
housing. The channel flows west for approximately
354 feet before its confluence with R1 and R2. R5 has
a drainage area of approximately 10 acres. The
upstream portion of the channel has been piped to
accommodate a historic road crossing. Severe bank
erosion was observed along the upstream portion of
the channel and segments of a failing concrete pipe
system are currently exposed.
The reach has experienced downcutting for
approximately 50 percent of its length and the buffer
is limited to herbaceous vegetation. R5 is actively Reach 5, shows that buffer is limited to
subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of herbaceous vegetation.
cattle access and minimal riparian buffer widths. R5 is
classified as a G5 stream type in the upstream section. However, the condition improves as the valley
slope flattens and stream bed and banks stabilize towards the downstream end. There is an active
headcut migrating towards the confluence of R2 and R5 that could degrade further if not addressed during
the restoration design.
3.4.2 Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment
WLS conducted geomorphic and ecological assessments for each Project reach to assess the current
stream channel condition and overall lateral and vertical stability. Data collection included seven
representative riffle cross-sections, longitudinal profiles, and sediment samples. The existing channel
morphology is summarized in Table 8 and detailed geomorphic assessment data is included in Appendix
2. Consistent geomorphic indicators of the bankfull stage could not be identified in the field given the
modified flow regime and degraded channel conditions. Therefore, bankfull cross-sectional areas were
initially compared with the published NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999). The cross-
sectional areas were generally higher than the regional curve prediction.
Bank Height Ratios (BHR) were measured in the field to assess the degree of channel incision. BHRs range
from 1.1 (Reach 114) to greater than 3.0 (Reach 115). BHR values greater than 2.0 typically indicate the
stream channel is disconnected from its floodplain and system wide self -recovery is considered unlikely
to occur within a desired timeframe (Rosgen, 2001). Entrenchment Ratios (ER) were measured to
determine the degree of vertical confinement. ERs ranged from 1.5 (Reach R5) to greater than 7.0 (Reach
R4) throughout the project area indicating many of the reach segments above the pond are slightly to
moderately entrenched.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 19
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
Table S. Existing Channel Morphology Summary
9
R1 33 4.8 6.1 1.1 1.05 0.027
R2 64 2.3 8.5 1.9 1.14 0.016
R3 83 1.2 19.0 2.0 N/A 0.018
R4 102 7.1 7.4 1.0 1.25 0.013
R5 10 1.5 3.5 3.3 1.03 0.026
Note 1: Watershed drainage area was approximated based on topographic and LiDAR information and
compared with USGS Stream5tats at the downstream end of each reach.
Note 2: Cross-section locations are shown on Figure 10.
Note 3: Approx. 350' along R1 is piped and/or severely manipulated/degraded, therefore channel incision was not
estimated along the entire reach. The R3 cross-section survey was taken upstream of pond/backwater conditions.
Note 4: Additional values and dimensionless ratios for meander geometry and facet slopes are provided in
Appendix 2. The existing degraded channel parameters are compared to stable stream systems in the Piedmont
Physiographic Region.
WLS also compared historic aerial photographs with BANCS model estimates (Rosgen, 2006) described in
Section 3.1.6 to identify areas susceptible to lateral bank erosion or accelerated meander migration.
BEHI/NBS rating forms are in Appendix 3. Based on this comparison, most of the laterally unstable
segments are limited within Reach R2 upstream of the pond and have occurred after riparian buffers
where removed over the past few decades. As described in the reach condition summary, the average
valley slope is approximately 1.9 percent and overall sinuosity is 1.11. Most of the vertical grade control
along the project reaches appears to be provided by infrequent vegetation root mass, a man-made pond
dam, and culvert crossings. The surveyed longitudinal profile indicates Reach R1 has a headcut near the
upper segment and has been heavily manipulated and piped in the lower reach section. Reach R2 is
vertically and laterally unstable and actively degrading as evidenced by a headcut migrating up the
channel as well as significant bank erosion.
Reaches R1, R2, R5 have poor bedform diversity and minimal habitat features with shallow pools and
longer/flatter riffles or high pool -to -pool spacing. Reach R3 is mostly under backwater conditions from a
large pond dam and culvert crossing. The pond bottom and water surface elevation was surveyed and
the approximate slope is 1.5 percent. Below the pond dam and culvert crossing, Reach R4 is both laterally
and vertically stable, has diverse bedform morphology, native buffer and bank vegetation, and habitat
features (woody debris) with only localized bank erosion near the middle segment. Lower Reach R5 is
vertically stable due to flatter slopes and thick herbaceous vegetation that helps reduce excessive
degradation. However, the upper section has downcut significantly causing localized bed and bank
erosion.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 20
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
SVAP2: WLS completed ecologic stream assessments of the Project reaches using the Stream Visual
Assessment Protocol, Version 2 (SVAP2) developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS,
2009). The SVAP2 is a national protocol that provides a common method to evaluate the overall condition
of small wadeable streams, riparian buffers, and in -stream habitats. It is a visual assessment tool that can
be used for conservation planning, identifying restoration goals and objectives, developing appropriate
restoration strategies and assessing trends in stream and riparian conditions over time.
WLS evaluated the SVAP2 scoring elements relevant to the project, as shown in Appendix 2. The physical,
chemical, and biological features were evaluated within the riparian corridor to identify elements or
conditions that are considered high quality or 'excellent' to 'severely degraded'. The Project reach scores
ranged from 'fair' to 'severely degraded' and considered to be in 'poor' condition overall. Reaches R1 and
R3 scored 'severely degraded' due to the piped channel condition, backwater ponding, cattle manure,
lack of riparian vegetation and mature canopy cover, unnatural barriers to fish migration, and
homogenous streambed with minimal habitat complexity or pools. The 'poor' reaches tend to lack
adequate pool features and riparian buffer widths due to historical land use. Reach R4 scored 'fair'
because of the wide mature riparian vegetation and canopy cover, as well as increased bedform diversity,
woody debris and in -stream habitat.
These channel stability and ecological assessments incorporated qualitative and quantitative observations
using historic aerials, visual evaluations, and detailed topographic survey data collected across the site.
Many of the Project reach segments above the existing pond dam (R3) are incised and considered
moderately to highly unstable and generally in 'poor' condition according the SVAP2 results. The
conclusions from these assessments were used to describe the overall channel stability and present
ecological conditions.
3.4.3 Channel Evolution
The modified Simon Channel Evolution Model (CEM) describes a predictable sequence of change in a
disturbed channel system (Simon, 1989). Channel evolution typically occurs when a stream system begins
to change its morphologic condition, which can be a negative or positive trend towards stability. The
channel evolution processes and stage vary across the Project site and have been greatly affected by
human -induced disturbances. After reviewing the channel dimension, plan form, and longitudinal profile
information, WLS concluded that none of the Project reaches currently exhibit positive trends towards
stability or quasi -equilibrium.
Project reaches R1, R2 and R5 (upper) vary between Class 'III' and 'IV' of the CEM as evidenced by
migrating headcuts and will likely continue to degrade and widen based on ongoing observations
beginning in Spring 2015. The upper portion of Reach R3 is transitioning from Class'V' to Class 'VI' (quasi -
equilibrium) as evidenced by channel overwidening and sediment aggradation due to a flatter valley slope.
This valley location is considered an aggradation zone which is exacerbated by the pond dam. Reach R4
below the dam is mostly stable and will likely remain at Class 'I' without any future disturbances. The
proposed stream restoration approaches described in Section 6.1 are supported by these observations.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 21
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
3.4.4 Sediment Supply, Delivery and Storage
Visual inspections of the channel substrate materials were conducted for each of the Project stream
reaches. Representative bed materials were bulk sampled both upstream and downstream of the existing
farm pond (Reach R3). The existing streams consist of predominantly fine to medium sand (D50 particle
size < 2mm), with localized sections of fine gravel material, as well as a fine sandy material in flatter
channel sections. Additional field investigations conducted after geomorphically significant storm events
(greater than 1 to 2 -year recurrence intervals) suggest that the sediment supply is being recruited
predominantly from streambank erosion along the project stream reaches. The streambank erosion along
the project stream reaches appears to be limited during episodic storm flows due to the small headwater
drainages, minimal impervious cover, man-made impoundment, cattle hoof shear, and influences from
herbaceous vegetation and rotational hay crop cover. Bed mobility in small headwater sand -bed streams
can be highly variable and initiates over a range of streamflows (Wilcock, 1993). During these higher flood
flows, some of the bed and bank material is mobilized from Reach R1 and R2 and is deposited in
flatter/wider valley bottoms near the upper farm pond (Reach R3) and below the pond near Lake Wendell
(Reach R4).
As described in Section 3.1.6, the Hurricane Matthew storm event on October 8th, 2016 deposited a
significant amount of fine sediment within the floodplain areas. Prior to this historic event, these
impounded areas were already functioning as sediment storage or sinks, but likely at a much slower rate.
Over the past few decades, the removal of woody buffer vegetation from the stream channels has
decreased channel stability and increased the episodic pulse deliveries of stored sediment to downstream
channels (Bilby, 1984). This anthropogenic derived sediment does not occur uniformly over the landscape
(James, 2013) and changes in the amount and local storage areas for water and sediment can substantially
affect hydrogeomorphic variability in headwater stream systems (McKenney et al. 1995). Removing the
impoundment dam and restoring more natural flood flows and sediment regime will facilitate positive
adjustments to sediment routing and storage across the reconnected floodplain.
3.4.5 Jurisdictional Stream and Wetland Impacts
WLS investigated on-site jurisdictional waters of the US (WOTUS) using the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement.
Determination methods included stream classification utilizing the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form
and the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. Potential jurisdictional wetland areas as well as
upland areas were classified using the USACE Wetland Determination Data Form.
The results of the on-site field investigation indicated that there are two jurisdictional stream channels
located within the proposed project area. The main unnamed tributary (R1, R2, R4) was determined to
be perennial while R5 was determined to be intermittent. Six (6) jurisdictional wetland areas were
delineated within the proposed project area (See Figure 7) and are located within the floodplain areas
and Lake Wendell. USACE representative John Thomas verified Jurisdictional Determinations during a
field visit on October 16, 2016. The verification letter and supporting documents including Wetland
Determination Data Forms are in Appendix 9.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 22
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
Based on extensive field investigations, toe of slope wetlands and seeps were historically present in
various locations within the valley setting. After evaluating existing topography, soils, hydrology and
hydrophytic vegetation within the project area, the plant community located along R5 was most likely
indicative of reference wetlands in the region, but agricultural land use practices have severely altered
the composition of the plant community. Wetland stressors, such as man-made dams, channel
manipulations and cattle trampling have altered the hydrological connections within the project area.
Portions of the site tributaries were piped to capture various sources of seepage to increase land available
for agricultural use, which exacerbated channel incision and drainage effect across the adjacent fields.
Currently, many of the existing wetland areas located in the floodplain are mowed and grazed. After
restoration activities, these areas will experience a more natural hydrology and flooding regime, and the
riparian buffer area will be planted with native woody vegetation species that is more tolerant of wet
conditions. The restoration design approach will likely enhance any areas of adjacent fringe or marginal
wetlands. Existing stream profiles will be elevated along various reach sections of R1, R2, and R5, which
will improve local water table conditions adjacent to the channels and encourage more frequent flooding
of riparian wetland areas. The proposed stream and wetland impacts are considered temporary and will
be included with the 401/404 permit application.
4 Functional Uplift Potential
Harman et al. (2012) provides a framework for conducting function -based assessments to develop project
goals and objectives based on a site's restoration potential and functional uplift. The framework is based
on the Stream Functions Pyramid (SFP) which is a conceptual model that can be used to better define
project goals and objectives by linking them to stream functions. Stream functions are separated into a
hierarchy of functions and structural measures, ranging from Level 1 to Level 5 and include the following
functional categories: Hydrology (Level 1), Hydraulic (Level 2), Geomorphic (Level 3), Physiochemical
(Level 4), and Biological (Level 5). Chapter 4 of A Function -Based Framework (Harman, 2012) provides a
more detailed description of the SFP and is illustrated in Appendix 2. The SFP framework is applied below
to further describe the functional lift potential based on the existing conditions assessment and proposed
restoration design elements.
4.1.1 Function -Based Parameters and Measurement Methods
Function -based parameters and measurement methods were evaluated using the Stream Functional Lift
Quantification Tool (SQT) to help assess the existing stream conditions, determine restoration potential
and identify risks associated with the project site. The SQT is a qualitative and quantitative resource used
to describe the function -based condition of each project reach, as well as evaluate functional capacity and
predict the overall proposed lift (Harman and Jones, 2016). WLS applied the SQT to help further define
goals and objectives based on the restoration potential. The results of this assessment helped determine
the highest level of restoration that can be achieved based on site constraints and existing conditions.
Table 9 shows the function -based condition assessment parameters and measurement methods selected
to help quantify and describe each functional category. The complete SQT functional assessment
worksheets and summaries are provided in Appendix 2.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 23
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
Table 9. Existing and Proposed Functional Condition Assessment Summary
Channel Forming Discharge
Precipitation/Runoff
Flow Duration
Floodplain Connectivity
Large Woody Debris
Bank Migration/Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
Bed Form Diversity
Sinuosity
Channel Evolution
Bacteria
Macrobenthos
Note: Table adapted from Harman et al. (2016).
4.1.2 Performance Standards and Functional Capacity
Catchment Assessment
USGS Regression/Impervious Cover
Crest Gage/Flow Gage
Bank Height Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
LWD Index
Meander Width Ratio
BEHI/NBS
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Buffer Width (ft)
Right Buffer Width (ft)
Left Density (stems/acre)
Right Density (stems/acre)
Pool Depth and Spacing Ratio
Facet Slopes
Percent Riffle and Pool
Plan Form
Simon Channel Evolution Model
Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
The Pyramid Framework includes performance standards associated with the function -based assessments
and measurement methods described above. The performance standards are used to determine the
functional capacity and are stratified into three types: Functioning, Functioning -at -Risk, and Not
Functioning (Harman and Jones, 2016). The definitions and index value ranges for each type are outlined
below.
Functioning: A Functioning (F) score means that the measurement method is quantifying or describing
one or more aspects of a function -based parameter in a way that does support a healthy aquatic
ecosystem. A single functioning measurement method may not mean that the function -based parameter
or overall category (e.g., Geomorphology) is functioning. Index value range of 0.7 —1.
Functioning -at -Risk: A Functioning -at -Risk (FAR) score means that the measurement method is
quantifying or describing one or more aspects of a function -based parameter in a way that can support a
healthy aquatic ecosystem. In many cases, this indicates the function -based parameter is adjusting in
response to changes in the reach or the watershed. The trend may be towards lower or higher function.
A Functioning -at -Risk score implies that the aspect of the function -based parameter, described by the
measurement method, is between Functioning and Not Functioning. Index value range of 0.3 — 0.69.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 24
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
Not Functioning: A Not Functioning (NF) score means that the measurement method is quantifying or
describing one or more aspects of a function -based parameter in a way that does not support a healthy
aquatic ecosystem. A single functioning measurement method may not mean that the function -based
parameter or overall category (e.g., Geomorphology) is not functioning. Index value range of 0 — 0.29.
Table 10 summarizes the overall reach scoring and functional lift summary for each project reach.
Table 10. Functional
0.26
0.17
0.13
0.49
0.19
0.72
0.70
0.72
0.70
0.49
0.46
0.53
0.59
0.21
0.30
177%
312%
454%
43%
158%
403
550
743
173
107
177%
314%
522%
43%
158%
NF/F
NF/F
NF/F
FAR /F
NF/FAR
4.1.3 Restoration Potential
After the function -based assessment was completed, the restoration potential was determined to better
define the Project design goals and objectives. It is common for restoration projects to occur at a reach
scale that provide significant functional lift of Level 2 and 3 parameters. However, to achieve goals in
Levels 4 and 5, a combination of reach scale restoration and upstream watershed health must be
measurable and sustainable. The restoration potential was determined to be Level 3 (Geomorphology)
since the overall watershed assessment scored 'Fair' and may not fully support biological reference
conditions given the current nutrient inputs and potential for future development.
Based on the existing condition assessments, the stream's bioclassification is considered 'Poor'. It is
expected that the implementation of this project will significantly reduce pollutant loads, including
sediment and nutrients, improving overall aquatic functions. Given the landscape position and catchment
size, the restoration activities will provide functional lift within the physicochemical and biological
functional categories. Therefore, post -restoration efforts will also include monitoring physicochemical
(Level 4 Category) and biological parameters (Level 5 Category) to document any functional improvements
and/or identify trends during the monitoring period. However, Level 4 and 5 function -based parameters
and monitoring activities will not be tied to performance standards nor required to demonstrate success
for credit release.
The SQT manual recommends that practitioners, stakeholders and regulators collaborate when selecting
appropriate parameters for determining whether project goals and objectives are being met or if any
performance standards need to be adjusted based on local site conditions. Not all functional categories
and parameters, such as water quality (Physicochemical - Level 4) and performance standards listed in the
SQT will be compared or required to determine project success and stream mitigation credit and debit
scenarios. However, selecting applicable monitoring and evaluation methods will help develop a more
function -based assessment and improve our project implementation process, thereby advancing the
practice of ecosystem restoration. Table 11 represents the restoration potential summary for the Project
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 25
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
during the monitoring period. Water quality and biology (Levels 4 and 5) are expected to improve over a
longer time period.
Table 11. Restoration Potential Summary
Channel Forming Discharge
F
F
Floodplain Connectivity
NF
F
Bedform Diversity
NF
F
Channel Evolution
NF
F
Riparian Vegetation
NF
F
Lateral Stability
FAR
F
Water Quality
FAR
F
Macroinvertebrate Communities
NF
FAR
4.1.4 Function -Based Goals and Objectives
Function -based goals and objectives were developed to relate restoration activities to the appropriate
parameters from the SFP framework, which are based on existing conditions, site constraints and overall
restoration potential. When developing realistic function -based project goals and objectives, it is
imperative to know why the functions or resources need to be restored (Goal) and what specific
restoration activities and measurement methods will be used to validate the predicted results (Objective).
Table 12 outlines the Function -Based Goals and Objectives Summary.
Table 12. Function -Based Goals and Design Objectives Summary
Improve Base Flow
Remove man-made pond dam and restore a
more natural flow regime and aquatic passage.
Reconnect Floodplain / Increase
Lower BHRs from >2.0 to 1.0-1.2 and maintain
Floodprone Area Widths
ERs at 2.2 or greater.
Improve Bedform Diversity
Increase riffle/pool percentage to 70/30 and
pool -to -pool spacing ratio 4-7X bankfull width.
Reduce BEHI/NBS streambank erosion rates
Increase Lateral Stability
comparable to downstream reference
condition and stable cross-section values.
Plant native species vegetation a minimum 50'
Establish Riparian Buffer Vegetation
wide from the top of the streambanks with a
composition/density comparable to
downstream reference condition.
Improve Water Quality
Remove cattle from riparian corridor and
reduce fecal coliform bacteria levels.
Improve Macroinvertebrate
Incorporate native woody debris into channel
Community and Aquatic Species
and change DWR bioclassification rating from
Health
'Poor' to a minimum 'Fair' by Monitoring Year
7.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 26
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
5 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
WLS set project mitigation goals and objectives based on the resource condition and functional capacity
of the watershed to improve and protect diverse aquatic resources comparable to stable headwater
stream systems within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The proposed mitigation types and design
approaches considered the general restoration and resource protection goals and strategies outlined in
the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP). The functional goals and objectives are
further defined in the 2013 Wake -Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan (LWP) and 2015 Neuse 01
Regional Watershed Plan (RWP) and include:
• Reducing sediment and nutrient inputs to the upper Buffalo Creek Watershed,
• Restoring, preserving and protecting wetlands, streams, riparian buffers and aquatic habitat,
• Implementing agricultural BMPs and stream restoration in rural catchments together as "project
clusters".
The following site specific goals were developed to address the primary concerns outlined in the LWP and
RWP and include:
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction and geomorphically stable conditions by reconnecting
historic flow paths and promoting more natural flood processes,
• Improve and protect water quality by reducing streambank erosion, nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and habitat connectivity in perpetuity by recording
a permanent conservation easement,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters.
To accomplish these site-specific goals, the following objectives will be measured and included with the
performance standards to document overall project success:
• Provide a floodplain connection to incised stream with BHRs that equal 1.0 —1.2 and by removing
a man-made dam, thereby promoting more natural flood flows,
• Improve bedform diversity by increasing scour pool spacing/depth variability every 4X -7X bankfull
channel widths,
• Increase benthic macroinvertebrate habitat value by changing the DWR bioclassification rating
from 'Poor' to 'Fair' after monitoring year 7,
• Reduce sediment loading from accelerated streambank erosion rates by decreasing BEHI/NBS
values to 'Low' and constructing Radius of Curvature Ratios (Rc) to 2X -3X bankfull channel widths,
• Improve pre -restoration water quality parameters by increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations
(DO), such that it meets a functioning level after monitoring year 7,
• Increase native species riparian buffer vegetation density/composition along streambank and
floodplain areas that meet requirements of a minimum 50 -foot -wide and 210 stems/acre after
monitoring year 7,
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 27
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
• Improve aquatic habitat and fish movement through dam removal and the addition of in -stream
cover and native woody debris by increasing the existing biotic index to a functioning level,
Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement boundary by installing permanent
fencing and reducing fecal coliform bacteria by up to 50% from the pre -restoration levels.
As described in Section 4, the function -based assessment suggests that the proposed mitigation activities
will result in a higher functioning aquatic ecosystem. The project goals and objectives address water
quality stressors by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs through stream restoration, riparian buffer
restoration, riparian wetland restoration and implementing agricultural BMPs. The physiochemical or
water quality functions will also be improved by installing permanent cattle exclusion fencing. Hydrologic
functions will be improved by raising the local water table. A more natural flow regime will be restored
to riparian wetlands and floodplain areas by removing a man-made impoundment and implementing a
Priority Level I Restoration. The biologic and habitat functions will be improved by extending wildlife
corridors that connect with wooded areas near the upstream and downstream extents of the project
reaches.
Additionally, site protection through a conservation easement in excess of 50 feet from the top of banks,
will protect all stream reaches and aquatic resources in perpetuity. These mitigation efforts will provide
a significant ecological benefit with minimal impacts and constraints during a recovery period that would
not otherwise occur through natural processes.
5.1.1 Project Benefits Summary
The project will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the upper Buffalo Creek
Watershed. While many of these benefits will focus on the project area, others, such as nutrient removal,
sediment reduction, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, others have more far-reaching effects
that extend downstream. The expected project benefits and ecological improvements are summarized
below in Table 13.
Table 13. Project Benefits Summary
spread higher flow energies onto the floodplain thereby increasing retention time and
floodplain roughness.
Incorporation of vernal pools, depressional areas, and other constructed floodplain features
will improve flow dynamics by reducing runoff velocities and provide additional surface
Benefits will be achieved through establishing vegetated buffers, which increase groundwater
infiltration, surface water interaction, and recharge rates.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 28
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
Restoring an appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile will efficiently transport and deposit
sediment (point bars and floodplain sinks) relative to the stream's power and load that is
supplied from banks and uplands. Stream channels that are appropriately sized to convey a
smaller range of storm flows will greatly improve channel stability by reducing active bank
erosion (lateral stability) and bed degradation (vertical stability; i.e. headcuts, downcutting,
incision).
Boundary conditions, climate, and geologic controls influence stream channel formation and
how sediment is transported through its watershed. Adequate channel capacity will ensure
sediment supply is distributed such that excessive degradation and aggradation does not
occur.
Planting buffer vegetation will improve thermal regulation (stream shading) along the riparian
corridor, as well as increase woody root mass and density thereby decreasing bank erosion
and sedimentation and increasing organic matter and woody debris.
Bioengineering practices such as live staking, brush layering, and vegetated soil lifts will help
encourage lateral bank stability and prevent further bank erosion and sedimentation.
Benefit will be achieved through the removal of cattle manure in the form of fecal coliform
bacteria and excess nutrients through exclusion fencing, filtration and nutrient uptake within
the restored and enhanced vegetated buffers.
Benefit will be achieved through stabilization of eroding banks; installation of vegetation
buffers; and by dissipating stream energy with increased overbank flows during storm events.
Benefits will be achieved through the restoration of more natural stream forms including riffle
and pool sequences, which will increase dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations. In addition, as
planted riparian buffers mature, the increased shade and wider vegetation density/structure
will reduce water temperatures and groundwater nitrates (NO3-) as well as increase dissolved
organic carbon (DOC) (King et al, 2016).
Benefits will be achieved through the incorporation of physical structure, removal of invasive
species vegetation and returning native vegetation to the restored buffer areas. Benefits to
aquatic organisms will be achieved through the installation of appropriate in -stream
structures and pond dam removal. Adequately transporting and depositing fine-grain
sediment onto the floodplain will prevent embeddedness and create interstitial habitat,
organic food resources and in -stream cover.
Benefits to landscape connectivity will be achieved by restoring a healthy stream corridor,
promoting aquatic and terrestrial species migration and protecting their shared resources in
perpetuity.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 29
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
6 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
The project includes the restoration, enhancement, preservation and permanent protection of five stream
reaches (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5) totaling approximately 4,315 linear feet of existing tributaries (See Figure 10).
The design approach will utilize the entire suite of stream mitigation practices, from Priority Level I
Restoration to Preservation, and appropriately addresses all the intermittent and perennial stream
reaches at the project site. The project also includes restoring riparian buffers and riparian wetlands along
streams currently in agriculture or pasture, providing permanent livestock exclusion, and improving the
existing stream crossings, thus providing the maximum functional uplift and a unique opportunity to
implement a comprehensive watershed approach. The mitigation components and proposed credit
structure is outlined in Table 14 and the design approach and mitigation work plan are described in the
following subsections.
Table 14. Mitigation Components and Proposed Credit Summary
342,530 342,530 R
44,852 44,852 E
' 104,103 104,103 P
Note 1: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
1 342,530
2 22,426
10 10,410
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 30
DMS Project #97081
10+00-
837
18+37
837
806
R
PI/ PII
1
806
18+37-
995
28+32
995
995
R
PI
1
995
28+32-
1,268
41+00
1,268
1,208
R
PI
1
1,208
41+00-
46+26,
47+37-
711
49+22,
711
711
P
-
10
71
46+26 -
ill
47+37
111
111
Ell
-
2.5
44
10+00-
210
12+10
210
210
R
PI/PII
1
210
12+10-
144
13+54
144
144
Ell
-
2.5
58
342,530 342,530 R
44,852 44,852 E
' 104,103 104,103 P
Note 1: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
1 342,530
2 22,426
10 10,410
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 30
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
6.1 Stream Design Approach
As described above in Sections 4 and 5, WLS used function -based assessment methods and data analyses
to determine overall restoration potential and functional uplift. The stream design approach generally
followed the techniques and methods outlined in the NRCS Stream Restoration Design—National
Engineering Handbook (NRCS, 2007) and Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects (USACE, 2001).
In addition, the natural stable channel design (NCD) procedures outlined in the Natural Channel Design
Review Checklist (Harman and Starr, 2011) were applied to address specific stream functions lost across
the site, while also minimizing disturbances to existing wooded areas and higher functioning resources.
WLS first compiled and assessed watershed information such as drainage areas, historical land use,
geologic setting, soil types, sediment inputs and plant communities. WithersRavenel then performed
detailed existing conditions topographic and planimetric surveying of the project site and produced a 1 -
foot contour map, based on survey data, to create base mapping and plan sheets (See Appendix 1).
Detailed geomorphic surveys were also conducted along the channel and floodplain to determine valley
slopes/widths, channel dimensions, longitudinal profile elevations, and to validate the signatures shown
on the LiDAR imagery (See Figure 6).
Project stream design criteria was developed using a combination of industry sources and applied
approaches, including a review of applicable reference reach data (analog), evaluation of published
regression equations and hydraulic geometry relationships (regional curves), monitoring results from
stable past projects (empirical), and building a 1D -steady state hydraulic model using process -based
equations (HEC -RAS) to test design channel geometry, sediment transport capacity, and bed stability
(analytical).
It should be mentioned, while analog and empirical form -based approaches have been proven effective
in designing stable stream systems, their application assumes quasi -equilibrium conditions and similar
watershed and boundary conditions (i.e. dominant discharge, flow regime, channel roughness, controlling
vegetation). Using a static design template that accounts for natural channel variability can be limited by
the regional data sets and overlook other local controlling factors such as flow impoundments, bedrock
geology, woody debris/abundance, and sediment supply (Skidmore, 2001).
Conversely, analytical or process -based approaches rely heavily upon precise data inputs and a more
robust level of effort may not be practical or even necessary to replicate channel geometry given the
model sensitivity and desired outcome. Designing dynamic headwater channels is an iterative process
that requires a detailed assessment of sediment continuity and predicted channel response for a range of
smaller flows. Although it is difficult to definitively predict long term hydrologic conditions in the
watershed, designing an appropriate stream channel for the valley characteristics (i.e. slope, width, and
confinement) is always the preferred design rationale. Therefore, best professional judgment must be
used when selecting appropriate design criteria for lifting the desired ecological functions.
6.1.1 Proposed Design Parameters
The proposed design parameters were developed so that plan view layout, cross-section dimensions, and
longitudinal profiles could be described for developing construction documents. The design philosophy
considers these parameters as conservative guidelines that allow for more natural variability in stream
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 31
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
dimension, facet slopes, and bed features to form over long periods of time under the processes of
flooding, re -colonization of vegetation, and other watershed influences (Harman, Starr, 2011).
Evaluating reference reach information and empirical data from monitoring stable rural Piedmont stream
restoration projects provided pertinent background information and rationale to determine the
appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and restoration potential. The proposed
stream design parameters also considered the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003
and October 2005, the Natural Channel Design Checklist (Harman, 2011) and the NCEEP's Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines issued February 2014.
Table 15. Proposed Design Parameters
0.051
0.100
0.130
0.160
0.016
65c
C5
C5/C5b
E5
B5
2.7
3.6
4.4
6.0
1.5
3.7
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.0
5.9
6.8
7.8
8.5
4.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.4
13
13
14
12
13
14-30
15-30
17-35
20-45
15-30
2.4
2.2-4.0
2.2-4.5
1.8-3.5
2.0-3.5
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0-1.2
1.0
7-11
8-12
7-12
6.6-9.3
N/A
2-3
2-3
2-3
1.9-2.5
N/A
4-7
4-7
3-7
4.1-5.9
N/A
-1.11
-1.17
-1.20
-1.22
-1.10
0.027
0.018
0.017
0.013
0.026
1.1-1.4
1.1-1.3
1.1-1.2
1.2-1.3
1.2-1.3
0.1-0.2
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
1.1-1.5
1.2-1.5
1.1-1.5
1.1-1.5
1.2-1.5
3-6
4-7
3-7
2.6-5.7
2-5
2.0-3.5
1.5-3.0
2.1-3.4
1.6-2.5
1.5-3.0
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 32
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
6.1.2 Design Reach Summary
For design purposes, the stream segments were divided into multiple reaches labeled R1, R2, R3, R4, and
R5, as shown in Figure 10. The following narrative summarizes the proposed design approach, rationale
and justification for each of stream reaches.
R1 — Restoration
Due to the past manipulation and degraded nature of R1, a combination of Priority Level 1/11 Restoration
approaches are proposed forthe entire reach to restore impaired stream functions. The upstream portion
of the reach currently exhibits both lateral and vertical instability, as shown by an active headcut and
localized bank erosion. Prior to the channel entering a buried concrete pipe system, a shallow floodplain
bench will be excavated along the right streambank to reduce near bank stress and in -stream structures
will be installed to prevent further headcut migration. Exotic species vegetation will be removed in this
area and native riparian species vegetation will be supplementally planted in disturbed areas.
Farther downstream, the entire existing concrete pipe system will be removed and the stream channel
will be daylighted to restore a more natural flow path and hydrologic function. The bed elevation will be
raised gradually to reconnect the stream to its active floodplain. This portion of the reach has experienced
severe floodplain alteration and lacks mature woody vegetation. Due to the existing valley slope and
confined valley floor width in this area, the reach will be restored as a Rosgen '135c' stream type using
appropriate riffle -pool morphology with conservative meander geometry. A new channel will be
constructed in this area before reconnecting with the existing channel alignment near a culverted pipe
crossing. Downstream of the culverted crossing, the valley widens and a new meandering channel will be
constructed as remnant spoil piles will be removed from the floodplain.
The design width -to -depth ratio for the new channel will range from 12-15 and be similar to stable streams
in this geologic setting. It is expected that over time, channel widths will narrow slightly due to fine
sediment deposition and vegetation growth along the streambanks. In -stream structures, including log
vanes and log weirs, are proposed to provide control grade in steeper sections, as well as dissipate flow
energy, protect streambanks, and eliminate potential for future incision. Restored streambanks will be
graded to stable side slopes and the new channel will be reconnected to its active floodplain. Riparian
buffers of at least 50 feet wide will be established and livestock will be permanently excluded from the
reach. The existing culverted pipe crossing near the hay barn will be removed and relocated upstream to
maintain long term site access.
R2 — Restoration
R2 begins at an active headcut near the confluence with R1 and R5. R2 is severely incised in many locations
with BHRs ranging from 1.7 to 3.0. The channel has been historically manipulated, but generally flows
through the low point of the valley. Work along R2 will involve a Priority Level I Restoration by raising the
bed elevation and reconnecting the stream with its abandoned floodplain. This approach will promote
more frequent over bank flooding in areas with hydric soils, thereby creating favorable conditions for
wetland re-establishment. The reach currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability as shown by active
bank erosion and headcutting. This systemic degradation is causing excess bank sediments to enter the
system and will likely continue, if restoration is not implemented, since the existing channel has mostly
vertical banks that are devoid of deep rooting vegetation as a result of active cattle trampling and
removing riparian buffer vegetation for pastureland.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 33
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
The reach will be restored as a Rosgen 'C5' stream type using appropriate riffle -pool morphology with a
conservative meander planform geometry that accommodates the valley slope (-1.9 percent) and width
(-75 feet). This approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform
diversity, as well as improved biological functions through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The
proposed design width -to -depth ratio for the channel will be 13, which is comparable to stable streams in
this geologic setting. In -stream structures will be incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow energies,
protect streambanks, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. Proposed in -stream
structures will include constructed wood riffles for grade control and habitat, log j -hook vanes, and log
weirs/jams for encouraging step -pool formation energy dissipation, bank stability, and bedform diversity.
Riparian buffers greater than 50 feet will be restored and protected along the entire length of R2. Any
mature trees or significant native vegetation will be protected and incorporated into the design.
Bioengineering techniques such as vegetated geolifts, brush layers, and live stakes will also be used to
protect streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks. The existing
unstable channel will be filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new bankfull channel to its active
floodplain using suitable fill material excavated from the newly restored channels and remnant spoil piles.
Additionally, permanent fencing will be installed to exclude livestock and reduce direct sediment and
nutrient inputs. These proposed restoration activities will provide the maximum possible functional uplift.
R3 — Restoration
The restoration of R3 will begin immediately downstream from R2. In this area, the valley slope flattens
slightly (-1.6 percent) and existing channel begins experiencing backwater conditions and sediment
aggradation from a man-made farm pond that was built in the 1960s. The existing farm pond is
approximately four acres in size and serves as a primary watering source and wallowing area in support
of the landowner's cattle operation. The failing dam and corrugated metal pipe will be removed and the
pond will be drained to reconnect the new stream channel with its geomorphic floodplain. Channel and
floodplain excavation in this reach segment will include the removal of shallow legacy sediments to
accommodate a new bankfull channel and grade control structures, as well as a more natural step -pool
morphology in the steeper transitional areas.
This impounded reach has experienced sedimentation of finer sandy/loam material, extensive floodplain
alteration, and the removal of mature woody vegetation. Over time, the design approach will also
promote a more natural flow regime and lotic conditions that will likely restore adjacent riparian wetland
areas. Shallow vernal pools will be created in the floodplain to provide habitat diversity, nutrient cycling,
and improved treatment of overland flows. Riparian buffers greater than 50 feet will be restored and
protected along all R3. Additionally, permanent fencing will be installed along with alternative watering
systems to exclude livestock and reduce direct sediment and nutrient inputs. The existing pipe under the
dam is dilapidated and will be removed as part of the restoration effort. The improved culvert pipe
crossing will be installed at a lower elevation to allow for aquatic passage while blending with the natural
valley topography. The proposed improvements will reduce valley confinement and provide the
maximum possible functional uplift.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 34
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
R4 (upper and lower reach) — Preservation
R4 begins immediately downstream from the pond dam at the outlet pipe of the failing pond spillway
system. The reach is currently classified as a Rosgen 'E5' stream type. Preservation is being proposed
along much of this reach since the existing stream and wetland system is mostly stable with a mature
riparian buffer due to minimal historic impacts. The preservation area will be protected in perpetuity
through a permanent conservation easement. This approach will extend the wildlife corridor from the
Lake Wendell boundary throughout the entire riparian valley, while providing a hydrologic connection and
critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.
R4 (middle reach) — Enhancement Level 11
After the IRT Post -Contract Site Meeting on April 8th, 2016, Hurricane Matthew moved across the region
on October 10th, 2016. During a post -storm assessment, WLS observed several mature trees along the
right streambank that were uprooted and overturned, presumably as a direct result of high winds and
saturated soil conditions attributed to the significant storm event. Currently, this cluster of overturned
mature trees is creating a debris jam and blocking the flow path within the existing bankfull channel. WLS
proposes an Enhancement Level II approach along a portion of this reach to address the bank erosion and
lateral instability. Construction activities will consist of strategic mechanized removal of the downed
trees, possibly "resetting" the remaining root balls along the right streambank, and rebuilding the
streambanks back to the existing stable dimension by installing vegetated geolifts, erosion control
matting, and supplemental riparian buffer planting and live stakes. The reach in this section is classified
as an incised Rosgen 'E5' stream type and the repaired section will connect with the upstream and
downstream preservation lengths of R4.
R5 (upper reach) — Restoration
Due to the past manipulation, channelization and degraded nature of R5, a Priority Level I Restoration
approach is proposed for the upstream portion of the reach to improve stream functions and water
quality. The reach has a small catchment area and originates from a spring that supports intermittent
flow. The upstream portion of the reach currently exhibits both lateral and vertical instability, as shown
by an active headcut and severe bank erosion. The headwater stream was historically ditched and piped
under an old road built in the 1930s. The existing concrete pipe system is currently exposed in a few
locations and will be completely removed to allow for the complete daylighting and raising of the stream
bed elevation to reconnect the stream with its active floodplain. This portion of the reach has experienced
historic floodplain alteration and is devoid of mature woody vegetation.
Given the existing drainage area (-10 acres) and steeper valley slope (-2.5 percent), the reach will be
restored as a Rosgen '135' stream type using appropriate riffle -pool and step -pool morphology with limited
meander geometry. A new channel will be constructed in this area before reconnecting with the existing
channel alignment farther downstream. The proposed design width -to -depth ratio will be 12-15, which
is comparable to stable streams in this geologic setting. It is expected that over time, channel widths will
narrow slightly over time due vegetation growth along the streambanks. In -stream structures, including
log weirs and woody riffles will be used to control grade in the steeper section, as well as dissipate flow
energy, protect streambanks, and eliminate potential for future incision. Restored streambanks will be
graded to stable side slopes and the floodplain will be reconnected to further promote stability and
hydrological function. Riparian buffers of at least 50 feet wide will be established and livestock will be
permanently excluded from the reach. The existing crossing will be improved outside of the easement to
maintain long term site access.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 35
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
R5 (lower reach) - Enhancement Level 11
Work along the downstream portion of R5 will involve Enhancement Level II practices to improve the
current channel condition and aquatic function. This area has been historically disturbed through pasture
use and agricultural practices and the channel exhibits limited morphology. However, the existing channel
has limited bank erosion and channel incision near the confluence with the mainstem R1 and R2.
Consequently, WLS proposes to plant and restore the riparian buffer width to more than 50 feet and
permanently exclude livestock.
6.2 Reference Reach Selection
The morphologic data obtained from reference reach surveys can be a valuable tool for comparison and
used as a template for analog design of a stable stream in a similar valley type with similar bed material.
To extract the morphological relationships observed in a stable system, dimensionless ratios are
developed from the surveyed reference reach. These ratios can be applied to a stream design to allow
the designer to 'mimic' the natural, stable form of the target channel type.
While reference reach data can be a useful aid in analog design, they are not always necessary and can
have limitations in smaller stream systems (Hey, 2006). The flow patterns and channel formation for many
reference reach quality streams are often controlled by slope, bed material, drainage areas and larger
trees and/or other deep rooted vegetation. Some meander geometry parameters, such as radius of
curvature, are particularly affected by vegetation control. Pattern ratios observed in reference reaches
may not be applicable or are often adjusted in the design criteria to create more conservative designs that
are less likely to erode after construction, before the permanent vegetation is established. Often the best
reference data is from adjacent stable stream reaches, or reaches within the same watershed.
For comparison purposes, WLS selected local reference reaches in the same watershed and compared
them with composite reference data. The reference reach data represents a small "Rural Piedmont
Stream," and falls within the same climatic, hydrophysiographic and ecological region as the project site.
The data shown on Table 16 helped to determine how the stream system may have responded to
changes within the watershed.
Table 16. Reference Reach Data Comparison
LW -R4
PD -R5
EJ -R1
E5
E5
C5
E5
C5
3.8
5.7
6.5
4.0-6.0
3.5-5.0
6.2
7.4
14.2
10.0-12.0
10.0-14.0
7.1
8.4
7.3
>2.2
>2.2
1.8
1.2
1.5
1.1-1.3
1.1-1.4
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
9.3
8.4
6.2
5.0-12.0
7.0-14.0
2.5
1.7
1.6
1.2-2.5
2.0-3.0
3.9
4.5
4.0
2.0-10.0
3.0-8.0
1.22
1.17
1.18
1.3-1.6
1.2-1.5
0.0142
0.0011
0.0145
0.002 - 0.006
0.002 - 0.010
0.0123
0.0084
0.0118
---
---
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 36
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
Pool Max Depth. ••. D• 2.6 2.5 2.9 1.2-2.5 1.2-2.5
Pool WidthRatio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.5 1.2 1.7 0.7-1.5 1.0-1.7
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf3.1 3.7 5.0 2.5-5.0 3.0-7.0
Note 1: Composite reference reach values and ratios were compared using stable stream restoration projects surveyed
and monitored in NC as illustrated in the Natural Channel Design Checklist (Harman, 2011).
Note 2: On-site reference reach data was collected at Lake Wendell (Reach R4), Pen Dell (Reach R5), and Edwards -
Johnson (Reach R1) DMS full delivery sites respectively.
6.3 Flow Regime
Extensive research demonstrates that a wide range of flows are essential to maintain stable and high
functioning habitat across ecological systems. The flow regime has been identified as the primary factor
in sustaining the ecological integrity of riparian systems (Poff et al. 1997) and is a key variable in
determining the abundance, distribution, and evolution of aquatic and riparian species (Schlosser 1985,
Resh et al. 1988, Power et al. 1995, Doyle et al. 2005). The ecological significance of variable stream flows
is more relative to flow duration, not necessarily just the flow recurrence interval. Seasonal flow
variations correlate to biological relationships and habitat response. The flow conditions can generally be
categorized as low flow, channel -forming flow, or flood flows, each with specific ecological significance
(Postel and Richter, 2003).
A majority of stream miles (>80 percent) in North Carolina are classified as headwater streams (drainage
area <3.9 mi2), however, less than 10 percent of the 284 USGS stream gages in North Carolina are located
on headwater streams (EFSAB, 2013). WLS recognizes the importance of these stream flow variables and
the ecological role they play in supporting high functioning headwater steam and wetland systems. As
such, flow monitoring will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored headwater stream systems
exhibit seasonal base flow during a year with normal rainfall conditions. The stream surface flow
documentation methods are further described in Section 8.2. Table 17 summarizes the basic flow levels
and ecological roles the restoration design will provide after project implementation.
Table 17. Flow Level and Ecological Role
Low Flow (Base Flow): -Provide year-round habitat for aquatic organisms (drying/inundation pattern)
-Maintain suitable conditions for water temperature and dissolved oxygen
occurs most -Provide water source for riparian plants and animals
-Enable movement through stream corridor and refuge from predators
-Support hyporheic functions and aquatic organisms
-Shape and maintain physical stream channel form
-Create and maintain pools, in -stream and refuge habitat
-Redistribute and sort fine and coarse sediments
-Reduce encroachment of vegetation in channel and establishment of exotic
species
-Maintain water quality by flushing pollutants
-Maintain hyporheic connection by mobilizing bed and fine material
-Create in -channel bars for seed colonization of native riparian plants
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 37
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
-Deposition of fine sediment and nutrients on floodplain
-Maintain diversity, function, and health of riparian floodplain vegetation
-Create streamside habitat, new channels, sloughs, and off -channel rearing
habitat through lateral channel migration and avulsion
-Recharge floodplain and storage processes
-Recruitment of native wood and organic material into channel
6.3.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge
9
Bankfull stage and its corresponding discharge are the primary variables used to develop a natural stable
channel design. However, the correct identification of the bankfull stage in the field was difficult and can
also be subjective (Williams, 1978; Knighton, 1988; and Johnson and Heil, 1996). Numerous definitions
exist of bankfull stage and methods for its identification in the field (Wolman and Leopold, 1957; Nixon,
1959; Schumm, 1960; Kilpatrick and Barnes, 1964; and Williams, 1978). The identification of bankfull
stage in the humid Southeast can be especially challenging because of dense understory vegetation and
extensive channel modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology.
It is generally understood that bankfull stage corresponds with the discharge that fills a channel to the
elevation of the active floodplain and represents a breakpoint between processes of channel formation
and floodplain development. The bankfull discharge, which also corresponds with the dominant discharge
or effective discharge, is the flow that moves the most sediment over time in stable alluvial channels.
Field indicators include the back of point bars, significant breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, the
highest scour line, or the top of the streambank (Leopold, 1994). The most consistent bankfull indicators
for streams in the Piedmont of North Carolina are the backs of point bars, breaks in slope at the front of
flat bankfull benches, or the top of the streambanks (Harman et al., 1999).
Upon completion of the field survey and geomorphic assessment, accurate identification of bankfull stage
could not be made in all reach sections throughout the site due to incised and impaired channel
conditions. Although some field indicators were apparent in segments with lower streambank heights
and discernible scour features, the reliability of the indicators was inconsistent due to the altered
condition of the stream channels. For this reason, the bankfull stage and discharge were estimated using
published regional curve information.
6.3.2 Regional Curve Comparison
Regional curves developed by Dunne and Leopold (1978) relate bankfull channel dimensions to drainage
area and are based on the channel forming discharge theory, which states that one unique flow can yield
the same channel morphology as the full range of flows. A primary purpose for developing regional curves
is to aid in identifying bankfull stage and dimension in un -gaged watersheds, as well as to help predict the
bankfull dimension and discharge for natural channel designs (Rosgen, 1994). Gage station analyses
throughout the United States have shown that the bankfull discharge has an average return interval of
1.5 years or 66.7% annual exceedance probability on the maximum annual series (Dunne and Leopold,
1978; Leopold, 1994).
Hydraulic geometry relationships are empirically derived and can be developed for a specific river or
extrapolated to a watershed in the same physiographic region with similar rainfall/runoff relationships
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 38
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
(FISRWG, 1998). Published and unpublished watershed specific bankfull regional curves are available for
a range of stream types and physiographic provinces. The NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et
al., 1999) and unpublished NC Piedmont Regional Curve developed by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS, Walker, private communication, 2015) were used for comparison when estimating bankfull
discharge. The NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve and bankfull hydraulic geometry equations are shown
in Table 18.
Table 18. North Carolina Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
Qbkf = 55.31 AW 0'79 R2=0.97 Qbkf = 89.04 AW 072 R2=0.91
Abkf = 19.23 AW o.6s R2=0.97 Abkf = 21.43 AW 068 R2=0.95
W bkf = 17.41 A W 1.37 R2=0.79 W bkf = 11.89 A W 0.43 R2=0.81
Dbkf = 1.09 AW 0.29 R2=0.80 Dbkf = 1.50 AW 0.32 R2=0.88
It's important to note these tributaries are classified as small first order streams, and generally smaller
headwater streams can be poorly represented on the regional curves. Based on our experience, the
published NC Piedmont Regional Curve Equations can slightly overestimate discharge and channel
dimensions for smaller ungaged streams, such as those present at this site. Furthermore, estimating
bankfull parameters subjectively rather than using deterministic values may encourage designers to make
decisions on a range of values and beliefs that the bankfull depths must inherently be within that range
(Johnson, 1996).
WLS has implemented numerous projects in ungaged drainages in the piedmont hydrophysiographic
province of North Carolina, and has developed "mini -curves" specific to these projects. The data set on
these small stream curves help reduce uncertainty by providing additional reference points and
supporting evidence for the selection of bankfull indicators that produce slightly smaller dimensions and
flow rates than the published regional curve data set. Channel slope, valley setting, channel geometry,
and sediment supply, as well as information from the USGS regression and Manning's equations were all
considered during examination of the field data. The estimated bankfull discharges and surveyed cross-
sectional areas at the top of bank were plotted on the NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve and illustrated
in Appendix 2.
6.3.3 Channel Forming Discharge
A hydrologic analysis was completed to estimate and validate the design bankfull discharge and channel
geometry required to provide more frequent overbank flows and floodplain inundation. WLS used
multiple methods for evaluating the bankfull stage and dominant discharge for the project reaches. Cross-
sections were identified and surveyed to represent reach -wide conditions. Additional bankfull estimation
methods, such as the commonly accepted Manning's equation, were compared to help interpret and
adjust field observations to select the appropriate design criteria and justification for the design approach.
The bankfull flows in gaged watersheds within the NC Rural Piedmont study documented return intervals
(RI) that ranges from 1.1 to 1.8, with a mean of 1.4 years (Harman et al, 1999). WLS also compared the 2 -
year flow frequency using the published USGS regression equation for small rural streams (DA :53 mi2)
within the piedmont hydrologic area of North Carolina (USGS, 2014). As expected, these values fall slightly
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 39
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
above the published bankfull discharge, but were extrapolated to represent a wider range of flows. WLS
then compared lower flow frequencies in the 1.0, 1.2, and 1.5 RI range versus survey data, field
observations, and Hydraflow Hydrographs, which simulate rainfall -runoff relationships and establish peak
flows for the project catchment (See Appendix 2).
It should be noted that this best fit approach does not always match the dataset, since it falls at the low
end of the curve. Therefore, caution should be used when comparing these lower RIs with additional data
sets. Using the rationale described above, Table 19 provides the bankfull discharge analyses and
comparisons based on the rural piedmont regional curves, the Manning's equation discharges calculated
from the representative cross-section geometry for existing reaches, USGS regional regression equations,
and the design discharge estimated based on the proposed design cross-sections for all project reaches.
Table 19. Design Discharge Analysis Summary
R1
33
10.5
5.3
9.3
20.4
16.7
13.9
10.0
R2
64
16.9
9.1
15.9
32.9
21.7
16.3
16.0
R3
83
20.4
11.1
18.1
39.6
25.5
18.9
19.0
R4
102
23.7
13.1
23.0
45.8
30.5
26.3
21.0
R5
10
4.5
2.2
4.4
8.9
5.9
4.0
4.0
Note 1: Published NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999).
Note 2: Unpublished Revised NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve developed by NRCS (A. Walker personal communication,
2015).
Note 3: Bankfull discharge estimates vary based on Manning's Equation for the representative riffle cross-sections.
Bankfull stage roughness estimates (n -values) ranged from approximately 0. 035 to 0. 055 based on channel slopes, depth,
bed material size, and vegetation influence.
Note 4: USGS rural regression equation for 2 -year flood recurrence interval, Q2
=163(DA)^0.7089*10^(0.0133*(IMPNLCD06)) for small rural streams (USGS, 2011)
Note 5: NC USGS rural regression equation extrapolated for 1.2- and 1.5 -year flood recurrence interval (USGS, 2011)
After considering these estimation methods and results (geometry measurements, regional curves, flow
frequency and USGS regional regression equations), WLS estimated the design bankfull discharge using
values nearest to the published NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve and Manning's equation to select the
appropriate design dimensions and flows rates that best correspond to the bankfull.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 40
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
6.3.4 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis
In active sand -bed systems, sediment transport capacity is analyzed to determine what slope is needed
to transport the estimated sediment supply and grain size distribution within a given range of flows. The
sediment transport capacity is commonly defined as a stream's ability to move a mass of sediment
through a cross-section dimension, and is a measurement of stream power, expressed in units of
watts/square meter. The total volume of sediment transported through a cross-section area consists of
bedload plus suspended load fractions. The bedload is generally composed of larger particles, such as
course sand, gravels, and small cobbles, which are transported by rolling, sliding, or hopping (saltating)
along the bed. The suspended load is composed of fine sand, silt, and clay particles transported in the
water column. Therefore, in sand -bed or fine-grained streams, all particle sizes may become mobilized
during geomorphically significant flow events (Wilcock, 1993).
The sediment transport capacity was analyzed to help predict stable channel design conditions for the
project reaches. Proposed cross-section dimensions were input into HEC -RAS using the stable channel
design function (i.e. Copeland Method). Table 20 illustrates boundary shear stress and stream power
values under proposed design conditions for the project reaches. See Appendix 2 for model outputs.
Table 20. Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power
2.8
3.3
4.2
3.5
2.1
0.027
0.018
0.017
0.013
0.026
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.7
3.6
4.4
6.0
1.5
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
5.9
6.8
7.8
8.5
4.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.39
0.46
0.49
0.61
0.29
3.77
3.38
3.45
3.48
3.04
10.2
12.2
1S.2
20.9
4.6
0.665
0.512
0.520
0.492
0.478
42.0
29.1
29.8
29.0
24.3
As a design consideration, portions of the bed material may contain particle sizes larger than the D84 to
achieve vertical stability in steeper sections immediately after construction. The proposed channel slopes
throughout the project reaches range from approximately 1.5% to 3.0%. In general, sections with steeper
slopes will be addressed by installing a combination of grade control structures such as log riffles and log
step pools in straighter segments. Incorporating these structures will prevent further channel degradation
and embeddedness, promote natural scour and sediment storage, and increase bed/bank stability since
shear stress and sediment entrainment are directly affected by factors such flow energy distribution and
channel resistance. While it is predicted that the restoration and enhancement efforts will reduce stream
bed and bank erosion, the channels must still adequately transport finer bedload material while
maintaining vertical and lateral stability.
It should be noted that sediment competency was not calculated and Wolman pebble counts are not
appropriate for sand -bed systems; therefore, bulk samples were collected to characterize the bed
material. Most of the site reaches contain medium sand and loam (D50 = 0.76 mm), with a limited fine
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 41
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
gravel bottom due to the parent soil material and cattle impacts along eroding streambanks. The samples
were collected to confirm these initial observations and further site investigations were conducted to
identify additional sediment sources within the watershed.
A site-specific sediment rating curve and budget was not developed given the limited sediment supply
and headwater position in the watershed. This detailed effort requires using on-site monitoring data from
documented flow events within the project watershed. However, empirical relationships from stable
sand -bed streams were compared to published values and reference streams that have similar
characteristics and boundary conditions such as slope, controlling vegetation and bedform morphology.
Comparing the design shear stress and stream power values for the project reaches useful to determine
if the values predicted are within an acceptable range to those found in other stable sand -bed systems.
Based on field observations within the project watershed, the streams receive mostly fine grained
materials directly from streambank erosion with minimal contributions from the upper catchment area.
Further field investigations confirmed that the sediment supply from project reaches above the pond is
transported during larger storm events due to small headwater drainage, an impoundment east of
Wendell Road, and influences from vegetation cover. Upstream of the pond dam (Reach 113), the stream
channel has lost floodplain connectivity and continues to deepen/widen which increases stream power
and helps to transport the fine sediment load.
6.4 Wetland Design Approach
While it is understood that wetland mitigation credits are not contracted or proposed for this project, the
project area will benefit greatly from the restoration of riparian wetland hydrology and improved
ecological function along the floodplains of the project stream reaches where Priority Level I Restoration
approaches are implemented. The project site is located in an agricultural setting in the Lower Piedmont,
within a Priority Sub -watershed as described in the Neuse 01 RWP, where smaller headwater stream and
wetland restoration projects are highly recommended and prioritized.
Based on field investigations, soil conditions are favorable for rehabilitating areas of significantly degraded
existing riparian wetlands along R1, R2, R3, and R5. These areas are shown on Figure 7 and total
approximately 0.95 acres. Riparian wetland rehabilitation is expected to occur in areas of drained hydric
soils by improving current hydrologic conditions and overbank flooding across the historic floodplain as a
direct result of implementing Priority Level I Restoration, removing cattle from the riparian area which
will improve soil structure, and restoration of the riparian buffer. Additionally, the wetland restoration
approach will improve the hyporheic zone interaction and both biological and chemical processes
associated with aquatic functions of the stream. These activities, including minimal grading and blending
of natural microtopography, will provide significant functional uplift across the project area.
6.5 Riparian Buffer Design Approach
One of the primary project goals includes restoring riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat. An
objective identified in support of this goal includes planting to re-establish a native species vegetation
riparian buffer corridor along the entire length of the project reaches. This objective will be met by
establishing riparian buffers which extend a minimum of 50 feet from the top of the streambanks along
each of the project stream reaches, as well as permanently protecting those buffers with a conservation
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 42
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
easement. For project stream reaches proposed for restoration and enhancement, the riparian buffers
will be restored through reforestation.
The limits of the proposed conservation easement boundaries were determined to ensure that a riparian
buffer extending a minimum of 50 feet from the tops of both streambanks (left and right) will be
established and permanently protected for each of the proposed project stream reaches. Many areas of
the conservation easement establish riparian buffer widths greater than 50 feet along one or both
streambanks to provide additional functional uplift potential, such as encompassing adjacent
jurisdictional wetland areas. For project stream reaches proposed for restoration and enhancement, the
riparian buffers will be restored through reforestation of the entire conservation easement. For project
stream reach sections proposed for preservation, the existing riparian buffers will be permanently
protected via the conservation easement.
The riparian buffer zone for the project includes the streambanks, floodplain, riparian wetland, and upland
transitional areas. The proposed planting boundaries are shown on the vegetation plans in Appendix 1
and Figure 11. The conservation easement areas also may include areas outside of the riparian buffer
zone that will be revegetated, including areas that lack vegetation species diversity, or areas otherwise
disturbed or adversely impacted by construction. Proposed plantings will be conducted using native
species bare -root trees and shrubs, live stakes, and seedlings. Proposed plantings will predominantly
consist of bare root vegetation and will generally be planted at a total target density of 680 stems per
acre. This planting density has proven successful with the reforestation of past completed mitigation
projects, based on successful regulatory project closeout, and including the current USACE regulatory
guidelines requiring levels of woody stem survival throughout the monitoring period, with a Year 7 final
survival rate of 210 stems per acre.
WLS recognizes that riparian buffer conditions at mature reference sites are not reflected at planted or
successional buffer sites until the woody species being to establish and compete with herbaceous
vegetation. To account for this, we will utilize a successful riparian buffer planting strategy that includes
a combination of overstory, or canopy, and understory species. WLS will also consider the supplemental
planting of larger and older planting stock to modify species density and type, based on vegetation
monitoring results after the first few growing seasons. This consideration will be utilized particularly to
increase the rate of buffer establishment and buffer species variety, as well as to decrease the vegetation
maintenance costs. An example might include selective supplemental planting of older mast producing
species as potted stock in later years for increased survivability.
The site planting strategy also includes early successional, as well as climax species. The vegetation
selections will be mixed throughout the project planting areas so that the early successional species will
give way to climax species as they mature over time. The early successional species which have proven
successful include River birch (Betula nigra), Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and American sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis). The climax species that have proven successful include Red maple (Acer rubrum)
and Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). The understory and shrub layer species are all considered to be
climax species in the riparian buffer community.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 43
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
6.5.1 Proposed Vegetation Planting
The proposed plant selection will help to establish a natural vegetation community that will include
appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species) based on an appropriate
reference community. Schafale and Weakley's (1990) guidance on vegetation communities for Piedmont
Bottomland Forest (mixed riparian community) and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest (Piedmont Subtype),
the USACE Wetland Research Program (WRP) Technical Note VN -RS -4.1 (1997), as well as existing mature
species identified throughout the project area, were referenced during the development of riparian buffer
and adjacent riparian wetland plants for the site. The proposed natural vegetation community will include
appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species) based on the appropriate
reference community. Within each of the four strata, a variety of species will be planted to ensure an
appropriate and diverse plant community.
Tree species selected for restoration and enhancement areas will be weak to tolerant of flooding. Weakly
tolerant species can survive and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short
periods of time. Moderately tolerant species can survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several
months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species can survive on sites in which the soil is
saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997). Species proposed for
revegetation planting are presented in Table 21.
Table 21. Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root and Live Stake Plantings
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 44
DMS Project #97081
Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings — Overstory
(Proposed 8' x 8' Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash 7%
FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch 6%
FACW
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak 7%
FACW
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak , 7%
FACW
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore .ir 7%
FACW
Acer rubrum
Red Maple ,&_ 5%
FAC
Liriodendron tulipifero
Tulip -poplar .Ir' 7%
FACU
Quercus nigra
Water Oak ,. 7%
FAC
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak 11111111111111110 5%
FACW
Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings — Understory
(Proposed 8' x 8' Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon 6%
FAC
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood 6%
FAC
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch -hazel 6%
FACU
Asimina triloba
Paw paw 6%
FAC
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush 6%
FACW
Alnus serrulate
Tag Alder 6%
OBL
Corylus americana
Hazelnut 6%
FACU
Riparian Buffer Live Stake Plantings — Streambanks
(Proposed 2'-3' Spacing @ Meander Bends and 6'-8' Spacing @ Riffle Sections)
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry 20%
FACW
Salixsericeo
Silky Willow 20%
OBL
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 44
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
Salix nigra Black Willow 30% OBL
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 30% FACW
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. Species
M substitutions will be coordinated between WLS and planting contractor prior to the procurement of plant stock.
6.5.2 Planting Materials and Methods
Planting will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees installed between Mid -November
and early March. Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness
of areas to be planted as compared to the revegetation plan. The final planting zone limits may be
modified based on these observations and comparisons, and the final selection of the location of the
planted species will be matched according the species wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of
the planting area. It should be noted that smaller tree species planted in the understory, such as American
Hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), will unlikely meet the height targets for tree species after seven years.
Plant stock delivery, handling, and installation procedures will be coordinated and scheduled to ensure
that woody vegetation can be planted within two days of being delivered to the project site. Soils at the
site areas proposed for planting will be prepared by sufficiently loosening prior to planting. Bare root
seedlings will be manually planted using a dibble bar, mattock, planting bar, or other approved method.
Planting holes prepared for the bare root seedlings will be sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread
outward and downward without "J -rooting." Soil will be loosely re -compacted around each planting, as
the last step, to prevent roots from drying out.
Live Staking and Live Branch Cuttings:
Where live staking is proposed, live stakes will typically be installed at a minimum of 40 stakes per 1,000
square feet and the stakes will be spaced approximately two to three feet apart in meander bends and six
to eight feet apart in the riffle sections, using a triangular spacing pattern along the streambanks, between
the toe of the streambank and bankfull elevation. When bioengineering is proposed, live branch cutting
bundles comprised of similar live stake species, shall be installed at five linear feet per bundle
approximately two to three branches thick. The basal ends of the live branch cuttings, or whips, shall
contact the back of the excavated slope and shall extend six inches from the slope face.
Permanent Seeding:
Permanent seed mixtures of native species herbaceous vegetation and temporary herbaceous vegetation
seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Temporary and permanent seeding
will be conducted simultaneously at all disturbed areas of the site during construction and will conducted
with mechanical broadcast spreaders. Simultaneous permanent and temporary seeding activities helps
to ensure rapid growth and establishment of herbaceous ground cover and promotes soil stability and
riparian habitat uplift.
Table 22 lists the proposed species, mixtures, and application rates for permanent seeding. The
vegetation species proposed for permanent seeding are deep-rooted and have been shown to proliferate
along restored stream channels, providing long-term stability. The vegetation species proposed for
temporary seeding germinate quickly to swiftly establish vegetative ground cover and thus, short term
stability.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 45
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
The permanent seed mixture proposed is suitable for streambank, floodplain, and adjacent riparian
wetland areas, and the upland transitional areas in the riparian buffer. Beyond the riparian buffer areas,
temporary seeding will also be applied to all other disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to
erosion. These areas include constructed streambanks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If
temporary seeding is applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate
of 130 pounds per acre. If applied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of
browntop millet, applied at a rate of 40 pounds per acre.
Table 22. Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding
Andropogon
Big blue stem
10%
1.50
FAC
gerardii
Dichanthelium
Deer Tongue
15%
1.50
FACW
clandestinum
Carex crinata
Fringed sedge
10%
2.25
FACW+
Chasmanthium
River oats
5%
1.50
FACU
latifolium
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wild rye
15%
1.50
FAC
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
5%
2.25
FACW+
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
10%
1.50
FAC+
Eutrochium
Joe-pye-weed
5%
0.75
FACW
fistulosum
Schizachyrium
Little blue stem
10%
0.75
FACU
scoparium
Tripsacum
Eastern gamagrass
5%
0.75
FAC+
dactyloides
Sorghastrum nutans
Indiangrass
10%
0.75
FACU
Note: Final species selection may change due to
refinement or availability at the time of planting. Species
substitutions will be coordinated
between WLS and planting contractor prior to the procurement of seeding
stock.
Invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
and Microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), will be treated to allow native plants to become established
within the conservation easement. Larger native tree species will be preserved and harvested woody
material will be utilized to provide bank stabilization cover and/or nesting habitat. Hardwood species will
be planted to provide the appropriate vegetation for the restored riparian buffer areas. During the project
implementation, invasive species exotic vegetation will be treated both to control its presence and reduce
its spread within the conservation easement areas. These efforts will aid in the establishment of native
riparian vegetation species within the restored riparian buffer areas.
6.6 Agricultural Best Management Practices
WLS proposes various agricultural best management practices (BMPs) as practices or measures to be
implemented as part of a "project cluster" approach, as recommended under the Neuse 01 RWP. When
combined with stream, riparian buffer, and riparian wetland restoration, agricultural BMPs can be
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 46
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
effective at reducing pollutants, particularly sediment loadings, and therefore provide additional
ecological uplift to the project. The agricultural BMPs that are best suited at this project site include no -
till planting, grassed waterways, restricted grazing, livestock fencing, alternate watering sources for
livestock, and impoundments or basins to treat agricultural runoff. Currently, the landowner actively
employs no -till planting and the use of grassed waterways and restricted or rotational grazing. Therefore,
livestock exclusion fencing, providing alternate watering sources for livestock, and the addition of
treatment basins are proposed for this project.
WLS will provide a permanent watering source for livestock at the project site through the installation of
livestock drinkers and associated watering infrastructure. The livestock watering stations have been
designed and located in direct coordination with the landowner and the Johnston County Soil and Water
Conservation District and NRCS to ensure that adequate watering facilities are provided. The watering
stations will be located outside of the conservation easement boundaries and well away from the restored
stream corridors.
As previously discussed, direct livestock access and the resulting sedimentation, erosion, and pollutants
are one of the primary stressors for the project site. Permanent livestock exclusion from the applicable
conservation easement areas will be provided with fencing, installed to NRCS technical standards. The
permanent fencing will be installed to maximize the length of straight fence lines and minimize the
number of fence corners. At the active culverted stream crossings, the permanent livestock exclusion
fencing will be installed along both the upstream and downstream limits of the conservation easement
"alley" or break to prevent livestock from accessing the stream from the actual crossing. The locations of
the proposed stream crossings are shown on Figure 10. The proposed conservation easement is broken
at each of these proposed crossing locations to best facilitate the landowner's use of the property. The
proposed stream crossings will be culverted and the pipes have been sized to pass the 10 -year design
storm to ensure proper hydraulic function and stream stability, as well as to encourage aquatic passage.
6.7 Water Quality Treatment Features
Water quality treatment features in the form of small basins or impoundments designed to capture and
treat runoff from the surrounding active cattle pastures and/or agricultural fields are proposed in multiple
locations adjacent to the restored riparian buffer corridor. These basins will increase infiltration and
groundwater recharge, diffuse flow energies, and allow nutrient uptake within the extended riparian
buffer area. The water quality improvement features will be fenced out, such that they are connected to
the easement fencing system, to prevent livestock intrusion. The water quality treatment features are
sized using the NC DWR BMP design manual to treat storage volumes and calculated by comparing the
SCS Curve Number Method and Simple Method. The features will be constructed such that they do not
require long-term maintenance and will be sited immediately outside of the conservation easement
boundary to allow for modifications should that be desired.
The treatment basins will be excavated along non -jurisdictional flat or depressional areas where
ephemeral drainages intersect with the proposed restored stream corridor. The areas will be improved
by grading flatter side slopes (>3H:1V) and planting appropriate wetland vegetation as outlined in Section
6.5.1. Over time, as vegetation becomes established, the areas will function as shallow wetland
complexes or depressions. The outlets will be constructed with suitable material and stabilized with
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 47
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
permanent vegetation or stone that will prevent headcut migration or erosion into the newly constructed
areas.
Additionally, areas along the footprint boundary of the decommissioned pond (R3) will be converted to a
depressional feature to intersect and treat runoff from the surrounding pastures and crop fields. Each of
the basins have been designed with low -maintenance weir outlets and the basins will be planted and are
included within the conservation easement area. This strategy will allow these features to function
properly with minimal risk and without long term maintenance requirements. A stable outlet channel will
be constructed to deliver runoff to the receiving restored stream reach.
6.8 Site Construction Methods
6.8.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements
Following initial evaluation of the design criteria, detailed refinements were made to the design plans in
the field to accommodate the existing valley characteristics, vegetation influences and channel
morphology. This was done to minimize unnecessary disturbance of the riparian area, and to allow for
some natural channel adjustments following construction. The design plans and construction elements
have been tailored to produce a cost and resource efficient design that is constructible, using a level of
detail that corresponds to the tools of construction. A general construction sequence is included on the
project design plan sheets located in Appendix 1.
Much of the grading across the site will be conducted within the existing riparian corridor. The restored
streams will be excavated within the existing headwater valley. Suitable fill material will be generated
from new channel excavation and adjacent upland areas and hauled to ditch fill/plugs or stockpile
locations as necessary. Portions of the existing, unstable channels will be partially to completely filled
along their length using compactable fill material excavated from construction of the restored channels.
Wetland and floodplain grading activities will focus on restoring pre -disturbance valley topography by
removing field crowns, overburden/spoil, surface drains, and pond sediments that were imposed during
conversion of the land for agriculture. In general, floodplain grading activities will be minor, with the
primary goal of soil scarification, creating depressional areas, water quality and habitat features, and
microtopographic crenulations by filling the drainage features on the site back to natural ground
elevations (Scherrer, 1999). Any excess material not used for ditch plugging or suitable as a soil base for
vegetation will be spread across upland areas outside of the easement boundary and jurisdictional
WOTUS.
6.8.2 In -stream Structures and Site Improvement Features
A variety of in -stream structures are proposed for the project. Structures including log vanes, constructed
log riffles, constructed stone riffles, grade control log j -hook vanes, rootwads, log weirs, stone and log
step pools, and log step pools. Geolifts with toe wood, various other bioengineering measure, and native
species vegetation transplants will be used to stabilize the newly -restored stream and improve bedform
diversity and habitat functions. All in -stream structures will be constructed from native materials such as
hardwood trees, trunks/logs, brush/branches, and gravel stone materials. Native woody debris will be
harvested on-site during the project construction and incorporated into the stream channel restoration
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 48
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
whenever possible. To ensure sustainability of these structures, WLS will use design and construction
methods that have proven successful on numerous past projects in the same geographic region and
similar site conditions.
It should be mentioned that unlike gravel/cobble bed systems, sand bed channels do not typically form
deep pools around meander bends, unless a structure is located within the bed to promote scour. Bed
material features called ripples, dunes, planebeds, and antidunes characterize the sand bed forms. In
addition, sand bed streams do not technically have riffles. However, the term is often used to describe
the transition or facet feature between pools. The term "riffle" in this context is used interchangeably
with "ripple" in this report. Floodplain features such as small sloughs, meander scars, vernal pools, and
tree throws are commonly found in natural riparian systems. These features will be appropriately added
to provide additional habitat and serve as water storage and sediment sinks throughout the restoration
corridor. When appropriate, these depressional features will be added adjacent to abandoned channel
sections and/or strategic locations throughout the floodplain to provide habitat and serve as water
storage and sediment sinks throughout the corridor (Metcalf, 2004).
6.8.3 Construction Feasibility
WLS has field verified that the project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile
areas. Physical constraints or barriers, such as stream crossings and pond dams, account for only a small
percentage of the proposed total stream reach length within the project boundary. Existing site access
points and features may be used for future access after the completion of construction. Any potential
impacts to existing wetland areas will be avoided whenever possible during construction. Only minimal,
temporary impacts will be allowed when necessary for maximized permanent stream, wetland, and
riparian buffer functional uplift.
The existing farm pond used for water storage will be first drained in Spring 2017. The dam material will
be eventually removed prior to the completion of all stream restoration activities, including vegetation
planting. The methods used to lower the water surface elevation will include opening the existing
drainpipe that extends to the downstream side of the pond dam. The drainpipe is currently blocked and
storm flows are being diverted across a spillway that is actively eroding. The spillway will be stabilized to
prevent further erosion until all construction activities have been completed. Next, the drainpipe will be
opened and a temporary gravity siphoning system will be installed over the top of dam to further drain
the pond. This will allow for the remnant pond area to function as a temporary stilling basin during the
construction period and allow for controlled and slower drawdown period.
Finally, the pond dam/embankment will be lowered to the proposed design elevations and a new
culverted stream crossing will be installed after the upstream restoration activities, including new channel
and floodplain excavation, are completed and stabilized. WLS will adhere to all applicable erosion and
sedimentation guidelines and exercise extreme caution to ensure that the pond does not drain too quickly
to prevent excess erosion, sedimentation, turbidity, and sloughing due to saturated embankments.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 49
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
7 Performance Standards
The applied success criteria for the project will follow necessary performance standards and monitoring
protocols presented in this mitigation plan, once approved, and are developed in compliance with the DMS
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template Guidance, adopted August 2016, as well as the USACE
Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 and October 2005, and Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule, issued in 2008. In addition, the monitoring success criteria,
practices, and corresponding reporting will follow the NCEEP's Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring
Guidelines issued February 2014, the NCEEP As -built Baseline Monitoring Report Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance issued in February 2014, the NCEEP Annual Monitoring Report
Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance, issued April, 2015, the NCEEP Closeout Report
Template, Version 2.1, adopted March, 2015, and the NCEEP Closeout Template Guidance, Version 2.1,
adopted February, 2015.
Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of five to seven years with the final duration dependent
upon performance trends toward achieving project goals and objectives. An early closure provision may
be requested by WLS for some or all monitoring components, understanding that early closure may only
be obtained through written approval from the regulatory agencies. Specific success criteria components
and evaluation methods are described below.
7.1 Streams
Stream Hydrology: Two separate bankfull events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring
period. These two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will
continue until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years. In addition to the two bankfull
flow events, two "geomorphically significant" flow events (Qg,=0.66Q2) must also be documented during
the monitoring period. There are no temporal requirements regarding the distribution of the
geomorphically significant flows.
Stream Profiles, Vertical Stability, and Floodplain Access: Stream profiles, as a measure of vertical stability
will be evaluated by looking at Bank Height Ratios (BHR). The BHR shall not exceed 1.2 along the restored
project reaches. This standard only applies to the restored project reaches where BHRs were corrected
through design and construction. In addition, observed bedforms should be consistent with those
observed for channels of the design stream type(s). Vertical stability and floodplain access will both be
evaluated by looking at Entrenchment Ratios (ER). The ER shall be no less than 2.2 (>1.5 for "B" stream
types) along the restored project stream reaches. This standard only applies to restored reaches of the
channel where ERs were corrected through design and construction.
Stream Horizontal Stability: Cross-sections will be used to evaluate horizontal stream stability. There
should be little change expected in as -built restoration cross-sections. If measurable changes do occur,
they should be evaluated to determine if the changes represent a movement toward a more unstable
condition (e.g., downcutting, erosion) or a movement towards increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetation
establishment, deposition along the streambanks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections shall be
classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification method and all monitored cross-sections should fall within
the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 50
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
Streambed Material Condition and Stability: After construction, there should be minimal change in the
particle size distribution of the streambed materials, over time, given the current watershed conditions
and future upstream sediment supply regime. Since the streams are predominantly sand -bed systems with
minimal fine/coarse gravel, significant changes in particle size distribution are not expected.
Jurisdictional Stream Flow: The restored stream systems must be classified as at least intermittent, and
therefore must exhibit base flow for some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall conditions
as described in Section 8.2.3.
7.2 Wetlands
Wetland mitigation credits are not contracted or proposed for this project. Wetland mitigation
performance standards are therefore not included in this section.
7.3 Vegetation
Specific and measurable success criteria for restored plant survival density at the project site will be based
on the recommendations presented in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) Technical Note and WLS's
recent experience and correspondence with review agencies on DMS full -delivery projects.
Measurements of vegetative restoration success for the project during the intermediate monitoring years
will be the survival of at least 320, three-year-old planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the
monitoring period and at least 260, five-year-old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the
monitoring period. The final vegetative restoration success criteria will be achieving a density of not less
than 210, seven-year-old planted stems per acre in Year 7 of monitoring. Planted vegetation (for projects
in coastal plain and piedmont counties) must average seven feet in height at Year 5 of monitoring and ten
feet in height at Year 7 of monitoring. If the performance standard is met by Year 5 and stem densities
are greater than 260, 5 -year old stems/acre, vegetation monitoring may be terminated with approval by
the USACE and the IRT.
8 Monitoring Plan
The proposed monitoring plan is intended to document the site improvements based on restoration
potential, catchment health, ecological stressors and overall constraints. The measurement methods
described below provide a connection between project goals and objectives, performance standards, and
monitoring requirements to evaluate functional improvement. They specifically include:
• What will be measured,
• How measurements will be taken,
• When measurements will be taken,
• Where measurements will be taken.
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as -built
monitoring report documenting the stream and riparian buffer mitigation will be developed within 60
days of the completion of planting and monitoring device installation at the restored project site. In
addition, a period of at least six months will separate the as -built baseline measurements and the first-
year monitoring measurements. The baseline monitoring document and as -built monitoring report will
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 51
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
include all information required by the current DMS templates and guidance referenced above, including
planimetric (plan view) and elevation (profile view) information, photographs, sampling plot locations, a
description of initial vegetation species composition by community type, and location of monitoring
stations. The report will include a list of the vegetation species planted, along with the associated planting
densities.
WLS will conduct mitigation performance monitoring based on these methods and will submit annual
monitoring reports to DMS by December 31St of each monitoring year during which required monitoring
is conducted. The annual monitoring reports will organize and present the information resulting from the
methods described in detail below.
The annual monitoring reports will provide a project data chronology for DMS to document the project
status and trends, for population of DMS's databases for analyses, for research purposes, and to assist in
decision making regarding project close-out. Project success criteria must be met by the final monitoring
year prior to project closeout, or monitoring will continue until unmet criteria are successfully met. Table
23 in Section 8.5 summarizes the monitoring methods and linkage between the goals, parameters, and
expected functional lift outcomes. Figure 10 illustrates the pre- and post -construction monitoring feature
types and location.
8.1 Visual Assessment Monitoring
WLS will conduct visual assessments in support of mitigation performance monitoring. Visual assessments
of all stream reaches will be conducted twice per monitoring year with at least five months in between
each site visit for each of the seven years of monitoring. Photographs will be used to visually document
system performance and any areas of concern related to streambank and bed stability, condition of in -
stream structures, channel migration, active headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts from invasive plant
species or animal browsing, easement boundary encroachments, cattle exclusion fence damage, and the
general condition of pools and riffles. The monitoring activities will be summarized in DMS's Visual Stream
Morphology Stability Assessment Table and the Vegetation Conditions Assessment Table, which are used
to document and quantify the visual assessment throughout the monitoring period.
A series of photographs over time will be also be compared to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation
(bar formations) or degradation, streambank erosion, successful maturation of riparian vegetation, and
effectiveness of sedimentation and erosion control measures. More specifically, the longitudinal profile
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or excessive increase in channel
depth, while lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks.
The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) at the site are documented in each monitoring period and will be shown on
a plan view map. The results of the visual monitoring assessments will be used to support the development
of the annual monitoring document that provides the visual assessment metrics.
8.2 Stream Assessment Monitoring
Based on the stream design approaches, different stream monitoring methods are proposed for the
various project reaches. Hydrologic monitoring will be conducted for all project stream reaches. For
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 52
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
reaches that involve a combination of traditional Restoration (Rosgen Priority Level I and 11) and
Enhancement Level I (bed/bank stabilization) approaches, geomorphic monitoring methods that follow
those recommended by the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and NCEEP's Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines, which are described below, will be employed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the restoration practices. Visual monitoring will also be conducted along these reaches
as described herein.
For project reaches involving Enhancement Level II and Preservation approaches, monitoring efforts will
focus primarily on visual inspections, photo documentation, and vegetation assessments, each as
described herein. The monitoring of these project reaches will utilize the methods described under visual
monitoring. Each of the proposed stream monitoring methods are described in detail below.
8.2.1 Hydrologic Monitoring
The occurrence of the two required bankfull events (overbank flows) and the two required
"geomorphically significant" flow events (Qg,=0.66Q2) within the monitoring period, along with floodplain
access by flood flows, will be documented using crest gauges and automated photography. The crest
gages will be installed on the floodplain of and across the dimension of the restored channels as needed
for monitoring. The crest gages will record the watermark associated with the highest flood stage
between monitoring site visits. The gages will be checked each time WLS staff conduct a site visit to
determine if a bankfull and/or geomorphically significant flow event has occurred since the previous gage
check. Corresponding photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment
deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits. This monitoring will help establish that the
restoration objectives of restoring floodplain functions and promoting more natural flood processes are
being met.
8.2.2 Geomorphic Monitoring
Horizontal Pattern: A planimetric survey will be conducted for the entire length of restored channel
immediately after construction to document as -built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring
only. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, bankfull,
and top of banks. The plan view measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, meander width ratio
will be taken on newly constructed meanders during baseline (Year -0) only. The described visual
monitoring will also document any changes or excessive lateral movement in the plan view of the restored
channel. The results of the planimetric survey should show that the restored horizontal geometry is
consistent with intended design stream type. These measurements will demonstrate that the restored
stream channel pattern provides more stable planform and associated features than the old channel, which
provide improved aquatic habitat and geomorphic function, as per the restoration objectives.
Longitudinal Profile: A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of restored channel
immediately after construction to document as -built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring
only. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, water
surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each
feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth. The longitudinal profile should show that the
bedform features installed are consistent with intended design stream type. The longitudinal profiles will
not be taken during subsequent monitoring years unless vertical channel instability has been documented
or remedial actions/repairs are deemed necessary. These measurements will demonstrate that the
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 53
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
restored stream profile provides more bedform diversity than the old channel with multiple facet features
(such as scour pools and riffles) that provide improved aquatic habitat, as per the restoration objectives.
BHRs will be measured along each of the restored reaches using the results of the longitudinal profile to
demonstrate that the BHRs shall not exceed 1.2 along the restored project reaches.
Horizontal Dimension: Permanent cross-sections will be installed and surveyed at an approximate rate of
one cross-section per twenty (20) bankfull widths or an average distance interval (not to exceed 500 LF) of
restored stream, with approximately five (5) cross-sections located at riffles, and four (4) located at pools.
Each cross-section will be monumented on both streambanks to establish the exact transect used and to
facilitate repetition each year and easy comparison of year-to-year data. The cross-section surveys will
occur in years zero (as -built), one, two, three, five, and seven, and must include measurements of Bank
Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey will include points measured at
all breaks in slope, including top of streambanks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the
features are present.
There should be little change in as -built cross-sections. Stable cross-sections will establish that the
restoration goal of creating geomorphically stable stream conditions has been met. If changes do take
place, they will be documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down -cutting or erosion) or a movement toward
increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the streambanks, or decrease in
width -to -depth ratio). Using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, all monitored cross-sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the smaller
channel sizes and meander geometry of the proposed steams, bank pin arrays will not be installed unless
monitoring results indicate active lateral erosion at cross-sections occurring in meander bends, typically at
pools.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-section. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the streambanks. Photographs will be taken of
both streambanks at each cross-section. A survey tape stretched between the permanent cross-section
monuments/pins will be centered in each of the streambank photographs. The water elevation will be
shown in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the streambank as possible will be included in each
photo. Photographers should attempt to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Streambed Materials: Representative streambed material samples will be collected in locations where
riffles are installed as part of the project. The post -construction riffle substrate samples will be compared
to the existing riffle substrate data collected during the design phase. Any significant changes (e.g.,
aggradation, degradation, embeddedness) will be noted after streambank vegetation becomes established
and a minimum of two bankfull flows or greater have been documented. If changes are observed within
stable riffles and pools, additional sediment transport analyses and calculations may be required.
8.2.3 Flow Duration Monitoring
Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation: Monitoring of stream flow will be conducted to demonstrate
that the restored stream systems classified as intermittent exhibit surface flow for a minimum of 30
consecutive days throughout some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall conditions. To
determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the given year, a rainfall gage will be installed on the site to
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 54
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
compare precipitation amounts using tallied data obtained from the Johnston County weather station and
from the automated weather station (COOP 317994), approximately twenty miles south of the site. Data
from the weather station can be obtained from the CRONOS Database located on the State Climate Office
of North Carolina's website. If a normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of
monitoring, monitoring of flow conditions on the site will continue until it documents that the intermittent
streams have been flowing during the appropriate times of the year.
The proposed monitoring of the restored intermittent reaches will include a combination of photographic
documentation and the installation of groundwater monitoring wells within the thalweg (bottom) of the
channel towards the downstream portion of Reach R1 the near the confluence with Reach R5. A regular
and continuous series of remote photos over time will be used to subjectively evaluate and document
channel flow conditions throughout the year. More specifically, the longitudinal photos should indicate
the presence of flow within the channel to illustrate water levels within the pools and riffles. The
photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet to ensure that the same locations
(and view directions) at the site are documented in each monitoring period and will be shown on a plan
view map.
Monitoring wells (continuous -read pressure transducers) will be installed towards the downstream portion
of restored intermittent reaches. The well devices will be inspected on a quarterly/semi-annual basis to
document surface hydrology and provide a basis for evaluating flow response to rainfall events and surface
runoff during various water tables levels throughout the monitoring period (KCI, DMS, 2010).
8.3 Wetland Monitoring
Wetland mitigation credits are not contracted or proposed for this project. Wetland mitigation
monitoring is therefore not included for this project.
8.4 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation at the project site is dependent upon successful hydrologic
restoration, active establishment and survival of the planted preferred canopy vegetation species, and
volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. To determine if these criteria are successfully
achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants or plots will be installed and monitored across the restoration
site in accordance with the CVS-EEP Level I & II Monitoring Protocol (CVS, 2008) and DMS Stream and
Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (DMS, 2014). The vegetation monitoring plots shall be approximately 2%
of the planted portion of the site (approximately 8 acres) with a minimum of seven (7) plots established
randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas. The sampling may employ quasi -random plot locations
which may vary upon approval from DMS, DWR and IRT. Any random plots should comprise more than
50% of the total required plots and the location (GPS coordinates and orientation) will identified in the
monitoring reports. No monitoring quadrants will be established within undisturbed wooded areas, such
as those along Reach R4, however visual observations will be documented in the annual monitoring
reports to describe any changes to the existing vegetation community. The size and location of individual
quadrants will be 100 square meters (10m X 10m) for woody tree species and may be adjusted based on
site conditions after construction activities have been completed.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall each required monitoring year, prior to the loss of leaves.
Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 55
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
and the current year's living, planted seedlings. Data will be collected at each individual quadrant and will
include specific data for monitored stems on diameter, height, species, date planted, and grid location, as
well as a collective determination of the survival density within that quadrant. Relative values will be
calculated and importance values will be determined. Individual planted seedlings will be marked at
planting or monitoring baseline setup so that those stems can be found and identified consistently each
successive monitoring year. Volunteer species will be noted and their inclusion in quadrant data will be
evaluated with DMS on a case-by-case basis. The presence of invasive species vegetation within the
monitoring quadrants will also be noted, as will any wildlife effects.
At the end of the first full growing season (from baseline/year 0) or after 180 days between March 1st and
November 30th, species composition, stem density, and survival will be evaluated. For each subsequent
year, vegetation plots shall be monitored for seven years in years 1, 3, 5 and 7 or until the final success
criteria are achieved.
While measuring species density and height is the current accepted methodology for evaluating
vegetation success on mitigation projects, species density and height alone may be inadequate for
assessing plant community health. It is understood by the IRT that some smaller tree species, such as
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniano), will unlikely meet height targets after seven years. For this
reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of additional plant community
indices, native volunteer species, and the presence of invasive species vegetation to assess overall
vegetative success.
WLS will provide required remedial action on a case-by-case basis, such as replanting more wet/drought
tolerant species vegetation, conducting beaver and beaver dam management/removal, and removing
undesirable/invasive species vegetation, and will continue to monitor vegetation performance until the
corrective actions demonstrate that the site is trending towards or meeting the standard requirement.
Existing mature woody vegetation will be visually monitored during annual site visits to document any
mortality, due to construction activities or changes to the water table, that negatively impact existing
forest cover or favorable buffer vegetation.
Table 23. Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 56
DMS Project #97081
Remove man-made
Maintain seasonal flow for a
Improve Base Flow
pond dam, well
minimum of 30 consecutive
Create a more natural
Duration and
device (pressure
days during normal annual
and higher functioning
Overbank Flows (i.e.
transducer), regional
rainfall and document
headwater flow regime
channel forming
curve, regression
bankfuant o
and provide aquatic
discharge)
equations, catchment
w events.
significant flow events.
passage.
assessment
Provide temporary
Reconnect
Bank Height Ratio,
Lower BHRs from >2.0 to 1.0-
water storage and
Floodplain / Increase
reduce erosive forces
Floodprone Area
Entrenchment Ratio,
1.2 and increase ERs at 2.2 or
(shear stress) in
Widths
crest gauge
greater.
channel during larger
flow events.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 56
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
9 Adaptive Management Plan
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the necessary
performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the members of the
NCIRT and work with the NCIRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
10 Long -Term Management Plan
The site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program (or third 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 and
endowments are established. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system
within the non -reverting, interest-bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account. The use
of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by NC General Statue GS 113A -232(d) (3). Interest
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 57
DMS Project #97081
Pool to Pool spacing,
Increase riffle/pool
Provide a more natural
Improve Bedform
riffle -pool sequence,
percentage to 70/30 and
stream morphology,
Diversity
pool max depth ratio,
pool -to -pool spacing ratio 4X-
energy dissipation and
Longitudinal Profile
7X bankfull width.
aquatic habitat/refugia.
BEHI / NBS, Cross-
Decrease streambank erosion
Reduce sedimentation,
sections and
rates comparable to
excessive aggradation,
Increase Vertical and
downstream stable reference
Lateral Stability
Longitudinal Profile
condition cross-section,
and embeddedness to
Surveys, visual
pattern and vertical profile
allow for interstitial
assessment
values.
flow habitat.
Plant native species
vegetation a minimum 50'
Increase woody and
CVS Level I & II
wide from the top of
herbaceous vegetation
Protocol Tree Veg
streambanks with a
will provide channel
Establish Riparian
Plots (Strata
composition/density
stability and reduce
Buffer Vegetation
Composition and
comparable to downstream
streambank erosion,
Density), visual
reference condition. Control
runoff rates and exotic
assessment
invasive species vegetation to
species vegetation.
5% total buffer composition.
Removal of excess
Remove cattle from riparian
nutrients, FC bacteria,
Improve Water
Water sample testing
buffer corridor and reduce
and organic pollutants
Quality
and Soils Lab analysis
nutrients and fecal coliform
will increase the
bacteria levels.
hyporheic exchange
and dissolved oxygen
(DO) levels.
Improve Benthic
Improve DWR
Increase leaf litter and
Biology Macroinvertebrate
DWR Small Stream/
bioclassification rating from
organic matter critical
to provide cover/shade,
(Level 5) Communities and
Qual v4 sampling, IBI
'Poor' to 'Fair'
wood recruitment, and
Aquatic Health
by Monitoring Year 7.
carbon sourcing.
Note 1: Pre -restoration water quality sampling for Fecal Coliform bacteria (Physicochemical
— Level 4) is ongoing,
however, it is not included as performance
standard for demonstrating
project success.
9 Adaptive Management Plan
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the necessary
performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the members of the
NCIRT and work with the NCIRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
10 Long -Term Management Plan
The site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program (or third 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 and
endowments are established. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system
within the non -reverting, interest-bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account. The use
of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by NC General Statue GS 113A -232(d) (3). Interest
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 57
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
gained by the endowment fund may be used only for 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 of the owner
of the underlying fee to maintain.
10.1 Additional Easement Management
The project property owners grew up, work and live in the community where the project is located.
The landowners make their livelihood farming the property and have a strong desire to continue
improving their stewardship of the land and protect it in perpetuity. After the initial coordination
and education of the landowners with regards to the mitigation project implementation, the
landowners continue to enthusiastically express their support of the project. The landowners have
also taken a strong interest in future mitigation projects. Specifically, they have purchased
adjoining properties in the Buffalo Creek Watershed with the intent on improving the water quality
resources as a stewardship endeavor. This effort will help to fortify a comprehensive watershed
approach with regards to maximizing ecological uplift on Buffalo Creek tributaries that are on the
subject properties.
WLS believes that the above explanation helps to demonstrate the landowner's commitment to the
project and their strong interest in ecosystem restoration and land stewardship. In discussions with
the landowners, the idea of compatible mitigation projects with adjacent land uses has been well-
received and embraced. The project landowners continue to express their intent to willingly and
fully comply with the conditions of the conservation easement. Once the easement boundaries are
established and the project construction and planting are completed, the landowners intend to
enjoy passive use of the property within the easement, consisting mainly of hunting, wildlife
viewing and wildlife management. WLS does not believe that easement compliance and
management will require any additional or alternative management planning, strategies or efforts
beyond those typically prescribed and followed for DMS full -delivery projects.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 58
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions 4
11 References
Bain, Daniel J. 2012. Legacy Effects in Material Flux: Structural Catchment Changes Predate Long -Term
Studies. Bioscience. Vol. 62 No. 6.
Bilby, R. E. 1984. Removal of woody debris may affect stream channel stability. Journal of Forestry 82:609-
61
Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects. Washington,
DC.
Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB). 2013. Recommendations for Estimating Flows to
Maintain Ecological Integrity in Streams and Rivers in North Carolina.
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/pdfs/Recommendations_for_Maintaining_Flows_FINAL%202013
-10-30.pdf
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Fischenich, J.C. 2006. Functional objectives for stream restoration. EMRRP Technical Notes Collection
(ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-52). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E.
Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland
Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water
Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A function based
framework for developing stream assessments, restoration goals, performance standards and
standard operating procedures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, D.C.
Harman, W., R. Starr. 2011. Natural Channel Design Review Checklist. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD and US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division. Washington D.C. EPS 843-B-12-005.
Hey, R.D. 2006. Fluvial Geomorphological Methodology for Natural Stable Channel Design. Journal of
American Water Resources Association. April 2006. Vol. 42, No. 2. pp. 357-374. AWRA Paper No.
02094.
Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham, J.D.,
and Megown, K., 2015, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the
conterminous United States -Representing a decade of land cover change information.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5, 345-354.
Hess, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 2014. Flow pathways and nutrient transport mechanisms
drive hydrochemical sensitivity to climate change across catchments with different geology and
topography. V 18, 5125-5148.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 59
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
Jacobson, R.B. and Coleman, D.J., 1986. Stratigraphy and recent evolution of Maryland Piedmont Flood
Plains. American Journal of Science 286:617-637.
James, Allan L., 2010. Secular Sediment Waves, Channel Bed Waves, and Legacy Sediment. Geography
Department, University South Carolina.
James, Allan L., 2013. Legacy sediment: Definitions and processes of episodically produced anthropogenic
sediment. Geography Department, University South Carolina. Anthropocene, v. 2, pg 16-26.
Johnson, P.A., and T.M. Heil, 1996. Uncertainty in Estimating Bankfull Conditions. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 32(6): 1283-1292.
KCI Associates of NC, DMS. 2010. Using Pressure Transducers for Stream Restoration Design and
Monitoring.
Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes — A New Perspective. Arnold Publishers. London.
King, S. E., Osmond, D.L., Smith, J., Burchell, Dukes, M., Evans, M., Knies, M., Kunickis, S. 2016. Effects of
Riparian Buffer Vegetation and Width: A 12 -Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Environmental
Quality.
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Paper No. 2776: 1234-1279.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1,
2007.
Leopold, Luna B., M. Gordon Wolman, and John P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San
Francisco, CA. (151).
Leopold, Luna B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.
McKenney, R., R. B. Jacobson, and R. C. Wertheimer. 1995. Woody vegetation and channel morphogenesis
in low gradient gravel -bed streams. Geomorphology 13:175-198.
Metcalf, C. 2004. Regional Channel Characteristics for Maintaining Natural Fluvial Geomorphology in
Florida Streams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Fisheries Resource Office. Panama
City, FL. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-
center/Completed_Proj/Summary_EMO/FDOT_BD470_final.pdf
Millar, RG. 2000. Influence of bank vegetation on alluvial channel patterns. Water Resources Research.
36(4): 1109-1118.
Montgomery D.R. and S. M. Bolton 2003. Hydrogeomorphic variability and river restoration, 39-80.
2003 by the American Fisheries Society.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Element Occurrence Database (Listing of State and
Federally Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina). North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. 2016.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 60
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2006. Water Quality Stream
Classifications for Streams in North Carolina. Water Quality Section, November 2006. Raleigh,
NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services, Wildlands
Engineering, Inc. 2015. Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan Phase II. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources, Water Sciences
Section, Biological Assessment Branch. 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection
and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates, v. 5.0.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources, Environmental
Sciences Section. 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Periann Russell. 2008. Mapping Headwater Streams:
Intermittent and Perennial Headwater Stream Model Development and Spatial Application.
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC. Cited from http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/geomap.htm on
July 17, 2016.
Omernik, J.M. and G.E. Griffith. 2014. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: evolution of a
hierarchical spatial framework. Environmental Management 54(6):1249-1266.
Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg.
1997. The natural flow regime. BioScience 47:769-784.
Postel, S. and B. D. Richter. 2003. Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press.
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina,
third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. NCDENR Division of Parks and
Recreation. Raleigh, NC.
Scherrer, E. 1999. Using Microtopography to Restore Wetland Plant Communities in Eastern North
Carolina. http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/shear/public/restore/scherrer.htm
Schumm, S.A., 1960. The Shape of Alluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 352-B. U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC.
Simon, Andrew 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms. Volume 14, Issue 1, pg 11-26.
Skidmore, P.B, Shields, F., Doyle, M., and Miller, D. (2001) A Categorization of Approaches to Natural
Channel Design. Wetlands Engineering & River Restoration 2001: pg 1-12.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 61
DMS Project #97081

Water & Land Solutions
9
Skidmore, P.B., C.R. Thorne, B.L. Cluer, G.R. Pess, J.M. Castro, T.J. Beechie, and C.C. Shea. 2011. Science
base and tools for evaluating stream engineering, management, and restoration proposals. U.S.
Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-112, pg 255.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN -RS -4.1. Environmental
Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
_. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division.
1994. Soil Survey, Johnson County, NC.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. Stream Visual
Assessment Protocol, Version 2. NBH, Part 614.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division. A.
Walker, Personal communication, 2015. NC BEHI/NBS rating curve.
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Threatened and Endangered
Species in North Carolina (County Listing). Johnston County. 2016.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Tetra Tech, Inc. 2015. Spreadsheet Tool for
Estimating Pollutant Loads. v4.3.
Wilcock, P. R. 1993. Critical shear stress of natural sediments. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 1199:491-
505.
Wohl, E., P. L. Angermeier, B. Bledsoe, G. M. Kondolf, L. MacDonnell, D. M. Merritt, M. A. Palmer, N. L.
Poff, and D. Tarboton (2005), River restoration, Water Resources. Res., 41, W10301.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project May 30, 2017 Page 62
DMS Project #97081

::
HNX
i

Legend-� ."� !
L---�1' Flowers Quadrangle
Q Conservation Easement I
4 North Carolina - Johnston Co.
-�► �i �sb ( I t� 1.
_ USM
lop
41
+'♦ � I `ice � - -
+ ch r
0 500 1,000
Feet,
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i -cubed
USGS FIGURE
WATER & LAND Lake Wendell Topographic
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Map
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 4
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
Q Conservation Easement
Soil Map Units (NRCS Data from Web Soil Survey)
GeB: Gilead sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
GoA: Goldsboro sandy loam, 0-2% slopes (HYDRIC B)
Ly: Lynchburg sandy loam, 0-2% slopes
" MaB: Marlboro sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
Wt
WoD
VrA: Varina loamy sand, 0-2% slopes
W: Water
WoB: Wedowee sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
WoD: Wedowee sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
Wt: Wehadkee loam, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded (HYDRIC A)
WoB
6 WATER &LAND
"') SOLUTIONS
tW
Lake Wendell
Mitigation Project
V,
GoA W
JkNo
NRCS
Soils Map
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
FIGURE
5

Legend
® Conservation Easement'�
Catchment Area
Floodplain Alterations
Verified Wetlands
Pond
Delineated WOTUS
Intermittent
Perennial
Pond Dam
R3
t�o•.,
6 WATER & LAND
"') SOLUTIONS
r..
R2
Lake Wendell
Mitigation Project
Catchment Area: 102 acres
Impervious Cover: 0.86%
Dominant Land Use: Agriculture (61 % pasture/crops)
and Forest (31% deciduous/evergreen/mixed)
x
.1
•
Spoil Areas
Aw
pp* R1
/
� ■ yF
R5 Culverted Stream
IM
ECE39r.hics, CNES/Airbus DS, USD'A'I, - I S
Current Conditions FIGURE
Map
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 7
North Carolina FI PS
3200 FT US

Legend
Q Conservation Easement
N
0 500 1,000 Source: Johnston County Soil
Feet and Water Conservation District
(www.johnstonnc.com/Mainpage.cfm?category—/eve/­id=704)
WATER & LAND Lake Wendell
1939 Aerial FIGURE
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Photograph
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 8a
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
Q Conservation Easement
N
0 500 1,000 Source: Johnston County Soil
Feet and Water Conservation District
APPROXIMATE SCALE (www.johnstonnc.com/mainpage.cfm?category_/evet_id=704)
WATER & LAND Lake Wendell
1949 Aerial FIGURE
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Photograph
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 8b
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
Q Conservation Easement
N
0 500 1,000 Source: Johnston County Soil
Feet and Water Conservation District
(www.johnstonnc.com/Mainpage.cfm?category—/eve/­id=704)
WATER & LAND Lake Wendell
1965 Aerial FIGURE
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Photograph
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 8C
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
Q Conservation Easement
N
0 500 1,000 Source: Johnston County Soil
Feet and Water Conservation District
(www.johnstonnc.com/Mainpage.cfm?category—/eve/­id=704)
WATER & LAND Lake Wendell
1971 Aerial FIGURE
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Photograph
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 8d
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

ow
t
ee
o roe. Esri, cvftGlobe, Geo- e; Eart §WQg) grail bk
AMMD, w and the GIS User Community

Legend
'}�:
Type of Mitigation/
Project Reach Mitigation
CreditableRatio
Conservation Easement
y
Priority Level
Water Quality Treatment
Designation Footage (LF)
Approach
Credits
SMCs
( )
A Soil Samples
+
® Flow Guage
ti
R1 Restoration (PI/PI]) 806 1
806
Macro Sample
4
R2 Restoration (PI) 995 1
995
Vegetation Plot
+ Y
R3 Restoration (PI) 1,208 1
1,208
Cross Sections
"''
T
-'.
R4 (upper/lower) Preservation 711 10
71
POOP
' '-+•
R4 (middle) Enhancement II 111 2.5
44
Riffle
x„24
R5 (upper) Restoration (PI/PII) 210 1
210
Stream Mitigation Types
R5 (lower) Enhancement II 144 2.5
58
Enhancement II
Tota 1
3,392
Preservation
;
-
~TWFT
Note 1: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the
Restoration
d.
conservation easement boundaries.
-
Y' +�f�
',if►ti
t�
r
,0
aw
♦
�i
R 1
R2
,�-
R4
RS
a
-
a
c
N
0
500
1,000
Feet
`
So rce; Esri, DigitalG obe, GeoE e; Earthstar Geog-r phics, ONES/Airbus DAs, U
DA, USES,
�'
AeroGRID,
IG'N, and the GIS User Community
Mitigation Assets &
FIGURE
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
Lake Wendell
Mitigation Project
Monitoring Features
Map
1 0
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Ir
Legend IV
Conservation Easement
• • of Jam.
VerifiedWetland Impact Areas (0.07 acres)
Wetlands
�1 orf S� • �s`{, •10
• N• •y.
' N.
Ir
t • f , • a • of �~ • i/ � .� ' �_' •
Wetland: VID
MP NOW Aklmqw— Mw-1'3Mw
E
1 AMn
A0111
o rce: Esri, DigiUa Globe, G
AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS
I

Appendix 1— Mitigation Plan Set
9
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
LAKE WENDELL MITIGATION PROJECT
x_
PROJECT
CT
-OCATION a�
a
--WENDELL
LAKE'
LAKE WENDELL ROAD
v
4 �Q-
�0
NCDEQ-DMS CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
KRISTIE CORSON
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
PH: 919-707-8935
JOHNSTON OUNTY, NORTH AROLINA
NCDEQ - DMS PROJECT ID # 97081
NCDEQ - DMS CONTRACT #6826 UNDER RFP 16-006477
NEUSE RIVER BASIN CU 03020201)
USACE ACTION ID # SAW -2016-00876
TYPE OF WORK: STREAM AND RIPARIAN BUFFER MITIGATION
END CONSTRUCTION R3
STATION 41+00.00
SHEET 18
END CONSTRUCTION R4
STATION 49+22.89
—
/
/
SHEET 13 / SHEE 12
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Reach
Designation
Type of Mitigation
Stream Length
(LF)
Ratio (X:1)
Proposed Stream
Mitigation Credits
(SMCs)
R1
Stream Restoration
806
1
806
R2
Stream Restoration
995
1
995
R3
Stream Restoration
1,208
1
1,208
R4 (upperfil—r)
Stream Preservation
711
10
71
R4 (middle)
Stream Enhancement II
111
2.5
44
R5 (upper)
Stream Restoration
210
1
210
R5 (lower)
Stream Enhancement II
144
10
10,410
Total
4,185
-558
3,392
Note 1: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
_END CONSTRUCTION R2 -
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R3
STATION 28+32.00
SHEET 17
SHEET 1 1
G�
SHEET 16 \
SHEET 10
cr� CF
R3 CE CE
/ r�GE
CE CE m OE R3_ .a'.. a' �_ R2
CE
/
OVER SHEET
CE
-
Proposed Buffer
Project
NOTES
3
Mitigation Credits
Component
Type of Mitigation
Buffer Area (SF)
Ratio (X:1)
(BMCs)
Buffer Group 1
Riparian Buffer Restoration
342,530
1
342,530
Riparian Buffer
C1 U
Buffer Group 2
Enhancement
44,852
2
22,426
Riparian Butter
Buffer Group
Preservation
104,103
10
10,410
Total
491,484
375,366
Note 1: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
_END CONSTRUCTION R2 -
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R3
STATION 28+32.00
SHEET 17
SHEET 1 1
G�
SHEET 16 \
SHEET 10
cr� CF
R3 CE CE
/ r�GE
CE CE m OE R3_ .a'.. a' �_ R2
CE
/
OVER SHEET
CE
-
SEQUEN E /GENERAL
NOTES
3
TYPI AL SE TIONS
4-7
DETAILS
8-14
PLAN AND PROFILE
15-18
REVEGETATION PLAN
C1 U
U
3O
30
\
30 _____-_ 30 I r ". NSF
# WILLIAM ODELL EDWARDS
DO 1900 PG 478
PN 16K02037A
APPROXIMATE PROJECT CENTER 1,
35.73739100 N
-78.3538050° W END CONSTRUCTION R5
STATION 13+55.51
END R1/ BEGIN CONSTUCTION R2
STATION 18+37.19
SHEET 9
CE' 6e.
CE
30
SHEET INDEX
1
OVER SHEET
2
LEGEND/ ONSTRU TION
SEQUEN E /GENERAL
NOTES
3
TYPI AL SE TIONS
4-7
DETAILS
8-14
PLAN AND PROFILE
15-18
REVEGETATION PLAN
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R1
STATION 10+00.00
SHEET 15
SHEET 8
CE CE G� g
R1
3O
RW
qoQ
BEET 14 /
BEGIN CON TRUCTION R5 /
STATION 1 +00.00
I
/
PRELIMINARY PLANSI - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
4 WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd. Suite 119
Raleigh NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
`II111111111,,,,
�AR04i
�o•Q�oFI-SS4ti_% t9
SEAL
22967 _
'77j�11111111�1 �''`��
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/24/17
B I FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WEN ELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME: 01 LAKE WENDELL COVER.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 300'
VERT. SCALE : N/A
150 75 0 150 300
GRAPHIC SCAL
SHEET NAME
COVER
SHEET
SHEET NUMBER
1

LEGEND
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
GENERAL NOTES
GRADING NOTES
IF
WATT ER &LAND
THE ENGINEER WILL PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION DURING THE
1. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN JOHNSTON COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA,
1. NO GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL OCCUR BEYOND THE PROJECT LIMITS
- -
CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
APPROXIMATELY 3.0 MILES SOUTH OF THE TOWN OF WENDELL AS SHOWN
(LOD) AS SHOWN ON THE DESIGN PLANS.
SOLUTIONS
ROOTWAD
SEQUENCE SHALL BE USED DURING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED
ON THE COVER SHEET VICINITY MAP. TO ACCESS THE SITE FROM
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE APPROVED
RALEIGH, TAKE F440 E AND US -264 E/US-64 E TO MARKS CREEK. TAKE EXIT
2. ONCE PROPOSED GRADES ARE ACHIEVED ALONG THE CONSTRUCTED
-
LOG VANE
PERMITS FOR SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ITEMS AND SHALL BE
427 FROM US -264 E/US-64 E (14.7 MI) AND CONTINUE ON WENDELL FALLS
STREAM CHANNEL ANDFLOODPLAIN AREAS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS,
RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING THE APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT CONDITIONS.
PARKWAY. TAKE EAGLE ROCK ROAD AND STOTTS MILL ROAD TO WENDELL
RESTORED AREAS SHALL BE ROUGHENED USING TECHNIQUES DESCRIBED
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
LOG WEIR
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY "NC 81 T (1-800-632-4949) BEFORE ANY
ROAD. TAKE A RIGHT ONTO THE GRAVEL ENTRANCE AT 2869
IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.
EXCAVATION BEGINS. ANY UTILITIES AND RESPECTIVE EASEMENTS SHOWN
WENDELL ROAD. FOLLOW THE FARM ROAD TO THE SITE BOUNDARY.
Raleigh, NC 27614
ON THE PLANS ARE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE AND THE CONTRACTOR
3. ALL SUITABLE SOIL MATERIAL REQUIRED TO FILL AND/OR PLUG EXISTING
919 614-511 1
LOG STEP -POOL
SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. THE CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UTILITIES AND ADJOINING EASEMENTS AND
2. THE PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIES ARE SHOWN ON THE DESIGN PLANS AS
THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
STREAM CHANNEL AND/OR DITCHES SHALL BE GENERATED ON SITE AS
DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. ANY EXCESS SPOIL
waterlandsolutions.com
SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY DAMAGED UTILITIES AT HIS/HER OWN
PERFORM ALL RELATED WORK ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE
MATERIAL SHALL BE STOCKPILED IN DESIGNATED AREAS AND OR
EXPENSE.
BOUNDARIES AND/OR WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (LOD). THE PROJECT
HAULED OFF-SITE AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
PROJECT ENGINEER
SITE SHALL BE ACCESSED THROUGH THE DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS SHOWN
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND PREPARE ON THE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING
STAGING AREA(S) AND STOCKPILE AREA(S) AND HAUL ROADS AS SHOWN ON
PERMITTED ACCESS THROUGHOUT ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
%J1111111"
STONE AND LOG STEP -POOL
THE PLANS.
3. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE PROJECT AREA
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS AND
\\�C` �^ O�/Z'
\\ R
BOUNDARIES OR AS DENOTED "LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE" OR "HAUL ROADS"
MEASURES TO PROTECT ALL PROPERTIES FROM DAMFGE. THE
\ R,
ON THE PLANS.
CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ALL DAMAGE CAUSED BY HIS/HER
OPERATIONS TO ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY AND LEAVE THE
° �O°O "lam
�S S/,1�
CONSTRUCTED STONE RIFFLE
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL APPROVED TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION
AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT LOCATIONS INDICATED ON THE PLANS.
PROPERTY IN GOOD CONDITION AND/OR AT LEAST EQUIVALENT TO THE PRE-
CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS. UPON COMPLETION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TEMPORARY SILT FENCE AROUND ALL
ACTIVITIES, THE AREA IS TO BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR
a
° SEAL e
STAGING AREA(S). TEMPORARY SILT FENCING WILL ALSO BE PIACED AROUND
BETTER THAN FOUND PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
- e° r�r� e -
THE TEMPORARY STOCKPILE AREAS AS MATERIAL IS STOCKPILED
i 22967 e°
THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
4. THE TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP WAS DEVELOPED USING SURVEY DATA
.0
IM
CONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLE
COLLECTED BY WITHERSRAVENEL, INC. (WR) IN THE FALL OF 2016. THE
� e
i
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STREAM
CROSSINGS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEDIMENTATION
HORIZONTAL DATUM WAS TIED TO NAD83 NC STATE PLANE COORDINATE
SYSTEM, US SURVEY FEET AND NAVD88 VERTICAL DATUM USING VRS
j e
` , °* AloI N 51; e
AND EROSION CONTROL PERMIT. THE EXISTING CHANNEL AND DITCHES ON SITE
WILL REMAIN OPEN DURING THE INITIAL STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION TO ALLOW
NETWORK AND NCGS MONUMENT. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EXISTING
ELEVATIONS AND SITE CONDTIONS MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE
! C °eee ,t �\
�Z e eeee°'
^—_ `rr
GRADE CONTROL LOG J -HOOK VANE
FOR DRAINAGE AND TO MAINTAIN SITE ACCESSIBILITY.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT ONLY THE PORTION OF THE PROPOSED
ORIGINAL SURVEY WAS COMPLETED DUE TO EROSION, AND/OR SEDIMENT
ACCEXISTINGTION. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITYCONFIRM
`�
\
'111111100%
CHANNEL THAT CAN BE COMPLETED AND STABILIZED WITHIN THE SAME DAY.
GRADES AND ADJUST QUANTITIES, HWORK, AND AND WORK
SEART
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING,
EFFORTS AS NECESSARY.
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
MULCHING AND MATTING TO DISTURBED AREAS ATTHE END OF EACH WORK DAY.
WL$ ENGINEERING, PLLC
5. THE CONTRACTORSHALL VISIT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
GEOLIFT W/ TOEWOOD
8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR AND GRUB AN AREA ADEQUATE TO
CONSTRUCT THE STREAM CHANNEL AND GRADING OPERATIONS AFTER ALL
THOROUGHLY FAMILIARIZE HIM/HERSELF WITH ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR
TO BEGINNING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS
REVISIONS
SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED OF THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AND DESIGN PLANS REGARDING THE
AND APPROVED. IN GENERAL, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK FROM
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE WORK DESCRIBED.
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/24/17
UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAM AND INSTREAM STRUCTURES AND CHANNEL
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
PROPOSED OUTLET CHANNEL FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED USING A PUMP -AROUND OR FLOW 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRING ANY DISCREPANCIES BE
DIVERSION MEASURE AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR FIELD
9. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BEGIN CONSTRUCTION BY EXCAVATING CHANNEL
CONDITIONS TO THE ATTENTION OF ENGINEER BEFORE
— FP FP
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
FILL MATERIAL IN AREAS ALONG THE EXISTING CHANNEL. THE CONTRACTOR
CONSTRUCTION BEGINS.
MAY FILL DITCHES WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN ANY WATER DURING THE
GRADING OPERATIONS. ALONG DITCHES WITH WATER OR STREAM REACHES.,
7. THERE SHALL BE NO CLEARING OR REMOVAL OF ANY NATIVE SPECIES VEGETATION
EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHOULD BE STOCKPILED IN DESIGNATED AREAS OR TREES OF SIGNIFICANCE; OTHER THAN THOSE INDICATED ON THE
OHPL
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
PLANS OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
---�
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
LAKE
WENDELL
PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
MITIGATION
— CE CE
PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
— — — —100— — —
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
PROJECT
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
100
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
101
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
— LD LD —
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
FILENAME :OZ LAKEWENDELL GENERAL NOTES-SYMDOL SHEETAWG
— CIF C/F —
CUT/FILL LIMITS
DESIGNED BY: KMVIWSH
DRAWN BY: APL
—WL6 WLB —
EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY
DATE: 5-26-17
EXISTING WOODLINE
HORIZ. SCALE: N.T.S.
PROPOSED TOP OF STREAM BANK
VERT. SCALE : N/A
EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXISTING FENCE
15+00
— —�
PROPOSED CENTERLINE (THALWEG)
—X—X—
PROPOSED FIELD FENCE
TP — TP
PROPOSED TREE PROTECTION FENCE
EXISTING FARM PATH
SHEET NAME
PROPOSED FARM PATH
LEGEND/
EXISTING TREE
CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FEATURE
SEQUENCE/
®
CHANNELBLOCK
GENERAL NOTES
CHANNEL FILL
•—x------ 4
PROPOSED GATE
SHEET NUMBER
EXISTING STRUCTURE
2
EXISTING WETLAND AREA
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

EXISTING Wbkf
GROUND
s D -max h
CV
PROPOSED
GROUND Wb
RIFFLE
N.T.S
EXISTING Wbkf
GROUND
D -max
a.1
PROPOSED
GROUND Wb
POOL
N.T.S
EXISTING TOP OF TERRACE
GROUND
VARIES Wbkf VARIES
PROPOSED D -max
GROUND N'
"Wb
RIFFLE WITH BANKFULL BENCH
N.T.S
EXISTING TOP OF TERRA
GROUND
VARIES Wbkf VE
iii
w
PROPOSED D -max
GROUND
Wb
POOL WITH BANKFULL BENCH
N.T.S
EXISTING Wbkf
GROUND
PROPOSED
GROUND "Wb
OUTLET CHANNEL
N.T.S
Reach Name
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Feature
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Outlet Channel
Width of Bankfull, Wbkf
(ft)
5.9
7.3
6.8
8.4
7.8
10.5
8.5
11.0
4.4
5.7
3.0
Average Depth, Dbkf (ft)
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.7
1.1
0.3
0.6
N/A
Maximum Depth, D -Max
(ft)
0.6
1.2
0.7
1.5
0.7
1.7
1.0
1.9
0.5
1.1
0.5000
Width to Depth Ratio, bkf
W/D
13.0
10.3
13.0
10.1
14.0
11.1
12.0
10.2
13.0
9.2
N/A
Bankfull Area, Abkf (sq ft)
2.7
5.2
3.6
7.0
4.4
9.9
6.0
11.9
1.5
3.5
N/A
Bottom Width, Wb (ft)
2,8
1.3
3.3
0.9
4.2
1.2
3.5
1.5
2.1
0.8
N/A
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
4 WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
\`\\\\11111111111'
��•``��N CARO
ESS/p�9<
SEAL s -
= es 22967 r __
1 e
111111111\
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PL -C
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/24/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 1 5/26/17
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :03 LAKE WENDELL TYPICAL SECTIONS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: N.T.S
VERT. SCALE : N.T.S.
SHEET NAME
TYPICAL
SECTIONS
SHEET NUMBER
3

TOP OF
STREAMBANK
0
OPTIONAL
COVER LOG
SCOUR
I POOL
1
ROOTWAD(TYP.)
TRANSPLANTS
PLAN VIEW
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
BERM (0.5' MAX. HT.) BERM(S) TOP OF
RESTORED NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND STREAMBANK
�
STREAMBANK LIMITS OF ROOTWADS.
- W BANKFULLSTAGE
> 1/2 OF ROOT MASS / BASE FLOW
IS BELOW BASE FLOW -���. �s
RoorwAo
ENTIRE ROOTWAD TRUNK IS COVER LOG
BELOW STREAMBED. (OPTIONAL)
SECTION A -A
ROOTWADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTS
TRANSPLANTS BERM (0.5' MAX. HT.) TOP OF
NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND STREAMBANK
�
RESTORED LIMITS OF ROOTWADS.
STREAMBANK
7LBANKFULL STAGE
> 1/2 OF ROOT MASS V� ��j
IS BELOW BASE FLOW _ W BASE FLOW ���/����
.4/h '/ .%l IN/1
NOTES:
1. THE TRENCHING METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR
THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOTWAD. A COVER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLED
UNDERNEATH THE ROOTWAD IN ATRENCH EXCAVATED PERPENDICULAR
TO THE BANK AND BELOW THE RESTORED STREAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THE
ROOTWAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.
tus a
rasxz� BEGIN STEP INVERT
I I ELEVATION
1 SCOUR
`OOL I
STONE
BACKFILL
I / LARGE
I
I I STONE
POOL WIDTH
BACKFILL
(1.3X BANKFULL
ALONG TOE
WIDTH) I
-1.3X CHANNEL WIDTH
SCOUR
R
POOL
TOP OF
STREAM BANK I
I
TOEOLF I I �
STREAM BANK \ 1 I I ELIEVAT ONNVERT
Z 0Nz% �<
��i?�✓�%?ii�/?�i���/\i✓���i��
ENTIRE ROOTWAD TRUNK IS COVER LOG
BELOW STREAMBED. (OPTIONAL)
SECTION A -A
ROOTWADS WITH TRANSPLANTS
ROOTWADS
NOT TO SCALE
SET INVERT ELEVATION TRANSPLANTS -
BASED ON DESIGN PROFILE OR LIVE STAKES
TOP OF STREAM BANK-
BURYINTO
BANK 5'
MINIMUM
(TYP.)
Y-BANKFFULL I1AGIE
FLOW
_177 BANKFULL STAGE
-= BASEFLOW 1 1/
HEADER
LOG
FOOTER
` LOG
1% - 2% CROSS SLOPE
SECTION A -A
TEPINVERT
_EVATION
POOL TO POOL SPACING
VARIES. EiVOIE*1 FOR POOL
SPACINS@G REQUIRES, ENCS -4
IEIGHT T_
BACKFILL
PROFILE B -B \-RESTORED
STREAMBED
s BASEFLOW
POOL .,)2
BACKFILL
C
O�
z
�
B
1.
LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND
O
a
INTERIOR LOGS SHOULD BE AT A SLIGHT ANGLE (-70 DEGREES) FROM THE
-1.3X CHANNEL WIDTH
RECENTLY HARVESTED.
R
2/3 BANKFU L
POOSCOUL
2.
LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG FILTER FABRIC
ST
B
PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER
NOTES:
SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG. LOGS SHOULD EXTEND INTO THE BANKS 5' ON EACH
\
LOG AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT
BOULDER
SIDE.
12.
AVERAGE STEP HEIGHTS/DROPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.5 UNLESS SHOWN
(OPTIONAL)
3.
�
2. LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN
\
TRACK HOE.
I
`
CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE CHANNEL
ADDITIONAL LOG FILTER FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND
FABRIC
G RADE
GRADE POINT
<-GEOTEXTILE
LOG, AT THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
`
UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION 8 INCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYER OF STONE. INSTALL LARGE STONE
SHALL BE USED TO CENTER FLOW AND NOT EXCEED 3 INCHES IN DEPTH.
3. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER
BACKFILL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.
14.
/
LOG AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
ARM ANGLE
INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE EROSION CONTROL
y
TO 30'
\
I20°
ISCOUR
POOL
15.
USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
-
7.
INSTALL LARGE STONE BACKFILL ALONGSIDE SLOPES.
16.
PLACE VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF
-TOP OF STREAM BANK ROOT WAD
BURY LOGS INTO
BANK AT LEAST 5'
PLAN VIEW
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD,
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.
3. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT
IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG INTO THE BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL.
4. BOULDERS OF SUFFICIENT SIZE CAN PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING,
PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
5. LOGS SHOULD BE BURIED INTO THE STREAM BED AND BANKS AT LEAST 5 FEET.
6. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
7. TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOTWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
■
TOP OF STREAM BANK
INVERT FLOW
ELEVATION
SCOUR STREAMBED
POOL STONE BACKFILL
HEADER GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
LOG
FOOTER LOG
(OPTIONAL) 5' MINIMUM
2/3 BANKFULL STAGE
FLOW -
'pe
STREAMBED ELEVATION
I
WAD
LOG y
FOOTER LOG J/
(OPTIONAL) PROFILE B -B
NOT TO SCALE
f I STOP OF STREAM BANK
IL IIII//
F
z
z
�
B
1.
LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND
O
a
INTERIOR LOGS SHOULD BE AT A SLIGHT ANGLE (-70 DEGREES) FROM THE
-1.3X CHANNEL WIDTH
RECENTLY HARVESTED.
R
STREAMBANK AND CROSS SLOPES SHOULD BE 1-2%.
POOSCOUL
SURYINTO
BANK 5
• • i`y` •=• • ' 1
INVERT
ELEVATION PLAN VIEW
NOTES: rL/AIN VIr.VV
1.
LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND
10.
INTERIOR LOGS SHOULD BE AT A SLIGHT ANGLE (-70 DEGREES) FROM THE
RECENTLY HARVESTED.
STREAMBANK AND CROSS SLOPES SHOULD BE 1-2%.
2.
LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG FILTER FABRIC
11.
PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER
NOTES:
SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG. LOGS SHOULD EXTEND INTO THE BANKS 5' ON EACH
LOG AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT
SIDE.
12.
AVERAGE STEP HEIGHTS/DROPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.5 UNLESS SHOWN
HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
3.
SOIL SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND BURIED PORTION OF FOOTER LOGS WITH BUCKET OF
OTHERWISE.
2. LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN
TRACK HOE.
13.
CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE CHANNEL
ADDITIONAL LOG FILTER FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND
4.
INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC UNDERNEATH LOGS.
BOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION. NOTCH
LOG, AT THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
5.
UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION 8 INCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYER OF STONE. INSTALL LARGE STONE
SHALL BE USED TO CENTER FLOW AND NOT EXCEED 3 INCHES IN DEPTH.
3. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER
BACKFILL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.
14.
THE NUMBER OF STEPS MAY VARY BETWEEN BEGINNING AND END
LOG AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
6.
INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE EROSION CONTROL
STATIONING. SEE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE FOR STATION AND ELEVATION.
4. CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE CHANNEL
MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION,
15.
USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
BOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION. NOTCH
7.
INSTALL LARGE STONE BACKFILL ALONGSIDE SLOPES.
16.
PLACE VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF
SHALL BE USED TO CENTER FLOW AND NOT EXCEED 3 INCHES IN DEPTH.
8.
FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, COMPACTED, AND CONCAVE, WITH THE ELEVATION
STREAMBANK.
5. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
OF THE BED APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT THE EDGES.
17.
SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.
6. INSTALL VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAM BANK TO TOP
9.
AVERAGE POOL TO POOL SPACING SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PROFILE OR SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER
OF STREAM BANK.
BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS SLOPE AND SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL. RIFFLE STEP -POOLS
STONE AND LOG STEP POOL
7. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.
OR CASCADE POOLS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING SLOPES EXCEED 10% AS
DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER.
NOT TO SCALE
TOP OF STREAM BANK
SET INVERT ELEVATION TRANSPLANTS
BASED ON DESIGN PROFILE OR LIVE STAKES
Y. \I!
BANKFULLSTAGE
_p BASEFLOW /
1
BURYINTO HEADER
BANK 5' LOG
M(TYP;M SECTION A -A FOOTER
LOG
NOT TO SCALE
TOP OF STREAM BANK
INVERT f FLOW
ELEVATION
STREAMBED
SCOUR
POOL STONE BACKFILL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG 5' MINIMUM
PROFILE B -B
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
I
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
Noo
S SOC
SEAL
22967 e
°e °°O\
�NGINE��°°
%,9ti1 SCOTT°°r�,"�`��`\`
//1111111\
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/24/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME: 04-07 LAKE WENDELL DETAIL_SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: N.T.S.
VERT. SCALE: N.T.S.
SHEET NAME
DETAILS
SHEET NUMBER
4

CONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLE
NOT TO SCALE
OST 6"
R BY 8' LONG
GRADE SIDE SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN
SET INVERT ELEVATION BASED
TOP OF STREAM BANK
pBEGIN INVERT TRANSPLANTS
ON DESIGN
PROFILE
IIIIIIIII
INFLOW / ` " y + PROPOSED
3" (TYp) SHALLOW I � " y 1 OUTLET CHANNEL
POOL
J ELEVATION OR LIVE STAKES
W W w SHALLOW ( ",
POOL
�- "WWww
W W
HEADER
_ _
_ _ U BANKFULL STAGE
LOG
IIIIIIIII
INSTALL BC
STONE OR EQUIVALENT
_
BASEFLOW_
ps I
� FOR FARM PATH COVER
o o w W
U
HEADER
2'
6'
6'
2'
LOG
4' WIDE EMBANKMENT WITH
W W W
GRADUATED IN SIZE
STONE COVER (PTONA AS
Z
III III
FOOTER
IIIIIIIII
FROM TOP TO BOTTOM DI RE BY ENOGINI ER)L
GETTING LARGER IN
I I
LOG
r-2% MAX
2% MAX--
I I I
SIZE TOWARD THE TOP
IIIIII j
\ \ \ \
MATTING FOR EROSION
CONTROL SLOPES
5'MINIMU
BURBANK TO
5'MINIMUM
BURIED TO
3//\\\.Yj/�\�\/\\//\\�\\\jT\/\\j\//\\%/\COMPACTED\\j\/�\jai i\�\j��\/\ 3
�\/VARIE�\/\v\/j�,\
BANK
PLAN VIEW
1
PRIMARY LOGS SPACE
SECONDARY LOGS
SECTION A
�A//\�/ V A%�
\\
EVERY 8'-12'
ANO WOODY DEBRIS
-A
\/ .\ \ \/ \
\/ \/\ \/
PIPE CULVERT PROPOSED
- _ TOE OF STREAM BANK
IIIIIIIII
18" POOL DEPTH (OPTIONAL AS DIRECTED
BY ENGINEER)
_ STREAMBED_
I I I
III
TOP OF STREAM BANK
I
INFLOW
_STORAGE VOLUME ELEVATION
L
CLASS B STONE
\ /\\� \\
/�\\ \/ \ \ \ \/\//\\/��\\/\\// \\//\ \ \/\/ /\/��\\/\\// \\//\ \/\\//\\/\ \\/\\/\\/\\\//\/\
[APPLY
TO FILL SLOPES
NATURAL RELO GATED FARM
AROUND FLOOD PLAIN
HEADER
\�/��/i\i\\�\�/i\\��
GROUND PATH
CULVERTS.
LOG
PRIMARY
/i/%/���/.//./%/��i/.//./%/��i\.\/!�Y//.���/%\�/�Y//.���/��i\.\/�!//.
ST
REA
LOGS///
SECONDARY LOGS
BACKFILL WITH
ON-SITE ALLUVIUM
_FLOW =
\
AND WOODY DEBRIS
MIN. 24"
B
H <_ 0.3'
C
_ 0 BASEFLOW
COVER
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
END INVERT (TYPICAL)
HEADER
LOG
ELEVATION
® ® ® ®(
=—
36" DIA. 36" DIA.
Nores: PLAN VIEW
I 5'MINIMUM
I R ®
FOOTE
®
H <_ 0.3'
\ _
NOTES: BANKFULL ELEVATION
1. PRIMARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12" OR MORE IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD
h`-� LOG
® ® ®I'
® ®
F ®
STREAMBED
1. INSTALL PIPE CULVERT(S) IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK SON EACH SIDE.
® ®
O
2. INSEALL COIR FIBER MATTING FOR EROSION CONTROL ALONG BURY PIPE BELOW THE STREAM BED ELEVATION AS SHOWN ON PLANS
2. SECONDARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 4" IN DIAMETER AND NO LARGER THAN 10" AND EXTEND INTO
BACKFILL WITH
24"MINIMUM DEPTH ® Q'.
FILL SLOPES IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS.
THE BANK 3' ON EACH SIDE. WOODY DEBRIS MATERIAL SHALL BE VARYING DIAMETER TO ALLOW
SUITABLE ON-SITE
3. PIPE CULVERTS ARE TO BE A MINIMUM OF 24" COVER AND
MATERIAL TO BE COMPACTED.
3. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE HEADER LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
ALLUVIUM
PROFILE B -B
SPACING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS.
4. ROOT WADS AND EROSION CONTROL MATTING CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE
5' MINIMUM
STAKES TRENCH
HHAS DIRECTION EXCAVATED
5. AFTER TRENCH HAS BEEN EXCAVATED A LAYER OF SECONDARY LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHOULD BE
PERMANENT CULVERT STREAM CROSSING
PLACED WITH MINIMAL GAPS. A LAYER OF ON-SITE ALLUVIUM SHOULD BE APPLIED TO FILL VOIDS
BETWEEN SECONDARY LOGS BEFORE ADDITIONAL LAYERS ARE PLACED.
NOT TO SCALE
6. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.
CONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLE
NOT TO SCALE
OST 6"
R BY 8' LONG
GRADE SIDE SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN
NOTE:
1. END POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A SPACING OF
10-15 FEET.
WOVEN FIELD FENCE
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES: EXISTING GRADE—
1. CONSTRUCT EMBANKMENT WITH COMPACTED SOIL AND CONSTRUCT EMBANKMENT WITH
SUITABLE MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SECTION A - A COMPACTED SOIL AND SUITABLE
SPECIFICATIONS.
2. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FEATURE VARIES IN SIZE AND BACKFILL MATERIAL (TVP.)
SHAPE AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
3. PLANT APPROPRIATE WETLAND SPECIES VEGETATION
AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANTING PLAN.
WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FEATURE
NOT TO SCALE
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
UAMo
�9< ev
SEAL
22967
.:g;ae a°O\
�NGINE��
/q SCOTT°°
111111111\
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/24/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN I 5/26/17
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME : 04-07 LAKE WENDELL_DETAIL _SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: N.T.S.
VERT. SCALE: N.T.S.
SHEET NAME
DETAILS
SHEET NUMBER
5
BARB WIRE GUAGE WIRE)
IIIIIIIII
10 GAUGE WIRE
IIIIIIIII
INFLOW / ` " y + PROPOSED
3" (TYp) SHALLOW I � " y 1 OUTLET CHANNEL
POOL
W W w SHALLOW ( ",
POOL
�- "WWww
W W
IIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII
o o w W
U
4' WIDE EMBANKMENT WITH
W W W
GRADUATED IN SIZE
STONE COVER (PTONA AS
Z
III III
IIIIIIIII
FROM TOP TO BOTTOM DI RE BY ENOGINI ER)L
GETTING LARGER IN
I I
I I I
SIZE TOWARD THE TOP
IIIIII j
III
PLAN VIEW
IiII
GROUND LINE 4'WIDE
EMBANKMENT 8" THICK STONE SPILLWAY
IIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII
18" POOL DEPTH (OPTIONAL AS DIRECTED
BY ENGINEER)
VARIES
I I I
III
10 GAUGE WIRE
12.5 GAUGE WIRE
I
INFLOW
_STORAGE VOLUME ELEVATION
L
\ /\\� \\
/�\\ \/ \ \ \ \/\//\\/��\\/\\// \\//\ \ \/\/ /\/��\\/\\// \\//\ \/\\//\\/\ \\/\\/\\/\\\//\/\
\\ \ \ \/\/\/
\�/��/i\i\\�\�/i\\��
�\/Ni�N\\y\
/i/%/���/.//./%/��i/.//./%/��i\.\/!�Y//.���/%\�/�Y//.���/��i\.\/�!//.
24" (TYP.) P
PROOSED BOTTOM
\�%%\,d/ < <. �, n �Tii/�\Y/i�%Y/ / �l� n .� < < < ,: < < < e. < < < < ,: .� �/\i✓.%l%\/% /n/ n OUTLET CHANNEL
NOTE:
1. END POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A SPACING OF
10-15 FEET.
WOVEN FIELD FENCE
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES: EXISTING GRADE—
1. CONSTRUCT EMBANKMENT WITH COMPACTED SOIL AND CONSTRUCT EMBANKMENT WITH
SUITABLE MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SECTION A - A COMPACTED SOIL AND SUITABLE
SPECIFICATIONS.
2. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FEATURE VARIES IN SIZE AND BACKFILL MATERIAL (TVP.)
SHAPE AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
3. PLANT APPROPRIATE WETLAND SPECIES VEGETATION
AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANTING PLAN.
WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FEATURE
NOT TO SCALE
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
UAMo
�9< ev
SEAL
22967
.:g;ae a°O\
�NGINE��
/q SCOTT°°
111111111\
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/24/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN I 5/26/17
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME : 04-07 LAKE WENDELL_DETAIL _SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: N.T.S.
VERT. SCALE: N.T.S.
SHEET NAME
DETAILS
SHEET NUMBER
5

EXTEND WOODY DEBRIS MATERIAL
TO 1/4 BANKFULL WIDTH
TOP OF RESTORED STREAM
STAKE TOP LAYER OF
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING IN 6" TRENCH
(SEE COIR FIBER MATTING
DETAIL)
BACKFILL 1.5' LIFT OF COMPACTED
ON-SITE SOIL (TYP.)
ADD BOULDERS OR OTHER APPROVED
COUNTERWEIGHT TO PREVENT WOOD
FROM FLOATING
PLACE THICK LAYER
OF 1"-6" DIAMETER
WOODY DEBRIS
COVER LOGS AND/OR ROOT WADS -
INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON
PLANS AND PER RESPECTIVE DETAILS
TOP OF RESTORED STREAM BANK
(O7
SCOUR
\ POOL
FOUNDATION LOGS TO BE INSTALLED
AT ANGLES SHOWN BETWEEN 15-25°
PLAN VIEW
BANKFULLSTAGE�
HORIZONTAL SETBACK FOR LIFT IS
APPROX.1 FT.
POINT BAR
(SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS)
I—RESTORED STREAMBED
\\�\\� NSTALL FOUNDATION LOGS
SUCH THAT AT LEAST HALF OF
THE LOG DIAMETER IS BELOW
THE RESTORED STREAMBED
SECTION A - A ELEVATION.
GEOLIFT WITH TOE WOOD
NOT TO SCALE
PLAN VIEW
OF RIFFLE
RT ELEVATION
&7BA�KF
U L SrCE
FLOW— _
— — — _ _ _ TAIL OF RIFFLE
E INVERTELEVATION
GUD RIFF E � �
\ s BASEFLOW
HEAD OF RIFFLE �Gb
INVERT ELEVATION
POOL
PROFILE B -B 16" MIN. THICKNESS
STONE BACKFILL
NOTES:
1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE RESTORED STREAMBED CONSTRUCTED STONE RIFFLE
FOR THE STONE BACKFILL. NOT TO SCALE
2. FILL TRENCH WITH STONE BACKFILL.
LIVE STAKE
TOE OF STREAMBANK
TOP OF STREAMBANK
( I�
BANKFULL STAGE_
MINIMUM 1/2"
DIAMETER
ANGLE CUT 30 TO
_
45 DEGREES
RESTORED STREAMBED
HEAD OF RIFFLE
RIFFLE Dmax = MAX DEPTH
VAS
1. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY.
2. DO NOT INSTALL LIVE STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
3. LIVE STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.
INVERT ELEVATION
4. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK.
5. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE 1/2 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND 2 TO 3 FEET LONG.
6. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING 1/5 OF THE LENGTH OF THE LIVE
STAKE ABOVE GROUND.
TOE OF STREAMBANK
Q�p�p
V
EROSION CONTROL
J
16" MIN. THICKNESS
MATTING SHOULD BE
STONE BACKFILL
PLACED BENEATH STONE
BACKFILL
SECTION A -A
TOP OF STREAMBANK
16" MIN. THICKNESS
STONE BACKFILL
PLAN VIEW
OF RIFFLE
RT ELEVATION
&7BA�KF
U L SrCE
FLOW— _
— — — _ _ _ TAIL OF RIFFLE
E INVERTELEVATION
GUD RIFF E � �
\ s BASEFLOW
HEAD OF RIFFLE �Gb
INVERT ELEVATION
POOL
PROFILE B -B 16" MIN. THICKNESS
STONE BACKFILL
NOTES:
1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE RESTORED STREAMBED CONSTRUCTED STONE RIFFLE
FOR THE STONE BACKFILL. NOT TO SCALE
2. FILL TRENCH WITH STONE BACKFILL.
P OF STREAMBANK
PLANT LIVE
STAKES FROM
TOP OF
STREAM BANK
TO TOE OF
STREAM BANK
IN A DIAMOND
SHAPED,
STAGGERED
PATTERN TO
SPECIFIED
SPACING
PLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANK
OFSTREAMBANK
'TIRE AMBANK
SECTION A - A
NEW STREAMBANK
SHALL BE TREATED AS
SPECIFIED IN PLANS
OPTIONAL ROOT WAD
PLACEMENT AS DIRECTED
BY ENGINEER
CHANNEL INVERT -
NOTES:
1. COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON-SITE
HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS.
2. FILL DITCH PLUG TO TOP OF BANKS
OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.
1
NO LIVE STAKES ON POINT BAR
TOP OF STREAMBANK
r \
7THALWEG
/ TOE OF STREAMBANK i
6' TO 8' SPACING =2' TO T SPACING NO LIVE STAKES
LIVE STAKE SPACING PLAN VIEW
LIVE STAKE
I Y
BUDS FACING UPWARD
2' TO 3' LENGTH
LIVE CUTTING
MINIMUM 1/2"
DIAMETER
ANGLE CUT 30 TO
45 DEGREES
RESTORED STREAMBED
I
VAS
P OF STREAMBANK
PLANT LIVE
STAKES FROM
TOP OF
STREAM BANK
TO TOE OF
STREAM BANK
IN A DIAMOND
SHAPED,
STAGGERED
PATTERN TO
SPECIFIED
SPACING
PLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANK
OFSTREAMBANK
'TIRE AMBANK
SECTION A - A
NEW STREAMBANK
SHALL BE TREATED AS
SPECIFIED IN PLANS
OPTIONAL ROOT WAD
PLACEMENT AS DIRECTED
BY ENGINEER
CHANNEL INVERT -
NOTES:
1. COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON-SITE
HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS.
2. FILL DITCH PLUG TO TOP OF BANKS
OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.
1
NO LIVE STAKES ON POINT BAR
TOP OF STREAMBANK
r \
7THALWEG
/ TOE OF STREAMBANK i
6' TO 8' SPACING =2' TO T SPACING NO LIVE STAKES
LIVE STAKE SPACING PLAN VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
CHANNEL TO BE
RELOCATED
TOP OF STREAMBANK
\\ NEW FLOW DIRECTION
CHANNELBLOCK
yeti
i
'LiG2, OCO\
CO
�\
PLAN VIEW �
FILL 1.5' MINIMUM
SECTION A -A
CHANNEL BLOCK
NOT TO SCALE
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
OLD FLOW
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
CAR� S SOC
SEAL
o 22967
.:g; lo a°O\
�NGINE�o°°° `
/q SCOTT°°°r�\,`��`\`
111111111\,
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/24/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 1 5/26/17
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME : 04-07 LAKE WENDELL_DETAIL _SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: N.T.S.
VERT. SCALE : N.T.S.
SHEET NAME
DETAILS
SHEET NUMBER
6
SQUARE CUT TOP
BUDS FACING UPWARD
2' TO 3' LENGTH
LIVE CUTTING
MINIMUM 1/2"
DIAMETER
ANGLE CUT 30 TO
45 DEGREES
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
NOTES:
VAS
1. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY.
2. DO NOT INSTALL LIVE STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
3. LIVE STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.
4. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK.
5. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE 1/2 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND 2 TO 3 FEET LONG.
6. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING 1/5 OF THE LENGTH OF THE LIVE
STAKE ABOVE GROUND.
NOT TO SCALE
CHANNEL TO BE
RELOCATED
TOP OF STREAMBANK
\\ NEW FLOW DIRECTION
CHANNELBLOCK
yeti
i
'LiG2, OCO\
CO
�\
PLAN VIEW �
FILL 1.5' MINIMUM
SECTION A -A
CHANNEL BLOCK
NOT TO SCALE
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
OLD FLOW
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
CAR� S SOC
SEAL
o 22967
.:g; lo a°O\
�NGINE�o°°° `
/q SCOTT°°°r�\,`��`\`
111111111\,
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/24/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 1 5/26/17
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME : 04-07 LAKE WENDELL_DETAIL _SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: N.T.S.
VERT. SCALE : N.T.S.
SHEET NAME
DETAILS
SHEET NUMBER
6

GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC
LOGS BURIED IN
STREAMBANK S
ASST 5'
1/3 1/3
BOTTOM BOTTOM
WIDTH OF WIDTH OF
C NNEF}A L CHANNEL
/y-ARM\�ANIGLE.
�20° TO 30° f
INVERT/ GRADE POINT
BACKFILL
BOULDER
STONE BACKFILL
HEADER
LOG
O GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
FOOTER LOG
(OPTIONAL)
5' MINIMUM
SECTION A -A
p 2/3 BANKFULL STAGE
FLOW- A"/DSOs apE
BED ELEVATION PRM
�ROOTWAD
PLAN VIEW 1 -
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 18" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, HEADER HEADER
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED. LOG BOULDER
2. LOGS SHOULD BE BURIED INTO THE STREAM BED AND BANKS
AT LEAST 5 FEET.
3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS. FOOTER LOG
4. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER LOG AND (OPTIONAL) PROFILE B -B
EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER LOG AND THEN
UPSTREAM TO A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE
LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
5. EXCAVATE A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER LOG AND PLACE FILL ON
UPSTREAM SIDE OF VANE ARM, BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAMBANK.
6. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER BOULDERS FIRST AND THEN HEADER BOULDERS.
7. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
8. AN OPTIONAL COVER LOG CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT
AT DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
9. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER
BOULDERS.
10. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE
STRUCTURE WITH ON-SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER
BOULDER AND LOG.
11. VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOTWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
GRADE CONTROL LOG J -HOOK VANE
36" MAX. TYP
TYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE
NGTH 24.00IN 60.96 M TAPEREDT POINT
SMALL MATTING STAKES
A LARGE MATTING STAKES
1.5 .81 CM
IN 1.5 .81
PLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANK
NOT TO SCALE
INSTALL EDGE OF EROSION CONTROL MATTING IN 61NCH DEEP
I
SII
TRENCH, AND SECURE BY STAKING, BACKFILLING, AND COMPACTING
OF STREAM BANK
SOIL TO FINISHED GRADE.
III
TOP OF STREAM BANK
PLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANK
TRENCH
LIMITS
^1�\
I--(/�)j
I
TYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKE
24" MAX. TIP (TRENCH ONLY)
11.00 IN 27.94CCM
1.25 IN 3.18 M
HEAD THICKNESS 0.40 1.02 CM
®
®
BASEFLOW -
4RAGE/MAT/TING STAKE
�7
IJI ®
®�
®
®
TOP OF STREAM BANK
SEEDED AND MULCHED PRIOR TO
PLACEMENT OF EROSION CONTROL
MATTING.
����\��y�\��\/�\���\\/�/�\/�/�\� /�\/T\/T\/~�/ �yT\nay?Y?\h�h�lj✓i���yi�%VT\%\/� G\\,
2. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
MATTING
MATTING STAKE SPACING REQUIREMENTS.
SECTION A A ATTING
SEAMS, IN THE CENTER OF STREAM BANK,
EROSION CONTROL MATTING 3.PLACELARGESENTEROFSTRETAKES ALONG LMBANK,
NOT TO SCALE
AND TOE OF SLOPE.
Ell
®
®
®
gyp-
I•H 7uu
®
® ®
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING TO 8E
/
EXTENDED TO TOE
D
IB
M
m IN
M
0 D
D FV
OF SLOPE
36" MAX. TYP
TYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE
NGTH 24.00IN 60.96 M TAPEREDT POINT
SMALL MATTING STAKES
A LARGE MATTING STAKES
1.5 .81 CM
IN 1.5 .81
PLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANK
TOP OF STREAM BANK
INSTALL EDGE OF EROSION CONTROL MATTING IN 61NCH DEEP
I
SII
TRENCH, AND SECURE BY STAKING, BACKFILLING, AND COMPACTING
OF STREAM BANK
SOIL TO FINISHED GRADE.
III
TOP OF STREAM BANK
PLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANK
p BANKFULLSTAGE -
/V�V SMALL MATTING STAKES
TYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKE
TOE OF STREAM BANK
11.00 IN 27.94CCM
1.25 IN 3.18 M
HEAD THICKNESS 0.40 1.02 CM
I 1
C 0.601N 1.52 CM TAPERED TO POINT
G THICKNESS I 0.40 IN 1.02 CM
BASEFLOW -
4RAGE/MAT/TING STAKE
ITOTALLLE
NOTES:
1. RESTORED STREAM BANKS SHOULD BE
SEEDED AND MULCHED PRIOR TO
PLACEMENT OF EROSION CONTROL
MATTING.
����\��y�\��\/�\���\\/�/�\/�/�\� /�\/T\/T\/~�/ �yT\nay?Y?\h�h�lj✓i���yi�%VT\%\/� G\\,
2. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
MATTING
MATTING STAKE SPACING REQUIREMENTS.
SECTION A A ATTING
SEAMS, IN THE CENTER OF STREAM BANK,
EROSION CONTROL MATTING 3.PLACELARGESENTEROFSTRETAKES ALONG LMBANK,
NOT TO SCALE
AND TOE OF SLOPE.
STONE BACKFII
OR SUITABLE
SOIL MATERIAL
POOL WIDTH
(-1.3X BANKFULL
WIDTH)
TOP OF
STREAMBANK
TOE OF
STREAMBANK
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION,
WITH ROOTMASS, AND SOIL
MATERIAL
TOP OF STREAM BANK
- - - - 7 BANKFULLSTAGE
TOE OF STREAM BANK
V__ BASE FLOW _
SECTION A -A
NOTES:
1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE RESTORED STREAM BANK THAT WILL
ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLANTED.
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT TOE OF THE STREAM BANK.
2. EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE TRANSPLANT ROOT MASS AND AS
MUCH ADDITIONAL SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE. IF ENTIRE
ROOT MASS CAN NOT BE EXCAVATED AT ONCE, THE
TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE AND ANOTHER SHOULD BE
SELECTED.
3. PLANT TRANSPLANT IN THE RESTORED STREAM BANK SO THAT
VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY.
4. FILL IN ANY HOLES OR VOIDS AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND
COMPACT.
5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
6. WHEN POSSIBLE, PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE
TOGETHER SUCH THAT THEIR ROOT MASSES CONTACT.
VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS
BEGIN STEP INVERT
ELEVATION
NOT TO SCALE
SET INVERT ELEVATION TRANSPLANTS
BASED ON DESIGN PROFILE OR LIVE STAKES
TOP OF STREAMBANK
:X
-
/ _p 1BASEFLOW kly
HEAT
LOG
FOO
LOG
BURY INTO 1% -2% CROSS SLOPE
BANK 5'
MINIMUM SECTION A -A
(TIP.)
SCOUR STONE
POOL BACKFILL FLOW- -
END STEP INVERT
ELEVATION
FABRIC
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. LOGS -24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG FILTER
FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG. LOGS SHOULD EXTEND INTO THE
BANKS TON EACH SIDE.
3. SOIL SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND BURIED PORTION OF FOOTER LOGS WITH
BUCKET OF TRACK HOE.
4. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC UNDERNEATH LOGS.
5. UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION 81NCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYER OF STONE. INSTALL
STONE BACKFILL OR SUITABLE ALLUVIUM ALONG SIDE SLOPES.
6. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE EROSION
CONTROL MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT
ELEVATION.
7. INSTALL STONE BACKFILL OR SUITABLE SOIL MATERIAL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.
8. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, COMPACTED, AND CONCAVE, WITH THE
ELEVATION OF THE BED APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT THE
EDGES.
9. AVERAGE POOL TO POOL SPACING SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PROFILE OR SPECIFIED BY
ENGINEER BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS SLOPE AND SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL.
RIFFLE STEP POOLS OR CASCADE POOLS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING
SLOPES EXCEED 10% AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER.
-STEPINVERT
ELEVATION
POOL TO POOL SPACING
-VARFE& SEE NOTE #9 FOR POOL
fir'^
196511.
'hkoltltoll
'r��!
PROFILE B -B STREAM6LI61KIIK!�\/%�iyo\yi1>
10. INTERIOR LOGS SHOULD BE ATA SLIGHT ANGLE (-70 DEGREES) FROM THE
STREAMBANK AND CROSS SLOPES SHOULD BE 1-2%.
11. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER LOG
AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
12. AVERAGE STEP HEIGHTS/DROPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.5 UNLESS SHOWN
OTHERWISE.
13. CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION. NOTCH
SHALL BE USED TO CENTER FLOW AND NOT EXCEED 3 INCHES IN DEPTH.
14. THE NUMBER OF STEPS MAY VARY BETWEEN BEGINNING AND END
STATIONING. SEE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE FOR STATION AND ELEVATION.
15, USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
16. PLACE VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF
STREAMBANK.
17. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.
LOG STEP POOL
NOT TO SCALE
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
CARSOC
SEAL
22967
* SCOTT •°;3g,�`��`\`
111111111\,�
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN/24117
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME : 04-07 LAKE WENDELL_DETAIL _SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: N.T.S.
VERT. SCALE : N.T.S.
SHEET NAME
DETAILS
SHEET NUMBER
7
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION,
WITH ROOTMASS, AND SOIL
-�
MATERIAL
TOP OF STREAM BANK
JTOE
OF STREAM BANK
RESTORED STREAMBED
LA,
PLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANK
STONE BACKFII
OR SUITABLE
SOIL MATERIAL
POOL WIDTH
(-1.3X BANKFULL
WIDTH)
TOP OF
STREAMBANK
TOE OF
STREAMBANK
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION,
WITH ROOTMASS, AND SOIL
MATERIAL
TOP OF STREAM BANK
- - - - 7 BANKFULLSTAGE
TOE OF STREAM BANK
V__ BASE FLOW _
SECTION A -A
NOTES:
1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE RESTORED STREAM BANK THAT WILL
ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLANTED.
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT TOE OF THE STREAM BANK.
2. EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE TRANSPLANT ROOT MASS AND AS
MUCH ADDITIONAL SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE. IF ENTIRE
ROOT MASS CAN NOT BE EXCAVATED AT ONCE, THE
TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE AND ANOTHER SHOULD BE
SELECTED.
3. PLANT TRANSPLANT IN THE RESTORED STREAM BANK SO THAT
VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY.
4. FILL IN ANY HOLES OR VOIDS AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND
COMPACT.
5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
6. WHEN POSSIBLE, PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE
TOGETHER SUCH THAT THEIR ROOT MASSES CONTACT.
VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS
BEGIN STEP INVERT
ELEVATION
NOT TO SCALE
SET INVERT ELEVATION TRANSPLANTS
BASED ON DESIGN PROFILE OR LIVE STAKES
TOP OF STREAMBANK
:X
-
/ _p 1BASEFLOW kly
HEAT
LOG
FOO
LOG
BURY INTO 1% -2% CROSS SLOPE
BANK 5'
MINIMUM SECTION A -A
(TIP.)
SCOUR STONE
POOL BACKFILL FLOW- -
END STEP INVERT
ELEVATION
FABRIC
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. LOGS -24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG FILTER
FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG. LOGS SHOULD EXTEND INTO THE
BANKS TON EACH SIDE.
3. SOIL SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND BURIED PORTION OF FOOTER LOGS WITH
BUCKET OF TRACK HOE.
4. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC UNDERNEATH LOGS.
5. UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION 81NCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYER OF STONE. INSTALL
STONE BACKFILL OR SUITABLE ALLUVIUM ALONG SIDE SLOPES.
6. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE EROSION
CONTROL MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT
ELEVATION.
7. INSTALL STONE BACKFILL OR SUITABLE SOIL MATERIAL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.
8. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, COMPACTED, AND CONCAVE, WITH THE
ELEVATION OF THE BED APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT THE
EDGES.
9. AVERAGE POOL TO POOL SPACING SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PROFILE OR SPECIFIED BY
ENGINEER BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS SLOPE AND SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL.
RIFFLE STEP POOLS OR CASCADE POOLS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING
SLOPES EXCEED 10% AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER.
-STEPINVERT
ELEVATION
POOL TO POOL SPACING
-VARFE& SEE NOTE #9 FOR POOL
fir'^
196511.
'hkoltltoll
'r��!
PROFILE B -B STREAM6LI61KIIK!�\/%�iyo\yi1>
10. INTERIOR LOGS SHOULD BE ATA SLIGHT ANGLE (-70 DEGREES) FROM THE
STREAMBANK AND CROSS SLOPES SHOULD BE 1-2%.
11. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER LOG
AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
12. AVERAGE STEP HEIGHTS/DROPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.5 UNLESS SHOWN
OTHERWISE.
13. CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION. NOTCH
SHALL BE USED TO CENTER FLOW AND NOT EXCEED 3 INCHES IN DEPTH.
14. THE NUMBER OF STEPS MAY VARY BETWEEN BEGINNING AND END
STATIONING. SEE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE FOR STATION AND ELEVATION.
15, USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
16. PLACE VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF
STREAMBANK.
17. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.
LOG STEP POOL
NOT TO SCALE
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
CARSOC
SEAL
22967
* SCOTT •°;3g,�`��`\`
111111111\,�
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN/24117
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME : 04-07 LAKE WENDELL_DETAIL _SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: N.T.S.
VERT. SCALE : N.T.S.
SHEET NAME
DETAILS
SHEET NUMBER
7

EXIST 24" D/A. RCP
Qm" g
v J -IN'V OUT= 00.92
v Q
BEGIN CONSTRUCTI N R1 DO NOT DISTURB
STA. 10+00.00 EXISTING STRUCTURES NSTALL GATE (TYP)
(TYP.) /+
!�
x �� INSTAL
LOG WEIR (TYP.)
\ EMOVE EXISTING RCP /
SYSTEM AND DAYLIC' IT NEW
CHANNEL /
U PROPOSED FLOOGPLAIN J
BENCH LIMITS
31n
72Xoo \
13+00
GRADE CONTROL LOG
3 i K VANE (TYP.)
INSTALL STONE AND
LOG STEP-POOL(�Y C�
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE
WITHIN CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
EXISTING FARM PATH TO BE
RELOCATED
k
N/F k
REMOVE EXISTIN 24" RCP AT ST 14
INSTALL (1) 30" D A. RCP PERMAN T ¢1 -RT WILLIAM ODELL EDWARDS
STREAM CROSS G AT STA. 13+6 1/' DB 1900 PG 478
APPROXIMATEL 0.4' BELOW STR AMBEO'28' LONG PN 161<02037A
INV IN =290.40
INV OUT = 289. 0
�+
INSTALL
TREE: PROTECTION
FENL.ING (TYP.)
INSTA.LLCO JCT-ED
LOG RIFF
INSTALL GECLIFT WITH
TOEWOOD (TYP.) ! m
EXISTING
WETLAIJD.S (TY'.
-----
—EXISTING CPPTO E I I r IW -OUT -.288.74 _r__� 7 X ____ \—/
REMOVE EXISTING SPOIL ,
WITHIN CONSERVATION 4,,/ •�
EASEMENT.
-----_ t - INSTALL WATER QUALITY
TREATMENT FEATURE (TYP.)
310
V Vu VV VV VV » Vu VV PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
``111111111 �///
SEAL s
22967 e
.:g;'e
l<1
�/111111 „
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/17/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
I. DESCRIPTION D,
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :08-14_LAKE WENDELL_PP_SHEET,
DESIGNED BY: KVSANSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 60'
VERT. SCALE : 1" = 6'
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
IN
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET NUMBER
8
w
PROPOSED (
) 30" DIA. RCP 28'L
1
w
-1.73aj�
2.7
w
300
300
F
N
EL
F w
Ww
Z
a
\
a
EXISTING GROUND
U
N
sa Q
F
Z
O
a
o
-
6
ry'
Uo
3%
w
Z�
w
w
u
290DIII
s, Ncoo
°'o
<
290
ANKFULL
�-
91
N
CILI
w
rLL
2° J
u)
- `b
\
W u)
\ a
v > D
SIGN THALWEG
2g2�
\ /
Lu o
70o
a
ED Z
W
-
280
280
V Vu VV VV VV » Vu VV PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
``111111111 �///
SEAL s
22967 e
.:g;'e
l<1
�/111111 „
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/17/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
I. DESCRIPTION D,
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :08-14_LAKE WENDELL_PP_SHEET,
DESIGNED BY: KVSANSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 60'
VERT. SCALE : 1" = 6'
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
IN
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET NUMBER
8

Al\
ABT CE
_
Q \ r—INSTALL CONSTRUCTED I OG ;k
/RIFFLE (TYP.) INSTALL GEOLI W944' TOE WOOD-eFYP)
T
71
Zan
N/F
WILLIAM ODELL EDWARDS
DB 1900 PG 478
PN 16KO2037A
INSTALL CONSTRUCTED
-
�� STONE RIFFLE (TYP.) --
INSTALL GRADE
ONTROL LOG J -HOOK
VANE{TYP� Y
LINSTAI_L _ ��
LOG WEIR (TYP.. e ^/
ZZ REMOVE EXISTING SPOIL
WITHIN CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
rP 7
1T11
a
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE Y ��
�� WITHIN CONSERVATION
\ INSTALL GRADE—
EASEMENT (TYP.) i
�- \- CONTROL LOG HOOK
E CONSTRUCTiON R5 x _ VANE-(TYP.)
STA. t3+55.51 X�— 6
END ,CONsrRLICTION R1
INSTALL FIELD \
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R2 NCE (TYP.)
STA. 18+37.19 � �� �- ■
1
WATER & LAND
1—
W INSTALL WATER QUALITY SOLUTIONS
ILI TREATMENT FEATURE WITH
OUTLET CHANNEL (TYP.)
Iw 1 11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
c'), x Raleigh, NC 27614
+ [phone]
Lu 1 waterlandsolutions.com
U '
PROJECT ENGINEER
�.g%111111111///// I
\ \A CARO
SEAL
fie° 22967o
�
°o*
°°°°°° ^' ,
CM
5� �� ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/17/17
INSTALL ROOT B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
WADS (TYP.) %
Zan
io— in.vu 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
JO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :08 -14 -LAKE WENDELL-PP_SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KVSIWSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 60'
VERT. SCALE : 1" = 6'
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET NUMBER
9
w
>s°
w
/
280
N1
280
1
2.63 _
1�°
L
S° SAN
w>
12
Qm
r\
241 X.3>°
W W W W
l 1`
2 8
F ' ��
>
w
a
\
1 �
�_0 -
I
EXISTING GROUND
DESIGN
2609a
(Ifz
z O
BANKFULL
%
2. 76
270
0 ~
�:
270
DESIGN THALWEG
\ I
�zr_:
zom
V
O +
z
zW�
L
Wmu)
260
260
io— in.vu 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
JO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :08 -14 -LAKE WENDELL-PP_SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KVSIWSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 60'
VERT. SCALE : 1" = 6'
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET NUMBER
9

X
CF INSTALL CONSTRUCTED
LOU RIFFLE-(TYP.)
TIE DIVERSION SWALE
INSTALL ROOT INTO NEW CHANNEL
!^JARS (TYP.) � II (SEETYPIC / \
FLl_ , 28+00
WLB�
AlINSTALI STCAE-AND
LOU STEP -POOL (TYP.)
INSTALL GRADE
1
CONTkuLIAG
J -HOOK VANE
(TYP.)
-33
X
��—
�"
crZ
i
x x
INSTALL WATER QUALITY
TREATMENT FEATURE WITH
OUTLET CHANNEL (TYP.)
?Rn
i — =x—
x�
INSTALL FIELD
FENCE (TYP.)
INSTALL GEOLIF- WITH
TOE 1Atoon (TYP.)
A,
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE
WITHIN CONSERVATION
EASEMENT(TYP.)
X — X V X_
tiX
A,
INSTALL CONSTRUCTED
�STONF�IFFLE(TYP:A'
—DO
NOT
EXISTIING WETLAND
--END CGPISTRUCTION R2
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R3 �1'� ✓ / —A,—
STA. 28+32.00 A,
EXISTING FARM
_—�� PATH TO REMAIN
9Rn
L4*VU CJ*VU LOrVU C/+VU LO+VV Ltl+Vu 3V+VV 3I+VV
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
CARo
``111111111111'
�° pQ�OF ti9< e 9
o
o SEAL o-
22967 e
°e o
e\
l z.
`Re°�
INE� °
SCOTT
111111111\
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE P-1480
REVISIONS
DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/17/17
FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :08 -14 -LAKE WENDELL-PP SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KVSANSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 60'
VERT. SCALE : 11. = 6'
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET NUMBER
10
crZ
a
OV
U �
U) o
w
Z ,I
a(
Oo +
U Z a
wzw�
270
J
W Co
270
.64 -
w
2.57a I2.63j
WWW W
W2 ryaI
w' W
W
' I
2.6 5°
W
I \
N
W
I I
2.43%
r
w
a
2.6 Si
' I I I
\
m
2.79 a a a
r
++
1
1.94% y
2.>
_
![Z
-
—
17° -
09,
9 °-
_
EXISTING GROUND
DESIGN
-2.06%
195°
— —
BANKFULL
77
.83 °
260
DESIGN THALWEG200
85 °
260
250
250
L4*VU CJ*VU LOrVU C/+VU LO+VV Ltl+Vu 3V+VV 3I+VV
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
CARo
``111111111111'
�° pQ�OF ti9< e 9
o
o SEAL o-
22967 e
°e o
e\
l z.
`Re°�
INE� °
SCOTT
111111111\
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE P-1480
REVISIONS
DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/17/17
FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :08 -14 -LAKE WENDELL-PP SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KVSANSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 60'
VERT. SCALE : 11. = 6'
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET NUMBER
10

STALL WATER QUALITY
TREATMENOUTLFTCH CHANNFEATUEL
WITH
X OUTLET CHANNEL (TYP) WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
?� [phone]
T
waterlandsolutions.com
INSTALL CONSTRUCTED
LOG RIFFLE (TYP.) PROJECT ENGINEER
`1111111111
`` `111 ,1�
VERNAL POOL �� CAl o i
36 EO
SS/
INSTALL CONSTRUCTED
0 ti 'a
STONE RIFFLE (TYP.) SEAL ;
I
22967 e_
3
00 i °
r
INSTALL LOG VANE (TYP. / , Cti \�� _ _ ''�`�/° °�NC'iN..o \�
_ L "°° °°°°
IivOTALL GRADE— _' 9pO�
,�' CONTROL LOG J -HOOK -- \ \ — — i��'v S'CM ``o
�F 1+1/
y
VANE (TYP.)
Vp I ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
\ _ INSTALL OUTLET CHANNEL \ \� VERNAL POOL WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
VNST:4�4,GEOLIFT WITH VERNAL POOL r — aN \ \
n TOEAVOOD (TYP.) (SEE TYPICAL SECTION)
_
FIRM LICENSE P 1480
"\ REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/17/17
(� \ -�_—�Cv✓�/ /2 \ �r� B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
,,��--�EEXXXISTING FARM\
INSTALL FIELD THOREM.41N X
DIVERSION SWALE INTO FENCE ( YP.}
x�
___------- PROPOSEDVRLL---------------------- -------
— — — — — — — — — —
T
`– ---_ – – – –�_SEYICSECT101)____-------– \
I
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
e4k PROJECT NAME
?7n
27n
Vu VV Vu �µTVu Vu ��TVu PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :08-14_LAKE WENDELL_PP SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KVSANSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 60'
VERT. SCALE : 1" = 6'
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
R3
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET NUMBER
11
/w
EXISTING GROUN
260
\
260
.42-w1.740
�196E-
1,
1.92 -
mw
a \
w
_
.93%
-1.7 %
—
0 1.91.66%1.88°6
M50-1-66-1.+"
250
DESIGN
250
B
NKFULL
DESIGN THALWEG
240
240
Vu VV Vu �µTVu Vu ��TVu PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :08-14_LAKE WENDELL_PP SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KVSANSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 60'
VERT. SCALE : 1" = 6'
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
R3
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET NUMBER
11

- X
x
REMOVE EXISTING F VD DAM TO RESTORE
^!ATLIPAL VALLEY GROSS -SECTION
INSTALL GRADE
�. VERNAL POOL CONTROL' -OG
J -HOOK VANE
(TYP.) r
39+p0
x
VERNAL POOL INSTALL. GEOLIFT
WITH TOE
WOOD(TYP.)
X
1
2115
I ( REMOVE EXISTING .._12 DIA. CMP
/INSTALL PERMo4NENT'CU6V.€RT STREAM CROSSING / b
(2) 3S" DIA. RC. AT APPP.OXIMATELYH.5' E -'.QW
STREAMBED 40' LONG
I INV iN = 247.50
NV OUT = 246,50 TIE DIVERSION SWALE INTO EXISTING GJ'
-260.01
(SEE DETAIL ON SHEET -55) CHANNEL, DIVERTING FLOW AROUND
— — _ PROPOSED CHANNEL BLOCK (SEE TYP.
SECTION) DO NOT DISTURB
X EXISTING WETLAND
\ CHANNEL BLOCK� x -/ ///-�� BIAA
(TYP.) 1 / END CONSTRUCTION R3
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4 4f STA. 41+00.00 H1M r� m T
/ 81M.—
,— 8lM T T T T
/ n 41 n r
w� T WLB
WLB o0
+2`a-3 Is
x
\ �INSTALLCONS. DUCTED
\ STONE RIFLE (TY-)
xl \ - ^E. 'D. E-XtSTING FENCE %NH HIN
Ij CONSERVAT!ON FASEMFNT (TYP.)
n
Xx —
— x.,ya=
LQ -
INSTALL FIELD
7EXISTING
RIP -RAP FENCE (TYP.)
TO REMAIN
EXISTING ERODED SPILLWAY OUTLET CHANNEL TO ,
BE ABANDONED, FILLED AND STABILIZED WITH 4fSEEDING AND EROSION CONTROL MATTING.
I
�1�,
X—
x x x x—�X,
\ ,
7115
3°*VU .-VU 4V*VU 91 - 41-V 43 UU 4�tUU
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
CARo
``1111111111////
%AE S.
SEAL
�'e
22967 e
°°
<1
SCOTTr�,1�`��`\`
1111111111
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/17/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 1 5/26/17
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :08 -14 -LAKE WENDELL-PP_SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KVSIWSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 60'
VERT. SCALE : 1" = 6'
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
r,9001011
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET NUMBER
12
/ \
PROPOSED (2) 36" DIA.
RCP 40-L
M
Z
a
z
\
O
OV
/of
\ H0
U
�
255
255
n
Z o
OU
v >
e
N/
I Z
+
a
w
N
I O
Z
W
r *
I
ZW
W
Ia
00 /n
a
01 /0 `
r
78 ° <
-
I
1.90
° -
1.76 0
I w
251% -
v
I
' >�
N
v
74%
ww
w
DESIGN + a
rn
245
B
NKFULL r1 ro
_
26 °
2a5
H M
✓ 2
-2.73 1
m
%
J
LUDESIGN
THALWEG
1.75%
U
z
U U
EXISTING GROUN
m
m z
—
v�
A
W
� _
J
235
235
3°*VU .-VU 4V*VU 91 - 41-V 43 UU 4�tUU
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
CARo
``1111111111////
%AE S.
SEAL
�'e
22967 e
°°
<1
SCOTTr�,1�`��`\`
1111111111
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/17/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 1 5/26/17
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :08 -14 -LAKE WENDELL-PP_SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KVSIWSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 60'
VERT. SCALE : 1" = 6'
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
r,9001011
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET NUMBER
12

/ x
/ , DO NOT DISTURB
EXISTING WETLAND
//—BInM 4f X00
f
m4111P m
TWLB 'r 4►�� _� �I
,R4v��ry —X
INSTALL FIELD
FENCE (TYP.)
755
REMOVE WOODY DEBRIS AND
REGRADE STREAM BANKS, SLOPE,
SEED AND MAT FROM APPROXIMATE
STA. 46+26 TO 47+37 TO REPAIR
:HURRICANE MATTHEW DAMAGE
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF 100
YEAR FEMA FLOOD
ZONE 'AE'(FIRM
PANEL 1792)
T
END CONSTRUCTION R4
STA. 49+22.89
LAKE WENDELL
755
45+00
46+00
47+00
48+00
49+00
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
``1111111111 /�7'
ti9< e 9
o SEAL -
22967
e e
I IN
/q SCOTT°°
1111111111
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/17/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 1 5/26/17
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :08-14_LAKE WENDELL_ PP_SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KVSIWSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 60'
VERT. SCALE: 1" = 6'
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
m
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET NUMBER
13
z
0
245
245
1--
245
cr H -q
U N
O a
a�
zQ
Z F
W V1
J ` \
235
235
EXISTIN
GROUND
225
225
45+00
46+00
47+00
48+00
49+00
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
``1111111111 /�7'
ti9< e 9
o SEAL -
22967
e e
I IN
/q SCOTT°°
1111111111
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/17/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 1 5/26/17
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :08-14_LAKE WENDELL_ PP_SHEETS.DWG
DESIGNED BY: KVSIWSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 60'
VERT. SCALE: 1" = 6'
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
m
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET NUMBER
13

PROPOSED 12' WII
FARM PATH (TYP.)
0
Ins
-1
W
W
INSTALL (1) 18" DIA RCP 11
PERMANENT CULVERT /1n
STREAM CROSSING 20' L / � 1
IN=290.40
INV. OUT=290.50 END CONSTRUCTION RS
STA. 13+55.51 / W
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R5 INSTALL FIELD FENCE .j
STA. 10+00.00 (TYP.)
71
=�-X -% G
TREE Mr,TION
FENCE (WP.)
I
REMOVE' EXISTING
\ RCP SYSTEM INSTALL LOG WEIR (TYP.) : Fa
uo �� 7 / dy 13'00
/
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE
n 18ko 1 � WITHIN CONSERVATION
L INSTALL STONE AND EXISTING WETLANDS � yI �e EASEMENT (TYP.)
LOG STEP -POOL (TYP.) INSTALL CONSTRUCTEC
STON RIFFLE TYP.
EXISTING FARM PATH TO
BE RELOCATED. DO NOT
DISTURB EXISTING BARNVI-
q
ns
295
w
295
O
U
w
F-
Z
L6
+
`
\ o
J
w
W
O
DESIGN
PRO
OSED (1) 18" q,0
BANKFULL
DIA.
CP 20'L
\
3.43%
DESIGN THALWEG
F
w
2/
285
\
285
�. %9 j
of
w
Z
0
L)
L)
1
Z
Z�
a�
Uo
z�
W�
275
m
to
275
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
CARO
``111111111111'
ti,9< e-9
o
o SEAL s
° 22967 e
°° o 00000000`
�j° �'�GINE� °
11%
OTT°°
SC°r`
111111111\
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/17/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
I. DESCRIPTION D,
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :08-14 LAKE WENDELL PP SHEET,
DESIGNED BY: KVSIWSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 60'
VERT. SCALE: 1" = 6'
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
R5
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET NUMBER
14

PLANTING NOTES
1. THE FOLLOWING TABLES LIST THE PROPOSED VEGETATION SPECIES
SELECTION FOR THE PROJECT REVEGETATION. THE TOTAL PLANTING
AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 8.9 ACRES AND WILL VARY BASED ON SITE
CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
2. FINAL VEGETATION SPECIES SELECTION MAY CHANGE DUE TO
REFINEMENT OR SPECIES AVAILABILITY AT THE TIME OF PLANTING.
SPECIES SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE COORDINATED BETWEEN ENGINEER AND
PLANTING CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE PROCUREMENT OF PLANT/SEED
STOCK.
3. IN GENERAL, WOODY SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED AT A DENSITY OF 680
STEMS PER ACRE AND A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM THE TOP OF
RESTORED STREAMBANKS TO THE REVEGETATION LIMITS. EXACT
PLACEMENT OF THE SPECIES WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE
CONTRACTOR'S VEGETATION SPECIALIST PRIOR TO SITE PLANTING AND
BASED ON THE WETNESS CONDITIONS OF PLANTING LOCATIONS.
4. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED WITHIN THE
EXISTING BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREA (BUFFER GROUP 2) USING
SPECIES DESCRIBED IN RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANT MIXTURE.
------ ----------------------------
5. ANY INVASIVE SPECIES VEGETATION, SUCH AS CHINESE PRIVET _ _------------
--------------------
(LIGUSTRUM SINENSE), MULTIFLORA ROSE (ROSA MULTIFLORA), AND - ------------------------
MICROSTEGIUM (MICROSTEGIUM VIMINEUM), WILL BE INITIALLY TREATED - \
AS DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO
PLANTING ACTIVITIES TO ALLOW NATIVE PLANTS TO BECOME
+=L \
ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. ,*- +%' + CE&E,
6. LARGER NATIVE TREE SPECIES TO BE PRESERVED WILL BE FLAGGED BY GE +++.� + ,4 + %
++ ++'***'*++++ ++++++ ✓ +
THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ANY TREES /+ + +++'++++++ +
HARVESTED FOR WOODY MATERIAL WILL BE UTILIZED TO PROVIDE BED �C`+`++ + + +++ +'++;'+++ '"
AND BANK STABILIZATION, COVER AND/OR NESTING HABITAT. / — ++ �+ k +
'+'+ +±+j
7. ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE STABILIZED USING MULCHING AND pc '+' /�/ L `*' I
SEEDING AS DEFINED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AND THE y /rr*q
APPROVED SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS. /—
+++, CFs / ++++++++++ +++++++'+ + + +++ ++++
++++++++++++ +, ^ GV +++++++++++++ +++iC++++.*+* ,,(/`,('+ + + fl 1�
GCS- . `. ,1'/ * flY
+ + +++ "` + +OEa
/ + +*
Al'/ �— ++ +++++ +i++++++++++++++++.++++++ �+�.
7/ _
++++ 4' �. j,+++++ + +
\ + .�w� � *++ *;+2— ++ +++++++++++++++�+++++++,\\\�,
a+ _ _ e \
,I, J, • �W �p-+ v +3'+}�93'x— y +++�+ +++
-1✓+ ++i*+�
++ ++++++++++++++++++++ ++++ .++++ ++
+±+ ++ ++_+3Jf ' 3J ++++}+++
Sy ++ +++�++++ ++++++ +
++ +++++++++++++
++++++++++
+_
M; PERMANENT SEEDING
W
' SCHEDULE
2 co
TEMPORARY SEEDING
SCHEDULE
Planting Dates
Botanical Name Common Name
Application Rate
(lbs/acre)
September to
Seca/e cereale Rye Grain (Cool Season)
130
March
for Planting
(Ib/acre)
April to August
Urochloa ramosa Browntop Millet (Warm
Season)
40
PLANTING ZONES
MRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION (BUFFER GROUP 1)
RIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENT (BUFFER GROUP 2)
fl fl
OpQpO RIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATION (BUFFER GROUP 3)
---
-------------------------------- — —
-+++
FE. �� pppE
G*+++++++++++++
E, + /�//
/ _ _ /r +
I« +�+ +r. G GE+ �� CE 7 + +
+.. i
u+ +�+. +
+++
+
1
+ + +— 4..
1+k+++ + 11ypU+
L
U + + a as++ +++++ +++++ a ++.
+rjD -t� *30 =ti-' 30+ ++++++++++++++++++++.+++:.+:++::-
. }
3"j =te =+ ++mn
PLANTING SCHEDULE - -
% Proposed
Seeding Rate
Wetland
Botanical Name
Common Name
for Planting
(Ib/acre)
Tolerance
by Species
Tolerance
by Species
(Proposed 8'x 8' Planting Spacing
@ 680 Stems/Acre)
Permanent Herbaceous Seed Mixture - Streambank,
Floodplain, Wetlands and
Riparian
Buffer Areas
Green Ash
7%
FACW
(Proposed Seed Rate @ 15 lbs/acre)
River Birch
Andropogon gerardi/
Big blue stem
10%
1.50
FAC
Dichanthelium
Deer Tongue
15%
1.50
FACW
clandestinum
7%
FACW
Platanus
American
Canex crinata
Fringed sedge
10%
2.25
FACW+
Chasmanthium
River oats
5%
1.50
FACU
latifolium
Tulip -poplar
7%
FACU
tulipifera
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wild rye
15%
1.50
FAC
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
5%
2.25
FACW+
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
10%
1.50
FAC+
Eutrochium fistulosum Joe-pye-weed
5%
0.75
FACW
Schizachynum
Little blue stem
10%
0.75
FACU
scoparium
6%
FAC
caroliniana
Tdpsacum dactyloides
Eastern
5%
0.75
FAC+
FACU
gamagrass
Sorghastrum nutans
Indiangrass
10%
0.75
FACU
PLANTING ZONES
MRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION (BUFFER GROUP 1)
RIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENT (BUFFER GROUP 2)
fl fl
OpQpO RIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATION (BUFFER GROUP 3)
---
-------------------------------- — —
-+++
FE. �� pppE
G*+++++++++++++
E, + /�//
/ _ _ /r +
I« +�+ +r. G GE+ �� CE 7 + +
+.. i
u+ +�+. +
+++
+
1
+ + +— 4..
1+k+++ + 11ypU+
L
U + + a as++ +++++ +++++ a ++.
+rjD -t� *30 =ti-' 30+ ++++++++++++++++++++.+++:.+:++::-
. }
3"j =te =+ ++mn
PLANTING SCHEDULE - -
X �J
V - - - -0
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
``t11111111t/tf'
\A CAR6
SEAL
22967o
.:g;'e
eFNGINE� o* `
i
SCOTT°
//fflllllltltt
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
% Proposed
Botanical Name
Common Name
for Planting
Wetland
J
by Species
Tolerance
Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings - Overstory
(Proposed 8'x 8' Planting Spacing
@ 680 Stems/Acre)
Fraxinus
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
pennsylvanica
Green Ash
7%
FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch
6%
FACW
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut
7%
FACW
Oak
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
7%
FACW
Platanus
American
occidentalis
Sycamore
7%
FACW
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
5%
FAC
Liriodendron
Tulip -poplar
7%
FACU
tulipifera
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
7%
FAC
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
5%
FACW
Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings
- Understory
(Proposed 8' x 8' Planting Spacing
@ 680 Stems/Acre)
Diospyros
virginiana
Persimmon
6%
FAC
Carpinus
Ironwood
6%
FAC
caroliniana
Hamamelis
Witch -hazel
6%
FACU
virginiana
Asimina triloba
Paw Paw
6%
FAC
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
6%
FACW
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
6%
DEL
Corylus americana Hazelnut
6%
FACU
Riparian Buffer Live Stake Plantings - Streambanks
(Proposed 2'-3' Spacing @ Meander
Bends and 6'-8' Spacing @
Riffle Sections)
Sambucus
Elderberry
20%
FACW
canadensis
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
20%
DEL
Salix nigra
Black Willow
30%
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
30%
FACW
X �J
V - - - -0
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
``t11111111t/tf'
\A CAR6
SEAL
22967o
.:g;'e
eFNGINE� o* `
i
SCOTT°
//fflllllltltt
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
PRELIMINA Y PANS
- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :1518_LAKE WENDELL_REVEGETAX
DESIGNED BY: KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORlZ SCALE: 1-80,
VERT.SCALE: N/A
I
NORTH
40 20 0 40 80
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
REVEGETATION
PLAN
SHEET NUMBER
15
NO. DESCRIPTION D,
PROJECT NAME
REVISIONS
J
WENDELL
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/24/17
MITIGATION
z
l
PROJECT
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
PRELIMINA Y PANS
- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :1518_LAKE WENDELL_REVEGETAX
DESIGNED BY: KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORlZ SCALE: 1-80,
VERT.SCALE: N/A
I
NORTH
40 20 0 40 80
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
REVEGETATION
PLAN
SHEET NUMBER
15
NO. DESCRIPTION D,
PROJECT NAME
oQ
LAKE
WENDELL
W
MITIGATION
z
l
PROJECT
/
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
PRELIMINA Y PANS
- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :1518_LAKE WENDELL_REVEGETAX
DESIGNED BY: KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORlZ SCALE: 1-80,
VERT.SCALE: N/A
I
NORTH
40 20 0 40 80
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
REVEGETATION
PLAN
SHEET NUMBER
15

PLANTING ZONES
mRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION (BUFFER GROUP 1)
RIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENT (BUFFER GROUP 2)
fl fl
OpQpO RIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATION (BUFFER GROUP 3)
■---------------------------------------------------------------- ---
------— —
---------------------------------- -
LU
+Cc 2 ■
+ + + +�++ \ "F LU ■
Lu 0
+++ +�++ + + + + \+�� CE _ _ _ ■
LU
njL +++++ J/, ti+ CE+�� CE, ■
CE
+ + +++ }++ � _ \ +*a+ «..*t,+.+tet;._. +/ ��+j+j+ +y + ++ �+ +++ + + CE+���CE \ \ Q
OE ■
+
/
+ +++ +++++ + +
++
+++++++
+++
+ ++++++++++
+++++
+++++
%+
-I
bo +
+ + +
+ ++
++ /+, + _ ++++ +fir
A+i
_ s�+-=I+ a ;=i `+++`++ . — _i1��� %Ti's//////��//* %i%/j�>
LU
■ cl)9D+==� +3 + ++..+..+.
+ ++++1+%++++1+++I++++%
+ + + +
+++++++
■ Z pj+�� +++
+++
■ U i +33—+-i+rte++�+++++y+++ ++fir{+ �k
■ Q �`+`�9;*•-+ice.+
■
■
■
■
■
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
``111111111 /��'
\A CARo
SEAL
�'e
22967
�NGINO.°°° `
SCOTT°°°r�,��`��`\`
1/1111111\
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/24/17
B FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 1 5/26/17
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.:
97081
FILENAME :1518_M WENDELL_REVEGETATI(
DESIGNED BY:
KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY:
APL
DATE:
5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE:
1"= 80'
VERT. SCALE:
N/A
(9
NORTH
40 20 0 40 80
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
REVEGETATION
PLAN
SHEET NUMBER
16

PLANTING ZONES
RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION (BUFFER GROUP 1)
RIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENT (BUFFER GROUP 2)
OpOpO RIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATION (BUFFER GROUP 3)
■,\ 411,
■
■ ��.t-rr i5E'R���G �o�� l I � 1
1 �I
■ � �ilwrG�.i rC'J G GG °'J O, °,` G�.. JJ^O�IrI 1
■
o .mo
OFo�o 0000 0000 o0 000000000000g,�',°noc�oo �cOG°o` + �ecoc°o°o°o`1 occ.o�c 000cod]I 11 11
,�-ov0000°o°00000°o°0000000°00000000000 _`�,00uc_:,
■ 0 0 0 0 'O O' O O° 0 0 0 0 -0'O 0 0 0 0 O 00 Gin `O ., 0 0 0 0 O O G O G O I
Fo O �6go.
1 0 0
.0. o 0 0
O O O O o o O o O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J J J ° ° ° J J ° ° ° ° ° ° O J ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °
O-O-Occ�-O-O-O-OO.O�O�O�. ODo�OHO� ggggg0g0o0o0g0pd0�z 00�ODO,O U�pUp6°O°O°OJ�O°O°OooOO�U'iT 0<?�"�I I11 11
°0000cf000000000000 o00000000000000000000000000oo Do'i fir^ 000 ba0000000°00000000 mac, \.>
UO°o°O°O°O°O°O°O°o°O°o°O°O°o°O°o°O°O°O°O°O°O°O� o OOU OU ----'-
0 0 0 009
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'�-
° O o ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° O o 7
°O°°° — GAG°°°ter
rl)o ��
° - °° °
°° ° ° go. ° O o �O,c`1r, °-�r�;'o
���°
00000try�y000000 o oo°o° _
O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0
Y _O °O°O° O°O°O°O°O°o° OO°Ov0°o°°00000O
�a0o 0 0o0oO000000000000.0°00000 0000000000°0°0°0�,,
O O O O O O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 O�OHO O J G I
O O 'G, O O O O O O O O O O O O O
000 000°00000°O°O°000°000°0000000°000°0�0000000°]°O° 000J00°O �00�v°v0 J°OC°O �OOC 1
O O O O 00.0",
O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. �;0G' � 9U J00^�0�-00JU0(J00JO�UjO�OCC�('I 11
00004C�.�00°00°O°00000000000000000°00000°O°000°0000000000 ' o C,U n O
° o °°°° O° O O O° 0 0 0 0 0 0°°° O°°° O O C .�U ° JPO O> 00G O O° U 1
o o o o o o o ci o 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o q. o o u o c 6 n o o 0 0 o I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c 0
o ° ° o ° ° ° o ° ° 0--0 0 ° o o ° o ° o ° o °��
O O, 0 0 0 O. 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0" 0 0 0 0 0 O C O°G O O°G OHO G O Obi 1
0 0 0 0 o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' o 000 a 000 0�0 o c opo o ,0fi 1
o°O°oA°o°o°o°o. 000000'0,0O0oO000°000°00000 0°00000
00000 °000°o°000°0.000 _O_O.. �_ JJ^3�.-S� vj: 0.
°o°o°�o°o°o°o°o°qo°° 1
o°o°o °o°o°o°0°%'10 1
O°o°O°0°000° J I
OOGOO 0°c°c��O/ 1
°00°°O°°O O�•J I
°O °O° — 1
o
¢1
■ w
■ w �I
I
■ in i
■ w
LU
■
■ I
■w
■ Z
■ J
■ _
■ U
■ Q
■
cr
+ +
--------------- +++++1 +
-- c �j��
//+� +++ ++/; ++``io :/ +++ +++++++
�E. G + +++++++++
++++++++
++GE++�+ +++ +++++++++/ '�Y�+ +++ *%+/+
++y --\ / V `+
I E rr+CFr + + +
C + -+ ++ ++++++++++++
4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + +
I ++
/
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+
U +
+t+ +/ W ■
■
I
++
w
\`+
+, +
+ ■
LU
k
i w ■
�+ 3
++
�� / z ■
I ++ +; + .:> / J ;
I11 II 1++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-+; U ■
11 ++++++++ ++ + + ++�0 ■
u y�
111 + +39
+
I
I '
I \ /
I \ /
1 7 �
1 1 \
� 1
, 1
� 1
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
SEAL s
�'e
22967 e
eFNGINO�.00°
000e0000OTT°°°
SC
�/1111111\
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/24/17
FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 5/26/17
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.: 97081
FILENAME :1518_MWENDELL REVEGETATION_PIANSDWG
DESIGNED BY: KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY: APL
DATE: 5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE: 1"= 80'
VERT.SCALE: N/A
(9
NORTH
40 20 0 40 80
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
REVEGETATION
PLAN
SHEET NUMBER
17

LAKE WENDELL
11
a
C
-55
u '66000000
/ ` �OOO°0°00000°
C+iOo°�o�o°opo-o-000-
X00000000000000000000000
d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
y
. . . ..0o00000000000000000000000000000000
0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 o o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o �o�OO000°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°000°o°o°000°o°o°000°o°o°o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o�o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 goo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �!-
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 O O O O O O O O O O O ---
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000-0
0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0�/ O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o°a�o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o�q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0" o 0 0 0 o G o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.91o, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d. o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0„000 0„°7 000000000o0o�e�o0o0oO000000o0or �0oO00000000°00000
1C 000000000 000000000000000000000 / 0000000000000000
. 00 �- 0 0 ° oo b,Qo 00000000000000000 O°°o 0.0000 0 0 0 o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o°o
o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U o 0 0 0 goo 000+ +++*+*+*+*+ +' o o o o o n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o l'�� � "�. 1 �. 00000000000000000000
0°0°0°00m000_^. +.o..Doo°,,p,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00000000 0 0000°0 . 000°o o o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o
0 0 0 0 oF' ° , 0 0 0 0 Do.g. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0�* o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q
00o0o0cb0o+ + ,0000000000000000000000000000000000000 ,g
0 0 0 a ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 obi
0 0 0 om`o� .,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+*+ +*+*+*+*+ +* *+*+* *+*+*+*+*+* o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�
+ + + + + + +*+++*+*+*+++*+*+* °0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0°o°o°O°o�
.+ * +*+ +.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c+
+30 HO°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°
LL 30- *��+opo' 00 o.o
/I
I
ay
1
d�
(1/dj
1
LL
A"1
PLANTING ZONES
ElRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION (BUFFER GROUP 1)
mRIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENT (BUFFER GROUP 2)
0 0
00000 RIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATION (BUFFER GROUP 3)
"ter irc „0 o G 0,0 0
CO E,"O.0. k�°c co.u-,o o °o,o.o 000
O0O O'O O O O 000000 GOOc°n°�°
O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O,• O O O O G> G
" o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O JGO G O O O 9UG^ O O,�O O GC O
0"0O- c°o 0 oGo- o 0 o a o
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a C O ,)O G",O°O O•'O O O C O G��
O�O�O�O�O�OpODOQO�OpO�O�O�OpO�O�O�Op000�0��0°���O�O�Op °C�O�O�OpG°�O�U9'U S�G�C �^>�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0°
0o°000000000 00000 00000000o°o°000OG 000 ��).
0 0 0 0 0 0°0 0 0°0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�� ° -
0-�,-
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — " G 'c. <--
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O J
— I -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o< o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01,0 0 0,% "O 0 0 0 0 �O,c-Gd,'oc oc o_
0000°000gQ :o°000 9-� -o.00° 000°o°000°o°o°00000°o a°oon"'�0�,°o°^oc°c0 °o_000
„'�- �00000000000000000o, o°cam o`
� °^°o°�Oo°
--°�� o°�°�c�z °c°i
O D y 0 0 0 O O ---O O O O O C O- C JPO rt`O CVO �„O O O a_C O
O O O ', • O O O O O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oa, O u O a a O O"a ., O J O O
O O O� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0< C�.�
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° J 'O
O � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a�J C �5 a
0 ,, gd7,-0�,'/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, a c o G o�,
off",: O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o b o. o c o
b, o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a '6 J o �,
O°
c , 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O c J. _o0G0oo`0o�°0oao �o ° 0 G o c°
°00000000o0o0oao�0000°000000000o0o0oOoao0o0o0ooc�o n •,. o o o o o
00000000000000 0_0_0 0�_
00000000000)°
■
■
■ W
■ W
■ U)
■W
■W
■ in
■W
■ Z
■ J_
■
■ I-
■
■
PRELIMINARY PLANS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd., Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
o``X%% I I I I 1111,,,
CARO�'��''%
�O�o.oFEssioN� %2y=;
SEAL o
22967
I. '\
��
°°°°;�NGI N e�q: -o
oo
SCM
1j111I1I110 0
ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
I REVISIONS I
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 4/24/17
B I FINAL DRAFT MIT PLAN 1 5/26/17 1
NO. I DESCRIPTION I DATE
PROJECT NAME
LAKE
WENDELL
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.:
97081
FILENAME :15-18 LAKEWENDELL REVEGETATION PIANS.DWG
DESIGNED BY:
KMV/WSH
DRAWN BY:
APL
DATE :
5-26-17
HORIZ. SCALE:
1" = 80'
VERT.SCALE:
N/A
�
Z"-
NORTH
40 20 0 40 80
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
REVEGETATION
PLAN
SHEET NUMBER
OO

9
Appendix 2 — Site Data/Analysis/Supplementary Information
Habitat Assessment Scores and Taxa List
NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 (SVAP2) Reach Summary
Existing Cross -Section and Longitudinal Profile Data
Particle Size Distribution (Bulk Sediment Samples)
NCDA&CS Soil Sample Results
BANCS (BEHI/NBS) Method and Storm Sediment Deposition Estimates
Watershed Information and Site Runoff Volume
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Comparison
USGS Regression Flow Analysis
Quantification Tool Reach Summary
Design Criteria and Stream Morphology Parameters Table
HEC -RAS Output and Design Channel Report
Site Photographs
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

Habitat Assessment Scores and Taxa List
Site: Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Date: October 1, 2016
Evaluator: L. Eaton, A. Abernethy
Metric
unit/out of
Lake Wendell
Wetted width
(m)
0.5
TOB Channel width
(m)
2.5
Ave Depth
(m)
0.1
Max Depth
(m)
2.3
Bank Height
(m)
0.8
Boulder
100%
0
Rubble
100%
0
Gravel
100%
0
Sand
100%
90
Silt
100%
10
Notes
Channel Modification
5
4
Instream Habitat
20
7
Bottom Substrate
15
3
Pool Variety
10
4
Riffle Habitats
16
3
Erosion
7
5
Bank Vegetation
7
6
Light Penetration
10
8
Riparian Zone Width
10
2
Total Score
100
42
Appendix 2

Habitat Assessment Scores and Taxa List
Site: Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Date: October 1, 2016
Evaluator: L. Eaton, A. Abernethy
Taxon
Tolerance Value
(TV)
Species
Abundance*
Ephemeroptera
Baetis intercalaris
5.0
R
Trichoptera
Cheaumatopsyche
6.6
R
Diptera: Chironomidae
Apedilum
R
Orthcladius robacki
6.4
R
Parametriocnemus
3.9
C
Polypedilum illinoense
8.7
R
Thienemannimyia gp
8.4
A
Zavrelimyia
6.1
R
Diptera: Misc
Pseudolimnephila
6.2
R
Simulium
4.9
R
Coleoptera
Cymbiodyta chaberlaini
R
Helichus fastigiatus
4.1
R
Stenelmis
5.6
R
Odonata
Calopteryx
7.5
A
Oligochaeta
Megadrile
R
Pristinella
7.7
R
Crustacea
Caecidotea
8.4
C
Crangonyx
7.2
R
Procambarus
9.3
A
Mollusca
Physa
8.7
A
Total Taxa Richness
20
EPT Taxa Richness
2
Biotic Index
7.7
Bioclass Rating
Poor
*R=Rare, C=Common, A=Abundant
Appendix 2

NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary Sheet
1A. Preliminary Assessment
Project Name Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Evaluator(s) J. Morgan, K. VanStell
Tributary Name UT to Buffalo Creek
8 digit HUC / River Basin 03020201, Upper Neuse
A. Watershed Description
Level IV Ecoregion (USEPA) Northern Outer Piedmont (45f)
Drainage Area (ac) 102
Land Use (%) 61% pasture, 31% mixed forest, 3% pond
Agronomic Practices in Uplands Pasture
Animal Feeding Operations —50 ac / —80 head
Length of Stream (LF) 4,100
Stream Hydrology Perennial / Intermittent
B. Stream/Reach Description
Discharge (cfs) 23.7
Applicable Reference Reach R4 (downstream)
2A. Field Assessment
Assessment Date
10/20/2016
Location / USGS Quad Map
Wendell, NC
Riparian Cover (%)
40% tree/ 60% herb
Bank Profile
Mod Cohesive Soil
Gradient (ft/ft)
Low 0-2%
Bankfull Channel Width (ft)
—6'
Ave Riparian Zone Width (ft)
—20'
Floodplain Wetlands (ac)
"3
Dominant Substrate (%)
med sand/fine gravel
Notes:
Q was estimated from NC rural piedmont regional curve
Appendix 2

NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary Appendix 2
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary Sheet
213. Field Assessment
* Entire stream is assessed not individual reach
Reach Scores
Element
R1a
R1b
R1c
R2
R3
R4
RS
1. Channel Condition
4
0
4
3
N/A
8
5
2. Hydrologic Alteration
5
0
9
7
0
8
7
3. Bank Condition
6
0
6
3
N/A
8
6
4. Riparian Area Quantity*
5
2
3
5
1
7
3
5. Riparian Area Quality*
5
2
3
5
1
7
3
6. Canopy Cover*
6
0
4
4
1
7
4
7. Water Appearance
7
7
7
8
1
8
7
8. Nutrient Enrichment
9
9
8
7
1
9
8
9. Manure or Human Waste*
9
3
2
2
1
7
2
10. Pools
2
0
3
4
3
8
1
11. Barriers to Movement*
1
0
2
3
1
2
2
12. Fish Habitat Complexity
2
0
1
3
4
5
2
13. Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat
2
0
2
3
3
5
1
14. Aquatic Invertebrate Community
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
15. Riffle Embeddedness
N/A
N/A
4
5
N/A
7
N/A
16. Salinity
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
A. Sum of All Elements Scored
63
23
58
64
17
96
51
B. Number of Elements Scored
13
13
14
15
11
14
13
Overall Score (A/B)
4.8
1.8
4.1
4.3
1.5
6.9
3.9
Severely
Severely
Overall Classification
Poor
Degraded
Poor
Poor
Degraded
Fair
Poor
* Entire stream is assessed not individual reach

NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary Sheet
2. Field Assessment
B. Element Scores
Reach Name R1a
Reach Boundary Project start to piped section
Element
Score
1. Channel Condition
4
2. Hydrologic Alteration
5
3. Bank Condition
6
4. Riparian Area Quantity
5
5. Riparian Area Quality
5
6. Canopy Cover
6
7. Water Appearance
7
8. Nutrient Enrichment
9
9. Manure or Human Waste
9
10. Pools
2
11. Barriers to Movement
1
12. Fish Habitat Complexity
2
13. Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat
2
14. Aquatic Invertebrate Community
N/A
15. Riffle Embeddedness
N/A
16. Salinity
N/A
* Enter N/A if Element doesn't apply
A. Sum of All Elements Scored
B. Number of Elements Scored
Overall Score (A/B)
Overall Classification
63
13
4.8
Poor
1-2.9 = Severely Degraded
3-4.9 = Poor
5-6.9 = Fair
7-8.9 = Good
9-10 = Excellent
Suspected Causes of SVAP Scores less than 5 (does not meet quality criteria for stream species)
piping, constraints, ROW
Recommendations for Further Assessment or Actions
enhancement/ floodplain benching
Riparian Wildlife Habitat Recommendations
Appendix 2

NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary Sheet
2. Field Assessment
B. Element Scores
Reach Name R1b
Reach Boundary Piped section
Element
Score
1. Channel Condition
0
2. Hydrologic Alteration
0
3. Bank Condition
0
4. Riparian Area Quantity
2
5. Riparian Area Quality
2
6. Canopy Cover
0
7. Water Appearance
7
8. Nutrient Enrichment
9
9. Manure or Human Waste
3
10. Pools
0
11. Barriers to Movement
0
12. Fish Habitat Complexity
0
13. Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat
0
14. Aquatic Invertebrate Community
N/A
15. Riffle Embeddedness
N/A
16. Salinity
N/A
* Enter N/A if Element doesn't apply
A. Sum of All Elements Scored 23
B. Number of Elements Scored 13
Overall Score (A/B) 1.8
Overall Classification Severely Degraded
(entering/exiting RCP)
1-2.9 = Severely Degraded
3-4.9 = Poor
5-6.9 = Fair
7-8.9 = Good
9-10 = Excellent
Suspected Causes of SVAP Scores less than 5 (does not meet quality criteria for stream species)
piped system
Recommendations for Further Assessment or Actions
remove pipe / restoration
Riparian Wildlife Habitat Recommendations
Appendix 2

NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary Sheet
2. Field Assessment
B. Element Scores
Reach Name
Reach Boundary
Element
1. Channel Condition
2. Hydrologic Alteration
3. Bank Condition
4. Riparian Area Quantity
5. Riparian Area Quality
6. Canopy Cover
7. Water Appearance
8. Nutrient Enrichment
9. Manure or Human Waste
10. Pools
11. Barriers to Movement
12. Fish Habitat Complexity
13. Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat
14. Aquatic Invertebrate Community
15. Riffle Embeddedness
16. Salinity
* Enter N/A if Element doesn't apply
A. Sum of All Elements Scored
B. Number of Elements Scored
Overall Score (A/B)
Overall Classification
R1c
Pipe outlet to confluence with R5
Score
4
9
6
3
3
4
7
8
2
3
2
1
2
N/A
4
N/A
58
14
4.1
Poor
1-2.9 = Severely Degraded
3-4.9 = Poor
5-6.9 = Fair
7-8.9 = Good
9-10 = Excellent
Suspected Causes of SVAP Scores less than 5 (does not meet quality criteria for stream species)
pipe culvert, cattle access
Recommendations for Further Assessment or Actions
remove cattle, crossing, restoration
Riparian Wildlife Habitat Recommendations
Appendix 2

NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary Sheet
2. Field Assessment
B. Element Scores
Reach Name
Reach Boundary
Element
1. Channel Condition
2. Hydrologic Alteration
3. Bank Condition
4. Riparian Area Quantity
5. Riparian Area Quality
6. Canopy Cover
7. Water Appearance
8. Nutrient Enrichment
9. Manure or Human Waste
10. Pools
11. Barriers to Movement
12. Fish Habitat Complexity
13. Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat
14. Aquatic Invertebrate Community
15. Riffle Embeddedness
16. Salinity
* Enter N/A if Element doesn't apply
A. Sum of All Elements Scored
B. Number of Elements Scored
Overall Score (A/B)
Overall Classification
R2
Confluence of R1 & R5 to backwater of pond (113)
Score
3
7
3
5
5
4
8
7
2
4
3
3
3
2
5
N/A
64
15
4.3
Poor
1-2.9 = Severely Degraded
3-4.9 = Poor
5-6.9 = Fair
7-8.9 = Good
9-10 = Excellent
Suspected Causes of SVAP Scores less than 5 (does not meet quality criteria for stream species)
cattle access, bank erosion/incision
Recommendations for Further Assessment or Actions
remove cattle, restoration
Riparian Wildlife Habitat Recommendations
Appendix 2

NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary Sheet
2. Field Assessment
B. Element Scores
Reach Name R3
Reach Boundary End of R2 to pond dam
Element
Score
1. Channel Condition
N/A
2. Hydrologic Alteration
0
3. Bank Condition
N/A
4. Riparian Area Quantity
1
5. Riparian Area Quality
1
6. Canopy Cover
1
7. Water Appearance
1
8. Nutrient Enrichment
1
9. Manure or Human Waste
1
10. Pools
3
11. Barriers to Movement
1
12. Fish Habitat Complexity
4
13. Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat
3
14. Aquatic Invertebrate Community
N/A
15. Riffle Embeddedness
N/A
16. Salinity
N/A
* Enter N/A if Element doesn't apply
A. Sum of All Elements Scored
B. Number of Elements Scored
Overall Score (A/B)
Overall Classification
17
11
1.5
Severely Degraded
1-2.9 = Severely Degraded
3-4.9 = Poor
5-6.9 = Fair
7-8.9 = Good
9-10 = Excellent
Suspected Causes of SVAP Scores less than 5 (does not meet quality criteria for stream species)
cattle access, backwater pond conditions
Recommendations for Further Assessment or Actions
remove pond dam and restore flow regime
Riparian Wildlife Habitat Recommendations
Appendix 2

NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary Sheet
2. Field Assessment
B. Element Scores
Reach Name
Reach Boundary
Element
1. Channel Condition
2. Hydrologic Alteration
3. Bank Condition
4. Riparian Area Quantity
5. Riparian Area Quality
6. Canopy Cover
7. Water Appearance
8. Nutrient Enrichment
9. Manure or Human Waste
10. Pools
11. Barriers to Movement
12. Fish Habitat Complexity
13. Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat
14. Aquatic Invertebrate Community
15. Riffle Embeddedness
16. Salinity
* Enter N/A if Element doesn't apply
A. Sum of All Elements Scored
B. Number of Elements Scored
Overall Score (A/B)
Overall Classification
R4
Outlet of pond to end of project
Score
8
8
8
7
7
7
8
9
7
8
2
5
5
N/A
7
N/A
96
14
6.9
Fair
1-2.9 = Severely Degraded
3-4.9 = Poor
5-6.9 = Fair
7-8.9 = Good
9-10 = Excellent
Suspected Causes of SVAP Scores less than 5 (does not meet quality criteria for stream species)
Recommendations for Further Assessment or Actions
Preservation / Minimal Enhancement with supplemental buffer planting
Riparian Wildlife Habitat Recommendations
Appendix 2

NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 2 Summary Sheet
2. Field Assessment
B. Element Scores
Reach Name
Reach Boundary
Element
1. Channel Condition
2. Hydrologic Alteration
3. Bank Condition
4. Riparian Area Quantity
5. Riparian Area Quality
6. Canopy Cover
7. Water Appearance
8. Nutrient Enrichment
9. Manure or Human Waste
10. Pools
11. Barriers to Movement
12. Fish Habitat Complexity
13. Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat
14. Aquatic Invertebrate Community
15. Riffle Embeddedness
16. Salinity
* Enter N/A if Element doesn't apply
A. Sum of All Elements Scored
B. Number of Elements Scored
Overall Score (A/B)
Overall Classification
R5
From farm path to confluence with R1
Score
5
7
6
3
3
4
7
8
2
1
2
2
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
51
13
3.9
Poor
1-2.9 = Severely Degraded
3-4.9 = Poor
5-6.9 = Fair
7-8.9 = Good
9-10 = Excellent
Suspected Causes of SVAP Scores less than 5 (does not meet quality criteria for stream species)
buried pipe, cattle access
Recommendations for Further Assessment or Actions
remove pipe and cattle, restoration
Riparian Wildlife Habitat Recommendations
Appendix 2

Existing Cross -Section
98
97
96
g 95
w 94
93
92
0 5
Bankfull Dimensions
2.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.0
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
5.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
10.3
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
4.4 velocity (ft/s)
10.9 discharge rate (cfs)
1.16 Froude number
10+61 Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, riffle
10 15 20
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
6.1 W flood prone area (ft)
1.2 entrenchment ratio
1.7 low bank height (ft)
2.3 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
U.U3U
Manning's roughness
0.14
D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.
8.8
resistance factor u/u*
10.0
relative roughness
25 30 35
Materials
1.1 D50 Riffle (mm)
15 D84 Riffle (mm)
32 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
2.3 channel slope (%)
0.65 shear stress (Ib/sq.ft.)
0.58 shear velocity (ft/s)
3.1 unit strm power (Ib/ft/s)
Appendix 2
40

Existing Cross -Section
yo
95
94
c
0
93
U.1
--------------------
92
91
0
Bankfull Dimensions
14+85 Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, riffle
10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
2.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.0
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
7.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
17.7
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
3.1 velocity (ft/s)
8.7 discharge rate (cfs)
0.91 Froude number
18.7 W flood prone area (ft)
2.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
U.U3U
manning's roughness
0.15
D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.
8.7
resistance factor u/u*
8.0
relative roughness
Appendix 2
50 60
Materials
1.1 D50 Riffle (mm)
15 D84 Riffle (mm)
17 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
1.5 channel slope (%)
0.35 shear stress (Ib/sq.ft.)
0.42 shear velocity (ft/s)
1.16 unit strm power (Ib/ft/s)

Existing Cross -Section
96
95
94
c
2 93
.1�
> ----------------------
0)
w 92
91
90
0
Bankfull Dimensions
16+35 Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, riffle
10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
2.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
3.7
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
5.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
5.3
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
4.8 velocity (ft/s)
12.6 discharge rate (cfs)
1.17 Froude number
36.8 W flood prone area (ft)
9.9 entrenchment ratio
1.5 low bank height (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
U.U25
Manning's roughness
0.09
D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.
9.6
resistance factor u/u*
14.4
relative roughness
Appendix 2
50 60
Materials
1.1 D50 Riffle (mm)
15 D84 Riffle (mm)
24 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
1.5 channel slope (%)
0.48 shear stress (Ib/sq.ft.)
0.50 shear velocity (ft/s)
3.2 unit strm power (Ib/ft/s)

Existing Cross -Section
Z10
95
94
C: ----------------------
0 93
w 92
91
90
0 10
Bankfull Dimensions
4.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
6.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
8.2
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
4.5 velocity (ft/s)
18.8 discharge rate (cfs)
0.97 Froude number
21 +20 Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, riffle
20 30 40
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
14.1 W flood prone area (ft)
2.4 entrenchment ratio
1.9 low bank height (ft)
1.9 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
U.U4U
Manning's roughness
0.21
D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.
9.7
resistance factor u/u*
14.5
relative roughness
Appendix 2
50 60 70
Materials
1.1 D50 Riffle (mm)
15 D84 Riffle (mm)
51 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
2.5 channel slope (%)
1.03 shear stress (Ib/sq.ft.)
0.73 shear velocity (ft/s)
5 unit strm power (Ib/ft/s)

Existing Cross -Section
96
95
94
c
2 93
.7�
W 92
91
90
Appendix 2
26+15 Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, riffle
0 10
Bankfull Dimensions
5.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.5
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
9.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
15.2
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
2.7 velocity (ft/s)
15.7 discharge rate (cfs)
0.60 Froude number
20 30 40
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
13.7 W flood prone area (ft)
1.4 entrenchment ratio
1.6 low bank height (ft)
1.8 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
U.U4U
manning's roughness
0.22
D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.
9.5
resistance factor u/u*
12.6
relative roughness
50
60 70
Materials
1.1
D50 Riffle (mm)
15
D84 Riffle (mm)
19
threshold grain size (mm):
Forces &
Power
1
channel slope (%)
0.38
shear stress (Ib/sq.ft.)
0.44
shear velocity (ft/s)
1.03
unit strm power (Ib/ft/s)

Existing Cross -Section
Appendix 2
Cross 4 s
43+87
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, riffle
98
97
96
95
0
94
w93
-----------------------
--------------
---------------------
92
91
0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35
40 45 50
Width (ft)
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Materials
6.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
44.1
W flood prone area (ft)
1.1
D50 Riffle (mm)
6.2
width (ft)
7.1
entrenchment ratio
15
D84 Riffle (mm)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.7
low bank height (ft)
26
threshold grain size (mm):
1.8
max depth (ft)
1.0
low bank height ratio
7.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8
hyd radi (ft)
6.2
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces &
Power
3.0
velocity (ft/s)
0.045
Manning's roughness
1
channel slope (%)
18.5
discharge rate (cfs)
0.25
D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.
0.53
shear stress (Ib/sq.ft.)
0.57
Froude number
10.6
resistance factor u/u*
0.52
shear velocity (ft/s)
20.3
relative roughness
1.85
unit strm power (Ib/ft/s)

Existing Cross -Section
Appendix 2
Cross
s
10+61
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, riffle
96
95
94
93
g
92
---------------------------------------------------------------
-- --- ---- ----------------------------------------------------------------
is
ami
W
91
90
89
88
0
10
20
30 40
50
60 70
Width (ft)
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Materials
1.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
3.3
W flood prone area (ft)
1.1
D50 Riffle (mm)
2.3
width (ft)
1.5
entrenchment ratio
15
D84 Riffle (mm)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
2.6
low bank height (ft)
36
threshold grain size (mm):
0.8
max depth (ft)
3.3
low bank height ratio
3.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
3.5
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces &
Power
4.7
velocity (ft/s)
0.030
Manning's roughness
2.6
channel slope (%)
6.8
discharge rate (cfs)
0.14
D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.
0.73
shear stress (Ib/sq.ft.)
1.24
Froude number
8.9
resistance factor u/u*
0.61
shear velocity (ft/s)
13.0
relative roughness
4.9
unit strm power (Ib/ft/s)

Existing Longitudinal Profile Data
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Existing Longitudinal Profile - Mainstem (R1, R2, R3, R4)
1500 2000 2500 3000
Station (ft)
----------------------
3500
Thalweg
Left Top of Bank
Right Top of Bank
Water Surface
4500
Appendix 2
5000
310
300
290
.-.
280
C
•0
270
ca
260
W
250
240
230
1000
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Existing Longitudinal Profile - Mainstem (R1, R2, R3, R4)
1500 2000 2500 3000
Station (ft)
----------------------
3500
Thalweg
Left Top of Bank
Right Top of Bank
Water Surface
4500
Appendix 2
5000

Existing Longitudinal Profile Data
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Existing Longitudinal Profile - R5
Appendix 2
-Thalweg Right Top of Bank
Left Top of Bank Water Surface
Y
1050 1100 1150 1200
Station (ft)
1250 1300 1350 1400
295
293
291
289
--
287
C
.2
285
cYs
>
w
283 -
- -
W
281
279
277
275
1000
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Existing Longitudinal Profile - R5
Appendix 2
-Thalweg Right Top of Bank
Left Top of Bank Water Surface
Y
1050 1100 1150 1200
Station (ft)
1250 1300 1350 1400

Particle Size Distribution (Bulk Sediment Samples)
100%
90%
80%
CO 70%
60%
c
c
50%
v 40%
N
30%
20%
10%
0%
Bulk Sediment Sample - Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
80% riffle 20% pool
—a—weighted percent — Riffle Pool
# of particles
b Id
aiiv�,ia aaiiu iavci wvvic oU er
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I I
I
I I
I
I
0.01 0.1
Size (mm)
D16
0.13
D35
0.45
D50
0.76
D65
1.3
D84
11
D95
20
1 10 100
particle size (mm)
Size Distribution
mean 1.2
dispersion 10.2
skewness 0.14
25%
20% m
CD
15%
CD0
CD
10% o
v
5% N
iv
0% m
1000 10000
Type
silt/clay 8%
sand 67%
gravel 25%
cobble 0%
boulder 0%
Appendix 2

NCDA&CS Soil Sample Results
Date: 6/1/2016
Pre -Construction Conditions
Lake Wendell Site
*Optimum pH range for plant growth: 5.8-6.5
*Optimum Phosphorus Index score for plant growth: 50-70
*Optimum Potassium Index score for plant growth: 50-70
Date
Sample ID
Type/Location
pH
P-1
K-1
HM%
W/V
CEC
Mn -I
Zn -I
Cu -I
S-1
6/3/2016
Iwa1
bank
5.6
29
25
0.86
1.12
3.7
32
77
67
16
6/3/2016
Iwb2
bed
5.3
39
18
0.41
1.14
2.5
73
110
18
28
6/3/2016
1w1b3
bed
6.1
21
6
0.13
1.44
1.1
22
24
14
15
6/3/2016
Iw1b4
bed
5.6
30
12
0.36
1.33
2.5
127
63
10
29
6/30/2016
Iwfl3
floodplain
6.0
21
25
0.81
0.94
10.3
32
92
37
54
6/30/2016
Iwf14
floodplain
5.3
101
19
0.97
1.12
5.3
16
111
47
40
6/30/2016
Iwf15
floodplain
4.8
15
31
0.81
1.11
4.1
77
70
20
22
6/30/2016
Iwf16
floodplain
4.9
128
69
0.76
1.24
5.6
63
134
27
37
5.5 48.0 25.6 0.6 1.2 4.4 55.3 85.1 30.0 30.1 ave
Pen Dell Site
Date
Sample ID
Type/Location
pH
P-1
K-1
HM%
W/V
CEC
Mn -I
Zn -I
Cu -I
S-1
6/3/2016
pdf5
floodplain
5.4
10
7
0.46
1.48
1.6
17
14
13
13
6/3/2016
pda6
bank
5.0
13
10
2.08
1.24
3.5
40
11
12
15
6/3/2016
pdb7
bed
5.5
14
6
0.41
1.41
1.6
26
20
12
13
6/3/2016
pdb8
bed
6.4
19
8
0.13
1.39
1.3
148
28
11
14
6/30/2016
pdf17
floodplain
5.1
44
36
1.25
1.14
4.8
37
92
54
29
6/30/2016
pdf18
floodplain
5.2
45
35
1.02
1.12
5.0
154
70
24
28
6/30/2016
pdf19
floodplain
5.0
14
27
1.02
1.15
5.4
79
2213
25
26
5.4 22.7 18.4 0.9 1.3 3.3 71.6 349.7 21.6 19.7 ave
Edwards -Johnson Site
Date
Sample ID
Type/Location
pH
P-1
K-1
HM%
W/V
CEC
Mn -I
Zn -I
Cu -I
S-1
6/3/2016
eja9
bank
S.S
22
35
1.08
0.86
6.6
184
621
30
49
6/3/2016
eja10
bed
5.0
27
27
1.61
1.08
4.3
106
103
25
26
6/3/2016
ejbll
bed
S.8
13
10
0.46
1.36
2.0
9S
73
14
17
6/3/2016
ejbl2
bed
6.3
8
6
0.04
1.44
1.0
62
26
11
12
6/30/2016
ejf20
floodplain
5.5
17
26
0.76
1.19
5.8
262
214
21
18
6/30/2016
ejf21
floodplain
5.5
11
45
1.02
1.04
5.8
95
106
27
29
5.6 16.3 24.8 0.8 1.2 4.3 134.0 190.5 21.3 25.2 ave

BANCS Method Calcs
Location: Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Field Crew: J. Morgan/ C. Manner
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
North Carolina unpublished curve (Alan Walker, NRCS)
pond
Appendix 2
Date: 9/20/2016
A
B
C
RIGHT BANK
D E
F
A
B
C
LEFT BANK
D
E
F
BEHI
NBS
STUDY
BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from
curve)
DISTANCE
(note station
for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL
FTI/yr
=(CxDxE)
Mod
Low
2.4
0.09
15
3.2
Mod
Low
1.9
0.09
75
12.8
Mod -High
Low
3.0
0.15
44
19.8
NC
NC
0.0
#N/A
240
0.0
Mod -High
Low
1.4
0.15
145
30.5
NC
NC
0.0
#N/A
13
0.0
Mod -Hi h
Low
1.4
0.15
356
74.8
V. High
Low
4.4
0.18
224
177.4
High
Mod
3.4
0.3
109
111.2
High
Mod -High
4.5
0.4
261
469.8
Hi h
Low
1.5
0.18
194
52.4
NC
NC
0.0
#N/A
1216
0.0
High
Mod
3.0
0.3
71
63.9
Low
Low -Mod
3.0
0.051
178
27.2
V. Low
Mod
2.0
0.035
370
25.9
High
High
3.0
0.51
58
87.0
V. Low
V.LoLow
2.5
0.008
268
5.4
Low
V.w
1.3
0.021
200
5.2
Divide FT3/yr by 27
Multiply YD3/yr by 1.3
TOTAL FT3/YR
TOTAL YD3/YR
TOTAL TONS/YR
1166.4
43.2
56.2
North Carolina unpublished curve (Alan Walker, NRCS)
pond
Appendix 2
Date: 9/20/2016
A
B
C
RIGHT BANK
D E
F
BEHI
NBS
STUDY
BANK
HEIGHT
DISTANCE
FEET/YR (note station
(from for detailed
curve) design needs)
TOTAL
FTI/yr
=(CxDxE)
Mod
Low
2.3
0.09 32
6.6
Mod
Low
1.9
0.09 58
9.9
Mod -High
Low
3.0
0.15 44
19.8
NC
NC
0.0
#N/A 240
0.0
Mod -High
Low
1.4
0.15 145
30.5
NC
NC
0.0
#N/A 13
0.0
Mod -High
Low
1.4
0.15 356
74.8
V. High
Low
2.5
0.18 224
100.8
Mod
Mod
2.7
0.18 109
53.0
High
Mod -High
4.3
0.4 261
448.9
High
Low
1.7
0.18 194
59.4
NC
NC
0.0
#N/A 1216
0.0
High
Mod
3.0
0.3 71
63.9
Low
Low -Mod
3.0
0.051 178
27.2
V. Low
Low
2.0
0.02 370
14.8
V. Low
V. Low
2.5
0.008 326
6.5
Low
V. Low
1.3
0.021 200
5.2
0.0
TOTAL FT3/YR
TOTAL YD3/YR
TOTAL TONS/YR
921.3
34.1
44.4
NBS
Total ft assessed
V. Low
Low
Low -Mod
0d
Mod -High
Hig
ig
Extreme
V. Low
0.008
0.02
0.03
0.035
0.07
0.1
0.2
0.8
Low
0.02
0.034
0.055
0.09
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.44
Low -Mod
0.03
0.051
0.078
0.135
0.2
0.24
0.24
0.77
Mod
0.035
0.068
0.1
0.18
0.25
0.3
0.3
1.1
Mod -High
0.07
0.1
0.15
0.27
0.3
0.4
0.4
1.8
High
0.1
0.14
0.25
0.38
0.4
0.5
0.5
2.7
V. High
0.2
0.28
0.4
0.78
0.8
0.8
0.8
6
Extreme
0.8
0.52
0.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
10
NBS
Total ft assessed
4037
Total TONS per year
100.5
Tons per ft per year
0.0249
Tons per 1000ft
24.9

,ROANOKE
_ i r a
ae'n e,sS J6
; -
':-GREENSBOR04,
DU -
-x
N .o r ti C r o, I i' n
-- ---
- -
r CHK9C0TT
AYETTEVI,
NwAd
,1FPPill)
_n_1W1r
_ �I
lilr�
n t .
,,'-GREENVILLE-----
o
)LK
NIA BEACH
MOR HEA11 CITY
L ILNf NCS N•
FLORENCE. --
COLUMBI
S t...}�. C, a o i' n' - o Q d
_--MYRTLE BEACH
V
% Landfall:
L' ND
CiARLESTON 8 October 2016 1500 UTC
i
Hurricane Intensity
Category 1
iSA/AN Aii i — - Category 2
i 0 25 50 100
i Miles
Hurricane Matthew, 6 - 10 October 2016
Annual Exceedance Probabilities (AEPs) for the Worst Case 24-hour Rainfall
Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center o> 1/10
Office of Water Prediction, National Weather Service (D1/50 - 1/10
•„�r'+e�y National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration N 01/100-1/50
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ohd/hdsc/ 01/200 - 1/100
a i 1/500 - 1/200
rb �' Created 18 October 2016•1 /1000 -1/500
Rainfall frequency estimates are from NOAAAtlas 14, Volume 2, Version 3 and Volume 9, Version 2.
Rainfall values come from 1 -hour Stage IV data. 4w< 1 /1 000

Notes: Hurricane Matthew rainfall distribution across NC on October 8, 2016.
Rainfall at Edwards site(s) approximately 10" per landowner gage,
Sediment data collected on October 26, 2016 with no appreciable rainfall in time between storm and data collection
Lake Wendell sediment deposition estimates following Hurricane Matthew
Above pond (R3)
Length Width
Depth
Cubic ft
ft ft
ft
12
3
0.3
10.8
13
4.5
0.25
14.625
22
7
0.5
77
28
4
0.417
46.704
35
20
0.25
175
25
20
0.583
291.5
40
20
0.583
466.4
1082.029
Total cubic yards
40.08
Estimated tons*
52.10
Total estimated cubic yards of deposition
68.46
Total estimated tons of deposition
89.00
Pen Dell sediment deposition estimates following Hurricane Matthew
RS (near middle of reach)
Length Width Depth Cubic ft
ft ft ft
45 40 0.5 900
Total estimated cubic yards of deposition
33.33
Total estimated tons of deposition
43.33
Edwards -Johnson sediment deposition estimates following Hurricane Matthew
R3 (near bottom of preservation area/end of project;
Length Width Depth Cubic ft
ft ft ft
19 5 0.5 47.5
19 32 0.5 304
19 30 0.5 285
636.5
Total estimated cubic yards of deposition
23.57
Total estimated tons of deposition
30.65
Below pond (R4 preservation area)
Length Width Depth Cubic ft
ft ft ft
30 25 0.75 562.5
30 20 0.34 204
766.5
Total cubic yards
28.39
Estimated tons*
36.91
*Tons estimated using 1 cubic yard of deposition = 1.3 tons

Watershed Information and Site Runoff Volume
Watershed Area 102
Pervious Area 100
Impervious Area 2
The Simple Method
Rv = 0.05 +0.9 * b Step 1 in the Simple Method
Rv 0.067647059 Runoff coefficient (unitless)
k 0.019607843 Impervious fraction [impervious portion of drainage area (ac)/drainage area (ac)], (unitless
V = 3630 * R. * Rv * A Step 2 in the Simple Method
V 25047 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (cubic feet
V 6.9000 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (acre -in
Ro 1.0 Design storm rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5"
A 102 Watershed area (ac)
Appendix 2
--- LN roietnoa in tnis spreaasneet is Tor [ IN areas only. i ne equations may neea to ne moamea IT using multiple tAs or use a composite pervious e.n
SCS Curve Number Method
Q* = (P - 0.25)-2 / (P + 0.8S)
Q* (From Impervious) 0.11 Runoff depth (in)
P 1.5 Rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5";
S 3.89 Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in)
5 = (1000 / CN) - 30 3.89 5 is related to the soil and surface characteristics through the curve number (CN',
CN (Impervious) 72 Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover. (Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables)
S=(1000/CN)-10 1 8.18
1
Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986) BI
Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the area of interest is identifies
BMP Sizing Reqs
SCS Method Volume of Runoff (ac -in) Required Storage Volume
SCS Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
SCS Method Volume of Runoff (gallons) Required Storage Volume
Simple Method Volume of Runoff (ac -in) Required Storage Volume
Simple Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
Depends on desired vegetation type and inundation time. Usually 6-12" (in
(ac) SCS Method
(ftA2) SCS Method
(ac) Simple Method
(ftA2) Simple Method
(ac) Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.
(ftA2)
(ftA3)
V = A(Q-) 6.41
V 23279.58
V 174143.33
V 6.90
V 25047
Required Ponding Depth 9.00
Required BMP Surface Area 0.713
Required BMP Surface Area 31039.438
Required BMP Surface Area 0.767
Required BMP Surface Area 33396.000
Actual Wetland Surface Area
Actual Wetland Surface Area
Actual Wetland Storage Volume
**According to the DWQ BMP design manual, the BMP must be designed to treat a volume at least as large as the volume calculated using the simple method**
**DWQ recommends 9" but requires ponding depth to be less then 12"*'

Catchment Area
3.7
Pervious Area
3.7
Impervious Area
0
BMP1
The Simple Method
Rv = 0.05 + 0.9 * IA Step 1 in the Simple Method
Rv 0.051 Runoff coefficient (unitless)
IA 01 Impervious fraction [impervious portion of drainage area (ac)/drainage area (ac)], (unitless)
V = 3630 * RD * Rv * A Step 2 in the Simple Method
V 671.55 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (cubic feet)
V 0.1850 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (acre -in)
RD 1.0 Design storm rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
A 3.7 Watershed area (ac)
***CN Method in this spreadsheet is for 2 CN areas only. The equations may need to be modified if using multiple CNs or use a composite pervious CN.
SCS Curve Number Method
Q* _ (P - 0.25)A2 / (P + 0.8S)
Q* (From Impervious)
0.01
P
1.0
S
3.89
S=(1000/CN)-10 3.89
CN (Impervious) 72
S=(1000/CN)-10
3.89
CN (Pervious)
72
Q* (From Pervious) 0.02
P 1.00
S 3.89
IQ*total
Soil Type
Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986
BMP Sizing Reqs
V = A(Q*)
V
Required Ponding Depth
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Storage Volume
Runoff depth (in)
Rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in)
S is related to the soil and surface characteristics through the curve number (CN)
Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover. (Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables)
0.031 (in)
WehadkeeIhttp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
BI Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the area of interest is identified
0.061SCS Method Volume of Runoff (ac -in) Required Storage Volume
213.19ISCS Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
1594.78ISCS Method Volume of Runoff (gallons) Required Storage Volume
0.18ISimple Method Volume of Runoff (ac -in) Required Storage Volume
6721Simple Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
10.OIDepends on desired vegetation type and inundation time. Usually 6-12" (in)
0.0061(ac) SCS Method
255.8291 (ft -2) SCS Method
0.0181(ac) Simple Method
805.860 (ftA2) Simple Method
0.011 (ac) Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.
481 (ftA2)
401 (ftA3)
**Per DWQ BMP design manual, the BMP must be designed to treat a volume at least as large as the volume calculated using the simple method"
**DWQ recommends 9" but requires ponding depth to be less then 12"**
Output
Input

Catchment Area
4.4
Pervious Area
4.4
Impervious Area
0
BMP2
The Simple Method
Rv = 0.05 + 0.9 * IA Step 1 in the Simple Method
Rv 0.051 Runoff coefficient (unitless)
IA 01 Impervious fraction [impervious portion of drainage area (ac)/drainage area (ac)], (unitless)
V = 3630 * RD * Rv * A Step 2 in the Simple Method
V 798.6 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (cubic feet)
V 0.2200 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (acre -in)
RD 1.0 Design storm rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
A 4.4 Watershed area (ac)
***CN Method in this spreadsheet is for 2 CN areas only. The equations may need to be modified if using multiple CNs or use a composite pervious CN.
SCS Curve Number Method
Q* _ (P - 0.25)A2 / (P + 0.8S)
Q* (From Impervious)
0.01
P
1.0
S
3.89
S=(1000/CN)-10 3.89
CN (Impervious) 72
S=(1000/CN)-10
3.89
CN (Pervious)
72
Q* (From Pervious) 0.02
P 1.00
S 3.89
IQ*total
Soil Type
Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986
BMP Sizing Reqs
V = A(Q*)
V
Required Ponding Depth
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Storage Volume
Runoff depth (in)
Rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in)
S is related to the soil and surface characteristics through the curve number (CN)
Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover. (Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables)
0.031 (in)
WehadkeeIhttp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
BI Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the area of interest is identified
0.071SCS Method Volume of Runoff (ac -in) Required Storage Volume
253.52ISCS Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
1896.49ISCS Method Volume of Runoff (gallons) Required Storage Volume
0.221Simple Method Volume of Runoff (ac -in) Required Storage Volume
7991Simple Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
10.OIDepends on desired vegetation type and inundation time. Usually 6-12" (in)
0.0071(ac) SCS Method
304.2291 (ft -2) SCS Method
0.0221(ac) Simple Method
958.320 (ftA2) Simple Method
0.016 (ac) Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.
700 (ftA2)
583 (ftA3)
**Per DWQ BMP design manual, the BMP must be designed to treat a volume at least as large as the volume calculated using the simple method"
**DWQ recommends 9" but requires ponding depth to be less then 12"**
Output
Input

Catchment Area
6.0
Pervious Area
6.0
Impervious Area
0.0
BMP3
The Simple Method
Rv = 0.05 + 0.9 * IA Step 1 in the Simple Method
Rv 0.051 Runoff coefficient (unitless)
IA 01 Impervious fraction [impervious portion of drainage area (ac)/drainage area (ac)], (unitless)
V = 3630 * RD * Rv * A Step 2 in the Simple Method
V 1089 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (cubic feet)
V 0.3000 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (acre -in)
RD 1.0 Design storm rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
A 6 Watershed area (ac)
***CN Method in this spreadsheet is for 2 CN areas only. The equations may need to be modified if using multiple CNs or use a composite pervious CN.
SCS Curve Number Method
Q* _ (P - 0.25)A2 / (P + 0.8S)
Q* (From Impervious)
0.01
P
1.0
S
3.89
S=(1000/CN)-10 3.89
CN (Impervious) 72
S=(1000/CN)-10
3.89
CN (Pervious)
72
Q* (From Pervious) 0.02
P 1.00
S 3.89
IQ*total
Soil Type
Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986
BMP Sizing Reqs
V = A(Q*)
V
Required Ponding Depth
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Storage Volume
Runoff depth (in)
Rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in)
S is related to the soil and surface characteristics through the curve number (CN)
Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover. (Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables)
0.031 (in)
WehadkeeIhttp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
BI Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the area of interest is identified
0.10ISCS Method Volume of Runoff (ac -in) Required Storage Volume
345.71ISCS Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
2586.12ISCS Method Volume of Runoff (gallons) Required Storage Volume
0.30ISimple Method Volume of Runoff (ac -in) Required Storage Volume
10891Simple Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
10.OIDepends on desired vegetation type and inundation time. Usually 6-12" (in)
0.0101(ac) SCS Method
414.8571 (ft -2) SCS Method
0.0301(ac) Simple Method
1306.800 (ftA2) Simple Method
0.036 (ac) Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.
1582 (ftA2)
1318 (ftA3)
**Per DWQ BMP design manual, the BMP must be designed to treat a volume at least as large as the volume calculated using the simple method"
**DWQ recommends 9" but requires ponding depth to be less then 12"**
Output
Input

Catchment Area
6.3
Pervious Area
6.3
Impervious Area
0
BM P4
The Simple Method
Rv = 0.05 + 0.9 * IA Step 1 in the Simple Method
Rv 0.051 Runoff coefficient (unitless)
IA 01 Impervious fraction [impervious portion of drainage area (ac)/drainage area (ac)], (unitless)
V = 3630 * RD * Rv * A Step 2 in the Simple Method
V 1143.45 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (cubic feet)
V 0.3150 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (acre -in)
RD 1.0 Design storm rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
A 6.3 Watershed area (ac)
***CN Method in this spreadsheet is for 2 CN areas only. The equations may need to be modified if using multiple CNs or use a composite pervious CN.
SCS Curve Number Method
Q* _ (P - 0.25)A2 / (P + 0.8S)
Q* (From Impervious)
0.01
P
1.0
S
3.89
S=(1000/CN)-10 3.89
CN (Impervious) 72
S=(1000/CN)-10
3.89
CN (Pervious)
72
Q* (From Pervious) 0.02
P 1.00
S 3.89
IQ*total
Soil Type
Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986
BMP Sizing Reqs
V = A(Q*)
V
Required Ponding Depth
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Storage Volume
Runoff depth (in)
Rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in)
S is related to the soil and surface characteristics through the curve number (CN)
Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover. (Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables)
0.031 (in)
WehadkeeIhttp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
BI Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the area of interest is identified
0.10ISCS Method Volume of Runoff (ac -in) Required Storage Volume
363.00ISCS Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
2715.43ISCS Method Volume of Runoff (gallons) Required Storage Volume
0.31ISimple Method Volume of Runoff (ac -in) Required Storage Volume
11431Simple Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
10.OIDepends on desired vegetation type and inundation time. Usually 6-12" (in)
0.0101(ac) SCS Method
435.6001 (ft -2) SCS Method
0.0311(ac) Simple Method
1372.140 (ftA2) Simple Method
0.046 (ac) Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.
1985 (ftA2)
1654 (ftA3)
**Per DWQ BMP design manual, the BMP must be designed to treat a volume at least as large as the volume calculated using the simple method"
**DWQ recommends 9" but requires ponding depth to be less then 12"**
Output
Input

Catchment Area
3.8
Pervious Area
3.8
Impervious Area
0
BMPS
The Simple Method
Rv = 0.05 + 0.9 * IA Step 1 in the Simple Method
Rv 0.051 Runoff coefficient (unitless)
IA 01 Impervious fraction [impervious portion of drainage area (ac)/drainage area (ac)], (unitless)
V = 3630 * RD * Rv * A Step 2 in the Simple Method
V 689.7 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (cubic feet)
V 0.1900 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (acre -in)
RD 1.0 Design storm rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
A 3.8 Watershed area (ac)
***CN Method in this spreadsheet is for 2 CN areas only. The equations may need to be modified if using multiple CNs or use a composite pervious CN.
SCS Curve Number Method
Q* _ (P - 0.25)A2 / (P + 0.8S)
Q* (From Impervious)
0.01
P
1.0
S
3.89
S=(1000/CN)-10 3.89
CN (Impervious) 72
S=(1000/CN)-10
3.89
CN (Pervious)
72
Q* (From Pervious) 0.02
P 1.00
S 3.89
IQ*total
Soil Type
Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986
BMP Sizing Reqs
V = A(Q*)
V
Required Ponding Depth
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Required BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Surface Area
Actual BMP Storage Volume
Runoff depth (in)
Rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in)
S is related to the soil and surface characteristics through the curve number (CN)
Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover. (Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables)
0.031 (in)
WehadkeeIhttp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
BI Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the area of interest is identified
0.061SCS Method Volume of Runoff (ac -in) Required Storage Volume
218.95ISCS Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
1637.88ISCS Method Volume of Runoff (gallons) Required Storage Volume
0.191Simple Method Volume of Runoff (ac -in) Required Storage Volume
690ISimple Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
10.OIDepends on desired vegetation type and inundation time. Usually 6-12" (in)
0.0061(ac) SCS Method
262.7431 (ft -2) SCS Method
0.0191(ac) Simple Method
827.640 (ftA2) Simple Method
0.017 (ac) Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.
756 (ftA2)
630 (ftA3)
**Per DWQ BMP design manual, the BMP must be designed to treat a volume at least as large as the volume calculated using the simple method"
**DWQ recommends 9" but requires ponding depth to be less then 12"**
Output
Input

NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Comparison
1000
ca
Q 100
+•0
a�
cn �
X
M
Cr
Y 10
m
1
Appendix 2
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull Area
0.01
0.1 1 10
Drainage Area (square miles)
100
Published Rural Piedmont, Harman '99 x NRCS Rural Piedmont, Walker'15
Lake Wendell Surveyed XSC ♦ Surveyed Ref Reaches
Power (Published Rural Piedmont, Harman '99) ------- Power (NRCS Rural Piedmont, Walker'15)
X
y = 21.43 k 0.6s
X
R2=0.95
X
XX
y = 19.233xo.6528
R2 = 0.9662
0.01
0.1 1 10
Drainage Area (square miles)
100
Published Rural Piedmont, Harman '99 x NRCS Rural Piedmont, Walker'15
Lake Wendell Surveyed XSC ♦ Surveyed Ref Reaches
Power (Published Rural Piedmont, Harman '99) ------- Power (NRCS Rural Piedmont, Walker'15)

NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Comparison
10000
1000
0)
b.0
M N 100
v
10
1
0.01
Appendix 2
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull Discharge
0.1 1 10 100
Drainage Area (square miles)
Published Rural Piedmont, Harman '99 x NRCS Rural Piedmont, Walker'15 Lake Wendell Design Value(s)
♦ Surveyed Ref Reaches (Mannings 'n') Power (Published Rural Piedmont, Harman'99)------- Power (NRCS Rural Piedmont, Walker'15)
--------- Power (Upper 95%) --------- Power (Lower 95%)
y = 89.039xo.7223
R2 = 0.9069
—A
x -
y = 55.308x0.787
- A
R2 = 0.9945
0.1 1 10 100
Drainage Area (square miles)
Published Rural Piedmont, Harman '99 x NRCS Rural Piedmont, Walker'15 Lake Wendell Design Value(s)
♦ Surveyed Ref Reaches (Mannings 'n') Power (Published Rural Piedmont, Harman'99)------- Power (NRCS Rural Piedmont, Walker'15)
--------- Power (Upper 95%) --------- Power (Lower 95%)

Site Description I DA (sq. mi.)
Lake Wendell (d/s 114) 1 0.160
T -yr recurrence interval
AEP -annual
exceedance
probability
P -percent annual
exceedance probability
Q -discharge estimate
(cfs)
Notes
1
1.00
100.0%
20.2
extrapolated
1.2
0.83
83.3%
26.3
extrapolated
1.5
0.67
66.7%
30.5
extrapolated Qgs = 0.66*Q2
2
0.5
50.0%
45.8
USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, <_3 sq. mi.)
5
0.2
20.0%
75.5
USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, 53 sq. mi.)
10
0.1
10.0%
97.4
USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, 1-1111, 53 sq. mi.)
25
0.04
4.0%
126.7
USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, 53 sq. mi.)
50
0.02
2.0%
149.8
USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, 1-1111, 53 sq. mi.)
100
0.01
1.0%
173.6
USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, 53 sq. mi.)
200
0.005
0.5%
197.9
USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, 1-1111, 53 sq. mi.)
500
0.002
0.2%
234.2
USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, 53 sq. mi.)
1,000.0
100.0
10.0
1.0
USGS Regional Regression Flow Data, 2011
for small streams in Hydrologic Region 1 (rural piedmont, 53 sq. mi.)
y = 33.8751n(x) + 19.5
R' = 0.9991
■ Regression Flows
-Log. (Regression Flows)
1.0 10.0 100.0
Return Interval (yrs)

Catchment Assessment Form
Overall Watershed Conditon
Rater(s): K. Van Stell
Date: 10/20/16 (rev 2/10/16)
This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential. The hydrology
> are used to determine the catchment hydrology score on the Quantification Tool
CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT
Description of Catchment Condition
Rating
Categories
NOLAN Poor
Fair
P/F/G
Potential for concentrated flow/impairments to
Some potential for concentrated flow/impairments
No potential for concentrated flow/impairments
1
Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)
reach restoration site and no treatments are in
to reach restoration site, however, measures are in
from adjacent land use
F
place
place to protect resources
2
Impervious cover (Hydrology)
Greater than 25%
Between 10% and 25%
Less than 10%
G
3
Land Use Change (Hydrology)
Rapidly urbanizing/urban
Single family homes/suburban
Rural communities/slow growth or primarily
G
forested
Roads located in or adjacent to project reach
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No
4
Distance to Roads (Hydrology)
and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT plans
than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT
proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.
P
plans.
5
Percent Forested (Watershed)
<= 20%
>20% and <70%
>=70%
F
(Hydrology)
6
Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)
<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
P
corridor width
corridor width
corridor width
7
Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)
High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion
Moderate sediment supply from upstream bank
Low sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and
G
and surface runoff
erosion and surface runoff
surface runoff is minimal
Located on or downstream of a 303(d)
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and
8
listed stream TMDL list
(Physicochemical)
TMDLANS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies
TMDLNVS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies
Not on 303(d) list
G
Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
There is little to no agricultural land uses or the
9
Agricultural Land Use
Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient
livestock or cropland is far enough away from
P
(Physicochemical)
cropland immediately upstream of project reach.
reach of stream is between Ag. land use and
project reach to cause no impact to water quality or
project reach.
biology.
10
NPDES Permits
Many NPDES permits within watershed or some
A few NPDES permits within watershed and none
No NPDES permits within watershed and none
G
within one mile of project reach
within one mile of project reach
within one mile of project reach
11
Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC)
Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66
Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66
Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41
F
(Physicochemical)
No impoundment within 1 mile upstream or
Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area OR impoundment does
No impoundment upstream or downstream of
12
Watershed impoundments (Biology)
downstream of project area and/or has a negative
not adversely affect project area but a blockage
project area OR impoundment provides beneficial
P
effect on project area and fish passage
could exist outside of 1 mile and impact and fish
effect on project area and allows for fish passage
passage
13
Organism Recruitment (Biology)
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
Chan
Charnel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material,
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
P
project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened.
but is impaired.
project reach has native bed and bank material.
14
Percent of Catchment being Enhanced
Less than 40% of the total catchment area is
40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining to
Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is
P
or Restored
draining to the project reach.
the project reach.
draining to the project reach.
15
Other
Version 2.0 Catchment Assessment Form 1 of 1 12-28-2016

Site Information and
Performance Standard Stratification
Project Name:
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project'
Reach ID:
R1
Restoration Potential:
Level 3 -Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type:
Gc
Proposed Stream Type:
Be
Region:
Piedmont
Drainage Area Isgmi):
0.051
Proposed Bed Material:
Sand
Existing Stream Length (ft):
875
Proposed Stream Length (ft):
875
Stream Slope (%):
2.6
Flow Type:
Perennial
River Basin:
Neuse
Stream Temperature:
W armwater
Data Collection Season:
Summer
Riparian Soil Texture:
Silty
Notes
Users. input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull-down menu
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
FUNCTIONAL LIFT SUMMARY
Exlsiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.26
Proposed Condition Score (PCS)
0.72
Functional Lift Score
0.46
Percent Condition Uft
177%
Existing Stream Length (ft)
875
Proposed Stream Length (ft)
875
Additional Stream Length (ft)
0
Existing Stream Functional Foot Score (FFS)
228
ProposedStream Functional Foot Score (FFS)
630
Proposed FFS-Existing FFS
403
Functional Lift (%)
177%
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
Functional Category
Functional Category
Function -Based Parameters Existing Parameter
Proposed Parameter
Hydrology
Catchment Hydrology 0.50
0.50
Reach Runoff 0.36
Floodplain Connectivl 0.66
0.88'. 0.61
Hydraulics
Geomorphology
Large Woody Debris
Lateral Stability 0.64
1.00
Riparian Vegetation
Bed Material
0.81
Bed Form Diversity
Sinuosity
Temperature
Catchment Assessment
Physicochemical
Bacteria
0.50
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Soil Compaction
Phosphorus
68
Biology
Macros
Fish
0.43
BMP FUNCTIONAL LIFT SUMMARY
Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score(FFS) 0
Proposed BMP FFS-Existing BMP FFS 0
Functional Lift I%)
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
Existing. Stream FFS+ Existing BMP FFS 228
Proposed Stream FFS+ Proposed BMP FFS 630
Total Proposed FFS -Total Existing FFS 402
Functional Lift M) 176%
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
Functional Category
ECS PCS Functional Lift
Hydrology
0.43 0.
0.29
Hydraulics
0.66 1.0' 0.35
Geomorphology
0.88'. 0.61
Physicochemical
Index Value
Biology
1.00
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT Roll Up Scoring
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Function -Based Parameters
Measurement Method Field Value Index Value Parameter
Category
Category
Roll Up Scoring
Functional Onegary
Function -Hazed Parameters
Measurement Method
Field Value
Index Value
Parameter
Category
Category overall Overall
Hydrology
Catchment Hydrology
Catchment Assessment
W
0.5
0.50
Hydrology
Soil Compaction
Curve Number
68
0.36
0.43
Functioning At Risk
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1.00
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1
Reach Runoff
Concentrated Flow Points
0.36
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
Soil Compaction
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
Bank Height Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
2.2
0.31
1
0.66
0.66
Functioning At Risk
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
30
0
0.00
Erasion Rate (ft/yr)
Lateral Stability
Dominant BEHI/NB5
L/L
1
0.64
Right Canopy Coverage (%) 90 0.99
Percent Streambank Erosion 1%)
30
0.27
Left Buffer Width (ft) 40 0.85
Geomorphology
Lek Canopy Coverage (%) 20 0.24
Right Buffer Width (ft) 50 1 0.81
Left Basal Are,(sq.ft/acre)
0.88
Right Canopy Coverage 1%)
20
0.24
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density(stems/acre) mature 0.5
Left Buffer Width (ft)
30
0.23
Right Stem Density (stems/acre) mature 0.5
Right Buffer Width (ft)
20
0.47
Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Geomorphology
Riparian Vegetation
Lek Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Pool Spacing Ratio 4 FALSE
0.30
0.22
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Pool Depth Ratio 1.8 1 1.00
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
0.26
Sinuosity
Plan Form 1.11 0.73 0.73
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Temperature
Temperature ("F)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
30
FALSE
Physicochemical
Bed Form Diversity
Pool Depth Ratio
1
0
0.15
Nitrogen
Monitoring (mg/L)
Percent Riffle
80
0.3
Phosphorus
Monitoring (mg/L)
Sinuosity Plan Form 1.03 0 0.00
Temperature
Temperature (°F)
Biotic Index 3 1
EPT Taxa Present 1.00
1D0
-joining.
Fish
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform (CN/1W ml)
Physicochemical
Organic Carbon
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Monitoring (mg/L)
Phosphorus
Monitoring (mg/L)
Biotic Index
7.7
0
Biology
Macros
EPTTaxa Present
2
0
0.00
000
Fish North Carolina Index of gidtic Integrity
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT Roll Up Scoring
Functional Category
Function -Based Parameters
Measurement Method Field Value Index Value Parameter
Category
Category
Overall
Ovcmll
Catchment Hydrology
Catchment Assessment M2 0.5 0.50
Hydrology
Reach Runoff
Curve Number 40 0'94
Concentrated Flow Points 0.94
0.72
Functioning
Soil Compaction
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1.00
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1
1.00
Functioning
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Lateral Stability
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1 1.00
Percent Streambank Erosion (%) 4 1
Left Canopy Coverage 1%) 90 0.99
Right Canopy Coverage (%) 90 0.99
Left Buffer Width (ft) 40 0.85
Geomorphology
Riparian Vegetation
Right Buffer Width (ft) 50 1 0.81
Left Basal Are,(sq.ft/acre)
0.88
Functioning
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density(stems/acre) mature 0.5
x_72
Functioning
Right Stem Density (stems/acre) mature 0.5
Bed Material Characterization
Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Pool Spacing Ratio 4 FALSE
Bed Form Diversity
Pool Depth Ratio 1.8 1 1.00
Percent Riffle 70 1
Sinuosity
Plan Form 1.11 0.73 0.73
Temperature
Temperature ("F)
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml
Physicochemical
Organic Carbon
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen
Monitoring (mg/L)
Phosphorus
Monitoring (mg/L)
Biology
Macros
Biotic Index 3 1
EPT Taxa Present 1.00
1D0
-joining.
Fish
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity

Site Information and
Performance Standard Stratification
Project Name:
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project'
Reach ID:
R2
Restoration Potential:
Level 3 -Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type:
F
Proposed Stream Type:
C
Region:
Piedmont
Drainage Area (sgmi):
0.101.
Proposed Bed Material:
Sand
Existing Stream Length (ft):
1029
Proposed Stream Length (ft):
1035
Stream Slope (%):
1.9
Flow Type:
Perennial
River Basin:
Neuse
Stream Temperature:
Warmwater
Data Collection Season:
Summer
Riparian Soil Texture:
Silty
Notes
Users. input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
IIID 2. Users select values from a pull-down menu
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
FUNCTIONAL LIFT SUMMARY
Exlsiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.17
Proposed Condition Score (PCS)
0.70
Functional Lift Score
0.53
Percent Condition Litt
312%
Existing Stream Length(ft)
1029
Proposed Stream Length (ft)
1035
Additional Stream Length (ft)
6
Existing Stream Functional Foot Score(FFS)
175
Proposed Stream Functional Foot Score (FFS)
725
Proposed FFS -Existing FFS
550
Functional Lift (%)
314%
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
Functional Categoryj
Functional Category
Function -Based Parameters Existing Parameter
Proposed Parameter
Hydrology
Catchment Hydrology 0.50
0.50
Reach Runoff 0.36
Floodplain C-ceeciAby 0.30
0.64
0.74
Hydraulics
Geomorphology
Large Woody Debris
Lateral Stability 0.39
1.00
Riparian Vegetation
Bed Material
0.74
Bed Form Diversity
Sinuosity
Temperature
Catchment Assessment
Physicnchemlcal
Bacteria
(150
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Soil Compaction
Phosphorus
68
Biology
Macros
Rush
0.43
BMP FUNCTIONAL LIFT SUMMARY
Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FF5) 0
Proposed BMP FFS- Existing BMP FFS 0
Functional Lift I%)
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
Existing Stream FFS+ Existing BMP FFS 175
Proposed Stream FFS+ Proposed BMP FFS 725
Total Proposed FFS -Total Existing FFS 550
Functional Lift (%) 314%
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
Functional Categoryj
PCS
Functional Lift
Hydrology
0.72
0.29
Hydraulics
Geomorphology^0.13fi
0.94
0.64
0.74
Physicochemical
Index Value
Parameter
Biology
Category overall overall
i.00
Catchment Hydrology
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT Roll Up Scoring
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Function -Based Parameters
Measurement Method Field Value Index Value Parameter
Category
Category
Roll Up Scoring
Functional Category
Function -Hazed Parameters
Measurement Method
Field Value
Index Value
Parameter
Category
Category overall overall
Hydrology
Catchment Hydrology
Catchment Assessment
M2
0.5
(150
Hydrology
Soil Compaction
Curve Number
68
0.36
0.43
Functioning At Risk
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 0.94
Entrenchment Ratio 4 0.88
Reach Runoff
Concentrated Flow Points
0.36
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
Soil Compaction
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
Bank Height Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
1.9
2.3
0
0.6
0.30
0.30
Functioning At Risk
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
30
0
0.00
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Lateral Stability
Dominant BEHI/NBS
M/M
0.5
0.39
Right Canopy Coverage 1%) 90 0.99
Percent Streambank Erosion 1%)
30
0.27
Lek Buffer Width (ft) 50 0.72
Left Canopy Coverage (%)
110.18
Right Buffer Width (ft) 50 0.72 0.74
Left Basal Are,(sq.ft/acre)
0.86
Functioning
Right Canopy Coverage 1%)
15
0.18
0.70
Functioning
Left Buffer Width (ft)
10
0.03
Bed Material Characterization
Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Right Buffer Width (ft)
10
0.03
Pool Spacing Ratio 5 1
Geomorphology
Riparian Vegetation
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
0.11
0.12
Pool Depth Ratio 1.8 1 1.00
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Percent Riffle 60 1
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Sinuosity
Plan Form 1.2 0.7 0.70
0.17
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Temperature
Temperature ("F)
Bacteria
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
10
0
Organic Carbon
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Bed Form Diversity
Ponl Depth Ratio
1
0
0.10
Percent Riffle
80
0.3
Biology
Macros
Sinuosity Plan Form 1.09 0 0.00
1D0
Temperature
Temperature (°F)
Fish
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform (CN/1013 ml)
Physicochemical
Organic Carbon
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Monitoring (mg/L)
Phosphorus
Monitoring(mg/L)
Biology
Macros
Biotic Index
EPTTaxa Present
7.7
2
0
0
0.00
000
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT Roll Up Scoring
Functional Category
Function -Based Parameters
Measurement Method Field Value Index Value Parameter
Category
Category
Overall
Overall
Catchment Hydrology
Catchment Assessment M2 0.5 0.50
Hydrology
Reach Runoff
Curve Number 40 0'94
Concentrated Flow Points 0.94
0.72
Functioning
Soil Compaction
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 0.94
Entrenchment Ratio 4 0.88
0.94
Functioning
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Lateral Stability
Dominant BEHI/NBS UL 1 1.00
Percent Streambank Erosion (%) 5 1
Lek Canopy Coverage (%) 90 0.99
Right Canopy Coverage 1%) 90 0.99
Lek Buffer Width (ft) 50 0.72
Georemphi
Riparian Vegetation
Right Buffer Width (ft) 50 0.72 0.74
Left Basal Are,(sq.ft/acre)
0.86
Functioning
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density(stems/acre) mature 0.5
0.70
Functioning
Right Stem Density (stems/acre) mature 0.5
Bed Material Characterization
Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Pool Spacing Ratio 5 1
Bed Form Diversity
Pool Depth Ratio 1.8 1 1.00
Percent Riffle 60 1
Sinuosity
Plan Form 1.2 0.7 0.70
Temperature
Temperature ("F)
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform (Cfu/1D0 ml)
Physicochemical
Organic Carbon
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen
Monitoring (mg/1.)
Phosphorus
Monitoring(mg/L)
Biology
Macros
Biotic Index 4 1
EPT Taxa Present 1.00
1D0
-joining.
Fish
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity

Site Information and
Performance Standard Stratification
Project Name:
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project'
Reach ID:
R3
Restoration Potential:
Level 3 -Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type:
454%
Proposed Stream Type:
C
Region:
Piedmont
Drainage Area (sgmi):
0.13
Proposed Bed Material:
Sand
Existing Stream Length Ift):
1095
Proposed Stream Length (ft):
1229
Stream Slope (%(:
1.6
Flow Type:
Perennial
River Basin:
Neuse
Stream Temperature:
W armwater
Data Collection Season:
Summer
Riparian Soil Texture:
Silty
Notes
Users. input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull-down menu
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
FUNCTIONAL LIFT SUMMARY
Exlsiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.13
Proposed Condition Score (PCS)
0.72
Functional Lift Score
0.59
Percent Condition Lift
454%
Existing Stream Length (ft)
1095
Proposed Stream Length (ft)
1229
Additional Stream Length (ft)
134
Existing Stream Functional Foot Score (FFS)
142
ProposedStream Functional Foot Score (FFS)
885
Proposed FFS-Existing FFS
743
Functional Lift (%)
522%
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
Functional Category
Functional Category
Function -Based Parameters Existing Parameter
Proposed Parameter
Hydrology
Catchment Hydrology 0.50
0.50
Reach Runoff 0.36
Floodplain Connectivity
Physicochemical
Hydraulics
Index Value
Large Woody Debris
mi
Category
Lateral Stability
100
Geomorphology
Riparian Vegetation
Bed Material
0.74
Bed Form Diversity
0.50
Sinuosity
Temperature
Hydrology
Bacteria
68
0.36
Physicochemical
Organic Matter
FunMloning At Risk
Nitrogen
Reach Runoff
Phosphorus
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
Biology
Macros
Fish
BMP FUNCTIONAL LIFT SUMMARY
Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score(FF5) 0
Proposed 8MP FFS-Existing BMP FFS 0
Functional Lift (%)
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
Existing. Stream FFS+ Existing BMP FFS 142
Proposed Stream FFS+ Proposed BMP FFS 885
Total Proposed FFS -Total Existing FFS 743
Functional Lift (%) 523%
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
Functional Category
PCS
Functional Lift
Hydrology
Hydraulics
Geomorphology
JECS
0.43
.72
1.00
^O.Sfi
0.29
1.00
0.66
Function -Hazed Parameters
Physicochemical
Field Value
Index Value
Biology
mi
Category
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT Roll Up Scoring
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Function -Based Parameters
Measurement Method Field Value Index Value Parameter
Category
Category
Roll Up Scoring
Functional Category
Function -Hazed Parameters
Measurement Method
Field Value
Index Value
Parameter
Category
Category
overall overall
Reach Runoff
Catchment Hydrology
Catchment Assessment
W,
0.5
0.50
Soil Compaction
Hydrology
Curve Number
68
0.36
Floodplain Connectivity
0.43
FunMloning At Risk
Functioning
Reach Runoff
Concentrated Flow Points
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
0.36
Soil Compaction
Lateral Stability
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
Bank Height Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
2
1.5
0
0
0.00
0.00
Percent Streambank Erosion (%) 5 1
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
10
0
0.00
Right Canopy Coverage (%) 91 1
Erasion Rate (ft/yr)
Lateral Stability
Dominant BEHI/NB5
L/VL
1
1.00
Geomorphology
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Right Buffer Width (ft) 50 0.72 D.74
Left Basal Are.(sq.ft/acre)
0.86
Functioning
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density(stems/acre) mature 0.5
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 0 0
Functioning
Right Canopy Coverage 1%)
0
0
Bed Material Characterization
Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Left Buffer Width (ft)
0
0
Pool Spacing Ratio 5 1
Right Buffer Width (ft)
0
0
Bed Form Diversity
Pool Depth Ratio 1.8 1 1.00
Geomorphology
Riparian Vegetation
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Percent Riffle 60 1
0.00
0.20
Sinuosity
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Temperature
Temperature ("F)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml
013
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Physicochemical
Organic Carbon
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen
Monitoring (mg/L)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
0.
0
Bed Form Diversity
Ponl Depth Ratio
0
0
0.00
Fish
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Percent Riffle
0
0
Sinuosity Plan Form 0 0 0.00
Temperature
Temperature (°F)
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform (Cf,/100 ml)
Physlcochemlcal
Organic Carbon
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Monitoring (mg/L)
Phosphorus
Monitoring (mg/L)
Biotic Index
Biology
Macros
EPTTaxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT Roll Up Scoring
Functional Category
Function -Based Parameters
Measurement Method Field Value Index Value Parameter
Category
Category
Overall
Overall
Catchment Hydrology
Catchment Assessment M2 0.5 0.50
Hydrology
Reach Runoff
Curve Number 40 0'94
Concentrated Flow Points 0.94
0.72
Functioning
Soil Compaction
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
Bank Height Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 5 1 1.00
1.00
Functioning
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
Erosion Rate ffi
Lateral Stability
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1 1.00
Percent Streambank Erosion (%) 5 1
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 91 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%) 91 1
Left Buffer Width (ft) 50 0.72
Geomorphology
Riparian Vegetation
Right Buffer Width (ft) 50 0.72 D.74
Left Basal Are.(sq.ft/acre)
0.86
Functioning
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density(stems/acre) mature 0.5
0.72
Functioning
Right Stem Density (stems/acre) mature 0.5
Bed Material Characterization
Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Pool Spacing Ratio 5 1
Bed Form Diversity
Pool Depth Ratio 1.8 1 1.00
Percent Riffle 60 1
Sinuosity
Plan Form 1.2 0.7 0.70
Temperature
Temperature ("F)
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml
Physicochemical
Organic Carbon
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen
Monitoring (mg/L)
Phosphorus
Monitoring (mg/L)
Biology
Macros
Biotic Index 4 1
EPT Taxa Present 1.00
1D0
-Loring.
Fish
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity

Site Information and
Performance Standard Stratification
Project Name:
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project'
Reach ID:
R4
Restoration Potential:
Level 3 -Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type:
E
Proposed Stream Type:
E
Region:
Piedmont
Drainage Area (sgmi):
0.16
Proposed Bed Material:
Sand
Existing Stream Length Ift):
822
Proposed Stream Length (ft):
822
Stream Slope (%(:
1.25
Flow Type:
Perennial
River Basin:
Neuse
Stream Temperature:
W armwater
Data Collection Season:
Summer
Riparian Soil Texture:
Silty
Notes
-,Users. input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
llll� 2. Users select values from a pull-down menu
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
FUNCTIONAL LIFT SUMMARY
Existing Condition Score (ECS)
0.49
Proposed Condition Score (PCS)
0.70
Functional Lift Score
0.21
Percent Condition Lift
43%
Existing Stream Length (ft)
822
Proposed Stream Length (ft)
822
Additional Stream Length (ft)
0
Existing Stream Functional Foot Score (FFS)
403
Proposed Stream Functional Foot Score (FFS)
575
Proposed FFS-Existing FFS
173
Functional Lift (%)
43%
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
Functional Category
Function -Based Parameters Existing Parameter Proposed Parameter
Hydrology
Catchment Hydrology 0.50
Reach Runoff 0.53.
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
Hydraulics
Large Woody Debris
Lateral Stability
Geomorphology
Geomorphology
Riparian Vegetation
Bed Material
Physicochemical
Bed Form Diversity
overall
Sinuosity 0.30 0.30
Temperature
Bacteria
M2
Physicochemical
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Hydrology
Macrof
Fish
BMP FUNCTIONAL LIFT SUMMARY
Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score(FF5) 0
Proposed 8MP FFS-Existing BMP FFS 0
Functional Lift I%)
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
Existing Stream FFS+ Existing BMP FFS 403
Proposed Stream FFS +Proposed BMP FFS 575
Total Proposed FFS -Total Existing FFS 172
Functional Lift (%) 43%
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
Functional Category
ECS PCS
Functional Lift
Hydrology
0.- 2
0.00
Hydraulics
0.92 1.00
0.08
Geomorphology
0.80 0.7:
Parameter
Physicochemical
Category
overall
Biology
i.00
Catchment Assessment
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Roll Up Scoring
Functional Category
Function -Hazed Parameters
Measurement Method
Field Value
Index Value
Parameter
Category
Category
overall
Overall
Catchment Hydrology
Catchment Assessment
M2
0.9
0.90
Hydrology
Reach Runoff
Curve Number
40
0.53
0.94
0.72
Functioning
Reach Runoff
Concentrated Flow Points
0.53
Hydraulics
Floodplain Co
Soil Compaction
Innectivity
5
1
1
1.00
1.00
Functioning
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
Bank Height Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
1.1
7.1
0.84
1
092
'
0.92
Functioning
large Woody Debris
LWD Index
Lateral Stability
Dominant BEHI/NBS
L/L
1
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Lateral Stability
Dominant BEHI/NBS
L/L
1
1.00
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
5
1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
5
1
Left Canopy Coverage (%)
100
1
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage 1%)
100
Right Canopy Coverage (%)
100
1
Left Buffer Width (ft)
50
Left Buffer Width (ft)
50
0.72
G
Geomorphology
Riparian Vegetation
Right Buffer Width (ft)
Left acr
Basal Area (sq.ft/e)
50
Right Buffer Width (ft)
100
0.86
Functioning
Geomorphology
Riparian Vegetation
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
0.90
0.80
atoning
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Basal Area(sq.ft/acre)
Bed Material Characterization
Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
0.49
Functioning. At Risk
Pool Spacing Ratio
5
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Form Diversity
Pool Depth Ratio
1.8
1
1.00
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
5
1
60
1
Bed Form Diversity
Ponl Depth Ratio
1.8
1
1.00
Sinuosity
Plan Form 1.2 0.3 0.30
Temperature
Temperature ("F)
Percent Riffle
60
1
Bacteria
Sinuosity
Plan Form
1.2
0.3
0.30
Physicochemical
Organic Carbon
Temperature
Temperature (°F)
Nitrogen
Monitoring (mg/L)
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform (CN/100 ml)
Phosphorus
Physicochemical
Organic Carbon
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Biology
Macros
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
4
1
1.00
Nitrogen Monitoring (mg/L)
Phosphorus
Monitoring (mg/L)
Fish
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Biology
Macros
Biotic Index
EPTTaxa Present
7.7
2.
0
0
0.00
0.00
Fish N.. Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Roll Up Scoring
Functional Category
Function -Based Parameters
Measurement Method
Field Value
Index Value
Parameter
Category
Category
Overall
Overall
Catchment Hydrology
Catchment Assessment
M2
0.5
0.50
Hydrology
Reach Runoff
Curve Number
Concentrated Flow Points
40
0.94
0.94
0.72
Functioning
Soil Compaction
Hydraulics
Floodplain Co
Bank Height Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Innectivity
5
1
1
1.00
1.00
Functioning
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Lateral Stability
Dominant BEHI/NBS
L/L
1
1.00
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
5
1
Left Canopy Coverage (%)
100
1
Right Canopy Coverage 1%)
100
1
Left Buffer Width (ft)
50
0.72
G
Geomorphology
Riparian Vegetation
Right Buffer Width (ft)
Left acr
Basal Area (sq.ft/e)
50
0.72
0.86
0.79
Functioning
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density(stems/acre)
0.70
Functioning
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization
Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
5
1
Bed Form Diversity
Pool Depth Ratio
1.8
1
1.00
Percent Riffle
60
1
Sinuosity
Plan Form 1.2 0.3 0.30
Temperature
Temperature ("F)
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml
Physicochemical
Organic Carbon
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen
Monitoring (mg/L)
Phosphorus
Monitoring (mg/L)
Biology
Macros
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
4
1
1.00
1.00
iohing
Fish
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity

Site Information and
Performance Standard Stratification
Project Name:
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project'
Reach ID:
R5
Restoration Potential:
Level 3 -Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type:
G
Proposed Stream Type:
Be
Region:
Piedmont
Drainage Area (sgmi):
0.016
Proposed Bed Material:
Sand
Existing Stream Length (ft):
355
Proposed Stream Length (ft):
355
Stream Slope (%):
2.7
Flow Type:
Intermittent
River Basin:
Neuse
Stream Temperature:
W armwater
Data Collection Season:
Summer
Riparian Soil Texture:
Silty
Notes
Users. input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull-down menu
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
FUNCTIONAL LIFT SUMMARY
Exlsiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.19
Proposed Condition Score (PCS)
0.49
Functional Lift Score
0.30
Percent Condition Litt
158%
Existing Stream Length (ft)
355
Proposed Stream Length (ft)
355
Additional Stream Length (ft)
0
Existing Stream Functional Foot Score(FFS)
67
Proposed Stream Functional Foot Score (FFS)
174
Proposed FFS-Existing FFS
107
Functional Lift (%)
158%
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
Functional Category
Function -Based Parameters
Existing Parameter Proposed Parameter
Hydrology
Catchment Hydrology
0.50 0.50
Reach Runoff
Floodplain Connectivity
0.36
0.37
Hydraulics
Geomorphology
Large Woody Debris
d.7
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
Bed Material
Bed Form Diversity
0.52
Sinuosity
Temperature
Catchment Hydrology
Physicochemical
Bacteria
0.5
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Hydrology
Phosphorus
Curve Number
Biology
Macros
Ash
FunMloning At Risk
BMP FUNCTIONAL LIFT SUMMARY
Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score(FFS) 0
Proposed BMP FFS-Existing BMP FFS 0
Functional Lift 1%)
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
Existing Stream FFS+ Existing BMP FFS 67
Proposed Stream FFS +Proposed BMP FFS 174
Total Proposed FFS -Total Existing FFS 107
Functional Lift M) 160%
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
Functional Category
ECS PCS
Functional Lift
Hydrology
0.43 0.72
0.29
Hydraulics
0.37 1.00
0.63
Geomorphology
Index Value
d.7
0.58
Physicochemical
Hydrology
Catchment Hydrology
Biology
M2
0.5
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT Roll Up Scoring
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Function -Based Parameters
Measurement Method Field Value Index Value Parameter
Category
Category
Roll Up Scoring
Functional Onegary
Function -Hazed Parameters
Measurement Method
Field Value
Index Value
Parameter
Category
Category Overall Overall
Hydrology
Catchment Hydrology
Catchment Assessment
M2
0.5
0.50
Hydrology
Soil Compaction
Curve Number
68
0.36
0.43
FunMloning At Risk
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1.00
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1
Reach Runoff
Concentrated Flow Points
0.36
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
Soil Compaction
Erosion Rate ffi
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
Bank Height Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
3.3
1.5
0
0.74
0.37
0.37
Functioning At Risk
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
Percent Streambank Erosion (%) 5 1
Erasion Rate (ft/yr)
Latent Stability
Dominant BEHI/NBS
M/L
0.6
0.52
Right Canopy Coverage (%) 95 1
Percent Streambank Erosion 1%)
15
0.44
Left Buffer Width (ft) 50 1
Geomorphology
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 0 0
Right Buffer Width (ft) 50 1 1.00
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
0.75
Right Canopy Coverage 1%)
0
0
Right Basal Area(sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Left Buffer Width (ft)
0
0
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Buffer Width (ft)
0
0
Geomorphology
Riparian Vegetation
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Pool Spacing Ratio 4 FALSE
0.00
0.17
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Pool Depth Ratio 1.8 1 1.00
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
0.19
Sinuosity
Plan Form 1.03 0 0.00
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Temperature
Temperature ("F)
Bed Material Characterization Site Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
30
FALSE
Physicochemical
Bed Form Diversity
Pool Depth Ratio
1.1
0
0.15
Nitrogen
Monitoring (mg/L)
Percent Riffle
80
0.3
Phosphorus
Monitoring (mg/L)
Sinuosity Plan Form 1.03 0 0.00
Temperature
Temperature (°F)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Physicochemical
Organic Carbon
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Monitoring (mg/L)
Phosphorus
Monitoring (mg/L)
Biotic Index
Biology
Macros
EPTTaxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT Roll Up Scoring
Functional Category
Function -Based Parameters
Measurement Method Field Value Index Value Parameter
Category
Category
Overall
Overall
Catchment Hydrology
Catchment Assessment M2 0.5 0.50
Hydrology
Reach Runoff
Curve Number 40 0'94
Concentrated Flow Points 0.94
0.72
Functioning
Soil Compaction
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1.00
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1
1.00
Functioning
Large Woody Debris
LWD Index
Erosion Rate ffi
Lateral Stability
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1 1.00
Percent Streambank Erosion (%) 5 1
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 95 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%) 95 1
Left Buffer Width (ft) 50 1
Geomorphology
Riparian Vegetation
Right Buffer Width (ft) 50 1 1.00
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
0.75
anctloning
Right Basal Area(sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
0.49
Functioning At Risk
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization
Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p -value)
Pool Spacing Ratio 4 FALSE
Bed Form Diversity
Pool Depth Ratio 1.8 1 1.00
Percent Riffle 60 1
Sinuosity
Plan Form 1.03 0 0.00
Temperature
Temperature ("F)
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml
Physicochemical
Organic Carbon
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen
Monitoring (mg/L)
Phosphorus
Monitoring (mg/L)
Biology
Macros
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity

Design Criteria and Stream Morphology Parameters Table
Design Criteria
Lake Wendell Mitieation Proiect - RI
Appendix 2
Typical Design Cross-section:
Design Riffle Bankfull Area=
Existing Site Data
Composite
Reference Values
Design Values
Parameter
MIN
I
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
Riffle Side -Slopes =
MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
3.5 :1
0.051
1.5 :1
Bottom Width (Wb)
---
1.3
0.051
Stream Type(Rosgen)
G5c
B5c
85c
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
10.0
---
10.0
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
2.5
2.8
---
2.7
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
4.3
4.0
6.0
3.7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
5.0
7.0
---
--
5.9
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
0.5
0.7
---
---
0.5
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
5.3
17.7
12
18
13
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
6.1
18.7
---
---
14
30
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
1.2
9.9
2.2
2.2
2.4
5.1
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
0.8
1.5
---
---
0.6
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.6
2.1
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.1
2.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
20.0
100.0
---
---
40.0
70.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
4.0
20.0
---
---
6.8
11.8
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
8.0
50.0
---
---
15.0
25.0
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
1.6
10.0
---
---
2.5
4.2
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
11.0
32.0
---
---
30.0
45.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
2.2
6.4
3.0
8.0
5.1
7.6
Sinuosity, K
1.05
1.1
1.3
1.1
Talley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0282
0.005
0.020
---
---
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.0284
---
---
0.020
0.028
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft)
0.0160
0.0370
--
---
0.02
0.035
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan
0.6
1.3
1.1
1.8
1.0
1.3
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0014
0.0138
-
---
0.0010
0.0060
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.2
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
2.3
---
---
1.1
1.6
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
4.6
2.0
3.5
2.4
3.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
7.9
6.5
8.9
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.6
1.0
1.7
1.1
1.5
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
22.0
62.0
---
---
11.8
35.5
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
1 4.4
12.4 1
1.5
6.0
1 2.0
6.0
Typical Design Cross-section:
Design Riffle Bankfull Area=
2.7
Design Riffle Width / Depth Ratio =
13
5.9
7.3
Max Pool Depth =
1.2
Pool Width=
7.3
0.6
1.2
Riffle Side -Slopes =
2.5,J
Inside Pool Side -slope =
3.5 :1
Outside Pool Side -slope =
1.5 :1
Parameter
Riffle
Pool
Width of Bankfull (Wbkf)
5.9
7.3
Average Depth (Dbkf)
0.5
0.7
Maximum Depth (D -Max)
0.6
1.2
Width to Depth Ratio (bkf W/D)
13.0
10.3
Bankfull Area (Abkf)
2.7
5.2
Bottom Width (Wb)
2.8
1.3
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-14
Typical Design Cross-section
Lake Wendell: R1
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Riffle Pool

Design Criteria and Stream Morphology Parameters Table
Design Criteria
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project - R2
Typical Design Cross-section:
Design Riffle Bankfull Area = 1
Existing Site Data
Composite Reference Values
Design Values
Parameter
MIN
Max Pool Depth =
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
F MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
2.5j:1
0.100
3.51:1
Outside Pool Side -slope 1
---
0.100
3.3
Stream Type (Rosgen)
E5/ F5
C5
C5
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
16.9
---
16.9
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
4.2
5.9
---
3.6
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
4.1
3.5
5.0
4.7
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
5.9
9.5
---
6.8
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
0.6
0.7
---
---
0.5
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
8.2
15.2
10
14
13
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
13.7
14.1
---
---
15
30
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
1.4
2.2
2.2
>2.2
2.2
4.4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
0.9
1.0
---
---
0.7
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.8
1.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
42
121
---
---
50.0
75.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
7.1
20.5
7.0
14.0
7.3
11.0
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
7.0
29.0
---
---
15.0
20.0
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
1.2
4.9
2.0
3.0
2.2
2.9
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
13.0
37.0
---
---
30.0
45.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
2.2
1
6.3
3.0
8.0
4.4
6.6
Sinuosity, K
1.14
1.1
1.5
1.17
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0179
0.002
0.015
---
---
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.0158
---
---
0.015
0.018
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft)
0.0149
0.0290
---
---
0.017
0.022
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan
0.9
1.8
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0010
0.0090
---
---
0.0010
0.0060
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
3.8
---
---
1.1
1.6
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
6.3
1.2
3.5
2.1
3.0
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
12.7
---
---
8.0
10.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
2.2
1.0
1.7
1.1
1.5
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
17.0
51.0
---
1 22.0
48.0
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
2.9
8.6
3.0
7.0
3.2
7.0
Typical Design Cross-section:
Design Riffle Bankfull Area = 1
3.6
Design Riffle Width / Depth Ratio =
13
6.8
8.4
Max Pool Depth =
1.6
Pool Width =
8.4
0.7
1.6
Riffle Side -Slopes =
2.5j:1
Inside Pool Side -slope =
3.51:1
Outside Pool Side -slope 1
1.51:1
Parameter
Riffle
Pool
Width of Bankfull (Wbkf)
6.8
8.4
Average Depth (Dbkf)
0.5
0.8
Maximum Depth (D -Max)
0.7
1.6
Width to Depth Ratio (bkf W/D)
13.0
10.0
Bankfull Area (Abkf)
3.6
7.0
Bottom Width (Wb) 1
3.3
0.4
Appendix 2
Typical Design Cross-section
Lake Wendell: R2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6 -
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Riffle Pool

Design Criteria and Stream Morphology Parameters Table
Design Criteria
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project - R3
Appendix 2
Typical Design Cross-section:
Design Riffle Bankfull Area =
Design Riffle Width / Depth Ratio =
Max Pool Depth =
Pool Width =
Riffle Side -Slopes =
Inside Pool Side -slope =
Outside Pool Side -slope =
1.
2
1
Parameter
Existing Site Data
Composite Reference Values
Design Values
Parameter
MIN I MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
Maximum Depth (D -Max)
I MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
0.130
---
11.1
Bankfull Area (Abkf)
0.130
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bottom Width (Wb)
C5
1.2
C5
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
16.9
---
16.9
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
5.9 ---
---
4.4
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
2.7
3.5
5.0
3.8
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
9.5 ---
---
---
7.8
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
0.6 ---
---
---
0.6
Width to Depth Ratio, W/o (ft/ft)
15.2 ---
10
14
14
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
13.7 ---
---
---
17
35
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
1.4 ---
2.2
>2.2
2.2
4.5
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
0.9 ---
---
---
0.7
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.5 ---
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.8 ---
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
---
---
50.0
75.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
7.0
14.0
6.4
9.6
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
---
---
16.0
23.0
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.9
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
---
---
25.0
45.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
3.0
8.0
3.2
5.7
Sinuosity, K
1.1
1.5
1.18
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0161
0.002
0.015
---
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
---
---
0.015
0.019
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft)
---
---
0.017
0.022
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
---
---
0.0010
0.0060
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
---
---
1.4
2.0
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
1.2
3.5
2.5
3.6
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
---
---
8.0
10.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.0
1.7
1.1
1.5
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
---
---
25.0
55.0
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
3.0
7.0
3.2
7.0
Typical Design Cross-section:
Design Riffle Bankfull Area =
Design Riffle Width / Depth Ratio =
Max Pool Depth =
Pool Width =
Riffle Side -Slopes =
Inside Pool Side -slope =
Outside Pool Side -slope =
1.
2
1
Parameter
Riffle
Pool
Width of Bankfull (Wbkf)
7.8
10.5
Average Depth (Dbkf)
0.6
0.9
Maximum Depth (D -Max)
0.7
1.7
Width to Depth Ratio (bkf W/D)
14.0
11.1
Bankfull Area (Abkf)
4.4
9.9
Bottom Width (Wb)
4.2
1.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
0.0
Typical Design Cross-section
Lake Wendell: R3
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Riffle Pool

Design Criteria and Stream Morphology Parameters Table
Design Criteria
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project - R4
Typical Design Cross-section:
Design Riffle Bankfull Area =
Existing Site Data
Composite Reference Values
Design Values
Parameter
MIN F
MAX
MIN I
MAX
MIN
1.0
I MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
0.160
Inside Pool Side -slope =
---
Outside Pool Side -slope =
1.51:1
0.160
Stream Type(Rosgen)
E5
-2.0
-2.0
E5
-Riffle Pool
E5
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
23.7
---
23.7
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
6.2
---
---
6.0
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
3.0
3.5
5.0
3.9
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
6.2
---
---
8.5
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
1.0
---
---
---
0.7
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
6.2
---
10
14
12
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
44.1
---
---
---
15
45
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
7.1
---
2.2
>2.2
1.8
5.3
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
1.8
---
---
---
1.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.8
---
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.0
---
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
52
77
---
---
50.0
75.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
8.4
12.4
7.0
14.0
5.9
8.8
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
12.0
20.0
---
---
15.0
20.0
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
1.9
3.2
2.0
3.0
1.8
2.4
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
29.0
53.0
---
---
35.0
50.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
4.7
8.5
2.0
10.0
4.1
5.9
Sinuosity, K
1.25
1.3
1.6
1.25
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0171
0.002
0.010
---
---
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.0135
---
---
0.014
0.018
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft)
0.0130
0.0220
---
---
0.017
0.022
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan
1.0
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.3
1.2
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0020
0.0090
---
---
0.0010
0.0060
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
2.2
---
---
1.1
1.6
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
2.2
1.2
3.5
1.6
2.3
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
11.9
---
---
8.0
10.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.9
0.7
1.5
1.1
1.5
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
18.0
44.0
--
22.0
48.0
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
2.9
7.1
2.5
5.0
2.6
5.7
Typical Design Cross-section:
Design Riffle Bankfull Area =
1 6.0
Design Riffle Width / Depth Ratio =
12
8.5
11.0
Max Pool Depth =
1.9
Pool Width =
11.0
1.0
1.9
Riffle Side -Slopes =
2.5 :1
Inside Pool Side -slope =
3.5 :1
Outside Pool Side -slope =
1.51:1
Parameter
Riffle
Pool
Width of Bankfull (Wbkf)
8.5
11.0
Average Depth (Dbkf)
0.7
1.1
Maximum Depth (D -Max)
1.0
1.9
Width to Depth Ratio (bkf W/D)
12.0
10.2
Bankfull Area (Abkf)
6.0
11.9
Bottom Width (Wb)
3.5
1.5
Appendix 2
Typical Design Cross-section
Lake Wendell: R4
0.0
-0.2 -
-0.4
-0.6 - - - --- - - - -- -
-0.8
-1.0 -
-1.2 -
-1.4 - - -
-1.6
------------
-1.8 --------------
-2.0
-2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
-Riffle Pool

Design Criteria and Stream Morphology Parameters Table
Design Criteria
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project - R5
Typical Design Cross-section:
Design Riffle Bankfull Area =
Existing Site Data
Composite Reference Values
Design Values
Parameter
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
I MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Riffle Side -Slopes =
0.016
--
31:1
0.016
1 1.51:1
Stream Type(Rosgen)
G5
B5
B5
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
4.5
---
4.5
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
1.4
---
---
1.5
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
4.7
3.5
5.0
3.0
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
2.3
---
---
---
4.4
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
0.6
---
---
---
0.3
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
3.5
---
10
14
13
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
3.3
---
---
---
15
30
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
1.5
---
2.2
>2.2
3.4
6.8
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
0.8
---
---
---
0.5
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.3
---
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
3.3
---
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
---
---
---
---
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
7.0
14.0
---
---
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
---
---
---
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
2.0
3.0
---
---
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
---
---
---
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
2.0
10.0
---
Sinuosity, K
1.03
1.1
1.3
1.08
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0290
0.002
0.010
---
---
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.0270
---
---
0.015
0.027
Slope Riffle, Sriff (ft/ft)
0.0170
0.0260
---
---
0.017
0.022
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan
0.6
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.1
0.8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0010
0.0080
---
---
0.0010
0.0060
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.2
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
2.1
---
---
1.1
1.6
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
3.5
1.2
3.5
3.2
4.7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
6.9
---
---
8.0
10.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
3.0
0.7
1.5
1.1
1.5
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
11.0
36.0
---
---
22.0
48.0
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
4.8
15.7
2.5
5.0
5.0
10.9
Typical Design Cross-section:
Design Riffle Bankfull Area =
1 1.5
Design Riffle Width / Depth Ratio =
13
Average Depth (Dbkf)
0.3
Max Pool Depth =
1.1
Pool Width =
5.7
Width to Depth Ratio (bkf W/D)
13.0
Riffle Side -Slopes =
2.51:1
Inside Pool Side -slope =
31:1
Outside Pool Side -slope
1 1.51:1
Parameter Riffle Pool
Width of Bankfull (Wbkf)
4.4
5.7
Average Depth (Dbkf)
0.3
0.6
Maximum Depth (D -Max)
0.5
1.1
Width to Depth Ratio (bkf W/D)
13.0
9.2
Bankfull Area (Abkf)
1.5
3.5
Bottom Width (Wb) 1
2.1
0.8
Appendix 2
Typical Design Cross-section
Lake Wendell: R5
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
0.0 1.0 2,0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Riffle Pool

HEC -RAS Output and Design Channel Report
Lake Wendell Mainstem - Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.
<Name>
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width (ft)
= 3.50
Side Slopes (z:1)
= 2.50, 2.50
Total Depth (ft)
= 1.00
Invert Elev (ft)
= 1.00
Slope (%)
= 1.45
N -Value
= 0.040
Calculations
Compute by: Q vs Depth
No. Increments = 10
Depth (ft)
2.00
1.00
M
Highlighted
Depth (ft)
Q (cfs)
Area (sqft)
Velocity (ft/s)
Wetted Perim (ft)
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)
Top Width (ft)
EGL (ft)
Performance Curve
Appendix 2
Wednesday, Mar 8 2017
= 1.00
= 20.66
= 6.00
= 3.44
= 8.89
= 0.84
= 8.50
= 1.18
Elev (ft)
3.00
2.00
1.00
Normal Depth Q (cfs)

HEC -RAS Output and Design Channel Report
Appendix 2
Depth
Q
Area
Veloc
W p
Yc
(ft)
(cfs)
(sgft)
(ft/s)
(ft)
(ft)
0.10
0.344
0.375
0.92
4.04
0.07
0.20
1.118
0.800
1.40
4.58
0.15
0.30
2.258
1.275
1.77
5.12
0.23
0.40
3.753
1.800
2.08
5.65
0.31
0.50
5.607
2.375
2.36
6.19
0.40
0.60
7.828
3.000
2.61
6.73
0.48
0.70
10.43
3.675
2.84
7.27
0.57
0.80
13.43
4.400
3.05
7.81
0.66
0.90
16.83
5.175
3.25
8.35
0.75
1.00
20.66
6.000
3.44
8.89
0.84
TopWidth
Energy
(ft)
(ft)
4.00
0.11
4.50
0.23
5.00
0.35
5.50
0.47
6.00
0.59
6.50
0.71
7.00
0.83
7.50
0.94
8.00
1.06
8.50
1.18
Hydraflow Express - Channel Report - 03/8/17

Hydraflow Rainfall Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.5
Return
Period
Intensity -Duration -Frequency Equation Coefficients (FHA)
(Yrs)
B
D
E
(N/A)
1
63.0344
12.7000
0.8866
--------
2
76.7932
13.3000
0.8914
--------
3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-- - -
5
77.7658
13.3000
0.8501
--------
10
72.9776
12.4000
0.8023
-------
25
65.4451
11.2000
0.7457
--------
50
59.4989
10.2000
0.6996
3
100
53.8843
9.2000
0.6563
--------
File name: NOAA_PDS_Clayton31-1820.IDF
Intensity = B / (Tc + D)^E
Thursday, 03 / 9 / 2017
Return
Period
Intensity Values (in/hr)
(Yrs)
5 min
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
1
4.93
3.96
3.32
2.86
2.52
2.26
2.05
1.88
1.73
1.61
1.50
1.41
2
5.75
4.64
3.90
3.37
2.98
2.67
2.42
2.22
2.05
1.90
1.78
1.67
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
6.57
5.35
4.54
3.95
3.51
3.16
2.88
2.65
2.45
2.29
2.15
2.02
10
7.38
6.02
5.12
4.48
3.99
3.61
3.30
3.05
2.83
2.65
2.49
2.35
25
8.20
6.71
5.73
5.03
4.50
4.09
3.76
3.48
3.24
3.04
2.87
2.72
50
8.87
7.27
6.22
5.48
4.93
4.49
4.14
3.84
3.60
3.39
3.20
3.04
100
9.44
7.75
6.66
5.88
5.30
4.85
4.48
4.18
3.92
3.70
3.51
3.34
Tc = time in minutes. Values may exceed 60.
Precip. file name: Sample.pcp
Storm
Rainfall Precipitation Table (in)
Distribution
1 -yr
2 -yr
3 -yr
5 -yr
10 -yr
25 -yr
50 -yr
100 -yr
SCS 24-hour
0.00
2.20
0.00
3.30
4.25
5.77
6.80
7.95
SCS 6 -Hr
0.00
1.80
0.00
0.00
2.60
0.00
0.00
4.00
Huff -1st
0.00
1.55
0.00
2.75
4.00
5.38
6.50
8.00
Huff -2nd
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff -3rd
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff -4th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff -Indy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Custom
0.00
1.75
0.00
2.80
3.90
5.25
6.00
7.10

Hydraflow OF Curves
Intensity (in/hr)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 5
IDF file: NOAA_PDS_Clayton31-1820.IDF
14.00
12.00
10.00 25 -Yr
8.00 10 -Yr
6.00 5 -Yr
4.00 2 -Yr
2.00 - v r
0.00
1 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min)
Hydrographs

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.5 Thursday, 03 / 9 / 2017
Hyd. No. 1
Basin 1
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 13.77 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 3.17 hrs
Time interval
= 10 min
Hyd. volume
= 133,700 cuft
Drainage area
= 102.000 ac
Curve number
= 73*
Basin Slope
= 0.0%
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= TR55
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 32.90 min
Total precip.
= 2.09 in
Distribution
= SCS 6 -Hr
Storm duration
= 6.00 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
" Composite (Area/CN) = [(72.000 x 77) + (25.000 x 65) + (5.000 x 60)] / 102.000
Q (cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0 00
0.0 1.0
Hyd No. 1
Basin 1
Hyd. No. 1 -- 1 Year
Q (cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0 00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.5 Thursday, 03 / 9 / 2017
Hyd. No. 1
Basin 1
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 23.85 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= 3.00 hrs
Time interval
= 10 min
Hyd. volume
= 208,391 cuft
Drainage area
= 102.000 ac
Curve number
= 73*
Basin Slope
= 0.0%
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= TR55
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 32.90 min
Total precip.
= 2.50 in
Distribution
= SCS 6 -Hr
Storm duration
= 6.00 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
" Composite (Area/CN) = [(72.000 x 77) + (25.000 x 65) + (5.000 x 60)] / 102.000
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
M
4.00
0.00 '
0.0 1.0
Hyd No. 1
Basin 1
Hyd. No. 1 -- 2 Year
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
M
4.00
1 0.00
8.0
Time (hrs)

Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday, Mar 28 2017
1-30in Dia. Culvert Crossing - Lake Wendell R1
Invert Elev Dn (ft)
= 289.30
Calculations
Pipe Length (ft)
= 32.00
Qmin (cfs)
= 13.60
Slope (%)
= 3.44
Qmax (cfs)
= 41.20
Invert Elev Up (ft)
= 290.40
Tailwater Elev (ft)
= Critical
Rise (in)
= 30.0
Shape
= Circular
Highlighted
Span (in)
= 30.0
Qtotal (cfs)
= 33.60
No. Barrels
= 1
Qpipe (cfs)
= 33.60
n -Value
= 0.013
Qovertop (cfs)
= 0.00
Culvert Type
= Circular Concrete
Veloc Dn (ft/s)
= 12.02
Culvert Entrance
= Groove end projecting (C)
Veloc Up (ft/s)
= 8.10
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k
= 0.0045, 2, 0.0317, 0.69, 0.2
HGL Dn (ft)
= 290.69
HGL Up (ft)
= 292.37
Embankment
Hw Elev (ft)
= 293.57
Top Elevation (ft)
= 295.00
Hw/D (ft)
= 1.27
Top Width (ft)
= 12.00
Flow Regime
= Inlet Control
Crest Width (ft)
= 10.00
Elev (ft}
296.DD
295.00
294.1)D
293.01)
292.06
291.eD
29D.eD
299.0D
28S.0U
1-30in Dia. Culvert Crossing - Lake Wendell R1
Hw Depth (ft)
5.61)
4.50
3.60
2.61)
1.6D
0.60
-0.40
-1.40
-2.40
55
Reach (ft)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Gircularr-ulvert HGL Embank

Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday, Mar 28 2017
2-36in Dia. Culvert Crossing - Lake Wendell R3
Invert Elev Dn (ft)
= 246.50
Calculations
Pipe Length (ft)
= 40.00
Qmin (cfs)
= 23.92
Slope (%)
= 2.50
Qmax (cfs)
= 97.40
Invert Elev Up (ft)
= 247.50
Tailwater Elev (ft)
= Critical
Rise (in)
= 36.0
Shape
= Circular
Highlighted
Span (in)
= 36.0
Qtotal (cfs)
= 93.92
No. Barrels
= 2
Qpipe (cfs)
= 93.92
n -Value
= 0.013
Qovertop (cfs)
= 0.00
Culvert Type
= Circular Concrete
Veloc Dn (ft/s)
= 11.94
Culvert Entrance
= Groove end projecting (C)
Veloc Up (ft/s)
= 8.34
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k
= 0.0045, 2, 0.0317, 0.69, 0.2
HGL Dn (ft)
= 248.13
HGL Up (ft)
= 249.73
Embankment
Hw Elev (ft)
= 250.97
Top Elevation (ft)
= 254.00
Hw/D (ft)
= 1.16
Top Width (ft)
= 16.00
Flow Regime
= Inlet Control
Crest Width (ft)
= 10.00
Elev (ft}
255.46
254.6D
253.0D
252.4D
251.E
259.96
249.655
245.64
247.46
246.46
245.44
2-36in Dia. Culvert Crossing - Lake Wendell R3
Hov Depth (ft)
7.51)
6.54
5.51)
4.54
3.50
2.56
1.5D
4.54
-0.50
-1.56
-2.54
0 5 16 15 26 25 30 35 40 45 54 55 60
Gircularr-ulvert HGL Embank
Reach (ft)

LW—existing_TEMP
Plan: Plan 01
4/25/2017
UT to LW Site 1
310-
Legend
.........................
EG USGS 100-YR
------------ --- __
EG USGS 50-YR
------------I -----------
EG USGS 25-YR
WS USGS 100-YR
.................................
Crit USGS 100-YR
300–
. . —
--- E - G -- U - SGS .. 10-YR
WS USGS 50-YR
Crit USGS 50-YR
WS USGS 25-YR
............ R ..........
EG USGS 5-YR
: *
C nt USGS 25-YR
290–
WS USGS 10-YR
: +
Crit USGS 10-YR
ws USGS 5-YR
........... E
S5-YR
Grit USGS
----------- -► -----------
EG USGS 2-YR
EG USGS 1.5-YR
280
•
WS USGS 2-YR
------------ A ------------
EG USGS 1.2-YR
Crit USGS 2-YR
............ X ...........
EG BKF Haman
WS USA 1.5-YR
...............
Crit USA 1.5-YR
.0
270]
WS USGS 1.2-YR
A
76
Crit USGS 1.2-YR
WS BKF Haman
Lij......
........ ................
Crit BKF Hannan
........ ................
EG Hydraflm 1-YR
----------- M ...........
EG BKF Walker
WS Hydrafi— 1-YR
260-
WS BKIF Walker
..Crit
Hydraflow 1-YR
a
Crit BKF Walker
-
0
Ground
250-
-- - ------- -
240-
230
0
500 1000 1500
2000
2500 3000
3500 4000
Main Channel Distance (ft)

LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 02 4/25/2017
Legend
3732.19 WS Hydraflow 1 -YR
WS USGS 1.2 -YR
WS USGS 1.5 -YR
3401.1 WS BKF Harman
WS BKF Walker
WS USGS 2 -YR
3137.91
WS USGS 5 -YR
WS USGS 10 -YR
WS USGS 25 -YR
2859.18
WS USGS 50 -YR
2632.63 WS USGS 100 -YR
Ground
•
2292.61 Bank Sta
050.16
46.51
1615.41
1367.92
T6 1103.6
922.01
667.65
514.01
263.18

c
0
Cu
O
LU
c
0
O
LU
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 3732.19 X1
0 50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 3137.91 X3
0 50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
274
0 50 100 150
Station (ft)
200
200
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 3401.1 X2
.02 .02
296
0
3
295-
95294293
294-
293-
0
>
0 292
---------- ---------------------
LU---------
--------------
291
290
289
0 50 100 150
Station (ft)
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 2859.18 X4
033 03
288
0
3
286-
86284282280
284-
282-
280]
278
274
0 50 100 150
Station (ft)
200
200

C
O
cc
W
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 2632.63 X5
0
274-
272-
270
74272270
LU
268-
266
264
262
0
276
ig
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 2292.61 X6
.025 .03 .025
----------------
EGUSGS;ObYR
--.......kc....
G UUSGSGS 56YR
......p.......
EG
------
EG USGS IQ YR
WS USGS 1 W -YR
.....................
Grit USGS 1 W -YR
� SYR
WS USGS 50YR
.. .....f..........
�USGyIS Sb�VR
W
S USG52SYR
Grit US 52SVR
EG USS 2 -YR
WS Us GG
EGEG USG ;.SYR;.SYR
WS A5 -R
EG USGS 1:2 -YR
EG Hytlm+flow i -YR
Cnt U5510.YR
EG BNi Iker
WS HWrzflax 1-Vft
50
100 150 200
264+
50 100 150
200
Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
0
Station (ft)
LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 1846.51 X8
-.015
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
.015
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 2050.16 X7
0
Ly.Ra
025 .025
5
0
LBena
274-
3
WS USGS 50 -VR
3
EG USGS 100.VR
WS USGS 100.VR
WS USS 25 VR
EG USGS 50 -VR
272
WS USGS 50 -VR
EG USGS 25 -VR
WS USGS 10 -VR
WS USS25 VR
EG USGS 10 -VR
270
WS USGS bYR
INS USt
........g.........
EG USGS 5 -VR
EG USS 2 -YR
�
WS USGS SYR-
.0........
n
r...
=
268
EG USGS 2 -YR
WS US S2 -VR
C
WS US~S 1.S -YR
EG USG 1.5
�
- +-
EG USGS 1.2 -VR
-VR
WS USWS US~51.SVR
WS USGS 1.2 -VR
266
+
EG USGS- 1.2 -VR
w
INS BK�'H ---
WS USGS 1.2 -VR
EG Hytlraflav 1 -VR
EGEG BK��
WS BKF Harman
WS Hydrafim I -VR
264
EG Hytlraflow i -VR
WS BKF*Walker
WS Hydrafl— I -VR
Gr..nd
Ban�Sta
50
-■----
EG BKF�Walker-
WS BKFWalket
262
Gr.und
.A.
260--
50 100 150 200
0
Station (ft)
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 2292.61 X6
.025 .03 .025
----------------
EGUSGS;ObYR
--.......kc....
G UUSGSGS 56YR
......p.......
EG
------
EG USGS IQ YR
WS USGS 1 W -YR
.....................
Grit USGS 1 W -YR
� SYR
WS USGS 50YR
.. .....f..........
�USGyIS Sb�VR
W
S USG52SYR
Grit US 52SVR
EG USS 2 -YR
WS Us GG
EGEG USG ;.SYR;.SYR
WS A5 -R
EG USGS 1:2 -YR
EG Hytlm+flow i -YR
Cnt U5510.YR
EG BNi Iker
WS HWrzflax 1-Vft
50
100 150 200
Station (ft)
LW_existing_TEMP
Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to
LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 1846.51 X8
-.015
.015
0
Ly.Ra
1
5
EG USGS 100 YR
WS USGS IOo-YR
EG USGS 50 -VR
WS USGS 50 -VR
-........q.........
EG USGS 25 -VR
WS USS 25 VR
EG USGS 10 -VR
WS USGS 10 -VR
EG USGS 5 -YR
WS USGS bYR
EG USS 2 -YR
WS USGGS 2 -VR
EG USG 1 5 -YR
WS US~S 1.S -YR
- +-
EG USGS 1.2 -VR
WS USGS 1.2 -VR
EG BKF Hannan
INS BK�'H ---
EG Hytlraflav 1 -VR
WS Hydrafim I -VR
-
EG BK-■-FWalker
WS BKF*Walker
Gr..nd
Ban�Sta
50
100 150 200
Station (ft)

LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 1615.41 X9
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 1367.92 X-10
015 .015 .015
015 P�.015.015�
272
L•e••a
EG USGS 100.VR
268
L•B••a
EG USGS 100.VR
270EG
WS USGS 100.VR
50-
EG USGSVR
'26`6`
WSUSGS100.YR
USGS 50.VR
S
WS US8S 50 -VR
EG US 9 25 -VR
WS US 50 -YR
EG US 9 25 -VR
p
268
WS USGS 2y 5—YR
EG USS 10 -VR
264
WS USGS 25—YR
EG USGS 10 -VR
S 10 -VR
WS USGt
........g.........
"E6USGS 5 -VR
WS USGS 10-YR—
0-VR
..E6.6. -N ........
EG USGS 5 -YR
v
266
�EG
- WS US'd 5SVR.Y..R..
262
WS US S&YR
C
°
EG USGS 2 -VR
WS USGS 2 -VR
C
WS USGS 2 -VR
EG USGS 2 -VR
Cu
EG USG1; 1.5
EG USG1; 1.5
264
-VR
WS US~S1.YR
2
260
-VR
wS US~S 1.5 -YR
Lu
+
EG USGS 1.2 -VR
w
-------+--------
EG USGS 1.2 -VR
•
VZ -1 SGS 1,2 -YR
•
WS USGS 1.2 -YR
262
EG BKF Hannan
WSws eK��
258
EG BKF Hannan
WS B
EG Hytlrafl•w 1 -VR
WS Hydrafl•w 1 -VR
EG Hytlraflav 1 -VR
WS Hydrafl•w 1-VR
`260
M.........
EG BKF Walker
ES G-
t
WS BKF Walker
256
-....... O.........
EG BKF Walker
t
WS BKF Walker
Ground
BanfSta
Ground
Ben�Ste
258
254
—rte
0
50 100 150 200
0
50 100 150 200 250
300
Station (ft)
Station (ft)
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 1103.6 X-11
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 1016.21 X-12
.015 "J.015—.015
EE
.015 J, .015 JL .015
268
Legend
267
EG USGS 100.VR
0e
WS USGS 100 VR
a
2661
EG USGS 50 -VR
ms—,
266
szsva
S& 50 -YR
EG USGS 25 -VR
t
264
WS USS 25—YR
.....f........,
EG USGS 10 -VR
_
WSUSt
65
265-
262-
262
WS USGS 5 -VR
-
_
EG USGS 5 -YR_
-WS
C
°
260
WS USGS 2 -VR
..
EGU R
EGBGSi-v°
C
'
264
Vs
sG3 r.zra
>
EG -6 SGT 1.5 -VR
m
i�,ip�nox
WS US~S 1.5 -YR
ws
wV
2J50
.........
EG USA 1.2 -VR
w
a glue.
WS USGS 1.2-VRc�i'uscs+an+
_,E......
263
ddr sad.aa
EG BKF Hannan
usszs �vn
WSWS BKG'H.-.n
a°-,
'va'
256
msaA
EG Hytlraflow i -VR
WS Hydrfi—i-VR
262
254
WS BK: Walker
EG BKF Walker
........e^.
mien
ni HWran.....
n�e^rak'
Gr—d
B- St.
:: :::::: .....
'.:r is is is is is is is is is is i::................................................. ...._....
........
e
252
261-
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
50 100 150
200
Station (ft)
Station (ft)

WS BKFWalket
Gr�ntl
Ban�Sta
—I I I I I 240
0 50 100 150 200 0
Station (ft)
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 957.53 X-13
035 "1 .03 �� .035
50 100 150
267
LW_existing_TEMP
River
015
Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
= UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 1016 IS pond dam
.015 015
Legend
EG USGS 100.VR
265
0503 .05
WSUSGS100.VR
EG USGS 100 -VR
EG USGS 501R
266
WS US& 50 VR
EG USGS 50 -VR
WS US8S 50 -YR
WS USdS 25 -YR
EG USGS 10 -VR
WS USGS 10 -VR
EG US 925 -VR
WS USGS 24 SYR
(�
260
265
WS USGS 2 -VR
EG USGS 10 -VR
ws Ust
EG USG 1 5 -YR
EG USGS 1:2 -VR
WS US
. g.........
EG USGS SVR
WS USGS 1.2 -VR
WS BKF Harman
EG Hydr-fi-1-YR
WS USSVS SVR
255
C
EG USGS2-VR
C
°
264 -WS
LOS
g
�
EG USG 1.5 -VR
WS US~S 1.SYR
LU
263
+
EG USGS 1.2 -VR
•
WS USGS 1.2 -VR
--
EG BKF Hannan
w
250
WS BKF H—n
EG Hyd.fl-1-YR
245
262
WS Hydraflow 1 -VR
EG BKF Walker
WS BK Walker
■
Ground
Ban�Sta
261
1
240-r-
0
50 100 150 200
0
Station (ft)
LW_existing_TEMP
Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River
= UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 922.01 X-14
05—.033 - .05
265
Legend
...... .
------------
EG
EG USGS100-YR
EG USGS 50 -VR
265-
265
260
WS USGS 100.VR
EG USGS 25 -VR
WS USGS 5' 0—
260
WS UsdS 25YR
EG USGgS 10 -VR
EG USGS SVR
255
WS USGI 10 -YR
WSU�F
255
C
EG USG52-YR
C
WS LOS
EG uSG, 1.5
�
-VR
EG USGS 1.2 -VR
�
W
250
EG BKF Hannan
WS US~S 1 SVR
•
250
n A�
---------
WS USGS 1.2 -VR
WS BKF Harman
WS BKFWalket
Gr�ntl
Ban�Sta
—I I I I I 240
0 50 100 150 200 0
Station (ft)
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 957.53 X-13
035 "1 .03 �� .035
50 100 150
200
Station (ft)
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 825.8 X-15
0503 .05
Legend
EG USGS 100 -VR
EG USGS 501R
WS USGS 100 -VR
....
EG USGS U R y.........
25-V
WS US& 50 VR
WS USdS 25 -YR
EG USGS 10 -VR
WS USGS 10 -VR
........G.........
EG USGS SVR
WS USGS SYR
EG USGS 2 -YR
WS USGS 2 -VR
EG USG 1 5 -YR
EG USGS 1:2 -VR
WS US
......... .........
EG BKF Harman
WS USGS 1.2 -VR
WS BKF Harman
EG Hydr-fi-1-YR
��■■ WS BKF Walker
Gr..nd
Ban�Sta
50 100 150 200
Station (ft)

C
Cu
W
c
0
0
LU
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 667.65 X-16
0 50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 263.18 X-18
0 50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
256-
254'
252-
250-
248-
0
52250248O
v
246
-
LU
244-
242-
240-
2381
4424224023$
0
236.2
236.0
235.8
235.6
c
235.4
0
LU
235.2
0
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 514.01 X-17
05 .033 .05
EGG,�US 9S SYR
WS USGS 25 -YR
.Crit USG�5100-VR
WS USGS SVR
Cnt�US SS 50.YR
WS USGS 10 -VR
EG USGS 2 -VR
wsws Us
F
EG�USG51 55 -YR
WS USG51.5-YR
EG USGS t-2 -W
EG BKF Harman
•
WS USGS 11 -YR
---� - WS BKO
.......................
.................
EG Hytlraflow 1 -YR
WS—Hytl-1-YR1-YR
WS BKF .1-
t
G.ntl
BAIs.
50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
LW_existing_TEMP Plan: Plan 01 4/25/2017
River = UT to LW Reach = Site 1 RS = 13.73 X-19
.05 .033 .05
----- -- --
E..0
wa
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------;oaa
-------------------
ri5
7aR
. R
est;,....
................
w�=
50 100 150 200
Station (ft)

HEC -RAS Plan: Plan 02 River: UT to LW Reach: Site 1
Reach
River Sta
Profile Q Total
Min Ch EI W.S. Elev
Crit W.S. E.G. Elev
E.G. Slope
Vel Chnl
Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chi
Shear Chan
Power Chan
(cfs)
(ft) (ft)
(ft) (ft)
(ft/ft)
(f 1s)
(sq ft) (ft)
(Ib/sq ft)
(Ib/ft s)
Site 1
3732.19
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
298.70 300.11
300.11 300.44
0.019396
4.62
2.99 4.62 1.01
0.66
3.06
Site 1
3732.19
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
298.70 300.50
300.50 300.90
0.017800
5.10
5.16 6.61 1.02
0.75
3.83
Site 1
3732.19
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
298.70 300.60
300.60 301.02
0.017396
5.22
5.84 7.12 1.02
0.78
4.05
Site 1
3732.19
BKF Harman 23.70
298.70 300.43
300.43 300.82
0.018063
5.01
4.73 6.26 1.02
0.74
3.69
Site 1
3732.19
BKF Walker 13.10
298.70 300.08
300.08 300.41
0.019556
4.59
2.85 4.47 1.01
0.66
3.02
Site 1
3732.19
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
298.70 300.89
300.89 301.38
0.0163721
5.60
8.17 8.63 1.02
0.85
4.76
Site 1
3732.19
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
298.70 301.31
301.31 301.90
0.015590
6.20
12.18 10.76 1.03
0.98
6.05
Site 1
3732.19
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
298.70 301.68
301.68 302.20
0.010067
5.84
17.78 23.89 0.86
0.80
4.68
Site 1
3732.19
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
298.70 302.04
302.04 302.44
0.006228
5.34
30.83 47.47 0.70
0.62
3.31
Site 1
3732.19
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
298.70 302.16
302.16 302.58
0.006168
5.55
36.88 53.16 0.71
0.66
3.64
Site 1
3732.19
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
298.70 302.25
302.25 302.70
0.006407
5.83
41.91 57.46 0.73
0.71
4.16
Site 1
3401.1
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
289.20 290.39
290.39 290.76
0.019019
4.87
2.83 3.96 1.01
0.71
3.48
Site 1
3401.1
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
289.20 290.89
290.89 291.19
0.008925
4.66
6.29 10.58 0.75
0.55
2.57
Site 1
3401.1
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
289.20 290.96
290.96 291.28
0.008835
4.83
7.13 11.69 0.76
0.58
2.81
Site 1
3401.1
BKF Harman 23.70
289.20 290.82
290.82 291.13
0.009519
4.63
5.63 9.60 0.77
0.56
2.58
Site 1
3401.1
BKF Walker 13.10
289.20 290.36
290.36 290.72
0.019206
4.82
2.72 3.88 1.02
0.71
3.40
Site 1
3401.1
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
289.20 291.23
291.23 291.53
0.007177
4.94
11.11 18.85 0.70
0.57
2.82
Site 1
3401.1
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
289.20 291.52
291.52 291.83
0.006388
5.23
17.80 27.31 0.68
0.61
3.17
Site 1
3401.1
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
289.20 291.66
291.66 292.00
0.006400
5.50
21.95 31.71 0.691
0.65
3.60
Site 1
3401.1
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
289.20 291.80
291.80 292.18
0.006706
5.90
26.76 36.68 0.72
0.73
4.33
Site 1
3401.1
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
289.20 291.96
291.96 292.31
0.005783
5.75
33.38 46.21 0.67
0.68
3.92
Site 1
3401.1
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
289.20 292.06
292.06 292.41
0.005503
5.78
38.42 50.39 0.66
0.68
3.92
Site 1
3137.91
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
281.38 282.77
282.67 283.11
0.021592
4.66
2.96 3.27 0.86
0.87
4.06
Site 1
3137.91
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
281.38 283.37
283.37 283.65
0.013093
4.36
6.50 12.25 0.73
0.69
3.03
Site 1
3137.91
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
281.38 283.45
283.45 283.72
0.012019
4.39
7.64 14.43 0.71
0.69
3.01
Site 1
3137.91
BKF Harman 23.70
281.38 283.18
283.18 283.58
0.022901
5.10
4.69 6.73 0.931
1.01
5.15
Site 1
3137.91
BKF Walker 13.10
281.38 282.74
282.63 283.07
0.021396
4.59
2.86 3.22 0.86
0.85
3.89
Site 1
3137.91
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
281.38 283.66
283.66 283.94
0.010702
4.61
11.23 20.70 0.68
0.72
3.30
Site 1
3137.91
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
281.38 283.93
283.93 284.22
0.009791
4.94
18.23 35.75 0.67
0.78
3.85
Site 1
3137.91
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
281.38 284.09
284.09 284.34
0.007730
4.66
25.21 48.19 0.61
0.67
3.14
Site 1
3137.91
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
281.38 284.18
284.18 284.47
0.008245
4.98
29.86 51.32 0.63
0.76
3.76
Site 1
3137.91
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
281.38 284.25
284.25 284.57
0.008233
5.10
33.70 53.77 0.64
0.78
3.99
Site 1
3137.91
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
281.38 284.33
284.33 284.66
0.007985
5.15
37.84 56.29 0.63
0.79
4.06
Site 1
2859.18
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
275.00 276.58
276.58 276.99
0.022337
5.12
2.70 3.41 1.01
0.80
4.10
Site 1
2859.18
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
275.00 277.05
277.05 277.57
0.020513
5.82
4.52 4.41 1.01
0.95
5.55
Site 1
2859.18
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
275.00 277.17
277.17 277.73
0.020102
6.00
5.09 4.68 1.01
0.99
5.94
Site 1
2859.18
BKF Harman 23.70
275.00 276.96
276.96 277.47
0.020807
5.70
4.15 4.23 1.01
0.93
5.29
Site 1
2859.18
BKF Walker 13.10
275.00 276.55
276.55 276.95
0.022511
5.07
2.59 3.34 1.01
0.79
4.01
Site 1
2859.18
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
275.00 277.59
277.59 278.21
0.0185661
6.35
7.21 5.81 1.01
1.06
6.73
Site 1
2859.18
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
275.00 278.24
278.24 278.82
0.0129941
6.16
12.89 13.32 0.89
0.93
5.70
Site 1
2859.18
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
275.00 278.56
278.56 279.11
0.010122
6.12
18.01 19.85 0.81
0.86
5.27
Site 1
2859.18
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
275.00 278.78
278.78 279.39
0.010225
6.64
22.93 25.62 0.83
0.98
6.48
Site 1
2859.18
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
275.00 279.12
279.12 279.53
0.006354
5.81
35.96 45.68 0.67
0.71
4.12
Site 1
2859.18
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
275.00 279.22
279.22 279.65
0.006509
6.05
40.75 48.69 0.68
0.76
4.58
Site 1
2632.63
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
271.11 272.39
272.39 272.78
0.014579
4.98
2.77 3.69 1.01
0.53
2.62
Site 1
2632.63
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
271.11 272.82
272.82 273.36
0.013887
5.87
4.48 4.26 1.01
0.67
3.91
Site 1
2632.63
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
271.11 272.94
272.94 273.52
0.013702
6.09
5.01 4.43 1.01
0.70
4.26
Site 1
2632.63
BKF Harman 23.70
271.11 272.74
272.74 273.25
0.013955
5.72
4.14 4.16 1.01
0.64
3.66
Site 1
2632.63
BKF Walker 13.10
271.11 272.36
272.36 272.74
0.014641
4.91
2.67 3.66 1.01
0.52
2.53
Site 1
2632.63
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
271.11 273.33
273.33 274.03
0.013353
6.71
6.82 4.94 1.01
0.81
5.41
Site 1
2632.63
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
271.11 273.92
273.92 274.81
0.013005
7.55
9.99 5.73 1.01
0.96
7.22
Site 1
2632.63
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
271.11 274.30
274.30 275.28
0.012617
7.96
12.24 6.23 1.00
1.03
8.16
Site 1
2632.63
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
271.11 274.80
274.80 275.82
0.010287
8.13
16.09 10.48 0.93
1.01
8.18
Site 1
2632.63
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
271.11 275.54
275.54 276.03
0.004074
6.13
36.15 44.53 0.61
0.52
3.20
Site 1
2632.63
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
271.11 275.68
275.68 276.18
0.004153
6.36
42.40 48.64 0.62
0.56
3.53
Site 1
2292.61
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
264.20 265.88
265.90
0.000285
0.94
14.71 11.22 0.14
0.02
0.02
Site 1
2292.61
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
264.20 265.98
266.02
0.000849
1.67
15.75 11.44 0.25
0.07
0.11
Site 1
2292.61
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
264.20 265.99
266.05
0.001105
1.92
15.93 11.47 0.29
0.09
0.17
Site 1
2292.61
BKF Harman 23.70
264.20 265.96
265.99
0.000720
1.53
15.51 11.39 0.23
0.06
0.08
Site 1
2292.61
BKF Walker 13.10
264.20 265.88
265.89
0.000261
0.90
14.62 11.20 0.14
0.02
0.02
Site 1
2292.61
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
264.20 266.04
266.16
0.002275
2.79
16.44 11.58 0.41
0.18
0.51
Site 1
2292.61
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
264.20 266.05
266.37
0.006002
4.55
16.61 11.62 0.67
0.48
2.20
Site 1
2292.61
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
264.20 265.93
265.90 266.57
0.012876
6.40
15.21 11.32 0.97
0.98
6.26
Site 1
2292.61
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
264.20 266.17
266.17 266.94
0.013345
7.02
18.04 11.91 1.01
1.13
7.96
Site 1
2292.61
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
264.20 266.37
266.37 267.20
0.013117
7.34
20.42 12.38 1.01
1.20
8.84
Site 1
2292.61
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
264.20 266.56
266.56 267.46
0.012794
7.59
22.86 12.85 1.00
1.26
9.57
Site 1
2050.16
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
263.63 265.89
265.89
0.000004
0.15
97.28 68.23 0.02
0.00
0.00
Site 1
2050.16
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
263.63 266.00
266.00
0.000012
0.26
104.62 70.33 0.03
0.00
0.00
Site 1
2050.16
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
263.63 266.02
266.02
0.000015
0.30
106.18 70.64 0.04
0.00
0.00
Site 1
2050.16
BKF Harman 23.70
263.63 265.97
265.97
0.000010
0.24
102.92 69.85 0.03
0.00
0.00
Site 1
2050.16
BKF Walker 13.10
263.63 265.88
265.88
0.000004
0.14
96.73 68.07 0.02
0.00
0.00
Site 1
2050.16
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
263.63 266.10
266.10
0.000029
0.43
111.69 71.67 0.05
0.00
0.00
Site 1
2050.16
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
263.63 266.22
266.23
0.000062
0.65
120.71 73.31 0.07
0.01
0.01
Site 1
2050.16
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
263.63 266.29
266.30
0.000092
0.80
125.85 74.17 0.09
0.01
0.01
Site 1
2050.16
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
263.63 266.38
26639
0.000133
0.99
132.55 75.27 0.11
0.02
0.02
Site 1
2050.16
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
263.63 266.45
266.47
0.000165
1.12
138.14 76.18 0.12
0.03
0.03
Site 1
2050.16
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
263.63 266.52
266.54
0.000199
1.25
143.12 76.98 0.13
0.03
0.04
Site 1
1846.51
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
261.80 265.69
265.89
0.000000
0.05
336.97 114.98 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1846.51
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
261.80 266.00
266.00
0.000000
0.09
349.27 116.61 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1846.51
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
261.80 266.02
266.02
0.000000
0.11
351.88 117.03 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1846.51
BKF Harman 23.70
261.80 265.97
265.97
0.000000
0.08
346.44 116.24 0.01
0.00
0.00

HEC -RAS Plan: Plan 02 River: UT to LW Reach: Site 1 (Continued)
Reach
River Sta
Profile Q Total
Min Ch EI W.S. Elev
Crit W.S. E.G. Elev
E.G. Slope
Vel Chnl
Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chi
Shear Chan
Power Chan
(cfs)
(ft) (ft)
(ft) (ft)
(ft/ft)
(f 1s)
(sq ft) (ft)
(Ib/sq ft)
(Ib/ft s)
Site 1
1846.51
BKF Walker 13.10
261.80 265.88
265.88
0.000000
0.05
336.04 114.85 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1846.51
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
261.80 266.10
266.10
0.000000
0.16
361.08 118.54 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1846.51
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
261.80 266.22
266.22
0.000001
0.25
376.19 120.97 0.02
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1846.51
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
261.80 266.30
266.30
0.000001
0.31
384.89 122.35 0.03
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1846.51
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
261.80 266.39
266.39
0.000002
0.40
396.24 124.12 0.03
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1846.51
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
261.80 266.46
266.47
0.0000031
0.46
405.71 125.58 0.04
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1846.51
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
261.80 266.53
266.53
0.000004
0.52
414.19 126.88 0.04
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1615.41
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
258.60 265.89
265.89
0.000000
0.02
789.69 179.68 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1615.41
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
258.60 266.00
266.00
0.000000
0.04
808.78 179.81 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1615.41
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
258.60 266.02
266.02
0.000000
0.05
812.82 179.83 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1615.41
BKF Harman 23.70
258.60 265.97
265.97
0.000000
0.04
804.42 179.78 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1615.41
BKF Walker 13.10
258.60 265.88
265.88
0.000000
0.02
788.24 179.67 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1615.41
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
258.60 266.10
266.10
0.000000
0.07
826.88 179.93 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1615.41
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
258.60 266.22
266.22
0.000000
0.11
849.63 180.08 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1615.41
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
258.60 266.30
266.30
0.000000
0.14
862.53 180.16 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1615.41
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
258.60 266.39
266.39
0.000000
0.18
879.19 180.27 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1615.41
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
258.60 266.46
266.46
0.000000
0.21
892.91 180.36 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1615.41
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
258.60 266.53
266.53
0.000000
0.24
905.08 180.44 0.02
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1367.92
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
255.80 265.89
265.89
0.000000
0.01
1690.31 274.22 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1367.92
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
255.80 266.00
266.00
0.000000
0.02
1719.49 274.98 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1367.92
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
255.80 266.02
266.02
0.000000
0.02
1725.66 275.48 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1367.92
BKF Harman 23.70
255.80 265.97
265.97
0.000000
0.02
1712.81 274.80 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1367.92
BKF Walker 13.10
255.80 265.88
265.88
0.000000
0.01
1688.10 274.16 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1367.92
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
255.80 266.10
266.10
0.000000
0.04
1747.28 277.44 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1367.92
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
255.80 266.22
266.22
0.000000
0.06
1782.54 280.22 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1367.92
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
255.80 266.30
266.30
0.000000
0.07
1802.64 280.86 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1367.92
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
255.80 266.39
266.39
0.000000
0.09
1828.66 281.69 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1367.92
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
255.80 266.46
266.46
0.000000
0.11
1850.11 281.80 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1367.92
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
255.80 266.53
266.53
0.000000
0.12
1869.15 281.80 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1103.6
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
253.00 265.89
265.89
0.000000
0.01
2517.30 327.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1103.6
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
253.00 266.00
266.00
0.000000
0.01
2552.05 32700 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1103.6
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
253.00 266.02
266.02
0.000000
0.02
2559.39 327.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1103.6
BKF Harman 23.70
253.00 265.97
265.97
0.0000001
0.01
2544.11 327.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1103.6
BKF Walker 13.10
253.00 265.88
265.88
0.000000
0.01
2514.67 327.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1103.6
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
253.00 266.10
266.10
0.000000
0.02
2584.96 327.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1103.6
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
253.00 266.22
266.22
0.000000
0.04
2626.30 327.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1103.6
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
253.00 266.30
266.30
0.000000
0.05
2649.73 327.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1103.6
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
253.00 266.39
266.39
0.000000
0.06
2679.98 327.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1103.6
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
253.00 266.46
266.46
0.000000
0.07
2704.87 327.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1103.6
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
253.00 266.53
266.53
0.000000
0.08
2726.98 327.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1016.21
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
261.00 265.89
261.11 265.89
0.000000
0.02
934.54 200.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1016.21
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
261.00 266.00
261.14 266.00
0.000000
0.03
955.79 20000 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1016.21
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
261.00 266.02
261.16 266.02
0.000000
0.03
960.27 200.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1016.21
BKF Harman 23.70
261.00 265.97
261.13 265.97
0.000000
0.03
950.93 200.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1016.21
BKF Walker 13.10
261.00 265.88
261.11 265.88
0.000000
0.01
932.93 200.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1016.21
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
261.001 266.10
261.20 266.10
0.000000
0.05
975.91 200.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1016.21
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
261.00 266.22
261.26 266.22
0.000000
0.08
1001.18 200.00 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1016.21
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
261.00 266.30
261.31 266.30
0.000000
0.10
1015.51 200.00 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1016.21
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
261.00 266.39
261.36 266.39
0.000000
0.13
1033.98 200.00 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1016.21
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
261.00 266.46
261.39 266.46
0.000000
0.15
1049.20 20000 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1016.21
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
261.00 266.53
261.43 266.53
0.000000
0.17
1062.70 200.00 0.01
0.00
0.00
Site 1
1016
Int Struct
Site 1
957.53
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
244.00 244.82
244.82 245.07
0.017792
4.00
3.45 7.08 1.01
0.52
2.10
Site 1
957.53
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
244.00 245.10
245.10 245.44
0.016260
4.61
5.70 8.81 1.01
0.63
2.92
Site 1
957.53
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
244.00 245.18
245.18 245.54
0.015934
4.76
6.40 9.29 1.01
0.66
3.15
Site 1
957.53
BKF Harman 23.70
244.00 245.05
245.05 245.37
0.016491
4.51
5.26 8.50 1.01
0.61
2.77
Site 1
957.53
BKF Walker 13.10
244.00 244.80
244.80 245.05
0.017910
3.95
3.31 6.96 1.01
0.52
2.04
Site 1
957.53
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
244.00 245.42
245.42 245.84
0.015086
5.19
8.82 10.76 1.01
0.74
3.86
Site 1
957.53
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
244.00 245.78
245.78 246.30
0.014121
5.77
13.09 12.96 1.01
0.86
4.93
Site 1
957.53
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
244.00 246.00
246.00 246.57
0.013657
6.08
16.02 14.27 1.01
0.92
5.58
Site 1
957.53
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
244.00 246.25
246.25 246.89
0.013191
6.42
19.74 15.78 1.01
0.99
6.34
Site 1
957.53
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
244.00 246.42
246.42 247.10
0.012791
6.62
22.62 16.86 1.01
1.03
6.80
Site 1
957.53
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
244.00 246.58
246.58 247.31
0.012636
6.84
25.37 17.83 1.01
1.07
7.36
Site 1
922.01
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
243.10 243.86
244.01
0.011417
3.10
4.45 8.32 0.75
0.37
1.14
Site 1
922.01
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
243.10 244.12
244.36
0.012682
3.87
6.80 9.84 0.82
0.53
2.04
Site 1
922.01
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
243.10 244.20
244.45
0.012596
4.02
7.59 10.30 0.83
0.56
2.24
Site 1
922.01
BKF Harman 23.70
243.10 244.07
244.29
0.012650
3.75
6.32 9.55 0.81
0.50
1.89
Site 1
922.01
BKF Walker 13.10
243.10 243.85
243.99
0.011166
3.03
4.32 8.23 0.74
0.35
1.07
Site 1
922.01
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
243.10 244.47
244.76
0.011775
4.34
10.55 12.09 0.82
0.62
2.67
Site 1
922.01
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
243.10 244.93
245.23
0.009492
4.42
17.10 16.34 0.76
0.60
2.64
Site 1
922.01
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
243.10 245.20
245.51
0.007480
4.48
22.23 22.29 0.70
0.58
2.57
Site 1
922.01
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
243.10 245.52
245.83
0.005759
4.55
30.66 30.71 0.64
0.55
2.52
Site 1
922.01
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
243.10 245.73
246.05
0.004988
4.61
37.68 33.89 0.60
0.54
2.51
Site 1
922.01
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
243.10 245.96
24626
0.004248
4.60
45.44 35.60 0.57
0.52
2.39
Site 1
825.8
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
242.50 243.23
243.30
0.004878
2.12
6.50 11.22 0.49
0.17
0.36
Site 1
825.8
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
242.50 243.56
243.67
0.004200
2.56
10.29 11.69 0.48
0.21
0.55
Site 1
825.8
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
242.50 243.66
243.77
0.004119
2.68
11.40 11.82 0.48
0.23
0.61
Site 1
825.8
BKF Harman 23.70
242.50 243.50
243.60
0.004267
2.48
9.57 11.60 0.48
0.21
0.51
Site 1
825.8
BKF Walker 13.10
242.50 243.21
243.28
0.005000
2.10
6.25 11.18 0.49
0.17
0.35
Site 1
825.8
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
242.50 243.97
244.11
0.003928
3.03
15.10 12.26 0.48
0.27
0.83

HEC -RAS Plan: Plan 02 River: UT to LW Reach: Site 1 (Continued)
Reach
River Sta
Profile Q Total
Min Ch EI
W.S. Elev
Crit W.S. E.G. Elev
E.G. Slope
Vel Chnl
Flow Area
Top Width
Froude # Chi
Shear Chan
Power Chan
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft) (ft)
(ft/ft)
(f 1s)
(sq ft)
(ft)
(Ib/sq ft)
(Ib/ft s)
Site 1
825.8
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
242.50
244.45
244.65
0.003845
3.56
21.21
12.96
0.49
0.35
1.23
Site 1
825.8
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
242.50
244.75
244.98
0.003861
3.87
25.18
13.39
0.50
0.39
1.52
Site 1
825.8
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
242.50
245.09
245.37
0.003943
4.26
29.96
16.06
0.51
0.45
1.94
Site 1
825.8
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
242.50
245.27
245.60
0.004247
4.52
33.15
18.50
0.53
0.52
2.42
Site 1
825.8
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
242.50
245.46
245.84
0.004407
4.91
36.94
21.03
0.55
0.58
2.85
Site 1
667.65
Hydraflow, 1 -YR 13.80
240.70
241.67
241.64 241.94
0.018689
4.19
3.29
5.36
0.94
0.66
2.75
Site 1
667.65
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
240.70
241.98
241.98 242.39
0.020013
5.13
5.13
6.40
1.01
0.90
4.63
Site 1
667.65
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
240.70
242.07
242.07 242.51
0.019654
5.30
5.75
6.71
1.01
0.94
5.01
Site 1
667.65
BKF Harman 23.70
240.70
241.92
241.92 242.31
0.020252
5.01
4.73
6.19
1.01
0.87
4.38
Site 1
667.65
BKF Walker 13.10
240.70
241.65
241.61 241.91
0.017908
4.07
3.22
5.32
0.92
0.62
2.52
Site 1
667.65
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
240.70
242.37
242.37 242.89
0.018758
5.80
7.89
7.70
1.01
1.07
6.20
Site 1
667.65
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
240.70
242.82
242.82 243.47
0.017687
6.46
11.69
9.18
1.01
1.24
7.99
Site 1
667.65
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
240.70
243.09
243.09 243.81
0.017177
6.82
14.28
10.08
1.01
1.33
9.08
Site 1
667.65
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
240.70
243.42
243.42 244.21
0.015862
7.12
17.92
13.32
0.99
1.39
9.91
Site 1
667.65
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
240.70
243.70
243.70 244.47
0.013154
7.06
22.49
19.31
0.92
1.31
9.27
Site 1
667.65
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
240.70
243.88
243.88 244.69
0.012476
7.32
26.35
23.28
0.91
1.37
10.03
Site 1
514.01
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
239.40
240.53
240.60
0.004712
2.16
6.38
10.56
0.49
0.17
0.37
Site 1
514.01
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
239.40
240.90
240.99
0.004119
2.43
10.82
13.52
0.48
0.20
0.48
Site 1
514.01
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
239.40
241.00
241.09
0.003985
2.49
12.23
14.34
0.48
0.20
0.51
Site 1
514.01
BKF Harman 23.70
239.40
240.83
240.92
0.004216
2.39
9.92
12.98
0.48
0.19
0.46
Site 1
514.01
BKF Walker 13.10
239.40
240.50
240.57
0.004760
2.14
6.12
10.35
0.49
0.17
0.36
Site 1
514.01
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
239.40
241.31
241.42
0.003622
2.67
17.16
16.88
0.47
0.22
0.59
Site 1
514.01
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
239.40
241.72
241.87
0.003596
3.05
24.89
21.84
0.48
0.27
0.82
Site 1
514.01
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
239.40
241.63
241.91
0.007588
4.26
22.85
19.77
0.69
0.54
2.29
Site 1
514.01
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
239.40
241.82
242.17
0.007797
4.72
27.18
23.66
0.72
0.63
2.98
Site 1
514.01
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
239.40
241.95
241.68 242.35
0.008052
5.10
30.40
36.59
0.74
0.71
3.63
Site 1
514.01
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
239.40
242.07
241.81 242.51
0.008013
5.36
36.38
50.86
0.75
0.77
4.12
Site 1
263.18
Hydraflow, 1 -YR 13.80
237.20
238.50
238.39 238.72
0.013586
3.69
3.74
5.73
0.81
0.50
1.84
Site 1
263.18
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
237.20
238.81
238.74 239.14
0.015823
4.59
5.73
7.10
0.90
0.72
3.31
Site 1
263.18
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
237.20
238.89
238.83 239.26
0.016670
4.86
6.28
7.43
0.93
0.79
3.86
Site 1
263.18
BKF Harman 23.70
237.20
238.76
238.68 239.07
0.015450
4.43
5.35
6.86
0.88
0.68
3.01
Site 1
263.18
BKF Walker 13.10
237.20
238.48
238.69
0.013490
3.63
3.61
5.63
0.80
0.49
1.77
Site 1
263.18
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
237.20
239.12
239.12 239.62
0.019084
5.67
8.08
8.41
1.02
1.04
5.88
Site 1
263.18
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
237.20
239.54
239.54 240.18
0.015505
6.45
12.11
11.14
0.97
1.19
7.70
Site 1
263.18
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
237.20
240.16
240.16 240.42
0.004747
4.58
39.31
87.52
0.57
0.53
2.44
Site 1
263.18
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
237.20
240.27
240.27 240.56
0.005334
5.04
49.29
88.38
0.61
0.63
3.19
Site 1
263.18
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
237.20
240.36
240.36 240.65
0.005588
5.30
56.72
89.02
0.63
0.69
3.65
Site 1
263.18
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
237.20
240.42
240.42 240.74
0.006043
5.62
62.59
89.52
0.66
0.77
4.31
Site 1
13.73
Hydraflow 1 -YR 13.80
234.70
235.28
235.17 235.36
0.013004
2.25
6.23
30.90
0.74
0.24
0.53
Site 1
13.73
USGS 1.2 -YR 26.30
234.70
235.41
235.40 235.49
0.013011
2.37
14.62
86.14
0.75
0.26
0.61
Site 1
13.73
USGS 1.5 -YR 30.50
234.70
235.44
235.43 235.52
0.013008
2.49
16.64
92.98
0.75
0.27
0.68
Site 1
13.73
BKF Harman 23.70
234.70
235.40
235.39 235.47
0.013009
2.30
13.33
81.62
0.74
0.24
0.56
Site 1
13.73
BKF Walker 13.10
234.70
235.26
235.16 235.34
0.013006
2.26
5.79
21.97
0.74
0.24
0.54
Site 1
13.73
USGS 2 -YR 45.80
234.70
235.51
235.48 235.60
0.013004
2.81
23.80
113.95
0.78
0.33
0.93
Site 1
13.73
USGS 5 -YR 75.50
234.70
235.61
235.60 235.73
0.013002
3.27
37.05
142.22
0.81
0.41
1.35
Site 1
13.73
USGS 10 -YR 97.40
234.70235.66
235.66 235.79
0.013018
3.50
44.99
146.51
0.82
0.46
1.60
Site 1
13.73
USGS 25 -YR 126.70
234.70
235.73
235.70 235.87
0.013016
3.76
54.65
151.48
0.84
0.51
1.92
Site 1
13.73
USGS 50 -YR 149.80
234.701
235.77
235.76 235.93
0.013010
3.94
61.71
154.94
0.85
0.55
2.16
Site 1
13.73
USGS 100 -YR 173.60
234.701
235.82
235.79 235.98
0.013016
4.12
68.64
159.56
0.86
0.58
2.40

Site Photographs
Appendix 2
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project —Site Photographs
Reach 1 - Shows cattle trampling/lack of buffer (8/21/15)
Reach 1 - Looking upstream at incised channel (8/21/15)
' g._
a
a
I
r
Reach 1 - Below road, looking upstream (8/21/15)
Reach 1- Below road, looking downstream (9/19/16)
s• , `�
i
I ..
it
aw
, .
JIL
All
40 4
H
I
lis I
,. . A`::'�$ ,�rAM- n ae„'�4.EJeG'A^',�. �...C�',.i::..�. _tit�.� b:r -'s- •...�,V'�f
i

Site Photographs
Appendix 2
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project —Site Photographs
Reach 2 - Bank erosion, sediment deposition after Hurricane Matthew
Reach 2 -Bank erosion, sediment deposition (8/21/15)
(10/19/16)
vt l y i 3
"2 �� da 4 _ - 'T'
% �'4.,ri V
��
,. ��
- •'j
gym,',.'
Reach 2 - Eroded bank after Hurricane Matthew (10/19/16)
Reach 3 — Looking at aggradation above pond
h r
J

Site Photographs
Appendix 2
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project —Site Photographs

Site Photographs
Appendix 2
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project —Site Photographs

Site Photographs
Appendix 2
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project —Site Photographs
Reach 5 — Looking upstream prior to Hurricane Matthew (8/21/15)
Reach 5 - Minimal buffer vegetation (9/21/15)
I
,150 _T S��
_
qs 9
Tom'
Y
Reach 5 - Lack of mature riparian buffer/deep rooting vegetation (8/21/15)
Reach 5 - Buffer lacking mature woody vegetation (8/21/15)
h

Appendix 3 — Site Protection Instrument
WLS has obtained a conservation easement from the current landowners for the project area. The
easement deed and survey plat has been submitted to DMS and State Property Office (SPO) for approval
and will be held by the State of North Carolina. Once recorded, the secured easement will allow WLS to
proceed with the project development and protect the mitigation assets in perpetuity. Table 3.1 included
the Site Protection Instrument information.
Table 3-1 Site Protection Instrument Information
William Odell 179200-13-5539 Johnston Conservation --- 11.54
Edwards Easement
William Odell 179200-33-1900 Johnston Conservation --- 0.08
Edwards Easement
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

9
Appendix 4 — 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
Department of the Army (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 NC
Interagency Review Team (NCIRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied
sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some
performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of
the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the
site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to
the criteria described in the Table below.
Table 4-1. Credit Release Schedule
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Release
Initial Allocation - see requirements below
30%
30%
0
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being
10%
40%
1
met
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
10%
50%
2
being met
(60%*)
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being
10%
60%
3
met
(70%*)
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
5%
65%
4
being met
(75%*)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being
10%
75%
5
met.
(85%*)
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being
5%
80%
6
met.
(90%*)
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
10%
90%
7
being met and project has received closeout approval.
(100%)
*See Initial Allocation of Released Credits and Subsequent Credit Release descriptions
below.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the
NCDEQ 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 NCDEQ 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.
Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the NCIRT, 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 NCIRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit
release, the NCDEQ 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.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

Appendix 5 — Financial Assurance
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the NCDEQ DMS (formerly Ecosystem Enhancement
Program) In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ) has provided the USACE-Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by NCDEQ DMS. This commitment provides
financial assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

Appendix 6 — Maintenance Plan
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will take place at least
once a 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 will be most likely in the first two years following site construction and may
include the following components as described in Table 6.1:
Routine Maintenance Components
WendellLake • . Project No. 97081
Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in -stream
structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental
installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the project reaches.
Areas of concentrated stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the channel
may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head -cutting until
vegetation becomes established.
Wetland
N/A
Vegetation
Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental planting, pruning, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species will
controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any invasive plant species
control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between
the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence,
marker, bollard, post, 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.
Stream Crossing
The stream crossing(s) within the site may be maintained only as allowed by the
recorded Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor
agreements.
Beaver Management
Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include
supplemental planting, pruning, and dewatering/dam removal. Beaver management
will be implemented using accepted trapping and removal methods only within the
recorded Conservation Easement.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

9
Appendix 7 — DWR Stream Identification Forms, Determination and
Viability letters
The streams at the project site were categorized into five reaches (R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5) totaling
approximately 4,175 linear feet of existing streams. Reach breaks based on drainage area at
confluences, valley length along an existing pond, changes in existing condition,
restoration/enhancement approaches, and/or changes in intermittent/perennial stream status. Field
evaluations conducted at the proposal stage and during exiting conditions assessments determined that
Project Reaches R1, R2, R3, and R4 are perennial streams and R5 was determined to be an intermittent
stream. Determinations were based on NCDWQ's Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins, (v4.11, Effective Date: September 1, 2010) stream assessment
protocols. Copies of the supporting field forms are included herein.
Table 7-1 Summary of Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
R1
875 31.00 33
Perennial/Intermittent
R2
1,029 44.50 64
Perennial
R3
1,095 N/A (Pond) 83
Perennial
R4
822 45.00 102
Perennial
R5
354 29.75 10
Intermittent
Note 1:
Watershed drainage area was approximated based on topographic and
LiDAR information and
compared with USGS StreamStats at the downstream end of each reach.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 17,1 tProject/Site:
Absent
Latitude: 35 0ti
Evaluator., I Ad -
Cou"ty. JOHA)�!l1
Longitude:: 79 Pzo 57- Y7 `w
Other
e.g. Quad Name: CLt7wlEA-5
Total Points:
Stream is at iesst intermittentr
Stream Daterminatlon (t
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennlal
it a 19 car perennial if a 30' +
'3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
A. Geomorphology {Subtotal
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Str ng
1$. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
'3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool.
ri le- ooi se uence
01
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5, Active/relict floodplain u(6 ys t)
0
1
2
3
6, Depositional gars or benches
0
1
2
$
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
- 1
T-
3
9. Grade control 76'L4160 Willi
0
4.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley 4 fVt -A®!L- PILF3
0
0.51
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
CIO
= 0
Yes= 3
"artiicial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = �n "e? )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants ordebris
0
rt -5--)
1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
l : Rinlnnv URlihtntal = '7. n 1
18. f=ibrous roots in strearnbed 3 2 1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streembed 3 (-2 1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note_ diversity and abundance) 0 1 2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks CG f 2
3
22. Fish 0.5 1
1.5
23. Crayfish O 0.5 1
1.5
24, Amphibians 0 0 1
1.5
25. Algae 0 �� 0. 1
- 1.5
26. Wetland plants in strreambed FACW =075; {SBL = 1.5` Other = D
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. z
Nates: Fwull �, -" -, of �+-w� �� L � . 5
Sketch: "
nIG �I

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: g 1 Z ! Its-
Pro)ectlSite: yW,44 p-
Latitude., 3511 q/ /l% l7 hA/
Eva K: V)q
Ooh:Lo
11 ,1 ?�V
a� r,
arg#tude: - `
Other
e.g Quad Name: S
Ha
Total Paints:
Stream �s at Peast intermittent
Stream determination
Ephemeral lntermitten� Perennial;
it 2!r8 or perennial if? 30'
15. Sedinnert on plants or debris
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = L j, Lj
Absent
Weak
Moderate
S#ron
1$" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
0.5 0
15. Sedinnert on plants or debris
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In-c'hamv0 s+nxAvre: ex. rife pant, sWp-pool,
ri ie- ool sequence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
Z3,2
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2 _
3
6, Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
-
1.5
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
0
0
1
t
2
2
3
9. Grade control _
0
0.5
1
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
F
11. Second or greater order channel
o = 0 s
Yes = 3
® artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = C7, 5)
12. presence of Baseflow
D 1
2
13. tron o)ddizing bacteria
0 1
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5 0
15. Sedinnert on plants or debris
0 .5
1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = =3
C. Biology (Subtotal= -
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
C i12
2
3
21. Aqm is Mollusks
4
1
2
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1.5
24, Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. ,Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed_
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
Notes: I.�4:7-V H-5/1 AAA9 Afrru*,V .
flu ice-
Alr P-
! 4041cfTC7Z-
F
Sketch.

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
oaw: Pro(ectlslte: JAL Latitude: 5 t / '17 A/
Evaluator:G L wgitude: - !�
�f ty: � lam` 7` "7-1 ` /, 7/
Total Points: Stream Determination (ci Other
Stream n l ! ltiQnt Ephemeral
iNt 9 is at
if;30" Intermittent rennial e.g. Quad Name:
A. Georno hol (Subtotal = /-'/ t'
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1'' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
1.5
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0.5
3. la-channer str)cttnre: ex. rNfle-pool, step -pool,
ri le- ooi sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
F3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Reoent sllUvial deposits
0
1
2
--
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
9. Grade control Jam.(
0
0.5
1
1.
10. Natural Waller
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
E1. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= /0.0 )
12. Presence of Saseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
3
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1 _
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.6
C, 1) 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes = 3
t~ Rinlnnw Ilii ihtntal = W e17) 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19_ Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
C1,2
2
3
21. Aquatic Mok%ks
o _ _-
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
i t
1.6
24. Amphibians
0
0.
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW=- = 0.75; 081 = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: FLOt)/-->
iflrUVC Nfdi� 4- t 1
G
A E
Sketch:

NU UWV btream Wentltication Corm Version 4.11
ilerte: projedISitte: L�vMr� r�S Latitude: -5"yir
Evaluator- Aj 5-_G County: -Tom'15roa Longitude:-%F�°ZI ?J� 0'(n,
Total Paints: Stream Dete clrcle one) Other
Stream is at ieast intermittentp r'j Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial e.g. Chad Name:
If 2:19 or perennial if Z!30" I
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderata
Strong
12, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
C2 - ---
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. ln-charmet structure. ex. rMle-pool, step -pool,
ri fe- ool sequence
t}
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
CI-)
2
3 -
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
7
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
s-
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
'j. 5 ,
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
X 1e./ 'WoLN- e
_ artinciai a,tcnes are not rates; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroiaav (Subtotal = 'moi ( )
12. Presence of Saseflow
01
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidmg bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
-1 _
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or plies
0
0.5
1
1.5
17, Soil -based evidence of high water table?
(
No = 0 ,
Yes = 3
C. Bi€tlo©v (Subtotal = '�, Z --, 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2-
1
0
19, Rooted upland plants in °streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
-1 _
2
3
21. Aquatic Mogusks
0 r
1
2
3
22, Fish
to
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5.
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
26. Wetland plus in streambed
F
W = 0.75k,_bBL= 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
-
N otes:W-t/
4a,2 1
- 7i
P4 I!
Sketch: V/} /5r- B Z
X 1e./ 'WoLN- e
VF6

Wa ter Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL GUALITY
April 28, 2016
Scott Hunt
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
(via electronic mail)
PAT MCC'RORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
secrelf y
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Diredrlr
DWR Project #: 2016-0385
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Lake Wendell
Located near 2869 Wendell Rd, Wendell, NC
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Hunt,
On April 8, 2016, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), assisted you and
others from Water & Land Solutions, LLC at the proposed Lake Wendell Mitigation Site (Site)
in Wendell, NC. The Site is located in 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 features onsite
to determine suitability for buffer and nutrient offset mitigation. Features are more accurately shown
in the attached maps signed by Ms. Merritt on April 20, 2016. If approved, mitigating this site could
provide stream mitigation credits, riparian buffer credits and/or nutrient offset credits.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of features fron4 Top of Bank (TOB) out to 200' 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 in the table below:
Feature
Classification
'Subiect
Adlacent Canduses
Buffer
zNutrient
Mitigation TVoe/Comments
to Buffer
Credit
offset Viable
Rule
Y
Viable
at 7,273
lbs acre
R1(above
Modified
Yes
narrow buffer of
Yes3
No
Enhancement per 15A NCAC 028
pipe)
Natural
Mixed native
.0295 (b)(4) in entire 50' from TOB
Stream
hardwood & pine
forest
R1(piped
Piped stream
Ye53
managed lawn
Yes3
No
Restoration
portion —
fence line)
R1 (below
Modified
Yes
pasture actively
Yes
Yes
Restoration
fence line —
natural
grazed by cattle
R5
stream
confluence)
Stale &North Carolina i LuATonnuntal Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail serviee Center I Raleigh. Nortb Carolina ?7699-1617
919 807 5300

Lake Wendell Mitigation Site
April 28, 2016
Page 2 of 2
R2
Stream
Yes
Pasture actively
Yes
Yes foutside of
Narrow closed canopy = Enhancement
grazed by cattle and
forested area)
per 15A NCAC 028 .0295 (o)J6);
narrow closed canopy
Outside of forested areas =
of native hardwoods
Restoration
R3
Ag Pond (to
Yes
Pasture actively
Yes3
Yes
Restoration (if pond 1s drained, a
be drained)
grazed by cattle
stream channel has to develop to be
viable for any credit)
R4
Stream
Yes
Native hardwood
Yes
No
Preservation per 15A NCAC 028.0295
forest, closed canopy
(o)(5)
R5
Undetermined
Not on
Pasture actively
nja
Yes
Need stream determination by DWR;
conveyance
maps
grazed by cattle
if feature is a stream, feature is viable
for buffer restoration per 15A NCAC
028.0245 (o)(3)
'Subjectivity calls were determined using: the 1:24,000 scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most
recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by the MRCS
'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 (prior to rule baseline). Bates, supported by photos or other
written records, must be included to confirm that the uses of the open fields onsite are/were for hay crop cultivation/row
crop/cattle.
'Feature has been piped or is a pond, but has potential for buffer mitigation if feature is restored into a stream.
Maps showing the project site and the features are provided and signed by Nis. Merritt on April
20, 2016. This letter should be provided in all future mitigation plans for this Site. In addition,
all vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 025
.0295 to be eligible for buffer and nutrient offset credits. Where buffer and nutrient offset credits
are viable in the same area, only one credit type is allowed to be generated for credit, not both.
For any areas depicted as not being; viable for nutrient offset credit, one could propose a different
measure other than riparian restoration/enhancement, 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 02S .0240.
Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely, n
Karen. Higgins, Supervi�_
401 and Suffer Permitting ranch
KAHlkm
Attachments: Site Aerial Map, USGS Topographic Map, NRCS Soil Survey
cc:File Copy (Katie Merritt)
DMS — Jeff Schaffer (via electronic mail)

r
iY p
+
`G z-.r�Ohl
iCr.
. + r
�r
�'. L' ' f ' f ' � � f^'+� l '$i„F� 1. 4 �' � � •� �'� � it
Al 1' zr+ jhW �1- Ili
Lr �� �i=_ ,d .A "• i ;Oer � �F�l'- �,.r.s� .---.. 41
lt
- - �
Ali'
,� ` .. �� � �- � +y�""� � !►"R 1�� +„ � 3�=„ew � � "p „ems
+`�^ I � I•''� �,,.:. �'�� � +�- �,,.� 7,�V� � - 4',�. y � _ r �. a' b'.•� . � '�^.c d'�° \r�-d f!l �#`ti
,
Awl
x _
Sss^y

NC USGS Topo & Parcels Map
April 20, 2016 I J
OffK_ iQ,,Itu
o I La-- D-sy5
1:6,528
0 4,075 0.15 0 3 mi
0 0.1 0.2 04 km
Participating NC Counties. NCCGIA, NC OneMap, VS EPA
bg¢arg-

9
Appendix 8 — USACE District Assessment Methods/Forms
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: SAW -2016-00876 NCDWR #: 2016-0385
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Lake Wendell 2. Date of evaluation: 10/19/16
3. Applicant/owner name: Edwards 4. Assessor name/organization: WLS
5. County: Johnston 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Neuse on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Lake Wendell
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.7371472°, -78.3515194°
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 807
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1.7 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 6.0 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ���
valley shape (skip for ®B
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mit) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III DIV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ®NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ®Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
F, N
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
:2 E
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
Submerged aquatic vegetation
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
❑H
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
rC
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
Sand bottom
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
®F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
:2 E
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o w
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
rC
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
L
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ®Yes ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
®C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ®Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ®Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑ Salamanders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water > 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ®Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ❑N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
®B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>- 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
❑A ❑A ❑A
❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ®C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
®D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
®E ❑E ®E
R < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure —
streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
®D ®D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
®C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
❑A ❑A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
®C ®C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ®Yes ❑No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 EIB 46 to < 67 EIC 67 to < 79 ®D 79 to < 230 FIE >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Lake Wendell Date of Assessment
10/19/16
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization WLS
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: SAW -2016-00876 NCDWR #: 2016-0385
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Lake Wendell 2. Date of evaluation: 10/19/16
3. Applicant/owner name: Edwards 4. Assessor name/organization: WLS
5. County: Johnston 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Neuse on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Lake Wendell
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.73749722°, -78.35472222°
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1,035
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1.7 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 8.0 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ���
valley shape (skip for ®B
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mit) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III DIV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ®NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ®Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
F, N
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
:2 E
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
Submerged aquatic vegetation
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
❑H
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
rC
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
Sand bottom
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
®F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
:2 E
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o w
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
rC
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
L
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ®Yes ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
®C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ®Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ®Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ®Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ®Other fish
❑ ❑ Salamanders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water > 6 inches deep
®B ®B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ®Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ❑N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
®B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>- 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
❑A ❑A ❑A
❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
®D ®D ®D
®D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E
R < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure —
streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
®D ®D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
®B ®B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
❑A ❑A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
®B ®B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 EIB 46 to < 67 EIC 67 to < 79 ®D 79 to < 230 FIE >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Lake Wendell Date of Assessment
10/19/16
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization WLS
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: SAW -2016-00876 NCDWR #: 2016-0385
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Lake Wendell 2. Date of evaluation: 10/19/16
3. Applicant/owner name: Edwards 4. Assessor name/organization: WLS
5. County: Johnston 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Neuse on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Lake Wendell
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.7369750°, -78.3604361'
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R4 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 822
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1.7 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 6.2 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ���
valley shape (skip for ®B
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mit) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III DIV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ®NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ®Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
F, N
®A ®A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
:2 E
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
Submerged aquatic vegetation
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
❑H
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
rC
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
Sand bottom
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
:2 E
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o w
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
rC
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
L
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ®Yes ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ®Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ®Adult frogs
❑ ®Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ®Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ®Other fish
❑ ®Salamanders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
®A ®A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water > 6 inches deep
®B ®B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ®Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ❑N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
®B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>- 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
❑A ®A ❑A
®A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
®B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ®C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E
❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure —
streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ®D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
®A ®A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ®Yes ❑No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 EIB 46 to < 67 EIC 67 to < 79 ®D 79 to < 230 FIE >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Lake Wendell Date of Assessment
10/19/16
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization
WLS
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: SAW -2016-00876 NCDWR #: 2016-0385
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Lake Wendell 2. Date of evaluation: 10/19/16
3. Applicant/owner name: Edwards 4. Assessor name/organization: WLS
5. County: Johnston 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Neuse on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Lake Wendell
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.7371472°, -78.3515194°
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R5 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 354
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2.6 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3.5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ���
valley shape (skip for ®B
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mit) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III DIV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ®NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ®Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
F, N
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
:2 E
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
Submerged aquatic vegetation
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
❑H
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
rC
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
Sand bottom
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
®F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
:2 E
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o w
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
rC
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
L
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ®Yes ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
®C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ®Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ®Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑ Salamanders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water > 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ®Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ❑N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>- 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
®C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
❑A ❑A ❑A
❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
®E ®E ®E
®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure —
streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
®D ®D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
®C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
❑A ❑A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
®C ®C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 EIB 46 to < 67 EIC 67 to < 79 ®D 79 to < 230 FIE >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Lake Wendell Date of Assessment
10/19/16
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization
WLS
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

Appendix 9 — Wetland JD Forms
9
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id, SAW -2016-00876 County:.101u]stOn U.S.G.S. farad: NC -FLOWERS
Property Owner:
Address:
Telephone Number:
Size (acres)
Nearest Wsterway
USES 1-IUC
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Odell Edwards
100 Salem Church Road
Wendell, NC, 27591
75.26
Buffalo Creel:
03020201
cople
Nearest Town Wendell
River Basin Upper Neuse
Coordinates Latitude: 35.73726
Longitude: -78.355917
Location description: Odell Edwards property located at 2700 Wendell road adjacent to a tributary of Beaver Creek (Lake
Wendell) south of Wendell in Johnston County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S, including wetlands on the above described project area
We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Arm) (DA)
jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps, This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Prograrn Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33
CFR Part 331). 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. Please see remarks section in re6ard to the Jurisdictional determination.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of (lie United States within 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 Witter Act. Unlcss there is a change in the lair
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from (lie 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 nlay be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suMIest you have the waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area delineated. Due to the
size of your property and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner. For a more timely delineation, you niay wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any
delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters ofthe U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction ofall areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law OrO111- published regtulatioils, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed Five years.
Pagel of 2

_ 'Fite 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 orthe 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 out'
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
(CAM A). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine thein requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit ntay
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC $ 131 1). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact John Thomas at 919-554-4884 x25 or
John.T.Tltomas.JReyusace.army. mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Sire incluales tribrrtarles of Betiver Creek (Labe Wendell) which,flow.s to the Neccse
River and on to the Alluntir Oeertn.
D. Remarks: For the purpose of planning for a proposed solar farm and potential
mitigation bank, the Corps concurs with the preliminary jurisdictional
determinations depicted on provided maps included in agents request received and
reviewed on site during September 21, 2016.
C. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/deterrttinatiorl has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act_ orisdiction 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
itt 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 Infortlnation (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request all 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 Frtgineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M 15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
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 33 1.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date ofthe NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA Brat, it must be received at the above address by 11/2112016.
**It is not necessary to submit an I-orm to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:

Cate: Septernber 2l, 2016 Cc: Adam McIntyre, Water & Land Solutions, 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC
27614; Paul Pascarosa, Headwater Environmental, Inc., 512 Sweetbay Court, Wilmington, NC 28405

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 aur Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
1

SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of tale above decision.
Additional information may be found at htt_p.rWWNv,usact. arIII v.rnihMission,,X'i�_ilftj or
Corps re Mations 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. li'you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP ❑nil your wurl< is autlloriied. YeUr
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
perm it.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions there'sn, YOU may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 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 lol- final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. YOLll'
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 terns 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 aild conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process 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 clays
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 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This fore must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice,
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERM]NATION: 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 If 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.
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Well Edwards
File Number: SAW -2016-00876
Date: September 21, 2016
Attached is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
F.
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of tale above decision.
Additional information may be found at htt_p.rWWNv,usact. arIII v.rnihMission,,X'i�_ilftj or
Corps re Mations 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. li'you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP ❑nil your wurl< is autlloriied. YeUr
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
perm it.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions there'sn, YOU may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 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 lol- final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. YOLll'
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 terns 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 aild conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process 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 clays
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 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This fore must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice,
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERM]NATION: 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 If 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 JURISDfCTIONAL 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 decisioll 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 inemorandum for tine
record ofthe appeal conlerenc'e Or meeting, alld Ally SUpplellleiltal information that the revit-w olticer Inas deterinined Is needed w
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps play 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
IFyou only have questions regarding the appeal process you Inay
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: John Thomas
CBSAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sotlth Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room I OM 15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Lngineers 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 investi rations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signaftli'e of appellant of agent,
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, John Thomas,
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 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

Cq 0
Z
co
CL 1 -0
s A2.4 ED
Lu E Ir o
0.2 o U) LO Z
-2 LL
C)
ZT 0- LU S4 a, N L.)
izi
>CS
C5•
U)
rL z ui a) U3 3 7C) < _0 C) —:, C
0
E- [,- (D UJ -j
01 > a) a7:
(D 0 [2 ,
w LU (D
_0
ami C6 cn A
L)
C) =
c S) 0 r5 a) m OL
Cls
LU
L :E 0> Cot co Nc
F-
U)
-0
C: 15
(DU)
E CL
(D E
C:)
m co
LU
>
LU 16
0E r- cu
:3 ', .2
-0
0
0 0 o CC) t7 c
CL
C)
Ina Z o'2ccoo
M 2 s
CL
0 -0 do
m E
CF)
(D t 0 lu
0)
(D0)
N a,
L co C oto 0 C,
QF: u)
0 6
',A "'W i2 C: fm -i C-� .0= C-5 I--
LL
X
ip Ml
I to,
X 0
0 a 0 cc
C3
CD
LO
-0 0 LLJ C)
ch
a) 2 (D
cu m Cl)
L)
0)-r i v 0
IL LD
t.
'n o-
r�0
0
_0 0
C14
0
(D 0
70 L3 ar— Lo (.0
D
0 CL m -a CN
-.r- K-- z U-
ot C: —
Fz C)
U Q Q
r. c
W (13 70 CL
'0 z 0 to
dl
>
et (V m >
(D CD d)
N J C
-C X Z 0
(1) w 0 0
0 0 Z
M
ca
(U > ca w
LU a7z (j) Z D
3t r -
An lu
CD C) Ll i w
—A Lf) a.

Appendix 10 — Invasive Species Plan
WLS will control invasive species vegetation within the project area and provide remedial action on a
case-by-case basis. Common invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), will be removed to allow
native plants to become established within the conservation easement. Invasive species vegetation will
be controlled by approved mechanical and/or chemical methods such that the percent composition of
exotic/invasive species vegetation is less than 5% of the total riparian buffer area. Any control methods
requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture
(NCDA) rules and regulations. If necessary, these removal treatments (i.e., cutting and/or spraying) will
continue until the corrective actions demonstrate that the site is trending towards or meeting the
standard monitoring requirement.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

9
Appendix 11— Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

Appendix A
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.
ame:
ame:
U
iston
3 Proi. #97081, DIM ont.
er & Land Solutions, LLC
am "Scott" Hunt, III, PE
30 oven Ridge Road, Ste
t waterlandsolutions,com
The Lake Wendell Mitigation Project is a full -delivery project for the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) identified and
contracted to provide stream mitigation credits for permitted, unavoidable impacts in the Neuse River Basin, Cataloging Unit
03020201. The project will involve the restoration, enhancement, preservation, and permanent protection of five stream reaches
(Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5), totaling approximately 3,501 linear feet of existing streams. In addition, the adjacent riparian
wetlands and riparian buffers will be restored and the entire restored corridor will be protected by a permanent conservation
easement to be held by the State of North Carolina. The project site consists of a degraded headwater stream and riparian
wetland system that Bows through active cattle pastures, into a degraded farm pond, and then into the mature bottomiand
hardwood floodplain adjacent to Lake Wendell (Buffalo Creek). The proposed restoration project will provide significant ecological
improvements and functional uplift through habitat restoration, and through decreasing nutrient and sediment loads from the
project watershed. The project site is located in Johnston County, North Carolina, between the Town of Wendell and the
Community of Archer Lodoe.
Reviewed By:
5/3i I -�-01 o
Conditional Approved By:
Date
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date
t'7c-z1 -
EEP Project Manager
For Division Administrator
FHWA
Z— z llr� - -
For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8118105

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question ..
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
® 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 II 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
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question ..
American Indian Religious 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
® No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ 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
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
® 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
® N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the specie and/or "likely to adversely modify'
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
® 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
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

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 Treaty 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
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

W rA
r.1

Legend
-P -- Flowers Quadrangle
0 conservation Easement ` _ ..�.
North Carolina - Johnston Co.
,�'-,,jig
•�
1 1
�0
.f
z #
tot
41
r'
3
r` r
0 500 1,000
Feet .
-� Copy`right:©;2013 National Geographic Society -i -cubed
USGS FIGURE
WATER & LANDTM Lake Wendell Topographic
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Map
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 2

Legend
= Conservation Easement L VrA: Varina loamy sand, 0-2% slopes
Soil Map Units (NRCS Data from Web Soil Survey) IL_j W: Water
GeB: Gilead sandy loam, 2-8% slopes = WoB: Wedowee sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
GoA: Goldsboro sandy loam, 0-2% slopes (HYDRIC B) WoD: Wedowee sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
Ly: Lynchburg sandy loam, 0-2% slopes Wt: Wehadkee loam, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded (HYDRIC A)
MaB: Marlboro sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
Wt
M
WoD
WoB
W R1
R2 GoA W
R3
h 's R5
R4
e
V
TM NRCS FIGURE
WATER & LAND Lake Wendell Soils Map
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 3
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Lake Wendell Mitigation Project Pre -Restoration Photo Log
Showing evidence of unrestricted livestock access,
Showing severe cattle trampling and lack of riparian
resulting in increased pollutants.
buffer vegetation on R1.
a �
Wr�
a
;
J 4
Lack of deep rooting vegetation on stream bank,
stream bank erosion, and sediment deposition
Looking up -valley at a man-made pond along R3.
along R2.
�ZDda �G t
pyo` } ia'�� � J'.ii
ffr"lM.�'fi�tt"1'M.311+1✓�+.,X'.._,,,'_»
-7 —
�-�.
-
t
4y^ �,� � ! •�] f'Mz
1
T 3
Siti

Stable stream channel conditions along R4. Looking upstream at lack of riparian buffer along
RS.

May 27, 2016
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Lindsay Crocker
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000-A
Raleigh, NC 27603
J
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd
Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
waterlandsolutions.com
919-614-5111
RE: Categorical Exclusion for Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery Project ID #97081,
Contract # 6826, Neuse River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201, Johnston County, NC
Dear Ms. Crocker:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to present the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the Lake Wendell Mitigation
Project to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). Please
find enclosed two (2) hard copies of the CE as required. The project site is located in Johnston County, North Carolina,
between the Town of Wendell and the Community of Archer Lodge. In addition, the project is located in the NCDEQ
(formerly NCDENR) Sub -basin 03-04-06, in the in the Upper Buffalo Creek Sub -watershed 030202011502 study area for
the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan (RWP), in the Wake -Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan, and in the
Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050, all of the Neuse River Basin.
The Lake Wendell Mitigation Project is a full -delivery project for the NCDEQ DMS identified and contracted to provide
stream mitigation credits for permitted, unavoidable impacts in the Neuse River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201. The
project will involve the restoration, enhancement, preservation, and permanent protection of five stream reaches (Reaches
R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5), totaling approximately 3,901 linear feet of existing streams. In addition, the adjacent riparian
wetlands and riparian buffers will be restored and the entire restored corridor will be protected by a permanent
conservation easement, approximately 12 acres in size, to be held by the State of North Carolina. The project site consists
of a degraded headwater stream and riparian wetland system that flows through active cattle pastures, into a degraded
farm pond, and then into the mature bottomland hardwood floodplain adjacent to Lake Wendell (Buffalo Creek). The
proposed restoration project not only has the potential to provide at least 3,381 stream mitigation credits, but will also
provide significant ecological improvements and functional uplift through habitat restoration, and through decreasing
nutrient and sediment loads from the project watershed.
Based on WLS review of the most current information from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the following species are considered federally -listed species in
Johnson County:
Vertebrate
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Vertebrate
Picoides borealis
Invertebrate
Alasmidonta heterodon
Invertebrate
Elliptiosteinstansana
Vascular Plant
Rhus michauxii
Bald eagle
BGPA
Red -cockaded woodpecker
E
Dwarf wedgemussel
E
Tar River spinymussel
E
Michaux's sumac
E

Definitions of Federal Status Codes:
BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register (72:37346-37372), the bald eagle
was declared recovered, and removed (de -listed) form the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife. This
delisting took effect August 8, 2007. After delisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U. S. C. 668-
668d) becomes the primary law protecting bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides
a statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb". The USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle Management
Guidelines to provide guidance to land managers, landowners, and others as to how to avoid disturbing bald eagles. For
more information, visit http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/baldeagle.htm
E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
(Federal status information referenced from http://www.fws.govlraleighlspecieslcntylistliohnston.html
listliohnston.html)
Vertebrates
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Family: Accipitridae
Federal Status: Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Projection Act
Description: Distinguished by a white head and white tail feathers, Bald eagles are powerful, brown birds that may weigh
14 pounds and have a wingspan of 8 feet. Male Bald eagles are smaller, weighing as much as 10 pounds and have a wingspan
of 6 feet. Sometimes confused with Golden Eagles, Bald eagles are mostly dark brown until they are four to five years old
and acquire their characteristic coloring. Bald eagles mate for life, choosing the tops of large trees to build nests, which
they typically use and enlarge each year. Nests may reach 10 feet across and weigh a half ton. They may also have one or
more alternate nests within their breeding territory. In treeless regions, they may also nest in cliffs or on the ground. The
birds travel great distances but usually return to breeding grounds within 100 miles of the place where they were raised.
Bald eagles may live 15 to 25 years in the wild, longer in captivity. Breeding Bald eagles typically lay one to three eggs once
a year, and they hatch after about 35 days. The young eagles are flying within three months and are on their own about a
month later.
Habitat: Bald eagles live near rivers, lakes, and marshes where they can find fish, their staple food. Bald eagles will also feed
on waterfowl, turtles, rabbits, snakes, and other small animals and carrion. Bald eagles require a good food base, perching
areas, and nesting sites. Their habitat includes estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and some seacoasts. In winter, the
birds congregate near open water in tall trees for spotting prey and night roosts for sheltering.
Distribution: Bald eagle have a historic range from Alaska and Canada to northern Mexico. Based on the most recent
population figures, the USFWS estimates that there are at least 9,789 nesting pairs of bald eagles in the contiguous United
States.
Threats: Human disturbance is the greatest threat to Bald eagles, including habitat destruction and degradation, illegal
shooting and the contamination or destruction of food sources, as evidenced by history.
WLS biologists conducted numerous field reviews of the project site during the months of July, August, September, October,
November, and December 2015, as well as March and April 2016 and no occurrence or evidence of Bald eagles or their
nests were observed in the project area. Based on a review of the NCDEQ Natural Heritage Program's available Natural
Heritage Element Occurrences (NHEO) GIS shapefile Chttps://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/data-download), on April
26, 2016, there are not records of protected species within a 2 -mile radius of the project area. The implementation of
the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the Bald eagle.
(Species profile information referenced from http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/bald-and-
golden-eagle-informatio n.php)

Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis
Family: Picidae
Federal Status: Endangered, Listed October 13, 1970
Description: The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is a small bird measuring about 7 inches in length. Identifiable by its
white cheek patch and black and white barred back, the males have a few red feathers, or "cockade". These red feathers
usually remain hidden underneath black feathers between the black crown and white cheek patch unless the male is
disturbed or excited. Female RCWs lack the red cockade. Juvenile males have a red 'patch' in the center of their black crown.
This patch disappears during the fall of their first year at which time their 'red -cockades' appear.
Habitat: Red -cockaded woodpecker habitat includes forests with trees old enough for roosting, generally at least 60-120
years old, depending on species of pine. The most prominent adaptation of RCWs is their use of living pines for cavity
excavation. For nesting and roosting habitat, red -cockaded woodpeckers need open stands of pine containing trees 60
years old and older. RCWs need live, large older pines in which to excavate their cavities. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris)
are preferred, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands (stands that are primarily hardwoods,
or that have a dense hardwood understory) are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood stands 30
years old or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches or larger in diameter. In good, moderately -stocked, pine
habitat, sufficient foraging substrate can be provided on 80 to 125 acres. Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines,
and usually in those which are infected with a fungus known as red -heart disease. The aggregate of cavity trees is called a
cluster and may include 1 to 20 or more cavity trees on 3 to 60 acres. The average cluster is about 10 acres. Completed
cavities that are being actively used have numerous, small resin wells which exude sap. The birds keep the sap flowing as a
cavity defense mechanism against rat snakes and other tree climbing predators. Hardwood midstory encroachment results
in cluster abandonment; therefore, it is critical that hardwood midstory be controlled. Prescribed burning is the most
efficient and ecologically beneficial method to accomplish hardwood midstory control.
Distribution: RCWs were once considered common throughout the longleaf pine ecosystem, which covered approximately
90 million acres before European settlement. Historical population estimates are 1-1.6 million "groups", the family unit of
RCWs. The birds inhabited the open pine forests of the southeast from New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia to Florida, west
to Texas and north to portions of Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky. The longleaf pine ecosystem initially
disappeared from much of its original range because of early (1700's) European settlement, widespread commercial timber
harvesting and the naval stores/turpentine industry (1800's). Early to mid -1900 commercial tree farming, urbanization
and agriculture contributed to further declines. Much of the current habitat is also very different in quality from historical
pine forests in which RCWs evolved. Today, many southern pine forests are young and an absence of fire has created a
dense pine/hardwood forest.
Threats: The loss of suitable habitat has caused the number of RCWs to decline by approximately 99% since the time of
European settlement. The primary habitat of the RCW, the longleaf pine ecosystem, has been reduced to 3% of its original
expanse. Many RCW populations were stabilized during the 1990's due to management based on new understanding of
RCW biology and population dynamics. However, there are still populations in decline and small populations throughout
the species' current range are still in danger of extirpation.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
WLS biologists conducted numerous field reviews of the project site during the months of July, August, September, October,
November, and December 2015, as well as March and April 2016 and no suitable habitat for, occurrence of, or evidence of
Red -cockaded woodpecker was observed in the project area. Southern pine species are present in some parts of the project
area, however, there are no pines that appeared to be 60 to 120 years old and the forest communities present are too
fragmented to provide suitable habitat. Based on a review of the NCDEQ Natural Heritage Program's available Natural
Heritage Element Occurrences (NHEO) GIS shapefile (https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/data-download), on April
26, 2016, there are not records of protected species within a 2 -mile radius of the project area. The implementation of
the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the Red -cockaded woodpecker.
(Species profile information referenced from http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_red-cockaded_woodpecker.html)

Invertebrates
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Family: Cashew (Unionidae)
Federal Status: Endangered, Listed March 14, 1990
Description: The dwarf wedgemussel is a small bivalve, rarely exceeding 45 mm in length. Clean young shells are usually
greenish-brown with green rays. As the animal ages, the shell color becomes obscured by diatoms or mineral deposits and
appears black or brown. The shell is thin but does thicken somewhat with age, especially toward the anterior end. The
anterior end is rounded while the posterior end is angular forming a point near the p osteri o -ventral margin. The ventral
margin is only slightly curved. The nacre is bluish -white, appearing whiter in the thicker anterior end. The most distinctive
shell character of the dwarf wedgemussel is the arrangement of the lateral teeth. There are two lateral teeth in the right
valve and one in the left valve. The typical arrangement for most freshwater mussel species consists of two lateral teeth in
the left valve and one in the right valve. The incurrent and excurrent apertures and their associated papillae are usually
white. The foot and other organs are also white. Maximum age for the dwarf wedgemussel is around twelve years. The
species is a bradytictic breeder, meaning that females become gravid in the early fall and glochidia are released by mid -
spring. The tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum), and mottled sulpin (Cottus bairdl)
have been identified as hosts for the dwarf wedgemussel. An anadromous fish may also serve as a host species but this has
not been documented for the dwarf wedgemussel in the southern portion of its range.
Habitat: The dwarf wedgemussel appears to be a generalist in terms of its preference for stream size, substrate and flow
conditions - it inhabits small streams less than five meters wide to large rivers more than 100 meters wide; it is found in a
variety of substrate types including clay, sand, gravel and pebble, and sometimes in silt depositional areas near banks; and
it usually inhabits hydrologically stable areas, including very shallow water along streambanks and under root mats, but it
has also been found at depths of 25 feet in the Connecticut River. Dwarf wedgemussels are often patchily distributed in
rivers.
Distribution: Historically, the dwarf wedgemussel was found from the Petitcodiac River in New Brunswick, Canada to the
Neuse River in North Carolina, and was found in 15 major Atlantic slope river systems. It is now extinct in Canada, extirpated
in the Neuse River, and present in low densities through -out much of its former range. It is known from 54 locations in 15
major watersheds, with the largest populations in the Connecticut River watershed. North Carolina supports the greatest
number of known sites: Neuse River Basin: Orange County, Wake County, Johnston County, Wilson County, and Nash
County; Tar River Basin: Person County, Granville County, Vance County, Franklin County, Warren County, Halifax County,
and Nash County. Unfortunately, most of these populations are very small and isolated.
Threats: Impacts including riparian disturbance, pollution, sedimentation, impoundments, artificial flow regimes, and
stream fragmentation disrupt mussel life cycles, prevent host fish migration, block gene flow, and prohibit recolonization,
resulting in reduced recruitment rates, decreased population densities and increased probability of local extinctions. Toxic
effects from industrial, domestic and agricultural pollution are the primary threats to this mussel's survival. Increased
acidity, caused by the mobilization of toxic metals by acid rain, is thought to be one of the chief causes of the species'
extirpation from the Fort River in Massachusetts. One of the largest remaining populations has declined dramatically in the
Ashuelot River, downstream of a golf course. This population probably has been affected by fungicides, herbicides,
insecticides, and fertilizers which have been applied to the golf course. Agricultural runoff from adjacent corn fields and
pastures also is contributing to this population's decline. Freshwater mussels, including the dwarf wedgemussel, are
sensitive to potassium, zinc, copper, cadmium, and other elements associated with industrial pollution. Short life spans,
low fecundity, high degree of host specificity, limited dispersal ability of its primary host, low population densities, coupled
with the threats facing the species, likely all contribute to the endangered status of the dwarf wedgemussel.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
WLS biologists conducted numerous field reviews of the project site during the months of July, August, September, October,
November, and December 2015, as well as March and April 2016 and no occurrences of Dwarf wedgemussel were
observed in the project area. Due to the small size and landscape position of the headwater stream systems that comprise
the project, suitable habitat for Dwarf wedgemussel does not exist within the project area. Based on a review of the
NCDEQ Natural Heritage Program's available Natural Heritage Element Occurrences (NHEO)
GIS shapefile (https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/data-download), on April 26, 2016, there are not records
of protected species

within a 2 -mile radius of the project area. The implementation of the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the
Dwarf wedgemussel.
(Species profile information referenced from http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es-dwarf wedgemussel.html)
Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana)
Family: Cashew (Unionidae)
Federal Status: Endangered, Listed July 29, 1985
Description: The Tar River spinymussel is one of only three freshwater mussels with spines in the world. The brownish
shell is rhomboid -shaped, up to 2.4 inches (6 cm) long, with 0-6 spines on each valve. The shell is rather smooth and shiny,
with concentric rings, and ends in a blunt point. Younger individuals are orange -brown with greenish rays streaking
outward from the hinge area. Adults are darker with less distinct rays. One to three small thin ridges run on the interior
surface of the shell from the beak cavity to the lower ventral area of the shell. The anterior half of the shell's inner surface
is salmon -colored, the posterior half is iridescent blue. Juveniles may have up to 12 spines, however, adults tend to lose
their spines as they mature. Their method of reproduction is similar among freshwater mussel species. Males release sperm
into the water column, and the sperm are taken in by the females through their siphons as they respire. The eggs are
fertilized and develop within the females' gills into larvae (glochidia). The females release the glochidia that must then
attach to the gills or fins of specific fish species. The glochida transform into juvenile mussels and drop off the fish onto the
stream bottom.
Habitat: The Tar River spinymussel lives in relatively silt -free uncompacted gravel and/or coarse sand in fast -flowing, well
oxygenated stream reaches. It is found in association with other mussels, but it is never very numerous. It feeds by
syphoning and filtering small food particles that are suspended in the water.
Distribution: The Tar River spinymussel is endemic only to the Tar River and Neuse River systems in North Carolina. In the
Tar River system, the species has been documented only from the mainstem of the Tar River, Shocco Creek, Fishing Creek,
Little Fishing Creek, and Swift Creek. In the Neuse River system, the species has been documented only from the Little River.
Based on the most recent survey data, the species may be extirpated from the mainstem of the Tar River (last observation
was a single individual in 2000) and Shocco Creek (last and only record was a shell found in 1993). Only 1 individual was
found during the most recent surveys in Swift Creek (2004 - 2005); only 16 individuals in Little Fishing Creek (2008 and
2009); only 4 individuals in Fishing Creek (2008 and 2009); and, only 3 individuals have been found during the most recent
surveys (2006-2008) of the Little River (Neuse River basin) (one each in 2006, 2007, and 2008 in same general area of the
river).
Threats: Based on available data, all surviving populations of the Tar River spinymussel are small to extremely small in size,
highly fragmented and isolated from one another, and are in decline. The primary factors affecting the species and its habitat
appear to be primarily stream impacts (sedimentation, bank instability, loss of instream habitat) associated with the loss
of forest lands and forested riparian buffers, and poorly controlled stormwater runoff of silt and other pollutants from
forestry and agricultural (livestock and row crop farming) activities, development activities, and road construction,
operation, and maintenance. Pesticides were implicated in the largest known mortality event for Tar River spinymussel. In
addition to the above, point source discharges continue to affect and threaten habitat quality in the Tar River, and Wake
County, North Carolina has proposed a new water supply reservoir and wastewater discharge which threatens the Little
River population of the species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
WLS biologists conducted numerous field reviews of the project site during the months of July, August, September, October,
November, and December 2015, as well as March and April 2016 and no occurrences of Tar River spinymussel
were observed in the project area. Due to the small size and landscape position of the headwater stream systems that
comprise the project, suitable habitat for Tar River spinymussel does not exist within the project area. Based on a
review of the NCDEQ Natural Heritage Program's available Natural Heritage Element Occurrences (NHEO)
GIS shapefile (https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/data-download), on April 26, 2016, there are not records of
protected species within a 2 -mile radius of the project area. The implementation of the proposed project will not have an
adverse effect on the Tar River spinymussel.

(Species profile information referenced from http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es tar spinymussel.html)
Vascular Plants
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Family: Cashew (Anacardiaceae)
Federal Status: Endangered, listed September 28, 1989
Best Search Time: May through October
Description: Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems from 1 - 3 feet (ft) (30.5 - 91
centimeters, cm) in height. The compound leaves contain evenly serrated, oblong to lanceolate, acuminate leaflets. Most
plants are unisexual; however, more recent observations have revealed plants with both male and female flowers on one
plant. The flowers are small, borne in a terminal, erect, dense cluster, and colored greenish yellow to white. Flowering
usually occurs from June to July; while the fruit, a red drupe, is produced through the months of August to October.
Habitat: Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. Apparently, this plant
survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area. Several populations in North Carolina
are on highway rights -of way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially maintained clearings. Two other populations are in
areas with periodic fires, and two populations exist on sites undergoing natural succession. One population is situated in a
natural opening on the rim of a Carolina bay.
Distribution: Michaux's sumac is endemic to the coastal plain and piedmont of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, and Florida. The largest population known is located at Fort Pickett in Virginia, but the most populations are
located in the North Carolina piedmont and sandhills. Currently, the plant is extant in the following North Carolina counties:
Cumberland, Davie, Durham, Franklin, Hoke, Moore, Nash, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland and Wake. It is considered historic
in the following counties: Johnston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Orange, Union and Wilson.
Threats: Perhaps the most crucial factor endangering this species is its low reproductive capacity. A low percentage of the
plant's remaining populations have both male and female plants. The plant is also threatened by fire suppression and
habitat destruction due to residential and industrial development. Michaux's sumac populations have been destroyed by
residential and commercial development, conversion of a site to a pine plantation, the construction of a water tower,
highways and herbicides used for power line maintenance.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
WLS biologists conducted numerous field reviews of the project site during the months of July, August, September, October,
November, and December 2015, as well as March and April 2016 and no suitable habitat for or occurrences of Michaux's
sumac were discovered in the project area. Based on a review of the NCDEQ Natural Heritage Program's available Natural
Heritage Element Occurrences (NHEO) GIS shapefile (https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/data-download), on April
26, 2016, there are not records of protected species within a 2 -mile radius of the project area. The implementation of
the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on Michaux's sumac.
(Species profile information referenced from http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_michauxs_sumac.html)
The implementation of the Lake Wendell Mitigation Project is considered a "Ground -disturbing Activity", and therefore the
required "Appendix A, Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement Program Projects, Version 1.4" "Checklist"
(Parts 1 through 3) has been completed and is attached. Copies of required correspondence and supporting documentation,
including the following are also attached:
• Project figures and photolog sent to each of the review/regulatory agencies
o Figure 1 Project Location
o Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
o Figure 3 NRCS Soils Map
o Figure 4 LiDAR Map

o Lake Wendell Mitigation Project Pre -Restoration Photo Log
• Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Environmental Risk Review Report
• Copy of correspondence with and resulting finding of "not likely to adversely affect" from the USFWS
• Copy of correspondence with and resulting minimal comments from the NCWRC
• Copy of correspondence with and resulting finding of "no comment" from the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (NCSHPO) due to their finding of no historic resources that would be affected by the project
• NCSHPO Map of Records
• Copy of correspondence with and resulting finding regarding farmland conversion from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
• USDA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Worksheet (Form AD -1006)
• Copy of written landowner correspondence required under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act
Submission of this Categorical Exclusion document fulfills the environmental documentation requirements mandated
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508).
Please contact me if you have any further questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
William "Scott" Hunt, I1I, PE
Senior Water Resources Engineer
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: scott(@waterlandsolutions.com

May 2, 2016
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Attn: Emily Wells, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
PO Box 3376
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
J
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd
Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
waterlandsolutions.com
919-614-5111
RE: Categorical Exclusion for Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery Project ID #97081,
Contract # 6826, Neuse River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201, Johnston County, NC
Dear Ms. Wells:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) respectfully requests review and comment from the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) on any possible concerns they may have with regards to the implementation of the Lake Wendell
Mitigation Project. Please note that this request is in support of the development of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the
referenced project.
The project site is located in Johnston County, North Carolina, between the Town of Wendell and the Community of Archer
Lodge. In addition, the project is located in the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) (formerly
NCDENR) Sub -basin 03-04-06, in the Upper Buffalo Creek Sub -watershed 030202011502 study area for the Neuse 01
Regional Watershed Plan (RWP), in the Wake -Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan, and in the Targeted Local
Watershed 03020201180050, all of the Neuse River Basin.
The Lake Wendell Mitigation Project is a full -delivery project for the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) identified
and contracted to provide stream mitigation credits for permitted, unavoidable impacts in the Neuse River Basin, Cataloging
Unit 03020201. The project will involve the restoration, enhancement, preservation, and permanent protection of five
stream reaches (Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5), totaling approximately 3,901 linear feet of existing streams. In addition,
the adjacent riparian wetlands and riparian buffers will be restored and the entire restored corridor will be protected by a
permanent conservation easement to be held by the State of North Carolina. The project site consists of a degraded
headwater stream and riparian wetland system that flows through active cattle pastures, into a degraded farm pond, and
then into the mature bottomland hardwood floodplain adjacent to Lake Wendell (Buffalo Creek). The proposed restoration
project not only has the potential to provide at least 3,381 stream mitigation credits, but will also provide significant
ecological improvements and functional uplift through habitat restoration, and through decreasing nutrient and sediment
loads from the project watershed.
Based on WLS review of the most current information from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the following species are considered federally -listed species in
Johnston County:
Vertebrate
Holiaeetus leucocepholus
Vertebrate
Picoides borealis
Invertebrate
Alasmidonta heterodon
Invertebrate
Elliptiosteinstansana
Bald eagle
Red -cockaded woodpecker
Dwarf wedgemussel
Tar River spinymussel
BGPA

Vascular Plant Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac
Definitions of Federal Status Codes:
BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register (72:37346-37372), the bald eagle
was declared recovered, and removed (de -listed) form the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife. This
delisting took effect August 8, 2007. After delisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U. S. C. 668-
668d) becomes the primary law protecting bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides
a statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb". The USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle Management
Guidelines to provide guidance to land managers, landowners, and others as to how to avoid disturbing bald eagles. For
more information, visit http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/baldeagle.htm
E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
(Federal status information referenced from httl2:/lwww.fws.gov/raleighlsl2ecies/cniylist/iohnston.html)
list/johnston.html)
To assist with your review, please find the following supporting documentation attached:
• Project figures including:
o Figure 1 Project Location
o Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
o Figure 3 NRCS Soils Map
o Figure 4 LiDAR Map
• Project pre -restoration photo log
If WLS has not received response from you within 30 days, we will assume that USFWS does not have any comment or
information relevant to the implementation of this project at the current time. We thank you in advance for your timely
response, input, and cooperation. Please contact me if you have any further questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
William "Scott" Hunt, III, PE
Senior Water Resources Engineer
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Wendell Road
Wendell, NC 27591
Inquiry Number: 4603012.2s
April 27, 2016
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
www.edrnet.comt.com Shelton, CT 06484
(rEDROEnvironmental Data Resources Inc Toll Free: 2.0050
FORM-LBE-CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary
ES1
Overview Map-----------------------------------------------------------
2
DetailMap--------------------------------------------------------------
3
Map Findings Summary
4
MapFindings------------------------------------------------------------
8
Orphan Summary
9
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-13
Physical Setting Source Map Findings
A-15
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.
TC4603012.2s 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
WENDELL ROAD
WENDELL, NC 27591
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.7373910 - 35° 44' 14.60"
78.3538050 - 78° 21' 13.69"
Zone 17
739316.4
3957851.2
268 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 5948586 FLOWERS, NC
Version Date: 2013
Northeast Map: 5948640 ZEBULON, NC
Version Date: 2013
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
Portions of Photo from: 20120531
Source: USDA
TC4603012.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Target Property Address:
WENDELL ROAD
WENDELL, NC 27591
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS
NO MAPPED SITES FOUND
MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
DATABASE ACRONYMS
RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ELEVATION DIRECTION
4603012.2s 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
TC4603012.2s 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
LUST Regional UST Database
INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST ----------------- State Trust Fund Database
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
TC4603012.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SWRCY---------------------- Recycling Center Listing
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
IMD--------------------------
Incident Management Database
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
TC4603012.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US MINES --------------------
Mines Master Index File
FINDS
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
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 not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC4603012.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
TC4603012.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

OVERVIEW MAP - 4603012.2S
SITE NAME: Lake Wendell Mitigation Project CLIENT: Water & Land Solutions
ADDRESS: Wendell Road CONTACT: William Scott Hunt, III
Wendell NC 27591 INQUIRY #: 4603012.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.737391 / 78.353805 DATE: April 27, 2016 8:58 am
Copyright (o 2016 EDR, Inc. uz 2015 TornTom Rel. 2016.
Target Property
o Iia
1/2 1 Miles
A,
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
Indian Reservations BIA
Hazardous Substance
�
Sites at elevations lower than
County Boundary
Disposal Sites
the target property
0
100 -year flood zone
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
0
500 flood zone
ElNational
Priority List Sites
year
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: Lake Wendell Mitigation Project CLIENT: Water & Land Solutions
ADDRESS: Wendell Road CONTACT: William Scott Hunt, III
Wendell NC 27591 INQUIRY #: 4603012.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.737391 / 78.353805 DATE: April 27, 2016 8:58 am
Copyright (o 2016 EDR, Inc. uz 2015 TornTom Rel. 2016.

DETAIL MAP - 4603012.2S
0 1/16 1/6 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: Lake Wendell Mitigation Project CLIENT: Water & Land Solutions
ADDRESS: Wendell Road CONTACT: William Scott Hunt, III
Wendell NC 27591 INQUIRY #: 4603012.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.737391 / 78.353805 DATE: April 27, 2016 8:59 am
Copyright (o 2016 EDR, Inc. (c) 2015 TornTom Rel. 2016.
Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
r
Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/16 1/6 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: Lake Wendell Mitigation Project CLIENT: Water & Land Solutions
ADDRESS: Wendell Road CONTACT: William Scott Hunt, III
Wendell NC 27591 INQUIRY #: 4603012.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.737391 / 78.353805 DATE: April 27, 2016 8:59 am
Copyright (o 2016 EDR, Inc. (c) 2015 TornTom 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
TC4603012.2s 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
0
NR
NR
0
INDIAN LUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LUST TRUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
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
0
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
NR
NR
NR 0
TC4603012.2s 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
TC4603012.2s 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
TC4603012.2s 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
TC4603012.2s 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
0
0 0
0
TC4603012.2s Page 7

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
NO SITES FOUND
TC4603012.2s Page 8

Count: 0 records.
ORPHAN SUMMARY
City EDR ID Site Name Site Address Zip Database(s)
NO SITES FOUND
TC4603012.2s Page 9

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency
on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required.
Number of Days to Update: Provides confirmation that EDR is reporting records that have been updated within 90 days
from the date the government agency made the information available to the public.
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL: National Priority List
National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority
cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon
coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC) and regional EPA offices.
Date of Government Version: 03/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/05/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/15/2016
Number of Days to Update: 10
NPL Site Boundaries
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/05/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/18/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Sources:
EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC)
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 1
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 3
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 4
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 5
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 10
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 7
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 9
Telephone: [phone]
Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites
A site that has been proposed for listing on the National Priorities List through the issuance of a proposed rule
in the Federal Register. EPA then accepts public comments on the site, responds to the comments, and places on
the NPL those sites that continue to meet the requirements for listing.
Date of Government Version: 03/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/05/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/15/2016
Number of Days to Update: 10
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/05/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/18/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by CERCLA of 1980, the USEPA has the authority
to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner
received notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens.
Date of Government Version: 10/15/1991
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/02/1994
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/1994
Number of Days to Update: 56
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/15/2011
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/28/2011
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
TC4603012.2s Page GR -1

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL: National Priority List Deletions
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where no further response is appropriate.
Date of Government Version: 03/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/05/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/15/2016
Number of Days to Update: 10
Federal CERCLIS list
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/05/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/18/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FEDERAL FACILITY: Federal Facility Site Information listing
A listing of National Priority List (NPL) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites found in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Database where EPA Federal Facilities
Restoration and Reuse Office is involved in cleanup activities.
Date of Government Version: 03/26/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/08/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 64
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/18/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
SEMS: Superfund Enterprise Management System
SEMS (Superfund Enterprise Management System) tracks hazardous waste sites, potentially hazardous waste sites,
and remedial activities performed in support of EPA's Superfund Program across the United States. The list was
formerly know as CERCLIS, renamed to SEMS by the EPA in 2015. The list contains data on potentially hazardous
waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons,
pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
This dataset also contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and the
sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.
Date of Government Version: 03/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/05/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/15/2016
Number of Days to Update: 10
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/05/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/01/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
SEMS -ARCHIVE: Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
TC4603012.2s Page GR -2

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SEMS -ARCHIVE (Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive) tracks sites that have no further interest under
the Federal Superfund Program based on available information. The list was formerly known as the CERCLIS-NFRAP,
renamed to SEMS ARCHIVE by the EPA in 2015. EPA may perform a minimal level of assessment work at a site while
it is archived if site conditions change and/or new information becomes available. Archived sites have been removed
and archived from the inventory of SEMS sites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of EPA's knowledge,
assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list the
site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or
other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time. The decision does not necessarily mean
that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that. based upon available information, the
location is not judged to be potential NPL site.
Date of Government Version: 03/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/05/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/15/2016
Number of Days to Update: 10
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/05/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/01/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report
CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity.
Date of Government Version: 12/09/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/02/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/05/2016
Number of Days to Update: 34
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RCRA-TSDF: RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Transporters are individuals or entities that
move hazardous waste from the generator offsite to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the
waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste.
Date of Government Version: 12/09/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/02/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/05/2016
Number of Days to Update: 34
Federal RCRA generators list
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RCRA-LQG: RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Large quantity generators (LQGs) generate
over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 12/09/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/02/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/05/2016
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC4603012.2s Page GR -3

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
RCRA-SQG: RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate
between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 12/09/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/02/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/05/2016
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RCRA-CESQG: RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators
(CESQGs) generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 12/09/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/02/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/05/2016
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS: Land Use Control Information System
LUCIS contains records of land use control information pertaining to the former Navy Base Realignment and Closure
properties.
Date of Government Version: 05/28/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/29/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 13
Source: Department of the Navy
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/16/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/30/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US ENG CONTROLS: Engineering Controls Sites List
A listing of sites with engineering controls in place. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building
foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental
media or effect human health.
Date of Government Version: 09/10/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/11/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/03/2015
Number of Days to Update: 53
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/29/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/13/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US INST CONTROL: Sites with Institutional Controls
A listing of sites with institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures,
such as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and post remediation
care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site. Deed restrictions are generally
required as part of the institutional controls.
Date of Government Version: 09/10/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/11/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/03/2015
Number of Days to Update: 53
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/29/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/13/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC4603012.2s Page GR -4

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Federal ERNS list
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System
Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous
substances.
Date of Government Version: 06/22/2015 Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/26/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/16/2015 Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2016
Number of Days to Update: 82 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Annually
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
HSDS: Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
Locations of uncontrolled and unregulated hazardous waste sites. The file includes sites on the National Priority
List as well as those on the state priority list.
Date of Government Version: 08/09/2011 Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/08/2011 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/05/2011 Last EDR Contact: 02/01/2016
Number of Days to Update: 27 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/16/2016
Data Release Frequency: Biennially
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS: Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites
may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds
(state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially
responsible parties. Available information varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 02/15/2016 Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/11/2016 Last EDR Contact: 03/17/2016
Number of Days to Update: 25 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/27/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF: List of Solid Waste Facilities
Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal
facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities
or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal
sites.
Date of Government Version: 12/28/2015 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/30/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/08/2016 Last EDR Contact: 03/31/2016
Number of Days to Update: 40 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
OLI: Old Landfill Inventory
Old landfill inventory location information. (Does not include no further action sites and other agency lead
sites).
Date of Government Version: 03/27/2015 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/17/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/30/2015 Last EDR Contact: 04/15/2016
Number of Days to Update: 13 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/25/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC4603012.2s Page GR -5

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST: Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
A listing of leaking aboveground storage tank site locations.
Date of Government Version: 02/05/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/11/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/11/2016 Last EDR Contact: 02/11/2016
Number of Days to Update: 60 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/23/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
LUST: Regional UST Database
This database contains information obtained from the Regional Offices. It provides a more detailed explanation
of current and historic activity for individual sites, as well as what was previously found in the Incident Management
Database. Sites in this database with Incident Numbers are considered LUSTs.
Date of Government Version: 02/05/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/11/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/11/2016 Last EDR Contact: 02/11/2016
Number of Days to Update: 60 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/23/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R5: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Leaking underground storage tanks located on Indian Land in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Date of Government Version: 11/04/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/13/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/04/2016
Number of Days to Update: 52
Source: EPA, Region 5
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST R4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTS on Indian land in Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina.
Date of Government Version: 11/24/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/01/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/04/2016
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: EPA Region 4
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
INDIAN LUST R6: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in New Mexico and Oklahoma.
Date of Government Version: 08/20/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/30/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 111
Source: EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST R10: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
Date of Government Version: 01/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/08/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 41
Source: EPA Region 10
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R9: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Nevada
TC4603012.2s Page GR -6

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 01/08/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/08/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/09/2015
Number of Days to Update: 32
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/27/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTS on Indian land in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
Date of Government Version: 10/13/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/23/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 118
Source: EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R7: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska
Date of Government Version: 03/30/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/28/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/22/2015
Number of Days to Update: 55
Source: EPA Region 7
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
A listing of leaking underground storage tank locations on Indian Land.
Date of Government Version: 10/27/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/29/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/04/2016
Number of Days to Update: 67
Source: EPA Region 1
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/22/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
LUST TRUST: State Trust Fund Database
This database contains information about claims against the State Trust Funds for reimbursements for expenses
incurred while remediating Leaking USTs.
Date of Government Version: 01/08/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/13/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/08/2016 Last EDR Contact: 04/13/2016
Number of Days to Update: 26 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/25/2016
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST: Underground Storage Tank Listing
A listing of all FEMA owned underground storage tanks.
Date of Government Version: 01/01/2010
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/16/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2010
Number of Days to Update: 55
Source: FEMA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/11/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/25/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
UST: Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST's are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available
information varies by state program.
TC4603012.2s Page GR -7

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 02/05/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/11/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/11/2016 Last EDR Contact: 02/11/2016
Number of Days to Update: 60 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/23/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
AST: AST Database
Facilities with aboveground storage tanks that have a capacity greater than 21,000 gallons.
Date of Government Version: 04/14/2015 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/23/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/17/2015 Last EDR Contact: 03/21/2016
Number of Days to Update: 24 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/04/2016
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
INDIAN UST R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 5 (Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 11/05/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/13/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/04/2016
Number of Days to Update: 52
Source: EPA Region 5
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN UST R6: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 6 (Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas and 65 Tribes).
Date of Government Version: 08/20/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/30/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 111
Source: EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
INDIAN UST R7: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 7 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and 9 Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 09/23/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/25/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015
Number of Days to Update: 65
Source: EPA Region 7
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN UST R8: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and 27 Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 10/13/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/23/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 118
Source: EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN UST R1: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and ten Tribal
Nations).
TC4603012.2s Page GR -8

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 10/20/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/29/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/04/2016
Number of Days to Update: 67
Source: EPA, Region 1
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/22/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN UST R10: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 01/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/08/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 41
Source: EPA Region 10
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN UST R4: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
and Tribal Nations)
Date of Government Version: 11/24/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/01/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/04/2016
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: EPA Region 4
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
INDIAN UST R9: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 9 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 12/14/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/13/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 28
Source: EPA Region 9
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/27/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
State and tribal institutional control/ engineering control registries
INST CONTROL: No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
A land use restricted site is a property where there are limits or requirements on future use of the property
due to varying levels of cleanup possible, practical, or necessary at the site.
Date of Government Version: 02/15/2016 Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/11/2016 Last EDR Contact: 03/17/2016
Number of Days to Update: 25 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/27/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP: Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
Responsible Party Voluntary Action site locations.
Date of Government Version: 02/15/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/11/2016 Last EDR Contact: 03/17/2016
Number of Days to Update: 25 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/27/2016
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
TC4603012.2s Page GR -9

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
INDIAN VCP R1: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 1.
Date of Government Version: 07/27/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/29/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 142
Source: EPA, Region 1
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/01/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN VCP R7: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Lisitng
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 7.
Date of Government Version: 03/20/2008
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2008
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2008
Number of Days to Update: 27
State and tribal Brownfields sites
Source: EPA, Region 7
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009
Data Release Frequency: Varies
BROWNFIELDS: Brownfields Projects Inventory
A brownfield site is an abandoned, idled, or underused property where the threat of environmental contamination
has hindered its redevelopment. All of the sites in the inventory are working toward a brownfield agreement for
cleanup and liabitliy control.
Date of Government Version: 01/04/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/07/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/08/2016
Number of Days to Update: 32
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/07/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/18/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence
or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these
properties takes development pressures off of undeveloped, open land, and both improves and protects the environment.
Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) stores information reported by EPA Brownfields
grant recipients on brownfields properties assessed or cleaned up with grant funding as well as information on
Targeted Brownfields Assessments performed by EPA Regions. A listing of ACRES Brownfield sites is obtained from
Cleanups in My Community. Cleanups in My Community provides information on Brownfields properties for which information
is reported back to EPA, as well as areas served by Brownfields grant programs.
Date of Government Version: 12/22/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/23/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 57
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/22/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/04/2016
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY: Recycling Center Listing
A listing of recycling center locations.
Date of Government Version: 02/23/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/25/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/11/2016 Last EDR Contact: 02/02/2016
Number of Days to Update: 46 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/16/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC4603012.2s Page GR -10

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
HIST LF: Solid Waste Facility Listing
A listing of solid waste facilities.
Date of Government Version: 11/06/2006 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/13/2007 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/02/2007 Last EDR Contact: 01/19/2009
Number of Days to Update: 17 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
INDIAN ODI: Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
Location of open dumps on Indian land.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/1998
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/03/2007
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/24/2008
Number of Days to Update: 52
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/01/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/16/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
DEBRIS REGION 9: Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
A listing of illegal dump sites location on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation located in eastern Riverside
County and northern Imperial County, California.
Date of Government Version: 01/12/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/07/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/21/2009
Number of Days to Update: 137
Source: EPA, Region 9
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/21/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/08/2016
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
ODI: Open Dump Inventory
An open dump is defined as a disposal facility that does not comply with one or more of the Part 257 or Part 258
Subtitle D Criteria.
Date of Government Version: 06/30/1985
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/09/2004
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/17/2004
Number of Days to Update: 39
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/09/2004
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL: National Clandestine Laboratory Register
A listing of clandestine drug lab locations that have been removed from the DEAs National Clandestine Laboratory
Register.
Date of Government Version: 09/17/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/04/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 76
Source: Drug Enforcement Administration
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/01/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/13/2016
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
US CDL: Clandestine Drug Labs
A listing of clandestine drug lab locations. The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department') provides this
web site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported
they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites.
In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry
and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example,
contacting local law enforcement and local health departments.
Date of Government Version: 09/17/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/04/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 76
Source: Drug Enforcement Administration
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/01/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/13/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC4603012.2s Page GR -11

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Local Land Records
LIENS 2: CERCLA Lien Information
A Federal CERCLA ('Superfund') lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent
Superfund monies. These monies are spent to investigate and address releases and threatened releases of contamination.
CERCLIS provides information as to the identity of these sites and properties.
Date of Government Version: 02/18/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/18/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/24/2014
Number of Days to Update: 37
Records of Emergency Release Reports
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/11/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT.
Date of Government Version: 06/24/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/26/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/02/2015
Number of Days to Update: 68
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Annually
SPILLS: Spills Incident Listing
A listing spills, hazardous material releases, sanitary sewer overflows, wastewater treatment plant bypasses and
upsets, citizen complaints, and any other environmental emergency calls reported to the agency.
Date of Government Version: 03/15/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/18/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/11/2016 Last EDR Contact: 03/14/2016
Number of Days to Update: 24 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/27/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
IMD: Incident Management Database
Groundwater and/or soil contamination incidents
Date of Government Version: 07/21/2006 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/01/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/23/2006 Last EDR Contact: 07/01/2011
Number of Days to Update: 22 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/17/2011
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
SPILLS 90: SPILLS90 data from FirstSearch
Spills 90 includes those spill and release records available exclusively from FirstSearch databases. Typically,
they may include chemical, oil and/or hazardous substance spills recorded after 1990. Duplicate records that are
already included in EDR incident and release records are not included in Spills 90.
Date of Government Version: 09/27/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2013
Number of Days to Update: 62
Source: FirstSearch
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 01/03/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
SPILLS 80: SPILLS80 data from FirstSearch
Spills 80 includes those spill and release records available from FirstSearch databases prior to 1990. Typically,
they may include chemical, oil and/or hazardous substance spills recorded before 1990. Duplicate records that
are already included in EDR incident and release records are not included in Spills 80.
TC4603012.2s Page GR -12

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 06/14/2001
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2013
Number of Days to Update: 62
Other Ascertainable Records
Source: FirstSearch
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 01/03/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
RCRA NonGen / NLR: RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non -Generators do not presently generate hazardous
waste.
Date of Government Version: 12/09/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/02/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/05/2016
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
FUDS: Formerly Used Defense Sites
The listing includes locations of Formerly Used Defense Sites properties where the US Army Corps of Engineers
is actively working or will take necessary cleanup actions.
Date of Government Version: 01/31/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/08/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 97
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/11/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/20/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
DOD: Department of Defense Sites
This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that
have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/10/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007
Number of Days to Update: 62
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/15/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/25/2016
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
FEDLAND: Federal and Indian Lands
Federally and Indian administrated lands of the United States. Lands included are administrated by: Army Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, National Wild and Scenic River, National Wildlife Refuge, Public Domain Land,
Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Wildlife Management Area, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of Justice, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/06/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007
Number of Days to Update: 339
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/15/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/25/2016
Data Release Frequency: N/A
SCRD DRYCLEANERS: State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. EPA Office
of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. It is comprised of representatives of states with established
drycleaner remediation programs. Currently the member states are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
TC4603012.2s Page GR -13

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 03/07/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/09/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/02/2011
Number of Days to Update: 54
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/19/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/30/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US FIN ASSUR: Financial Assurance Information
All owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are required to provide
proof that they will have sufficient funds to pay for the clean up, closure, and post -closure care of their facilities.
Date of Government Version: 09/01/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/03/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/03/2015
Number of Days to Update: 61
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/16/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/30/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
EPA WATCH LIST: EPA WATCH LIST
EPA maintains a "Watch List' to facilitate dialogue between EPA, state and local environmental agencies on enforcement
matters relating to facilities with alleged violations identified as either significant or high priority. Being
on the Watch List does not mean that the facility has actually violated the law only that an investigation by
EPA or a state or local environmental agency has led those organizations to allege that an unproven violation
has in fact occurred. Being on the Watch List does not represent a higher level of concern regarding the alleged
violations that were detected, but instead indicates cases requiring additional dialogue between EPA, state and
local agencies - primarily because of the length of time the alleged violation has gone unaddressed or unresolved.
Date of Government Version: 08/30/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/17/2014
Number of Days to Update: 88
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/09/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/23/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
2020 COR ACTION: 2020 Corrective Action Program List
The EPA has set ambitious goals for the RCRA Corrective Action program by creating the 2020 Corrective Action
Universe. This RCRA cleanup baseline includes facilities expected to need corrective action. The 2020 universe
contains a wide variety of sites. Some properties are heavily contaminated while others were contaminated but
have since been cleaned up. Still others have not been fully investigated yet, and may require little or no remediation.
Inclusion in the 2020 Universe does not necessarily imply failure on the part of a facility to meet its RCRA obligations.
Date of Government Version: 04/22/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/03/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/09/2015
Number of Days to Update: 6
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/12/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/23/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant
site.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/15/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015
Number of Days to Update: 14
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/24/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/04/2016
Data Release Frequency: Every 4 Years
TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and
land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313.
TC4603012.2s Page GR -14

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/24/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/05/2016
Number of Days to Update: 133
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/24/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/06/2016
Data Release Frequency: Annually
SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems
Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all
registered pesticide -producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March
1 st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices
being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/10/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/25/2011
Number of Days to Update: 77
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Annually
ROD: Records Of Decision
Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical
and health information to aid in the cleanup.
Date of Government Version: 11/25/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/12/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/24/2014
Number of Days to Update: 74
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/08/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/20/2016
Data Release Frequency: Annually
RMP: Risk Management Plans
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, it required EPA to publish regulations and guidance
for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances. The Risk Management Program
Rule (RMP Rule) was written to implement Section 112(r) of these amendments. The rule, which built upon existing
industry codes and standards, requires companies of all sizes that use certain flammable and toxic substances
to develop a Risk Management Program, which includes a(n): Hazard assessment that details the potential effects
of an accidental release, an accident history of the last five years, and an evaluation of worst-case and alternative
accidental releases; Prevention program that includes safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and employee
training measures; and Emergency response program that spells out emergency health care, employee training measures
and procedures for informing the public and response agencies (e.g the fire department) should an accident occur.
Date of Government Version: 08/01/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/26/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/03/2015
Number of Days to Update: 69
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/25/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA
pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration
actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of
the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources
made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database.
Date of Government Version: 04/17/1995
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/03/1995
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/07/1995
Number of Days to Update: 35
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/02/2008
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/01/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
TC4603012.2s Page GR -15

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
PRP: Potentially Responsible Parties
A listing of verified Potentially Responsible Parties
Date of Government Version: 10/25/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/17/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2014
Number of Days to Update: 3
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/12/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/23/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
PADS: PCB Activity Database System
PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers
of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities.
Date of Government Version: 07/01/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/15/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/17/2014
Number of Days to Update: 33
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/12/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/25/2016
Data Release Frequency: Annually
ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System
The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) supports the information needs of the national enforcement
and compliance program as well as the unique needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program.
Date of Government Version: 01/23/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/06/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/09/2015
Number of Days to Update: 31
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/25/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA,
TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the
Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009 Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Last EDR Contact: 02/22/2016
Number of Days to Update: 25 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/06/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
A listing of FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) inspections and enforcements.
Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009
Number of Days to Update: 25
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/22/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/06/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System
MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which
possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency,
EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 03/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/18/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/15/2016
Number of Days to Update: 28
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/08/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/23/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC4603012.2s Page GR -16

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
COAL ASH DOE: Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
A listing of power plants that store ash in surface ponds.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/22/2009
Number of Days to Update: 76
Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/15/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/25/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
COAL ASH EPA: Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
A listing of coal combustion residues surface impoundments with high hazard potential ratings.
Date of Government Version: 07/01/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/10/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2014
Number of Days to Update: 40
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 03/11/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/20/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
PCB TRANSFORMER: PCB Transformer Registration Database
The database of PCB transformer registrations that includes all PCB registration submittals.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/19/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/10/2012
Number of Days to Update: 83
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 01/29/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/09/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
RADINFO: Radiation Information Database
The Radiation Information Database (RADINFO) contains information about facilities that are regulated by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for radiation and radioactivity.
Date of Government Version: 07/07/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/09/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/16/2015
Number of Days to Update: 69
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/18/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
HIST FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
A complete administrative case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA regions. The
information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation of FIFRA
(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some EPA regions
are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing EPA Headquarters
with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that may not be included
in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated.
Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007
Number of Days to Update: 40
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2007
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
HIST FTTS INSP: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Inspection & Enforcement Case Listing
A complete inspection and enforcement case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA
regions. The information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation
of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some
EPA regions are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing
EPA Headquarters with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that
may not be included in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated.
TC4603012.2s Page GR -17

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007
Number of Days to Update: 40
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2008
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
DOT OPS: Incident and Accident Data
Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident data.
Date of Government Version: 07/31/2012 Source: Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2012 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/18/2012 Last EDR Contact: 02/03/2016
Number of Days to Update: 42 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/16/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites. Released
periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2014 Source: Department of Justice, Consent Decree Library
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/17/2015 Telephone: Varies
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2015 Last EDR Contact: 03/24/2016
Number of Days to Update: 46 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
BRS: Biennial Reporting System
The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation
and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LQG)
and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/24/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/30/2015
Number of Days to Update: 218
Source: EPA/NTIS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/26/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/06/2016
Data Release Frequency: Biennially
INDIAN RESERV: Indian Reservations
This map layer portrays Indian administered lands of the United States that have any area equal to or greater
than 640 acres.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/08/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/15/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/25/2016
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
FUSRAP: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
DOE established the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1974 to remediate sites where
radioactive contamination remained from Manhattan Project and early U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations.
Date of Government Version: 11/23/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/24/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 86
Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/08/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/23/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
UMTRA: Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
Uranium ore was mined by private companies for federal government use in national defense programs. When the mills
shut down, large piles of the sand -like material (mill tailings) remain after uranium has been extracted from
the ore. Levels of human exposure to radioactive materials from the piles are low; however, in some cases tailings
were used as construction materials before the potential health hazards of the tailings were recognized.
TC4603012.2s Page GR -18

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 09/14/2010
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/07/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 146
LEAD SMELTER 1: Lead Smelter Sites
A listing of former lead smelter site locations.
Date of Government Version: 11/25/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/26/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015
Number of Days to Update: 64
Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/28/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/06/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/07/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/18/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
LEAD SMELTER 2: Lead Smelter Sites
A list of several hundred sites in the U.S. where secondary lead smelting was done from 1931 and 1964. These sites
may pose a threat to public health through ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soil or dust
Date of Government Version: 04/05/2001
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/27/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/02/2010
Number of Days to Update: 36
Source: American Journal of Public Health
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 12/02/2009
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
US AIRS (AFS): Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem (AFS)
The database is a sub -system of Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). AFS contains compliance data
on air pollution point sources regulated by the U.S. EPA and/or state and local air regulatory agencies. This
information comes from source reports by various stationary sources of air pollution, such as electric power plants,
steel mills, factories, and universities, and provides information about the air pollutants they produce. Action,
air program, air program pollutant, and general level plant data. It is used to track emissions and compliance
data from industrial plants.
Date of Government Version: 10/20/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/27/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/04/2016
Number of Days to Update: 69
US AIRS MINOR: Air Facility System Data
A listing of minor source facilities.
Date of Government Version: 10/20/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/27/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/04/2016
Number of Days to Update: 69
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/24/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/24/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Annually
US MINES: Mines Master Index File
Contains all mine identification numbers issued for mines active or opened since 1971. The data also includes
violation information.
Date of Government Version: 02/09/2016 Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/02/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/15/2016 Last EDR Contact: 03/02/2016
Number of Days to Update: 44 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/13/2016
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
US MINES 2: Ferrous and Nonferrous Metal Mines Database Listing
This map layer includes ferrous (ferrous metal mines are facilities that extract ferrous metals, such as iron
ore or molybdenum) and nonferrous (Nonferrous metal mines are facilities that extract nonferrous metals, such
as gold, silver, copper, zinc, and lead) metal mines in the United States.
TC4603012.2s Page GR -19

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 12/05/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/29/2008
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2008
Number of Days to Update: 49
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/04/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/13/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US MINES 3: Active Mines & Mineral Plants Database Listing
Active Mines and Mineral Processing Plant operations for commodities monitored by the Minerals Information Team
of the USGS.
Date of Government Version: 04/14/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/08/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/13/2011
Number of Days to Update: 97
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/04/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/13/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers' to other sources that contain more
detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric
Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial
enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C -DOCKET (Criminal
Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities
Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System).
Date of Government Version: 07/20/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/09/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/03/2015
Number of Days to Update: 55
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/08/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/20/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
COAL ASH: Coal Ash Disposal Sites
A listing of coal combustion products distribution permits issued by the Division for the treatment, storage,
transportation, use and disposal of coal combustion products.
Date of Government Version: 04/22/2015 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/04/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/15/2015 Last EDR Contact: 02/17/2016
Number of Days to Update: 42 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/16/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaning Sites
Potential and known drycleaning sites, active and abandoned, that the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program has
knowledge of and entered into this database.
Date of Government Version: 03/02/2015 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/25/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/08/2015 Last EDR Contact: 03/23/2016
Number of Days to Update: 75 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/04/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Financial Assurance 1: Financial Assurance Information Listing
A listing of financial assurance information for underground storage tank facilities. Financial assurance is intended
to ensure that resources are available to pay for the cost of closure, post -closure care, and corrective measures
if the owner or operator of a regulated facility is unable or unwilling to pay.
Date of Government Version: 02/10/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/12/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/11/2016 Last EDR Contact: 02/08/2016
Number of Days to Update: 59 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/23/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC4603012.2s Page GR -20

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Financial Assurance 2: Financial Assurance Information Listing
Information for solid waste facilities. Financial assurance is intended to ensure that resources are available
to pay for the cost of closure, post -closure care, and corrective measures if the owner or operator of a regulated
facility is unable or unwilling to pay.
Date of Government Version: 10/02/2012 Source: Department of Environmental & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/03/2012 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/26/2012 Last EDR Contact: 04/11/2016
Number of Days to Update: 23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/11/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Financial Assurance 3: Financial Assurance Information
Hazardous waste financial assurance information.
Date of Government Version: 09/14/2015 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/15/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/22/2015 Last EDR Contact: 03/14/2016
Number of Days to Update: 37 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/27/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
NPDES: NPDES Facility Location Listing
General information regarding NPDES(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits.
Date of Government Version: 12/02/2015 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/17/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/08/2016 Last EDR Contact: 02/16/2016
Number of Days to Update: 53 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/16/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
UIC: Underground Injection Wells Listing
A listing of uncerground injection wells locations.
Date of Government Version: 02/12/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/16/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/11/2016 Last EDR Contact: 02/03/2016
Number of Days to Update: 55 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/23/2016
Data Release Frequency: Varies
FUELS PROGRAM: EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
This listing includes facilities that are registered under the Part 80 (Code of Federal Regulations) EPA Fuels
Programs. All companies now are required to submit new and updated registrations.
Date of Government Version: 11/23/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/24/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 86
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 02/24/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/06/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
ECHO: Enforcement & Compliance History Information
ECHO provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for about 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide.
Date of Government Version: 09/20/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/23/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/04/2016
Number of Days to Update: 103
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 03/23/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/04/2016
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC4603012.2s Page GR -21

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EDR MGP: EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
The EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plant Database includes records of coal gas plants (manufactured gas plants)
compiled by EDR's researchers. Manufactured gas sites were used in the United States from the 1800's to 1950's
to produce a gas that could be distributed and used as fuel. These plants used whale oil, rosin, coal, or a mixture
of coal, oil, and water that also produced a significant amount of waste. Many of the byproducts of the gas production,
such as coal tar (oily waste containing volatile and non-volatile chemicals), sludges, oils and other compounds
are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment. The byproduct from this process was frequently
disposed of directly at the plant site and can remain or spread slowly, serving as a continuous source of soil
and groundwater contamination.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: EDR, Inc.
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
EDR Hist Auto: EDR Exclusive Historic Gas Stations
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
gas station/filling station/service station sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited
to those categories of sources that might, in EDR's opinion, include gas station/filling station/service station
establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to gas, gas station, gasoline station,
filling station, auto, automobile repair, auto service station, service station, etc. This database falls within
a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR's HRHR effort presents
unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental concerns,
but may not show up in current government records searches.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A
Source: EDR, Inc.
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: N/A
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
EDR Hist Cleaner: EDR Exclusive Historic Dry Cleaners
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
dry cleaner sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited to those categories of sources
that might, in EDR's opinion, include dry cleaning establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were
not limited to dry cleaners, cleaners, laundry, laundromat, cleaning/laundry, wash & dry etc. This database falls
within a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR's HRHR effort
presents unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental
concerns, but may not show up in current government records searches.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: EDR, Inc.
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS: Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
The EDR Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste database provides a list of SHWS incidents derived
from historical databases and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists. Compiled
from Records formerly available from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in North Carolina.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/24/2013 Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 176 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC4603012.2s Page GR -22

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
RGA LF: Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
The EDR Recovered Government Archive Landfill database provides a list of landfills derived from historical databases
and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists. Compiled from Records formerly available
from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in North Carolina.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/13/2014 Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 196 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
RGA LUST: Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
The EDR Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank database provides a list of LUST incidents
derived from historical databases and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists.
Compiled from Records formerly available from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in North
Carolina.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/20/2013 Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 172 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
OTHER DATABASE(S)
Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be
complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the
area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily
mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.
CT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data
Facility and manifest data. Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through
transporters to a tsd facility.
Date of Government Version: 07/30/2013 Source: Department of Energy & Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/19/2013 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/03/2013 Last EDR Contact: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 45 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/30/2016
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
NJ MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/17/2015 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/12/2015 Last EDR Contact: 04/12/2016
Number of Days to Update: 26 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/25/2016
Data Release Frequency: Annually
NY MANIFEST: Facility and Manifest Data
Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a TSD
facility.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2016 Source: Department of Environmental Conservation
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/03/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/22/2016 Last EDR Contact: 02/03/2016
Number of Days to Update: 48 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/16/2016
Data Release Frequency: Annually
TC4603012.2s Page GR -23

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
PA MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2014 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/24/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/18/2015 Last EDR Contact: 04/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 25 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/01/2016
Data Release Frequency: Annually
RI MANIFEST: Manifest information
Hazardous waste manifest information
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Management
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/19/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/15/2015 Last EDR Contact: 03/21/2016
Number of Days to Update: 26 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/06/2016
Data Release Frequency: Annually
WI MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/19/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2015
Number of Days to Update: 19
Source: Department of Natural Resources
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 03/14/2016
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/27/2016
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Oil/Gas Pipelines
Source: PennWell Corporation
Petroleum Bundle (Crude Oil, Refined Products, Petrochemicals, Gas Liquids (LPG/NGL), and Specialty
Gases (Miscellaneous)) N = Natural Gas Bundle (Natural Gas, Gas Liquids (LPG/NGL), and Specialty Gases
(Miscellaneous)). This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information
is provided on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant
its fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell.
Electric Power Transmission Line Data
Source: PennWell Corporation
This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information is provided on a best
effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its fitness for any
particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell.
Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity
to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all
sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers,
and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located.
AHA Hospitals:
Source: American Hospital Association, Inc.
Telephone: [phone]
The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey of hospitals.
Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Telephone: [phone]
A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services,
a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Nursing Homes
Source: National Institutes of Health
Telephone: [phone]
Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States.
Public Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: [phone]
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on elementary
and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical
database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are
comparable across all states.
TC4603012.2s Page GR -24

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Private Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: [phone]
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on private school locations in the United States.
Daycare Centers: Child Care Facility List
Source: Department of Health & Human Services
Telephone: [phone]
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2003 & 2011 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100 -year and 500 -year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002, 2005 and 2010 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Wetlands Data: Wetland Inventory
Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
Telephone: [phone]
Current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2015 TomTom North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection
and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject
to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.
TC4603012.2s Page GR -25

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS
LAKE WENDELL MITIGATION PROJECT
WENDELL ROAD
WENDELL, NC 27591
TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Target Property Map:
Version Date:
Northeast Map
Version Date:
35.737391 - 35° 44' 14.61"
78.353805 - 78° 21' 13.70"
Zone 17
739316.4
3957851.2
268 ft. above sea level
5948586 FLOWERS, NC
2013
5948640 ZEBULON, NC
2013
EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in
forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration.
Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principal investigative components:
1. Groundwater flow direction, and
2. Groundwater flow velocity.
Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics
of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the
geologic strata.
TC4603012.2s Page A-1

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION
Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other
sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data
collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers).
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to
assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or,
should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY
General Topographic Gradient: General NW
SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES
c
o a
N v O A v j N N W 000 J N V N N
- N 0 O N N H N N
C
O
W
North
West
Target Property Elevation: 268 ft.
TP
South
W
0 A W W V7
N v
N OOf 00
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TP
0
1/2
East
1 Miles
Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5' 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.
TC4603012.2s Page A-2

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist
the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways
and bodies of water).
FEMA FLOOD ZONE
Target Property County
JOHNSTON,NC
Flood Plain Panel at Target Property:
Additional Panels in search area:
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
NWI Quad at Target Property
FLOWERS
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
FEMA Flood
Electronic Data
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map
37101C - FEMA DFIRM Flood data
Not Reported
NWI Electronic
Data Coverage
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map
Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator
of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the
environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
AQUIFLOW®
Search Radius: 1.000 Mile.
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory
authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined
hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table.
LOCATION GENERAL DIRECTION
MAP ID FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW
Not Reported
TC4603012.2s Page A-3

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION
Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary
to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil
characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes
move more quickly through sandy -gravelly types of soils than silty -clayey types of soils.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed
at which contaminant migration may be occurring.
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT
GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION
Era: Paleozoic Category: Metamorphic Rocks
System: Pennsylvanian
Series: Felsic paragneiss and schist
Code: m m 1 (decoded above as Era, System & Series)
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology
of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman
Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
TC4603012.2s Page A-4

2
1 1 S
Target Property
SSURGO Soil
Water
SSURGO SOIL MAP - 4603012.2s
2
2
9
4
2
7
0 1/I6 18 14 Miles
SITE NAME: Lake Wendell Mitigation Project CLIENT: Water & Land Solutions
ADDRESS: Wendell Road CONTACT: William Scott Hunt, III
Wendell NC 27591 INQUIRY #: 4603012.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.737391 / 78.353805 DATE: April 27, 2016 8:59 am
Copyright (o 2016 EDR, Inc. (c) 2015 TornToro Rel. 2015.

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil
Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information
for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns
in a landscape. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service SSURGO data.
Soil Map ID: 1
Soil Component Name: Wehadkee
Soil Surface Texture: loam
Hydrologic Group: Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high
water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer.
Soil Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Hydric Status: All hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: High
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 15 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1
0 inches
7 inches
loam
Silt -Clay
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 42
Max: 6.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 14
Min: 4.5
than 35 pct.
Sands with fines,
passing No.
Clayey sand.
200), Silty
Soils.
2
7 inches
57 inches
loam
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 6.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
Min: 4.5
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Clayey
50%), silt.
Soils.
3
57 inches
83 inches
sandy loam
Silt -Clay
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 6.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Gravels,
Min: 4
Min: 4.5
than 35 pct.
Clean gravels,
passing No.
Poorly Graded
200), Silty
Gravel.
Soils.
TC4603012.2s Page A-6

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 2
Soil Component Name: Wedowee
Soil Surface Texture: sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Moderate
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1
0 inches
11 inches
sandy loam
Silt -Clay
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 42
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 14
Min: 3.6
than 35 pct.
Sands with fines,
passing No.
Silty Sand.
200), Silty
Soils.
2
11 inches
14 inches
sandy clay loam
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
Min: 4.5
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Silty
50%), silt.
Soils.
3
14 inches
27 inches
sandy clay
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
Min: 4.5
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Clayey
50%), silt.
Soils.
4
27 inches
59 inches
sandy loam
Silt -Clay
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 4
Min: 3.6
than 35 pct.
Sands with fines,
passing No.
Clayey sand.
200), Clayey
Soils.
TC4603012.2s Page A-7

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 3
Soil Component Name: Goldsboro
Soil Surface Texture: sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Moderately well drained
Hydric Status: Partially hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Moderate
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 76 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1
0 inches
7 inches
sandy loam
Granular
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 42
Max: 6 Min:
materials (35
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 14
3.5
pct. or less
Sands with fines,
passing No.
Clayey sand.
200), Silty, or
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey Gravel
SOILS, Sands,
and Sand.
Sands with fines,
Silty Sand.
2
7 inches
14 inches
loamy sand
Granular
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 141
Max: 5.5
materials (35
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 42
Min: 3.5
pct. or less
Sands with fines,
passing No.
Clayey sand.
200), Silty, or
COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey Gravel
SOILS, Sands,
and Sand.
Sands with fines,
Silty Sand.
3
14 inches
44 inches
sandy clay loam
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
Min: 3.5
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Clayey
50%), Lean Clay.
Soils.
FINE-GRAINED
SOILS, Silts and
Clays (liquid
limit less than
50%), silt.
TC4603012.2s Page A-8

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
4
44 inches
75 inches
sandy clay loam
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
Min: 3.5
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Clayey
50%), Lean Clay
Soils.
Soil Map ID: 4
Soil Component Name: Wedowee
Soil Surface Texture: sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Moderate
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1
0 inches
7 inches
sandy loam
Silt -Clay
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 42
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 14
Min: 3.6
than 35 pct.
Sands with fines,
passing No.
Silty Sand.
200), Silty
Soils.
2
7 inches
11 inches
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
Min: 3.6
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Silty
50%), silt.
Soils.
TC4603012.2s Page A-9

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
3
11 inches
27 inches
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
Min: 3.6
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Clayey
50%), silt.
Soils.
4
27 inches
59 inches
Silt -Clay
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 4
Min: 3.6
than 35 pct.
Sands with fines,
passing No.
Clayey sand.
200), Clayey
Soils.
Soil Map ID: 5
Soil Component Name: Water
Soil Surface Texture: sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class:
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Not Reported
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
No Layer Information available.
Soil Map ID: 6
Soil Component Name:
Soil Surface Texture:
Hydrologic Group:
Soil Drainage Class:
Marlboro
sandy loam
Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Well drained
TC4603012.2s Page A-10

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: High
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1
0 inches
9 inches
sandy loam
Silt -Clay
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 42
Max: 6.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 14
Min: 5.1
than 35 pct.
Sands with fines,
passing No.
Silty Sand.
200), Silty
Soils.
2
9 inches
70 inches
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 6 Min:
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
4.5
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Clayey
50%), silt.
Soils.
3
70 inches
74 inches
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 6 Min:
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 4
4.5
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Clayey
50%), silt.
Soils.
Soil Map ID: 7
Soil Component Name: Lynchburg
Soil Surface Texture: sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downward
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Hydric Status: Partially hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: High
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 15 inches
TC4603012.2s Page A-11

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1
0 inches
5 inches
sandy loam
Silt -Clay
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 42
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 4
Min: 3.6
than 35 pct.
Sands with fines,
passing No.
Silty Sand.
200), Silty
Soils.
2
5 inches
9 inches
sandy loam
Silt -Clay
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 141
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 4
Min: 3.6
than 35 pct.
Sands with fines,
passing No.
Clayey sand.
200), Silty
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
SOILS, Sands,
Sands with fines,
Silty Sand.
3
9 inches
64 inches
sandy clay loam
Silt -Clay
COARSE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 1.4
Min: 3.6
than 35 pct.
Sands with fines,
passing No.
Clayey sand.
200), Clayey
COARSE-GRAINED
Soils.
SOILS, Sands,
Sands with fines,
Silty Sand.
4
64 inches
79 inches
clay
Silt -Clay
FINE-GRAINED
Max: 14
Max: 5.5
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 1.4
Min: 3.6
than 35 pct.
Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Clayey
50%), Lean Clay
Soils.
LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
EDR Local/Regional Water Agency records provide water well information to assist the environmental
professional in assessing sources that may impact ground water flow direction, and in forming an
opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells.
WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION
DATABASE SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)
Federal USGS 1.000
Federal FRDS PWS Nearest PWS within 1 mile
State Database 1.000
TC4603012.2s Page A-12

GEOCHECe - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No Wells Found
FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No PWS System Found
Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location.
STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No Wells Found
OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
NORTH CAROLINA SIGNIFICANT NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS DATABASE:
ID Name
NC10001874 WENDELL LAKE
TC4603012.2s Page A-13

x-10
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 4603012.2s
0
O
011111111111116.
// County Boundary
/V Major Roads
N Contour Lines
0 Earthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater
® Water Wells
© Public Water Supply Wells
® Cluster of Multiple Icons
0
0 1/4 1/2 1 Miles
Groundwater Flow Direction Wildlife Areas
CcD Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location Natural Areas
Cc v Groundwater Flow Varies at Location o Rare & Endangered Species
SITE NAME: Lake Wendell Mitigation Project CLIENT: Water & Land Solutions
ADDRESS: Wendell Road CONTACT: William Scott Hunt, III
Wendell NC 27591 INQUIRY #: 4603012.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.737391 / 78.353805 DATE: April 27, 2016 8:59 am
Copyright (o 2016 EDR, Inc. (c) 2015 TomTom Rel. 2015.

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Database EDR ID Number
NC_SNHA NC10001874
Site Name: WENDELL LAKE
Quality: Not Reported
Acres per Polygon: 152.65
TC4603012.2s Page A-15

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
RADON
AREA RADON INFORMATION
State Database: NC Radon
Radon Test Results
Num Results Avg pCi/L Min pCi/L Max pCi/L
33 1.72 0.3 7.6
3 0.77 0.3 1.3
Federal EPA Radon Zone for JOHNSTON County: 3
Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L.
Zone 2 indoor average level — 2 pCi/L and — 4 pCi/L.
Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L.
Federal Area Radon Information for Zip Code:
27591
Number of sites tested: 1
Area
Average Activity
% <4 pCi/L
% 4-20 pCi/L
Living Area - 1 st Floor
-0.400 pCi/L
100%
0%
Living Area - 2nd Floor
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Basement
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
% >20 eCi/L
0%
Not Reported
Not Reported
TC4603012.2s Page A-16

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
EDR acquired the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model in 2002 and updated it in 2006. The 7.5 minute DEM corresponds
to the USGS 1:24,000- and 1:25,000 -scale topographic quadrangle maps. The DEM provides elevation data
with consistent elevation units and projection.
Current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2003 & 2011 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100 -year and 500 -year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002, 2005 and 2010 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Wetlands Data: Wetland Inventory
Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
Telephone: [phone]
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
AQUIFLOWR Information System
Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has
extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table
information.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit
Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital
representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national
Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil
survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation
of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO)
soil survey maps.
SSURGO: Soil Survey Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Telephone: [phone]
SSURGO is the most detailed level of mapping done by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, mapping
scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360. Field mapping methods using national standards are used to
construct the soil maps in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the
original soil survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, townships and county
natural resource planning and management.
TC4603012.2s Page PSGR-1

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
FEDERAL WATER WELLS
PWS: Public Water Systems
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at
least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources.
PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after
August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS)
This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface
water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater.
STATE RECORDS
North Carolina Public Water Supply Wells
Source: Department of Environmental Health
Telephone: [phone]
OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
NC Natural Areas: Significant Natural Heritage Areas
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
A polygon converage identifying sites (terrestrial or aquatic that have particular biodiversity significance.
A site's significance may be due to the presenceof rare species, rare or hight quality natural communities, or
other important ecological features.
NC Game Lands: Wildlife Resources Commission Game Lands
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
All publicly owned game lands managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and as listed in Hunting
and Fishing Maps.
NC Natural Heritage Sites: Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Sites
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
A point coverage identifying locations of rare and endangered species, occurrences of exemplary or unique natural
ecosystems (terrestrial or aquatic), and special animal habitats (e.g., colonial waterbird nesting sites).
RADON
State Database: NC Radon
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Radon Statistical and Non Statiscal Data
Area Radon Information
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey.
The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at
private sources such as universities and research institutions.
TC4603012.2s Page PSGR-2

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
EPA Radon Zones
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor
radon levels.
OTHER
Airport Landing Facilities: Private and public use landing facilities
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 800-457-6656
Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater
Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Earthquake Fault Lines: The fault lines displayed on EDR's Topographic map are digitized quaternary faultlines, prepared
in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2015 TomTom North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection
and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject
to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.
TC4603012.2s Page PSGR-3

UnitCCl States Departinnit ut the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Kaiv'5n ra rielZ' C)rt"C
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina - ro.35-3 roe
May 16, 2016
Mt. William "Scutt" Hw,t
Wate, & Laud Sulutiu„3, LLC
11uj0 Ra,,-,. Ricigz Riad, Suitc 1 Iv
Raluigi., Nunn 1 m—wi„µ &7614
Subject: Lake Wendell Mitigation Project) Joh„stutt County."' North Ca,oli„a
Dear Mr. Hunt:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the ittfOrmatiut, cuncerning the above
referenced project. The project, based on the desc,iptiott in yout letter. project plans, and -uthe,
intomlatiot, i5 expected to have minimal nave,se in,pact� to t,5h and wildlitu 1e5uu1c45.
t ne propo3ed Lakc Wcndcu M;t;gatic;n project arca vccur3 uR the north side of Lake wendell
Ruud ju3t .u3t yr Wunaell Road, adjacent to wendell Lake and surrounds an unnamed tribu[ary
and farm pond that flows directly into Wendell Lake. This site is approximately located between
the Town of Wendell and the Couuttuaity of Atcher Lodgv. i„ Julu,stot, county, North Catelit,a.
The prujCCL p,up05Cs to put 11.6 acres of Cut,e,ttly deg,aded streams Una burtZ13 �Jjlt the property
;„tu a petmane„t cunse, vativn casumcnt. P.vpb3ed strearn unnunc4munt and restoration within
tn;3 ea3ement gill uun3i3t urappruximately 3,381 Stream Mitigation Units (SMU's) when
comrleted.
We do not have any major cott4erna with the Lakc Wendell Site ur plans as cut,ently propUsed,
and think th;s project could benetit the ;,,cu,ning water quality to, Wu„dell Lake, and the larger
Buttam Creek Watu,3nc5 = a wnule. The Service „3urriij-.rcuura.es stream mitigation projects
to bu auwmtream of a Fonded area to obtain the highest functional lift to the systCtil. The
location where the proposed stream restoration would enter Lake Wendell appears to have been
classified in 2001 by the Nu,th Caroli„a Hct;tage Program as a Coastal Pia;t, Semi-perma„cnt
In,pou„at„e„t (Natural Cu„n„un;ty) wnicn it,clude3 stm-.33 %r Baia cypress (Tzi, :uUi,.m
Ui3t;uhum). This prujcct ai3c; proposes to remuru u u,.rrurttly active farm pond from cattle use
and provide b.imr3 rim.- the reaches which flow into Wendell Lake and eventually Buffalo
Creek. Downstream water quality in this watershed is particularly intportam to the Se,vice since
there are various rare species records dowt,sueaut near the confluence of Buffalo Creek and
Little River. Recent reeotas of the Neuse River Wate,avg (Neettrrus 1&u4si) Bare bcc„ iucated
nea, this 4uutluence, in addition to uidct recurd3 indicating prc3cuce of the ,,ellow lance r0lipt:c,
lanceolata/ .0 awe. r wedbemussel rAlasmidont- heterodon). The Service encourages
mitigation efforts in priority watersheds, or areas that Bruin to priority watersheds- which will
benefit federal and state llstcd species. It you decide to 11,UVC torward with this p,uject, the

1)
ServicL will cuntinuc to be in, olved through di3cu331u,13 with UIC IRT, a„d will provide
additional comments in the future if warranted.
The SCrvicc has Ievievvea available information oat tedeaally-threatened Or unaangered species
Knvwu to MCUl ;It JUM3011 Cou,Ity, 3P06trually within the plvpvsed Irritigatiun work area, and
du W„3ttVcu„ Irum tnc un„araca tl;butary u...,,K. r Burtalu C.CCK. Fzdcrally liy3tcd 31)CCiC3 ill Juhll3tvu
t-Uunty, Nzrtri C-Urzhna invluQ.. R...Q-zzuKaGz:Q YYuLQpv ti icoi-VGs Lomwis,, TCiI RIYVr
spinymussel (Elipaio saeinsaansana), dwarf wedgemussel kAlasmidonaa heierodon), and
Michaux's sumac (Rhes michaaTxii), i❑ additivat to ❑wary other federal species of concern. The
Ser vice is ►lot aware of any Bald Eagle nests ,Tear Lire project area at this time. Large trees within
660 -feet ut the project area should be visually inspected fur putelltial nests prior to any VII the
juund work. If a nest i3 rc .nd witn;n -060-reet urtrr przjuct arta picasc zuntact Mu Szrvizz for
time of year potential resuictions. We have also reviewed information from the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NC:NHP) database which contains exCellealt data Ort the speCial staves
species_ both teaeral and state_ which cant be fuutrd hese: haps:l/rrcnhde.rlatureserve.oig/. Our
Iev;ew iii1cates that no teae,ally listed species under Ser vice jurisdiction are likely to occur ill
the prujuct arua. Thererure, the Sc. vicc Would cullcu, with a dut{r.i.,atiun taut tnc actiu,, 13 nut
I;KCIy to r,5vz,3vy armzt 5pw;43 5c.3ibnated as tueutenea, ur their desienated
critical habitat.
III acLutdance with the tndangered Species Act of I97.1, as amended, (ESA) and based on the
intULILIat;U„ pruvidud, ana other avaiRMIC ;„tULMZZt;UH, it appiar3 the. aa.t;un3 dC3inb0 ill the
pruj:.:.t =c ,Iut I;K41y to uavc,,vy arrect feaerally listed species ur their critical habitat as defined
by the ESA. We believe that the requirements of Section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied
for this project. Please remember that ubligatioats under the ESA must be reconsidered if: (1)
LOW iarf0rurati0n iaerldfies irrtpaCts of this aCtiOrt that May affect listed species or Critical habitat
ill a lll=el not pleviVu5ly considered; (2) this action is muditiea ;u a marine, u,at was nut
cunsidcred ;n tn;3 Iuviuw; ur, (3) A new 3pC6.3 i3 listed ur critical habitat dct4rmill4d that may bC
ameted Dy the identified action.
The Service appreciates the oppultunity to comment on this proposed Lake Wenduu Mitigation
Project. It you have que56un3 IugarUitig tne3e CuI,m,Ent3, pieasE cul,tact Emily Wells at 919-
856-4520, c.At. 25 UI by E-mail at < Cmily_wellsgfws.gu Y �.
Sincerely.
P er Benjamin
Field OtftcE Supelvibut

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
May 5, 2016
Mr. Scott Hunt
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
Subject: Request for Environmental Information for the Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, Project ID
Number 97081, Johnston County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Hunt,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed project description. Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (as amended), 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.).
Water & Land Solutions, LLC proposes to complete a stream restoration project for the North Carolina
Division of Mitigation Services. The subject site, referred to as the Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, is
located north of the intersection of Lake Wendell and Wendell Roads, in the North Carolina Department
of Environmental Quality Sub -basin 03-04-06 and Upper Buffalo Creek Sub -watershed 030202011502,
within the Neuse River basin. The proposed work will involve the restoration, enhancement, preservation
and permanent protection of five stream reaches, totaling 3,901 linear feet of existing streams. The
adjacent riparian wetlands and riparian buffers will be restored and protected by a permanent conservation
easement.
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. The NCWRC recommends the use of biodegradable and
wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control devices. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products
should have loose -weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the
vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing and similar products that have been reinforced with plastic or
metal mesh should be avoided as they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt
and sediment loads can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning
habitat, suffocation of eggs and clogging of gills. Any invasive plant species that are found onsite should
be removed.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
May 5, 2016
Scoping — Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or gabriela.garrisongncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

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 23, 2016
Scott Hunt
Water & Land Solutions
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: Lake Wendell Mitigation Site, Johnston County, ER 16-0795
Dear Mr. Hunt:
Thank you for your letter of May 2, 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

a'kc llly�ra Rr�
7
%Vt J,o1
rathan flr
WA2019 J oh ns on's %ooery
WA2005 P,ac-Dean House
LICA K E
S li awa n R d
HuntValley- T,' f
;TJv,18 EFrtie u. Richardson House
{S
"" *K
LAUWhferrda4l Rd
Lake3
JT0709(fa mE4 Clyde's Chapel Church
Turnipsced Rd
JTD843 Lees Crossroad Baptist Church
61
JT0670 Batten-Ecyed&Keyes ftuse2005
I
Lake VV.,zrrdell Rd
Stoll% M01 RSI
CL
CL
David Rd
Dors Tucks. Or
erDr Wakw,�.;�
Lake St+3�
JT0868 Tobawo Bern Clump
Win esap Ln
0
n«
Cr
J701389 Moedy Tfrnant House
endell Mifi_gation Project,,,L��
Iliiuird �.€„
t_
JOHNSTON h
JT0i70 Jesse Hinnant House
J70947 Soott-Hardy House L a'f tt
JTD935 Salem Primitive Baptist Churrh , 1
rq� Ra o
�s
Cry`
JT[i50Anderson House
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, MET], Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri
(Thailand), Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

USDA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service May 23, 2016
North Carolina
State Office
4407 Bland Road Mr. Kayne M. Van Stell
Suite 117 Water & Land Solutions
Raleigh, NC 27609
Voice 919-873-2171 11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 119
Fax [phone] Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
Dear Mr. Kayne M. Van Stell
Thank you for your letter dated May 2, 2016, Subject: AD 1006 Form Lake
Wendell Mitigation Project, Johnston Co., 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. Kayne M. Van
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 Agriculture, co MILTON CORTESu=Department of
0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1=12001000080173
Date: 2016.05.2217:47:06 -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)
Date Of Land Evaluation
Request 4/29/16
Name of Project Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream Restoration
County and State Johnston, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received ByPerson
NRCS
Completing FQx NC
MIItOn Ortes, NKC:
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)
YES NO
Z✓ F-1
Acres Irrigated
None
Average Farm Size
166 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 76 % % 390, 736
Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 74% % 379, 107
Name of Land Evaluation System Used
Johnston Co., LESA
Name of State or Local Site Assessment System
None
Date Land Evaluation
May 23, 2016
Returned by NRCS
by email
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A Site B Site C I Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
6.1
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
3.6
C. Total Acres In Site
9.70
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
2.0
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
1.3
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0009
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
77
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted Scale of 0 to 100 Points
24
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria Maximum
Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridorproject use form NRCS-CPA-106 Points
Site A Site B
Site C Site D
1. Area In Non-urban Use (15)
15
2. Perimeter In Non-urban Use (10)
10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed (20)
18
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government (20)
0
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area (15)
15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services (15)
10
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average (10)
1
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland (10)
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services (5)
5
10. On-Farm Investments (20)
17
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services (10)
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use (10)
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
91 0
0 0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
24 0
0 0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment) 160
91 0
0 0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260
115 0
0 0
Site Selected.
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES NO
Reason For Selection:
Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: William Scott Hunt III PE
Date: 05/27/2016
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 (03-02)

STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
Step 1 - Federal agencies (or Federally funded projects) involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form. For Corridor type projects, the Federal agency shall use form NRCS-CPA-106 in place
of form AD -1006. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) process may also be accessed by visiting the FPPA website, http://fppa.nres.usda.gov/lesa/.
Step 2 - Originator (Federal Agency) will send one original copy of the form together with appropriate scaled maps indicating location(s)of project site(s), to the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) local Field Office or USDA Service Center and retain a copy for their files. (NRCS has offices in most counties in the
U.S. The USDA Office Information Locator may be found at http://offices.usda. og v/scripts/ndISAPT.dil/oip public/USA map, or the offices can usually be
found in the Phone Book under U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture. A list of field offices is available from the NRCS State Conservationist and State
Office in each State.)
Step 3 - NRCS will, within 10 working days after receipt of the completed form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the proposed project contains prime,
unique, statewide or local important farmland. (When a site visit or land evaluation system design is needed, NRCS will respond within 30 working days.
Step 4 - For sites where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS will complete Parts II, IV and V of the form.
Step 5 - NRCS will return the original copy of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project, and retain a file copy for NRCS records.
Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form and return the form with the final selected site to the servicing
NRCS office.
Step 7 - The Federal agency providing financial or technical assistance to the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conversion is consistent
with the FPPA.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
(For Federal Agency)
Part I: When completing the "County and State" questions, list all the local governments that are responsible for local land
use controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.
Part III: When completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following:
1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conversion, because the
conversion would restrict access to them or other major change in the ability to use the land for agriculture.
2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification (e.g. highways,
utilities planned build out capacity) that will cause a direct conversion.
Part VI: Do not complete Part VI using the standard format if a State or Local site assessment is used. With local and NRCS
assistance, use the local Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA).
1. Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of corridor -type
project such as transportation, power line and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply and will, be weighted zero,
however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points and criterion #11 a maximum of 25 points.
2. Federal agencies may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown on the
FPPA rule after submitting individual agency FPPA policy for review and comment to NRCS. In all cases where other
weights are assigned, relative adjustments must be made to maintain the maximum total points at 160. For project sites
where the total points equal or exceed 160, consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could reduce adverse
impacts (e.g. Alternative Sites, Modifications or Mitigation).
Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used and the total
maximum number of points is other than 160, convert the site assessment points to a base of 160.
Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and the alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:
Total points assigned Site A 180 X 160 = 144 points for Site A
Maximum points possible = 200
For assistance in completing this form or FPPA process, contact the local NRCS Field Office or USDA Service Center.
NRCS employees, consult the FPPA Manual and/or policy for additional instructions to complete the AD -1006 form.

May 27, 2016
William Odell Edwards
100 Salem Church Road
Wendell, NC 27591
J
WAFER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd
Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
waterlandsolutions.com
919-614-5111
RE: Landowner Notification Required Under Uniform Act, Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery
Project ID #97081, Contract #6826, Neuse River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201, Johnston County, NC
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is preparing the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the Lake Wendell Mitigation Project to fulfill the
environmental screening and documentation requirements mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR
Parts 1500-1508).
The Lake Wendell Mitigation Project Site is located on your property (Parcel PIN: 179200-13-5539, containing 74.77 acres, more or
less, and Parcel PIN: 179200-33-1900, containing 0.49 acres, more or less) in Johnston County, North Carolina. The Lake Wendell
Mitigation Project is a full -delivery project for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) contracted to provide stream mitigation credits for permitted, unavoidable impacts in the Neuse River
Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201. The project will involve the restoration, enhancement, preservation, and permanent protection of
streams, riparian wetlands, and riparian buffers and the entire project boundary will be secured by a recorded conservation
easement, to be held by the State of North Carolina.
As required under the Categorical Exclusion process, by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act (Uniform Act), WLS is providing you, as the landowner, prior to the acquisition of the conservation easement,
written notification and reminder that:
• WLS, as the acquiring entity, does not have condemnation authority with regards to the purchase of the
conservation easement.
• WLS discussed with you the fair market value of the property, as referenced above, to be purchased from you, for
the conservation easement.
Please contact me if you have any further questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
William "Scott" Hunt, II1, PE
Senior Water Resources Engineer
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Appendix 12 — DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist
The topography of the site supports a design without creating the potential for hydrologic trespass. The
downstream portion of the site (Reach R4) is located in a FEMA mapped Special Flood Hazard Area
(Zone 'AE'), however, no work activities are proposed that will modify the existing floodplain elevation
and/or channel profile and therefore a hydraulic analysis will not likely be required to obtain a "No-
Rise/No-Impact" certification.
Per request, the proposed design information, including plan sheets and the NCEEP Floodplain Checklist,
was provided to Berry Gray, Johnston County Planning Director. WLS will submit a floodplain
development permit application, including a hydraulic analysis, to the Johnston County Floodplain
Manager in the event the project requires a "No-Rise/No-Impact" certification and Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) following construction in order to document any changes (reductions) to Base Flood
Elevations (BFEs).
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

"
os stem
E iaement
PROGRAM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping
Unit (attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Name if stream or feature:
Unnamed Tributary to Lake Wendell
County:
Johnston
Name of river basin:
Neuse
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:
Wilders Township, Johnston County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
1782, 1792
Consultant name:
Kayne Van Stell, Water and Land Solutions, LLC
Phone number:
919-614-5111
Address:
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
FEMA—Floodplain Checklist4-23-12.docx Page 1 of

Design Information
Water and Land Solutions, LLC proposes to restore 3,209 linear feet (LF), enhance 255
LF, and preserve 711 LF of stream along two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Buffalo
Creek. The project site is located in Johnston County between the Community of Archer
Lodge and the Town of Wendell (see Figure 1). The project site is located in the NCDEQ
(formerly NCDENR) Sub -basin 03-04-06, in the Upper Buffalo Creek Sub -watershed
030202011502 study area for the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan (RWP), in the
Wake -Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan, and in the Targeted Local
Watershed 03020201180050, all of the Neuse River Basin. The purpose of the project is
to restore and/or enhance stream and riparian buffer functions and improve area water
quality where impaired stream channel flows through the site. The project will provide
numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Buffalo Creek watershed and
the Neuse River Basin. A recorded conservation easement consisting of approximately
11.6 acres will protect all stream reaches and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
Reach
Length
Priority Level / Mitigation Type
RI
807
P11PII Restoration
R2
1,035
PI Restoration
R3
1,229
PI Restoration Pond Removal
R4
711,111
Preservation, Enhancement II
R5
210, 144
PUPIL Restoration, Enhancement II
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
C@ Yes C` No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
F Redelineation
F Detailed Study
F Limited Detail Study
F Approximate Study
F Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
F AE Zone
(- Floodway
C Non -Encroachment
Ca None
F A Zone
FEMA—Floodplain Checklist4-23-12.docx Page 2 of 4

C Local Setbacks Required
C No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?
C Yes C@ No
Land Acquisition (Check)
F State owned (fee simple)
F Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
F Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
[phone])
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
(@ Yes C No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP attn: State NFIP Engineer, 919 715-8000
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Berry Gray, Johnston County Planning
Director
Phone Number: 919-989-5150
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
F No Action
F_ No Rise
F Letter of Map Revision
F- Conditional Letter of Map Revision
„-,r
F Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
FEMA—Floodplain Checklist4-23-12.docx Page 3 of 4

Name: kAYNE Virg S-re2--1—
Title: Pro -=r AA i&EF--
Signature:v
Date: -/7
FEMA—Floodplain CheeklisE4-23-12.docx Page 4 of

2180000 FEET 2190000 FEET
730000 FEET 78°23'30"W 78°23'0"W 78°22'30"W 78°22'0"W 730000 FEET
�� .�, � w\ +K �` tz" �M ;•�; • Rye'
r r E'Z2452"
AE
lk
9� Indian Rock Rd M\\\Rd Buffalo C+ree-k
y � � � Stiotts (Bastin 9,
"� r J - Stream I) 35°45'0"N
35'45'0"NR o., ... s .� w* COUNTY
���,UNINCORPOO-
"
t
Shawan Rd
Hunt Valley Trl
ZONE AE
W 7
A.
0
r. ,yL `? -•. 238.3
'Y 6
f.
35°44'30"N
35'44'30"N
tit •. �.;. $:
,.r
P Buffalo Creek �
i�' Stream 1) ,i,
.w� 70O : I STOO N COO LINTY • _
� +<,,�, '`' U1�TIINCOO RPOO RATED AREAS 1037
e ;
4
�7
` Turnipse d Rd�`
V V
k ~ 4
I�-
35°44'0"N
35°44'0"N
ZONE AE
o ,
m 3
- a
23.8.6
a
1009
�•
d
m
ke t '
we„
.l � i � Buffalo
�e� �. ! CreekS't�eam 1) 3g 6
EZ5827
fob
U
a EZy24570 - ♦'�r
720000 FEET �' �} *.= Q t �., 720000 FEET
78°23'30"W 78°23'0"W 78°22'30"W 78°22'0"W
2180000 FEET 2190000 FEET
FEMA'3 Ci1OPEFIAT1HG TECH"1CALPAFffl4U1
This digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was produced through a unique
cooperative partnership between the State of North Carolina and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The State of North Carolina has
implemented a long term approach to floodplain management to decrease the
costs associated with flooding. This is demonstrated by the State's commitment
to map flood hazard areas at the local level. As a part of this effort, the State of
North Carolina has joined in a Cooperating Technical State agreement with
FEMA to produce and maintain this digital FIRM.
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION NOTES TO USERS SCALE
SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP
THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT
HTTP://FRIS.NC.GOV/FRIS
OTHER Areas Determined to be Outside the
AREAS 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain zone x
------------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Accredited or Provisionally Accredited
GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
STRUCTURES I I I I I I I I I I I I I Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A,V, A99
With BFE or Depth zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
SPECIAL FLOOD
L Regulatory Floodway
HAZARD AREAS
Water Surface Elevation (BFE)
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% Annual Chance Flood with Average
Depth Less Than One Foot or With Drainage
Areas of Less Than One Square Mile zone x
OTHER
Future Conditions 1% Annual
FEATURES
Chance Flood Hazard zone x
OTHER AREAS OF
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee
FLOOD HAZARD
See Notes zone x
OTHER Areas Determined to be Outside the
AREAS 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain zone x
------------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Accredited or Provisionally Accredited
GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
STRUCTURES I I I I I I I I I I I I I Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
For information and questions about this map, available products associated with this FIRM including
historic versions of this FIRM, how to order products or the National Flood Insurance Program in general,
please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1 -877 -FEMA -MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Map
Service Center website at http://msc.fema.gov. An accompanying Flood Insurance Study report, Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) revising portions of this panel, and digital versions of this
FIRM may be available. Visit the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program website at http://www.ncfloodmaps.co ,
or contact the FEMA Map Service Center.
Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as
the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Map Service Center at the number listed above.
For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in the community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National
Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
Base map information shown on this FIRM was provided in digital format by the North Carolina Floodplain
Mapping Program (NCFMP). The source of this information can be determined from the metadata available in the
digital FLOOD database and in the Technical Support Data Notebook (TSDN).
ACCREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If an accredited levee note appears on this panel check with your local
community to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of protection provided (which may exceed the
1 -percent -annual -chance level) and Emergency Action Plan, on the levee system(s) shown as providing protection.
To mitigate flood risk in residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood
insurance and floodproofing or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested
parties should visit the FEMA Website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm.
PROVISIONALLY ACCREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If a Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) note
appears on this panel, check with your local community to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of
protection provided (which may exceed the 1 -percent -annual -chance level) and Emergency Action Plan, on the
levee system(s) shown as providing protection. To maintain accreditation, the levee owner or community is
required to submit the data and documentation necessary to comply with Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations.
If the community or owner does not provide the necessary data and documentation or if the data and documentation
provided indicates the levee system does not comply with Section 65.10 requirements, FEMA will revise the flood
hazard and risk information for this area to reflect de -accreditation of the levee system. To mitigate flood risk in
residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood insurance and floodproofing
or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested parties should visit the FEMA
Website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm.
LIMIT OF MODERATE WAVE ACTION NOTES TO USERS: For some coastal flooding zones the AE Zone
category has been divided by a Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA). The LiMWA represents the approximate
landward limit of the 1.5 -foot breaking wave. The effects of wave hazards between the VE Zone and the LiMWA
(or between the shoreline and the LiMWA for areas where VE Zones are not identified) will be similar to, but less
severe than those in the VE Zone.
Limit of Moderate Wave Action (Lill
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) NOTE
This map may include approximate boundaries of the CBRS for informational purposes only. Flood insurance is not
available within CBRS areas for structures that are newly built or substantially improved on or after the date(s)
indicated on the map. For more information see http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html, the
FIS Report, or call the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Customer Service Center at 1 -800 -344 -WILD.
CBRS Area Otherwise Protected Area
Map Projection:
North Carolina State Plane Projection Feet (Zone 3200)
Datum: NAD 1983 (Horizontal), NAVD 1988 (Vertical)
1 inch = 500 feet 1:6,000
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
Meters
0 75 150 300
PANEL LOCATOR
Fr
r�
rrW
0
it..
Cn
a
0
0
U.
0
Z
NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAS`'
NORTH CAROLINAS �
PANEL 1782 0
�4+vn s�G�a
FE I` 42
Panel Contains:
COMMUNITY
JOHNSTON COUNTY
WAKE COUNTY
CID PANEL SUFFIX
370138 1782 J
370368 1782 J
MAP NUMBER
3720178200J
MAP REVISED
05/02/06
BM5510 X North Carolina Geodetic Survey bench mark
BM5510® National Geodetic Survey bench mark
BM5510� Contractor Est. NCFMP Survey bench mark
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
Water Surface Elevation (BFE)
s - - - - - - Coastal Transect
— - - - - - Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
OTHER
Limit of Study
FEATURES
Jurisdiction Boundary
For information and questions about this map, available products associated with this FIRM including
historic versions of this FIRM, how to order products or the National Flood Insurance Program in general,
please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1 -877 -FEMA -MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Map
Service Center website at http://msc.fema.gov. An accompanying Flood Insurance Study report, Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) revising portions of this panel, and digital versions of this
FIRM may be available. Visit the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program website at http://www.ncfloodmaps.co ,
or contact the FEMA Map Service Center.
Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as
the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Map Service Center at the number listed above.
For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in the community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National
Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
Base map information shown on this FIRM was provided in digital format by the North Carolina Floodplain
Mapping Program (NCFMP). The source of this information can be determined from the metadata available in the
digital FLOOD database and in the Technical Support Data Notebook (TSDN).
ACCREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If an accredited levee note appears on this panel check with your local
community to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of protection provided (which may exceed the
1 -percent -annual -chance level) and Emergency Action Plan, on the levee system(s) shown as providing protection.
To mitigate flood risk in residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood
insurance and floodproofing or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested
parties should visit the FEMA Website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm.
PROVISIONALLY ACCREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If a Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) note
appears on this panel, check with your local community to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of
protection provided (which may exceed the 1 -percent -annual -chance level) and Emergency Action Plan, on the
levee system(s) shown as providing protection. To maintain accreditation, the levee owner or community is
required to submit the data and documentation necessary to comply with Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations.
If the community or owner does not provide the necessary data and documentation or if the data and documentation
provided indicates the levee system does not comply with Section 65.10 requirements, FEMA will revise the flood
hazard and risk information for this area to reflect de -accreditation of the levee system. To mitigate flood risk in
residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood insurance and floodproofing
or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested parties should visit the FEMA
Website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm.
LIMIT OF MODERATE WAVE ACTION NOTES TO USERS: For some coastal flooding zones the AE Zone
category has been divided by a Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA). The LiMWA represents the approximate
landward limit of the 1.5 -foot breaking wave. The effects of wave hazards between the VE Zone and the LiMWA
(or between the shoreline and the LiMWA for areas where VE Zones are not identified) will be similar to, but less
severe than those in the VE Zone.
Limit of Moderate Wave Action (Lill
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) NOTE
This map may include approximate boundaries of the CBRS for informational purposes only. Flood insurance is not
available within CBRS areas for structures that are newly built or substantially improved on or after the date(s)
indicated on the map. For more information see http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html, the
FIS Report, or call the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Customer Service Center at 1 -800 -344 -WILD.
CBRS Area Otherwise Protected Area
Map Projection:
North Carolina State Plane Projection Feet (Zone 3200)
Datum: NAD 1983 (Horizontal), NAVD 1988 (Vertical)
1 inch = 500 feet 1:6,000
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
Meters
0 75 150 300
PANEL LOCATOR
Fr
r�
rrW
0
it..
Cn
a
0
0
U.
0
Z
NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAS`'
NORTH CAROLINAS �
PANEL 1782 0
�4+vn s�G�a
FE I` 42
Panel Contains:
COMMUNITY
JOHNSTON COUNTY
WAKE COUNTY
CID PANEL SUFFIX
370138 1782 J
370368 1782 J
MAP NUMBER
3720178200J
MAP REVISED
05/02/06

2190000 FEET 2200000 FEET
730000 FEET 78°21'30"W 78'21'0"W 78°20'30"W 78°20'0"W 730000 FEET
,� �� �: 1 s •~ r r:1f• r ..
ZONE AE
� � Stotts M y .,►" +r , ' �; . r F i . � ,
Y',Y �,", �` � ��• � J i _ _i .:wry � ' R a
35'45'0"N
?� 35°45'0"N
�f
1
r`.
- •� A Y '
Me
�`� ' t` Winesap L•n r;
Ah JAZ
11
iSi • 1 -
:ti': - f •e a - '. i� 11�
T ��,K�, ,�• ■F. � �"��` 1 PAW
�
_ _i'_. -[ii �9 f(t
\a 1�.�� 'Y �. 3 • }Yep. 1. ^T'w - +) „
IF
'T4
WIT
t fp •.
i
240:4 ' r s rw••.� �• `�q'.,{1a , f' i.Fi."'^Y� ".`p 1�,
- - " n. - ter, �.. I.. ! 1`: `� 4 .� .•+ 1 `1 'R 1
1075 `c�} , , _t -,y- - `� i. ay ` i,. a r, 4 f •,
T [jeer _
T . �1A0A 111110-11
„i'
rack r
, _ - .I�1' ♦ Yf � If d�tF r I� �V �• s � `-i •e I ' 1 :� � r : r�wit" 7 i /J ��•, .y;•
Al
o
ti
•'It :�[i►
41
44 W
rl—
' X
'v yy
n� t a fidfll:' '
s -
IVa 150.
Lake Shore ' •' -��. _
35°44'30"N
35°44'30"N
�. � •r jP. '� 1
� _ 70OHiNSTOO N COO UN Y �� �
s •��, r TIi1TA � rrn� nnn n mr�dAA n � � ,n c ` • ' '`
- - •' `"�•^ V 1rVr11�V V191�1. Vl\!Ly1LL I'1�1\L"2'1�J I -' "
w
ZONE E � • r. '•�• .4 370138
.t,
! r i ` •+; Harris -Wilson Rd
1037
4*1k �
a� � ,,?� A x #R � sf P� 'K.t ,r'. �r "'� ,• ''�l •s-,� Ilif
i
AC
04
238:6 1oz1
35°44'0"N
35°44'0"N 111� ,r
lit
+
.0
c v^
Buffaloreek 1:
(Basin 9, •aytA a "�}# r _
Stream 1)
Young Ln + J•i
ZONE AE s r- �• iiW Hum~.,
w
720000 FEET° J:k 720000 FEET
78°21'30"W 78°21'0"W 78°20'30"W 78°20'0"W
2190000 FEET 2200000 FEET
MI
FEMA'S MOPERATING TECH"ICALPAFM4EA
This digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was produced through a unique
cooperative partnership between the State of North Carolina and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The State of North Carolina has
implemented a long term approach to floodplain management to decrease the
costs associated with flooding. This is demonstrated by the State's commitment
to map flood hazard areas at the local level. As a part of this effort, the State of
North Carolina has joined in a Cooperating Technical State agreement with
FEMA to produce and maintain this digital FIRM.
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION NOTES TO USERS SCALE
SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP
THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT
HTTP://FRIS.NC.GOV/FRIS
OTHER Areas Determined to be Outside the
AREAS 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain zone x
------------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Accredited or Provisionally Accredited
GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
STRUCTURES i i i i i i i Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A,V, A99
With BFE or Depth zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
SPECIAL FLOOD
+. Regulatory Floodway
HAZARD AREAS
Water Surface Elevation (BFE)
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% Annual Chance Flood with Average
Depth Less Than One Foot or With Drainage
Areas of Less Than One Square Mile zone x
OTHER
Future Conditions 1% Annual
FEATURES
Chance Flood Hazard zone x
OTHER AREAS OF
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee
FLOOD HAZARD
See Notes zone x
OTHER Areas Determined to be Outside the
AREAS 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain zone x
------------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Accredited or Provisionally Accredited
GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
STRUCTURES i i i i i i i Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
For information and questions about this map, available products associated with this FIRM including
historic versions of this FIRM, how to order products or the National Flood Insurance Program in general,
please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1 -877 -FEMA -MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Map
Service Center website at http://msc.fema.gov. An accompanying Flood Insurance Study report, Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) revising portions of this panel, and digital versions of this co
FIRM may be available. Visit the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program website at http://www.ncfloodmaps.cory,
or contact the FEMA Map Service Center.
Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as
the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Map Service Center at the number listed above.
For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in the community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National
Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
Base map information shown on this FIRM was provided in digital format by the North Carolina Floodplain
Mapping Program (NCFMP). The source of this information can be determined from the metadata available in the
digital FLOOD database and in the Technical Support Data Notebook (TSDN).
ACCREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If an accredited levee note appears on this panel check with your local
community to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of protection provided (which may exceed the
1 -percent -annual -chance level) and Emergency Action Plan, on the levee system(s) shown as providing protection.
To mitigate flood risk in residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood
insurance and floodproofing or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested
parties should visit the FEMA Website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm.
PROVISIONALLY ACCREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If a Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) note
appears on this panel, check with your local community to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of
protection provided (which may exceed the 1 -percent -annual -chance level) and Emergency Action Plan, on the
levee system(s) shown as providing protection. To maintain accreditation, the levee owner or community is
required to submit the data and documentation necessary to comply with Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations.
If the community or owner does not provide the necessary data and documentation or if the data and documentation
provided indicates the levee system does not comply with Section 65.10 requirements, FEMA will revise the flood
hazard and risk information for this area to reflect de -accreditation of the levee system. To mitigate flood risk in
residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood insurance and floodproofing
or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested parties should visit the FEMA
Website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm.
LIMIT OF MODERATE WAVE ACTION NOTES TO USERS: For some coastal flooding zones the AE Zone
category has been divided by a Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA). The LiMWA represents the approximate
landward limit of the 1.5 -foot breaking wave. The effects of wave hazards between the VE Zone and the LiMWA
(or between the shoreline and the LiMWA for areas where VE Zones are not identified) will be similar to, but less
severe than those in the VE Zone.
Limit of Moderate Wave Action (Lill
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) NOTE
This map may include approximate boundaries of the CBRS for informational purposes only. Flood insurance is not
available within CBRS areas for structures that are newly built or substantially improved on or after the date(s)
indicated on the map. For more information see http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html, the
FIS Report, or call the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Customer Service Center at 1 -800 -344 -WILD.
CBRS Area Otherwise Protected Area
Map Projection:
North Carolina State Plane Projection Feet (Zone 3200)
Datum: NAD 1983 (Horizontal), NAVD 1988 (Vertical)
1 inch = 500 feet 1:6,000
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
Meters
0 75 150 300
PANEL LOCATOR
Ma
0
0
U.
0
Z
NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
NORTH CAROLINA
PANEL 1792 0 `�
t -IND StiC�
E E N/12LN
Panel Contains:
COMMUNITY
JOHNSTON COUNTY
CID PANEL SUFFIX
370138 1792 J
MAP NUMBER
3720179200J
MAP REVISED
12/02/05
BM5510 X North Carolina Geodetic Survey bench mark
BM5510® National Geodetic Survey bench mark
BM5510� Contractor Est. NCFMP Survey bench mark
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
Water Surface Elevation (BFE)
s - - - - - - Coastal Transect
— - - - - - Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
OTHER
Limit of Study
FEATURES
Jurisdiction Boundary
For information and questions about this map, available products associated with this FIRM including
historic versions of this FIRM, how to order products or the National Flood Insurance Program in general,
please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1 -877 -FEMA -MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Map
Service Center website at http://msc.fema.gov. An accompanying Flood Insurance Study report, Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) revising portions of this panel, and digital versions of this co
FIRM may be available. Visit the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program website at http://www.ncfloodmaps.cory,
or contact the FEMA Map Service Center.
Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as
the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Map Service Center at the number listed above.
For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in the community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National
Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
Base map information shown on this FIRM was provided in digital format by the North Carolina Floodplain
Mapping Program (NCFMP). The source of this information can be determined from the metadata available in the
digital FLOOD database and in the Technical Support Data Notebook (TSDN).
ACCREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If an accredited levee note appears on this panel check with your local
community to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of protection provided (which may exceed the
1 -percent -annual -chance level) and Emergency Action Plan, on the levee system(s) shown as providing protection.
To mitigate flood risk in residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood
insurance and floodproofing or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested
parties should visit the FEMA Website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm.
PROVISIONALLY ACCREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If a Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) note
appears on this panel, check with your local community to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of
protection provided (which may exceed the 1 -percent -annual -chance level) and Emergency Action Plan, on the
levee system(s) shown as providing protection. To maintain accreditation, the levee owner or community is
required to submit the data and documentation necessary to comply with Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations.
If the community or owner does not provide the necessary data and documentation or if the data and documentation
provided indicates the levee system does not comply with Section 65.10 requirements, FEMA will revise the flood
hazard and risk information for this area to reflect de -accreditation of the levee system. To mitigate flood risk in
residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood insurance and floodproofing
or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested parties should visit the FEMA
Website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm.
LIMIT OF MODERATE WAVE ACTION NOTES TO USERS: For some coastal flooding zones the AE Zone
category has been divided by a Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA). The LiMWA represents the approximate
landward limit of the 1.5 -foot breaking wave. The effects of wave hazards between the VE Zone and the LiMWA
(or between the shoreline and the LiMWA for areas where VE Zones are not identified) will be similar to, but less
severe than those in the VE Zone.
Limit of Moderate Wave Action (Lill
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) NOTE
This map may include approximate boundaries of the CBRS for informational purposes only. Flood insurance is not
available within CBRS areas for structures that are newly built or substantially improved on or after the date(s)
indicated on the map. For more information see http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html, the
FIS Report, or call the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Customer Service Center at 1 -800 -344 -WILD.
CBRS Area Otherwise Protected Area
Map Projection:
North Carolina State Plane Projection Feet (Zone 3200)
Datum: NAD 1983 (Horizontal), NAVD 1988 (Vertical)
1 inch = 500 feet 1:6,000
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
Meters
0 75 150 300
PANEL LOCATOR
Ma
0
0
U.
0
Z
NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
NORTH CAROLINA
PANEL 1792 0 `�
t -IND StiC�
E E N/12LN
Panel Contains:
COMMUNITY
JOHNSTON COUNTY
CID PANEL SUFFIX
370138 1792 J
MAP NUMBER
3720179200J
MAP REVISED
12/02/05

March 10, 2017
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
Berry Gray, Director 11030 Raven Ridge Rd
Johnston County Planning Department Suite 119
309 E. Market Street Raleigh, NC 27614
Smithfield, NC 27577 waterlandsolutions.com
919-614-5111
Subject: NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (formerly EEP) Floodplain Requirements Checklist:
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project in Johnston County. NCDEQ DMS Project Number 97081
Dear Mr. Gray,
Please find enclosed one copy of the NCEEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist and supporting
information for the Lake Wendell Mitigation Project in Johnston County, North Carolina (see Figure
1). The project site is located in Johnston County between the Community of Archer Lodge and the
Town of Wendell (see Figure 1). The project site is located in the NCDEQ Sub -basin 03-04-06, in the
Upper Buffalo Creek Sub -watershed 030202011502.
Currently, the project reaches are impacted by on-going agricultural use, cattle access, and
lack of adequate riparian buffers. Water and Land Solutions, LLC proposes to restore 3,209 linear
feet (LF), enhance 255 LF, and preserve 711 LF of stream along two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to
Buffalo Creek for the purpose of restore and/or enhance stream and riparian buffer functions and
improve area water quality. We have enclosed maps of the project area that include the site
boundary and approximate limits of disturbance. A topographic map of the project area is shown in
Figure 2, the soils in the project area are shown in Figure 3, LiDAR mapping in Figure 4, and FEMA
floodplains in Figure S. The proposed restoration plan for the site is shown in Figure 10 and design
plans are included herein.
As per our previous phone discussion regarding the project, WLS has prepared the following
checklist to summarize the overall restoration approach. The topography of the site supports a
design without creating the potential for hydrologic trespass. The downstream portion of the site
(Reach R4) is located in a FEMA mapped Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone 'AE'), however, no work
activities are proposed that will modify the existing floodplain elevation and/or channel profile,
therefore no FEMA floodplain impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
The proposed work activities will be conducted outside of the FEMA mapped floodplain and will
involve a new channel relocation and pond dam removal to establish a natural stream morphology,
floodplain reconnection, and planting a native buffer vegetation. No structures are located within
the proposed work areas (see attached figures) and no architectural structures, archeological
artifacts, or threatened and endangered species have been documented in the project area.

We ask that you review this the attached information to determine if the project requires a detailed
hydraulic analysis or a "No-Rise/No-Impact" certification. Thank you in advance for your response
and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have concerning
the work activities associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Kayne M. Van Stell, Project Manager
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 119
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
Office [phone]
Mobile [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Enclosures
Cc: Lindsay Crocker, NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
Page 2

9
Appendix 13 — Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan Supplement
Project Background Information
This supplement is included to present the specific riparian buffer mitigation requirements by the NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources (DWR) related to DWR Project #: 2016-0385.
The Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (Project) is proposed to provide riparian buffer mitigation credits in
accordance with North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), "Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule", Rule
15A NCAC 02B.0295, Effective November 1, 2015. Riparian buffer mitigation site viability was confirmed
by DWRs April 28, 2016 letter entitled "Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset— Lake Wendell
Located Near 2869 Wendell R, Wendell, NC, Johnston County" (See Appendix 7). A summary of the
proposed riparian buffer mitigation credits is presented in "Table 13. Mitigation Components and
Proposed Credit Summary" and shown on "Figure 11 Riparian Buffer Mitigation Map". The project
mitigation design plans are included under Appendix 1 and the project re -vegetation plan is included on
plan sheets 15 through 18. Additional Project background information is presented in the Final Draft
Mitigation Plan.
The described site viability confirmation included a determination by DWR that Project Reaches R1, R2,
R3 and R4 were either intermittent or perennial. A separate request for Stream Origin/Buffer Applicability
Determination for Potential Mitigation for Project Reach R5 was submitted to NCDEQ DWR on May 18,
2017 as is pending. In addition, WLS investigated on-site jurisdictional waters of the US (WOTUS) using
the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is defined
in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent Eastern Mountain and
Piedmont Regional Supplement. Determination methods included stream classification utilizing the
NCDWQ Stream Identification Form (see Appendix 7) and the USACE Stream Quality Assessment
Worksheet (see Appendix 8).
The results of the on-site field investigation indicated that there are two jurisdictional stream channels
located within the proposed project area. The main unnamed tributary (R1, R2, R4) was determined to
be perennial while R5 was determined to be intermittent. USACE representative John Thomas verified
Jurisdictional Determinations during a field visit on October 16, 2016. The verification letter and
supporting documents are in Appendix 9.
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Approach
One of the primary project goals includes restoring, enhancing and preserving the riparian bufferfunctions
and corridor habitat. An objective identified in support of this goal includes planting to re-establish a
native species vegetation riparian buffer corridor within the project boundary. This objective will be met
by establishing riparian buffers which extend a minimum of 30 feet from the top of the streambanks along
each of the project stream reaches, as well as permanently protecting those buffers with a conservation
easement. For project stream reaches proposed for restoration and enhancement, the riparian buffers
will be restored through reforestation.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

9
The limits of the proposed conservation easement boundaries were determined to ensure that a riparian
buffer extending a minimum of 30 feet from the tops of both streambanks (left and right) will be
established and permanently protected for each of the proposed project stream reaches. Many areas of
the conservation easement will have riparian buffer widths greater than 30 feet along one or both
streambanks to provide additional functional uplift, such as encompassing adjacent jurisdictional wetland
areas. For project stream reaches proposed for restoration and enhancement, the riparian buffers will be
restored through reforestation of the entire conservation easement. For project stream reach sections
proposed for preservation, the existing riparian buffers will be permanently protected via the
conservation easement. Additionally, permanent fencing will be installed along with alternative watering
systems to exclude livestock from the restored riparian buffer and conservation easement areas.
The riparian buffer zone for the project includes the streambanks, floodplain, riparian wetland, and upland
transitional areas. The proposed planting boundaries are shown on the vegetation plans in Appendix 1
and Figure 11. The planting activities also may include areas outside of the riparian buffer zone that will
be revegetated, including areas that lack vegetation species diversity, or areas otherwise disturbed or
adversely impacted by construction. Proposed plantings will be conducted using native species bare -root
trees and shrubs, live stakes, and seedlings. Proposed plantings will predominantly consist of bare -root
vegetation and will generally be planted at a total target density of 680 stems per acre. This planting
density has proven successful with the reforestation of past completed mitigation projects, based on
successful regulatory project closeout, and including the current regulatory guidelines.
WLS recognizes that riparian buffer conditions at mature reference sites are not reflected at planted or
successional buffer sites until the woody species being to establish and compete with herbaceous
vegetation. To account for this, we will utilize a successful riparian buffer planting strategy that includes
a combination of overstory, or canopy, and understory species. WLS will also consider the supplemental
planting of larger and older planting stock to modify species density and type, based on vegetation
monitoring results after the first few growing seasons. This consideration will be utilized particularly to
increase the rate of buffer establishment and buffer species variety, as well as to decrease the vegetation
maintenance costs. An example might include selective supplemental planting of older mast producing
species as potted stock in later years for increased survivability.
The site planting strategy also includes early successional, as well as climax species. The vegetation
selections will be mixed throughout the project planting areas so that the early successional species will
give way to climax species as they mature over time. The early successional species which have proven
successful include River birch (Betula nigra), Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and American sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis). The climax species that have proven successful include Red maple (Acer rubrum)
and Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). The understory and shrub layer species are all considered to be
climax species in the riparian buffer community.
Proposed Vegetation Planting
The proposed plant selection will help to establish a natural vegetation community that will include
appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species) based on an appropriate
reference community. Schafale and Weakley's (1990) guidance on vegetation communities for Piedmont
Bottomland Forest (mixed riparian community) and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest (Piedmont Subtype),
the USACE Wetland Research Program (WRP) Technical Note VN -RS -4.1 (1997), as well as existing mature
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

9
species identified throughout the project area, were referenced during the development of riparian buffer
and adjacent riparian wetland plants for the site. The proposed natural vegetation community will include
appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species) based on the appropriate
reference community. Within each of the four strata, a variety of species will be planted to ensure an
appropriate and diverse plant community.
Tree species selected for restoration and enhancement areas will be weak to tolerant of flooding. Weakly
tolerant species can survive and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short
periods of time. Moderately tolerant species can survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several
months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species can survive on sites in which the soil is
saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997). Species proposed for
revegetation planting are presented in the Mitigation Plan, Section 6.5.
Planting Materials and Methods
Planting will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees installed between Mid -November
and early March. Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness
of areas to be planted as compared to the revegetation plan. The final planting zone limits may be
modified based on these observations and comparisons, and the final selection of the location of the
planted species will be matched according the species wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of
the planting area. It should be noted that smaller tree species planted in the understory, such as American
Hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), will unlikely meet the height targets for tree species after seven years.
Plant stock delivery, handling, and installation procedures will be coordinated and scheduled to ensure
that woody vegetation can be planted within two days of being delivered to the project site. Soils at the
site areas proposed for planting will be prepared by sufficiently loosening prior to planting. Bare -root
seedlings will be manually planted using a dibble bar, mattock, planting bar, or other approved method.
Planting holes prepared for the bare root seedlings will be sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread
outward and downward without "J -rooting." Soil will be loosely re -compacted around each planting, as
the last step, to prevent roots from drying out.
Live Staking and Live Branch Cuttings: Where live staking is proposed, live stakes will typically be installed
at a minimum of 40 stakes per 1,000 square feet and the stakes will be spaced approximately two to three
feet apart in meander bends and six to eight feet apart in the riffle sections, using a triangular spacing
pattern along the streambanks, between the toe of the streambank and bankfull elevation. When
bioengineering is proposed, live branch cutting bundles comprised of similar live stake species, shall be
installed at five linear feet per bundle approximately two to three branches thick. The basal ends of the
live branch cuttings, or whips, shall contact the back of the excavated slope and shall extend six inches
from the slope face.
Permanent Seeding: Permanent seed mixtures of native species herbaceous vegetation and temporary
herbaceous vegetation seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Temporary
and permanent seeding will be conducted simultaneously at all disturbed areas of the site during
construction and will conducted with mechanical broadcast spreaders. Simultaneous permanent and
temporary seeding activities helps to ensure rapid growth and establishment of herbaceous ground cover
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

9
and promotes soil stability and riparian habitat uplift. The re -vegetation plan lists the proposed species,
mixtures, and application rates for permanent seeding. The vegetation species proposed for permanent
seeding are deep-rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored stream channels, providing
long-term stability. The vegetation species proposed for temporary seeding germinate quickly to swiftly
establish vegetative ground cover and thus, short term stability.
The permanent seed mixture proposed is suitable for streambank, floodplain, and adjacent riparian
wetland areas, and the upland transitional areas in the riparian buffer. Beyond the riparian buffer areas,
temporary seeding will also be applied to all other disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to
erosion. These areas include constructed streambanks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If
temporary seeding is applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of
130 pounds per acre. If applied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop
millet, applied at a rate of 40 pounds per acre.
Invasive Species Vegetation: Invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), will be treated to allow
native plants to become established within the conservation easement. Larger native tree species will be
preserved and harvested woody material will be utilized to provide bank stabilization cover and/or nesting
habitat. Hardwood species will be planted to provide the appropriate vegetation for the restored riparian
buffer areas. During the project implementation, invasive species exotic vegetation will be treated both
to control its presence and reduce its spread within the conservation easement areas. These efforts will
aid in the establishment of native riparian vegetation species within the restored riparian buffer areas.
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Performance Criteria
Measurements of the final vegetative restoration success for the project will be achieving a density of not
less than 260, five-year-old planted stems per acre in Year 5 of monitoring. This final performance criteria
shall include a minimum of four (4) native hardwood tree species or four (4) native hardwood tree and
native shrub species, where no one species is greater than fifty (50) percent of the stems. Native
hardwood tree and native shrub volunteer species may be included to meet the final performance criteria
of 260 stems per acre. In addition, diffuse flow of runoff shall be maintained in the riparian buffer areas.
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Monitoring Plan
The proposed monitoring plan is intended to document the site improvements based on restoration
potential, catchment health, ecological stressors and overall constraints. The measurement methods
described below provide a connection between project goals and objectives, performance standards, and
monitoring requirements to evaluate functional improvement. They specifically include:
• What will be measured,
• How measurements will be taken,
• When measurements will be taken,
• Where measurements will be taken.
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as -built
monitoring report documenting the riparian buffer mitigation will be developed within 60 days of the
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

9
completion of planting and monitoring device installation at the restored project site. In addition, a period
of at least six months will separate the as -built baseline measurements and the first-year monitoring
measurements. The baseline monitoring document and as -built monitoring report will include
planimetric (plan view) and elevation (profile view) information, photographs, sampling plot locations, a
description of initial vegetation species composition by community type, and location of monitoring
stations. The report will include a list of the vegetation species planted, along with the associated planting
densities.
Reporting and Documentation
WLS will conduct mitigation performance monitoring based on these methods and will submit annual
monitoring reports to DMS by December 31St of each monitoring year during which required monitoring
is conducted. The annual monitoring reports will organize and present the information resulting from the
methods described in detail below.
The annual monitoring reports will provide a project data chronology for DMS to document the project
status and trends, for population of DMS's databases for analyses, for research purposes, and to assist in
decision making regarding project close-out. Project success criteria must be met by the final monitoring
year prior to project closeout, or monitoring will continue until unmet criteria are successfully met. Figure
10 illustrates the pre- and post -construction monitoring feature types and location.
Visual Assessment Monitoring
WLS will conduct visual assessments in support of mitigation performance monitoring. Visual assessments
will be conducted twice per monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit for each of
the five years of monitoring. Photographs will be used to visually document system performance and any
areas of concern related to live stake mortality, impacts from invasive plant species or animal browsing,
easement boundary encroachments, and cattle exclusion fence damage. The monitoring activities will be
summarized in DMS's Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and the Vegetation Conditions
Assessment Table, which are used to document and quantify the visual assessment throughout the
monitoring period.
A series of photographs over time will be also be compared to subjectively evaluate successful maturation
of riparian vegetation. The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet to
ensure that the same locations (and view directions) at the site are documented in each monitoring period
and will be shown on a plan view map. The results of the visual monitoring assessments will be used to
support the development of the annual monitoring document that provides the visual assessment metrics.
Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation at the project site is dependent upon successful hydrologic
restoration, active establishment and survival of the planted preferred canopy vegetation species, and
volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. To determine if these criteria are successfully
achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants or plots will be installed and monitored across the restoration
site in accordance with the CVS-EEP Level I & II Monitoring Protocol (CVS, 2008) and DMS Stream and
Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (DMS, 2014). The vegetation monitoring plots shall be approximately 2%
of the planted portion of the site (approximately 8 acres) with a minimum of seven (7) plots established
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project

9
randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas. The sampling may employ quasi -random plot locations
which may vary upon approval from DMS, DWR and IRT. Any random plots should comprise more than
50% of the total required plots and the location (GPS coordinates and orientation) will identified in the
monitoring reports. No monitoring quadrants will be established within undisturbed wooded areas, such
as those along Reach R4, however visual observations will be documented in the annual monitoring
reports to describe any changes to the existing vegetation community. The size and location of individual
quadrants will be 100 square meters (10m X 10m) for woody tree species and may be adjusted based on
site conditions after construction activities have been completed.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall each required monitoring year, prior to the loss of leaves.
Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings
and the current year's living, planted seedlings. Data will be collected at each individual quadrant and will
include specific data for monitored stems on diameter, height, species, date planted, and grid location, as
well as a collective determination of the survival density within that quadrant. Relative values will be
calculated and importance values will be determined. Individual planted seedlings will be marked at
planting or monitoring baseline setup so that those stems can be found and identified consistently each
successive monitoring year. Volunteer species will be noted and their inclusion in quadrant data will be
evaluated with DMS on a case-by-case basis. The presence of invasive species vegetation within the
monitoring quadrants will also be noted, as will any wildlife effects.
At the end of the first full growing season (from baseline/year 0) or after 180 days between March 1st and
November 30th, species composition, stem density, and survival will be evaluated. For each subsequent
year, vegetation plots shall be monitored for seven years in years 1, 3, and 5 or until the final success
criteria are achieved.
Remedial Action
WLS will provide required remedial action on a case-by-case basis, such as replanting more wet/drought
tolerant species vegetation, conducting beaver and beaver dam management/removal, and removing
undesirable/invasive species vegetation, and will continue to monitor vegetation performance until the
corrective actions demonstrate that the site is trending towards or meeting the standard requirement.
Existing mature woody vegetation will be visually monitored during annual site visits to document any
mortality, due to construction activities or changes to the water table, that negatively impact existing
forest cover or favorable buffer vegetation.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project