20081629 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20081024

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO HAW RIVER
STREAM ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
SCO ID No. D08009S
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR: NCDENR-EEP
rot
_ Ecosystem
L,ill.
PROGRAM
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
FINAL RESTORA TION PLAN
AUGUST 2008
PREPARED BY:
- MULKEY
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27518
919-851-1912
919-851-1918 (Fax)
Mark Mickley
Project Manager - Environmental Services
nlmickley «rnulkeyincxom
919-858-1797
William Scott Hunt, III, PE
Project Engineer - Environmental Services
shunt (- 6nulkeyincxom
919-858-1825

UT to Hain River FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
EDTRIBUTARY TO W RIVER

1 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
Execu tive Summary i
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location 1
1.1 Directions to Project Site 1
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designation 1
2.0 Watershed Characterization 1
2.1 Drainage Area 1
2.2 Surface Water Classification/Water Quality 2
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils 2
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends 3
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species 3
2.5.1 Federally Protected Species 4
2.5.2 Federal Designated Critical Habitat 4
2.5.3 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species 4
2.6 Cultural Resources 4
2.7 Potential Concerns 5
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary 5
2.7.2 Site Access 5
2.7.3 Utilities 5
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass 5
3.0 Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions) 5
3.1 Channel Classification 7
3.2 Discharge (Bankfull Trends) 7
3.3 Channel Morphology (Pattern, Dimension, and Profile) 8
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment 8
3.5 Bankfull Verification 8
3.6 Vegetation 9
4.0 Reference Communities 9
4.1 Landscape Relationship 10
4.2 Vegetation 10
4.2.1 Altamahaw Alluvial Forest 10
4.2.2 Stony Creek Forest 11
4.2.3 Williamsburg Alluvial Forest 11
5.0 Project Site Wetlands (Existing Conditions) 12
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands 12
6.0 Project Site Restoration Plan 13
6.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives 13
6.1.1 Design Channel Classification 13
6.1.2 Target Buffer Communities 13
6.2 HEC-RAS Analysis 14
6.2.1 No-rise, LOMB, CLOMR 14
6.2.2 Hydrologic Trespass 14
- 6.3 Stormwater Best Management Practices 15
6.3.1 Narrative of Site Specific Stormwater Concerns 15
6.3.2 Device Description and Applications 15
UT to Han, River FINAL Restoration Plan
6.4 Soil Restoration
6.4.1 Soil Preparation and Amendment
6.5 Natural Plant Community Restoration
6.5.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration
6.5.2 On-site Invasive Species Management
7.0 Performance Criteria
7.1 Streams
7.2 Vegetation
7.3 Schedule/Reporting
8.0 Farm Management
8.1 Livestock
8.2 At-Grade Stream Crossings
9.0 References
10.0 Tables
Table 1. Project Structure and Objectives
Table 2. Drainage Areas
Table 3. Soil Descriptions
Table 4. Land Use of Watershed
Table 5. BEIH/NBS and Sediment Export Estimate for Project Site Streams
Table 6. Design Vegetative Communities by Zone
11.0 Figures
Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Site Watershed Map
Figure 3. Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 4. Project Site Hydrological Features Map
Figure 5a. Reference Site Vicinity Map - Altamahaw Alluvial Forest
Figure 5b. Reference Site Vicinity Map - Stony Creek Forest
Figure 5c. Reference Site Vicinity Map - Williamsburg Alluvial Forest
Figure 6a. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Figure 6b. Wetland Delineation Map
Figure 7. FEMA Firmette
Figure 8. Invasive Species Areas
12.0 Design Sheets
Title Sheet
Legend
Details
Plan and Cross Sections
Planting Plans
Farm Management Plan
Farm Management Details
13.0 Appendices
Appendix 1. Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2. Project Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 3. Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4. HEC-RAS Analysis
August 2008
15
15
16
16
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
20
4
UT to Haw FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
Executive Summary
UT to Haw River Stream Enhancement Project
Cape Fear River Basin
Alamance County, ITC
Stream Restoration Plan
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Haw River Stream Enhancement Site (Site) is situated in the
northwest corner of Alamance County, North Carolina. Specifically, the Site is located on multiple
UTs to the Haw River approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the Town of Ossipee and 3.1 miles
northwest of the City of Burlington near the intersection of Gerringer Mill Road (SR 1530) and
Burch Bridge Road (SR 1593). The Site is located within the `Little Alamance, Travis, and Tickle
Local Watershed Plan' area, (LATT LWP).
The site covers nearly 388 acres and includes approximately 10,660 linear feet of perennial stream
channel and 1,839 linear feet of intermittent stream channel. The streams on-site have been
significantly impacted by previous and ongoing livestock operations. Stream enhancement activities
are needed to improve water quality and to provide greater protection for aquatic ecosystems from
surrounding agricultural lands. Four conservation easement areas totaling approximately 39.4 acres
have been established to encompass all of the project enhancement. The project will provide the
opportunity for approximately 10,656 linear feet of stream enhancement, 1,843 linear feet of stream
preservation, and approximately 0.04 acres of wetland enhancement and 0.24 acres of wetland
preservation. In addition, 4.6 acres of stream banks, riparian buffer, and upland buffer will be
enhanced through bioengineering, replanting, and invasive species control.
The project site, Iseley Farms, is an active farm with livestock operations and row and vegetable
crops. Over time, cattle intrusion and other land uses have resulted in degradation of the stream
reaches throughout the Site. Continual livestock access to the streams has resulted in some erosion
along the stream banks due to localized hoof shear and decimation of riparian vegetation. As a
result, bank instability has led to substantial sedimentation in many of the project reaches.
Additionally, cattle intrusion coupled with run-off from adjacent agricultural fields has deteriorated
water quality due to nutrient loading and pollutants such as fecal coliform being introduced into the
project reaches.
The project is located in the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Sub-basin 03-06-
02 of the Cape Fear River Basin, USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 03030002 (8-digit HUC) and Local
Watershed Unit 03030002030010 (14-digit HUC). All streams at the Site flow directly to the Haw
River, which is the closest named stream to the project area. The NCDWQ stream index number
for the Haw River at this location is 16-(1)d2. The section of the Haw River present at the project
site is listed on North Carolina's Year 2006 303(d) report (NCDWQ, 2006).
Topography associated with the site consists of gently sloping hills and valleys. Elevations range
from a high of 660 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the northeastern project boundary to a low of
approximately 560 feet above msl along the Haw River. The total drainage area at the Site, which

1
UT to Haw FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
Executive Summary
i,
comprises of all project reaches, is approximately 516.1 acres (0.80 square miles). Iseley Farms
encompasses approximately 254.5 acres (49%) of the total drainage area.
For the purpose of discussion within this report, the streams at the site will be divided into nine
perennial and seven intermittent project reaches. These reaches have been identified according to
their position within the project landscape and are delimited where there are separate streams or
where there are significant changes in stream characteristics along a given reach. The project stream
reaches, listed as they occur at the site from west to east, are defined as follows:
• Main West is a perennial stream reach that flows through the westernmost easement area
from northeast to southwest. Main West is a first order perennial stream where in enters the
conservation easement from the north and a second order perennial stream by the time it
has a direct confluence with the Haw River at the southern end of the easement boundary.
The Main West reach is 1,715.0 feet in length.
• Trib 1-V1 is a small, first order intermittent tributary that enters the westernmost easement
area from the east and flows northwest to its confluence with Main West just north of the
West Pond. Trib W1 begins at a nick point near the easement boundary, but is also
influenced by a spring head near its confluence with Main West. Trib W1 is 128.0 feet in
length.
• Main Center is a large perennial tributary that enters the central "y-shaped" easement area
from the northwest. Main Center is a first order stream when it enters the easement and
becomes a second order stream at its confluence with Trib C1. Main Center flows southeast
to its confluence with Trib C2 where it becomes a third order stream, then turns south and
flows directly to the Haw River. The Main Center reach is approximately 3,924.5 feet in
length.
• Trib C1 is a small, first order tributary that enters the western arm of the "y-shaped" center
easement area from the northeast. Trib C1 is an intermittent tributary when it enters the
easement, then becomes a perennial tributary at a distinct nick point as it flows southwest
along the reach. Waters from Trib C1 feed Center Pond 1 then join Main Center
immediately downstream on the pond. Trib C1 has an intermittent length of approximately
161.0 feet and a perennial length of 707.5 feet.
• Trib C2 is a large perennial tributary that enters the eastern arm of the "y-shaped" center
easement area from the northeast. Trib C2 is a first order spring fed tributary that originates
outside of the easement, becoming a second order stream at its confluence with Trib C2-a.
Trib C2 flows southwest and feeds Center Pond 2 before ultimately reaching its confluence
with Main Center. Trib C2 has a length of approximately 1,947.5 feet.
• Trib C2-a is a very small, first order intermittent tributary that enters the central easement
area from the east. Trib C2-a flows west to its confluence with Trib C2 in the northeastern
portion of the "y-shaped" center easement area. Trib C2-a has a length of 258.0 feet.
• Trib C2-b is a very small, first order intermittent tributary that enters the central easement
area from the north. Trib C2-a flows south to its confluence with Trib C2 in the
northeastern portion of the "y-shaped" center easement area just upstream of Center Pond
2. Trib C2-b is 239.0 feet in length.
• Trib C2-c is a very small perennial tributary that enters the central easement area from the
east. Trib C2-c is a first order spring fed tributary that flows west to its confluence with Trib
11
UT to Haan FINAL Restoration Plan Au,gust 2008
Executive Summary
C2 just upstream of where Trib C2 meets Main Center. The length of Trib C2-c is
approximately 98.0 feet.
• Southeast Trib is a first order intermittent tributary located in the small vertical easement area
that does not directly abut the Haw River. Southeast Trib flows south through the easement
but loses definition and ultimately disappears at the southernmost portion of its easement
area. The Southeast Trib is approximately 349.0 feet in length.
• Main East originates below a large farm pond and flows from north to south through the
easternmost easement area. Main East enters the easement as a first order, undefined
intermittent tributary. Main East becomes a second order perennial stream at its confluence
with Trib E1 and ultimately has a direct confluence with the Haw River at the southern
extent of the easement. The Main East reach has an intermittent length of approximately
704.0 feet and a perennial length of 1,451.5 feet.
• Trib El is a small, first order perennial tributary located within the eastern easement area.
Trib E1 is a spring fed tributary on the western side of Main East. Trib E1 flows south
from its origin to its confluence with Main East. Trib E1 has a length of 122.5 feet.
• Trib E2 is a small, first order perennial tributary located within the eastern easement area.
Trib E2 is a spring fed tributary on the eastern side of Main East. Trib E2 flows south from
its origin to its confluence with Main East. Trib E2 is 293.0 feet in length.
• Trib E3 is a small, first order perennial tributary that enters the eastern easement area from
the northeast. Trib E3 originates outside of the designated easement area and flows
southwest to its confluence with Main East. Trib E3 is approximately 400.5 feet in length.
Projectgoals and objectives
Goals
* Improve the overall water quality of streams at the Site by reducing the input of sediment and
pollutants (i.e., fecal coliform and nutrient loading) into the aquatic system.
Improve the richness and diversity of the plant species within the riparian zone and upland
buffers along the project reaches.
Improve the overall wildlife habitat across the entire conservation easement
Objectives
® Stabilize excessively eroded stream banks through bioengineering techniques and appropriate
vegetation planting.
Eliminate livestock access to project reaches and associated riparian buffers through the
installation of cattle exclusion fencing.
Effectively treat and eliminate approximately 4.2 acres of invasive plant species and replace with
appropriate native plant material.
Implement a specific planting plan that addresses immediate planting needs for 0.45 acres of
stream bank, 1.06 acres of riparian buffer, 3.14 acres of upland buffer, . and provides for
supplemental planting of all vegetative zones based on site specific needs identified during
project construction.
Protect the completed enhancement activities at the Site through 39.4 acres of perpetual
conservation easement.
iii
UT to Haw FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
Executive Summary
Implement a site specific farm management plan that compliments enhancement activities by
providing alternative water sources, additional fencing, and at-grade permanent stream crossings.
Existing and De igned Site Conditions
The stability of the existing stream channels at the site was determined by employing visual
assessment techniques. The areas assessed were determined to be either stable or unstable merely
through visual observations that estimated bankfull parameters based on visual indicators at the time
of the field investigation. The tributaries are proposed for Enhancement II restoration or
preservation and therefore no morphological information was collected. It was observed that the
main source of the bank degradation and stability issues throughout this project included cattle
intrusion and lack of adequate riparian buffer.
Within the Site, much of the riparian understory has been eliminated by livestock and bank erosion.
Restoration of the natural plant community will be four fold: 1) implementing an enhancement
design while evaluating the value of the existing vegetation and retaining it when possible; 2)
reestablishing woody and herbaceous vegetation within the riparian corridor to restore the buffer; 3)
eliminating invasive species; and 4) fencing livestock from all restored areas to eliminate their impact
within the riparian zone. A conservation easement area of approximately 39.4 acres has been
established to encompass all of the project mitigation and to provide long-term protection for the
Site.
The project will provide the opportunity for approximately 10,656 linear feet of stream
enhancement, 1,843 linear feet of stream preservation, and approximately 0.04 acres of wetland
enhancement and 0.24 acres of wetland preservation. In addition, 4.6 acres of stream banks, riparian
buffer, and upland buffer will be enhanced through bioengineering, replanting, and invasive species
control. Existing and proposed stream lengths by reach are detailed in Table I.
iv
UT to Han, River FINAL Restoration Plan Au,gust 2008
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location
The Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Haw River Stream Enhancement Site (Site) is situated in the
northwest corner of Alamance County, North Carolina. Specifically, the Site is located on multiple
UTs to the Haw River approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the Town of Ossipee and 3.1 miles
northwest of the City of Burlington near the intersection of Gerringer Mill Road (SR 1530) and
Burch Bridge Road (SR 1593) (Figure 1). The Site is located within the `Little Alamance, Travis,
and Tickle Local Watershed Plan' area, (LATT LWP).
The site covers nearly 388 acres and includes approximately 10,660 linear feet of perennial stream
channel and 1,839 linear feet of intermittent stream channel. The streams on-site have been
significantly impacted by previous and ongoing livestock operations. Stream enhancement activities
are needed to improve water quality and to provide greater protection for aquatic ecosystems from
surrounding agricultural lands. Four conservation easement areas totaling approximately 39.4 acres
have been established to encompass all of the project enhancement. The project will provide the
opportunity for approximately 10,656 linear feet of stream enhancement, 1,843 linear feet of stream
preservation, and approximately 0.04 acres of wetland enhancement and 0.24 acres of wetland
preservation. In addition, 4.6 acres of stream banks, riparian buffer, and upland buffer will be
enhanced through bioengineering, replanting, and invasive species control.
1.1 Directions to Project Site
The project site is located directly adjacent to the Haw River approximately 2.8 miles southeast of
the Town of Ossipee and 3.1 miles northwest of the City of Burlington in Alamance County. The
approximate center of the project site is located at 36.14158° N Latitude and 79.47554° W
Longitude. The site is bounded by Gerringer Mill Road (SR 1530) to the north, Burch Bridge Road
(SR 1593) to the east, and the Haw River to the west and south.
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The project is located in the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Sub-basin 03-06-
02 of the Cape Fear River Basin, USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 03030002 (8-digit HUC) and Local
Watershed Unit 03030002030010 (14-digit HUC). The Haw River is the closest named stream to
the project area. All streams at the Site flow directly to the Haw River, which is the closest named
stream to the project area. Nine reaches of perennial unnamed tributary and seven reaches of
intermittent unnamed tributary to the Haw River are present on the project site. The NCDWQ
stream index number for the Haw River at this location is 16-(1)d2 (NCDWQ, 2005). The section of
the Haw River present at the project site is listed on North Carolina's Year 2006 303(d) report
(NCDWQ, 2006).
2.0 Watershed Characterization
2.1 Drainage Area
Three direct tributaries to the Haw River and their associated unnamed tributaries, as well as one
isolated intermittent stream reach comprise the project reaches at the Site. These fourteen reaches
were delineated where there are either separate streams or where there are significant changes in
drainage area along a given reach. Detailed descriptions of each stream reach are discussed in Table
1
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan Augu t 2008
I and Section 3.0. Drainage areas of the individual stream reaches are shown on Figure 2 and
summarized in Table H. The total drainage area at the Site, which comprises of all project reaches,
is approximately 516.1 acres (0.80 square miles). Iseley Farms encompasses approximately 254.5
acres (49%) of the total drainage area.
2.2 Surface Water Classification / Water Quality
Tributaries not listed by NCDWQ are considered to have the same classification as the waterbodies
to which they drain. The Haw River from its source to a point 0.4 mile downstream of Cane Creek
is classified as C; NSW. Class "C" waters have a "best-usage" rating for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) is
a supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to
their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. There are no
high quality waters (HQW), outstanding resource waters (ORW), or drinking water supply
waters (WS-I and WS-II) within a one mile radius of the Site.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water-quality
monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water-quality
data. The type of water-quality data or parameters collected is determined by the waterbody's
classification and corresponding water quality standards. The AMS determines the "use support"
status of waterbodies, meaning how well a waterbody supports its designated uses. There are no
AMS monitoring stations within a one mile radius of the Site.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters not meeting
water quality standards or which have impaired uses. Waters may be excluded from the list if
existing control strategies for point and nonpoint source pollution will achieve the standards or uses
(NCDWQ, 2006). North Carolina's Year 2006 303(d) report is a comprehensive public accounting
of all impaired waterbodies in the state. The section of Haw River present at the project site is
listed on the 2006 303(d) report. This section of the Haw River is listed due to poor biological
integrity as a result of fecal coliform. Primary contributors to this rating include agricultural runoff,
impervious surface runoff, and permitted discharge within the sub-basin from numerous National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) sites upstream of the project site on the Haw
River.
Bioclassification criteria have been developed that are based on the number of benthic
macroinvertebrates (primarily Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera) present in streams and
rivers because they are very sensitive to the effects of water pollution. Streams and river reaches are
given a bioclassification rating that ranges from Excellent to Poor based on benthic
macroinvertebrate collection data. These bioclassifications, which have been developed for North
Carolina's major ecoregions, are used to assess the various impacts of both point source discharges
and non-point source runoff. There are no benthic monitoring stations within a one mile
radius of the Site.
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils
Topography associated with the site consists of gently sloping hills and valleys. Elevations range
from a high of 660 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the northeastern project boundary to a low of
approximately 560 feet above msl along the Haw River.
2
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan Au,gust 2008
The project watershed lies within the Southern Outer Piedmont Ecoregion of the Piedmont
physiographic province (Griffith et al., 2002). Local geology consists of intrusive rocks of the
Carolina Slate Belt. These include metamorphosed granitic rocks which are megacrystic, well
foliated, and locally known to contain hornblende (NCDLR, 1985).
The process of soil development depends on both biotic and abiotic influences. These influences
include past geologic activities, parent material composition, human influences, plant and animal
activity, time, climate, and topographical position. A total of 22 individual soil series are mapped
within the four conservation easement areas at the Site (Figure 3). These soil series are described in
Table III found in Section 10.0.
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The land use within the watershed is entirely rural with the number of rural residential homes having
only minimally increased within the watershed over the past 50+ years. The majority of rural areas
exist as either forest or pastureland for cattle farming or agriculture. A detailed description of the
land use within the watershed is outlined in Table IV.
Reviews of historic aerial photographs were conducted at the Alamance County Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) in Burlington, NC. The earliest historic aerial photographs reviewed
were from 1951. These aerial photographs indicate that only a very limited amount of rural
residential development has occurred, resulting in a relatively unaltered watershed over the past 50+
years. Currently, there is no known development planned within the project watershed that would
impact the proposed enhancement project.
Based on aerial photographs, existing stream channels at the Site have not been altered, moved, or
channelized. Historically, livestock have not been fenced from the streams at any location within
the Site. Continual livestock access to the streams has resulted in some erosion along the stream
banks due to localized hoof shear and decimation of riparian vegetation. As a result, bank instability
has led to substantial sedimentation in many of the project reaches. Additionally, cattle intrusion
coupled with run-off from adjacent agricultural fields has deteriorated water quality due to nutrient
loading and pollutants such as fecal coliform being introduced into the project reaches.
2.5 Endangered / Threatened Species
Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any federal action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected be
subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Species which are listed,
or are proposed for listing, as endangered or threatened are recorded in Section 4 of the ESA. As
defined by the Act, an endangered species is any plant or animal which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. A threatened
species is any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Other species may receive additional protection
under separate laws such as the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1999,
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, or the Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
2.5.1 Federally Protected Species
As of the December 20, 2007 USFWS list of federally protected species for Alamance County, no
species listed as Threatened (T) or Endangered (E) are known to occur in the county. A
review of the most recent North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) maps was also
conducted and confirmed that no federally protected species are known to occur within a one mile
radius of the Site.
2.5.2 Federal Designated Critical Habitat
In addition to federally protected species, critical habitat areas are also recorded under Section 4 of
the ESA. As defined by USFWS, critical habitat is "specific geographic areas, whether occupied by a
listed species or not, that are essential for their conservation and that have been formally designated
by rule published in the Federal Register" (USFWS, 2005). There are no Critical Habitat
Designations within a one mile radius of the Site.
2.5.3 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7. Species designated as FSC are defined
as taxa which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2)
species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to
support listing.
1
In addition to the federally listed species described above, the USFWS lists six FSC as occurring in
Alamance County as of the December 20, 2007 protected species list. The NHP list identifies seven
additional species as receiving protection under state laws. The NHP maps were reviewed to
determine if any FSC or state protected species have been identified near the Site. This map review
confirmed that no FSC or state species are known to occur within a one mile radius of the Site.
2.6 Cultural Resources
This Site is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal
Agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or
permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
A formal written request was submitted to the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
on September 28, 2007 for a review and evaluation of potential historic architectural and/or
archaeological sites on the Site and in the surrounding area. A response letter dated November 9,
2007 indicates that SHPO is aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project.
SHPO has no comment on the project as proposed.
4
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
2.7 Potential Constraints
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The proposed enhancement project is located entirely on two privately-owned parcels. This
property is owned by:
• Ms. Jane Iseley, 2960 Burch Bridge Road, Burlington, NC 27217
A conservation easement of approximately 39.4 acres of land has been purchased by the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to undertake the project and to provide for its
perpetual protection.
2.7.2 Site Access
Access to the conservation easement during all phases of the project will be maintained through the
landowner's gated entrances to the Site. These entrances are located at the end of Terry Smith Trail
and on Burch Bridge Road (SR 1593) approximately 0.75 mile south of Gerringer Mill Road (SR
1530).
2.7.3 Utilities
There are no known physical constraints resulting from existing utilities or easements that would
hinder the implementation of this enhancement project.
2.7.4 FEMA / Hydrologic Trespass
Hydraulic modeling has been completed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in
coordination with the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program (NCFMP) for the Haw River,
the closest detailed study area to the project site. This model includes the most downstream aspects
of the project site to be in Zones AE or X, or as backwaters of the Haw River.
Hydrologic trespass will not occur as a result of the proposed project. No permanent structures
proposed as part of the project he within the floodway of the Haw River and therefore cannot
change the dynamics of the Haw River's 100 year or 500 year flow. Accordingly, none of the
proposed work changes the bed elevation or hydraulic geometry on any of the three UTs to the Haw
River and thus will have no hydraulic impact on these systems.
3.0 Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions)
For the purpose of discussion within this report, the streams at the site will be divided into nine
perennial and seven intermittent project reaches. These reaches have been identified according to
their position within the project landscape and are delimited where there are separate streams or
where there are significant changes in stream characteristics along a given reach (Figure 4).
Representative photographs of the project reaches can be found in Appendix 1. The project stream
reaches, listed as they occur at the site from west to east, are defined as follows:
5
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan Au,gust 2008
• Main West is a perennial stream reach that flows through the westernmost easement area
from northeast to southwest. Main West is a first order perennial stream where in enters the
conservation easement from the north and a second order perennial stream by the time it
has a direct confluence with the Haw River at the southern end of the easement boundary.
The Main West reach is 1,715.0 feet in length.
• Trib iF/9 is a small, first order intermittent tributary that enters the westernmost easement
area from the east and flows northwest to its confluence with Main West just north of the
West Pond. Trib W1 begins at a nick point near the easement boundary, but is also
influenced by a spring head near its confluence with Main West. Trib W1 is 128.0 feet in
length.
• Main Center is a large perennial tributary that enters the central "y-shaped" easement area
from the northwest. Main Center is a first order stream when it enters the easement and
becomes a second order stream at its confluence with Trib C1. Main Center flows southeast
to its confluence with Trib C2 where it becomes a third order stream, then turns south and
flows directly to the Haw River. The Main Center reach is approximately 3,924.5 feet in
length.
• Trib C1 is a small, first order tributary that enters the western arm of the "y-shaped" center
easement area from the northeast. Trib C1 is an intermittent tributary when it enters the
easement, then becomes a perennial tributary at a distinct nick point as it flows southwest
along the reach. Waters from Trib C1 feed Center Pond 1 then join Main Center
immediately downstream on the pond. Trib C1 has an intermittent length of approximately
161.0 feet and a perennial length of 707.5 feet.
• Trib C2 is a large perennial tributary that enters the eastern arm of the "y-shaped" center
easement area from the northeast. Trib C2 is a first order spring fed tributary that originates
outside of the easement, becoming a second order stream at its confluence with Trib C2-a.
Trib C2 flows southwest and feeds Center Pond 2 before ultimately reaching its confluence
with Main Center. Trib C2 has a length of approximately 1,947.5 feet.
• Trib C2-a is a very small, first order intermittent tributary that enters the central easement
area from the east. Trib C2-a flows west to its confluence with Trib C2 in the northeastern
portion of the "y-shaped" center easement area. Trib C2-a has a length of 258.0 feet.
• Trib C2-b is a very small, first order intermittent tributary that enters the central easement
area from the north. Trib C2-a flows south to its confluence with Trib C2 in the
northeastern portion of the "y-shaped" center easement area just upstream of Center Pond
2. Trib C2-b is 239.0 feet in length.
• Trib C2-c is a very small perennial tributary that enters the central easement area from the
east. Trib C2-c is a first order spring fed tributary that flows west to its confluence with Trib
C2 just upstream of where Trib C2 meets Main Center. The length of Trib C2-c is
approximately 98.0 feet.
• Southeast Trib is a first order intermittent tributary located in the small vertical easement area
that does not directly abut the Haw River. Southeast Trib flows south through the easement
but loses definition and ultimately disappears at the southernmost portion of its easement
area. The Southeast Trib is approximately 349.0 feet in length.
• Main East originates below a large farm pond and flows from north to south through the
easternmost easement area. Main East enters the easement as a first order, undefined
intermittent tributary. Main East becomes a second order perennial stream at its confluence
with Trib E1 and ultimately has a direct confluence with the Haw River at the southern
6
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
extent of the easement. The Main East reach has an intermittent length of approximately
704.0 feet and a perennial length of 1,451.5 feet.
• Trib El is a small, first order perennial tributary located within the eastern easement area.
Trib E1 is a spring fed tributary on the western side of Main East. Trib E1 flows south
from its origin to its confluence with Main East. Trib E1 has a length of 122.5 feet.
• Trib E2 is a small, first order perennial tributary located within the eastern easement area.
Trib E2 is a spring fed tributary on the eastern side of Main East. Trib E2 flows south from
its origin to its confluence with Main East. Trib E2 is 293.0 feet in length.
• Trib E3 is a small, first order perennial tributary that enters the eastern easement area from
the northeast. Trib E3 originates outside of the designated easement area and flows
southwest to its confluence with Main East. Trib E3 is approximately 400.5 feet in length.
3.1 Channel Classification
Stream channels at the Site were not classified using Rosgen's Classification of Natural Rivers
system. Stability was determined by employing visual assessment techniques. The areas assessed
were determined to be either stable or unstable merely through visual observations that estimated
bankfull parameters based on visual indicators at the time of the field investigation. These
parameters included bankfull stage, width, incision and entrenchment of the channel. The
tributaries are proposed for Enhancement II restoration or preservation and therefore no
morphological information was collected. It was observed that the main source of the bank
degradation and stability issues throughout this project included cattle intrusion and lack of adequate
riparian buffer. These unstable banks appear to have led to erosion, sedimentation, and a
deterioration of water quality along the project reaches, and have likely resulted in changes to
channel classification over time. Information pertaining to channel stability of specific project
reaches is described in Section 3.4.
3.2 Discharge (Bankfull Trends)
Historic aerial photographs dating back to 1951 were reviewed to examine historic land use and
watershed development trends near the Site. These photographs indicate that a very limited amount
of rural residential development has occurred within the watershed over the past 50+ years. The
majority of the watershed remains intact as forests or agricultural fields.
Some clear-cutting of forested areas for agricultural purposes is evidenced within the watershed both
by historic aerials and recent field investigation. Clear-cut areas that are not properly revegetated can
result in episodes of concentrated stormwater run-off. These types of impacts can cause short-term
fluctuations to bankfull parameters, specifically increased discharge to nearby streams. Once these
clear-cut areas have properly revegetated, discharge to nearby streams dramatically decreases and
bankfull parameters stabilize.
Enhancement activities proposed as part of this restoration plan will help protect the project stream
reaches from changes to bankfull trends. Enhancement and/or preservation of existing vegetation
in both upland and riparian areas along the project reaches will protect against the erosion and
sedimentation of the project channels caused by land use practices within the watershed. Permanent
exclusion of livestock from the project stream buffers is expected to allow the riparian vegetation to
fully establish, thus providing increased streambank stability and protect against water quality
7
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
deterioration caused by agricultural conversion. These improvements coupled with the continued
rural nature of the watershed will help ensure stable bankfull parameters for the project reaches into
the future.
3.3 Channel Morphology (Pattern, Dimension, and Profile)
Over time, impacts from cattle intrusion and other land uses have resulted in substantial degradation
to the stream reaches throughout the Site. Based on visual observations, these impacts have resulted
in substantial erosion along the stream banks, incision of the channels, channel widening in some
areas, and poor bed form diversity throughout the Site. Since the project reaches are proposed for
Enhancement II restoration or preservation, morphological information was not collected as no
change to the pattern, dimension, or profile of the project stream reaches is anticipated. Without
detailed existing condition and reference reach surveys, the degree of variance from natural channel
morphology cannot be accurately determined for the project reaches. However, areas of instability
were identified through visual assessment based on the appearance of entrenchment, obvious areas
of bank erosion where there is bare earth along steep, sloughing banks, and undercut banks with the
appearance of recent or current undermining.
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment
The BEHI assessment methodology was utilized to assess localized areas of erosion and to identify
areas requiring stream bank stabilization along specific project reaches. The BEHI assessment
measures stream bank erosion potential by evaluating critical criteria such as the bank/bankfull
height ratio, rooting depth, root density, bank angle, and the percent of the bank protected by E'
vegetation. These factors are combined to assign BEHI adjective ratings which describe erosion
potential.
The Main Center reach exhibited the most evidence of bank erosion. BEHI assessments were
conducted at six locations along the Main Center project reach. BEHI adjective ratings range from
moderate to very high along the Main Center reach. Based on existing conditions, it is estimated that
these localized areas of bank erosion lose a combined total of 24.92 tons of sediment per year.
Additionally, a BEHI assessment was conducted on Trib C2 immediately downstream of the
existing stream crossing. Continual headcutting has caused severe bank erosion in this area. The
BEHI adjective rating for Trib C2 at this location is high. Based on existing conditions, it is
estimated that this specific area of bank erosion loses 3.71 tons of sediment per year.
The NBS methodology is used to develop a quantitative prediction of stream bank erosion rates and
their relative contribution to the total bedload transported by a stream. The NBS adjective rating
was determined using NBS Level I Reconnaissance for the areas of bank erosion discussed above.
The NBS adjective rating ranged from high to very high for the Main Center reach and very high for
Trib C2.
3.5 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull parameters were estimated at all locations proposed for stream bank stabilization. Drainage
areas were calculated for each specific stabilization area and compared to the North Carolina
Regional Curves developed by Stream Restoration Institute (SRI) to predict the approximate stream
8
UT to Hazy River FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
dimensions for each location. Cross sectional data was not collected in the field since modifications
to existing bankfull parameters are not proposed. Bankfull cross sectional areas were back-
calculated from the specific drainage areas. Based on the regional curve, bankfull areas ranged from
12 to 20 ft2 on the Main Center reach, 3 ft2 on Trib E3, 4 ft2 on Trib C1, and 6 ft2 on Trib C2.
3.6 Vegetation
The existing stream buffers for the Site range from a very narrow buffer of scattered trees to a fully
enclosed mature forest canopy. Regardless of the width of riparian and upland buffers, cattle have
direct access to all streams at the Site. This cattle intrusion and grazing of the existing riparian
vegetation has resulted in severe bank erosion, bank instability, sedimentation, and a loss of riparian
vegetation along each of the project reaches at the Site.
The vegetation within the proposed conservation easement areas at the Site is separated into two
major communities. These communities are based primarily on topographical position and current
land use. The first community covers the sometimes sparsely vegetated buffers found adjacent to
the existing streams at the Site. The dominant canopy species in these areas includes black walnut
(Juglans nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus americana), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa),
river birch (Betula nigra), white oak (Quercus alba), beech (Fagus grandifolia), and loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda). Subcanopy species include eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), red maple (Acer rubrum), flowering dogwood, (Cornus florida), American holly (Ilex opaca),
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), and immature canopy species. The shrub and herbaceous layers
include pawpaw (Asimina triloba), red bud (Cercis canadensis), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis), and immature canopy and
subcanopy species.
The second community includes areas existing in open pasture at the Site. The dominant species in
these areas includes fescue (Festuca spp.), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), goldenrod (Solidago
spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and various other grasses and forbs. Wetter areas in the existing
pastures were dominated by various rushes (Juncus spp.) and sedges (Carex spp.)
Invasive species are also present in the two vegetative communities at the Site. Chinese privet,
multiflora rose, and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) are the dominant invasives on-site.
Privet and Japanese stiltgrass are located within the existing riparian buffers along many of the
project reaches. Multiflora rose is found in both the riparian areas and open pasture areas.
4.0 Reference Communities
The designs for the UT to Haw River Stream Enhancement Site do not include any in-stream
channel modification or relocation. Instead, the primary component of the project is the
enhancement and preservation of specific vegetative communities associated with the project stream
reaches. In order to determine the most appropriate plant species for the Site, Mulkey utilized
reference plant communities provided by EEP and inventoried by NHP. The reference sites were
located within the same physiographic province, and display similar vegetative characteristics as the
plant communities at the Site.

9
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
Mulkey is incorporating three reference plant communities into the restoration designs for the Site.
The first, Altamahaw Alluvial Forest, is located approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the Site in
Alamance County, NC (Figure 5a). More specifically, it is located immediately adjacent to the Haw
River between NC 87 at Altamahaw and the Guilford County line. The second reference site, Stony
Creek Forest, is located 3.5 east of the Site in Alamance County, NC (Figure 5b). Its specific
location is immediately adjacent to a UT to Stony Creek between the Stony Creek Reservoir and
Deep Creek Church Road less than one mile north of Hopedale, NC. The third and final reference
site, Williamsburg Alluvial Forest, is located 11.5 miles northwest of the Site in Rockingham County,
NC (Figure 5c). This site is specifically located on the south side of the Haw River immediately west
of NC 150 approximately 1.3 miles south of Williamsburg, NC.
4.1 Landscape Relationship
The Altamahaw Alluvial Forest occupies the floodplain and slopes along the Haw River between
NC 87 at Altamahaw and the Guilford County line. It is fairly isolated from other sites in Alamance
County but is one of many natural areas in the Haw River Corridor in Alamance, Guilford, and
Rockingham Counties. The Altamahaw Alluvial Forest includes three natural communities:
Piedmont Alluvial Forest, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest.
Though the forest is often immature and suffers from past and present disturbance, the site provides
valuable wildlife habitat along the Haw River corridor and has a beneficial effect on water quality in
the Cape Fear River Basin.
Stony Creek Forest is in north-central Alamance County. It surrounds a UT that runs into Stony
Creek Reservoir from the east. It is in an area of agricultural and rural residential development just
north of Burlington and is about one-half mile from the Haw River. Stony Creek Forest contains
good quality Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest absent recent disturbance. It serves as a buffer along
Stony Creek Reservoir, which provides a portion of Burlington's drinking water. The woodland has
a beneficial effect on water quality in the reservoir and in the Haw River, which is a fraction of a
mile downstream from the dam.
Williamsburg Alluvial Forest is located in southeast Rockingham County. It occupies alluvial
floodplain along the Haw River bordered by steep and gentle, north-facing slopes. The site contains
two natural communities. Piedmont Alluvial Forest occurs along the banks of the Haw River and its
tributaries. The bordering slopes support Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest. The site is an important
element of the Haw River corridor, which includes a variety of wetland and terrestrial communities
in Guilford and Rockingham Counties.
4.2 Vegetation
4.2.1 Altamahaw Alluvial Forest
The Altamahaw Alluvial Forest floodplain supports a Piedmont Alluvial Forest community type
which varies in quality, but most is immature. The mixed canopy includes river birch, tuliptree,
sycamore, red maple, sweetgtnn, and willow oak (Quercus phellos). The subcanopy is composed of
saplings of canopy species, American holly, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and ironwood. In
places pines are prevalent in the canopy and the understory is dense with hardwood saplings.
Among the shrubs present are black haw (Viburnum prunifolium), dog-hobble (Leucothoe axillwis var.
editorum), multiflora rose, and Chinese privet. There is a dense layer of vines and herbs, and weedy
10
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan Au,gust 2008
species are prevalent. Common vines are Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), trumpetcreeper
(Campsis radicans), climbing hempvine (Mikania scandens), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). The herb layer is dominated by Japanese stiltgrass and river
oats (Uniola latifolia).
Small wetland communities have developed where run-off from upland fields drains onto the
alluvial flat. These are dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Among the species present are wapato
(Sagittaria latifolia), crimson-eyed hibiscus (Hibiscus moscheutos), knotweed (Polygonum sp.), pickerelweed
(Pontederia cordata), sedges, cardinal flower, and golden club (Orontium aguaticum). There are also
several small areas on the floodplain where water pools after floods.
The adjacent short slopes are often disturbed. They vary from mesic to rocky and dry-mesic. The
canopy includes beech, tuliptree, white oak, and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata). Sourwood is present
in both the canopy and subcanopy. Other subcanopy species are flowering dogwood, redbud, black
cherry (Prunus serotins), sugarberry (Celtic laevigata), and American holly. The most common shrubs
are blueberry (Vaccinium vacillans), American strawberry-bush (Evonymus americana), and fringetree
(Chionanthus virginicus). Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia) is the most common vine. There are generally
few herbs except on the lower slope, where Japanese grass is prevalent.
4.2.2 Stony Creek Forest
The Stony Creek Forest site was cleared in the past but has been left undisturbed for many years. It
now supports a maturing Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest. The forest has an even-aged canopy that
includes Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) and loblolly pine in places but is primarily composed of
hardwoods. The most common canopy species are white oak and other oaks, sweetgum, tuliptree,
and hickories (Carya spp.). The understory contains saplings of canopy species, sourwood, red
maple, flowering dogwood, and American holly. The most common shrubs are blueberries and
mapleleaf arrowwood (Viburnum acerifolium). Muscadine is the most abundant vine; it can both cover
the ground and ascend trees into the canopy. Herbs are sparse. Typical piedmont species such as
downy rattlesnake orchid (Goodyera pubescens), common grapefern (Botrychium dissectum), Christmas
fern, and tick-trefoils (Desmodium spp.) are common. Along the creek and draws more mesophytic
species predominate, including dwarf crested iris (Iris cristata), foamflower (Tiarella cordifolia), green-
head coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata), sessile-leaf bellwort (Umlaria sessil folia), and broad beech-fern
(Thelypterls hexagonoptera).
Where creeks feed into the reservoir sediment has accumulated. These areas support small wetland
communities. They have an open canopy that includes river birch, sycamore, green ash, and black
willow (Salix nigra). Shrubs present include buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum). Dodder (Cuscuta sp.), and groundnut (Apios americans) are the common vines. The
lush herb layer is dense with sedges, swamp smartweed (Polygonum setaceum), green arrow-arum
(Peltandra virginica), square-stem monkeyflower (Mimulus ringens), and other wetland species.
4.2.3 Williamsburg Alluvial Forest
This site contains two natural communities. Piedmont Alluvial Forest occurs along the banks of the
Haw River and its tributaries. The bordering slopes support Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest. The
(EEE Alluvial Forest canopy includes typical wetland species such as box elder (Acer negundo), red maple,
slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), river birch, and sycamore. Saplings of these species occur in the
11
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
subcanopy along with ironwood, winged elm (Ulmus alata), black haw, and sweet bay (Magnolia
virginiana). Shrubs and small trees in the Alluvial Forest include common pawpaw, tag alder (Alnus
serrulaia), possum-haw (Ilex decidua), Viburnum dentatum var. dentatum (an arrowwood) and, along the
banks of the Haw River, yellowroot (Xantborbi.Za simplicissima). The understory is densely covered
with poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). This vine has choked out non-weedy, native plant species.
In the areas of Chastian soil there are large, standing pools of water. These areas are clear of weedy
species and support herbaceous wetland plants such as Carex S . (sedges), orange jewelweed
(Impatiens capensis), bitter cress (Cardamine pennylvanica), lamp rush (juncus ffusus), jumpseed (Tovara
virginiana), and purple fringeless orchid (Platantberaperamonea).
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest occurs along the north-facing slopes bordering the Alluvial Forest.
The dominant canopy species are beech, oaks, and tuliptree. The dominant subcanopy trees and
shrubs include ironwood, sourwood, hazel-nut (Corylus americana) on the dry, upper slope, deerberry
(Vaccinium stamineum), and mapleleaf arrowwood. On the short steep bluffs are two populations of
Nestronia umbellula (leechbrush), a significantly rare species in North Carolina. The slopes are fairly
free of weedy, invasive species. In areas where the buffer is narrow the hardwood forest includes
weeds such as Japanese honeysuckle.
5.0 Project Site Wetlands (Existing Conditions)
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a'
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987). Based on this definition and the guidance provided in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual, delineation of jurisdictional wetlands is based on the presence of three
diagnostic indicators: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology.
A review of NWI maps identified no wetland systems other than existing freshwater ponds within
the project easement. However, during field investigation biologists from Mulkey observed three
areas of jurisdictional wetlands within the easement boundary (Figure 6). Wetland WA is the largest
wetland at 0.15 acre and serves as a transitional area between Trib C2 and Center Pond 2. Wedand
WB is the second largest at 0.09 acre and serves as a transitional area between the Main West
tributary and the West Pond. Wetland WC is the smallest wetland measuring only 0.04 acre.
Wetland WC serves as a backwater wetland of the West Pond and captures stormwater runoff from
a recently cleared and planted cattle pasture immediately adjacent and to the west. USACE wetland
data forms have been completed for these wetlands and are included in Appendix 2. These wetlands
have not been verified by the USACE.
12
UT to Hai Diver FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
6.0 Project Site Restoration Plan
6.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
Goals
Improve the overall water quality of streams at the Site by reducing the input of sediment and
pollutants (i.e., fecal coliform and nutrient loading) into the aquatic system.
® Improve the richness and diversity of the plant species within the riparian zone and upland
buffers along the project reaches.
Improve the overall wildlife habitat across the entire conservation easement
Objectives
Stabilize excessively eroded stream banks through bioengineering techniques and appropriate
vegetation planting.
Eliminate livestock access to project reaches and associated riparian buffers through the
installation of cattle exclusion fencing.
Effectively treat and eliminate approximately 4.2 acres of invasive plant species and replace with
appropriate native plant material.
Implement a specific planting plan that addresses immediate planting needs for 0.45 acres of
stream bank, 1.06 acres of riparian buffer, 3.14 acres of upland buffer, and provides for
supplemental planting of all vegetative zones based on site specific needs identified during
project construction.
* Protect the completed enhancement activities at the Site through 39.4 acres of perpetual
conservation easement.
Implement a site specific farm management plan that compliments enhancement activities by
providing alternative water sources, additional fencing, and at-grade permanent stream crossings.
To meet these goals and objectives, Mulkey will implement a design plan based upon documented
data and past project experience. The design will protect and/or enhance vegetative buffers on all
stream banks in a manner more conducive to stream stability.
6.1.1 Designed Channel Classification
The designs for each project reach do not include any alterations to existing morphological stream
characteristics. Instead, project reaches will be enhanced and/or preserved utilizing Enhancement II
and Preservation type restoration practices. Data reviewed from the Altamahaw Alluvial Forest,
Stony Creek Forest, and Williamsburg Alluvial Forest reference vegetation sites were incorporated
into all proposed Enhancement II restoration for the project reaches. Specific information
regarding the type of restoration proposed for each project reach can be found in Table I.
6.1.2 Target Buffer Communities
The target buffer communities will be comprised of plants from the reference plant communities
described in Section 4.2, which naturally occur within this physiographic province and within a
specific hydrologic setting. The target riparian community will be indicative of the Piedmont
13
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan Au,gust 2008
Alluvial Forest and the target upland community will be indicative of the Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). A list of the plant species that will be
established at the Site are shown in Table VI.
6.2 HEC-RAS Analysis
6.2.1 No-rise, LOMR, CLOMR
Alamance County is located in an area of the State of North Carolina where the NCFMP has
completed their remapping process. The UT to Haw River Site is located on three Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRM) having Community Panel Numbers 3710885600J, 3710885700J, and
3710886600J, dated effective on September 6"', 2006. Three of the project reaches proposed for
restoration are located within areas designated as backwaters of the Haw River but do not have any
type of study associated with them (Figure 7). Given their Zone AE and X designations at their
downstream extent, these streams are flooded by the 100 year and 500 year events associated with
the Haw River but do not influence the system directly. Therefore, the base flood elevations shown
across these downstream sections are related to the detailed study of the Haw River. With these
systems being in the backwater conditions of the Haw River, no hydraulic modeling is necessary
since they have no hydraulic impact on the base flood elevations of the Haw River.
The proposed project has been designed such that all permanent structures (ie permanent at-grade
crossings) where excavation will occur are located outside the Haw River's floodway. The only
activity occurring within the floodway of the Haw River is a re-vegetation process where all existing
non-native, dense, brushy material will be removed and replaced with a Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Community. In conjunction with this re-vegetation process, a boundary/easement fence will be
installed but will not be sufficiently built to withstand the 100 year flood event from the Haw River.
Therefore the fence does not constitute a hydraulic obstruction. Neither of these processes pose
enough change to the Haw River system (Manning's n) to warrant a revisiting of the Haw River
hydraulic model. This coincides with the design's efforts to keep all excavation activities confined to
the backwater system of the Haw River where they will have no effect upon Haw River system.
Therefore, there is no expectation of any significant hydraulic change, in stage or flow, to the
surrounding communities and will not require a No-rise, LOMAR, or CLOMR.
Attempted correspondence with the Alamance County Planning Department, specifically Mr. Jason
Martin, the Alamance County Local Floodplain Administrator (LFPA), has been unsuccessful to
date. Two formal letters have been drafted and sent to Mr. Martin explaining conditions at the Site
and requesting guidance for proceeding forward with the project in compliance with all county
ordinances related to FEMA requirements.
6.2.2 Hydrologic Trespass
Hydrologic trespass will not occur as a result of the proposed project. No permanent structures
proposed as part of the project he within the floodway of the Haw River and therefore cannot
change the dynamics of the Haw River's 100 year or 500 year flow. Accordingly, none of the
proposed work changes the bed elevation or hydraulic geometry on any of the three Unnamed
Tributaries to Haw River and thus will have no hydraulic impact on these systems.
14
UT to Ham, River FINAL Restoration Plan Au,gust 2008
6.3 Agricultural/ Farm Stormwater Best Management Practices
6.3.1 Narrative of Site-Specific Stormwater Concerns
Although much of the watershed is rural in nature, there is ongoing clear-cutting of forested areas
for conversion to agricultural uses. These occurrences are evidenced within the watershed both by
historic aerials and recent field investigation. Clear-cut areas that are not properly revegetated can
result in episodes of concentrated stormwater run-off. These types of impacts can cause short-term
fluctuations to bankfull parameters, specifically increased discharge to nearby streams.
Proposed enhancement activities will help protect the project stream against nonpoint stormwater
run-off. Permanent exclusion of livestock and reestablishment of riparian stream corridors will
provide increased streambank stability and protect against water quality deterioration caused by
agricultural conversion.
6.3.2 Device Description and Application
Enhancement activities proposed as part of this restoration plan will greatly improve stream
instability issues on all project reaches. The installation of cattle exclusion fencing and enhancement
and/or preservation of existing vegetation in both upland and riparian areas along the project
reaches will reduce erosion, sedimentation, incision, and widening of the project channels.
Permanent exclusion of livestock from the stream buffers is expected to allow the riparian
vegetation to fully establish, thus providing increased streambank stability. These improvement
coupled with the continued rural nature of the watershed will ensure stable bankfull parameters for
the project reaches into the future.
In order to prevent future instability to Trib C2 and the existing crossing, a cross vane structure will
be installed immediately downstream of the existing crossing. Additionally, bioengineering including
bank shaping and livestaking will be conducted to stabilize adjacent stream banks. Minor
improvements to the existing crossing may be conducted if determined necessary.
6.4 Soil Restoration
Certain areas designated for Enhancement II restoration include proposed soil bioengineering
practices. These practices remove topsoil to slope existing stream banks to an elevation below the
existing grade. Once the stream bank is graded, the remaining subsoil will be amended with topsoil
to encourage plant growth. Stream reaches proposed for bioengineering or at-grade crossings will
require soil restoration at the area of disturbance. Additionally, areas utilized as access roads will be
ameliorated using disking/ripping depending on their level of compaction.
6.4.1 Narrative & Soil Preparation and Amendment
Prior to stripping the topsoil, sod and grass will be removed or sprayed with herbicide. During the
grading of stream banks and excavation of at-grade crossings, topsoil will be removed to a depth
specific to the soil series. The topsoil will be stockpiled, segregated, and identified from the other
excavated material. Topsoil will be stockpiled away from the edge of excavations and measures will
be implemented to prevent erosion from stockpile areas. Once final grading has been completed,
excavated areas will be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches to loosen the soil. Salvaged topsoil
15
UT to Han, River FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
will be placed and spread evenly to a depth of at least 3 inches. While completing the final grade,
lime and fertilizer will be added to the soil to enhance plant growth and development.
6.5 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Within the Site, much of the riparian understory has been eliminated by livestock and bank erosion.
Restoration of the natural plant community will be four fold: 1) implementing an enhancement
design while evaluating the value of the existing vegetation and retaining it when possible; 2)
reestablishing woody and herbaceous vegetation within the riparian corridor to restore the buffer; 3)
eliminating invasive species; and 4) fencing livestock from all restored areas to eliminate their impact
within the riparian zone.
6.5.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration
Mulkey has reviewed data from three reference plant community locations and the existing plant
communities at the Site in preparation of the planting plan. The planting plan for the riparian and
upland buffers of the Site will provide post-construction erosion control and riparian habitat
enhancement. The planting plan will also attempt to blend existing vegetative communities into
recently restored areas. Plantings in the buffer areas will include native species appropriate for the
Piedmont physiographic province and the Site. Native species plants will be used exclusively for all
plantings. Plants within the floodplain will be flood tolerant species to accommodate periodic
flooding events throughout the year. A variety of trees and shrubs will be planted to provide cover
and habitat for wildlife as well as soil stabilization.
Shrubs and trees with extensive, deep rooting systems will assist in stabilizing the banks in the long
term. Native grasses, transplants, and live stakes will be utilized at the Site for immediate
stabilization in conjunction with erosion control matting along the bioengmeered stream banks and
at-grade crossings. Vegetation will be planted in a random fashion in an effort to mimic natural
plant communities. Depending on position within the landscape, buffer areas will be planted at
necessary densities to ensure success criteria are met. Planting of species will utilize dormant plant
stock and will be performed to the extent practicable between December 1 and March 15.
Tree and shrub species will be planted in specific planting zones. These planting zones will
accommodate plant species which have specific requirements for growth. Hydrology and
topography are the main factors that dictate a plant's ability to survive and to thrive following
planting. These planting zones will be created around these requirements and will include the
following zones: Zone 1 (Stream Banks), Zone 2 (Riparian Buffer), Zone 3 (Upland Buffer), and
Zone 4 (Understoty Enhancement). A list of species recommended for each Zone can be found in
Table VI.
Cattle exclusion fencing is a major component of plant community restoration in areas not proposed
for supplemental planting. By eliminating cattle from the stream buffers, colonization of local
woody and herbaceous vegetation will occur naturally and provide additional stream stability.
Natural colonization is proposed for areas of dense mature canopy where the mortality rate of
supplemental planting is expected to be high. These areas will be closely monitored and, if
necessary, supplemented in the future if warranted by specific site conditions.
16
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
6.5.2 ®n-site Invasive Species Management
A total of 4.2 acres of invasive and exotic species have been identified at the Site. These areas will
be removed, and native plant material will be planted in its place, as part of project construction.
These species will be destroyed in a manner which will not allow propagation from the parent plant.
Further control of the invasive and exotic species will be done on an as-needed basis following
construction with either herbicide application and/or through mechanical removal. Herbicide
application methods and rates will be tailored to the Site. Multiple treatments will likely be necessary
to provide effective control of the invasive species. Invasive species control will include some areas
just outside of the project easement when necessary to provide adequate control and prevent further
intrusion. Invasive species located at the Site include Chinese privet, multiflora rose, and Japanese
stiltgrass (Figure 8). Privet and Japanese stiltgrass are located within the existing riparian buffers
along many of the project reaches. Multiflora rose is found in both the riparian areas and open
pasture areas.
7.0 Performance Criteria
7.1 Streams
Success criteria for stream mitigation sites are based on guidelines established by the USACE, US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and
the NCDWQ (USACE et. al, 2003). These guidelines establish criteria for both hydrologic
conditions and vegetation survival.
Stream channel monitoring will determine the degree of success a mitigation project has achieved in
meeting the objectives of providing proper channel function and increased habitat quality. The
monitoring activities will evaluate the restored sections of the Site in regard to overall channel
stability. Since there is no channel work proposed, morphological characteristics will not be
measured. Instead, thorough visual assessments will focus on documenting evidence of aggradation,
degradation, and bank erosion throughout the monitoring period. Monitoring will be performed
each year for the 5-year monitoring period and no less than two bankfull flow events must be
documented within the monitoring period, with each of the bankfull events occurring during
separate monitoring years. In the event tliat the required bankfull events do not occur during the 5-
year period, consultation with EEP and other resource agencies will be conducted.
Monitoring of the UT to Haw River Enhancement Site will be performed until success criteria are
met within a five-year period. A monitoring plan will be designed in accordance with Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et. al, 2003) and in coordination with EEP. Results will be
documented on an annual basis, with the associated reports submitted to EEP as evidence that goals
are being achieved.
7.2 Vegetation
Proposed restoration activities at the Site include Enhancement II and Preservation practices with
no channel work proposed. Therefore, most monitoring activities at the Site will focus on
vegetation success. Vegetation success will be measured for survivability over a five year monitoring
period. Survivability will be based on achieving at least 320 stems per acre after three years and 260
stems per acre after five years. A survey of vegetation during the growing season (mid-March to
17
UT to Haw Diver FINAL Restoration Plan August 2008
early November) will be conducted annually over the five year monitoring period in order to verify
survivability of the installed plantings. This survey will track the total mortality on an annual basis
and be used to calculate survivability at the end of three and five years. Survivability of less than 320
or 260 stems per acre at the end of the three and five year monitoring periods may require the
installation of additional plantings as replacement for the mortality. Vegetation monitoring will be
conducted according to the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (Lee, M.T. et
al., 2006).
7.3 Schedule / Reporting
Upon the issuance of permits, Mulkey will begin construction bidding services for the proposed
restoration. Mulkey anticipates that it will take approximately 120 days to complete the restoration
activities at the Site.
8.0 Farm Management
This section includes the management of activities that fall outside of the stream restoration tasks,
but are directly linked to the overall quality of the project. The tasks are a direct result of the stream
enhancement project or a part of the conservation easement agreement between EEP and the
current property owner. These tasks will include installation of watering structures and piping, the
drilling of wells, and the installation of at-grade permanent stream crossings. Detailed farm
management plans, designed with input from the Alamance County Soil and Water Conservation
District and Alamance County NRCS, are included in Section 12.0. EEP and Mulkey will provide
administrative assistance during the planning and implementation phases of these farm management
tasks. Contractors will be selected to implement these tasks through an informal bid process.
8.1 Livestock
As a result of stream restoration activities, which includes a provision for fencing out cattle,
livestock currently utilizing the project reaches will no longer have access watering areas along the
stream and immediate riparian and non-riparian buffer areas. Therefore, as a condition of the future
conservation easement, 20 drinking stations, three wells, and additional fencing will be installed at
designated locations outside of the conservation easement
Watering facilities associated with the farm management plan are designed to function as two stand-
alone systems. An independent watering system will be installed on the "Terry Smith Tract" portion
of the farm, keeping the watering facilities separate from the original Iseley family farm tract. This
design is being implemented to avoid conflict should either portion of the farm change ownership in
the future.
In order to provide water for approximately one hundred head of beef cattle, 13 drinking stations
and two new wells will be installed on the Iseley family farm tract. One new well and six drinking
stations will be installed on the "Terry Smith Tract". Farm management designs propose a
minimum of one drinking station per field. In many instances, drinking stations have been
strategically placed along fence lines to provide water to two fields from the same drinking station.
In this situation, a four-hole cattle drinker, which provides water for up to 260 beef cattle will be
installed. A single two-hole drinker, which provides water for up to 160 beef cattle, will be utilized
18
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan Au,gust 2008
for all other situations. All water connections and pumps will be installed to provide the most
effective watering systems possible based on site conditions.
Currently, cattle on Iseley Farms are free ranging. The proposed watering facilities will provide
adequate water for current management practices or if the farm is utilized for rotational grazing in
the future. Having water available in each field will also allow for cattle to be separated into
different paddocks or cattle lots if necessary.
8.2 At-Grade Stream Crossings
In order to retain the ability to move cattle and equipment throughout the farm property, six new
stream crossings will be constructed at strategic locations throughout the fenced project easement
areas. A total of six new crossings will be constructed as part of the farm management plan. One
new crossing will be constructed on each the Main West and Trib C1 reaches. Two new crossings
will be constructed on the Main Center reach and Main East reach. Additionally, improvements to
the existing crossing on Trib C2 are proposed as part of the farm management activities at the Site.
All constructed crossings at the Site will be built to meet or exceed NRCS standards. The new
crossings will be constructed to maintain the same stream bed elevation as the existing stream
channel in which they are proposed. Stream banks approaching the crossing will be graded at a
maximum 5:1 slope with banks parallel to the crossing graded at a maximum 2:1 slope. Non-woven
geotextile fabric will be placed in the graded stream crossing and backfilled with Class A stone to a
depth of one foot.

19
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan Au,gust 2008
9.0 References
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual;
Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
FEMA. 2006. FIRM Insurance Rate Map. Alamance, North Carolina and incorporated
areas. Effective Community Panel 3710885600J. Effective date September 6, 2006.
FEM-A. 2006. FIRM Insurance Rate Map. Alamance, North Carolina and incorporated
areas. Effective Community Panel 3710885700J. Effective date September 6, 2006.
FEM-A. 2006. FIRM Insurance Rate Map. Alamance, North Carolina and incorporated
areas. Effective Community Panel 3710886600J. Effective date September 6, 2006
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenant, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and
South Carolina (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs).
Reston, VA, US Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR). 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina.
North Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2007. BasinWide Information
Management System (BIMS), Water Body Reports. World Wide Web:
http://h2o.enr.state.no.us/bims. Accessed on September 18, 2007.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2007. NC Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).
Modeling and TMDL Unit, Raleigh, NC. World WideWeb:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/PDFs/nc2k_lis/. .. Accessed on September 18, 2007.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2005. Cape Fear River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC. World Wide Web:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.htm. Accessed on September 18, 2007.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2005. Identification Methods for
the Origins of Intermittent and Perennial Streams, Version 3.1. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management; Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. Identification Methods for
the Origins of Intermittent and Perennial Streams, Version 3.1. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management; Raleigh, NC.
20
UT to Haw River FINAL Restoration Plan Au,gust 2008
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 2007. Reference Plant Community Information
Received from Perry Sugg of EEP on 12/11/2007.
Schaefale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), NC
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ).
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. April 2003.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1981. Agriculture and Food Act;
Title XV, Subtitle I, Section 1539-1549, Farmland Protection Policy Act. World Wide
Web: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/fppa/pdf-files/7cf:r658.pdf.
United States Department of Agriculture; Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2007. NRCS
Web Soil Survey, Alamance County North Carolina. World Wide Web:
hhp://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app1 WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed on September 18, 2007.
United States Department of Agriculture; Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008. Electronic
Field Office Technical Guide; Section IV, Practice Standards and Specifications for
Alamance County, North Carolina. World Wide Web: ht6p://www.nres.usda.gov/technical/efotgl
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Endangered Species,
Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species for Alamance
County, North Carolina. World Wide Web: http://wwwfwsgov/nc-esl esl counofr.htmZ
Accessed on September 18, 2007.

21
Table I. Project Restoration Structure and Objectives
Project Number - D08009S (UT to Haw River)
Restoration
Restoration Existing
Design Linear
C
Segment/ Reach A
Station Range B Linear Comment
Type Footage
ID Footage
MAIN WEST 0+00 to 17+68.19 Preservation 1715.0 --- At-Grade Crossing (31.3)
TRIB Wl 0+00 to 1+48.96 Preservation 128.0 --- No Disturbance
At-Grade Crossings &
MAIN CENTER 0+00 to 41+02.00 Enhancement II 3924.5 3924.5 Bioengineering (624.6)
TRIB C1 0+00 to 8+24.99 Enhancement II 868.5 868.5 At-Grade Crossing (66.6)
Cross Vane Structure &
TRIB C2 0+00 to 20+50.39 Enhancement II 1947.5 1947.5
Bioengineering (152.5)
TRIB C2-a 0+00 to 2+70.96 Enhancement II 258.0 --- No Disturbance
TRIB C2-b 0+00 to 2+39.40 Enhancement II 239.0 --- No Disturbance
TRIB C2-c 0+00 to 0+97.70 Enhancement II 98.0 --- No Disturbance
SOUTHEAST 0+00 to 5+16.15 Enhancement II 349.0 --- No Disturbance
TRIB
MAIN EAST 0+00 to 21+63.83 Enhancement II 2155.5 2155.5 At-Grade Crossings (60.9)
TRIB El 0+00 to 1+21.15 Enhancement II 122.5 --- No Disturbance
TRIB E2 0+00 to 2+90.55 Enhancement II 293.0 --- No Disturbance
TRIB E3 0+00 to 4+47.34 Enhancement II 400.5 400.5 Bioengineering (207.5)
TOTALS 12499.0 9296.5
A Indicates the total length of stream delineated during field surveys.
B Cattle exclusion and buffer enhancement will be conducted for Enhancement II and cattle exclusion for all
preservation segments.
C Indicates the type and total linear footage of specific earthwork activities.
Table II. Total Drainage Areas by Reach
Project Number - D08009S (UT to Haw River)
Reach 11) Drainage Area (Acres)
MAIN WEST 67.0 A
TRIB W 1 9.5
MAIN CENTER 356.4 B
TRIB C1 41.3
TRIB C2 111.1
TRIB C2-a 8.8
TRIB C2-b 16.0
TRIB C2-c 6.6
SOUTHEAST TRIB 18.2
MAIN EAST 74.5 c
TRIB E 1 D ---
TRIB E2D ---
TRIB E3 25.3
A Total includes individual drainage area of Trib W l.
B Total includes individual drainage areas of Tribs Cl, C2, C2-a, C2-b, and C2-c.
C Total includes individual drainage areas of Tribs El, E2, and E3.
D Individual drainage area too small to calculate.

Table Soft Descriptions
Project Number - D08009S (TIT to Haw River)

? ?.:.: .
r?..
r:;i<i:.i
.........f? .........................:.:. r..... :...........
..... :. : ...... .........? 1.......:: w:;: •.F:r .... r n:w::::::::::;: ;i: :r ......:.... . f r.: f.:....................:..:::::::::::r: : :..:. ........... n. .. ....... .:.. :. 5.:...... :rr.: ' .. v: r:ii iii' '::: .:'.4::i::i::i::i:::
::. ::...; ¢i........... rrrf..:::::::: ^:::: f..: rev: r.:rr:. •r :::::::::::::::: .f. f.:ir •:.•::: nv; rlrf.:iffr: :.•:. .:............ ..ri}:w:;:.... •. ?f .. w ; :. .?(y •+?•xa+p?y(??y ?.y,?y y? f
iif
CC
is
yy?y v:
:Fir: .:
?
?

?
±±
%i6D%.fJ66:Wf$.9.iR?:S
v: f.?::6ri. :::?.••r!N?•.; •i::ilrf:4 '• ':?• ::.
/
TF1G'
::: •: • ....::::::::::: r:::::. r........ .iiv:::;•i;•i;•i;•i;•i....? ... S.>i:.:: i'....nrf•.f . :. • . • .::J..:: x:::::.,, « :iti: ' %.M . ..F.: ;i0.R7.......... ?
.?:: .... ........... r.:..n............... . ... ..:...................... n.. ...:::::::::: mf:,F,.r.4?.? :::::::: :.ter:::::::.... ;.n •f.{:v:::::::::::::::::. viw•::::::::::::::::::.iiii:::{•i;v. .. F......................:::::: ::.i.:4::r :.
Ba Buncombe loamy fine sand, Mixed, thermic Typic excessively Natural levees on
0-2% slopes, occasionally flooded Udipsamments drained floodplains
CaC3 Cecil clay loam Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic - well drained Hillslopes on ridges
6-10% slopes, Beverly eroded Kanhapludults
CaD3 Cecil clay loam Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic
-
well drained
Hillslopes on ridges
10-15% slopes, severly eroded . Kanhapludults
CbC2 Cecil fine sandy loam Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic
-
well drained 1
Interfluves
6-10% slopes, eroded Kanhapludults
CbD Cecil fine sandy loam Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic - well drained Interfluves
10-15% slopes Kanhapludults
CbD2 Cecil fine sandy loam Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic - well drained Interfluves
10-15% slopes, eroded Kanhapludults
CbE Cecil fine sandy loam Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic - well drained Hillslopes on ridges
15-25% slopes (Pacolet) Kanhapludults
CcB Cecil sandy loam Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic
-
well drained
Interfluves
2-6% slopes Kanhapludults
CcC2 Cecil sandy loam Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic - well drained Interfluves
6-10% slopes, eroded Kanhapludults
Cd Chewacla fine sandy loam, Fine-loamy, mixed, active, B somewhat
Floodplains
0-2% slopes, occasionally flooded thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts poorly drained
HaC3 Helena clay loam Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic moderately well Hillslopes on ridges
6-10% slopes, severly eroded Aquic Hapludults drained
HcC2 Helena sandy loam Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic
- moderately well Hillslopes on ridges
6-10% slopes, eroded Aquic Hapludults drained
LbB2 Lloyd loam Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Rhodic - well drained Interfluves
2-6% slopes, eroded Kanhapludults
LbC Lloyd loam Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Rhodic
-
well drained
. Hillslopes on ridges
6-10% slopes Kanhapludults
LbC2 Lloyd loam Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Rhodic
-
well drained
Hillslopes on ridges
6-10% slopes, eroded Kanhapludults
Ld Local alluvial land,
-
well drained
Depressions
well drained
VcC2 Vance sandy loam Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic
well drained
Hillslopes on ridges
6-10% slopes, eroded Typic Hapludults
WbC Wilkes soils Loamy, mixed, active, thermic,
well drained
Hillslopes on ridges
6-10% slopes shallow Typic Hapludalfs
WbC2 Wilkes soils Loamy, mixed, active, thermic,
well drained
Hillslopes on ridges
6-10% slopes, eroded shallow Typic Hapludalfs
WbD2 Wilkes soils Loamy, mixed, active, thermic,
well drained
Hillslopes on ridges
10-15% slopes, eroded shallow Typic Hapludalfs
WcD Wilkes stony soils Loamy, mixed, active, thermic,
well drained
Hillslopes on ridges
10-15% slopes shallow Typic Hapludalfs
Wd Worsham sandy loam Fine, mixed, active, thermic
A
poorly drained
Depressions
2-6% slopes Typic Endoaquults
-1 Interfluves - Regions of higher land between two rivers that are in the same drainage system.

Table IV. Land Use of Watershed
Project Number - D08009S (UT to Haw River)
Land Use Acreage Percentage
..........
Bottomland Forest/Hardwood Swamp 1.26 0.2%
Deciduous Shrubland 5.94 1.2%
Evergreen Shrubland 8.63 1.7%
Managed Herbaceous" 209.48 40.6%
Mixed Upland Hardwoods 197.82 38.3%
Pine Forest 83.89 16.2%
Other (Buildings, roads, water, etc.) 9.23 1.8%
Totals 516.25 100.0%
A Managed Herbaceous includes pasture and cultivated cropland.
podx1

?IIaLU.pas 00
pa'lL'Llips33 p

0
W
M0
1 T
A

0
MO-
1
v, w

e9

V] V] c
° ?O
W C -
"
a
t'
ta
0
00
i
.
p
l
i
? O
V A
?
?
?
O
Sr Z
?
r4

4® Ya
o O
.--? ,--i
l?
O
oO0
Ln a ° d O N M
?
q
!H
oo O
oo d
t
W F".
W t 00
c - -
Caa
t
?
!H
A
{
V] 4? W) M
LS ca

x atua
l
x
.
j
:4
W o

c

y bA N N N N N N d'
y M M M M M M --?
F?
N M Vn W)
U
U U U U U U
r2

CIS Cd

uotTan.L IsaoD- atd

0
P
Table VI. Designed Vegetative Communities by Zone.
Project Number - D08009S (UT to Haw River Stream Enhancement Site)
Planting Zone Zone l:ecommended Plant Species ?

Zone Area
Acres
Description
Scientific 'Fame
Common Name
Alnus serrulata Tag alder
Betula nigra River birch
Stream Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush
1 0.45 Banks Cornus amomum B Silky dogwood
Lindera benzoin Spicebush
Salix nigra B Black willow
Sambucus canadensis B Elderberry
Asimina triloba Paw Paw
Betula nigra River birch
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash
flex verticillata Winterberry
Riparian Itea virginica Virginia sweetspire
2 1.06 Buffer Lindera benzoin Spicebush
Plantanus occidentalis Sycamore
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus nigra Water oak
Quercus phellos Willow oak
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry
Ulmus Americana American elm
Viburnum nudum Possumhaw
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood
Carya ovata Shagbark hickory
Carya tomentosa Mockernut hickory
Coiylus americana American hazelnut
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry
Cercis canadensis Eastern redbud
Cornus florida Flowering dogwood
Fagus grandifolia American beech
Hamamelis virginiana Witchhazel
flex opaca American holly
Upland Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar
3 3.14 Buffer Juniperus virginiana Eastern red cedar
Morella cerifera Wax myrtle
Pinus echinata Shortleaf pine
Pinus virginiana Virginia pine
Prunus serotina Black cherry
Quercus alba White oak
Quercus falcata Southern red oak
Quercus rubra Northern red oak
Sassafras albidum Sassafras
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood
Viburnum prunifolium Blackhaw
" Reconmlended plant species are alphabetized by scientific name within each planting zone.
B Live Stakes shall be planted at a rate of 2,723 Stakes/Acre (5' x 5' spacing).
71
;
I \ I 96
,
ti '?? ?r• 'i
??. Project Location
-'\ `` f V (1 f
lot,
f-f
r G' r5 i I \ F
/ t p ?V
87
K
??
• 1
• I ' , _ r ,fir • ?? --
56 1
LEGEND
f ; ?N`
Conservation Easement Extent
Iseley Farm
LE=

Eq6W y--' PROJECT VICINITY MAP
UT TO HAW RIVER FIGURE
STREAM ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared By: Prepared For: 1:24,000
rr? I1 _
N/11 L Pi } - ')il Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1
USGS Topographic Quad rang les:Burlington,
Prepared On: 1-15-2008 Gibsonville, Lake Burlington & Ossi ee
?r I
^ Jl
.
r
.i -?? 11?4`??t't It 1? is I` •,,'? ,? • s ? ??fl- ?( _ I 5 'S S?? ?.. -155 ,
'-I 0 +
t iF t jJ itr ?. ?? r ?)
r• `• 5?*\?? ? r : ? ? ! t II r ?_ t ? i t? :'I 11 r ? ?"5 ?,1 '? ?'... r,,? I ? ! M ! r
,
1 F
.
' rF .s,-/ ?i, { .. ? 445 ? !? ?? t ?? ??5? >?
7
_ 1 r h4
?. - 5E J
r' F . r tl l 1
off -?? €
x,41 ?,_ 11I ;f???,..>?,`? ? f! ~?. ) ,?: - f ..??????:??. • ??.,t t e ,???? 4 pt -.
141f ! •.h? , 55` x'41 -?. ?.N r p? Y K ?'I.[ ?,' ,} ! f r t rq. ',h •L ` I J ?yy t? . '
t r
ti
I1
e I I ; G y ? -? 4 ? 'i t+ A `
LEGEND +, ? , ,{'
Drainage Areas s;-
ReaCII 1 !`i j ! ` ?Y? f`,,,\\\yyy ?1 ' r 6 y 9 ti ;y
Main West (67.0 Ac)
i? Al d` t ij } v
L. Trib W1 (9.5 Ac) /^'• {/ I r ' i? 5? s ( `- r y
( 'I ?, P frlf/. 'I??k?? LYY• E '\ `-? r '?,h i r? ????{ ?1
®MamCenter(356.4Ac)
4 _
f f i,
Trib C 1 (41.3 Ac) t, ?? ? •- ' ? . ? '?' ? ?-?,;?''! ;; /, _
.I r? i ?1(r.• ? ? ?)?? -_ t 11', 1??y,! r?_ il. '-''"",?"'? '-' 1?,'' i 1..?.? ?„ . s{?, -,. ????Y? /, 1'
® Trib C2 (111.1 Ac)?
® Trib C2-a (8.8 Ac)
® Trib C2-b (16.0 Ac)
® Trib C2-c (6.6 Ac) r!, r1 }
Southeast Trib (18.2 Ac)
11. +
Main East (74.5 Ac)
Trib E3 (/25.3 Ac) :,? i',. ?? ..?'.? ?1. l 5,' I_. ? ??. + P ?l .?I d ?.5? E? a. ?R4 J.j_???;??? ?/!f. y:: \ _ _
=Prepared By: Prepared For: - WATERSHED MAP
UT TO HAW RIVER Feet 1:12,000

0 500 1,000 2,000

FIGURE
L

-
rStQali
A?0S STREAM ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

l
hi
d
s:
USGS T
Q

2
' I ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA opograp
c
uan
rang
e
Lake Burlington & Ossipee
Prepared On: 1-15-2008

y ry, ,? tti, , E x
+? Ftcz" ?tx S ' T
l{+ y'? r b I -
F %?". a+ 11 1. ..
-t
F
'ai < OHM
r
N .. L l

Prepared By;

rrKK ^,
] Il f X Prepared For:
_
r :A-
{{II -^
i MRCS SOILS MAP

UT TO HAW RIVER LEGEND

Conservation Easement Boundary

FIGURE
,
- STREAM ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 3

Prepared On: 1-15-2008

ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Mr SID Images Provided by:

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
ix ,'r q!
Prepared By: Prepared Far. HYDROLOGICAL FEATURES
UT TO HAW RIVER Feet 16,000

0 250 500 1,000

FIGURE

r?51s1? ;t, STREAM ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
Mr SID Images Provided by: 4
"' ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Prepared On: 1-15-2008
//7
174
I ?.
745
? i1 ? ?` I r .;',? C ?? ''r'?Itxmah ttiti ,' _!?
ate`` t ° ; ?'v }
? •, y 1
r?
I X111 d.:, nsl
Zv:
Nater
(. uS llp! ?: j ' rank,- \,",. \
:z r
eA3
• ,-
LEGEND
_j Altamahaw Alluvial Forest J n
REFERENCE SITE VICINITY MAP FIGURE
ALTAMAHAW ALLUVIAL FOREST 5a
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared By: Prepared For: 1:24,000
f ?
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles

Prepared On: 1-15-2008 USGS Topographic Quadrangles:
Lake Burlington & Qssi ee
C
@44 i w t
Al
r. 1 l/r.
? c
it N, f/ ?y1 ?7Po r?1
i `?,?t rr ?? ` ? •
CIC I]Coll
i \ t
31
21
'Curci?illd
t Irncw t .dJ a! _ _ ?e j h {
?Ic,
P ?` ) P. ,.y,:r Q
art.own •' r,? it ,z I ; sJ ) "\` U'/I' t
? ail rr'?+? ipOrr. /l'?• tl . ??i I??....? \?? (..: 1 1 .. ?, • .?•A.... I C i,. ??.?.
J ! l ?. Fh ? C h f
LEGEND
Stony Creek Forest
REFERENCE SITE VICINITY MAP FIGURE

L STONY CREEK FOREST 5b
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared By: Prepared For: 1:24,000
Miles
ff I 0 0.25 0.5 1
USGS Topographic Quadrangles:
Prepared On: 1-15-2008 Burlington & Lake Burlington
$7 1
TraiIm N?' II IItI111Ffl
,r.
J SA
• r,\., ?.-t tlY .759
...... ?'-; , - ,\\? ;•`- 1 150` .
r ?
ROCK co
LEGEND c:rc?YU ?cr`.-----__.- I)-_ ?-J J,
_ Williamsburg Alluvial Forest J
REFERENCE SITE VICINITY MAP
WILLIAMSBURG ALLUVIAL FOREST
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared By: Prepared For: 1:24.000
Miles
NA/d U. 11- Ij y ? 0 0.25 0.5 1
USGS Topographic Quad rang les:Browns Summit,
Prepared On: 1-15-2008 Ossi ee, Reidsville & Williamsburg
FIGURE
5C

???r 'i i4J?aLt+ Ilk' lye
, 7Z
s
44 ,v r 4 ?5 5 ;ixl
t' .Y^1 ( 11 ' t t 11'1 ?? Y'.• ? 1 ??' Zt l' '1}II 5. ? S J -?
..l i ' a ,t,. ! i #'':'+? t ,?, +!'? Ft? .'t 6 t, n I. e +'S:'. "''1 .'? t •d,
-m 4
l•?r , ?'?? 1 art t,k. a, t a:n .P. .? ?" ?I?j;, r, ;,
,i Ih*. a 1 V it ..•tyM1 ?fk`V•' 0. V?1t'8 =AP't ?,b.F
R ill ::l A
n,.
l 4.t°r. 4111 +y ?i'l t4I
J.',? of i•S ? r , q? t ? 1 ' v,1 m t tl ;??. , ?' r ?F'? t° •?+ ,t,? i? . ?` is ~ I,?
t S.? t ?r
i' ?t ? •; ? r? a Al?tt ? r•rt ?, r,? l?r , a? t'? `s ? .a ?{ ?
+ 4.i
"t ,.?tltltl'
Jill A,
?i",r fit, r l.'??; f ?'kit?4• ?h ?r; j, ?" r :, tip.' ? err 11?a
-i"..r , ?', 7, i 9 ?>, 71 ?4 ..1.11 t ,y y?l ? ,'?j?j ? 'i, ., ? . '4' •, ? ?i a 5?
Its Al, r t . ]? v { +n
,?? •• L 5,? '-
f +/Ci e , t s F' 6' r ri r ; 7" n
? A. 1 QII p?
a'' .., `F' w T{'," { ? a ;yr 1 111 y 9{.: iy AVL
•
t ?
/
w ?e
{{ r err i >. (? .,
et P-W
x ;y ,irk
ttx_.J
t x
SN rZ(?•?}' :?"kr; ? e ? T' ?? ??. lid,, ?
..)r
?.. +? 'EIr a.?
{
i;k
Jy.'
I I I
E fs/? k
iiiii All
;y J JT
?C r .. !• s' k''
Jill ?00
Gre w
t
£ y
`k
t?,
6y
.?{t
,?• I 9 r. - Y ! i. „?' y +7 _ a ,r WA %
??fh?t(A t">i?h ,1?. i'.?•-'.fit: :7. '?:M??• :?e°' ?_`.
i ?. s ?$ t.' i'? ? ;r ? (Y ?r ? t+i,,t, tWt.??, r ? f.<. ? .';'d, ? r ,.•,
'?' ,I 1?t i .,? ter, K' t.? „',y{t,.? rrl 1,'?` ,va?,?. ',.':Yy'' '
?hk;?l ti ??? ?, ?s4,: i? • t r ,?, s, , ? _ ; ? !'d,. •? P'"4 ?? x?? t? , ? ri ?'<a'e sx,,,? j? ? ? ; w ? f _ ? ,'r? c n?..P.?
i? 31?•. ?F-1 I? t„ 'yte,. 'Y A;. . n?G y e*?,.,
a?? '' ? ? 1. ? ?? f ?? ?.:.. ?' .:? ?. ¢ ?s;?` I f, .-; `,,; . t? ?,?c• ? y .Swf t .1:• ? ?! ?y?' •?' +'??
_tt ?q.1' t. :_ ?Y F _ r tii :Y.?. 1 L .f?S T. ti1
r..yt?y??ti: n
1 MIA* ., y n r» t. "+' ;
r : ?a . A • ?", • ,? - , ,,, p., , •. ? t. r r °? >, r A t i, t ti , I?, r ?? ?l: p , ? ? '
k ?. ?_ ?igli?r' ,? .4?i •. 5 r z 11. i„y .r• r?.?1 'a y:' V,4 ak.. ys -y f.tt ,y? tm.
?.^? i i.e} 4 It r •¢ r f y? ?.?y; r 1, .:i ti `. ?} ? t ?.t,Jar.
{ A '
1 i- -}' 1M' '!?.7'r. ri y% Ar '•e`..,. ?:. iyt y •w. G' 3. k ,•.? ,;nc
f?
1 k,
?' .•` '3?'' . ,t, tr.'s.` !'?r e?.f• r 9'f.-,. F`., y1, 1 ,`s?' ':?? ?? l ...r ??wa 4 I,r + • p ?yy•.."7 f
F .' n ?. _ ?: t , 'F ! r? F •' t t ? T' " ,a+c . s?,. ?? 1?: ,?yr ?+ 2 i'+ c i?' kq ? r
e 'G s
I t ,•
• a j a 4i ? 1 t i r,M' + i E?1 r f t' _ is
,t = gL t Spring Rd ;k
y ! t e } d !2 F ti k l vrt t
1fyy f+y1
LEGEND '+
Y , 4 Pr r 1d? d.; a t *iF cu " Ip t?? Y
'All
Delineated Wetlands f ,y1tti /hyy?;,:?; j Y, rF,i ?,, ,,,? ,?• zF ?? ,?
Project Ponds k • , fi
rI ••y- 5f? - Jt '1"pp }p t '?: f'' I h.,A'" i• K ! Jr^S? LM l ? .I?+tI ?!v krt? I
17
Project Streams + 5 ?,' S jT •k ` f, ?R l l? r 4? S, s5 R .
Conservation Easement Boundary
,??" •- L ,s t "? ?? y ?'
- ?? . ?' ??, ? ... iR. ? ? i .. '?a ?: •`K,. '? ? w. r ... 3. ?„g? ??i ? t'?', r.` J!?".. t?!•'r. ?,?`?i. -^+s`.FL':.
Prepared By:
1A It J] I{ Prepared For: JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
T TO HAW RIVER ts, IIIIIIIIIIIIIJ Feet

o 250 500 1,000

FIGURE
1
?(! ' ?°rtitti.lll PROJECT
ENHANCEMENT
STREAM
6a
Mr SID Images Provided by:
Prepared On: 1-15-2008 ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
0 12.5 25 50
mmmmm-? Feet
err ?.:;
ffim
0
i3:,•.
k;
-Si
F
z,.
LE

W
WEST POND
Prepared By:

/ ?
=' `°' °' Prepared For:

1 -- -
?y WETLAND DELINEATION MAP

UT TO HAW RIVER

STREAM ENHANCEMENT PROJECT LEGEND

Wetland Soil Borings
C

IGURE
lw??tjli Upland Soil Borings 6b

Prepared On: 1-15-2008
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Mr SID Images Provided by.
Norlh Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
0
0

,r?1'gy&T 'rn? G E ^'',a ' -1: f f
Wit
?, t?Y "4
49 ft-,o
r 1P i j r,,{y i dh 4, t.?-: ,?, ti,? R ?'4- L
- a1{;'J+' ' , 1 5 _`k 'trr'4} yt`?A 174
tt? R« w .. e n ,6 ?
f I RY l
a?t? tt?r?f Jr t ?tytt,ai, c+r ! Ct .C
f ki V,
s d I S'0. , y,r" f''° TJ, I t.•' n'.... rj} L
_'/ n t 15 k•i °" t``R '.? Ali. "4., c:. ?t 7^yr. t`?1s "'1^Le v?l.s5''' Y; lR {- 3 ?.:
t 'a l k ;i tPbt4, - af' i' ?i. R7 tf?' a y... `aF'•. [ rT„?- -.,.?. ' .?i` r3
r, a : rr t Wi,? yr r A•; t ?.
1?,,.l l• t ! ,? t•
•t' :f ,y,!r? r a .t4' ,r r ,.?i n y'. .'rt. .L t'--'??,. .? ?:?,. k ;t,
r ' n a '..r r ? -1'' ?' .?5 .a?'.". 1?,? _ ,l'_ ?i.r-• ..kY'. ?.?, "a-!''t 1 f':?. ? i.
i-"sl' ?s?` ,fix '4 a , fit` ; i? 4' :, a; ` ? •,t,','s.. 4'C, .,Y 's? pu ? >,,,-,?'i ,. ?;'>`?
+?y ? ;r,,! ?? h;, ,?;' ?} rt t•:5 r• ??' ???? r i4 I .!.?? 1 {ay: .?
r !r r. '0` z',f' i.' r •S ?c ed`•'t r, ?: ?,; ,i?,tt ':44-a.f z- -5;^'l t,a.r?} t },ui;', 4 t'4aX- ::f+t 4.'f!
LGI
U1 -? 'P a .fi 4r t as:a ??t4-• :}i?p"•'t d' ro`vs. . .a a. -??a?. ? t, Gott r t 1 1 +,„.?i ? "?_?, ?' a !+ t1:. , i... - .S
1 ,?ty(r? ?? ,f yl..',,? L ? A•;, t} i! {`t a ?.r .u ?EE 1L? ? d: ':}.? ? ',? f ifi`r?r'rx+t',' ??, 1?'r t 4ia?` l
5.3 f?'y 1.: t 'Itl >•?.]!.. t'? ? 'I l r??? r? v ? .1? ? 9 ?'. i• .4. y!' y?,?. ?? k? - i .4?.,.? ? f ? u L '?? 1
t f rA # ?lL.7 ;.{!,??, •, ? l L -I' ? S t '.?-?E • (' ?• d 1R?- r ? r t .
''d ! S. t+': _' ?•R ,1;.: 1 t. S Rt t- r 1; +
•+ ?'r(. ;C ( ?!7 '? ' , 7•? ,. .,. t. rt. 1'' ?.tr' - uN
t< ;!i fact
4 +.:4 k1 ,.t bt,?g : j'. •It,.'" ?:''??'.t "t"'a..B z ` r. .r •'at ?.a".r,.,;' ? ?` ,). r• f s,•,? r? ..'<'':y ? ° t,1;
t! '44
J, :r..:4' `rA t Ya:?a •°j' V
E
,,,,yy , _ .? •1 ,?.il' ?lb fi! J.` ..I'mo`. •'4, '1.: rhh •S ? .,T :1
^7
?'? i r} p• ',.i,, y{y -.? `?i.?•,. ' • y.•,.(,: o' a ,:ytial r; ... J y rtt• , -! St' ,'!r.' f/a•tl ??,..
r
r?7 ? ?t 5
W?41
? f'. t.? + .fir '' tl zv.S.,. tix?'?.1°" c • ? r ?, '' F ? ,:? y .a "?? .. {r? Y, ,? ..? ' ?}? ? '
R t '•3! ., .r ? 14 3u , ?? ? .'O:,X ; fi ?j '.`.d ?n 4 •.r ? `? k' ?; " ? )f. ? ?'d+1 '! ' ?'tf
.111 ?R{?FJ1, r'?t%?; . t,,. Y^ itt?R -v' r. f,., ? r - lY ?,, :J t.. f'?`, "i? ?-?..? -?j!•?,; '?, ?? ?? •-r`.! ,:'+rA. '?r'''? .?,,,
?fL? ,vi v1,?a, ;_Sk:?t?.?°
?5aP4 R+'. 1 y+G 1rcd Kr q, 4 ?;,.. V I ?, H,` °?,?! 4
t? t t aFj, ?,
e „w 5? 4" wR L S t 14 -.VOW
'E 1 x} M`',rlf ,1r ';l: ?,. , { ,+i-`?`,,° S..l yr? +At ,? # A•s 4}1:+ eit If<_ 'err _.__ +?•,
z x q? 1 r Y:? c.;:' 7114 t A. ?r" "" } y?•r rr
Al-
7T>}.• rT,-? ,tt?. t. e 'fit. t`. ?i .ilk ++. ?••«
:;.?t s. r,; g! f { :r•' t?`' {X 941 4 rt:
lo
y Q, t a a if..'
A_ 1
.. l,.uJ + c•ir?1 f n; '.,; rb "' • +F 4!}`. ,'y? .? ?! >a• n' R'V
I fi .:Pi ,? t•r' .9'• ?rj ^y. d ^by, ;' iP. ci. i 44 a er
,?4. ..? '.SR
li V"1A, ?'?
} ,1ll vry' h?•Ir 1' ,MA.
y{`"?, y'
,R. ? ? .a '.,4-- '..l ':?r'?:•N` . 1 '+ f;? ! ?' /J .. ..l ??" `..? \ ? 4 ?. Y 1
f
x, r as ,•, i ti a t
1. .?'+ '1. C .1?.. • - I?4 .:'T• : i]1 t1^: i y? `f
It
wA,r! F
h !•:?I` F 4 i lr?r. / tt.. 4 ?n r s, FlAy,l S ss-
t imL! 0?R
s
t'? 1r"!:r r,.e; . r 1?, ?°? JR+ 11( ?' l r.`•.' - .,t l :.I r???h? ?? ?.' i.. ;f ,f??:. •:a `.a , M?' •R' .
?I?< 1 t+` ,.?' k, t. Ay t ? 4.."` r ? .L: I•. T:h-,y'? it
. ` ? '
i . 'e ?1 ?.?• k f - y -
+., fY .! RT i ??' ? ?F? '1Y: ?! 1. . t d 1 ?a ' t' qq {' ¦..?.
i- '? ? '',,?\ ( 1 ?5n `/.,•.
."3, -•: E-' }}`` f -!.'t ,.,' ` +.. {?;.. ^t 'vii t?°1',a.- tti ?, .:..
.k'.?,
A. , p a? ifs r / ti-` ;
Y 'c• .;e
::e? 'r:='r1>147? ',f, . c i af9 n •? , ?r r 4 ?-Rr.. ?..'-
?.*OKA
?, '
tE4a r ?.
4;'". 21..!• -'.?: r.? l,y? 5 :`o rf
*:
WNT
, ='fi: + ?Y ?. Biel. r •+qr ,+?[{r? r ? ' A II•.?t.?:. .9 t'' ?" ti S?F ri:h'",?+q ?r
?Rn
+ 1 ?".+ t 6l • yr i'i ?' 6 Ut f?'4I1 ?. IFd }4`.' n•r r
r : ; r t r+ r ? ?! rr v, df ,.rr } r. , i c I 5 i ,
Le end rR, rrlr i. t N : h ; ?::Rr R h
R s,yaRh vi'' t ":.}1r rtl ! , k`rr ?fir H. ?..; t dg'
Invasive Species Areas (4.2 Ac)
Project Streams
C ( yr' k',. x e ,14 G rxk"+ $ a d
IlseleyFarm a. t °e ?$ t rr{'• ;a
1
r? f'JS?" r 1 _" .., . _C fig 4E ?. .y:: fi`; ?.?• .. !r' ? t :? ? .. rr t , ,. , ., ,. .,r.7?
Prepared By; Prepared For:

• - ---
Invasive Species Areas
UT TO HAW RIVER L6,000
Feet
0 250 500 1,000 1,500

FIGURE
C?(ilyir?,III STREAM ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
M
P
id
d b
SID I 8
I r
rov
y:
mages
e
Prepared On: 7 23 2008 ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
®
a
SCO ID NO D08009S IF
ff i
UT TO HAW RIVER STREAM ENHANCEMENT SITE
LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 22 MILES SOUTHEAST OF THE TOWN OF OSSIPEE AND 3J MILES NORTHWEST OF THE CRY OF BURLINGTON
w ? L
J?e
- uAti
s
CT
- q l ??` 9y - ? L ss
L 1 -
l il?s- ? ??"i16 1 ;e? f Isis ltd
C' « 1" f) gg U faQ? Al is'
GIoNiNFN
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
INDEX OF SHEETS
SHEET NUMBER SHEET
1 TITLE SHEET
2 LEGEND
3 - 3B DETAILS
4 -15 PLAN AND CROSS SECTIONS
PLT-4 - PLT-14 PLAITING PLANS
16 FARM MANAGEMENT PLAN
17 - IB FARM MANAGEMENT DETAILS
NOT TO SCALE

REVISIONS SCALE PLANS PREPARED BY: PROJECT ENGINEER
AS SHOWN MULKEY PROJECT MANAGER
DESCRIPTION
DATE
1/18/08 MARK MICKLEY
PRELIMINARY PLANS : EEP PROJECT MANAGER
DESIGNED: MLM
?O-MUI
KEY
PERRY SUGG
DRAWN; Jn -
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS MULKEY SENIOR ENGINEER

wsH
CHECKED WILLIAM SCOTT HUNT,I1I,PE
: EEP REVIEW COORDINATOR

APPROVED. wSH X 3 31 27
RALE PC BIoGHH, , N.C.
27636

SALAM MURTADA
1919) 651.1912 MULKEY SENIOR SCIENTIST
1919) 651.1918 (FAX)

MULKEY PROJECT NUMBER
WWW
MULKEYINC
COM THOMAS BARRETT,RF
.
.
2007063.00
PLANS PREPARED FOR
? Y
Ebea ie nent
Pfl GM 1
TITLE SHEET
A
EAST
ST
SHEET
OF
REVISIONS PROJECT EAVAIEER PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
NOTE: NOT BY ossc?nn+ U TO HAW RIVER 2
Not all symbols use 1 plans o? Do NOY USE LEGEND
*2-MUL_K,E')r
ENOINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PO Box 33127
RALEI0H, N.C. 27636
[phone]
[phone] (FAX)
WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY.'
State Line ----------------------
County Line ----------------------------
Township Line ----------------------
CityLine - -----------------------
Reservation Line
Property Line
Existing Iron Pin --------------------- O
Property Corner x
Property Monument -------------------
EC.
Existing Fence -----------------------x xx-
Temporary Fence -----------------------o------ ?---
Proposed Woven Wire Fence - - - - - - - - - - - - e
Proposed Chain Link Fence - - - - - - - - - - - - e
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
Tree Protection Fence----------------- «0
Existing Wetland Boundary - - - - - - - - - - - -----nB----
Proposed Oxbow Wetland Boundary - - - - - - -
Proposed Conservation Easement - - - - - - - - -
Construction Limits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------
Limits Of Disturbance----------------------------
Proposed Gate---------------------- L =1
Benchmark-------------------------
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE:
Sign ---------------- -- S
Well------------------- ---------- W
Foundation -------------- ---------- 0
Area Outline ------------- ----------
Building ----------------- ----------
School ----------------- ----------
Church ----------------- ----------
HYDROLOGY.'
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F_
River Basin Buffer - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RBB
Flow Arrow ------------------------ -
Disappearing Stream ----------------- >--
Spring --------------------------- 0_-.
Thalweg ---------------- ---------
Top Of Bank
Swamp Marsh ------------------- Nk
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch - - - - - - - -
F?
Bedrock-------------------------- 0
LROADS:
Standard Guage ----------------- CSXTRuSPORTATrox
-------------------
RR Signal Milepost MILEPOST J5
Switch ----------------------------D
RR Abandoned ----------------------- ~--
ROADS AND RELATED F"TURES.•
Existing Edge of Pavement - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing Curb ---------------------- -
Existing Soil Road -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------
Existing Metal Guardrail - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -?-- _?_
Existing Cable Guiderail - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --a- ---a - _a__
PEGETATION.•
Single Tree 0
Single Shrub ----------------------- o
Hedge --------------------------- M^-^r^r,-
Woods Line ------------------------`"?
Orchard -------------------------- f3 4 0 G
Vineyard - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -E vineyard _J
EXISTING STRUCTURES.-
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert - - - - - - - - - - - Oec
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall - caNC ww
MINOR:
Head and End Wall ---------------- CONC HW
Pipe Culvert ---------------------
Footbridge------------------------ 1 --?
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB - - - - - - ?CB
Paved Ditch Gutter
Storm Sewer Manhole - - - - - - - - - - BO
Storm Sewer --------------------
UTILITIES.'
POWER:
Existing Power Pole ------------------
Existing Joint Use Pole---------------- 41
Power Manhole -------------------- 0
Power Line Tower -------------------
Power Transformer---------------- H
LPG Power Cable Hand Hole----------- 19
H-Frame Pole ---------------------
Recorded UAG Power Line -------------
GAS:
Gas Valve ------------------------
Gas Meter ------------------------
Recorded U/G Gas Line --------------
Above Ground Gas Line - - - - - - - - - - - - - A/C Gas
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Telephone Manhole------------------ 0
Telephone Booth ------------------- 0
Telephone Pedestal ------------------ 111
Telephone Cell Tower - - - - - - - - - - - - -
U/G Telephone Cable Hand Hole - - - - - - - HH
Recorded LbG Tele
hone Cable - - - - - - - -
p
Recorded U/G Telephone Conduit - - - - - rC
Recorded WG Fiber Optics Cable - - - - - - - r F°
WATER:
Water Manhole--------------------- 00
Water Meter----------------------- CD
Water Valve ----------------------
Water Hydrant -------------------- -0
Recorded UAG Water Line - - - - - - - - - - - - °
Above Ground Water Line - - - - - - - - - - - - - A,G Water
TV:
TV Satellite Dish------------------ --
TV Pedestal--------------------- --
TV Tower ----------------------- --
LFG TV Cable Hand Hole----------- -- Ea
Recorded U/G TV Cable ------------ -- TV-
Recorded UiG Fiber Optic Cable - - - - - - - rv r°
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole-----------------------
Utility Pole with Base ---------------- 0
Utility Located Object - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o
Utility Traffic Signal Box --------------- D
Utility Unknown lVG Line - - - - - - - - - - - - - °r
U4G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil -------------
AEG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil ------------- 0
Abandoned According to Utility Records - - - AATUR
End of Information ------------------ E.O.I.
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole -------------- O
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0+
UG Sanitary Sewer Line -------------- 5S
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer . - - - - - - - - - A,G Sanitary Sewer
Recorded SS Forced Main Line - - - - - - - - - - Fss
PROPOSED STAVE"
STRUCTURES:
Rock Crossvane -------------------
Rock Vane-----------------------
J Hook Rock Vane-----------------
Double Log Drop------------------
Flood Plane Interceptor -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
W-Rock Cross Vane---------------
Constructed Riffle----------------
Root Wad -----------------------
Structure Number -----------------
STREAM FEATURES:
Bankfull -----------------------
Vernal Pool----------------------
Thalweg-------------------------
Culvert Pipe ----------------------
EROSION CONTROL FEATURES.-
Permanent At Grade Stream Crossing ----
Stream Crossing Centerline - - - - - - - - - -
Temporary Construction Entrance/Exit - - - -
SiltFence -----------------------
Staging Area ---------------------
Impervious Dike-------------------
Permanent Improved Gravel Road -------
Temporary Gravel Road-------------
Temporary Rock Check Dam - - - - - - - - - -
Impervious Stream Channel Plug - - - - - - -
Fill Existing Stream Channel - - - - - - - - - -
Natural Rock Energy Dissipator Basin Pad- -
PLANTING ZONES:
Stream Banks--------------------
Riparian Buffer --------------------
Upland -------------------------
91
K
z
X

NOT TO SCALE
0
0

SECTION A-A
PLANTINGS
?UT OFF SILS
BANKFULL
FOOTER
ROCKS
PLANTINGS
BANKFULL
r
L .
NOTES-
I. ROCKS SHOULD BE NATIVE QUARRIED ROCK
OR LOCALLY SHOT ROCK,ANGULAR AND OBLONG.
SEE THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROCK SIZE.
2. ROCKS SHOULD FIT TIGHTLY WITH MINIMAL SPACES.
3. THE TOP OF FOOTER ROCKS SHOULD BE BURIED TO
A MINIMUM OF 3 TIMES 'H' IN GRAVEL/COBLE BED
STREAMS AND 6 TIMES 'IT' IN SAND BED STREAMS,
WHERE 'H' IS THE DISTANCE FROM THE STREAM
BED TO THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK,OR AS
DETERMINED BY THE DESIGNER. H MUST BE A
MINIMUM OF 3'.
4. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE
UPSTREAM SIDE OF ROCKS. FABRIC SHOULD BE
OVERLAIN ON EXPOSED ROCKS AND BURIED TO A
MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 FT. OR AS DIRECTED BY THE
DESIGNER. FABRIC SHOULD EXTEND UPSTREAM A
MINIMUM LENGTH OF 6 FT. OR AS DIRECTED BY THE
DESIGNER. FABRIC SHOULD BE BACKFILLED WITH
NATIVE BED MATERIAL OR GRAVEL TAILINGS.
5. AT THE DIRECTION OF THE DESIGNER, THE STRUCTURE
ARMS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED UP TO AND TIED INTO AN
ELEVATION LESS THAN BANKFULL IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE
THE CORRECT STRUCTURE ARM SLOPE.
SECTION B-B
GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC
ROCK CROSS VAN
BANKFULL PLANTINGS
0.9 d 2X-7°L FLOW
GEOTEXTILE r
FABRIC SECTION C-C
8 : \ I 8
20'- 30'
,VANE ARM ANGLE
NO FLOW- BANKFULL
GAPS )3H FOR COBBLE/GRAVEL,
BANKFULL lrJ 6H FOR SAND
.,
scouR
FOOTER Z HOLE
A ROCK 1 VANE LENGTH -
)MAX DEPTH AT 0.9 OF VANE LENGTH)
SCOUR I
SECTION D-D
CUTOFF SILL HOLE
tic)
FLOW-
GRAVEL ,H . emu,-,N, ---
a ,H.a W
TAILINGS ----,2' MI STREAM BED
GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC

NOT TO SCALE
TOP OF BANK
PERMANENT T STREAM GRADE CROSSING
6
WATERS EDGE
WATER
FLOW
i I
SURFACE FLOW DIVERSION TEMPORARY ACCESS
i I
i I
SURFACE FLOW DIVERSION
ORIGINAL
STREAMBANK
e
i
7? - -----------------
FILTER FABRIC CLASS A RIPRAP
PLACED 12" THICK
NOTES:
1. STONE APPROACH SECTION 5:1 MAXIMUM, SLOPE ON ROAD. 6. STABILIZE ALL DISTURBED AREAS SUBJECT TO FLOWING
WATER, INCLUDING PLANNED OVERFLOW AREAS.
2. KEEP CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAM BANKS, BED,
AND APPOACH SECTIONS TO A MINIMUM.
3. DIVERT ALL SURFACE RUNOFF FROM THE CONSTRUCTION
SITE ONTO UNDISTURBED AREAS ADJOINING THE STREAM.
4. KEEP STREAM CROSSINGS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO
THE STREAM FLOW.
5. ALIGN ROAD APPROACHES WITH THE CENTER LINE OF
THE CROSSING FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 30 FEET.
7. SIDE SLOPES WHERE CROSSING CONNECTS TO EXISTING
STREAMBANKS SHOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF 2:1.
8. INSPECT STREAM CROSSINGS AFTER RUNOFF- PRODUCING
RAINS TO CHECK FOR BLOCKAGE IN CHANNEL, EROSION
OF BANKS, CHANNEL SCOUR, STONE DISPLACEMENT, OR PIPING.
MAKE ALL REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT FURTHER
DAMAGE TO THE INSTALLATION.
;711?,TAILS
NOT TO SCALE
0

SEEDLING/LINER PLANTING
HEALING IN
1. LOCATE A HEALING-IN SITE IN A SHADY, WELL
PROTECTED AREA.
2. EXCAVATE A FLAT BOTTOM TRENCH
12" DEEP AND PROVIDE DRAINAGE.
3. BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH 2" WELL
ROTTED SAWDUST.PLACE A 2"LAYER OF
WELL ROTTED SAWDUST AT A SLOPING ANGLE
AT ONE END OF THE TRENCH.
4. PLACE A SINGLE LAYER OF PLANTS
AGAINST THE SLOPING END SO THAT
THE ROOT COLLAR IS AT GROUND LEVEL.
5.PLACE A 2"LAYER OF WELL ROTTED
SAWDUST OVER THE ROOTS MAINTAINING
A SLOPING ANGLE. -p.1 ? ew V,

DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD
USING THE KBC PLANTING BAR
;I
n
?2"
I I I I I I I I II I I I I I
II III I
L INSERT PLANTING BAR 2. REMOVE PLANTING 3. INSERT PLANTING
AS SHOWN AND PULL BAR AND PLACE BAR 2"TOWARD
HANDLE TOWARD SEEDLING AT PLANTER FROM
PLANTER. CORRECT DEPTH. SEEDLING.
1
r
III I
I I I i I II
I I II I I I I I II
4. PULL HANDLE OF 5. PUSH HANDLE 6. LEAVE
BAR TOWARD FORWARD FIRMING COMPACTION
PLANTER, FIRMING SOIL AT TOP. HOLE OPEN.
SOIL AT BOTTOM. WATER
THOROUGHLY.
PLANTING NOTES:
PLANTING BAG tA,
DURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS
SHALL BE KEPT IN A MOIST
CANVAS BAG OR SIMILAR
CONTAINER TO PREVENT THE
ROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING.
KBC PLANTING BAR**
Planting bar shallhave a
blade with a triangular
cross section, and shall
be 12' long, 4" wide and
I" thick at center.
6.REPEAT LAYERS OF PLANTS AND SAWDUST
AS NECESSARY AND WATER THOROUGHLY.
**CONTRACTOR MAY UTILIZE
ANY APPROPRIATE PLANTING p
DEVICE UPON APPROVAL FROM
ON-SITE ENGINEER.
LIVE STAKE PLANTING
LIVE S T AKES PLACED IN
RANDOM PATTERN,
MIN. SPACING 24'
MIN. OD=0.5" A
24'-36"
-- - - = - - - - - - ----- --------------------
OOOOoC
FLOW
OoOOC
LIVE STAKE CPO 0Z
A
NOTES:
1. LIVE STAKES TO ONLY BE PLANTED
BETWEEN WATERS EDGE AND BANKFULL.
24" MIN.
1/5L
SECTION A-A
L
0
0

END SURVEY REACH & PRESERVAT
17+68.19 -MAIN WEST-

BEGIN SURVEY REACH
0+00 -W/-
o
0 00+0
BEGIN PRESERVATION
+ 0+20.88 -WI -
0
I-
W o
W Q
V)
10+59.72 -MAIN WEST-
1
= LLI POND
U?
Q_Z
50 0 100
VRETAIN EXISTING CROSSING
yR I? PROJECT ENGINEER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
CRWT- UT TO HAW RIVER 5
[INARY R:
PLAN & PROFILE
Do NOT 95E

ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS

\\ RO Box 331 27
RALEIGH, N. C. 27636
[phone]
[phone] (FAX)
WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
o?
3
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
G)
0
0
0
peaECr ENGINEER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
UT TO HAW RIVER 8
PLAN & PROFILE
Be NOV USE

ml.mm NUM,
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PO Box 33127
RALEIGH, N.C. 27636
[phone]
1919) 851-1918 (FAX)
WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT !I
0+23.14 -C2-
BEGIN SURVEY REAC
0+00 -C2-

50 0 100
?D
n?
0
FT]

0
0
O r__
BEGIN SURVEY REACH V
0+00 -C1-
1 N
1 x O
r ?
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT ll I LTI 1
O
0+32.67 -CI- -? REMOVE DEBRIS
4+21.46 -CI-
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED
20 FOOT CROSSING
1+74.11 -Cl-
REVISIONS PROJECT EA'vINEER
:RFTION
NARY PLANS
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT II
O-+OBJJ -SE-TRIB-
0'00
BEGIN SURVEY REACH
0+00 -SE-TRIB-
50 0 100
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
UT TO HAW RIVER 12
PLAN & PROFILE
.Vo
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PO Box 33127
RALEIGH, N.C. 27636
(9191 851.1912
(9191 851.1918 (FAX)
WWW. MU LKEYI N C.COM
i
m
3
Z
VEY REACH & ENHANCEMENT !I
5+16J5 -SE-TRIB-
0
0
0
0
CD
0
0
0

END SURVEY REACH & PRESERVATION
17+68./9 -MAIN WEST-

BEGIN SURVEY REACH
0+00 -WI-
0
0 00+0
BEGIN PRESERVATION
0+20.88 -WI-
W
10+59.72 -MAIN WEST-
LL] POND
Z
U z
Q

VRETAIN EXISTING CROSSING
m
`Ir
3
0
S
PROJECT ENGINEER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
UT TO HAW RIVER PLT-5
PLANTING
Do NOT O8N

K E
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PO Sax 331 27
RALEIG H, N.C. 37636
1919) 851-1913
1919) 851-1918 (FAX)
WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Eo
T I I REVISIONS
P L I — DATE BY DESCWTION
PROJECT ENGINEER PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
UT TO HAW RIVER PLT -6
O 1/18/DB JTL FFDIX WAflY MANS
E
SOENG
u T
no NOT USE PLANZ'g
+
T
FOR c®mayflocnaN
_ \\
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
CONSTRUCTION �� �
F0 Soz 331 27
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT 11 1+19.09 to /+52.90 -MAIN CENTER- `,
�r� �����
RALEIL,H� N.C. 27636
l+/3.32 -MAIN CENTER-
REMOVE DEBRIS _-
eI es,-,
(91 9) es, -, B, a (FAX)
2+76.79 : -MAIN CENTER-
Y2
W
WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
o
o END SURVEY REACH & �.
o I _ ENHANCEMENT // 8+2499 n -Cl-
v " o
I 71.63 MAIN CENTER
7+10.63 -- ---
D
- _ 7+63-51-7C/ g
+,
D
REMOVE DEBRIS – — –
—
3+92.44 -MAIN CENTER- POND
-- -- - ---- -
' -
+,- _
- ----
I _ ---
,7 --
-
I,
A_ <.
_
- - ---
-_- -
2a"
G I ---
-
x REMOVE DEBRIS - -- - --- _
- - - —i
7+/0.63 ---
-MAIN CENTER- -
_ _
CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED
20 FOOT CROSSING -- - —
___ ''- o
BEGIN SURVEY REACH /+35J9 ;.-MAIN CENTER-
0+00 -MAIN CENTER-
—
+
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
O �I
so o ,00
....
-:
.._i_..
..:_
-i-
.
f
��.__
ffes_
t
:.
�
� � r
� ..
t r
.j. ..
..��
_rrr--
�rF
r+_
_•_' • t . + ;._:.,
. _; r
'_:« , . ,_+
,. '. _r.
.
:_:
�. �:
_
t
1
I
t 1 I
1
1
1 _
-�.
.moi
... f
, ..i
... _
r
..
_����
r
- r:
r
-rrr
. , ��
_,_,_..
. . . ..
610
r
r
r+r
trt
r
':.
-
rl
_.
r
-
_
rrr
r -r
... ,
..
.. r
r
-
.. -
-� t-;..
...
-
, .
_-.
-
....
'.
';
Imo-
_
-
-
-
L.-
tit
__ _
-
-
I•
.:
r
..
_
UE
El
r
r
--rrr
-
rr
.:_
t
- t
--
F
-r- r
r .
. -r+
rrr--
.
-r-r
-t c'
rr
r
,-�-
--
-
-
60 5
-
_ r r
'`
t r
r
t
r.
rrr t
r-. r
rrr
r
_ rr
{ t
r
,:
rr
r
� tf..
t,.,
..rr
_r
rrrr
r,,,
.,-r--r
-
r:t
_
-
I i
--
--
rr
I•I607.5
I
1 t r
r
tr'
r<<
t
tt ...
+
_ _
,...-.-r-._rrr-.
�
_
_
..t--
- ,
+
_,.-
:_�
-r+-rk
r�
..:
•-
�
-
-
z'
-
- -
E -I
1
_
-
:rrr
- - ,
k
r
:
�
t
t
,_+ ..
rr
I+
+ . +
1
. -
_: _
+ ,
_r _r
...:-
-ice-,-�
r
:
_:-��
rr
« , ....i ....
� ::
. ..
..
......-:-�
1:
.:.
-_ ��-
-' �_ .
..__
::
......:
..
t
t
_ t
� :
r
� �
�
,
r
-I
t
_
605
'i
11
r Y
rr
i s
t
: :
..
r,::
r r
. : . :
..
t :
:..
r
. :
..
:: r:
r:
:: r
,{
� i
rl t
:i it
r:
rr.,
r..I: i
. ::
+ •_
. . . .
:.:
-`- r
. . t
�. r--
f
r ` I
rG:
,...jr.
ti:
......-
:1
. . .
t.::
.......
. . r -err}--.
::.� :.-
...... «-� -•_
r: r:
r...
_• _•_-_'....
5.: � r
�:
r.
r
_.._;-.. --•_-'
L
r i
1 I
r
r
I r r
r I t
I !-
-
_
r
I
....
r _
rr :
.. r
�
_..
:...
f
r
:r�
� r t
IrI:
::
:...
. :
_ ._.
, r.
_...
_
:.:
:...
:..
r:
t-
.. r
t r
:::
f ::
r....r..T
rr
..II
r 1
r
� r::
rrr,
: }-r
f-:::
,_
::::
...
.::.
+
rrr
t : t t
t .,...
ft
� : 1 :
I: r -r r
t. -
r r
r
:. r
�,
..
..
:: , :
rr.
- r
r:
r: r � {
- ...
C� Ir-. F_
t:r:
+ t
r t : t r t
.. . .......... -+_ -
t
.., „
t ,
"_ r+_
rr r�-+
rr�� ., �
___ - -
: :
....
- l
tt
:._: �.
__
. __.
rr,
...._«.
r
,...... ..
- ---
�-�---
_ __
r
--
__
___
__
L-.
``
—
_ L -L
��
_ _T
-'
- I-
_ F4_
� -
____
l
- -
— -
-
-
�-��
-
- r
_
��r
-
--
—
-
— -
F `
-
t
r
....
..:.
r.
...
...:
..:
+
r + .
r .
... �
�
r: r
, .,
I
� �
..�.r,
�t
..�r
k
�rlr
- Fl��r.
-
-
-
I
- C - -
-- �F
_
.:...
r
: r r
-
_. _
r
:
__..
:,..
:
_
l. k k602.5
r
k
_ .:_-
r r..
r Kk
rrr
. « .
.......,_,-
- r r r
.
F
I
--
- -
r
-
111
-+ E1
11:
rE
-
_!;
-
--
- --
T7 -T-1-71-17.1
f r1
602.5
:.
L
.,.
.,
r
�..�
Ll
�..,
..
.,.._
. ..
r
r
_
r+
rr t
:
.:.:.
....
.....
_
.:
, .
-
[
--
�r
44
: �: :..
:.
_ -- --` `
r -r
r I
r F r , .
44 - i
rr>_
+
r r:
rrrF
-� :
fi
1 _
-
_ t_
:11
- rr
_
t : r
E
I
--
r -
--
—
-
�rr
--
T
��
-
r r
;rrr
r F 1:
rI t r
-
_...
.:.__:
.
1
t
t.4
r t .
rrr
rrr
t :
I
r
r
r
KE
I t
r r
1 i :._._._
_ ; i _._�
r
:
I
I -r
- --
_
1:
G
600
r-
r
t
7 if
-
1
-
1--
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20
30 40r 50

0
0
PROF ENGINEER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO,
UT TO HAW RIVER PLT-8
PI„ NTING
Do NOT M

ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PO BOX 33127
RALEIGH, N.C. 27636
[phone]
(91 91 85 1-1 91 8 (FAX1
WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT 11
0+23A -C2-
BEGIN SURVEY REAL
0+00 -C2-

50 0 foo
D
? n
n=
v
0
I?
Uo
SHEET N0.
PLT-9
i
W
M"Y
4BULTANT9
O
I
n Ln'
W
W °
U? I-
Oi
N
=U
U?
Q
B
K)
DM
D
in
C- _
N
O
Dm=
o II
m_I'mI
VI J
T
?
LIF-
I
O
O

0
REVISION PROJECT EuGhVEER PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
DATE BY DESCRPTM UT TO HAW RIVER PLT-10
1-1. an rlrci. my nun
no NOT USE PL4NTING
EN13INEERS & CONSULTANTS
PC Box 33127
RALEIMHi N.C. 27636
wool, [phone]
(919) 851-191 8 (FAX)
WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
END SURVEY REACH & ENHANCEMENT II
BEGIN SURVEY REACH & ENHANCEMENT !1 -41+02.00 -MAIN CENTER-
0+00 -C2-C-
?I ? o I
V I o
00+O
CONSTRUCTION
33+94.10 to 34+24.81 MAIN CENTER-
END SURVEY REACH & ENHANCEMENT 1!
0+97.70 -C2-C- CONSTRUCTION CONSERVATION EASEMENT /r
IL' 17+48.17 -C2- CONSTRUCTION 31+92.43 to 33+48.03 -MAIN CENTER- I
W 30+4091 to 31+35.32 -MAIN CENTER-
/b
END SURVEY REACH & \\
!^
ENHANCEMENT /120+50.39 -C2-
---------- l I - _ 28+65.01-MAIN CENTER- ,----
/
_ l
}
?V r
---- ---- ----
- ---------------
J I /
G
CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED
/ 20 FOOT CROSSING I
9 C 34+07.19 -MAW CENTER-
// REMOVE DEBRIS
CF Tq 31+46.41-MAIN CENTER- I %tiT S
qa ? ?, - j l
<?6 />
Xn..
CONSTRUCTION D
1+46.89 to 1+98.80 -CI-
CONSTRUCTION
3+77.43 to 3+92.07 -Cl-
BEGIN SURVEY REACH o
0+00 -C1-
11 V
1 ? r n
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT ll
0U-1 -u
+32.67 -CI- REMOVE DEBRIS
O
4+2L46 -C1-
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED
20 FOOT CROSSING
1+74.77 -Cl-
REVISIONS PROJECT ENGINEER
RPTIW
(NARY -5
Be NOT UK
FOR CoNsTnucVCH
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT 11
0+0813 -SE-TRIB-
0x00
BEGIN SURVEY REACH
0+00 -SE-TRIB-
50 0 loo
?VEY REACH & ENHANCEMENT 11
5+16J5 -SE-TRIB-
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. 71SHEET NO
UT TO HAW RIVER PLT-12
PLANTING
4-* mwL Jo I llc%op -, E -loo -
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
F0 Box 33127
RALEIGH N.C. 27635
f919) 851.19128
(919) 851.191 lFAX1
WWW. MU LKEYI NC.COM
i
0
Z
J
0
0
0
0
Restoration Plan SHEET NO.
^ + k' v " t 4 i2v ?? y
Legend
n. 4 t? ? ' , 1 9
+ a Farm Management Plan View 16
Proposed Wells ??1 irr « .t
r.
`: ='?y}r{ + "" 5 4' UT to Haw River Stream Enhancement
O Proposed Drinkers; , ,y 04.
PVC Piping
Proposed Fencing (Easement) t < k; t '*x „ 'S; ?:i MI
r c r r ?' - a Fie.
l r=.
Proposed Crossings I ' ` + 1 xl ` +ti tir h
` 14 f +~. Fr3r*•{ ' -? , r ?' s x i° PO BOX 33127
Existing Gates ;r? : a •?', , t r. p ` .'4a.. °'s a? y RlI.EIGH,N.C. 27636
r.' s? 5, .8' I t f y [phone]
Existing Fence ' r r b? : k k Ni ti +3 t . ? (919 831-1918 (FAX)
?i W.
VV NIULKEYINC.COM
AV'
49
Project Streams
$1 ku
Ponds
NRCS Agricultural Fields
Iseley Farm J ??a j??`' ?3 • ?, ! to F.. ;+ i
. Nth 4 4r r,
Smith Tract to
i :_. ._ _ ? J ,::• 1534 'r t ?: e ? t'F t < ;t ? '*' + ' ? ?
,.
^_ .... I J ? ' r ff ? . y ` µ•w '.' {' ` M;4f . , it Y {'
r ' }' ter' 1 `_? --- f
1
* L { F - ^}tztir s } u k? ^xk3? it
4: .v
.,5 {
Jr ??tw u?y f I ar 15s
., 1 l ! } tP76 \ 3 t9? iF v+tti a , ` 4+ r
C, ol
17
25
Irk ki??
*+
tt N4? 4.}`.? 1U
0 :' ..?a16 A
?',t y 1 X7'1' 6C:. ;?}1!H r-T 't..r f 5x
t jF} tra,C? ??syl r: `
11 'µ
.N k 1''r'l4 ?? +"+}e `7t1r-FFi 5 tr. 4
:.j?d. 1 ?' }'jr(.,? 4 t l r: ' Jet [ ^ y, ? , ?? (;?' ? .,, ?. 1.I
l r '-! ??_ - ? ` ' n4 ?? ?a `? M 1•ir ? x 1;...k/ ? ?:\i i , 7,1 ! ,, ti e5 ? ,?4'^. ?A _..? 4 yJ ` ?
8Y ,;?`j i r t i t 19
f
`:l
• -1 iii
At
22
4'.s }R'!'k. /. ?_ q 5 '??, rr d''+. l'4. ,L?J' 4?1'• ,fir ,j -
i 1 °,1Y( ? tir A 'i l 1 '?° tfi ' I ?^
13
2 20
_?"? , ?,?{? r??^??'9?#r ? ? r6i-•Y 4: r.? ? : - t '!f}? ?? :. ??-? ? 'it ?4 4?.:• ,?b? ???? ? ?.A.. ?? f
! r?•; i'i1,
L. Y?1 ?}' t? , 4 y?l.?1'r y16it?r _%? ?, '?'I\?}'4• ,S !`•^ e3:,.r„a• 3ti'?:` I 1 ?k` i 21 Wt
_
ri
A, i'7
VP 7 r^i. Y';tsa i'. q , 7 t-` °Y'+, B," r Fj' •r' t g , X112`{, . i .y,. j t f 4Y r'te`
4V_J
v r + ?. a Tc sYT r\ ," 4k h lt4 r yc ?t r 23j ?llc?r t ' 11"
xt q '`y 4, ,ZAK
?Y!* t• g, (ycy, ;T ,;y' ?r:. '.p a :,, 1 :,.? ,I1' ?. .i:,. .z:' f lU
.4
1s, ,r t1 ,trt, rH, ?t k 15°s'?,? ?? ,i:",ra. ti. ;«e5, "? ??S'E• a I ? f!r; ` '?' "
77 -T 7
Nnw
e
Ir •A"
w r n ? L
S
x '? • AMR`
`T ?'eh.,'°.`?ti ',.3rs:.r ?' }t. . p {3 >f', ??. .?'l': •.{i :: t.. -(ek{ „,L?? h''r'. t {'' 3t ri ,.r x, P,<aa•t`r?.t??.( t' ';; ?,t`?I!t a'". '?;`;?,'•ee4',r ? , 41,
4 A4•Ct. t.'. . i I? 'N:.?3 ! ,r• {
?V?
^, ^P I w lKl h 5,. I ,p,;t?.
. as ,( Smr/??• c' t''p?!} n j.[g?• -- t' 1 .'tyK.
_,; f .N'r ?., t., i _?> .,/t. t•. n ?i.5; r? .1.: ,i'r? -?+,.__ t ?i a?14:?: yr,?,.y.,rY F,?,
,t i '; ua. t,y,j?` R "; ; i.?;,,', ,t•A.. ;?:. .1.., ;i ,v' I `Cr"n !? '. ---:-r. „ .1 ! f,' .o..P t
?': ,? ? ? , ?t+•?f t •p,a, ? ,r! ? :k"'' r , t??, p..;,,t1,' '' ?P.. ?t}r:f1 - '''Fta Si,';;? •? 4 n; ?''. 't,W
.=.s=' - .. . (. ?-
•.'A., ale:'' ?+.'; ? ?•?;$.,. 1 ?. r'e.'4+/d.+ , ,U.ft )) ?. , 4....d' '?; , 's 1
?-
},..fG 7 , ?• 1?...; ?r ???
s y ? ° ?' '??x !' )? Y(+ h'p ;;l IEP f, { , r.??.t? '°?+?,vnY:_?, y afx "l. ?jr ? ?.8 4 j ?,. a e:A 'r•
1?1,,,- r•" ?. ? i ?, ?` r1:„ y?. ??r?,{?.?i1?!: \ rasa '? ?q +?„Z^»?.., r? _? ? r?'y ?+ ? _ _ •..Y a:''r" ,
? y t7- a'1 £ 4 } ?? ,. .;tx ?.,r• t?? ? r ?? Yr i ( SrY r . A, k:?r ` 7???.; ?ylega'? fs ? , 1?,._
*?4 •,??t ?.(':: j r rR 'i ',?i ?;;? ? ?r'r ,.? g {,'# .?,,,.?? i 4111 ?i?.?$ ar?'b h? ?-y., 6: "?''% ?I 5 .c.? l.
X ''r1kr; iF" f'Nf s
A ..Si ? r ?.• ? r. , :+. ?' ,+ f A ra, r F. ? 1 i' r t , . ? ? E t,
k>t? t ? ><. ? ,i 5 K
Y - @' I ar:^'k' sfjli. 4 y ^ x' •`'x -i?7 re
+ fiR df xr- f., r_ r; 1r ?' : 1t ? {:5 + ( ..,? (• f? s.•?15 r7?_-p:? IM."•
p
.,rSW . ?,F,::?5 4 ?R'. yf ,l`y V C1 ??^. ?( s "' t.. Z*..gK •. , n
•: t"?:??R"itd„1'1r...
MINL
?'.'. f??r' ?{ i_i r ?"t??C p?Mrr ?? ,!!, .?' ? / •1'YF"•e' .x- ?`°at?,"1 ?t. ,,y.? ?,? '4?^ '?' Ct*"x .f: ?.
F ?^ 4 - ?. ? .l' ?`? ,,tic`• _ 1? t..t.". . , `{ ?•T?--*` :s,?c`?,? S?•':.
b ?nSE)i;. j(:1 q, t o 7' ¢?+ ^4i r= y j{ 5?,? r { t. e..x:. Y 5 w
d ?r > * j ?^r`"T r § 1i'.. 4' - S S"9 fit„ +t
ip 4, 4
, 'r( 5, r N ^yr? f%f rFr, r J r ?; , ?#.

1. ALL PVC PIPE SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 18"BELOW
THE FINISHED GRADE.
2.NO ROCKS OR BOULDERS 3"OR LARGER TO BE USED IN INITIAL BACKFILL.
3. ALL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE SUITABLE NATIVE MATERIAL.
4. BACKFILL SHALL BE TAMPED IN 6"LAYERS IN TRAFFIC AREAS,12"IN
NON-TRAFFIC AREAS.
5. SCHEDULE-40 PVC PIPE SHALL BE USED,DIAMETER OF PIPING TO BE DETERMINED
BY INSTALLER AFTER REVIEW OF WELL FLOW RATE AND WATERING TROUGH
REQUIREMENTS
6.PVC PIPE WITH PRE-INSTALLED COUPLES ARE PREFERRED FOR EASE AND
EFFICIENCY OF INSTALLATION.
7.WHEN BEDROCK OR SHARP ROCK IS ENCOUNTERED,PEA GRAVEL MUST
BE USED TO PROTECT THE PVC PIPE.
PMIJECT ENGINEER PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
UT TO HAW RIVER 17
DETAILS
DO NOT USE

41-9 M U I- ?'110'
ENGINEERS & CONBULTANTB
PC Box 331 27
RALEIGH, N.C. 27634
(91 9) 851191 2
1919) 951-1918 (FAX)
WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
IMANCE COUNTY FREEZE LINE
DAILY CONSUMPTION OF WATER BY LIVESTOCK
KIND OF LIVESTOCK GAL/DAY/HEAD
BEEF CATTLE & HORSES 15
WELL CAPACITY NEEDED
100 X 15 GAL/DAY/ANIMAL = 1,500 GAL/DAY
1,500 GAL PER DAY / 12HR PER DAY / 60 MIN PER HOUR = 2.1 GPM

WELL HOUSE
PVC PIPING PLAN VIEW
PEA GRAVEL
K LINE
CAPPED END
(FOR ADDITIONAL DRINKERS)
N
G
WELL INFORMATION
REVISION
WELL WILL BE INSTALLED BY A NORTH CAROLINA
CERTIFIED WELL CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE
WITH NORTH CAROLINA LAW FOR POTABLE WELLS.
ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN
THE NORTH CAROLINA WELL CONSTRUCTION ACT 15A NCAC 02C
SUBCHAPTER 2C - WELL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.
WELL DETAIL
1. WELL SIZE INCH DIA.
MIN. CAPACITY GPM
HORSEPOWER
2, PUMP SIZE: GPM CAPACITY
TDH
DEPTH TO WATER
3. PRESSURE TANK: SIZE -
TYPE -
PRESSURE -
4. ELECTRIC PANEL: AMP CAPACITY -
5. PIPE: TYPE DIA.
6. CASING: TYPE DIA.
7. INSULATED WELL HOUSE WITH ACESS DOOR.
8, CUTOFF.
9. FILTER SCREEN.
NEW WELL NO. 1, 2, & 3
LANDOWNER: NANCY JANE ISELEY
2960 BURCH BRIDGE ROAD
BURLINGTON,NC 27217
C)
CR
NATURAL GROUND
NON-WOVEN
GEO-TEXTILE FABRIC
I
15"BLACK CORRUGATED
PIPE

DRINKER PAD DETAIL
LA IILL FAbNIL UUMF'LLILLY UNULN
) INSTALLING CRUSH N'RUN STONE.
OTEXTILE FABRIC
N STONE
DRINKER DETAIL
NOTES:
1. SHUT-OFF BALL VALVE MUST HAVE A SMALL,LOW PROFILE HANDLE
TO FUNCTION PROPERLY WITHIN THE DRINKER COMPARTMENT.
2.15"BLACK CORRUGATED PIPE TO BE INSTALLED AT A DEPTH OF 5'TO
PROVIDE AN AREA OF HEAT CONVECTION FOR THE 2-HOLE DRINKER.
3. FLEXIBLE PIPING IS RECOMMENDED FOR CONNECTION TO THE DRINKER
TO PROVIDE AN EASIER INSTALLATION, AND TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO A
GEOTEXTILE MORE RIGID PIPE.
4.CONCRETE FOR PAD TO HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
OF 3000 PSI.
5.FOR OTHER CONCRETE NOTES SEE SHEET No. 5.
3UnrUULr-9U rVU - U
M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Project Name: Project No.
EEP UT to Haw River Stream Enhancement Site 2007063.00
Photo No. Date:
1 9/12/07
Perspective: + -

Facing South i

< ,T' ? ,' t
3 k S f w t < s ' E ,rte. I?f y. t tq. " 4 ? ?. ` ; r
14,
Descri
tion:
p `
Facing downstream on
Main West below West
..F" •
ys', g
w `! •_?' ?-? j?
Pond. ?
4 s ,
'°'
d
ee
?? > w
yor?l1yw
l
v
.

_Y
-re

r is _ >: c•.?,

b
M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Project Name: Project No.
EEP UT to Haw River Stream Enhancement Site 2007063.00
Photo No. Date: 4 ff `
1I 11, `
r I r ? ;'`
}Ji ? R
3 4/3/07 RV1
Perspective:

Looking Southeast

?
f I
?
1, '4'i
. 1
-
I \ 9
:,?
1
{ ?
l I
?f.
f
'?

s-
J? '.y
l?ri
1-S
i.
Cu
Description: I4 f it r , r 1 { I `? ,, ,

Facing downstream on
Main Center near the
confluence Nvith Trib

{

` •i+}'" C('4-. ?` •?
j?•p 5? t'"' ?erY s.
i `SY?1: ?`{f } J
!
'
SS aj e •:j• ?'?yt? '-
?
? ?
?? -?- ...
{
? _'.
y
{
?
of .• 1i tf
/
?
ia? - J
f
t; 1 JF
'?
? t
y
?
j
?"
I
1
?
+
?

w k
p
p
?
'??
7
>
'
ti ilk -? ''
74
'
-
L
1
-
tl???
?'?? j>K'
J ?
/?
'?
?
??
?
N ?
?
`
?
am
.
??
?
-y?
f
"
t! ^• ? ? ., C
, •1
_
S
_.
_
?
?
?.-
.
` ?
_
y
?
Photo No.
4 Date:
9/12/07
Perspective:
I 't
? I ". - ? /
? r
..

Looking North F ,.
t ?
't l rf ??
i n x; ` t r k?
t ??it . • k'•.
?t '
?
?r K' .
-?-'
? • HC fir`:
? G,

Description: '' - '.{ ?1?F, tv a ?• 3 :? ,G ?,
?I ,?, '>; `;.

A
0 .t-
Facing upstream on j! y

Main Center from Haw h 1

.. ?,
River. ,
iro r..
c 7
7
y
' ? ? t# -. may 3;

2
M U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Project Name: Project No.
EEP UT to HaNv River Stream Enhancement Site 200 %063.00
Photo No. Date: x
{ ;x ;': wcd

5
9/12/07 I
t. :,
Perspective:

ki
L
S
h
',+.-.. Vie--
ng
oo
out
west

Description:

-
' M
Y `
Facing downstream on ?? ,
,
f -:.1 ..
Trib C1 above Center

1 is 8 _ `,. _."'.. I .E 'Aw,
IV,
'a j_ -. - -• Yv ,r
Pond 1.

sa^ 'S S >. y ?r
F
- it r j`, t ,4 w

.t as 5 ?!?. s rr'' ?1.,+ '?'?--f

I
?
?J.'-??1?51"?
3 Fi? '', --?>.!•) -1 w ? v? ?I ;a.s l?
F'

' ~
?
r - t ?,? 3rr
AM-
C ?
4
a ,v
,
f
?t
S
k3.

M U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOGS
Client Name: Project Name: Project No.
EEP UT to HaNv River Stream Enhancement Site 2007063.00
Photo No. Date;
7 9/12/07c.?
t?s ' r rq + yl
Perspective: R (,? a b \ ,i `7`y+ 14 • S q r _!t 1
tyt T"
Facing North;
Description: r* ..•.. I
1 t•; A a S ;2 ??f:
Facing upstream on Tribe f a Gg `??l'1? ~(? w r 7 a•*'¢ "J
C2 dear the confluence
with Main Center.
Invasive Iliirostegirrm and
Muldflora rose on ' :•.'T! , '> '_ ?.. ?, ,.,.. Szc
stream banks.
--•a • y? c r i
Aft
.. ?..A ? t ' ??±s.. _"`o'a? y. ? .-r.6 ?.?? c. ?y'.. ? 4 "`?rt??bt?• ' a` . _ 'i?•;:;
T'?iy 9 l • .. \ J M 7A?•?
? ?'. .. .. .._ a.?.,?'? tip! ?' tlr . t..ii ??.:?. .. .. ? ' c _ _ _? :,..•?
Photo No. Date:
8 9/12/07
Perspective:
Facing East
Description:
Facing upstream on
spring fed Trib C2-c
from confluence -\\7th
Trib C2. Invasive
ltiliirbstegirrm lining
stream banks.

4
L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

Client Name: Project Name: Project No.
EEP UT to Haw River Stream E nhancement Site 2007063.00
Photo No. Date:
9 9/12/07
Perspective:

Looking Northeast
i 11
I .J.C tY? { J
h
Description:
Facing upstream across
Center Pond 2 from
pond outfall.

1116
4VT
y
:.:c ?FIG
5
MULKEY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Project Name: Project No.
EEP UT to Haw River Stream Enhancement Site 2007063.00
Photo No. Date:
'"'? , ;III t y, !'
11 4/3/07
Perspective:
Looking South {, mm
' k t Al
?/ ?* tit i;ff ll• lerr?' It i'? 'ii`' ?,? •n+ ? ?-??-` \',
Description: k?-= 1 `??, w? 1 y
?iw tai • I li i °'?" yt ?. -
Faciung downstream on
sprung fed Southeast'' fir` .- ?± i•
qq R ?
Trib near northern
ait. J „y -? i ?r ?"
easement bound
tilt
w y _
{ ?? y Y? ??? _•? S r3 ?+ 1 ? Zy? ` sue. f? '`'? 4?

southern easemen t;
boundary. Invasive
Multiflora rose along
7 OF
fence line behind
stream ? ' '
'
. v
ti

^Y

tr.4
St Yha ?? I eye ?' T

s

.Y '?• _ -

6
MU L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Project Name: Project No.
EEP UT to I-Ia\\- River Stream Enhance ment Site 2007063.00
Photo No. Date: r P?f 4
71 p '' ?t ?`
13 4/3/07
Per
ti
e: ?-
spec
v
h r , i C , X17
r? ? ? • ?^c
Looking South ,
r .
P a 3 r~
?
?J

?+Y
Description: f .
ll?
? i ? ?r? ?,-
`
ri + l
S
Facing do-vnstream on
I
1 * E ?,v3a
1
'4 +a t
.t }
\
ast near
? 1
r#
}
r2 „. e t _t ?-•
Z,.4,J f. ,
ilt

confluence with Trib c

'' r _

w, 1 _ i^it - ' - ?•

r
lp
1.2724P
?• a tr N - 'rye 8 ` } ?' i .//r ?' -. ?.3..
i? -74
?i..:. \ ?
L a
"bb i - 5 P• ( ltI 1 j y? `'.
}
?
.t s .:
?

??
.
• .,
'`k ?,? ???i?r'.,.,
, (•?
y?kc.- ? c '7Vf
"r? a, i yT \ r+4 L^? r; t
?
?`t^,.
,,
-`-' - ". t
?
?
-?t
.f`? t`,yf ` ....:?• 4aYl?2r tMi s .?,
?
?4'-J'. '?? ^y A4h?? Y` rfr T__

Photo No. Date: `;' All ; y'` "r?E rr r ;' Fr *y a? is {"
14 9/12/07
Perspective:
Looking South" :c sri °' 1, Y
i sefa. 'te?Y y ^?'i r r Y`«
Description: Facing do,\vnstreatn on
spring fed Trib E1 from
head of reach. Invasive <y*
11licfoftesizrmlining Y?rjy ,?i. `? ?{ - \F: '~165 tf b y Ty.. }
stream banks.
'? aaesy"
q --r ? ter. i. ,r
7
?i'? U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Project Name: Project No.
EEP LT to Ha-v River Stream Enhancennent Site 2007063.00
Photo No. Date: < s 'l.ii Via. ._ ifs
13 9/12/07
Perspective: q h F;?ir L«+s*'
Looking South.
RY s
vY C - .fy? F - {- -;.Z JQ` i{ f t ?-
Description:
Facing downstream oil ?yti '??.;_ ` Tom- ' .ic 1"Y z '- F'+,? ` - '? }+?
Spring fed Trib E2 from
head of reach. Invasive
a 's°'P FS d .r'. r i
Allil'OJfC,gilllll tilllllg ?.'_ H ' k b e4 ri F e } P??In t $ L i°".
Stream batiks. i s. °`.. -i •}` •y• y'? `'`ti. :? y 7 F
All
io-
Al-
ztv
1 ?
'?N.?'J..c. ?. k -.i'?, a? t?rrP? ?.a_. ~ y t q `QP f ??Vl <-•
Photo No. Date:
16 4/3/07
Perspective:
Facilig South
Description:
Looking downstream on
ititennittent portion of
Main East near nord-tern
easement boundary-.
Cattle impacts in the
foreground, patches of
invasive Multiflora rose
in the background.

f,

1=4? ,
8
L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Project Name: Project No.
EEP UT to Ha-w River Stream Enhancement Site 2007063.00
Photo No. Date: - ?--
17 11/6/07
y

Perspective: . _
r` yt*
r
L
itt
Looking South.

..
r X F. '? ? ?. i r?} :? I
( to .?• ? I

Description:

Proposed bank _ r.

stabilization area near .7 7'
Station 31+92 on 1\1aun y z -
Center looking
dovmstream. Aor

Rr.,? 4 r' s!=-Y? ] -, -` a ?KX,yF ?L t . t l -y !.r }a '°'R z[ -y +? r'!a
?°ir Y t p 4 _fir
Aft-

r. ..
-.s^?Fe Try 4^k ~e`- j '.
.
71.
.:Jr.. t 'Sri . ! ?? ` ? ?`'. 4 1 _, ?.. ?t?.. •? ' r E?.za? ? t y., F4'rs? _ yrtS'i f-

Photo No.
Date:
} 44
18 11/6/07
Perspective:
s:? f f? , v , ?
v i
y
Facing Northnvest. , ,;k ti y 9 j y `

Description:

S?

t..1 Y

{4E•fl

'?„s fll

,?,xq (

YtE _ ? y.
Proposed bank .+ c.. r >.. ,• . >,T ?-

stabilization area near 14?"
? .''' 4
?
??4" -;
'? ?? ??
,?
Station 26+35 on 1\Iaicn • ,
Center lookitlg _
.
upstream. Y 5 ? 1
. ,d v t

?? ' t ?
??'tr I
yra .3i7
a• 4
7 ?+ /? t•.
?
: ?-
? ? >,o •r?? ?F- '
? `
4
1 ; t?
? „_
._ `< ,
,- .".-f
?
_
9
[` ?1 U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

Client Name: Project Name: Project No.
EEP UT to Haw River Stream Enhancement Site 2007063.00

Photo No. Date: ''",
19 11/6/07
Perspective: '• ? "?.?"? ?! J''
?t Y` 1 }1

Lookin
West ,mil
- t .
r
g
. I

Descri
tion:
f 33.E
• i +
:
?ti
p : .

Proposed bank
stabilization area near
Station 23+82 on Maul
Center.
10
U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Project Name: Project No.
EEP UT to HaNv River Stream Enllatncement Site 2007063.00
Photo No Date:
.
21 11/6/07
Perspective:

Looking Southwest.

Descri
tion:
p
s ` F NIjY K`
Proposed bank
stabilization area near
Station 21+63 on Maui

Center looking
i
'.
do-wnstream. . ,
? x' k '
•;
..

?
t
ma ? j l!'1•? _ ? 7?,..
2,
}
y ?. ?
Ar-

.•- ??r 4' ? ?• t
n
1 ' i? ?..d' 2 .1' f 1i ?+'1!
?? ?r?R

.
,
*vl
.,1
a

11
1`1t U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

Client Name: Project Name: Project No.
EEP UT to Haw River Stream Enhancement Site 2007063.00
Photo No.

23 Date:

11/6/07
-Y I:
•;:

ti
P
-
?, Ai"
li "
erspec
ve: 7C y,
,( a
t l ni
`
r t
Looking South\vest. ; r w? K! {A u ! Y. v
}' nr ! { 1 3
T j K
Description:
Proposed bank
stabilization area near
Station 13+30 on Main
Center looking
downstream.

R
Photo No. Date:
ji,
AN.
24
4/3/07
C ?s
Perspective:
Faciri Southwest. N_ ?f?ic1 t 1 ?? J` ti
r
Description:`'!` `t':
t T- Fa ?. t
Proposed bank
stabilization area near. , _a r n 3 ^` i j { ;?
Station 13+00 on Trib ,} 'j
' r f ?? ah
C2lookui downstream. 1 `, •? ?µr
,j q.'! r rye ?' {k +,
P,vf Q* '+'Si. S = irt`EaY"^ .,?sd.; ! r ,.#'r
a
t
K? ? f ? ? i ? 4 ? i .i
12
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 DOE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project 1 Site: UT to FIatiy River Stream Enhancement 1012107
Applicant 1 Owner: NC EEP County: Alamance
Investigator: Mark Mickley - Mulkey hic. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes x No Community ID: PFOIC
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID; AVA
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: WA WET
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

I. Saaittaria latifolia herb OBL 9.
2. Impatiens capensis herb FACW 10.
3. Altus serrulata shrub FAQW 11
4. Juncus effiisus herb FACW-r 12.
5. Carex sPp. herb FAC 13.
6. Platanus occidentalis tree FACW- 14.
7. Liquidambar styraciflua shrub FAC= 15.
8. Liriodendron tulipifera tree FACU 16. -

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or PAC excluding FAC-). 87.5%

Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
xSaturated in Upper 12"
Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
- (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
>12 (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
- Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)

OILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wilkes soils Drainage Class: well drained __
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic IIapladalfs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes , No x
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 10 YR 3/3 Sandy loam
2-6 BI 7.5 YR 3/1 7.5 YR 5/4 _ C, M. F Sandy clay loam
6-12 B2 5 Y 4/1 7.5 YR 5/3 C. M, P Sandy clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Nistosol _ Concretions
_ Nistic Epipedon _ Nigh Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No

Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project I Site: UT to Haw River Stream Enhancement Date: 7012/07
Applicant I Owner: NC El---P Connie: Alamance
Investigator: Ivtarle Middev - Mulkey Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes x No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID: WA
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No x Plot ID: WA UP
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

1. Liguidainbar styraciilua_ tree FAC+ 9.
2. Juniperus virbiniana shrub FA.CU- 10.
3. Liriodendron tu'lipifera tree FACTJ 11.
4. Acer rubrum shrub FAC 12.-
5. Quercus alba tree F.ACIJ 13.
6. Platanus occidentalis tree FACW- 14. _.__............
7. 15.
8. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 50%

Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: n/a (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: n/a ( in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: n/a (in.)
Remarks: No obvious indicators
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wilkes soils Drainage Class: well drained ?____
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Topic Hapludalfs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes- No x
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon _ (Munseii Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
0-2 A 10 YR 4/3
2-12 B 10 YR 514
Sandv loam
Sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_............ Sulfdie Odor _Orccianic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime --_-Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x Within a Wetland? Yes_ No x
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: LT-1'to Flaw River Stream Fribancement Date: 10/2107
Applicant / Owner: NC EEP County: Alamance
Investigator: Mark Mickley -Mulkey Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes x No Community ID: PFOIC
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No x Transect ID: 1A113
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No x Plot ID: WB WET
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator I Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Seirlws 'IM-61u-9 herb OBL
2. Impatiens capensis berb FACW
3. Alnus serrulata shrub FACW
4. 7uncus effuses herb FACWd-
5. Carex spl). herb FAC
6. Boehmeria cvlind•ica herb FACW=
7. Typha latifolia shrub OBL
8.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
1. --
5
Percent of Dominant Species that are ORL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAG-). 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6 (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12"
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
x Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAG-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham sandy loam ----Drainage Class: poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup):_ thermic Typic Endoaquults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes___,_ No. x
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
0-2 A 10 YR 5/4 Clay loam
2-12 B S Y 4/1 10 YR 4/6 C. K D Clav loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Suifidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
;x Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 OE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: LIT to Naw River Stream Enhancement Date: 1012/07 -
Applicant/ Owner: NC EEP County: Alamance
Investigator: Mark 1\1Lgk ? - Alull<ey Inc State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes x No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID: W13
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No x Plot ID:__..WB UP
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

1. Licquidambar stvracif7ua tree _ ...__FAC+ 9.
2. Juniperus virainiana shrub FACU-- 10.
3. Liriodendron tulipifera tree FACU 11.
4. Acer rubrum shrub FAC 12.
5.
-...--- 13. _.......---
6. 14. _..._.._ ---
15.
8. ..__.._ 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 50N
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: iVa (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: n/a (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: n/a (in.)
Remarks: No obvious indicators, 4% slope
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
_ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water-Stained Leaves
- Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
i
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wilkes stoney soils Drainage Mass: well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic 1lapludaifs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No x--
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
0-2 A 10 YR 4/3
2-12 B 10 YR 5/4
Sandv loam
Sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol -Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon J High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Suifidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x Within a Wetiand? Yes_ No N
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 DOE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project 1 Site: UT to I -law River Stream Enhancement Date: I QQ/07 _
Applicant t Owner; NC EEP County: Alamance
Investigator: Mailc Mick le), -N4ulkevInc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes x No Community ID: Proic
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes _ No X Transect ID: WC
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No x Plot ID: WC WET
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

1. Alnus serrulata shrub FACW 9. -
2. Juncus effiisus herb FACW= 10.
............ _
3. Carex spp.
herb
FAC
11. .. .............
Caipinus caroliniaua
4. shrub FAC 12. -
_
5. Typha lat:ifolia shrub Cl3L
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16. ---

Percent of Dominant Species that are OSL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
- Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs
_ Other
x No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_x Saturated in Upper 12"
Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
(in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
10 (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
- Local Sail Survey Data
0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
- Other (Explain in Remarks)

OIL
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham sandy loam Drainage Class:_._ poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Typic Endoaguults_ __------ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No x
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 10 YR 3/3 Sandy loam
2-6 B 1 7.5 YR 311 7.5 YR 5/4 C. M. F Sandy clay loam
6-12 B2 5 Y 4/1 7.5 YR 5/8 C, M. P Sandy clay loans
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
__ Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
DATA FOR
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
t I Site:
P UT to flaw River Stream Enhancement Date: 10/2/07
rojec
Applicant/ Owner: -- NQ EEP County: Alamance
Investigator: Mark Micklev - Mulkev Inc. ...._._..._ State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID;
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No x Transect ID: WC
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No x Plot ID: WC UP
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

1. Liquidanibar s1yraciflua tree FAQ= 9.
2. Juniperus vireiniana shrub PACU-_ 10. -
3. Liriodendron tulipifera tree FACU 11. __......
--
4. Acer rubrum shrub FAC 12.
5. Ouerais alba tree _ FACU 13. -
6. Vitis rotundifolia vine FAC 14. .......
J -
7. 15.
.... ......
16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
- Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: n/a (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: n/a (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: nIa (in.)
Remarks: No obvious indicators; 24% slope
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
- Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
_ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_._ Other (Explain in Remarks)

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Worsham sandy loam Drainage Class:__Axoorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Typic Endoac(uults Confirm Dapped Type? Yes- No x
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
_-3 A 7.5 YR 4/4
3-12 B 7.5 YR 5/6
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Sandy clay loam
Sandy clay loam
Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime __Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other,(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ._x__ No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x Within a Wetland? Yes_ No x
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No x
E
Remarks:
MAIN WEST
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1

Date: (` n Project: (>T ) AW RNER- Latitude:
Evaluator: MZ)M Site: 6D--PCP Longitude: -7tj, 4'7 -7 U,
Total Points:
County: ?LnI'??(il?{ = Other ?A}? ?tJI-IlJcrn'?
Streamnisatleast intermittent ;?. A.. e.g. Quad Name:
If a'9 or perennial if 20
Geomorphology (Subtotal= = )
A Absent Weak Moderate Strong
.
Continuous bed and. bank
1a 0 1 2 (3
.
2. Sinuosity 0 1
1 `2?
2) 3
3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 8)
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
4 0 1 2
.
Activelrelic flood lain
5 0 1 t 2? 3
.
Depositional bars or benches
6 0 1 ' 2 3
.
Braided channel
7 0;> 1 2 3
.
Recent alluvial deposits
8 0 ,1) 2 3
.
9a. Natural levees 0'
0 1
(1') 2
2 3
3
10. Headcuts 0 5
0 (1' 1.5
11. Grade controls 0 .
0
5 _
1 (1.5)
12. Natural valley or drainagewa .
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
)
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No= 0, Yes = 3
Pvirlenre_
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B H drolo (Subtotal= icy
14. Groundwater flow/discharge Absent
0 Weak
1 Moderate
2 strong
(S)
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
0
1
2
(.3.
Water in channel - d or growing season
5
1
1)
0
5
0
16. Leaflitter
Sediment on plants or debris
17 .
0 0.5 .
(1 1.5
.
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) 0 05 ( -. 1.5
10 Hvriric soils (redoximorohic features) present? N o = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal - Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Fibrous roots in channel
20" 3 () 1 0
.
21 . Rooted plants in channel (3
0 2
(0
) 1
1 0
5
1
22. Crayfish (0' ,
1 2 .
3
23. Bivalves 0 5?
0 1 1.5
24. Fish 0 ,
(6
5) 1 1.5
25. Amphibians
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) .
0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0'>
<0) 1
5
0 2
1 3
1.5
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus .-. .
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC='.0 FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; S AV=2.0;
Other =0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetiana
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
V?'' {^( ?fid rJ Cr h2 G? r ?7 ?d1V 1 L t1G I .L -

TRIB W1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: U F UAW 'I\iElC, Latitude: 3G_ I40S tJ
Evaluator: JAL Ito, Site: wl- Longitude: -7Q, $7 ?7 w
Total Points: Other ,AV- nuFt i?v? N
Stream is at least intermittent c County: ALq N\fl <e
e.g. Quad Name:
If ;?19 or perennial if ->30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= I a t::? )
1a. Continuous bed and bank Absent
0 Weak
1 Moderate
2 Strong
(.5)
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 i.V 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1_ (2) 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0, C1r'7 2 3
7. Braided channel (0") 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1" 2 3
9a. Natural levees (0) 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 (2' 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 J) 1.5
12. Natural valle or drainagewa 0 ;0.5) 1 1.5-
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. .,
No= (0,;
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = 1 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0'' 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or rowing season !Q')
- 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1.1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris Q (0.5? 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) CO% 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hvdric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
0?
No:
Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = t' '"' ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 (2) 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel (3'`} 2 1 0
22. Crayfish V 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves C.01 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians (0) 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) (..0) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0? 0.5 1 1.5
29". Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.6;)FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
}?E6Inti & uicl: F rar r?AsF?Ntit`N?
TZ V,
PEE
MAIN CENTER c
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream identification Form; Version 3.1

Date: Ci Project: UT titude: 14U l0
Evaluator: 11,Au'ti 4
Site: Se }-EP-' ngitude: °7q. 4+73 7
Total Points:
V t?
: A1 AIvANG
Count r GP>
he
Stream is at least intermittent . y e.g. Quad Name:
I a 9 or perennial
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
Geomorphology (Subtotal= -?`'°a )
A Absent Weak Moderate Stro g
.
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0
0 1
1 2
2
l3)
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 37
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
4 0 _
.
5. Activelrelic flood lain 0 1
1 '
2 3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0
0)
? 1 2 3
7. Braided channel .
p;) 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
a 2 3
. Natural levees
9 0 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 ;0
5) 1 1.5
11. Grade controls 0 .
0
5 1 .5)
12. Natural valley or drainagewa .
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
= 0
N
Yes ="3?)
USGS or NRCS map or other documented o
evidence
B Hydrology Subtotal - 2 5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge Absent
0; Weak
1 Moderate
2 Strong
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs, since rain, or D j 1 2 3
Water in channel - d or growing season
5
0
16. Leaflitter 1.5
0 )
(0.
1 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 (1') ,-,1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) N = 0 Yes = 6}
0
1Q Nvririr. mils (redoximorghic features) present? o .
C. Biology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20". Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
0
21 . Rooted plants in channel L3? 2 1
1 5
1
22. Crayfish Oi 0.5
1 2 .
3
23. Bivalves i
0) 0.5 1 1.5
24. Fish .,
0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians
Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance
26 0 0.5 1 1.5
.
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 01 1 2
1 3
5
1
Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus
28 (_0) - 0.5 .
.
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=Q.5 FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; S AV=2.0;
Other =0
"v n n t,..,. .......,., +ho .,rn-- of mm iatin nr We tland
'.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence or upland plants, Rern 49 hicuow vin
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
i\-)o 7n)R7EP -

TRIB C1

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ' Project: VT- jlrW E?;>iwi): Latitude: 3G?., 1 C '\J
Evaluator: VjL)?ti Site: ,jc - Longitude: -7q. 47?57
Total Points: d
Count Other L.AV_V t »t 1N<a 1 ur.)

Stream is at least intermittent
y e.g. Quad Name:
If ?'9 or perennial if >?0
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
Geomorphology (Subtotal= ITJ )
A Absent Weak Moderate Strong
.
Continuous bed and bank
1a 0 1 2 3.
.
2. Sinuosity 0
0 1
1 2_
t2) 3
3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle- ool sequence 2 3
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
4 0 1 ,
.
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 (1)
(T 2
2 3
3
Depositional bars or benches
6 0
.
Braided channel
7 (.0') 1 2 3
.
Recent alluvial deposits
8 1 2 3
.
9a. Natural levees 0 ' 1
1 2
2 3
3
10. Headcuts 0
0 5
0 ; 1= 1.5
11. Grade controls 0 .
0
5 ?1) 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagewa .
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No Yes = 3
evidence

- )
B Hydrology (Subtotal=
14. Groundwater flow/discharge Absent
-
0 Weak

1 Moderate

2 Strong

3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or (-
1 1 2 3
Water in channel - dry or growing season --
5)
0
0
16. Leaflitter 1.5
0 1
5)
0 .
1 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris . 5
1
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) 0 .
1Q Hvririr, mils (redoximorohic features) present? N o = 0 as = (1.5)
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
=.

->- -• )
C. Biology Subtotal=
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Fibrous roots in channel
20" 3 ± 2) 1 0
.
Rooted lants in channel
21 t3'J 2 1 0
.
Crayfish
22 l 0.5 1 1.5
.
23. Bivalves
0) 1
0.5 2
1 3
1.5
24. Fish "0' 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians
Macrobenthos (note diversit and abundance)
26 0) 0.5 1 1.5
.
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on Q 1 2
1 3
5
1
Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus
28 ( O,J ---, , 0.5 .
.
Wetland plants in streambed
_T 9T FAC=0.5? FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; S AV=2.0;
. Other =0
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

TRIB C1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Pro1'ect: IJl- Latitude: 3G . 14,Q3
Evaluator: NALN\ Site: Longitude; /?, +-73-7 w
Total Points:
7 A i\-1q NC C
:
1-)t
Count Other Z n _C
str•canr is at least intermittent .
y
r e.g. Quad Name:
If ?d9 oI perennial if ?D

Geomorphology {Subtotal = )
A Absent Weak Moderate Strong
.
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1
1 2
2 )
L3?
2. Sinuosity 0
0 t,() 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ) 3
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
4 0 (1 2
.
Activelrelic flood lain
5 0 (1) 2 3
.
Depositional bars or benches
6 0') 1 2 3
.
Braided channel
7 l0} 1 2 3
.
Recent alluvial deposits
8 0 (10 2 3
.
9a. Natural levees ?0) 1
1 2
(2) 3
3
10. Headcuts 0
0 0
5 (1'
) 1.5
11. Grade controls 0 .
5
0 .
1))
( 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagewa . ,
13. Second or greater order channel on existing -?,
= 3
Y
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No 7R) es
avirlPnr.P_ _
' Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal
14. Groundwater flow/discharge Absent
c,OJ Weak
1 Moderate
2 Strong
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or t 0 i 1 2 3
Water in channel - dry or growing season
5
1
1
0
16. Leaflitter .
0 5
0
•: 1 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 .
.
5
0 1) 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) .
1a Hvdrir. soils (redoximorohic features) present? N o =. 0'?: Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = -' ,? ? ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20", Fibrous roots in channel 3 2)
2
' 1
1 0
0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3.., ..
0.5 1 1.5
22. Crayfish (0') 1 2 3
23. Bivalves 0
) 0.5 1 1.5
24. Fish ,
0',f 0
5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians
Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance)
26 .
0.5 1 1.5
.
Filamentous algae; eriph on
27 0;! 1 2 3
.
Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus
28 0 .. -: 0.5 1 1.5
.
29D. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=.0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; S AV=2.0;
Other =0
- n n [-.......r... ., +hn nn of -tnfin nr vdP tinnrl
'.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence or upiano plants, Rent 49 wcuses 1- -
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
oJ-r A&N NI?k' PT tz? ?R l t`vr

TRIB C2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: l?7" i;1.?JIv%_. Latitude: ?l.-O?; l?l

Evaluator: MtyvN
Site: SCA- Pn -7 J,
Longitude: q • .7 37
Total Points: Nf.L
LIBA
t
C Other 4fW6- ?2cti,ucw f N.
stream is at least intermittent 3 U y:
oun e.g, Quad Name:
JJ• ?9 or perennial i(?D
c?, S
2 )
Geomorphology (Subtotal=
A
Absent Weak Moderate Strong
-
-
.
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1
1 2 (3)
2. Sinuosity 0
1 2
2
3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle- ool sequence 0
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
4 0 1 2
.
5. Active/relic flood lain 0
0 (1'
( 2
2 3
3
Depositional bars or benches
6
.
Braided channel
7 (0) 1 2 3
.
Recent alluvial deposits
8 2 3
.
9a. Natural levees ( 0)
0 1
1' 2
2 3
3
10. Headcuts 0 (
5
0 1) 1.5
11. Grade controls 0 .
5
0 1 1.5'
12. Natural valley or drainagewa .
13. Second or greater order channel on existing -
3
Y
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No = 0 es
Pvirianrp_
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal
14. Groundwater flow/discharge Absent
0 Weak
1 Moderate Strong
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or p 1 2
Water in channel - dry or growing season
5
0
16. Leaflitter 1.5
0 1 )
(0. 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 '0
5) 1 5
1
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines . .
IQ Hvriric snils (redoximorohic features) present? N o = 0 Yes = ' ;5
C. Biology Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Fibrous roots in channel
20 3 2 1 0
.
21 . Rooted lasts in channel ?3? _
X0
5) 1
1 0
1
5
22. Crayfish 0
U .
1 2 .
3
23. Bivalves 0.5- 1 1.5
24. Fish 0 X0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians
Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
26 (0' 0.5 1 1.5
.
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton O 1 2
1 3
5
1
Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus
28 0) 0.5 .
.
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=Q.5 FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; S AV=2.0;
Other =0
th
nc e of a iinfir• nr%A1PfInnrl
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on e prese q
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
5S'-)k, L ?? rt( Ul fr t L ATFe
1 t? r 1.1A Gv nsr'Z

TRIB C2-a '... '.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: U j Nnw },'ZjvLi y Latitude: 9, I a-0 0
Evaluator: N1L;v? Site: SCAS.-IVr Longitude: 1q, 4-137 v,1
Total Points: - Other i, UrVr=t.I r?CY1??
stream is at least intermittent C1, ? County: f1Lf-lruf-WCt e,g. Quad Name:
1( Ly9 or perennial if ?30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 1 ??.1> ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Continuous bed and bank
1 a 0 1 3
.
Sinuosity
2 0 1 ) 3
.
In-Channel structure: riffle-Pool sequence
3 0 1 « 3
.
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
4 0 1 3
.
Active/relic flood lain
5 0 1') 2 3
.
6. Depositional bars or benches 0, 2 3
7. Braided channel (D` 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits (0 1 2 3
Natural levees
9a (0) 1 2 3
.
10, Headcuts 0 1 2) 3
Grade controls
11 0 0.5 1.. 1.5
.
12. Natural valley or draina ewa 0 0.5 (1) 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No Yes = 3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge (0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs, since rain, or 1 2 3
Water in channel - dry or growing season -'
5
1
1
5)
0
'
0
16. Leaflitter .
0 .,
S
Q .
.
1 5
1
17. Sediment on plants or debris . .
18. Or anic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) (0' -., 0.5 1 1.5
A Hvdric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0' Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal
20 . Fibrous roots in channel Absent
3 Weak
(2 Moderate
1 Strong
0
in channel
21 . Rooted plants 3j 2 1 0
.
22, Crayfish C'd) 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves t)! 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0! 0.5 1 1.5 .
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus 'Q j
,.._-,. 1
0.5 2
1 3
1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC?.5;)FACW=0,75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
1]t-Y c 0Arvrot-1

TRIB C2-b
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: 01- 0-) P- 0-/ cL Latitude: '36, t,4-00 N
Evaluator: }?2f v\, Site:i i,.) 1 Longitude: 7`?.°7`7 V\/
Total Points:
County: f }lf? ???(ti?c
C Other / Pt_:.6. ?;
Dream is at least intermittent
"' . e.g. Quad Name:
If >19 or pereuninl if >?D
Geomorphology (Subtotal= I s%; • "- )
A
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
.
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1
1 2
2 3)
3)
2. Sinuosity 0
0 1 2'') `
3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 3
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
4 0 1-
.
Active/relic flood lain
5 0 1 2 3
.
Depositional bars or benches
6 0 \1) 2 3
.
Braided channel
7 (0) 1 2 3
.
Recent alluvial deposits
8 0 1 2 3
.
9a. Natural levees 0)
0 1
1 2
2) 3
3
10. Headcuts 0 5
0 1.5
11. Grade controls 0 .
0
5 (1) 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagewa .
13. Second or greater order channel on existing r ;
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No ?0) Yes = 3
evirience_
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal= (. ?) }
14. Groundwater flow/discharge Absent
0) Weak
1 Moderate
2 Strong
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or 2 3
Water in channel - dry or growing season
Leaflitter
16 1.5 1 0.5) 0
.
Sediment on plants or debris
17 _0) 0.5 1 1.5
.
18. Organic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 Q.5) 1 1.5
a Hwiric soils (redoximorohic features) present? N o --V Yes = 1.5
.C. Biology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Fibrous roots in channel
20') (3) 2 1 0
.
21', Rooted plants in channel 3 2 ?1) 0
22. Cra ish R) 0.5 1 1.5
Bivalves
23 (0 1 2 3
.
Fish
24 CD) 0.5 1 1.5
.
Amphibians
25 (0) 0.5 1 1.5
.
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) ?0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eriph on 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us t.0 ,>.w 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC='Q:5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; S AV=2.0;
Other =0
°.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
7?`I c'?lArJU?Z

TRIB C2-c
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3,1
Date: . i , Project: L/1- HAvJ }HIV&Z Latitude: 7,G. I ?C7 , ti
Evaluator: Mt t?^ Site: I'o= Longitude: `79, 4r` 77 w
Total Points:
t ,
Stream is at least intermittent 06?
County: (?( (11l%?(? N C t Other L.Ag.Futt?c?i o
Quad Name:
, e.g.
If ?9 or perennial if 20
I A ,-
A. Geomorpholo y (Subtotal= I`;..) }
1a. Continuous bed and bank
2. Sinuosity
Absent
0
0
Weak
1
1
Moderate
2
Strong
X20
3
.
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0
0 (1;)
1 2
2 .3
03>
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1, 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel L01 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 (1) 2 3
9a. Natural levees (0) 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 C1j 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 ??..5? 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagewa
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No 0)
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
S Hydrology (Subtotal = `?.o )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge Absent
0 Weak
1 Moderate
2 Strong
C.."31
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season p 1 2 3)
16. Leaflitter 1.5 10') 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris '0 `0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) 0) 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hvdric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes x,1.5,`
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
C. Biology (Subtotal = 7,':> ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3. z-„ 1 0
22. Crayfish 0. ,l 1 1.5
23. Bivalves `0) 1 2 3
24. Fish (D) 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 Q.V 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 .) 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us p) ..- 0.5 1 1.5
29'. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5? FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
`?- Other=0
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
SPA 1r )t" FED e-A?Lr -7C

SOUTHEAST TRIB
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: i ? - :-C-t Project: VT' )y,QW C ivt P Latitude: • 140,0 N
Evaluator: i rk Site: SB" 1Q T' Longitude: 79. ¢7 37 w
Total Points:
?Lnl kh NC
t
C
z- Other _1(4K l;Ur L.irJG>? >* a
Stream is at least interlniuent oun
y: e.g. Quad Name:
1 ?J9orperennial!(??30
Geomorpholo y (Subtotal = ?0. U )
A Absent Weak Moderate Strong
.
Continuous bed and bank
1a 0 1 ?2) 3
.
2. Sinuosity 0
0 .>
(L 2
2 3
3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool se uence 2 3
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
4 0 1
.
5. Activelrelic flood lain 0 (1) 2 3
3
Depositional bars or benches
6 (0) 1 2
.
7. Braided channel 0) 1 2 3
3
Recent alluvial deposits
8 (d 1 2
.
9a. Natural levees (0)
0 1
1 2 3
3
10. Headcuts 0 5
0 (1 .) 1.5
11. Grade controls 0 .
0
5 t1
'
) 1.5
12. Natural vane or draina ewa . .
.
13. Second or greater order channel on existing '?
0/
N
Yes = 3
USGS or NRCS map or other documented o
avirlanra_
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B H drolo (Subtotal = I '? )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge Absent Weak
1 Moderate
2 strong
3

in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
5'
; 0_
1
2
3
Water in channel - dry or rowing season
5
1
g
0
16. Leaflitter 1.
0 _ r
• 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 (0:5) 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
1 4 HNArir.qoils (redoximorohic features) present? N o 0)J Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = •' ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Fibrous roots in channel
20 3 (2) 1 0
.
Rooted plants in channel
21' (3) 2 1 0
.
Crayfish
22 (0) 0.5 1 1.5
.
23. Bivalves 0)
0) 1
0.5 2
1 3
1.5
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians
Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance
26 (9) 0.5 1 1.5
.
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 1 2
1 3
5
1
Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus
28 0.5 .
.
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5, FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; S AV=2.0;
Other =0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetiana
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

MAIN EAST
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: UT )IAf,\_i 12 NE Latitude: 36 , w
Evaluator: ttiAZP^ Site: Longitude: 7q. 4% , t?
Total Points:
A iv? Other ?,P Jet `
Slremn is at lenst intermittent ?/ _ ri county: e. g. Quad Name:
If Z?'9 orper•ennial if 20
=
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
_
Continuous bed and bank
1a 0 1 2
.
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2)
) 3
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1
Active/relic flood lain
5 0 -1 2 3
.
Depositional bars or benches
6 Ed ? 2' 3
.
7. Braided channel \1, 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0') 1 2 3
Natural levees
9a 0 j 1 2 3
.
10. Headcuts 0 1 ?V 3
Grade controls
11 0 Q.5) 1 1_.5
.
12. Natural valley or drainagewa 0 0.5 1 1:5)
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
= 0
N
Yes"= 3>
USGS or NRCS map or other documented o
evidence.
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal= ~ 11) ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater, flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or 2 3
Water in channel - dry or growing season
Leaflitter
16 1.5 1 0.5 0
.
Sediment on plants or debris
17 0 t0.5) 1 1.5
.
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 .5
19. Hvdric soils (redoximorphic features) present? N o = 0 Yes = 1.51
C. Biology (Subtotal =.O ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 0) ,24 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 ?Q. 1 1.5
23. Bivalves ?0 1 2 3
24. Fish ;0) 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0) 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) 0;) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eriph ton Q) 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus ?0) 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=?q.5 FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
C 4 +i 11
°.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upiana piams, irem /_a JUUUZ5 S Vn Me Presu Uu ayuau Yr". ti
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

MAIN EAST
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1

Date: Project: (,C 'J Latitude:
Evaluator: IkAe,)vN Site: - Ito T- Longitude: -7q, ?1 "] W
Total Points: Other LA-Y:
Stream is at least intermittent County: Rt fltNtt? w? t e.g. Quad Name:
1 ?Y9 orperennial if >?0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = II?.,C7 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 (2) 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
3 0 1 (2 3
.
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 t 2? 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 (" 1') 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches _p (Ji 2 3
7. Braided channel C Q) 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 (1) 2 3
9a. Natural levees m'' 1 2 3
Headcuts
10 0 1 2._ (3
.
Grade controls
11 0 0.5 1.5
.
12. Natural valley or drainagewa 0 0.5 `t) 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existinq
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No ?? Yes = 3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = 2,r' Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1) 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1. 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris l0) 0.5 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
19. Hvdric soils (redoximorphic features) present? (C 0.5
No 0) 1 1.5
Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= 5, } Absent Weak
` Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2) 1 0
in channel
21". Rooted plants 3 2 1 0
.
22. Crayfish -0 ' 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves (g) 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians (;(l 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance {O J 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 0) 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus 10) . ,, 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5 FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional holes.) Sketch:

TRIB E1

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: i C1 j 71 Project: Ur 1-I AL) Z tvrW`i' Latitude: rj
Evaluator: MLt,f\ Site: 5)116-'1PCP_ Longitude: -7-j,117,•; 7 k/l/
Total Points:
R`v\ A,,K
county: PL. Other cLtNCr"i?>> l
Dream is at least intermittent
`' _ e.g. Quad Name:
if ?9 or perennial i(?0
Geomorphology (Subtotal= 13
A Absent Weak Moderate Strong
.
Continuous bed and bank
1a 0 1 2 13?
.
Sinuosity
2 0 3
.
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence '0 (1')
1 2_
(2) 3
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2, 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1
' 2 3
Depositional bars or benches
6 0 11
.
Braided channel
7 025 1 2 3
.
Recent alluvial deposits
8 ; 6 1 2 3
.
9a. Natural levees (Q
, 1
1 2
2 3
3
10• Headcuts 0)
0 5
0 `1) 1.5
11. Grade controls 0 .
0
5 1 (1.5;
12. Natural valley or drainagewa .
Second or greater order channel on existing
13 )
.
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No `0' Yes = 3
avidence. --
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
P• '

)
B Hydrology (Subtotal.- '
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
Absent

0
Weak

1
Moderate

2
Strong
15. Wafer in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or p 1 2
Water in channel - d or growing season ?.
Leaflitter
16 1.5 (1 ! 0.5 0
.
Sediment on plants or debris
17 (0) 0.5 1
_
d 1.5
.
18. Organic debris lines or files (Wrack lines) '0) 0.5 :
1
s =
Y 9.5
1
5)
1 q Nvdric soils (redoximorphic features) present? N o = 0 e (
.
C. Biology (Subtotal = 7 5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Fibrous roots in channel
20" 3 t 2 1 0
.
21 . Rooted plants in channel . '3) 2,
5)
0 1
1 0
5
1
22. Crayfish 0.
d) .
1 2 .
3
23. Bivalves ?
,0 } 0.5 1 1.5
24. Fish 0 (0.5) 1 1.5
25. Amphibians
Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
26 ; 0') 0.5 1 1.5
.
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 0 2
1 3
5
1
Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us
28 (9 0.5 .
.
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC-`0 5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; S AV=2.0;
Other =0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetiana
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
SP?tivG Fro Cl(Pl`JNQ

TRIB E2

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: l Project: U-r -To l??lly Ri,,rc P Latitude: I\J
Evaluator: MLv\j\, ? Site: ?
F)t?-fir- ? Longitude: 7cr. 4737ln/
Total Points:
L?
County: ALA tMA
Other G t Uk ?1 ?)67rJ
Stream is at least intermittent
'
' e.g. Quad Name:
0
9 or perennial ij ??
!t ?

= ? ? )
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2 (3
3)
t
2. Sinuosity 0
0 1
' ?. 2 ..
3
In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
3
.
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 ?.1) 2 3
Active/relic flood lain
5 0 1 (2 3
.
Depositional bars or benches
6 0 1 2 3
.
Braided channel
7 (0) 1 2 3
.
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 (1.) 2 3
9a. Natural levees (0`)
0 1
1 2
2) 3
3
10. Headcuts 0 5
0 `-
(1') 1.5
11. Grade controls 0 .
5
0 (1`; 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagewa .
13. Second or greater order channel on existin ,-;-,
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No ='0J Yes = 3
Pvirience.
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = ?, )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge Absent
0 Weak
1 Moderate
2 Strong
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs, since rain, or
0
1
2
Water in channel - d or growing season
16 Leaftitter 1 0.5 0
.
17. Sediment on plants or debris (A) 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) C (Ory5 .1
=t
Y _1.5
5
1
1 a Hvriric soils (redoximorohic features) present? No = 0 es
.
C. Biology (Subtotal _ (0 . `" ) Absent
' Weak Moderate Strong
Fibrous roots in channel
20b (3) 2 1 0
.
Rooted plants in channel
21' 3 2 1 0
.
Crayfish
22 (0? 0.5 1 1.5
.
Bivalves
23 0 1 2 3
.
24. Fish (0) 0.5 1 1.5
Amphibians
25 (0') 0.5 1 1.5
.
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0.1 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h to.n (0'J 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0.5 1 1.5
29". Wetland plants in streambed FAC='0_5! FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; S AV=2.0;
Other =0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
S1P211JC- FED GHA-K)CL

TRIB E3

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ; U; - % Project: Ur HPuJ 1 tvFi< Latitude: 3? a 140`x', 3J
Evaluator: NL,rti Site: Longitude: 7?. dr-757 w
Total Points:
Sn'emn is al le(W irrtenninerrt
County: ?LAtV44 7v)C Other Z,PK-

e.g. Quad Name:
If ?J9 or perennial if >?0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= I-? )
1a. Continuous bed and bank
2. Sinuosity Absent
0
0 Weak
1
1 Moderate
2
2 Strong
3)
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0
0 1
1. (2
2 3-
3)
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 (1) 2 3
7. Braided channel 0') 1.. 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1'_) 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 0) 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2) 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 (11) 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagewa D 0.5 1 1..5)
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal = J, 5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs, since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season
<07
1
2
3
16, Leaflitter 1.5 (015) 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 X0,5? =1" 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) 0 0.5 C1 1.5
'
19. Hvdric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =
I.1)
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.

r S )
C. Biology (Subtotal = 1 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20". Fibrous roots in channel (3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3) 2 1 0
22. Crayfish (D) 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish r0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians Q,? 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) gib) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton (0) 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus
29 . Wetland plants in streambed t,0 ; .:>• 0.5 1 1.5
FAC=0:5,1 FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
r'trctr?,-r'io,ti1S -

L ENGINEERS & C7 7 ,
ONSULTANTS
January 17, 2008
f
Mr. Jason Martin, LFPA
Alamance County Planning Department
124 West Elm Street
Graham, NC 27253
Mr. Martin,
SUBJECT: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Project in Alamance
County, North Carolina.
The North Carolina EEP has retained the services of Mulkey Engineers and Consultants (Mulkey) to
design and oversee the construction of a stream enhancement project in Alamance County, North
Carolina. The Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Haw River Stream Enhancement Site (Site) is situated in
the northwest corner of the county. Specifically, the Site is located on multiple UTs to the Haw
River approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the Town of Ossipee and 3.1 miles northwest of the City
of Burlington near die intersection of Gerringer Mill Road (SR 1530) and Burch Bridge Road (SR
1593) (Figure 1 attached).
The proposed enhancement project is located entirely on two privately-owned parcels. This property
is owned by:
• Ms. Jane Iseley, 2960 Burch Bridge Road, Burlington, NC 27217
A conservation easement of approximately 39.4 acres of land has been purchased by the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to undertake the project and to provide for its
perpetual protection.
As part of the conservation easement agreement between EEP and the current property owner, this
project includes a farm management plan. These plans include installation of cattle exclusion
fencing, watering structures and piping, at-grade permanent stream crossings, the drilling of wells,
and vegetation planting.
Alamance County is located in an area of the State of North Carolina where the North Carolina
Floodplain Mapping Program (NCFMP) has completed their remapping process. The UT to Haw
River Site is located on three Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) having Community Panel Numbers
3710885600J, 3710885700J, and 3710886600J, dated effective on September 6th, 2006 (attached).
Three of the project reaches proposed for restoration are located within areas designated as
backwaters of the Haw River but do not have any type of study associated with them (Figure 7
attached). Given their Zone AE and X designations at their downstream extent, these streams are
flooded by the 100 year and 500 year events associated with the Haw River but do not influence the
system directly. Therefore, the base flood elevations shown across these downstream sections are
related to the detailed study of the Haw River. With these systems being in the backwater conditions
of the Haw River, no hydraulic modeling is necessary since they have no hydraulic impact on the
base flood elevations of the Haw River.
The proposed project has been designed such that all permanent structures (ie permanent at-grade
crossings) where excavation will occur are located outside the Haw River's floodway. The only
activity occurring within the floodway of the Haw River is a re-vegetation process where all existing
non-native, dense, brushy material will be removed and replaced with a Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Community. In conjunction with this re-vegetation process, a boundary/ easement fence will be
installed but will not be sufficiently built to withstand the 100 year flood event from the Haw River.
Therefore the fence does not constitute a hydraulic obstruction. Neither of these processes pose
MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, NO 2751 1 PO Box 331 27 RALEIGH, NO 27636 PH: 91 9-651-1 91 2 FAx: [phone] a WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
enough change to the Haw River system (Manning's n) to warrant a revisiting of the Haw River
t' I
hydraulic model. This coincides with the design's efforts to keep all excavation activities confined to
the backwater system of the Haw River where they will have no effect upon Haw River system.
Additionally, we anticipate no hydrologic trespass as a result of the proposed project. No permanent
structures proposed as part of the project he within the floodway of the Haw River and therefore
cannot change the dynamics of the Haw River's 100 year or 500 year flow. Accordingly, none of the
proposed work changes the bed elevation or hydraulic geometry on any of the three UTs to the Haw
River and thus will have no hydraulic impact on these systems.
The intent of this letter is to explain conditions at the Site and request guidance for proceeding
forward with the project. Please inform me of any steps or processes necessary to move forward
with in the project in compliance with all ordinances and FEMA regulations administered by
Alamance County. If you have any additional questions about the project feel free to contact me at
[phone] or by email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Mark Mickley, Project Manager
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants, Inc.
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27518
Attachments
MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY. NC 2751 1 PO BOX 331 27 RALEIGH. NC 27636 PH: 91 9-851.191 2 FAX: 919-B51 -1 91 B WWW.MULKEYINC.COM

July 30, 2008
Mr. Jason Martin
Alamance County Planning Department
217 College Street, Suite C
Graham, NC 27253
Mr. Martin,
SUBJECT: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Project in Alamance
County, North Carolina.
The North Carolina EEP has retained the services of Mulkey Engineers and Consultants (Mulkey) to
design and oversee the construction of a stream enhancement project in Alamance County, North
Carolina. The Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Haw River Stream Enhancement Site (Site) is situated in
the northwest corner of the county. Specifically, the Site is located on multiple UTs to the Haw
River approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the Town of Ossipee and 3.1 miles northwest of the City
of Burlington near the intersection of Gerringer Mill Road (SR 1530) and Burch Bridge Road (SR
1593) (Figure 1 attached).
The proposed enhancement project is located entirely on two privately-owned parcels. This property
is owned by:
• Ms. Jane Iseley, 2960 Burch Bridge Road, Burlington, NC 27217
A conservation easement of approximately 39.4 acres of land has been purchased by the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to undertake the project and to provide for its
perpetual protection.
As part of the conservation easement agreement between EEP and the current property owner, this
project includes a farm management plan. These plans include installation of cattle exclusion
fencing, watering structures and piping, at-grade permanent stream crossings, the drilling of wells,
and vegetation planting. The Natural Resources Conservation Service has been very involved in the
planning and placement of these project components. All of these practices will be installed
according to NRCS standards.
Alamance County is located in an area of the State of North Carolina where the North Carolina
Floodplain Mapping Program (NCFMP) has completed their remapping process. The UT to Haw
River Site is located on three Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) having Community Panel Numbers
3710885600J, 3710885700J, and 3710886600J, dated effective on September 6t", 2006 (attached).
Three of the project reaches proposed for restoration are located within areas designated as
backwaters of the Haw River but do not have any type of study associated with them (Figure 7
attached). Given their Zone AE and X designations at their downstream extent, these streams are
flooded by the 100 year and 500 year events associated with the Haw River but do not influence the
system directly. Therefore, the base flood elevations shown across these downstream sections are
related to the detailed study of the Haw River. With these systems being in the backwater conditions
of the Haw River, no hydraulic modeling is necessary since they have no hydraulic impact on the
base flood elevations of the Haw River.
MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, NO 27511 RO BOX 33127 RALEIGH. NO 27636 PH: 919-851-1912 FAX: [phone] WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
The proposed project has been designed such that all permanent structures (ie permanent at-grade
crossings) where excavation will occur are located outside the Haw River's floodway. The only
activity occurring within the floodway of the Haw River is a re-vegetation process where all existing
non-native, dense, brushy material will be removed and replaced with a Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Community. In conjunction with this re-vegetation process, a boundary/easement fence will be
installed but will not be sufficiently built to withstand the 100 year flood event from the Haw River.
Therefore the fence does not constitute a hydraulic obstruction. Neither of these processes pose
enough change to the Haw River system (Manning's n) to warrant a revisiting of the Haw River
hydraulic model. This coincides with the design's efforts to keep all excavation activities confined to
the backwater system of the Haw River where they will have no effect upon Haw River system.
Additionally, we anticipate no hydrologic trespass as a result of the proposed project. No permanent
structures proposed as part of the project lie within the floodway of the Haw River and therefore
cannot change the dynamics of the Haw River's 100 year or 500 year flow. Accordingly, none of the
proposed work changes the bed elevation or hydraulic geometry on any of the three UTs to the Haw
River and thus will have no hydraulic impact on these systems.
The intent of this letter is to explain conditions at the Site and request guidance for proceeding
forward with the project. Please inform me of any steps or processes necessary to move forward
with the project in compliance with all ordinances and FEMA regulations administered by Alamance
County. If you have any additional questions about the project feel free to contact me at (919) 858-
1797 or by email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Scott Hunt, PE
Senior Engineer
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants, Inc.
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27518
Attachments
CC: Ken Ashe, NC Floodplain Mapping
Perry Sugg, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, NO 2751 1 PC BOX 331 27 RALEIGH, NO 27636 PH: 91 9-851.191 2 FAX: 91 9-851 •1 91 8 WWW.MULKEYINO.COM
ZONE X
7 500 FEET ZONE X
ZONE X
ZONE X 79°28'30"
1 860 000 FEET
?R 870 000 FEET
ZONE X \ ??? \ \ \
\ONEAE
ZONE AE
,l.
ZONE X '
E?
r'? o
586
ZONE X
1

ZONE X

i?
J 4
?
ti
W
?0 I
0
?0 z
?
V
J

W
L
0

ti _
U
vG?y
'9
?1
S
TF+T
RPDOWSpR
oURNP?M
055

N
'
DURHAM
MEADOWS CT

.
s .
oo
;,ZONE'X'

Dy Creek .
Gc"F ZONE X
???G
J 037
yp.0 z
W
Y
0
0
J
ZONE X
I.'.
36'08'0"
867 500 FEET
ROLLING MEADOWS LN
LEGEND
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAs) SUBJECT TO
INUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
The 1% annual chance flood (100-year flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood that
has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard
Area is the area subject to flooding by the 1% annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood
Hazard include Zones A, AE, AH, A0, AR, A99, V, and VE, The Base Flood Elevation is the
water-surface elevation of the 1% annual chance flood.
ZONE A No Base Flood Elevation determined.
ZONE AE Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average
depths determined, For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also
determined.
ZONE AR Special Flood Hazard Area formerly protected from the 1% annual chance
flood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone AR
indicates that the former flood control system is being restored to provide
protection from the 1% annual chance or greater flood.
ZONE A99 Areas to be protected from 1% annual chance flood by a Federal flood
protection system under construction; no Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE VE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept
free of encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial
increases in flood heights.
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with
average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square
mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS
OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAs)
CBRS areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas.
ROLLING MEADOWS CT 1% annual chance floodplain boundary
0.2% annual chance floodplain boundary
- Floodway boundary
- Zone D boundary
••••••••••••••••••••• CBRS and OPA boundary
-- Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Area Zones and boundary
dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different Base Flood
--- Elevations, flood depths or flood velocities.
^^^^ 513- Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet*
(EL 987) Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; elevation in
*
feet
* Referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988
D+z Cross section line
23 -------- 23 Transect line
zd?
.. • ^ ^^ GRID NORTH _ _--
MAP SCALE 1500'(1:6,000)
250 0 250 500 750 1.000
FEET
METERS
750 0 114 100
( II\'IFU PANEL 8856J l
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
NORTH CAROLINA
PANEL 8856
ISEE LOCATOR DIAGRAM OR UA 1INLEX FCR F RM FA113
LAYOLR)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY CID No. PANEL SUFFIX
h'PAYAtYECO'J'TY TO?.`` E25.3 J
EURUNGTON. CnFY C4' 37 Or 2 EEYi J
ELCN. TC4711 OF 37C-11 E159 J
NV,--,o Use:'. Tt Map Number y [ -, s ,id m used
[a=nd M. x11-. , C- ty Number 4a.n Obee
= X L-d stance a^!0. raaxrs kr Ce
t'i
EFFECTIVE DATE MAP NUMBER
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 3710885600J
r
Slate of North Carolina
Federall;mcr2C11C1 NfanaeenientA2C11C1'
This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It
was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at wwwmsc.fema.go
1 860 000 FEET
870 000 FEET I
4000°'0
ZONE X
36=08'00°
79`28'00"

ZONE AE
U
Z
LU
h^ • 5,78 ZONE X a
0
5777
\ \ h
ZONE X
79`27'30"
CARLTON AVE
tY
J Q'
Lu z
W
m ° ZONEX
ROCKLEDGE DR C
GRID NORTH
RXAO Ot'AIC An_cnM 14. c nnn%
?^ ? rr
/ MAP SCALE 1" = 590'(1 :6,000)
_ 250 0 20 Soo ]50 iM
FEET
150 0 150 100
01
PANEL 8866)
FIRM
I'
ZONE X D FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
ZONE X ?? • • • O NORTH CAROLINA
002
ZONE AE PANEL 8866
1 LOCATORpAGRAS'CR UAF` . FRM=Ail__
_ I u IFYOLT)
ZONE X \ CITY OF BURLINrT n NTAINS
Dn' Creek ?? •..... .
024 `ZONE AE
I .....
• N RIVERVIEW
ZONEX
005
ROLLING •' /?;? ` S RIVERVIEW DR
MEADOWS CT ?
to ?? } 2
a 1 577 ZONE X
ZONE X
v? • OORpON SS
ZONE X 1
EL 8867
Alamance County
Unincorporated Areas
370001
SPRING RD
DR
ZONE X
ETJ LIMITS
?. ZONE AE
574
.j .
ZONE X
City of Burlington
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
370002
co.
CO.WUNITY CID No PANEL SUFFIX
ALANFNCECOUNrr 7,00CI Ea.x d
EURLNGTO3I. CITY OF T, 6ii2 Fi5 J
hc^ I us r. - Nep N ..t- N rr ce -d
P'-1g mom .., Comm q x oe w.e
EFFECTIVE DATE MAP NUMBER
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 3710886600J
,W
Slate of North Carolina
Federal Fmemencc Nianaeemcnl A2encr
REGiS pR This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It
was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at vwvw.msc.(ema.gc