20160405 Ver 2_401 Application_20181016

Environmental
Quality
� o q�f
,.;z
October 16, 2018 $ PAID
Karen Higgins, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit Supervisor
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1617
ROY COOPER
Governor
Re: Permit Application- Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site Mitigation Project, Johnston
County (DMS Full Delivery Project)
Dear Ms. Higgins:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Another
copy has been sent to the Raleigh Regional Office for review. A memo for the permit
application fee is also included in the package. All electronic files have been uploaded to NC
DWR's file system. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this plan (919-
707-8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Permit Application Fee Memo
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1601
919 707 8600

Environmental
Quality
October 16, 2018
Danny Smith, Regional Supervisor, Water Quality Regional Operations Section
NC DEQ Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
ROY COOPER
Governor
Re: Permit Application — Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site Mitigation Project, Johnston
County (DMS Full Delivery Project)
Dear Mr. Smith:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Please
feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this plan (919-707-8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1601
919 707 8600

Environmental
Quality
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Summer Lowe
Lin Xu L�C
Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
October 16, 2018
ROY COOPER
Govemor
The Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is implementing a mitigation project for
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site Mitigation Project in Johnston County (DMS IMS #
97086). The activities associated with this restoration project involve stream restoration
related temporary stream and wetland impact. To conduct these activities, the DMS
must submit a Pre -construction Notification (PCN) Form to the Division of Water
Resources (DWR) for review and approval. The DWR assesses a fee of $570.00 for
this review.
Please transfer $570.00 from DMS Fund # 2984, Account # 535120 to DWR as
payment for this review. If you have any questions concerning this matter I can be
reached at 919-707-8319. Thanks for your assistance.
cc: Karen Higgins, DWR
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
919 707 8600

W AT
f 9y
olqiii�-<
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑X Yes ❑ No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
X❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Alliance Headwaters Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
2b.
County:
Johnston
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Four Oaks
2d.
Subdivision name:
--
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
DMS Project No. 95017
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
M and B Lee LLC & William Frank Lee
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
M and B Lee Bk03507, Pg0060 William Frank Lee Bk2019 Pg0418
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
William Frank Lee (both)
3d.
Street address:
922 Peach Orchard Rd.
3e.
City, state, zip:
Four Oaks, NC 27524
3f.
Telephone no.:
919-631-9005
3g.
Fax no.:
--
3h.
Email address:
--
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑X Other, specify: NCDMS
4b.
Name:
Lin Xu
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
NCDEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
4d.
Street address:
217 West Jones St.
4e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
4f.
Telephone no.:
919-707-8319
4g.
Fax no.:
919-571-4718
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
5a.
Name:
Raymond Holz
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Restoration Systems
5c.
Street address:
_
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27604
5e.
Telephone no.:
919-755-9490
5f.
Fax no.:
919-755-9492
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
15990-42-3303, 15990-52-9471, 15990-81-4425
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.373024 Longitude: -78.339246
1 c.
Property size:
71.72 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Hannah Creek
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C, NSW
2c.
River basin:
Neuse
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The Site drainage area is primarily composed of agricultural and forest land with some sparse residential property. Site land use consists of
agricultural land. Riparian zones are primarily composed of row crops and streams are severely impacted by agricultural ditching and rerouting of
streams around productive fields.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 17.23
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 6,387
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the proposed project is to restore (Priority 1) streams in their historic floodplain location.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
A detailed description of proposed activities is provided in the attached Mitigation Plan. The project will be completed with standard earth -moving equips
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project(including all priorphases) in thepast?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): W Grant Lewis
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other: Axiom Environmental, Inc.
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A preliminary jurisdictional determination field determination was completed on June 15, 2017 and a notification of jurisdictional determination was
received from USACE representative Samantha Dailey on September 4, 2018 (SAW -2016-00882).
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands ❑X Streams — tributaries ❑X Buffers Z Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1
SEE ATTACHED TABLES
-
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
1.7
2h. Comments:
Temporary impacts (1.64 acres) and permanent impacts (0.06 acre) will occur due to the construction of proposed stream channels (see Figure 3A
attached). Permanent impacts result from the construction of new stream channels. Jurisdictional wetlands within the temporary impact area will be
avoided to the maximum extent practicable; however, some encroachment will be necessary during construction of new channels. All temporary
impact areas will be restored to pre -project elevations and planted appropriately.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1
SEE ATTACHED
TABLES
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3,648
3i. Comments:
Project activities include the restoration of new stream channels within the historic floodplain location. Therefore, the majority of the existing UT1 (3733
If), which is currently ditched and routed around the perimeter of the fields will be permanently impacted. In addition, a short reach of UT2 (46 If) will be
permanently impacted to tie UT2 into the proposed UT1. A short reach of the existing UT4 (69 If) will be temporarily impacted at the transition from
preservation to newly constructed stream channel. See attached Figures 3A -3C.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivii ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
SEE ATTACHED TABLES
02
03
04
4f. Total open water impacts
2.36
4g. Comments: During project construction, three small arm ponds will be permanently removed/filled.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑X Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1
SEE ATTACHED TABLES
Yes/No
B2
Yes/No
B3
Yes/No
B4
Yes/No
B5
Yes/No
B6
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
3,775
2,545
6i. Comments: A small amount of riparian buffer will be encroached upon during construction of new channels; however, all temporary impact areas
will be restored to pre -project elevations and planted appropriately.
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
This is a stream and wetland mitigation project. As a result, avoidance and minimization were not part of the original design planning. The proposed
project is anticipated to increase the function and length/area of jurisdictional stream and wetlands.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The only activities that will take place within the stream are filling and stabilization of banks, placement of channel bed material, and the installation of
structures. No machinery will be driven within existing stream channels. Temporary impacts to jurisdictional wetland areas will occur due to channel
construction; however, the footprint will be minimized and these areas will be replanted. If water is present, channels will be temporarily dewatered
and all work will be performed in the dry. Impacts to jurisdictional areas are designed to benefit hydrology and vegetative communities.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes Q No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
Yes ❑X No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
Fx� Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
No drainages that require a diffuse flow planlbmp enter the project area. See the attached Mitigation
Plan.
❑X Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes 0 No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
No
impervious surfaces will be generated by the proposed project. On-site stormwater will be treated by flow through vegetated riparian buffers prior
to entering surface waters.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is this project?
Local
❑ Phase II
❑x NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
El Yes ❑x No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑X No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
0 Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
DYes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) Please see the Approved Categorical Exclusion Form (Included as an Appendix in
Z Yes ❑ NO
Comments: the attached Mitigation Plan)
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes 0 No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes 0 No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑Yes 0 No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
NA
- No sewage will be generated by the proposed project.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
X❑ Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS county -wide list of federally protected species for Johnston County and surveys of the project area to determine if suitable habitat exists. A
letter was sent to USFWS Raleigh Field Office and a letter of concurrence was received on 1/12/17 (included in the approved CE document)
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v2.0 (online)
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NC Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office HPOWEB online mapping tool.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes Q No
81b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
NC Floodplain Mapping Program (DFIRM panel 3720158800J)
I I N
L
�c�
Lo //I
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant isprovided.)
Page 10 of 10

Summary of Impacts for Alliance Headwaters
Site
Number
Existing
Linear
Feet
Existing
Acres
Zone 1 -
Temporary
Buffer
Impacts
(ftZ)
Zone 2 -
Temporary
Buffer
Impacts (ft2)
Temporary
Stream
Impacts
(LF
Permanent
Stream
Impacts
LF
Temporary
Wetland
Impacts
ac
Permanent
Wetland
Impacts ac
Permanent
Open
Water
Impacts
ac
Wetland 1
16.84
1.64
0.06
Wetland 2
0.39
UTI
4,761
3,733
UT2
484
46
UT4
1,142
3,775
2,545
69
OPW 1
0.68
0.68
OP W2
1.20
1.20
OPW3
0.48
0.48
TOTALS
3,775
2,545
69
3,779
1.64
0.06
2.36

Total Wetland Impacts for Alliance Headwaters
Impact Number
Type of Impact
Waterbody Type
Impacts
(acres)
Permanent (P) or
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
Forested
Wetland
Temporary (T)
PER or
Stream
Impacts (acres)
Wetland 1 (P)
Excavation Headwater Wetland
Yes
0.06
Wetland 1 T
Land Disturbance Headwater Wetland
Yes
1.64
Total --
--
1.70
Total Stream Impacts for Alliance Headwaters
Impact Number
Type of Impact
Waterbody Type
Impacts
(acres)
Average
e
Removal
Permanent (P) or
Type of Impact
Stream
PER or
Stream
Stream Impact
Temporary (T)
Removal
Name
INT
Width (feet)
Length (feet)
UTI (P)
Relocation
UTI
PER
4-5
3733
UT2 (P)
Relocation
UT2
PER
3
46
UT4 T
Stabilization
UT4
PER
4
69
Total
--
--
--
3848
Total Open Water Impacts for Alliance Headwaters
Impact Number
Type of Impact
Waterbody Type
Impacts
(acres)
OPW 1
Removal
Pond
0.68
OPW2
Removal
Pond
1.20
OPW3
Removal
Pond
0.48
Total
2545
--
2.36
Riparian Buffer Impacts for Alliance Headwaters
Impact Site
Reason for Impact
Stream Name
Mitigation
Zone 1 Impact
Zone 2 Impact
Required
(ft s)
(ft sq)
UT4
Restoration
UT4
No
3775
2545
Total
1
13775
2545

St"Ckland
Crossroads
LEGEND
Conservation Easement
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
FIGURE 1
\ Project Location:
35.373024
-78.339246
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
VICINITY MAP
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
nad'. pi
811�c Ml�nda i.�o+��
PREPARED BY:
ECOSYSTEM
.. PLANNING 8c
RESTORATION
SEPTEMBER 2018

LEGEND
QConservation Easement
Jurisdictional Streams
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Proposed Channel
Proposed Fill
Permanent Stream Impacts
UT1
P: 2,147 ft
Up to Joyner Bridge Road
III
't
l `r
Channel Plug 4
PREPARED BY:
0 100 200 ALLIANCE HEADWATERS ECOSYSTEM
Feet AQUATIC RESOURCE IMPACT MAP PLANNING &
Ar RESTORATION
FIGURE 3B JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC OCTOBER 2018
1
y�
�-
't
l `r
Channel Plug 4
PREPARED BY:
0 100 200 ALLIANCE HEADWATERS ECOSYSTEM
Feet AQUATIC RESOURCE IMPACT MAP PLANNING &
Ar RESTORATION
FIGURE 3B JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC OCTOBER 2018

OPW3
P: 0.48 ac

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2016-00882 County: JOHNSTON U.S.G.S. Quad: NEWTON GROVE NORTH
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Applicant: Mr. William Lee
Address: Post Office Box 148
Smithfield, North Carolina 27577
Authorized Agent: Restoration Systems, LLC
Mr. Raymond Holz
Address: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Size (acres) 202 Nearest Town Four Oaks
Nearest Waterway Hannah Creek River Basin Upper Neuse River
USGS HUC 03020201 Coordinates Latitude: 35.373455
Longitude: -78.337891
Location description: The Leaf Swamp Wetland Mitigation Site is identified as an approximate 202 acre tract of land,
located on Johnston County, North Carolina Parcels: 159900529471, 159900423303, and 159900814225. These parcel
are located at 1080 Joyner Bridge Road, Four Oaks, Johnston County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently
accurate and reliable. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process,
including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation
requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all
waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an
appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters, including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an
effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area, which is
not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the
waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC
§ 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
Page 1 of 2

SAW -2016-00882 LEAF SWAMP WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
There are waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to
accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit
may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material,
construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the
Army permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If
you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Ms. Samantha
Dailey at 919-554-4884, ext. 22 or by email at Samantha.J.Daileynusace.army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: N/A. An Approved JD has not been completed.
D. Remarks: Refer to the enclosed Preliminary JD Form and Figure 1 (dated October 2017) for a
detailed evaluation of the Leaf Swamp Wetland Mitigation Site.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information for Approved Jurisdiction Determinations (as indicated in Section B. above)
If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request
to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:

SAW -2016-00882 LEAF SWAMP WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room IOM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by N/A.
It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence. Digitally signed by
DAILEY.SAMANTH DAILEV.SAMAN HAJ.1387567948
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI,
All 3 8 7 5 6 7 948 Date: SA, c =DAA EY.S SMAONT H J.1387567948
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date: September 4, 2018 Expiration Date: N/A
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/rp=136:4:0.

SAW -2016-00882 LEAF SWAMP )VETIAND MITIGATION SITE.
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Requestor: Restoration Systems, LLC
File Number: SAW -2016-00882 Date: September 4, 2018
Mr. Raymond Holz
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
ERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of ermission) B
T DENIAL C
VED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
L
INARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at h'' a or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section ii of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

SAW -2016-00882 LEAF SWAMP WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONA L. DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR
INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may also
and/or the appeal process you may contact:
contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Division
CESAD-PDO
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Attn: Samantha Dailey
60 Forsyth Street, Room IOM15
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the o portunity to participate in all site investiations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: #PM_FULLNAME#, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

APPENDIX 2
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (.JD):
September 4, 2018.
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Property Owner/Applicant:
Address:
Authorized Agent:
Address:
Mr. William Lee
Post Office Box 148
Smithfield, North Carolina 27577
Restoration Systems, LLC
Mr. Raymond Holz
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleieh, North Carolina 27604
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington, Leaf Swamp Wetland Mitigation Site, Restoration
Systems, LLC, .Johnston County, SAW -2016-00882
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE. WATF.RBODIES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Johnston County City: Four Oaks
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.373455°N, Long. -78.337891° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest water body: Hannah Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALI. THAT APPLIES):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: September 4, 2018
® Field Determination. Date(s): June 15, 2017
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORI'
.JURISDICTION
1. The Corps of L,ngineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, and the requestor of this
PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed
decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be
appropriate.
Estimated Amount of
Type of aquatic
Geographic authority to
Aquatic Resources in
which the aquatic
Site Number
Latitude
Latitude
Review Area
e.
resource (non-
resource "may be"
( N)
(W)
wetland vs. no
subject (i.e. Section 404 or
Linear
wetland)
Section 10/404)
Feet Acres
Wetland 1
35.375485
-78.346730
16.84
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland 2
35.372973
-78.336046
0.39
Wetland
Section 404
UTI
35.372836
-78.342624
4761
Non -Wetland
Section 404
UT2
35.372477
-78.336353
484
Non -Wetland
Section 404
UT4
35.377040
-78.347911
1 142
Non -Wetland
Section 404
OPW I
35.377685
-78.343901
0.68
Non -Wetland
Section 404
OPW2
35.372892
-78.339642
1.20
Non -Wetland
Section 404
OPW3
35.374679
-78.335438
0.48
Non -Wetland
Section 404
1. The Corps of L,ngineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, and the requestor of this
PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed
decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be
appropriate.

2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other
general permit verification requiring "pre -construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made
aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AID before accepting the terms
and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or ditlerent special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual
permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever
mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a
permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by
that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative orjudicial
compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court: and (7)whether the applicant elects to
use either an AJD or a PJD. the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and
all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R.
Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there "may be " waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be " navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and
identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply): Checked items should be included in
subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items:
N Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor: Axiom Environmental, Inc., submitted a
jurisdictional determination to our office on March 16, 2017, with revisions received on October 30, 2017.
N Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
N Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
N U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K, NC -Newton Grove North
N USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil Survey: June 2017.
N National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Corps of Engineers SimSuite — June 2017.
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): .
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should
not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.
Digitally signed by
948
DAILEY.SAMANT DNI:rUS,oAU.S.Govern8ment,
HADA 387567948 con=DAIDJ
LEY.SAMANTHA.11387567948
Date: 2018.09.04 09:36:44 -04'00'
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
10/04/2018
Signafure and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(RF,QUIRFD, unless obtaining the signature is
Impracticable)
i Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an
action.

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
NCDEQ Contract No. 6832
DWR ID No. 20160405
DMS ID No. 97086
USACE Action ID No. SAW -2016-00882
RFP No. 16-006477
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
Prepared for:
RECEIVED
OCT 082018
11-l±uuhm 1r! t n .
DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
October 2018
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
October 2018

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
NCDEQ Contract No. 6832
DWR ID No. 20160405
DMS ID No. 97086
USACE Action ID No. SAW -2016-00882
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
Prepared for:
N Z.
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
Restoration Systems, Inc.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Contributing Staff:
Raymond Holz — Restoration Systems
Kevin Tweedy, PE — Ecosystem Planning & Restoration
Thomas Barrett, RF — Ecosystem Planning & Restoration
Grant Lewis, PWS — Axiom Environmental
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
October 2018

Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
October 12, 2018
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Plan; SAW -2016-
00882; NCDMS Project # 97086
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) during
the 30 -day comment period for the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Plan, which closed on August 27,
2018. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been
identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this correspondence.
However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached comment memo, which must
be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues identified
above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final Mitigation Plan
should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the document. If it is determined
that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a copy of the
Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office at least 30
days in advance of beginning construction of the project. Please note that this approval does not preclude
the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues
mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the
Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of
mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the
project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this
letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at
919-554-4884.
Sincerely,
Todd Tugwell
Mitigation Project Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Jeff Schaffer, NCDMS
Lindsay Crocker, NCDMS

October 05, 2018
Cover Letter
To: Interagency Review Team
Subject: Alliance Headwaters Stream & Riparian Riverine Wetland Mitigation Site, Final Mitigation Plan
Submittal with Permits (USACE AID#: SAW -2016-00882, NCDMS #: 97086)
Dear Interagency Review Team Members,
Responses to comments provided by the IRT on August 27`h, 2018 from the review of Alliance Headwaters
Draft Mitigation Plan are provided below.
Mac Haupt, NCDWR, 6 August, 2018:
1. For the potential wetland credit areas identified, DWR recommends a gauge in each wetland
area/polygon, in addition to the gauge data, DWR would want to know what hydric indicator is
present at closeout.
Additional gauges have been added to each potential wetland credit area (Figure 11). All wetland
areas within the project easement are proposed to have consistent monitoring and success
criteria, including 10% wetland hydroperiod and vegetation indicative of a jurisdictional wetland
as defined by USACE guidelines. In addition, potential wetland restoration areas would be
required to develop hydric soil indicators such as depletions/concretions within the soil matrix.
Hydric soil indicators will be described by a licensed soil scientist and will be consistent with
descriptions for hydric soils as outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plan Region (Version 2.0). Wetland
hydroperiod will be monitored by continuously recording groundwater gauges and will be
presented in annual monitoring reports. Areas that do not exhibit sufficient hydroperiod and/or
hydric soil indicators will be not be added to wetland restoration credit upon completion of the
monitoring period. (Section 7.1.2 Target Wetland Types)
2. There are three wetland potential (and wetland creation) areas identified that do not have a
gauge. DWR recommends a gauge be installed in these areas/polygons (WC1, PWR1, WC2).
Monitoring gauges have been added to these areas (Figure 11).
3. For Section 8.0, DWR would prefer, in the future, there be a separate sub -section for wetland
hydrology as well, not just listed as in Table 13.
Understood. In the future, we will make sure to provide a separate wetland sub -section.

4. DWR concurs with the wetland performance criterion of a 10% hydroperiod during the growing
season. Thank you.
5. DWR does not believe bank pins is an effective method to assess instability for these type of
streams.
Bank pins have been removed from the document.
6. For measuring soil temperature, DWR will require measurement be carried through until the end
of April, and as is stated in the Plan, reported (location and temperature) in each monitoring
report.
Understood.
7. DWR noted a few areas in the design sheets where EPR is calling for constructed riffles with stone.
DWR would prefer that these riffles would be a mix of smaller Class A and 57 stone rather than
the proposed Class A and B mix.
EPR engineers have specified and approved a mixture of Class A, B, and No. 57 Stone.
8. DWR noted the summary letter of issues, June 21, 2018, that was sent with the Mitigation Plan.
While this letter was sufficient and covered the major topics, typically the IRT receives a letter
which responds to each agencies comments. This letter is extremely helpful making sure all the
prior agency comments were covered.
Understood.
Todd Tugwell, USACE, 27 August 2018:
1. Concur with the comment regarding the gauge placement mentioned by DWR.
Be sure to account for impacts to existing wetlands in the permit application for NWP 27, including
specifying if the impacts are temporary or permanent.
The permit application has been written with this in mind.
The "potential wetland" proposed for the project are identified separately in the mitigation plan
because these areas are underlain with Lynchburg soils, which as you note are non -hydric soil
with hydric inclusions. Because these soils are not comprised primarily of hydric soil, we are
concerned that areas underlain by Lynchburg soils may not become wetland. Section 7.1.2 of the
mitigation plan states that these areas currently do not display indicators indicative of a Class A
hydric soil. The plan also states that they will not be counted unless groundwater gauge data is
provided that shows jurisdictional wetland hydrology during the annual monitoring period;
however, groundwater gauge data must show jurisdictional wetland hydrology on all proposed
wetland restoration areas on the site, so it is not clear why these areas are differentiated.
Additionally, this statement causes confusion by suggesting that these areas are successful if they
only have "jurisdictional wetland hydrology', not necessarily the 10% that is required for all
wetlands on the site. What differentiates these areas from the other restoration areas is that they
do not currently have hydric soil indicators, so if the intent is to claim wetland credit within these
potential wetland areas, additional performance standards should be included to demonstrate

that hydric soil characteristics are developing within potential wetland areas (consistent with
DWR comment 1). Additionally, all potential wetland cells must be monitored with groundwater
gauges, which should be positioned closerto the proposed wetland/upland boundarythan shown
in the current monitoring map. If areas do not develop hydric soil characteristics during
monitoring, they may not be approved to provide wetland credit.
Section 7.1.2 Target Wetland Types has been updated with the following language to include the
language identified in Mr. Haupt's fist comment.
4. Recent monitoring reviews of existing mitigation sites indicates that groundwater gauges are
often not installed properly or maintained appropriately to ensure accurate readings. All
groundwater gauges must be installed and maintained in accordance with the USACE document
entitled "Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites" (ERDC TN -
WRAP -05-2, June 2005), available on the Wilmington District's Regulatory In -lieu Fee and Bank
Information Tracking System (RIBITS) website. In particular, bentonite seals must be installed and
properly maintained on all wells. Please include a groundwater gauge maintenance log in the
annual monitoring report to document gauge maintenance.
Understood.
5. It appears on the monitoring map (Fig 11) that the flow gauge for UT1A is very close to the
confluence with UT1, which will likely cause the gauge to register flow events due to backwater
from UT1. Additionally, because the drainage for this reach is so small (21 acres), the gauge should
be relocated to the top of this reach. Please note that streams on site must also display evidence
of OHWM formation in order to receive credit per current guidance.
The flow gauge for UT1A on Figure 11 has been moved to reflect this comment.
6. The flow gauge on UT1-R2 should be moved upstream near the upper end of the channel, or
another gauge should be added in this area. The intent of these gauges is to demonstrate flow,
and the reaches most likely to have questionable flow are near the upper end of the channel.
The flow gauge for UT1-R2 on Figure 11 has been moved to reflect this comment.
7. In section 7.2.2, there is discussion of modifications to the existing drainage network to address
concerns of hydrologic trespass. Be sure to include any such modifications in a map included in
the final mitigation plan so that potential impact on restored or existing resources can be
determined.
EPR prepared two additional figures showing the existing and proposed drainage networks
(Figures 4B and 96). Figures were also updated to show the new conservation easement and to
correspond to the mitigation plan document (sequential order).
8. In Section 12.0, Determination of Credits, the plan states "Upon completion of construction, the
project components and credit data will be adjusted, if necessary, to be consistent with the as -
built condition, and any changes will be described in the As -Built Monitoring Report". Please note
that credits should generally not change from the proposed credit amounts in the approved
mitigation final plan. Per District guidance (see Credit Reporting Memo, available on the RIBITS
website and attached for reference), any change in the approved credit amount is considered a
modification to the approved mitigation plan and must be done according to the procedures
outlined in the Mitigation Rule. Please adjust Section 12.0 to reflect this requirement.

EPR has updated Section 12 in response to this comment. The Section now includes the following
language. "Although not expected, if site conditions such as unidentified bedrock, utility
easements, discovery of cultural resources, etc., are encountered during construction of stream
channels that result in significant deviations from the approved plan or credit amount (i.e. more
than would typically result from measurement variations), the as -built report must clearly identify
the difference in the length and associated credit amount and explain how project design and
construction were altered, to include updated plan sheets. These changes, including the revised
credit totals, should be submitted to the District for approval as a project modification.
For projects that include wetland mitigation, restored wetland boundaries are not surveyed
because wetland areas must still be monitored before they are determined to meet hydrology
standards, so wetland credit amounts should not change at as -built unless project limits are
altered during construction (e.g. property is removed or added to a project, planned hydrologic
alterations are not carried out, etc.)."
Sincerely,
Raymond Holz
Project Manager — Restoration Systems

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Alliance Headwaters Full Delivery Mitigation Project (Project; Site) is located in the Hannah Creek
watershed of the Neuse River Basin, in NCDENR subbasin 03-04-04 and NCDMS targeted local watershed
03020201-150020. The Project is located in Johnston County, approximately six miles southeast of Four
Oaks and one mile east of US 701, and will involve the restoration of channelized streams, the
preservation of existing headwater streams and jurisdictional riparian riverine wetlands; the restoration
riparian riverine wetlands as the result of stream restoration and ditch plugging; the creation of wetlands
in areas requiring bench excavation; and the restoration of stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functions
on four unnamed tributaries (UTs) systems to Hannah Creek. Hannah Creek is listed by the NCDWR as a
class "C; NSW" water, indicating that it and its tributaries support aquatic life and secondary recreational
uses. These waters also carry the nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) designation, meaning that such waters
are subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Due to this NSW classification,
the restoration of the proposed streams, adjacent wetlands, and riparian buffers, as well as their
permanent conservation, will ensure the protection of the stream and wetland systems from future
growth and development in the Neuse River basin.
The project area encompasses land that consists of drained agricultural fields and natural, mixed
hardwood timber land. The area has been drained by the installation of ditches and the channelization of
streams and headwater wetlands. By restoring and preserving these headwater streams as well as their
associated riparian riverine wetlands, the Project will improve the water quality of receiving waters and
improve habitat for biota.
The plan forthe Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Project involves the restoration of headwater stream and
wetlands on four UT systems. The proposed mitigation activities for this Project will provide an estimated
6,029 SMUs and up to 39.4 riparian riverine WMUs within a 71.7 -acre conservation easement. The
headwater streams and wetlands proposed for restoration have been impacted by channelization,
ditching, the removal of native, forest vegetation, and intensive agricultural production practices.
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register
Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs
(c)(2) through (c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
October 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Project Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Site Directions...............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Property Ownership and Boundary..............................................................................................2
1.3 Utilities..........................................................................................................................................2
1.4 Site Access.....................................................................................................................................2
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection..........................................................................................
2
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions......................................................................................................
2
3.1 Landscape Characteristics.............................................................................................................3
3.1.1 Physiography, Topography, and Soils...................................................................................3
3.1.2 Land Use and Land Cover......................................................................................................4
3.2 Existing Vegetation.......................................................................................................................
5
3.3 Project Resources..........................................................................................................................5
4.0 Functional and Ecological Uplift........................................................................................................6
5.0 Regulatory Considerations................................................................................................................9
5.1 401/404.........................................................................................................................................9
5.2 Categorical Exclusion for Biological and Historical Resources......................................................9
5.2.1 Biological Resources............................................................................................................10
5.2.2 Historical Resources............................................................................................................10
5.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass.............................................................10
6.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives..............................................................................................11
7.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan...................................................................................12
7.1 Target Stream and Wetland Types.............................................................................................12
7.1.1 Target Stream Types...........................................................................................................
12
7.1.2 Target Wetland Types.........................................................................................................13
7.2 Design Analysis and Parameters.................................................................................................
14
7.2.1 Sediment Transport Analyses.............................................................................................19
7.2.2 Project Risks and Uncertainties..........................................................................................20
7.3 Stream Reference Sites...............................................................................................................21
7.3.1 Reference Streams..............................................................................................................22
7.4 Wetland Reference Sites.............................................................................................................23
7.4.1 Reference Wetlands............................................................................................................23
7.5 Vegetation and Planting Plan......................................................................................................23
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) iv
October 2018

8.0
Performance Standards..................................................................................................................25
Figure 2.
8.1
Restored Stream Channels..........................................................................................................25
USGS Topographic Map
8.2
Riparian Vegetation....................................................................................................................25
Figure 413.
8.3
Compatibility with Project Goals................................................................................................
25
9.0
Monitoring Plan..............................................................................................................................27
Figure 6A -6E.
9.1
Stream Monitoring......................................................................................................................
27
9.2
Wetland Monitoring...................................................................................................................
28
9.3
Riparian Vegetation Monitoring.................................................................................................
29
9.4
Visual Assessment Monitoring....................................................................................................29
Figure 11.
10.0
Long -Term Management Plan........................................................................................................30
Mitigation Potential Map
11.0
Adaptive Management Plan...........................................................................................................30
12.0
Determination of Credits................................................................................................................30
12.1
Restoration and Creation Ratios.................................................................................................31
12.1.1
(West of Joyner Bridge Road)..................................................................................................
31
12.1.2
(East of Joyner Bridge Road)...................................................................................................
31
12.2
Enhancement Ratio.....................................................................................................................31
12.2.2
(East of Joyner Bridge Road)...................................................................................................
31
12.3
Preservation Ratio.......................................................................................................................31
13.0
Financial Assurances.......................................................................................................................35
14.0
References......................................................................................................................................
36
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Vicinity Map
Figure 2.
Existing Condition Map
Figure 3.
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4A.
Existing Watershed Map
Figure 413.
Existing Drainage Network Map
Figure 5A.
NRCS Soils Map
Figure 513.
Hydric Soils Map
Figure 6A -6E.
Historic Aerial Photographs
Figure 7.
FEMA Map
Figure 8.
Existing Hydrological Features Map
Figure 9A.
Proposed Watershed Map
Figure 9B.
Proposed Drainage Network Map
Figure 10.
Reference Reach Location Map
Figure 11.
Monitoring Plan Map
Figure 12.
Mitigation Potential Map
LIST OF TABLES
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) v
October 2018

Table 1.
General Project Information
Table 2.
Project Land Use and Watershed Characteristics
Table 3.
Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Tables 4A and 4B.
Jurisdictional Resources within the Proposed Conservation Easement Boundary
Table 5A.
Summary of Existing and Proposed Functional Ratings for the Project Reaches
Table 5B.
NC WAM Summary
Table 5C.
Wetland Work Plan Components and Functional Objectives
Table 6.
Summary of Regulatory Considerations
Table 7.
Summary of Goals and Objectives for the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Project
Table 8.
Project Design Stream Types and Information
Table 9A and 9B.
Morphology Tables for Project Streams
Table 10.
Summary of Stream Reference Reach Information
Table 11.
Species Identified within the Reference Forest Ecosystem
Table 12.
Tree Species and Planting Zones
Table 13.
Project Goals and Associated Performance Criteria
Table 14.
Stream Monitoring Summary
Table 15.
Wetland Monitoring Summary
Table 16.
Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Table 17A.
Determination of Stream Mitigation Credits
Table 17B.
Determination of Riparian Riverine Wetland Mitigation Credits
Table 17C.
Determination of Riparian Riverine Wetland Mitigation Credits for Areas of
Potential Wetland Restoration
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 1. Expected Channel Form Assessment
Graph 2. Regional Curve Information for Alliance Headwaters Site
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1.
Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 2.
Site Photographs
Appendix 3.
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package
Appendix 4.
Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
Appendix 5.
DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Appendix 6.
Assessment Data
Appendix 7.
Plan Sheets
Appendix 8.
Maintenance Plan
Appendix 9.
Credit Release Schedule
Appendix 10.
Land Use Communication between Restoration Systems and the USACE
Appendix 11.
Financial Assurance
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) vi
October 2018

1.0 Project Introduction
The Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (Site) is in Johnston County, approximately six miles southeast of
Four Oaks and one mile east of US 701 (Figure 1). The project is located within NC Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) targeted watershed for the Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03020201150020 and
the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-04-04.
The Site was selected to provide stream and riparian riverine wetland mitigation units (SMUs and WMUs)
in the Neuse River Basin 03020201 (Neuse 01). The project includes three existing unnamed tributaries to
Hannah Creek and two existing wetlands; the distinct naming conventions for these stream reaches are
shown on Figure 2. Site mitigation activities, which will provide an estimated 6,029 SMUs and 39.4 riparian
riverine WMUs within a 71.7 -acre conservation easement includes the following.
• Restoration of 6,529 linear feet of stream channels that have been straightened and channelized
for agricultural purposes
• Restoration of 32.6 acres of drained hydric soil to riparian riverine wetlands as the result of stream
restoration activities and ditch plugging
• Areas of potential wetland riparian riverine restoration total approximately 7.0 acres of drained
soils with hydric inclusions
• Enhancement of 0.38 acres of jurisdictional riparian headwater forest through stream
realignment activities and supplemental wetland plantings
• Creation of 1.99 acres of riparian riverine wetlands in areas of drained hydric soil requiring bench
excavation
• Preservation of 16.39 acres of jurisdictional riparian riverine wetlands located within forested
headwater systems
Table 1. General Project Information.
Project Information
Project Name
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site
County
Johnston
Easement Area (acres)
71.7
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.22 19.30 N, 78.20'25.85"W
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted)
49.5 acres
1.1 Site Directions
From Raleigh: Take 1-40 East to Exit 328B for 1-95 North, then take Exit 87 for Four Oaks, NC. Turn right
onto Keen Road southeast until you reach US 701. Turn right onto US 701 and travel south approximately
2.5 miles and turn left (east) onto Peach Orchard Road. Travel approximately 1.7 miles until you reach
the intersection with Joyner Bridge Road. Turn right (south) onto Joyner Bridge Road and travel
approximately 0.7 miles. The farm entrance road will be on your left.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 1
October 2018

1.2 Property Ownership and Boundary
The property is held by William Frank Lee. A perpetual conservation easement will be prepared that
incorporates the results of this Mitigation Plan (template provided in Appendix 1). The conservation
easement will be depicted on a recordable plat, signed by the owner, and recorded in the Johnston County
Register of Deeds. The conservation easement boundary will be marked with monuments at every corner
and every 200 feet along straight portions of the easement. Adjacent land use will not require the
installation of fencing.
1.3 Utilities
There are no underground or overhead utilities within the conservation easement boundary and are
therefore not considered a constraint for this project. There is an existing culvert under a state -maintained
road (Joyner Bridge Road) on UT1. The project will not affect this culvert, which will remain in place in its
current configuration once the project is complete.
1.4 Site Access
All portions of the conservation easement which do not abut state -maintained roads will have a
permanent, 20 -foot ingress, egress, and regress easements granted to the easement holder to provide
perpetual access. These access easements will be shown on the conservation easement plat and recorded
at the Johnston County Register of Deeds. The portion of the conservation easement located along UT1 is
broken by Joyner Bridge Road and a 60 -ft wide access easement. All other stream reaches within the
conservation easement have contiguous boundaries and no internal easement breaks.
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
The Site was selected for its ability to provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the
Hannah Creek and Neuse River watersheds. As described in the Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP) document developed by NCDMS (2010), a major goal for the entire Neuse River Basin is to reduce
nutrient and sediment inputs from agricultural areas by restoring and preserving wetlands, streams, and
riparian buffers. In both the 2010 RBRP and the 2015 RBRP Update, Project HUC 03020201-150020
(Hannah Creek) is identified as a targeted local watershed, with threats to water quality from agricultural
lands, animal operations, and disturbed buffers. In the 2010 RBRP, the Hannah Creek watershed is
described as 54% agricultural land use, with 44 permitted animal operations (cattle and swine), and an
estimated 42% of stream miles without forested buffers. Buffer and wetland restoration projects were
considered a high priority for this watershed.
In addition, the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ, 2009) recommends the
implementation of conservation practices on agricultural lands along Hannah Creek, from NC 96 to its
confluence with Mill Creek (the reach where the Project is located). This segment of Hannah Creek is also
designated as a Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) by the NC Natural Heritage Program. Hannah
Creek contains a mature swamp forest that extends approximately 12 miles and represents one of the
few remaining swamp forests of any significant length in the County.
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
The project area consists of drained agricultural fields and natural, mixed hardwood timber land. The area
has been drained by the installation of ditches and the channelization of streams and headwater wetlands.
The Site has been in row crop production for the last 18 to 20 years.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 2
October 2018

The existing watersheds were delineated using a variety of information, including USGS 7.5 -minute
topographic quadrangles (Figure 3), field investigations to determine ditch flow paths, site-specific
topographic survey data, Johnston County GIS data, and USGS StreamStats. Land use and watershed areas
for each stream reach is shown in Table 2, existing watershed boundaries are illustrated in Figure 4A, and
the existing drainage network is depicted on Figure 4B.
Table 2. Project Land Use and Watershed Characteristics.
Land Use and Watershed Characteristics
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
Level III, IV Ecoregions
Southeastern Plains, Rolling Coastal Plain
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Units 8 -digit, 14 -digit
03020201, 03020201150020
DWR Sub -basin
03-04-04
Reaches
UT1 UT2 I UT3 ^ UT4
Drainage area (acres)* 546 147 i 354 1 132
Drainage area (sq. miles)*
0.85
0.23
0.55
0.21
NCCGIA Land Cover Classification
Agriculture 52%
48%
37%
44%
Forested/Scrubland 38%
37%
59%
55%
Residential 9%
13%
4%
<1%
Impervious Area 1%
2%
<1%
<1%
* Represents the most downstream portion of the existing reach.
A - Since there is no jurisdictional feature for UT3, this column provides the watershed information for area occupied by what
will be UT3-R1 and UT3-R2.
3.1 Landscape Characteristics
3.1.1 Physiography, Topography, and Soils
The Site lies within the inner portion of the Coastal Plain physiographic province and the Level III
Southeastern Plains ecoregion. This area is characterized by broad interstream divides with gentle to steep
side slopes dissected by numerous small, low to moderate gradient sandy bottomed streams. The annual
average rainfall ranges from 44 to 51 inches (locally 48 inches), with most of the precipitation falling during
early spring and mid -summer. Sediments are typically unconsolidated clay, silt, sand, and small gravel.
Soils found within this area are generally comprised of Ultisols, which are intensely weathered with an
appreciable clay component and are slightly acidic. The soil moisture regime is typical of humid regions
where the amount of stored moisture plus rainfall is approximately equal to, or exceeds, the amount of
evapotranspiration (udic). Typical, undisturbed vegetation might include mesic pine flatwoods, oak -
hickory forest, and mesic mixed hardwood forest. Soil mapping units are based on the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Johnston County. Soil
types within the project area mapped by the NRCS Web Soil Survey are described below in Table 3 and
depicted in Figure 5A.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 3
October 2018

Table 3. Project Soil Types and Descriptions.
Soil Name
Description
Hydric Status
Dogue fine sandy
Dogue fine sandy loam is a moderately well drained soil
loam, 0 to 2 %
located on stream terraces. It has a moderately high-water
Non -hydric
slopes
capacity and is occasionally flooded for brief periods.
Goldsboro sandy
Goldsboro sandy loam is a moderately well drained soil
Hydric B
loam, 0 to 2 %
located on flats and broad, interstream divides on marine
(Rains
slopes
terraces. It has a moderately high to high water capacity and
inclusions)
is not subject to flooding.
Leaf silt loam, 0 to
Leaf silt loam is a poorly drained soil located on flats on broad,
2 % slopes
interstream divides. It has a very low to moderately low water
Hydric A
capacity and is not subject to flooding.
Lynchburg sandy
Lynchburg sandy loam is a somewhat poorly drained soil
Hydric B
(Grantham,
loam, 0 to 2 %
located on flats and broad, interstream divides on marine
Rains, and
gins an
slopes
terraces. It has a moderately high to high water capacity and
ot
is not subject to flooding.
inclusions)
Norfolk loamy
Norfolk loamy sand is a well -drained soil located on flats and
sand, 0 to 2 %
broad, interstream divides on marine terraces. It has a
Non -hydric
slopes
moderately high to high water capacity and is not subject to
flooding.
Hydric soils were delineated by a licensed soil scientist (NC LSS # 1233) during January 2017; results of
the delineation are depicted on Figure 5B. Hydric soils within the Site include ditched and drained soils
within agricultural fields proposed for wetland restoration or creation, and jurisdictional wetlands within
headwater forest systems proposed for wetland preservation.
3.1.2 Land Use and Land Cover
A review of historic aerials of the site and adjacent parcels from 1939, 1965, 1971, 1988 and 2005 (Figures
6A through 6E) reveal that while agriculture has been the prevalent land use in the area likely since before
1939, much of the site itself was not converted to agricultural uses until after 1997/1998. Additional aerial
photographs from Google Earth show that the project site has been manipulated for agricultural
production numerous times. The channelization of perimeter ditches to carry stream flow served to
undermine the hydrologic connection between the headwaters of UT3 and UT4 (located in the forested
sections of the Project) from their downstream channels. In addition, two small impoundments were
excavated on the historical flow paths of UT1 and UT3 during this time. The Site has existed in its current
condition since approximately 2005.
Current land use near the Site is predominately agriculture (crop and livestock production) and
silviculture. While the Site is near (< 6 miles) to two major interstates (1-95 and 1-40), there are no
foreseeable signs of impending land use changes or development pressure that would impact the Project's
watershed. The conservation easement will eliminate the potential for future development and/or
agricultural use in the floodplain areas of the restored streams.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS 1197086) 4
October 2018

3.2 Existing Vegetation
Existing vegetation within the conservation easement is separated into two distinct subsets, agricultural
cropland and forest. Common plant species that are found in these two areas are described below.
Photographs of these areas can be found in Appendix 2.
Agricultural Cropland
Plant species found within the agricultural fields are the result of intensive agricultural production
methods that include annual herbicide applications, irrigation, mowing, and drainage ditch maintenance.
The most common crop grown at the Site is soybeans (Glycine max), potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) sweet
potatoes (Ipomoea batatas), and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum).
Species found within and immediately adjacent to the existing stream channels (UTI, UT2, and parts of
UT3) are generally low growing species that have been maintained through mechanical and chemical
means. Herbaceous species found generally include dogfennel (Eupotorium capillifolium), ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisifolia), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), soft rush (Juncus effusus), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), woolgrass (Scripus cyperinus), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum),
cattail (Typha latifolia), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), Chinese lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata),
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), jewelweed
(Impatiens capensis), elderberry (Sambucus conadensis), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), and dock
(Rumex sp.). Trees and shrubs within these areas include red maple (Acer rubrum), titi (Cyrilla
racemiflora), and black willow (Salix nigra).
Forest
The headwaters of UT3 and UT4 remain wooded, with a canopy and mid -story composed of loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), American holly (Ilex opaca),
Northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), red bay (Persea palustris), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), laurel oak (Quercus lourifolia) and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Shrubs present
include titi, sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), inkberry (Ilex glabra), and giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), with greenbrier and grape (Vitis rotundifolia) in the vine layer.
3.3 Project Resources
Axiom Environmental, Inc. (Axiom) conducted investigations for jurisdictional waters of the U.S. on
January 26, 2017, February 7, 2017, and February 23, 2017. Wetlands were assessed using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On-site Determination Method. This method is defined by the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional
Supplement. Potential jurisdictional wetlands were assessed using the USACE Wetland Determination
Data Form and the NC Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). Streams were assessed using the NCDWR
Stream Identification Form and the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. Six potential
jurisdictional streams and two wetlands were delineated during the on-site investigations by Axiom
(Tables 4A and 413). A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) package was submitted to the USACE
on March 16, 2017. An initial Site visit with the USACE to confirm jurisdictional waters was conducted on
June 1, 2017 and was attended by Samantha J. Dailey, CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
([e-mail]). Verbal confirmation of existing wetland areas was given at the
conclusion of the site visit; however, it was determined and agreed to by Restoration Systems and
Samantha Daily that final confirmation of UT -3 and UT -4 within the forested areas of the Site would
require an additional review by IRT members given their ephemeral/intermittent nature and location
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
October 2018

within the watershed (headwater streams). A follow-up site visit was conducted on October 24th, 2017.
During this site visit, it was determined that tributaries originally included in the PJD (UT3A, UT313, and
UT3C within the existing wooded wetland) were not jurisdictional. A revised PJD package was resubmitted
to Samantha Dailey (USACE). The notification of jurisdictional determination (SAW -2016-00882) was
received on September 4th, 2018 and can be found in Appendix 3.
Table 4A. Jurisdictional Resources Within the Proposed Conservation Easement Boundary.
Existing Jurisdictional Stream Features
Reach
UT -1
UT -2
UT -4
Existing Length (LF)
4,761
<1
1,142
EPR - NCDWR Stream
Score
Blue line
Blue line
27.25
Perennial or Intermittent
P
P
I
NCDWR Classification
C; NSW
Rosgen Classification of
Existing Conditions
Incised Bc 5/6 G5/6
Incised Bc 5/6
Simon Evolutionary Stage
II II
II
FEMA Zone Classification
X X
---
Table 4B. Jurisdictional Resources Within the Proposed Conservation Easement Boundary.
Wetland Summary
Wetland
No. 1
No. 2
Size of Wetland
16.39
0.38
Wetland Type (non -riparian,
riparian riverine, or riparian
Riparian riverine
Riparian riverine
non-riverine)
NRCS Mapped Soil Series
Leaf/Lynchburg
Goldsboro/Norfolk
Drainage Class
Poorly drained/somewhat
Well drained/moderately well
poorly drained
drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric A/ Hydric B (Grantham,
Hydric B (Rains inclusions)/ Non -
Rains, Toisnot inclusions)
hydric
Source of Hydrology
Surface/Groundwater
Groundwater
Hydrologic Impairment
NA
Lack of overbank flooding
Native Vegetation
Headwater Forest
Headwater Forest
Community
% Exotic Invasive Vegetation
<2%
<2%
4.0 Functional and Ecological Uplift
Based on field evaluations of the project stream reaches and the proposed mitigation practices described
in this document, functional ratings were developed for the existing and proposed conditions of the
project reaches (Table 5A), following the methodology and definitions described in Harman, et al., 2012.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
October 2018

This information is provided to assist in communicating project goals and objectives related to functional
lift but is not proposed for use in setting performance standards. Performance standards are specifically
discussed in Section 8 and follow guidance provided by the NCDMS and USACE Wilmington District.
Of the impairments present on the site, past stream channelization and clearing of riparian vegetation are
the most severe, resulting in channel instability and erosion, lack of bedform diversity, increased nutrient
and sediment loading, and loss of wetland function. Ecological uplift will come from restoring the project
streams to a stable, functioning condition, restoring wetland connections and natural vegetation, and
reconnecting restoration areas with remnant headwater streams. In -stream structures will ensure
channel stability and improve aquatic habitats while the restored system matures. Restored riparian
buffers will: 1) provide woody debris and detritus for aquatic organisms; 2) provide shading and reduce
water temperatures; 3) increase dissolved oxygen concentrations; and 4) provide a diversity of aquatic
and terrestrial habitats appropriate for the ecoregion and landscape setting. Approximately 58 acres of
riparian buffer will be restored and/or protected as part of the proposed project.
Table 5A. Summary of Existing and Proposed Functional Ratings for the Project Reaches.
Site specific wetland mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the use of North
Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of degraded and reference systems (NC WFAT
2010). This method rates functional metrics for wetlands as high, medium, or low based on field data
collected on forms and transferred into a rating calculator. Using Boolean logic, the rating calculator
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 7
October 2018
Stream Reaches
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
Functional Category
Exist. Prop.
Exist.
Prop.
Exist.
Prop.
Exist.
I Prop.
Hydrology
FAR FAR
FAR
FAR
FAR
F
FAR
F
Hydraulics Z
NF F
NF
F
NF
F
NF
F
Geomorphology'
NF F
NF
F
NF
F
NF
F
Physiochemical °
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
Biology s
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
Note 1: Hydrology — all reaches are listed as Functioning At -Risk (FAR) in their existing condition. The
hydrology of UT1 and UT2 will remain FAR after restoration because of modifications to their
watersheds above the project site. UT3 and UT4 are predicted to go from FAR to Functioning
(F) after restoration, because the restoration reaches will connect with historic channel
features that are functioning.
Note 2: Hydraulics — all restoration reaches are incised and channelized and are no longer connected
to their adjacent floodplains and are therefore listed as Not Functioning (NF). Restoration
practices will restore proper floodplain connection and channel hydraulics. Groundwater and
surface water connections will also be restored.
Note 3: Geomorphology — all reaches exhibit significantly larger and deeper channels than would
naturally occur. Channel instability is apparent in all reaches to varying degrees, therefore all
reaches are listed as Not Functioning (NF). Restoration practices will restore stable
headwater stream/wetland systems that are self-sustaining over time.
Site specific wetland mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the use of North
Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of degraded and reference systems (NC WFAT
2010). This method rates functional metrics for wetlands as high, medium, or low based on field data
collected on forms and transferred into a rating calculator. Using Boolean logic, the rating calculator
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 7
October 2018

assigns a high, medium, or low value for each metric and overall function. Table 5B summarizes NC WAM
model output for forested wetlands on the Site proposed for preservation (Wetland 1) and a disturbed
wetland located upstream of UT2 within the agricultural fields (Wetland 2).
Table 5B. NC WAM Summary
NC WAM Sub -function Rating Summary
Wetland 1
(Onsite Reference
located in forested
headwater system)
Wetland 2
(Disturbed, located
upstream of UT2 in
agricultural fields)
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Headwater Forest
(1) HYDROLOGY
HIGH
LOW
(2) Surface Storage & Retention
HIGH
LOW
(2) Sub -surface Storage and Retention
HIGH
LOW
(1) WATER QUALITY
HIGH
LOW
(2) Pathogen change
HIGH
LOW
(2) Particulate Change
HIGH
LOW
(2) Soluble change
MEDIUM
LOW
(2) Physical Change
HIGH
LOW
(1) HABITAT
HIGH
LOW
(2) Physical Structure
HIGH
LOW
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
HIGH
LOW
(2) Vegetative Composition
HIGH
LOW
OVERALL
HIGH
LOW
Based on the above NCWAM analysis, in areas proposed for wetland restoration and creation, all
metrics are being targeted for functional improvements. Table 5C provides an overview of the Sites
wetland functional improvement objectives and the specific actions proposed to accomplish them.
Table SC. Wetland Work Plan Components and Functional Objectives
Functional Improvement Objectives Proposed Actions
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention Cessation of agricultural plowing followed by ditch
backfilling, deep ripping, and planting native forest
Sub -surface Storage and Retention vegetation.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
October 2018

Table 5C. Wetland Work Plan Components and Functional Objectives (Continued)
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Conversion of agriculture fields to native forest vegetation,
treating surface runoff from adjacent agriculture fields and
roadside ditches, backfilling adjacent ditches, and restoring
ditched streams.
Particulate Change
Soluble Change
Physical Change
Habitat
Physical Structure
Plant native forest vegetation that connects with natural
areas up and downstream of the Site.
Landscape Patch Structure
Vegetation Composition
5.0 Regulatory Considerations
Regulatory considerations for the Site are shown in Table 6 and described in the following sections.
Table 6. Summary of Regulatory Considerations.
Regulatory Parameter
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs.
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
No
Appendix 3
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
No
Appendix 3
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 4
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 4
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
Appendix 5
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
5.1 401/404
Wetlands within the Site easement have been delineated and verified (Figure 2 and Table 46). There will
be minor impacts (less than 0.05 acre) to the headwater wetland system of UT3 and UT4 due to
reconnection of a channel feature between the preservation reaches and downstream restoration
reaches. Onsite stream channels that are impacted will be due to restoration activities and relocation of
the restored channels to their historic alignments.
5.2 Categorical Exclusion for Biological and Historical Resources
A Categorical Exclusion (CE) document for the Alliance Headwaters Site was originally approved by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on February 24, 2017 (Appendix 4). Due to changes in the
project, the CE document was resubmitted and was re -approved on May 11, 2018 (Appendix 4). The CE
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 9
October 2018

document investigates the presence of threatened and endangered species and any historical resources
that may occur within the Site.
5.2.1 Biological Resources
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.0 1531 et seq.), defines protection for
species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E). An "Endangered Species" is
defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range"
and a "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered Species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.0 1532).
RS requested review and comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on December 16, 2016,
regarding the project's potential impacts to threatened or endangered species. The USFWS responded
via letter on January 12, 2017 and stated that the proposed project is "not likely to adversely affect any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species
currently proposed for listing" and that the requirements of Section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species
Act "have been satisfied" for the project. The USFWS letter is included in the Categorical Exclusion
document found in Appendix 4.
Since the approval of the Categorical Exclusion document on February 24, 2017, the yellow lance mussel
(Elliptio lanceolota) has become proposed forfuture listing in Johnston County. The yellow lance is a sand -
loving species often found buried deep in clean, coarse to medium sand substrates and sometimes gravel
substrates. The yellow lance depends on clean, moderately flowing water with high dissolved oxygen,
and is found in smaller streams to medium-sized rivers (USFWS 2017). Intensive agricultural production
coupled with the annual maintenance of the stream channels and riparian vegetation has resulted in low
quality stream habitat on the Site. Because of these ongoing activities, no habitat is present for the yellow
lance at the Site. RS and the Division of Mitigation Services exchanged email correspondence with Donnie
Brew (preconstruction & environmental engineer with the Federal Highway Administration) in September
of 2017 discussing the yellow lance mussel. This correspondence can be found at the end of Appendix 4.
5.2.2 Historical Resources
The CE document investigates the occurrence of any historical resources protected under The National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. The NHPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), defines the policy of
historic preservation to protect, restore, and reuse districts, sites, structures, and objects significant in
American history, architecture, and culture. Section 106 of the NHPA mandates that federal agencies take
into account the effect of an undertaking on any property that is included in, or is eligible for inclusion in,
the National Register of Historic Places.
RS sent an email to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on December 16, 2016,
requesting review and comment for the potential of cultural resources potentially affected by the project.
Following a review of the project, SHPO responded with a letter on December 29, 2016, and stated that
"they were aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project". All correspondence
with SHPO is included in the Categorical Exclusion document found in Appendix 4.
5.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
Upon review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance
Program's Digital Flood Insurance Rate Mapping (DFIRM) panel 3720158800J, effective December 2, 2005,
the downstream terminus of both UT1 and UT2 exists within the 0.2 Percent Chance Annual Flooding Zone
(Zone X) associated with Hannah Creek (Figure 7). Therefore, under the current regulations, work
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 10
October 2018

associated with this project would not be regulated nor would the work influence the flood elevations
associated with this zone.
However, pending map revisions are being considered and review of the preliminary DFIRM panel
3720158800K, dated April 30, 2014, indicates the downstream terminus of UT1 and UT2 will be within the
1.0 Percent Chance Annual Flooding Zone (Zone AE) of Hannah Creek. Upon this mapping becoming
effective, the project would be regulated, and the grading of the project would influence the mapping of
Zone AE and Zone X. However, the elevations of these zones would be established from Hannah Creek,
which is outside the Site's boundaries; therefore, the project will not influence the determination of the
flooding elevations, just the topographic extents of the zones themselves.
The local floodplain manager for Johnston County was contacted on August 24, 2017. The floodplain
manager concurred with the finding that UT1 and UT2 occurred within the Zone X under the current
regulations and the project would not require any additional review from FEMA. The completed NCDMS
Floodplain Requirements Checklist can be found in Appendix 5.
6.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives
Project goals and associated objectives are summarized in Table 7 below:
Table 7. Summary of Goals and Objectives for the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Project
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 11
October 2018
Current
Proposed
Goals
Objectives
Functional
Functional
Status
Status
Goals Specific to the Neuse River and Hannah Creek Watershed Discussed in the
RBRP (NCDMS, 2010 and 2015) and Neuse River Basinwide Plan (NCDWQ, 2009)
• Restoration and enhancement of minimum 50 -
foot riparian buffers along all project reaches.
Remove Direct
• Protection of riparian buffers with a perpetual
Nutrient Inputs
conservation easement.
from
• Reducing the amount of land in active row crop
Not
Functioning
Agricultural
agriculture.
Functioning
Lands
• Decreasing drainage to restore wetlands,
promoting higher water table conditions, and
denitrification.
• Restoration of stabilized headwater stream
systems.
Remove Direct
Restoration of wetlands and riparian buffers to
Sediment Inputs
filter runoff.
Not
from
• Increase distance between active farming
Functioning
Functioning
Agricultural
operations and receiving waters.
Lands
• Stabilization of gullies and ditches.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 11
October 2018

Additional Benefits to Hannah Creek Significant Natural Heritage Area
• Restoration of appropriate bed form diversity,
headwater stream/wetland form, and in -stream
Improved
structures to provide appropriate habitat.
Not
Aquatic Habitats
. Restoration of self-sustaining stream/wetland
Functioning
Functioning
headwaters.
• Restoration of riparian buffer vegetation to
provide organic matter and shade.
Improved
p
• Restore connectivity to historic remnant channel
Not
Connectivity
features.
Functioning
Functioning
. Improved aquatic connectivity to Hannah Creek.
7.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
7.1 Target Stream and Wetland Types
7.1.1 Target Stream Types
A design approach was developed that will return Coastal Plain headwater stream functions to a stable
state, as described in the guidance document entitled "Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the
Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina' (USACE, DWQ 2005). Existing condition assessments were used to
assess the current functional condition of the site and set functional uplift goals, as described in Sections
4.0 and 6.0. Data sources used in these assessments included existing hydrogeomorphic conditions,
historical aerials and LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) mapping, detailed site topographic mapping,
evaluation of stable reference reaches, and a comparison of results from similar past projects in Coastal
Plain headwater systems.
After examining the assessment data collected at the site (Appendix 6) and exploring the potential for
restoration, a mitigation approach was developed that would address restoration of both stream and
wetland functions within the project area. On-site topography and soils indicate that the project area
most likely functioned in the past as a headwater tributary stream system with associated wetlands,
eventually flowing downstream into the larger Hannah Creek system. Assigning an appropriate stream
type for the corresponding valley that accommodates existing and future hydrologic conditions and
sediment supply was considered prior to selecting the proposed design approach. The stream type
assignment was primarily based on the range of the reference reach data available and the desired
performance of the site. A Rosgen "C" type channel was selected as the design stream type for all reaches.
The expectation is that the design channels will narrow to form "E" or lower width -to -depth ratio "C"
channels within the first few years after restoration, due to herbaceous vegetation establishment along
the banks, and the associated deposition of sediment. As canopy becomes established over the site at 10
to 15 years post -restoration, herbaceous vegetation will become less dense and channels often evolve to
wider width -to -depth ratios that approximate the design and reference conditions.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 12
October 2018

7.1.2 Target Wetland Types
The restoration approach of the riparian and wetland areas intends to mimic the conditions of a "Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp" (Blackwater subtype), as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Hydrology of this system will be palustrine, and "intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded", as
the restored channel is designed to carry the bankfull flow, and to flood (flow out of its banks) at
discharges greater than bankfull. Areas proposed for restoration, enhancement, and creation are
comprised of the Leaf soil series, which is listed as a Hydric A soil in Johnston County.
Areas of the site considered for "potential' wetland restoration are underlain by the Lynchburg soil
series, which is listed as a Hydric B soil in Johnston County (non -hydric soils with hydric inclusion -
Grantham, Rains, and Toisnot soil series - and are currently not characterized by hydric soil indicators).
As such, these areas are not classified as wetland restoration areas; however, the areas are likely to
support wetlands upon completion of the project. Soils underlying Areas of Potential Wetland
Restoration do not display hydric soil indicators indicative of a Class A hydric soil due to 1)
anthropogenic manipulation (plowing, spoil overburden, excavation, or disruption of hydric soil
indicators), 2) position on the margins of hydric inclusions which may develop hydric soil indicators,
and/or 3) soil properties supporting jurisdictional hydrologic regime without fully displaying hydric soil
indicators. Potential wetland restoration areas currently do not exhibit hydric soil indicators but have a
reasonable expectation of developing hydric soil indicators upon implementation of the restoration
project.
Areas of Potential Wetland Restoration will not be counted towards wetland mitigation credit unless
groundwater gauge data is provided that shows jurisdictional wetland hydrology during the annual
monitoring period and consultation with the IRT has occurred.
All wetland areas within the project easement are proposed to have consistent monitoring and success
criteria, including 10% wetland hydroperiod and vegetation indicative of a jurisdictional wetland as
defined by USACE guidelines. In addition, potential wetland restoration areas would be required to
develop hydric soil indicators such as depletions/concretions within the soil matrix. Hydric soil indicators
will be described by a licensed soil scientist and will be consistent with descriptions for hydric soils as
outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and
Gulf Coastal Plan Region (Version 2.0). Wetland hydroperiod will be monitored by continuously recording
groundwater gauges and will be presented in annual monitoring reports. Areas that do not exhibit
sufficient hydroperiod and/or hydric soil indicators will be not be added to wetland restoration credit
upon completion of the monitoring period.
The goal of the wetland design component of the project is to restore functions in areas where evidence
of hydric soil conditions is present. Four main activities will be employed to restore on-site wetlands:
• Fill existing ditches and raise stream bed elevations of the restored reaches;
• Minor grading to remove overburden and spoil piles from buried hydric soil layers, where present;
• Plant native wetland species to establish buffer vegetation; and
• Restore the overbank flooding regime by connecting channels to their relic floodplains.
As a result of these activities, significant hydrologic lift will occur across the project area, raising the local
water table and restoring wetland hydrology to drained hydric soils adjacent to the restored streams.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 13
October 2018

7.2 Design Analysis and Parameters
Selection of design criteria is based on a combination of approaches, including review of reference reach
data, regime equations, evaluation of monitoring results from past projects, and best professional
judgment. Evaluating data from reference reach surveys and monitoring results from multiple Coastal
Plain headwater stream and wetland projects provided pertinent background information to determine
the appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and overall site potential. The design
parameters for the Site also considered guidelines from the USACE and NCDEQ guidance document
entitled "Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina." (USACE,
DWQ 2005).
The restoration activities and structural elements are justified for the following reasons:
1. Site streams have been channelized or otherwise manipulated during the conversion of the
surrounding area for agricultural use. Re-establishing historic stream and wetland conditions will
reduce bank erosion, improve floodplain connectivity, and improve wetland hydrology;
2. Site streams are incised and function more as drainage ditches and canals rather than headwater
stream systems;
3. Past agricultural activities have resulted in erosion and sedimentation, silt -clogged stream
channels, and the loss of woody vegetation within the riparian zone;
4. Some restored stream segments will connect with less impacted wooded reaches upstream and
downstream; and
5. Enhancement or preservation measures would not achieve the highest possible level of
restoration or functional lift for the degraded stream and wetland system.
For design purposes, the project was divided into five main reaches (UT1, UT1A, UT2, UT3, and UT4). Full
restoration of the streams on the site was chosen as the preferred method to provide the maximum
functional uplift, due to the disturbed and manipulated condition of the site, lack of existing function, and
the relative lack of constraints.
An analysis was performed regarding the likely channel forms that would have been present through the
site, prior to its conversion to agriculture. EPR has collected data on headwater stream systems in the
Coastal Plain of the Southeastern U.S., and found a strong relationship between channel form, drainage
area, and valley slope (Tweedy, 2008). As drainage area and valley slope increase, drainages tend to form
more defined stream channels. EPR has used this tool successfully to evaluate the proper design form for
Coastal Plain restoration projects. Topography data for the Site were used to evaluate both drainage area
and valley slope for the project streams. Data from the evaluated project reaches are presented in Graph
1, where reach drainage areas are plotted against the estimated design valley slope.
The results of this analysis indicate that all proposed design reaches would be expected to have a
moderately to well-defined channel form under natural conditions, with a visible ordinary high- water
mark (OHW). Therefore, the stream reaches were designed using Natural Channel Design (NCD), which
has been used successfully in the past for small Coastal Plain streams.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 14
October 2018

Graph 1. Expected Channel Form Assessment.
0.1
Ordinary High Water Mark
Present (jurisdictional)
0.01 •• • • •
•
v A, • •
CL • •
of ��� ' •• •
(U ��L •
m •
0.001 j
No Ordinary High
4 Mark (non -jurisdictional) • Reference Data (No OHW) t
=Reference Data (OHW)
Boundary Between Channel Forms (approx.)
s Alliance Headwaters Reaches
0.0001 ---�-- -
10 100 1000 10000
Drainage Area (acres)
Since a NCD approach using moderately to well-defined channels was selected as the appropriate design
approach, regional curve and reference reach analyses were performed to develop specific channel design
criteria. The regional curve analysis involved identifying stream reaches on the site with stable, visible
bankfull indicators. Since all the streams within the agricultural fields have been channelized and
maintained in the past, wooded reaches were assessed to identify visible bankfull indicators. In total, five
stable cross-sections were located for this assessment, and were located on reaches UT1 (downstream of
the project limits), UT4 (in the wooded preservation section), and a non -project stream located in the
adjacent woods less than 0.25 mile from the site. The cross sections were plotted on the NC Coastal Plain
Curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003), along with internal reference reach data points developed by EPR staff
within the upper and middle Coastal Plain of North Carolina and were found to agree well with the regional
curve relationship (Graph 2). It should be noted that EPR has worked on other Coastal Plain streams in
the area overthe years and has usually found good agreement with the NC Coastal Plain Curve. Therefore,
the regional curve regression relationship was used to determine the appropriate cross-sectional area of
the design reaches.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 15
October 2018

Graph 2. Regional Curve Information for Alliance Headwaters Site.
100
0.1
1
Watershed Area (Sq. Mi.)
10
For all the project stream reaches, restoration activities will focus on reconnecting the streams to their
historic floodplain elevations whenever feasible. This approach will provide optimal functional uplift and
will also allow for restoration of adjacent riparian wetlands by raising the local water table. In some
locations, such as tie-ins to existing culverts, floodplain benches will be constructed to allow active
floodplain access and reduce energies placed on streambanks.
The designs will use NCD techniques to restore a meandering Rosgen C5 channel type, generally with a
width -to -depth ratio of between 10 and 14. A C stream type allows for lower channel depths, promoting
higher water table conditions in the surrounding floodplain and aiding in the restoration of wetland
hydrology. Rosgen C stream types are also common for Coastal Plain reference systems with similar
drainage areas and slope. Woody structures such as woody riffles and log vanes, along with
bioengineering practices, will be used to stabilize the outside meander bends and other areas of higher
bank stress. Grade control and instream riffle habitat will be enhanced with the use of constructed riffles
and woody debris that promote stability and provide refugia for aquatic organisms. Design plan form is
based on reference reach information collected from similar sites in the past, and on the past performance
of implemented projects with similar characteristics, with design sinuosities typically ranging from 1.2 to
1.4.
The ditches within the project area will be plugged and partially to completely filled, depending on the
availability of fill material and the location. Fill material will be developed from channel grading, bench
excavation, and removal of spoil piles in several locations of the site. Three ponds located along the design
reaches of UT1, UT2, and UT3, will be filled to match the approximate natural ground and floodplain
elevation. These ponds are relatively small and do not contain large amounts accumulated sediment.
Two of the ponds are excavation ponds, which will be partially to completely filled as part of the proposed
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 16
October 2018
■
low • - - -
I
• Alliance Headwaters cross-sections
i
■ NC Rural CP Data Pts (Sweet and
Geratz.2003)
■ EPR Internal Data
— — Power (Sweet and Geratz - NC Rural
Coastal Plain)
—
—
0.1
1
Watershed Area (Sq. Mi.)
10
For all the project stream reaches, restoration activities will focus on reconnecting the streams to their
historic floodplain elevations whenever feasible. This approach will provide optimal functional uplift and
will also allow for restoration of adjacent riparian wetlands by raising the local water table. In some
locations, such as tie-ins to existing culverts, floodplain benches will be constructed to allow active
floodplain access and reduce energies placed on streambanks.
The designs will use NCD techniques to restore a meandering Rosgen C5 channel type, generally with a
width -to -depth ratio of between 10 and 14. A C stream type allows for lower channel depths, promoting
higher water table conditions in the surrounding floodplain and aiding in the restoration of wetland
hydrology. Rosgen C stream types are also common for Coastal Plain reference systems with similar
drainage areas and slope. Woody structures such as woody riffles and log vanes, along with
bioengineering practices, will be used to stabilize the outside meander bends and other areas of higher
bank stress. Grade control and instream riffle habitat will be enhanced with the use of constructed riffles
and woody debris that promote stability and provide refugia for aquatic organisms. Design plan form is
based on reference reach information collected from similar sites in the past, and on the past performance
of implemented projects with similar characteristics, with design sinuosities typically ranging from 1.2 to
1.4.
The ditches within the project area will be plugged and partially to completely filled, depending on the
availability of fill material and the location. Fill material will be developed from channel grading, bench
excavation, and removal of spoil piles in several locations of the site. Three ponds located along the design
reaches of UT1, UT2, and UT3, will be filled to match the approximate natural ground and floodplain
elevation. These ponds are relatively small and do not contain large amounts accumulated sediment.
Two of the ponds are excavation ponds, which will be partially to completely filled as part of the proposed
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 16
October 2018

work, while the third pond has a small earthen dam to form the impoundment. The water in this third
pond will be pumped down and the dam then removed. Any excess sediment will be removed, and the
valley will be reformed to approximate historic valley elevations. No excess sediment will be discharged
downstream as a result of these methods. Other reach considerations are summarized in Table 8 below.
Existing stream morphology for all project reaches can be found in Tables 9A and 96, while existing
watersheds, the existing drainage network, jurisdictional features and cross section locations are shown
on Figures 4A, 46, and 8. Proposed project reach watersheds and the proposed drainage network are
shown on Figures 9A and 9B, respectively.
Table 8. Project Design Stream Types and Information.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 17
October 2018
Proposed
Reach
Stream
Approach/Considerations
Type
Restoration: Split into sub -reaches UT1-111, UT1-R2, and UT1-R3, based on
changes in drainage area. Benching will be required at the top of UT1-131, the
bottom of UT1-R2, and the top of UT1-R3, due to tie-in with ditches/culverts. The
UTl
C
restoration of UT1-R2 will require filling a farm pond to restore the floodplain
topography. A farm road that crosses the lower end of UT1-R3 will be relocated
to reduce easement breaks. The reach ends at the confluence with UT2.
Restoration: Short restoration reach that will intercept and route flows from the
UT1A
C
southwest portion of the site to UT1.
Restoration: Restoration reach will start below a culvert for the relocated farm
road. Near the end of the design reach, a small pond will be filled to restore the
UT2
C
floodplain topography and wetlands that have been converted to pond habitat.
The reach ends at the wood line, where it will tie to an existing channel that is
relatively stable.
Restoration: The restoration will begin in the woods to restore a short section of
wooded stream that has been lost due to spoil material and drainage. The reach
will begin at the historic floodplain elevation and continue through the farm field.
UT3
C
Near the top of the reach, the ditch and farm road along the wood line will be filled
and graded back to floodplain elevation. At the low end, a pond will be filled to
form the restored floodplain of UT3 before it flows into a newly culverted farm
road crossing at the end of the project.
Restoration: Like UT3, the restoration will begin in the woods to restore a short
section of wooded stream that has been lost. The ditch and farm road at the wood
UT4
C
line will be removed to reform the historic floodplain. The reach ends at its
confluence with UT3.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 17
October 2018

Table 9A. Morphology Table for Project Streams.
Parameter
Existing
Proposed
Reference
Condition'
Reach
UT1A
UT1-
UT1-
UT1-
UT1-
_
UT1-
UT1-
*
R1*
R2*
R3
UT1A
R1
R2
R3
Valley Width (ft)
5-7
13
---
35
66
52
66
Contributing
Drainage Area (acres)
26-45
546
166-640
21
183
219
543
Channel/Reach
Incised
Incised 135c
C5 / E5
C5
C5
C5
C5
Classification
135c
Design Discharge
Width (ft)
2.5-4.8
7.4
6.5-9.7
5.3
6.5
7.5
9.9
Design Discharge
Max Depth (ft)
0.6-0.8
1.6
0.75-1.00
0.51
0.60
0.71
0.93
Design Discharge
Area (ft2)
1.0-2.5
7.5
3.8-8.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
7.0
Design Discharge
Velocity (ft/s)
----^
----^
1.3-2.0
1.7
1.4
2.1
1.5
Design Discharge
(cfs)
----^
----^
8.0-11.0
3.4
4.2
8.4
10.7
Water Surface Slope
0.0070
0.026
0.0027-
0.0090
0.0026
0.0049
0.0018
0.0088
Sinuosity
1.0
1.0
1.22-1.59
1.0
1.26
1.29
1.35
Width/Depth Ratio
6.6-10.6
7.3
9.0-12.0
14
14
14
14
Bank Height Ratio
3.3-2.7
2.4
1.0-1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3-2.0
1.7
> 3.0
6.6
10.2
6.9
6.7
d16/d35/d50/d84
/ d95 / dip / disp
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand
(mm)
' Reaches UTI -R1, UTI -R2, and UT1A are currently part of a single ditch system that flows through the project area; therefore,
the same existing morphological data is provided for all three reaches.
A Existing discharge and velocity not calculated since existing system is not representative of design.
+ Reference stream information can be found in Section 7.3.1 and Figure 10.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 18
October 2018

Table 913. Morphology Table for Project Streams.
Parameter
Existing
Proposed
Reference
Condition*
UT3 -
UT3 -
UT3 -
UT3 -
ReachUT2
UT4^
UT2
UT4
R1*
R2*
R1
R2
Valley Width (ft)
9.3
14
---
42
40
40
40
Contributing
147
354
166-640
162
201
354
133
Drainage Area (acres)
Channel/Reach
G5
Incised BSc
C5 / E5
C5
C5
C5
C5
Classification
Design Discharge
5.8
8.0
6.5-9.7
7.5
7.5
9.2
6.5
Width (ft)
Design Discharge
1.3
1.6
0.75-1.00
0.7
0.7
0.86
0.61
Max Depth (ft)
Design Discharge
Area (ft2)
5.0
9.3
3.8-8.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
3.0
Design Discharge
-----#
----#
1.3-2.0
2.1
1.9
2.6
2.1
Velocity (ft/s)
N/A
Design Discharge
-----#
-----#
8.0-11.0
8.4
7.5
15.4
6.2
(cfs)
0.0027-
0.005
Water Surface Slope
0.0040
0.0030
0.0049
0.0038
0.0040
0.0088
7
Sinuosity
1.0
1.0
1.22-1.59
1.22
1.38
1.21
1.36
Width/Depth Ratio
6.7
6.8
9.0-12.0
14.0
14
14
14
Bank Height Ratio
3.6
1.8
1.0-1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
1.8
> 3.0
5.6
5.3
4.3
6.2
d16/d35/d50/d84
/ d95 / dip / disp
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand
(mm)
* Reaches UT3-RI and UT3-R2 are part of the same ditch system in their existing condition, and therefore one surveyed cross-
section was used to assess the reach.
^ In its existing condition, UT4 flaws from the preservation reach (stable), directly into the UT3 channelized system; therefore,
there is no existing UT4 channel to assess.
# Existing discharge and velocity not calculated since existing system is not representative of design.
+ Reference stream information can be found in Section 7.3.1 and Figure 10.
7.2.1 Sediment Transport Analyses
The purpose of a sediment transport analysis is to ensure that the stream restoration design creates a
stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade overtime. In Coastal Plain sand -bed systems, all particle
sizes are mobile during bankfull flows; therefore, there is no need to determine the competency or
maximum particle size that the stream can transport. However, comparing the design shear stress and
stream power values for a project reach to those computed for sand -bed reference reaches is useful to
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 19
October 2018

evaluate whether the values predicted for the design channels are within the range of those found in
stable systems. Empirical relationships from stable Coastal Plain sand -bed channels in North Carolina are
used in this analysis. The shear stress and stream power values for the design reaches were calculated
and compared with stable reference stream data. The design shear stress and stream power values were
somewhat lower than the reference streams when using a design width -to -depth ratio of 14, with stream
power generally ranging from 1.5 to 8.5 W/m2 and shear stresses ranging from 0.2 to 0.7 lbs/ft2. In past
projects that a similar, we have seen design channels narrow over the first few years as a result of
herbaceous vegetation growth on the channel banks and subsequent sediment deposition that tends to
lower the width -to -depth ratio of the restored channels. When the sediment transport relationships are
re-evaluated for width -to -depth ratios between 8 and 10, the shear stress and stream power relationships
closely match those observed in reference systems, with stream power generally ranging from 2 to 12
W/m2, and shear stress ranging from 0.08 to 0.23 lbs/ft2. It should also be noted that sediment supply
for the restored reaches is expected to be low, since most of the upstream watershed and drainages are
relatively stable. Woody and constructed riffles are being incorporated the design to protect against scour
during larger than bankfull storm events, with the frequency of woody/constructed riffles increasing as
stream slope increases (i.e. areas of greater shear stress). This analysis provides evidence that the stresses
predicted for the design channels will be within the range of stable values calculated for the reference
reaches.
7.2.2 Project Risks and Uncertainties
Listed below are identified project risks and uncertainties that have been evaluated in the development
of design plans for the site, along with methods that have been/will be used to address these concerns.
• Hydrologic Trespass: Since the project streams are going to be restored by raising the bed elevations
and reconnecting to historic floodplains, drainage will be decreased to the adjacent streams. The
existing watersheds and drainage networks are shown on Figures 4A and 4B and the proposed
watersheds and drainage networks are shown on Figures 9A and 9B to document these changes. The
proposed Site changes will ultimately provide greater on-site water storage capacity which will help
attenuate stream flows to areas outside the proposed project limits.
This concern was expressed by an adjacent landowner in a letter dated May 26, 2017 to the USACE in
response to the public comment period for the project. The landowner expressed concern that
additional water would be discharged onto their property as a result of the project.
o Methods to Address: Low-lying areas adjacent to the proposed stream buffers that may
experience increased wetness after project implementation will be purchased by
Restoration Systems. Drainage for other areas outside of the project limits are being
carefully evaluated and modifications to the existing drainage network are being designed
to eliminate the potential for adverse impacts to the restored resources.
In regard to the concern expressed by the adjacent landowner, there is no increase in
drainage area proposed at the outlets of the project. Since the project areas will be
restored with adjacent wetlands, it is likely that discharge from the project site to adjacent
parcels will actually be decreased somewhat as a result of greater surface storage and
plant uptake on the project site.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 20
October 2018

• Land use development: There is potential for increased land development around the site in the
future that could lead to additional runoff and changes to watershed hydrology.
o Methods to Address: The project area has seen little development in recent years and it
is unlikely that development will threaten the site in the foreseeable future. Restoration
of the site to reconnect streams to their floodplains will reduce the likelihood of future
degradation from watershed changes, as increased flows will spread over a wider
floodplain. There is also little elevational fall across the site, so the risk of channel
instability is low once vegetation is established.
• Easement Encroachment: There is potential for landowner encroachment into the permanent
conservation easement.
o Methods to Address: Restoration Systems has had considerable discussions with the
landowner regarding the project requirements and limitations of easement access and is
confident that the landowner fully understands and will maintain the easement
protections. The easement boundaries will also be clearly marked per NCDMS
requirements. Any encroachments that do occur will be remedied by Restoration Systems
or the long-term steward to remedy any damage and provide any other corrections
required by NCDMS and/or the IRT.
• Drought and Floods: There is potential for extreme climatic conditions during the monitoring period
of the project.
o Methods to Address: Restoration Systems will apply adaptive management techniques as
necessary to meet the site performance criteria. Such adaptive management may include
replanting, channel damage repair, irrigation, or other methods. If adaptive management
activities are significant, additional monitoring may be required by the IRT.
• Channel Formation: Since the project involves headwater systems, flow duration and channel
formation performance standards may not be met.
o Methods to Address: The design team is confident that the headwater stream systems will
form as designed. This conclusion is based on observations of upstream and downstream
wooded reaches, site wetness condition, soils, topography, and watershed sizes. Flow
gauges will be installed, and observations of channel formation and ordinary high-water
mark features will be recorded. In the first few years, channels may become obscured by
dense herbaceous vegetation. Over time as trees grow and provide shade, the herbaceous
species will be reduced, and the channels will typically become more defined and
pronounced.
7.3 Stream Reference Sites
Stream reference reach information for the project was collected from two sources. First, as described in
Section 7.2, five stable cross-sections were located near the Site, and were located on reaches UT1
(downstream of the project limits), UT4 (in the wooded preservation section), and a non -project stream
located in the adjacent woods less than 0.25 mile from the site (Figure 8). These surveyed cross sections
were used to evaluate channel dimension (specifically cross-sectional area and discharge) regional curve
relationships within the project watershed. While the cross-section locations surveyed were considered
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 21
October 2018

stable and well-connected to the adjacent floodplains, the reaches themselves exhibited evidence of past
disturbance, such as spoil piles, re -alignments, and immature vegetation. Therefore, these reaches were
not used as stream pattern references.
Vegetation communities along these reaches were documented. While the sites were not considered
true reference reaches with mature, reference quality vegetation, the sites did contain several native
species that apparently grow well in the area soils and climate. Canopy species include tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), green ash (Froxinus pennsylvanica), river birch (Betula nigra), water oak,
American holly, and sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifluo), with titi, possumhaw (Viburnum nudum),
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), sweet bay, giant cane, and elderberry in the shrub layer. Herbs
and vines include Japanese stilt grass, lizard tail (Soururus cernuus), violets (Viola spp.), trumpet creeper
(Compsis rodicans), laurel -leaf greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia), grape, and greenbrier.
7.3.1 Reference Streams
EPR reviewed internal reference reach database information collected overtime from the region nearthe
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site. These reference reaches were surveyed in the past to establish the
range of conditions observed in the region for reference quality streams, particularly small, headwater,
single -thread, Coastal Plain streams. The reference information collected was used for the Alliance
Headwaters Site to evaluate appropriate ranges of sinuosity, pattern ratios, and sediment transport
relationships (as described in Section 7.2). The locations of the reference streams are provided in Figure
10, and summary information is provided in Table 10.
Table 10. Summary of Stream Reference Reach Information.
Parameter
Reference Reach
Johanna Creek
Still Creek
Cole Property
County
Johnston
Wayne
Wayne
Distance from Site (mi)
3.7
28
28
Stream Type
C5/E5
E5
E5/C5
Drainage Area (sq mi)
1.0
0.35
0.26
W/D Ratio
12.0
9.0
10.0
Bankfull Area (ft2)
8.0
6.1
3.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.7
7.4
6.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.80
0.82
0.60
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.0027
0.0088
0.0059
Sinuosity
1.22
1.33
1.59
Meander Length Ratio
5.2
5.9-11.5
9.8
Radius of Curvature Ratio
1.5-2.8
2.9-6.4
1.2-2.3
Meander Width Ratio
1.4-2.1
2.1-6.6
5.4-8.2
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 22
October 2018

7.4 Wetland Reference Sites
A Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) is a forested area on which to model restoration efforts at the Site in
relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically stable climax communities and should be a
representative model of the Site forested ecosystem as it likely existed prior to human disturbances. Data
describing plant community composition and structure were collected at the RFEs and subsequently
applied as reference data in an attempt to emulate a natural climax community.
7.4.1 Reference Wetlands
Reference vegetative communities forthe Site were identified in the upstream wetland preservation area
of the Site. Tree and shrub species identified in this area are listed in Table 11 and were utilized, in
addition to other relevant species, to supplement community descriptions for the Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) (Schafale & Weakley 1990).
Table 11. Species Identified within the Reference Forest Ecosystems.
Scientific Name
common Name
Wetland Indicator Status
Acer rubrum
Red maple
FAC
Betula nigra
River Birch
FACW
Diospryos virginiana
Persimmon
FAC
Ilex opoca
American Holly
FAC
Juniperus virginiana
Eastern Red Cedar
FACU
Liquidambar styrociflua
Sweetgu m
FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
FACU
Magnolia virginiana
Sweet Bay
FACW
Nyssa sylvatico
Black Gum
FAC
Persea palustris
Red Bay
FACW
Pinus palustris
Longleaf Pine
FACU
Pinus serotina
Pond Pine
FACW
Pinus taedo
Loblolly Pine
FAC
Quercus alba
White Oak
FACU
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
FAC
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
FACW
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
FAC
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
FACW
7.5 Vegetation and Planting Plan
The 71.7 -acre conservation easement will provide extensive protection for the restored stream channels
because of the surrounding restored, enhanced, and created wetlands. Approximately 50 acres of newly
forested areas will be established within the conservation easement with buffer widths ranging from 50 -
feet to 500 -feet.
Species selection for re -vegetation of the conservation easement will generally follow those suggested by
Schafale and Weakley (1990) for the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater subtype) and the
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest and wetness tolerances cited in WRP Technical Note VN -RS -4.1 (WRP
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 23
October 2018

1997). Vegetative planting will be based on topography and hydrologic soil conditions and designated by
planting zones.
Tree species selected for planting across the Site are shown in Table 12 and Appendix 7. These species
will be planted as bare -root seedlings at a density of 680 stems per acre. Species will be planted during
the dormant season (November 15 — March 15) following the handling and installation procedures
outlined on the plan sheets to achieve the vegetative success criteria outlined in Section 8.2.
Table 12. Tree Species and Planting Zones.
Scientific Name
Common Name
T Wetland Indicator Status"
Zone 1— Stream Banks B
Cepholonthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
FACW
Salix nigra
Silky Dogwood
OBL
Sambucus conadensis
Elderberry
FAC
Zone 2 — Riparian and Wetland Buffer'
Betula nigra
River Birch
FACW
Corpinus caroliniono
Ironwood
FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
FACU
Magnolia virginiana
Sweet Bay
FACW
Nyssa bifloro
Swamp Black Gum
OBL
Perseo palustris
Red Bay
FACW
Quercus lourifolia
Laurel Oak
FACW
Quercus lyrota
Overcup Oak
OBL
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
FACW
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
OBL
Ulmus americana
American Elm
FAC
Zone 3 — Upland Buffer c
Acer saccharum
Sugar Maple
FACU
Diospryos virginiana
Persimmon
FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
FACU
Nysso sylvatica
Black Gum
FAC
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
FACU
Quercus alba
White Oak
FACU
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
FACW
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
FACW
A — National Wetland Plant List (Atlantic Gulf Coastal Plain) (Lichvar et al. 2016)
B — Species are representative of the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp - Blackwater subtype
c — Species are representative of the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Stream banks will be live staked in specific areas using species shown on the plan sheets (see Plan Sheets).
Temporary and permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas (see Plan Sheets).
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 24
October 2018

8.0 Performance Standards
Performance criteria outlined in the NCDMS Mitigation Plan Template (ver. 10/2015), and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers — Wilmington District Public Notice: Notification of Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District (October 24, 2016), will be followed
and are briefly outlined below. Monitoring data collected on the site will include reference photos, plant
survival analyses, channel stability analyses, wetland hydrological analysis, and biological data if
specifically required by permit conditions.
Monitoring will be conducted for a period of seven years, unless the USACE, in consultation with the
Interagency Review Team (IRT), agrees that monitoring may be terminated early. Early closure will only
be provided through written approval from the USACE in consultation with the IRT. Annual monitoring
reports will be submitted to the NCDMS by RS no later than November 30 of each monitoring year.
8.1 Restored Stream Channels
The performance criteria for restored stream channels, per USACE Guidance (October 24, 2016) are
summarized below:
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 for a majority of measured cross sections on a
given reach.
• Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be 2.2 or above for a majority of measured riffle cross-
sections on a given reach.
• BHR and ER should not change by more than 10% in any given year for a majority of a
given reach.
• Must document occurrence of at least 4 bankfull events in separate years during the
monitoring period.
8.2 Riparian Vegetation
The performance criteria for planted riparian vegetation, per USACE Guidance (October 24, 2016) are
summarized below:
• Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at
year 3; a minimum of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of
210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved
planting list for the site.
• Any single species can only account for 50% of the required stems per monitoring plot.
8.3 Compatibility with Project Goals
The performance criteria described above allow evaluation of whether the project goals have been met
after the site has been completed. In Table 13, the Project goals and objectives are listed, along with the
performance criteria that will allow documentation of whether the goals have been achieved.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 25
October 2018

Table 13. Project Goals and Associated Performance Criteria.
Goals Objectives Performance Criteria
Goals Specific to the Neuse River and Hannah Creek Watershed Discussed in the
RBRP (NCDMS, 2010 and 2015) and Neuse River Basinwide Plan (NCDWQ 2009)
Restoration and enhancement of
minimum 50 -foot riparian buffers
. Vegetation success criteria of 260 native stems/acre in Year 5 and
along all project reaches.
210 native stems/acre in Year 7.
Remove
• Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable sections (shallow
Direct
Restoration of wetlands.
channels) over the monitoring period.
Nutrient
Decreased water table depths and
. Water table gauges and wells document appropriate stream flow and
Inputs from
increased saturation to promote
extended saturated conditions.
Agricultural
denitrification.
• Wetland hydrology success criteria of saturation or inundation for 10
Lands
percent of the growing season.
Protection of riparian buffers with
a perpetual conservation
• Recordation of a conservation easement meeting NCDMS guidelines.
easement.
• Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable channels and differences
Restoration of appropriate aquatic
between pools and riffles.
in -stream habitat.
. Visual documentation of stable channel condition and in -stream
Remove
structures.
Direct
. Vegetation success criteria of 260 native stems/acre in Year 5 and
Sediment
Restoration of wetlands and
210 native stems/acre in Year 7.
Inputs from
riparian buffer communities.
• Wetland hydrology success criteria of saturation or inundation for 10
Agricultural
percent of the growing season.
Lands
Reduce sediment loads to
downstream receiving waters
. Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable sections over the
from bank erosion
monitoring period.
Additional Benefits to Hannah Creek Significant Natural Heritage Area
Restoration of appropriate
• Geomorphic cross sections that document a variety of channel
channel and bed form diversity
depths and forms.
and in -stream structures to
• Visual documentation of in -stream structure stability during annual
provide appropriate habitat.
monitoring.
Improved
• Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable sections over the
Aquatic
Restoration of self-sustaining
monitoring period.
Habitats
headwater stream/wetland
• Water table gauges and wells document high water table conditions.
systems.
• Wetland hydrology success criteria of saturation or inundation for 10
percent of the growing season.
Restoration of riparian buffer
. Vegetation success criteria of 260 native stems/acre in Year 5 and
vegetation to provide organic
210 native stems/acre in Year 7.
matter and shade.
• Recordation of a conservation easement meeting NCDMS guidelines.
Reconnecting restoration reaches
with remnant headwater
•Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable sections over the
Improved
I
channels.
monitoring period.
Connectivity
Restoration and protection of
• Vegetation success criteria of 260 native stems/acre in Year 5 and
riparian buffers that connect to
210 native stems/acre in Year 7.
existing wooded areas.
. Recordation of a conservation easement meeting NCDMS guidelines.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 26
October 2018

9.0 Monitoring Plan
The monitoring plan for the Site will follow the guidance outlined in the NCDMS Mitigation Plan Template
(ver. 10/2015), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District Public Notice: Notification of
Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District
(October 24, 2016). Monitoring data collected on the site will include reference photos, plant survival
analyses, channel stability analyses, wetland hydrological analyses, and biological data if specifically
required by permit conditions.
Monitoring will be conducted for a period of seven years, unless the USACE, in consultation with the IRT,
agrees that monitoring may be terminated early. Early closure will only be provided through written
approval from the USACE in consultation with the IRT. Annual monitoring reports will be submitted to
the NCDMS by RS no later than November 30 of each monitoring year.
The As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template (ver. 06/2017) will be used to document the baseline
conditions and to prepare the as -built record drawings for the Site. As -built surveys will be conducted
within 60 days after project implementation is completed (following planting and monitoring installations)
to document the recently constructed features and conditions of the Site.
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template (ver. 06/2017).
The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of
project status and trends, population of DMS databases for analysis, and assist in decision making
regarding project close-out.
Wetland hydrology is proposed to be monitored annually for a period of seven years (years 1- 7). Stream
morphology and riparian vegetation is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years with
measurements completed in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Additionally, in years 4 and 6, a brief narrative of site
developments, a representative photo log, and a Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) will be submitted,
barring any need for supplemental reporting.
9.1 Stream Monitoring
Stream monitoring will include monitoring of the hydrologic and geomorphic functions of UTI, UT1A, UT2,
UT3, and UT4. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and extent are summarized in Table
14. Monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance but will also allow monitoring of parameters to
document site performance related to the project goals listed in Section 6. The proposed locations of
monitored cross sections are shown in Figure 11.
Space Purposefully Left Blank
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 27
October 2018

Table 14. Stream Monitoring Summary.
Parameter
Method
Schedule/ Frequency
Number/ Extent
Stream
Full longitudinal
As -built, (unless
All restored stream channels
Profile
survey
otherwise required)
Stream
Two per 1,000 ft of restored
Dimension
Cross sections
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
channel
Visual Assessment
Yearly
All restored stream channels
Channel
Stability
Additional Cross
Only if instability is documented
sections
Yearly
during monitoring
Continuous
Continuous recording
One flow gauge on UTI — R2, UT1
Stream
monitoring water level
through monitoring
— R3, UT1A, UT2, UT3 — R1,
Hydrology
gages
period
UT3 — R2, and UT4
9.2 Wetland Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed to take measurements after hydrological modifications
are performed at the Site. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at intervals
necessary to satisfy the jurisdictional hydrology success criteria within each wetland restoration area
(USEPA 1990). According to the Soil Survey of Johnston County, the growing season is from March 21 -
November 4 (USDA 1994). However, for purposes of this project gauge hydrologic success will be
determined using data from March 1 -November 4 to more accurately represent the period of biological
activity. Based on growing season information outlined in the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (USACE 2010) and
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (IRT 2016), this will be
confirmed annually by soil temperatures exceeding 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 20 inches depth and/or bud
burst.
A March 1 start of the growing season is proposed to allow for extending the growing season during critical
portions of the year for wetland ecology. Specifically, soil biological activity during saturated conditions
is the driving force behind the development of hydric soils and/or hydrophytic vegetation. An extension
of the growing season at the beginning of the year, if early growing season indicators are present, more
accurately depicts actual growing season length at the Site.
Soil temperatures will be collected in late February/early March of each monitoring year and will be
reported in the annual monitoring report. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and
extent are summarized in Table 15. The proposed locations for groundwater gauges are shown in Figure
11.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 28
October 2018

Table 15. Wetland Monitoring Summary.
Parameter
Method
Schedule/
Frequency
Number/ Extent
Data Collected
26 gauges spread
Soil temperatures at the
Wetland
Groundwater
As -built, Years 1, 2,
throughout
beginning of each
plots, 0.02 acre in size
1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
across site
monitoring period,
restoration
gauges
3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
restored and
groundwater and rain data
establishme
created wetlands
for each monitored period.
9.3 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring will evaluate the establishment of planted and volunteer vegetation across the
site. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and extent are summarized in Table 16.
Monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance but will also allow monitoring of parameters to document
site performance related to the project goals listed in Section 6.
Table 16. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Summary.
Parameter
Method
Schedule/
Frequency
Number/
Extent
Data Collected
Species, height,
Permanent vegetation
As -built, Years
32 plots spread
location, grid location,
plots, 0.02 acre in size
1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
across site
planted vs. volunteer,
Vegetation
(minimum)
and age
establishme
nt and vigor
Annual random
18 plots
vegetation plots, 0.02
As -built, Years
randomly
Species, and height
acre in size (minimum)
1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
selected each
year
During quantitative vegetation sampling, sample plots (100 square meters, or 0.02 acre) will be installed
within the site as per guidelines established by the Level 1 and 2 protocols in CVS -DMS Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and
herbaceous species will also be documented by photograph. The proposed locations of permanent
vegetation plots are shown in Figure 11.
9.4 Visual Assessment Monitoring
A visual assessment of the entire project will be conducted on an annual basis. The culmination of this
data will be presented in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV), with supporting documentation
presented in the tables outlined by NCDMS's guidance Annual Monitoring and Closeout Reporting Format,
Data Requirements, and Content Guidance, dated February 2014. Specifically, problem areas of
vegetation, in -stream structures, and channel migration will be noted and documented with photos. After
NCDMS's review of the documentation, additional monitoring protocols may be required to ensure
project success can be achieved.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 29
October 2018

10.0 Long -Term Management Plan
The site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation
easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site
to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by
the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is established. The NCDEQ
Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the non -reverting, interest-bearing
Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account will be
governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A -232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund
may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land
transaction costs, if applicable.
The Site Protection Instrument will be recorded once the mitigation plan has been approved.
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the necessary
performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the members of the
IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
A maintenance plan is provided in Appendix 8, summarizing the types of issues that may arise during
monitoring and how those issues would be addressed.
12.0 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 17A and 17B are projections based upon site design.
Although not expected, if site conditions such as unidentified bedrock, utility easements, discovery of
cultural resources, etc., are encountered during construction of stream channels that result in significant
deviations from the approved plan or credit amount (i.e. more than would typically result from
measurement variations), the as -built report must clearly identify the difference in the length and
associated credit amount and explain how project design and construction were altered, to include
updated plan sheets. These changes, including the revised credit totals, should be submitted to the
District for approval as a project modification.
For projects that include wetland mitigation, restored wetland boundaries are not surveyed because
wetland areas must still be monitored before they are determined to meet hydrology standards, so
wetland credit amounts should not change at as -built unless project limits are altered during construction
(e.g. property is removed or added to a project, planned hydrologic alterations are not carried out, etc.)
Upon completion of site construction, the project components and credit data will be adjusted, if
necessary, to be consistent with the as -built condition, and any changes will be described in the As -built
Monitoring Report. The project proposes to provide stream credits derived from stream restoration
activities, as shown in the Mitigation Plan Conceptual Map (Figure 12). A description of the stream
restoration ratios are presented below. The proposed credit release schedule is provided in Appendix 9.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 30
October 2018

12.1 Restoration and Creation Ratios
12.1.1 (West of Joyner Bridge Road)
The proposed ratios for streams and riparian wetlands on the west side of Joyner Bridge Road will be 1:1
for all proposed and potential restoration areas and 10:1 for creation based on the following:
1. Per USACE discussions during the post -award, initial site evaluation conducted in the spring of 2016.
12.1.2 (East of Joyner Bridge Road)
The proposed ratios for streams and riparian wetlands on the east side of Joyner Bridge Road will be 1.3:1
for all proposed and potential restoration areas and 13:1 for creation based on the following:
Per USACE discussions during the post -award, initial site evaluation conducted in the spring of 2016
and subsequent conversations. The Tract of land East of Joyner Bridge Road was subject to land -use
change in 1997/98. At the time, the Tract was not owned by the current landowner. Discussions were
held between the Sponsor and Todd Tugwell, Special Projects Manager with the Wilmington District,
US Army Corps of Engineers during the initial vetting of the Alliance Headwaters project. The Sponsor
was unable to located NRCS or FSA paperwork regarding the land -use change though a timber lease
between Weyerhaeuser and the previous landowner was located. As a result of mutual agreement,
all mitigation credit being derived on the subject Tract will receive a 30% reduction (i.e. restoration
based mitigation ratio would go from 1:1 to 1.3:1). Correspondence between Restoration Systems
(Sponsor) and Todd Tugwell detailing the reduction is attached for reference in Appendix 10.
12.2 Enhancement Ratio
12.2.2 (East of Joyner Bridge Road)
The proposed ratios for riparian wetlands on the east side of Joyner Bridge Road will be 3.25:1 for
enhancement based on the following:
Per USACE discussions during the post -award, initial site evaluation conducted in the spring of 2016
and subsequent conversations. The Tract of land East of Joyner Bridge Road was subject to land -use
change in 1997/98. At the time, the Tract was not owned by the current landowner. Discussions were
held between the Sponsor and Todd Tugwell, Special Projects Manager with the Wilmington District,
US Army Corps of Engineers during the initial vetting of the Alliance Headwaters project. The Sponsor
was unable to located NRCS or FSA paperwork regarding the land -use change though a timber lease
between Weyerhaeuser and the previous landowner was located. As a result of mutual agreement,
all mitigation credit being derived on the subject Tract will receive a 30% reduction (i.e. enhancement -
based mitigation ratio would go from 2.5:1 to 3.25:1). Correspondence between Restoration Systems
(Sponsor) and Todd Tugwell detailing the reduction is attached for reference in Appendix 10.
12.3 Wetland Preservation Ratio
The proposed ratio for wetland preservation on the project is 10:1 based on the following:
1. The approved jurisdictional delineation of existing forested wetlands.
a. Wetlands specifically proposed for preservation are located up valley and adjacent to the
start of UT3 and UT4 restoration.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 31
October 2018

Table 17A. Determination of Stream Mitigation Credits.
"A PJD package was resubmitted to Samantha Dailey (USACE) and is currently under review for the existing stream channels.
* Restoration Systems is under contract with the Division of Mitigation Services to provide 6,657 Stream Mitigation Credits.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 32
October 2018
Project Components
Reach ID
Existing
Footage n
Stationing/
Location
Restored/ preserved
Footage
Creditable
Footage
Restoration
Level
Approach
(P1, P2, etc.)
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Credits
UT1A
10+00— 10+87
87
87
R
Pi
1:1
87
UTl — R1
4,761
10+00 —14+33
433
433
R
P2
1:1
433
14+33 —16+71 238 238 R P1 1:1
238
UTI — R2
16+71— 21+10 439 439 R P1 1:1
439
21+10 —22+34 124 124 R P2 1:1
124
22+34 —29+44 710 710 R P1 1:1
710
29+44 —30+18 74 19 R P2 1:1
19
30+18 —30+33 15 0 R P1 1:1
0
UTI — R3
10+00— 22+56 1,256 1,107 R P2 1.3:1
852
22+56 —24+63 207 207 R P1 1.31
159
UT2
<1
10+00 —10+88
88
0
R
Pi
1.3:1
0
10+88 —15+29 441 383 R P2 1.3:1
295
15+29 —15+95 66 66 R P1 1.3:1
51
15+95 — 16+52 57 57 R P2 1.3:1
44
16+52 —19+97 345 345 R P1 1.3:1
265
UT3 — R1
3,313
10+00 —16+39
186
186
R
P1
1:1
186
11+86— 12+49 63 63 R P2 1:1
63
12+49 —16+39 390 390 R P1 1:1
390
UT3 — R2
16+39 —23+27 688 688 R P1 1:1
688
23+27 —26+53 326 326 R P2 1:1
326
26+53 —27+88 135 130 R P1 1:1
130
27+88 —29+15 127 0 R P2/131 1:1
0
UT4
1,142
10+00 —11+73
173
173
R
P1
1:1
173
11+73 —12+38 65 65 R P2 1:1
65
12+38 —15+31 293 293 R P1 1:1
293
Totals
—9,217
7,026
6,529
6,029
"A PJD package was resubmitted to Samantha Dailey (USACE) and is currently under review for the existing stream channels.
* Restoration Systems is under contract with the Division of Mitigation Services to provide 6,657 Stream Mitigation Credits.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 32
October 2018

Table 1713. Determination of Riparian Riverine Wetland Mitigation Credits
Project Component
Wetland Mitigation Type
Type
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio*
WMUs
WR1
Restoration
Riparian Riverine
7.11
1:1
7.11
WR2
Restoration *
Riparian Riverine
6.97
1.3:1
5.36
WR3
Restoration
Riparian Riverine
18.47
1:1
18.47
WE1
Enhancement *
Riparian Riverine
0.38
3.25:1
0.12
WC1
Creation
Riparian Riverine
0.54
10:1
0.05
WC2
Creation *
Riparian Riverine
0.55
13:1
0.04
WC3
Creation
Riparian Riverine
0.90
10:1
0.09
WP1
Preservation
Riparian Riverine
16.39
10:1
1.64
Totals
51.31
32.88
* The Tract of land East of Joyner Bridge Road was subject to land -use change in 1997/98. At the time, the Tract was not owned by the current landowner.
Discussions were held between the Sponsor and Todd Tugwell, Special Projects Manager with the Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers during the
initial vetting of the Alliance Headwaters project. The Sponsor was unable to located NRCS or FSA paperwork regarding the land -use change though a timber
lease between Weyerhaeuser and the previous landowner was located. As a result of mutual agreement, all mitigation credit being derived on the subject Tract
will receive a 30% reduction (i.e. restoration based mitigation ratio would go from 1:1 to 1.3:1). Correspondence between Restoration Systems (Sponsor) and
Todd Tugwell detailing the reduction is attached for reference in Appendix 10.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 33
October 2018

Table 17C. Determination of Riparian Riverine Wetland Mitigation Credits for Areas of Potential Wetland Restoration
Project Component
Wetland Mitigation Type
Type
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio*
WMUs
PWR1
Potential Restoration A
Riparian Riverine
0.29
1:1
0.29
PWR2
Potential Restoration A
Riparian Riverine
0.95
1:1
0.95
PWR3
Potential Restoration A
Riparian Riverine
0.90
1:1
0.90
PWR4
Potential Restoration A
Riparian Riverine
0.28
1:1
0.28
PWR5
Potential Restoration A*
Riparian Riverine
1.47
1.3:1
1.13
PWR6
Potential Restoration A*
Riparian Riverine
0.87
1.3:1
0.67
PWR7
Potential Restoration A
Riparian Riverine
1.11
1:1
1.11
PWR8
Potential Restoration A
Riparian Riverine
0.97
1:1
0.97
PWR9
Potential Restoration A
Riparian Riverine
0.17
1:1
0.17
Totals
7.01
6.47
A These areas may become wet after the project has been constructed. Monitoring will be conducted in these areas to determine if they meet the requirements
of a restored wetland.
* The Tract of land East of Joyner Bridge Road was subject to land -use change in 1997/98. At the time, the Tract was not owned by the current landowner.
Discussions were held between the Sponsor and Todd Tugwell, Special Projects Manager with the Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers during the
initial vetting of the Alliance Headwaters project. The Sponsor was unable to located NRCS or FSA paperwork regarding the land -use change though a timber
lease between Weyerhaeuser and the previous landowner was located. As a result of mutual agreement, all mitigation credit being derived on the subject Tract
will receive a 30% reduction (i.e. restoration based mitigation ratio would go from 1:1 to 1.3:1). Correspondence between Restoration Systems (Sponsor) and
Todd Tugwell detailing the reduction is attached for reference in Appendix 10.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS 497086) 34
October 2018

Asset Summary: Mitigation Plan
Restoration
R special Ratio
EI/Enhancement
Ell
Creation
C Special Ratio
Preservation
TOTAL
Alliance Headwaters
DMS Project 97086
Stream Riparian Wetland
If
ratio credit
ac
ratio
credit
4,364
1.000 4,364
30.250
1.000
30.250
2,165
1.3 1,665
9.310
1.300
7.162
0.380
3.250
0.117
1.440
10.000
0.144
0.550
13.0001
0.042
16.390
10.0001
1.639
6,529
6,029
58.320
39.354

13.0 Financial Assurances
A statement regarding the financial assurances for the project can be found in Appendix 11.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 35
October 2018

14.0 References
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, and C. Miller. 2012. A Function -Based
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016
wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team (NC WFAT). 2010. N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
Sweet, W.V. and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships and recurrence intervals
for North Carolina's coastal plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA)
39(4):861-871.
Tweedy, K.L. 2008. A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater Systems.
Conference Proceedings: Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and
Practice. November 3 - 6, 2008, Asheville, NC.
WRP Technical Note VN -RS -4.1. 1997. Species Match Ensures Conversion of Wet Agricultural Fields to
Bottomland Hardwood Wetlands.
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086) 36
October 2018

Figures
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018

Legend
Conservation Easement
HUC (14 -Digit)
Water Supply Watersheds (WSW)
- Protected State Lands
- Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs)
p Massengill Airport
0 1 2 3 4
Miles
FIGURE 1
Fear � �-i
03020201150020
;a
PROJECT LOCATION
35° 22' 19.30" N
78° 20' 25.85" W
A4
l� 4
J
so s
.r
1
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
VICINITY MAP
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
0';
us N+9'1' ,1_'
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
AFCOSYSTFIM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

o aoo soo
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
PR1_:PARED FOR.
N-D
Feet
EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP
FIGURE 2
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
PREPARED BY:
r

r:,-
Wk
•���>f -.r �q 1. (! tom- �-`. �' �� � ('� �\ -\ �,
can
CIO) r !
r 5 .
Rd �� x„<
d
cemcb
11403, 'Ira
Z'
OINI I164
Legend
Servic Layer Credits: C ri :© 2013
Conservation Easement i - Natio fiGeograpFti-cu
r
0 1,000 2,000 ALLIANCE HEADWATERS PREPARED FOR:
Feet TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 3 JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC EcosYsibm
ra. ANNG &
• FST( RATIO N

Legend
Jurisdictional Streams
` UT1 Existing Watershed
U
r , UT2
7_Existing Watershed
- UT3 Existing Watershed
UT1 a., UT4 Existing Watershed
UT1
f '
UT2
UT1lip,
_:.
Via•
L -Z
Note: The drainage network and ditching associated with UT3 was not considered jurisdictional- however the extent
of the existing watershed for UT 3 is shown for consistency and comparison purposes with Figure 413.
PREPARED FOR.
0 600 1,200 2,400 ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
Feet EXISTING WATERSHED MAP
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 4A JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
Ira RF'TORATION

k _
Y
F1'
f
1
' 3 ♦ -14 9"`"' -'Mui, A' �}' �s _ 1, - _
Y
o
04 01 1 PIC
NOR-
i
p x
�.. aT � I ;" w • s�iN � ' .i i � ✓, f' ` ��t_.�:I - tY� �Y
-
n
x- iI r
I .
t
�C ti r"'
5*1
r 1 3 t
_ s
• .
Legend e k• �$ eiT54 Kyp* Y^
Conservation Easements
0 300 600 ALLIANCE HEADWATERS PREPARED FOR:
Feet HISTORICAL AERIAL MAP (1 965)
PREPARED BY
1 ]UUffl 6H JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC ;,7 ft

0
m
W
a:
c�
CD
a
x.
-
.o
.r
MEWS
w
Legend
Conservation Easement
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
PREPARED FOR:
0 300 600 1,200
Feet
HISTORICAL AERIAL MAP (1 97 1)
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 6C
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
tEU5Y5Ih 1
Pi ANNINU &
. RESTORATION

, L
1
�? 0
� I
j
r '
x
i
Cham r_ rr (-.17,:
LEGEND
PROPOSED STREAM CHANNELS
i
Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
X - 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD: �- - -
AE - 1.0 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD (BFE EST )
0 300 600 ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
Feet FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP
FIGURE 7 JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
PREPARED FOR:
0
PREPARED BY:
EcosyS7tM
PLANNING &
�• RESTORATION

• 1 6 S
UT3 R2
tv
t
A
tU T1-R3
UT
2
/ X UT1-R2
•.♦L �\
k, UT3-R
r
!/
Ida
t f
• t � �, � - UT1-R1
UT1
x
- ',
Legend:.
1
Proposed Stream Channels
UT1A Proposed Watershed (0.03 sq. miles)
UT1-R1 Proposed Watershed (0.29 sq. miles)
UT1-R2 Proposed Watershed (0.34 sq. miles)
UT1-R3 Proposed Watershed (0.85 sq. miles)
UT2 Proposed Watershed (0.25 sq. miles)
UT3-R1 Proposed Watershed (0.32 sq. miles)
® UT3-R2 Proposed Watershed (0.55 sq. miles) -'
- UT4 Proposed Watershed (0.21 sq. miles)
-AAA . E
Conservation Easement - • • - • •
0 600 1,200 2,400 ALLIANCE HEADWATERS PREPARED FOR:
Feet PROPOSED WATERSHED MAP
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 9A JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC ECOSvSfFM
• • RESTORATION

All
_
tLAll
oil
•
�r .moi
a
• $;
g
► • 3 r' •
► •
a
Globeri Credits Source ar .
italGbbe, GeoEye, Earthstar

ey
Fremont
Ekj rek a
41
ire
IL
Pine Level
CL
Pikeville r
wkv
10
50 PjCh"Iq maw $kidReference
0.
Site
Pdriceton
Four Oaks
Oaks
+0
eat,
000
b
Goldsboro
Wood
6 Ferns, ".'s
PROJECT LOCATION'
:35' 22' 19.30" N
Swy(now
78o 2 - 0' 26.85" W
r,
Johnwn Au
M at -Mac
ease
4,0
t&V ens
\-J-.h.nn.
Branch Reference Site!
vVilillit -1 -4
8.
Brogden
S 100pi
Newton Grove
11?
Still Creek Reference Site
Legend
dwr 5 pi-pli
Sever,
even J)j I I")
Reference sites
Conservation Easement
Mt Olive
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
PREPARED FOR:
0 2 4
8
Miles
REFERENCE SITES MAP
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 10
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
EcosysFEM
PLANNING &
ARESTORA-HON

Appendix 1
Site Protection Instrument
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
JOHNSTON COUNTY
SPO File Number: 51 -CQ
DMS Project Number: 97086
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this day of , 2018, by William Frank Lee, Managing Member of M
& B LEE, LLC, ("Grantor"), whose mailing address is PO Box 148 Smithfield, NC 27577, to
the State of North Carolina, ("Grantee"), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina,
Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1321. The designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or
neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et seq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 1 of 12

protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Restoration Systems,
LLC and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, to provide stream, wetland
and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Purchase and Services Contract Number 6832.
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, (MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU
recognized that the Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory
mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring,
enhancing and preserving the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) is to provide for compensatory mitigation by
effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing
and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service entered into an agreement to continue the In -Lieu Fee operations of the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources' Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem
Enhancement Program) with an effective date of 28 July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces
the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8`h day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environmental
Quality, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and Council of State
to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument; and
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 2 of 12

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being more
particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 109 and 63.82 acres
and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 3507 at Page 60 of the
Johnston County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the
areas of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and
purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights.
The Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of Hannah
Creek.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.
The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:
Tracts Number Easement Areas Two (2), Four (4), Five (5), and Six (6) containing a total of
22.34 acres, 12.58 acres 12.87 acres, and 0.75 acres, respectively, as shown on the plats of
survey entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services, Project Name: Alliance Headwaters, SPO File No. 51 -CQ, DMS Site No. 95017,
Property of M and B LEE, LLC," dated , 2018 by John Rudolph of K2 Design
Group, PLS Number L-4194 and recorded in the Johnston County, North Carolina Register of
Deeds at Plat Book Pages
See attached "Exhibit A", Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
"Conservation Easement Area"
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the
Conservation Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to
prevent any use of the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these
purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 3of12

use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area
by the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units,
derived from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong
to the Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation
Easement Area for the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey
plat.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this
Conservation Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such
purposes including organized educational activities such as site visits and observations.
Educational uses of the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded
survey plat and as related to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or
vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 4 of 12

H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement.
All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat.
I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except
interpretive signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the
Conservation Easement, signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the
use of the Conservation Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
rock, peat, minerals, or other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering
or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or
shortage of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may
temporarily be withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the
Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ("fee") that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non-transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 5of12

Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities on the property to restore,
construct, manage, maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities
or a long-term management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation
Easement, the rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in -stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock within conservations easements damages the
investment and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which
would cause financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are
required to restrict livestock access to the Conservation Easement area.
E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or
features in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized
activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the
Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the
Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by
such breach. If the breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may
enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an
action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 6 of 12

power and authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Conservation Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages
from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the
immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other
appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the
benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee
acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights
and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all
other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at
reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying
with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from
any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 7of12

obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing
sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any
request to void or modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification
requests shall be addressed to:
Division of Mitigation Services Program Manager
NC State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
and
General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 8of12

VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet
enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 9 of 12

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
(SEAL)
William Frank Lee, Managing Member of M & B Lee, LLC
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF JOHNSTON
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that , Grantor, personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of , 20.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 10 of 12

Exhibit A
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 2
All of the Conservation Easement Area 2 of the Alliance Headwater Restoration Site lying and
being situated in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina and particularly
described as follows (all distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):
Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 1 and being a Southwestern
corner of the Conservation Easement Area 2 and being located North 85°52'16" West 3,733.45
feet from an iron stake (Point No. 234) with N.C. Grid Coordinates N=591,642.1501',
E=2,198,576.8332' (NAD '83, 2011).
Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No. 1), thence North 01 °02'11 " East 1045.25' to an
iron stake; thence North 01°02'11" East 428.45' to an iron stake; thence North 75°06'37" East
154.72' to an iron stake; thence South 64050121 " East 975.12' to an iron stake; thence South
01°37'16" East 114.62'to an iron stake; thence South 33°09'19" West 257.92' to an iron stake;
thence South 50°47'14" West 228.27' to an iron stake; thence South 37°32'45" West 433.28' to an
iron stake; thence South 85°59'53" West 161.70' to an iron stake; thence South 28°31'04" West
288.20' to an iron stake; thence South 00'12'59" West 41.01' to an iron stake; thence South
88'29'01" West 146.56' to an iron stake; thence North 01'20'55" East 30.08' to an iron stake;
thence South 88°28'04" West 35.21' to an iron stake, which is the Point of Beginning (Point No.
1), having an area of 22.34 acres.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 4
All of the Conservation Easement Area 4 of the Alliance Headwater Restoration Site lying and
being situated in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina and particularly
described as follows (all distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):
Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 29 and being a Northeastern
corner of the Conservation Easement Area 4 and being located South 84°16'44" West 1,540.72
feet from an iron stake (Point No. 234) with N.C. Grid Coordinates N=591,642.1501',
E=2,198,576.8332' (NAD '83, 2011).
Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No. 29), thence South 00'14'58" West 352.98' to an
iron stake; thence South 51°20'17" West 140.04'to an iron stake; thence South 43°56'14" West
181.68' to an iron stake; thence South 27020'24" West 190.14' to an iron stake; thence South
46°57'48" West 578.25' to an iron stake; thence South 05°22'39" West 173.93' to an iron stake;
thence South 89°46'24" West 323.72' to an iron stake; thence North 00'12'57" West 463.53' to an
iron stake; thence North 65°29'39" East 183.15' to an iron stake; thence North 48'l Vl 3" East
625.25' to an iron stake; thence North 44'16'34" East 193.01' to an iron stake; thence North
63°28'05" East 54.39' to an iron stake; thence North 66°08'43" East 77.02' to an iron stake;
thence North 29°20'05" East 144.82' to an iron stake; thence North 19'52'17 " East 113.64' to an
iron stake; thence North 89°34'31" East 18.49' to an iron stake; thence South 45°03'18" East
104.72' to an iron stake, which is the Point of Beginning (Point No. 29), having an area of 12.58
acres.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page I 1 of 12

CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 5
All of the Conservation Easement Area 5 of the Alliance Headwater Restoration Site lying and
being situated in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina and particularly
described as follows (all distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):
Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 44 and being a Southeastern
corner of the Conservation Easement Area 5 and being located South 63° 15'05" West 377.93 feet
from an iron stake (Point No. 234) with N.C. Grid Coordinates N=591,642.1501',
E=2,198,576.8332' (NAD '83, 2011).
Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No.44), thence South 38°22'05" West 36.41' to an
iron stake; thence South 77°04'19" West 176.92' to an iron stake; thence North 78°11'46" West
758.95' to an iron stake; thence North 63°59'03" West 121.47' to an iron stake; thence North
30°05'05" East 257.74' to an iron stake; thence North 51 °37'25" East 159.65' to an iron stake;
thence North 40°47'05" East 102.40' to an iron stake; thence North 84'59'13" East 230.22' to an
iron stake; thence North 42°53'29" East 165.04' to an iron stake; thence South 64°53'46" East
148.28' to an iron stake; thence South 82°27'05" East 322.01' to an iron stake; thence South
06°51'44" West 580.04' to an iron stake, which is the Point of Beginning (Point No. 44), having
an area of 12.87 acres.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 6
All of the Conservation Easement Area 6 of the Alliance Headwater Restoration Site lying and
being situated in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina and particularly
described as follows (all distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):
Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 48 and being a Northeastern
corner of the Conservation Easement Area 6 and being located South 60014,05" West 606.04 feet
from an iron stake (Point No. 234) with N.C. Grid Coordinates N=591,642.1501',
E=2,198,576.8332' (NAD '83, 2011).
Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No.48), thence South 40°01'42" West 332.33' to an
iron pipe; thence North 00'44'13 " West 299.97' to an iron pipe; thence South 78011,46" East
222.30' to an iron stake, which is the Point of Beginning (Point No. 48), having an area of 0.75
acres.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 12 of 12

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
JOHNSTON COUNTY
SPO File Number: 51 -CR
DMS Project Number: 97086
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this day of , 2018, by William Frank Lee, ("Grantor"), whose
mailing address is 922 Peach Orcjard Road, Four Oaks, NC 27524, to the State of North
Carolina, ("Grantee"), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of
Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. The
designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs,
successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as
required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 etseq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 1 of 12

protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Restoration Systems,
LLC and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, to provide stream, wetland
and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Purchase and Services Contract Number 6832.
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, (MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU
recognized that the Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory
mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring,
enhancing and preserving the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) is to provide for compensatory mitigation by
effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing
and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service entered into an agreement to continue the [n -Lieu Fee operations of the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources' Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem
Enhancement Program) with an effective date of 28 July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces
the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environmental
Quality, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and Council of State
to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument; and
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 2 of 12

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being more
particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 29.646 acres and
2.79 acres and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 2019 at Page
418 and Deed Book 3538 at Page 685, respectively, of the Johnston County Registry, North
Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the
areas of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and
purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights.
The Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of Hannah
Creek.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terns, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.
The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:
Tracts Number Easement Area One (1) and Three (3) containing a total of 22.65 acres and 0.60
acres, respectively, as shown on the plats of survey entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement
for North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services, Project Name: Alliance Headwaters, SPO
File No. 51 -CR, DMS Site No. 95017, Property of William Frank Lee," dated ,
2018 by John Rudolph of K2 Design Group, PLS Number L-4194 and recorded in the Johnston
County, North Carolina Register of Deeds at Plat Book Pages
See attached "Exhibit A", Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
"Conservation Easement Area"
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the
Conservation Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to
prevent any use of the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these
purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 3of12

II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area
by the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units,
derived from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong
to the Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation
Easement Area for the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey
plat.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this
Conservation Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such
purposes including organized educational activities such as site visits and observations.
Educational uses of the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded
survey plat and as related to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or
vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 4of12

All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat.
I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except
interpretive signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the
Conservation Easement, signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the
use of the Conservation Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
rock, peat, minerals, or other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering
or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or
shortage of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may
temporarily be withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the
Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ("fee") that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non-transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 5 of 12

III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities on the property to restore,
construct, manage, maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities
or a long-term management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation
Easement, the rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in -stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock within conservations easements damages the
investment and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which
would cause financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are
required to restrict livestock access to the Conservation Easement area.
E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or
features in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized
activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the
Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the
Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by
such breach. If the breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may
enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an
action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
power and authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Conservation Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 6 of 12

from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the
immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other
appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the
benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee
acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights
and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all
other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at
reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying
with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from
any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 7 of 12

C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing
sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any
request to void or modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification
requests shall be addressed to:
Division of Mitigation Services Program Manager
NC State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
and
General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 8 of 12

Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet
enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 9 of 12

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
(SEAL)
William Frank Lee
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF JOHNSTON
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that , Grantor, personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of , 20.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 10 of 12

Exhibit A
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 1
All of the Conservation Easement Area 1 of the Alliance Headwater Restoration Site lying and
being situated in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina and particularly
described as follows (all distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):
Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 1 and being the
Southeastern most corner of the Conservation Easement Area 1 and being located North
85°52'16" West 3,733.45 feet from an iron stake (Point No. 234) with N.C. Grid Coordinates
N=591,642.1501', E=2,198,576.8332' (NAD '83, 2011).
Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No. 1), thence South 88°28'04" West 40.00' to an iron
stake; thence South 88028104" West 192.73' to an iron stake; thence South 89°33'57" West
775.69' to an iron stake; thence North 02°05'04" East 883.51' to an iron stake; thence North
72°43'26" East 209.64' to an iron stake; thence North 78'17'01" East 303.82' to an iron stake;
thence North 84° 13'33" East 499.95' to an iron stake; thence South 0l '02'11 " West 1045.25' to
an iron stake, which is the Point of Beginning (Point No. 1), having an area of 22.65 acres.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA 3
All of the Conservation Easement Area 3 of the Alliance Headwater Restoration Site lying and
being situated in Bentonville Township, Johnston County, North Carolina and particularly
described as follows (all distances are ground distances unless otherwise noted):
Beginning at an iron stake (Point of Beginning) labeled as Point No. 18 and being the
Southeastern most corner of the Conservation Easement Area 3 and being located North
86°04'02" West 3,551.13 feet from an iron stake (Point No. 234) with N.C. Grid Coordinates
N=591,642.1501', E=2,198,576.8332' (NAD '83, 2011).
Thence from the Point of Beginning (Point No. 18), thence South 00°12'59" West 185.02' to an
iron stake; thence North 85°33'27" West 150.25' to an iron stake; thence North 01'20'55" East
169.55' to an iron stake; thence North 88°29'01 " East 146.56' to an iron stake, which is the Point
of Beginning (Point No. 18), having an area of 0.60 acres.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 11 of 12

Appendix 2
Site Photographs
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
UT 1: Upstream portion of ditched network facing South.
UT1: Downstream portion below Joyner Bridge Road.
Appendix 1
FIELD VISITS - SEPTEMBER 2015 AND MARCH 2017
UT1: Upstream portion of ditched network facing North.
UT1: Downstream portion upstream of existing farm road crossing.

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
UT2: Near where the stream enters the property. Channelized along the
property line.
UT3: Upstream forested reach (preservation) — Sept. 2015.
Appendix 1
FIELD VISITS -SEPTEMBER 2015 AND MARCH 2017
UT3: Upstream forested reach (preservation) — March 2017.
UT3: Ditched section near outlet of the project site.

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
UT3: Severe erosion in northwest corner.
UT3: Upstream forested reach (preservation) —March 2017.
Appendix 1
FIELD VISITS -SEPTEMBER 2015 AND MARCH 2017
UT4: Upstream forested reach (preservation) — March 2017.
UT4: Upstream forested reach (preservation) — March 2017.

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
UT1: Wooded section downstream of the project site (off-site). Cross-
sections surveyed for reference stream dimension.
Off-site channel surveyed for reference stream dimension.
Appendix 1
FIELD VISITS - SEPTEMBER 2015 AND MARCH 2017

Appendix 3
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2016-00882 County: JOHNSTON U.S.G.S. Quad: NEWTON GROVE NORTH
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Applicant: Mr. William Lee
Address: Post Office Box 148
Smithfield, North Carolina 27577
Authorized Agent: Restoration Systems, LLC
Mr. Ravmond Holz
Address: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Size (acres) 202 Nearest Town Four Oaks
Nearest Waterway Hannah Creek River Basin Upper Neuse River
USGS HUC 03020201 Coordinates Latitude: 35.373455
Longitude: -78.337891
Location description: The Leaf Swamp Wetland Mitigation Site is identified as an approximate 202 acre tract of land,
located on Johnston County, North Carolina Parcels: 159900529471, 159900423303, and 159900814225. These parcel
are located at 1080 Joyner Bridge Road, Four Oaks, Johnston County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Followinp_ Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently
accurate and reliable. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process,
including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation
requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all
waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an
appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters, including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an
effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction overall of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area, which is
not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the
waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC
§ 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
Page 1 of 2

SAW -2016-00882 LEAF SWAMP WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
There are waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to
accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit
may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material,
construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the
Army permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If
you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Ms. Samantha
Dailey at 919-554-4884, ext. 22 or by email at Samantha.J.Daileyna,usace.army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: N/A. An Approved JD has not been completed.
D. Remarks: Refer to the enclosed Preliminary JD Form and Figure 1 (dated October 2017) for a
detailed evaluation of the Leaf Swamp Wetland Mitigation Site.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information for Approved Jurisdiction Determinations (as indicated in Section B. above)
If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request
to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:

SAW -2016-00882 LEAF SWAMP WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Ann: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room IOM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by N/A.
It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence. Digitally signed by
Corps Regulatory Official:
DAILEY.SAIVIANTH DAILEY.SAMANTHA.J.1387567948
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI,
AJA 387567948 Date: 201809.04109: 25MA040' 387567948
Date: September 4, 2018 Expiration Date: N/A
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://corpsniapu.usace.army.mil/cni apex/t?p=136:4:0.

SAW -2016-00882 LEAF SWAMP WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Requestor: Restoration Systems, LLC
File Number: SAW -2016-00882 Date: September 4, 2018
Mr. Raymond Holz
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
ED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of ermission) B
DENIAL C
ED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
L
NARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION F
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information maybe found at Imp: wx\%\.usace.arm\.mil'Missions'Ci\ilWorksRe,ulatorvPro,,ramandPermits.asp\or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section Ii of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

SAW -2016-00882 LEAF SWAMP WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
l;: PRLLIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DFA RMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR
INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may also
and/or the appeal process you may contact:
contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Division
CESAD-PDO
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Attn: Samantha Dailey
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1 OM 15
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the o portunity to participate in all site investiations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant oragent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: #PM_FULLNAME#, 69 Darlington ,Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

"1 9904►111&MA
PRELIMINARYJURISDICTIONAL. DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
September 4, 2018.
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY .ID:
Property Owner/Applicant:
Address:
Authorized Agent:
Address:
Mr. William Lee
Post Office Box 148
Smithfield, North Carolina 27577
Restoration Systems, LLC
Mr. Raymond Holz
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington, Leaf Swamp Wetland Mitigation Site, Restoration
Systems, LLC, Johnston County, SAW -2016-00882
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Johnston County City: Four Oaks
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.3734.55°N, Long. -78.337891° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest water body: Hannah Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLIES):
®
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: September 4, 2018
® Field Determination. Date(s): June 15, 2017
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW .AREA WHICH "MAV BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, and the requestor of this
PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed
decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be
appropriate.
Estimated Amount of
Geographic authority to
Aquatic Resources in
Type of aquatic
which the aquatic
Site Number
Latitude
Latitude
Review Area
resource (i.e.
resource "may be"
(°N)
(°W)
wetland vs. non -
subject (i.e. Section 404 or
Linear
wetland)
Section 10/404)
Feet ,Acres
Wetland 1
35.375485
-78.346730
16.84
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland 2
35.372973
-78.336046
0.39
Wetland
Section 404
UTI
35.372836
-78.342624
4761
Non -Wetland
Section 404
UT2
35.372477
-78.336353
484
Non -Wetland
Section 404
UT4
35.377040
-78.347911
1 142
Non -Wetland
Section 404
OPW 1
35.377685
-78.343901
0.68
Non -Wetland
Section 404
OPW2
35.372892
-78.339642 j
1.20
Non -Wetland
Section 404
OPW3
35.374679
-78.335438 1
0.48
Non -Wetland
Section 404
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, and the requestor of this
PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed
decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be
appropriate.

2. in any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other
general permit verification requiring "pre -construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made
aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms
and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual
permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever
mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a
permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by
that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial
compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)whether the applicant elects to
use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further. an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and
all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R.
Part 331. if, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there "may be " waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be " navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and
identities all aquatic features in the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary ,ID (check all that apply): Checked items should be included in
subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items:
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requester: Axiom Environmental, Inc., submitted a
jurisdictional determination to our office on March 16, 2017, with revisions received on October 30, 2017.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K, NC -Newton Grove North
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil Survey: June 2017.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Corps of Engineers SimSuite — June 2017.
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FFMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): .
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should
not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.
Digitally signed by
DAILEY.SAMANT DN: IcEUS,oAU.S.G vern8ment948
HA11 387567948con=DAIDJ
LEY.SAMANTHA.11387567948
Date: 2018.09.04 09:36:44 -04'00'
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable)
I Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. if the requestor does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an
action.

ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In Johnston County approximately 8 miles south of Smithfield and 1.5 miles
northeast of Strickland Crossroads.
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Johnston County
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.3754850, Long. -78.3467300
Name of nearest waterbody: Hannah Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 10,491 linear feet: 33=6 width (ft)
Cowardin Class: R4SB4/5, R3UB2/3
Stream Flow: Intermittent/Perennial
Wetlands: 17.23 acres
Cowardin Class: PFO1/4
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal: 0
Non -Tidal: 0
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the United
States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party who
requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain
an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site. Nevertheless, the permit
applicant or other person who requested this preliminary JD has declined to exercise the
option to obtain an approved JD in this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre -
construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an approved JD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the following: (1) the permit
applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a preliminary JD, which
does not make an official determination of jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has
the option to request an approved JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the
permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could
possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special
conditions; (3) that the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than
accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all
the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the
Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking any activity in reliance upon
the subject permit authorization without requesting an approved JD constitutes the
applicant's acceptance of the use of the preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be
processed as soon as is practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a
proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all wetlands
and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity are jurisdictional
waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to such jurisdiction in any
administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative
appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an
approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD will be processed as soon as is practicable.
Further, an approved JD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and conditions
contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant
to 33 C.F.R. Part 331, and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be
raised (see 33 C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes
necessary to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site,
or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there "may be" waters of the United States on the subject
project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be affected by the
proposed activity, based on the following information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply -
checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and requested,
appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
please see attached Figures 1-3.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
W

❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Four Oaks NE, NC
(1997) and Newton Grove North, NC (1997) 7.5 -minute quadrangles.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil
Survey (online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov), and Soil Survey of Johnston
County (1994).
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Online mapping tool at
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of
1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): NC OneMap 2013 Orthoimagery.
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the
signature is impracticable)

Estimated amount
Cowardin
of aquatic resource
Class of aquatic
Site number
Latitude
Longitude
Class
in review area
resource
non-section 10—
1. Wetland 1
35.375485
-78.346730
PFO I/4
16.84 acres
wetland
non-section 10 —
2. Wetland 2
35.372973
-78.336046
PFOI/4
0.39 acre
wetland
R4SB4/5,
non-section 10 —
3. UTI
35.372836
-78.342624
4761 linear feet
R3 UB 2/3
non-wetland
non-section 10 —
4. UT2
35.372477
-78.336353
R4SB4/5
484 linear feet
non-wetland
non-section 10 —
5. UT4
35.377040
-78.347911
R4SB4/5
1142 linear feet
non-wetland
non-section 10 —
6. OWI
35.377685
-78.343901
R3UB2/3
0.68 acres
non-wetland
non-section 10 —
7. OW2
35.372892
-78.339642
R3UB2/3
1.20 acres
non-wetland
non-section 10 —
8. OW3
35.374679
-78.335438
R3UB2/3
0.48 acres
non-wetland

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: D3501 Page: 0060 County: 16A)
Parcel ID Number: 1$11M — Sa -q4-11 f �if-A- 3k3
Street Address: 1k8D 5044k WK Ob
fAte OhW51 NL. ;77�>J
Property Owner (please print): AVO'_'M " AdWkk ASE
Property Owner (please print): M+-& I
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Restoration Systems, LLC, the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the US
Army Corps of Engineers, their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above
referenced property for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s).
Property Owners(s) Address:
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number:
Property Owner Telephone Number:
qaa A6" 6&*" 46
*4e. o4JC5 j 4/1, a75�Ly
*9 - (o 3/ T 7005-
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
oo
Za_ �f-
(Pro erty Ownerthorized Signature) (Date)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)

. M r
1
'6�Tho ProjecT.
LlJ Sinittifiel� _� \ V\
LEAF SWAMP
�1 r~� d — __/ '��• t WETLAND
MITIGATION SITE
>toW/i ` ti oC • N c
It ='Cf
Johnston County, NC
Ile
cern
+� '� SITE LOCATION
eua
X01 ~i
.b*rr T� Legend
I. -AV ' ,N
Leaf Swamp Mitigation Site parcels Drawn by KRJ/CLF
Date:
Four Oaks NE, NC (1997) and Newton Grove North, NC MAR 201
Road • • - (1997) 7.5 -Minute Topographic Quadrangles Provided by the
U.S. Geological Survey Scale.
1:20,00
Directions to the Site from Raleigh: Project No.17-002
r l `— �, ' Q - Take 1-40 East out of Raleigh for approximately 27 miles,
Take exit 3288 to merge onto 1-95 North,
'� '555 �� /'7 - After 6.5 miles, take exit 87 toward Four Oaks,
(`' 1 1 T ' ht. K R d dt 13 `I FIGURE
trick and
' Crros�sroadst
` ]I
urn ng ono een oa an rave 2, ml es,
Turn right onto US -701 South and travel 2.5 miles,
- Turn left onto Peach Orchard Road and travel 1.7 miles,
+
J
Turn right onto Joyner Bridge Road.
r
1et
v,J ,,� ,
_� _
After 0.7 miles, the Site is on both sides of Joyner Bridge Road,
r t y
` �•�
`_rCj:
>' t i f
'"
(
Parts of the Site can be accessed via Old Williams Road.
:` )_
_
-. -�.",-
^
- Site Latitude, Longitude 35.375486, -78.346730 (WGS84)

N
EnwormenW, ftx.
- Prepared far:
i
sh 2
sh08 sh%Oi.
sh04
103 -• 5h05 " -13
l� UT4�
e
h1
G0
sg30-strr t
Project
4 T3
'J'-4. �� J :r' LEAF SWAMP
WETLAND
a
°"v2`
j
A, _ .,./;; MITIGATION SITE
µ„x I ,L. ..
�p
sg07 v =' Johnston County, NC
sg08 sg2, g22 z w Metland 1 > -
9
sg06 sg09 J ._3.c� ']lu y -sJa. air. Title.
-. 'sg0$. sg�19 920 _L(c 4 I
`t-59oasg10 1yi: 4 _ >t I ' 7 JURISDICTIONAL
AREAS
�' yy g03 72
917 9181 I I.. --xM„
ota��- WETLAND
�'� DETAIL
' p vW vV 'Jx 9149 d, .Jg. J [ I:�ltl *. �?•?
F
It.
: �lte -k v�G aJ I J &�•- L.
v t }�
...... �A' 1`1
J 1 J I'<s 101 f rewn 6y
Legend J 6r. sL �Jadrf �1 D
Q Leaf Swamp Mitigation Site parcels ="'' "' "� `- = �' _ •••�� "" '� x• Date.
J/ LF
sd03
OCT 2017
Jurisdictional wetlands _
s104 r sd04
Headwater Forest = -17.23 acres -_ aL "= sro -' 414 •,� ; IZ _ sl_ '� '.'. ~ „�;,' _= �!� ,;•,,y 1 ,yt _ �.asd95 Scale: 12000
Jurisdictional streams '` ,f06 k
wtw Oz Jx 14z Protect No..
y7 Stream dataform locations sdofi
sfo s 08 17-002
Wetland dataform locations e0
Open water
Wetland GPS Points FIGURE
2400t LiDAR elevation contours
NCDOT roads 4
0 250 500 1,000 'T
Feet _IWA JI

(/,.,)'
C' ,
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ProlectlSite '
f '
City/County.
J d td Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner w
_ Surface Soil Cracks (88)
_ Surface Water (A1) _
State Sampling Point -
Investigators)
r
Section Township Range I 1 t1 v
Landform (hills". terrace, etc )
Saturation (A3) _
Local relief (concave, convex. none) Slope (%) _• _
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) j'
t
Let
Long �Ci� -± Datum
Soil Map Unit Name �'
til' ``_� E
j
NWI classification
Are climatic t hydrotogtc corwi"ns on the site typical for this time of year? Yes i
No (If no. explain in Remarks )
C
Are Vegetation(I, Soil A
or Hydrology
significantly disturbed?
Are -Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No
Are Vegetation r r Sort
or Hydrology
naturally problematic?
(if needed, explain any answers in Remarks
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present') Yes { No
K the Sampled Area
Hydric Sou Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary indicator £(mrnanum of two reaurred)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (88)
_ Surface Water (A1) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits IS 15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (810)
Saturation (A3) _
Hydioyen Sulfide Calor (Cl)
_ Moss Trim Lines (8181
_ Water Marks (81)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
Pressramg*'teduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
Recent iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Saturation Visible on Aenai Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mal or Crust (84) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Geomorphic Positron (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (89)
Sphagnum moss (138) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No V Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches'
Saturation Present? Yes _ No Depth (inches) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes " No _
includes capolary hinet
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge mcniforing well aerial photos previous inspecUons), if available
.Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point f
Absolute Dominant indicator Domro
Dominance Test vrksheet.
Tree Stratum IPlot size - I ) % Cover SQecles? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 That Are OBI. FACW. or FAC
2
Total % Cover of
Multioty by
3
x t =
FACW species
x 2 =
4
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
5
x 5 =
Column Totals
(A) {B)
6
--- -- —
7
8
_ = Total Cover
50% of total cover
0
20% of total cover
SaplinW51hrub
Stratum (Plot size
)
1
(11�L
2
A,: U t
3
_LS=
4
5
6
7
8
= Total Cover
50°,6 of total cover
20% of total cover (n, �
Herb Stratum (Ptd size )
r ` ` t
1
% fit
PAC
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tt
12
r
Total Cover
50% of total cover
17.
20% of total cover _7
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size i
1
2
3
4
5
Total Cover
50% of total cover
r20%
of total cover
Remarks
(If observed, list morphologicai adaptations below)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species `.
That Are OBI FACW or FAC IA/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of
Multioty by
OBI speoes
x t =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPI species
x 5 =
Column Totals
(A) {B)
Prevalence Index = EVA =
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophyt-e Vegetation
2 - Dominance Tests >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Indicators of hydnc son and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless distu,bed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata,
Tree - Woody plants excluding Anes 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
Herb - All herbaceous (noxi -woody) plants regardless
of size and woody plants less than 3 28 R tall
Woody vine - All woorty canes greater than 3 28 R in
height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0

r.'
SOIL Sampling Pant �'7
Profits Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matnx Redox Features
(inches) Color (mast) % Color (mast Sb T qe Lo * Texture Remarks
'Type C=Concentration D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
`Location PL=Pare Lining, M=Matrix
Hyddc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless othervAse noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils":
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Poiyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T. U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Hlstic Epipedon (A2)
_ 'Mn Dark Surface (S91 (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Hislic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR Oi
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A.B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Greyed Matrix IF 2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P. S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (AS)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (1720)
„ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (1761
(MLRA 1535)
_ 5 em Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P. T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface IF 7)
_ Ree Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Mari (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11 i
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iran -Manganese Masses IF 12) (LRR O, P. T)
indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
i Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbnc Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wettand hydrology must be present
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochnc (F 17) (MLRA 1511
unless disturbed or problematic
_ Sandy Gleyed Matnx (S41 _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 149A)
_
Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 119A, 153C, 1530)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P. S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
,, 4kk .
US Army Corps of Engineers t 0 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
r �+ /
Profecvsde. 1_ �,! ,� .... !' City/County �`t P&,' ,,, '. :I , i7�'44't/ Sampling Date. _Y
Appiscant/Owner ° t a� tt ? t_. ( r Q-*' State - Sampling Point
Investigator(s) t' %« ` Section Township. Range.
Landform (hillsiope terrace etc) { ` + Local relief (concave. convex, none). Slope (%)
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) f Ler r. Long 7 `L� ?,` �' ® Datum'
Sal Map Unit Name NWi classification
Are climatic r hydollogic conditions on the site typical this time of year? Yes No (If no explain Ren
-larks Rearks )
Are Vegetation Al/Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are'Normai C,rcumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation 7 Soil of Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ;
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicator.
$S3iPdary Irldlcators (ming num oftwo required)
Primary Indicalors (inintmum of one is required,
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (86)
_ Surface Water (A1) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8i
_ High Water Table (A2) i
Mart Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (810)
_ Saturation (A3; _
Hydiuyen Sulfide Odur (C 1)
_ Moss Tnm Lines (B16t
Water Marks (Bt) _
Oxidi�Rhizo�spheres�T,lled
Table (C2)Sediment
Deposits (821
�Rwoots��.asonWater
Prese
sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
tion Visible on AerialImagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)__ --_
fhin Muck Surface IC7)
_ Geomorphic Position (U2)
Iron Deposits (85f
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquitard (D31
_ Inundation Visible on Aen: Imagery (87)
_ PAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (Bgi
_ Sphagnum moss (08) (LRR T, U) i
Fleid Ot►servations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No__ Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes NO Depth (ini:Mes)
Saturation Present? -YIW No Depth (inches. Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes S�killan� frir2eL
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous inspect ons) if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Pant
Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
�J
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size ) °ro Cave' SpSS1fs �$BIys
Number of Dominant Species
1
That Ave OBL FACW. or FAC (A)
2
Total Number of Donxnanl L
3
Species Across All Strata (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species /
5
That Ave OBL FACW, or FAC J (A18)
-
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8
Taal % Cover of Multiply by.
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
r,
50% of total cover _�_ 20% of total caner
FACW species x 2 =
FAC 3 5- 3 = � (! 15-
Seolina/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size �, 1� )
species x
(
�(
FACU species ✓ x 4 = 0
1 l U ,
2
r
0 i% t, 1 '1 t j,
UPL species t x 5 = 7&;--
Column Totals a.:L (A) "66, (8)
3
4
Prevalence index = BlA = �7
5
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6
1 - Rapid Test for i ydrophylic Vegetation
7
2 - Dominance Test is X50%
8
_ 3 - Prevalence index is 53 0'
_ = Total Covet,
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover i 20-A of total cover
Herb Stratum
(Plot We. }
' T
Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
dsturbed
i��_ .,
�. ,- -,�, V'i , s I! •,
be present unless or problematic
2
t, ;its Put 1, V �v {
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3
Tree - Woody plants. excluding Anes. 3 in (7 6 cm) or
4
more in diameter at breast height (DBH). regardless of
5
height.
6
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines. less
7
than 3 in DBH and greater then 3 28 R (1 m) tall
8
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plantsregardless
g
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 it tall
10
Woody vine - All woody vines greater then 3 28 rt in
11
height.
12
= Total Cover
50% of total cover i 7 . 20% of total cover Cn
Woody Vine Stratum
(Plot size ) A
1
2
3
4
5
Hydrophytic
Total Cover
Vegetation s
_
50% of total cover�) 20°k of iota) cover j
Present? Yes No
Remarks (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (mast) % Color (m") % TWe Loc. Texture Remarks
'Location PL=Pae Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Reduced Vervc (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 1530)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P. S, T. U) _
Restrictive Layer (if observed): T
Type
Depth (inches)
ii
Hydric Soil Preserd? Yes No
US Army Caps of Engineers Atlantic and Gut Coastal Plain Region - Version 11 0
:
_ Hislosol (At)
_ Poiyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S. T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipeden (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S91 (LRR S, T. U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outslde MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Greyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedma±t Floodplain Sorts (F 19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (1720)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (1`6)
(MLRA 1538)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A?) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Matena( (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ i cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl IF 10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al t
_ Depleted Ochnc (1711 ) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F 12) (LRR O, P, T)
indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (At 6) (MLRA 150A)
Umonc Surface (17 13) (LRR P, T, U)
weliand hydrology must be present
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochnc (F 17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or probiematic
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Reduced Vervc (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 1530)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P. S, T. U) _
Restrictive Layer (if observed): T
Type
Depth (inches)
ii
Hydric Soil Preserd? Yes No
US Army Caps of Engineers Atlantic and Gut Coastal Plain Region - Version 11 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Proiect(Site �:d. " "t' City/County �.� P " Sampling Date )a'
ApplicanuOwner //-" ^ / r /'' ` State _r% r� Sampling Point. ,'vela _? i'"
investrgsior(sl J"" '%" ,yi, �' Section. TewA�ifP Range
Landfo+m (hillsiope, terraceetc) ' " trr}twV a ^r Local relief (concave, convex, none) t" Slope
Subregion (LRR a MLRA). Lat Long %�f . 3 5°ira Datum /,tr -,I `
r
Sod Map Unit Name It} C3 = �_--_ _ _ NWI classification
Are climatic 'hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this lime of yearn Yes No (It no explain in Remarks 1
i
Are Vegetation �/ . Sal 1, or Hydrology �`. significantly disturbed? Are 'Normai Crcumstances' present? Yes No
Are Vegetation —, Sal •'r , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks }
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No i within a Wetland? Yes - No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology indicators:
_ -----._--
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two renuired)
Prnnery Indicators Iminimurn of one is reuwrecl,
check all that apply)
_ Surface Sod Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS)
r High Water Table (A2)
_ Marl Deposits (815) (LRR U)
; _ Drainage Patterns (Bio)
Saturation tA3;
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odur (C 1)
_ Muss True Laws (B161
_ Water Marks (Bi)
Oxidized Rhtzospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (82)
_ Presence of Reduced iron tC4)
— Crayfish Burrows (CE)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Recent Iron Reduction or, Tilted Sats (C6i
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
L Geornomroic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquitard (03)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
' FAC -Neutral Test (D5i
Waler-Stained Leaves (B9)
? Sphagnum moss (Mt (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Presenl? Yes No Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inchesi
Saturation Present-) Yes - r No Depth (inchesi Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well, aerial photos. previous inspections I. if avadaole
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point/ , 17,71 a
Remarks (If observed list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size '. b� 1 )
% Cover Species) Status
Number d Dominant Species
1
1
f '4'-
j FA/
That Are CBL FACW. or FAC (A)
2
iV;"vs
.���yL�� + f , A
I - --_
- - -�
Total Numbei of Dominant
3
Species Across al Strata (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species 7 t
5
That Are OBL FACW. or FAC (A/8)
—
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
?
8
Total % Cover of. Multiply by
OBI species x 1 =
Total Caner j
�'
J
FACW species x 2 =
50% of total cover
20% of total cover
Selling/Shrub
Stratum (Piot size 3
(
FAC species x 3 =
1
ALP, .rr•
FACU species x 4 =
2
7 e t CjAP.,
'f� �_ r
UPL species x 5=
3
nit= f `f r
l JsrC `4
r
Column Totais (A) (8)
4
Prevalence Index = BtA =
5
Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators:
6
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
It = Total Cover
_
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
500/6 of total carer i 20% of total cover A.
_
Herb Stratum (Plot size f )
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1
tj •;',rte? _ lA
if
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
2
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3
Tree - Woody plants excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
4
more in diameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of
5
height
6
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants. excluding vines less
than 3 in D8H and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tali
8
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants regardless
g
of we and woody plants less than 3 28 R tail
10
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3 28 R in
11
height
12
= Total Cover
50°/0 of total cover
_ 20% of !dal cover i
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size 3jP 1 )
�A[
2
3
4
5
Hydrophytic
Total Cover
Vegetation
k
I
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover
20% of total cover
Remarks (If observed list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Pant
to the
or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (magt) Color (mast) % T;; -e7 LoC Texture Remarks
�"! t
'Type C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Send Grams
"Location. PL=Pore Lining. M --Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless othervNse noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T. U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface 1 S9) (LRR S. T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Greyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sall (F19) (LRR P. S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
! Anomalous Bright Loamy Soots (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P. T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) ILRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P. T)
_ Man (F 10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al t)
_ Depleted Ochroc (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Deck Surface (Al2)
_ iron -Manganese Messes (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Praine Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
! Umbnc Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) (LRR 0. S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 1511
unless disturbed or probtemetic
_ Sandy Gieyed Matnx (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F 18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
_ Sandy Redac (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodpia)n Sats (F19)(MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T. U)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches)
Remarks
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plein Region - Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site I., City/County .T✓/ "a �' Sampling Date _
Appkcant/Owner t` /�! ' t r / +f t " State I ?. Sampling Para )"_'
� Scor. Toshp. RaeInvestigators) thr:i�)0/.7jr J" r
Landform (hdlsbpe. terrace. etc) !I!t Local relief (concave convex. none) Slope (%) l -Z
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) L, Ff Lai - ' Long " 6, ! Datum t'*? k
Soil Map Unit Name x• li� NWI classification
Are drmalic , hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year') Yes No (It no explain in Remarks I
Are vegetation r T Sal /e or Hydrology � significantly distu(bed? Are 'Normal Grcumstances- present? Yes No
Are Vegetation /� Sod ;""t✓ , of Hydrology _y naturally problematic? (if needed explain any answers in Remarks j
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophyu; Vegetation present) Yes Y No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sod Present') Yes No �—
within a Wetland? Yes No
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No X I
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two recurred)
Primary Indicators tinrni mum of one is required Check all that apply)
Surface Sot Cracks (88)
_ Surface Wale( (At) _
Aquatic Fauna (3 13)
_ Sparsely vegetated Concave Surlilce (B8)
High Water Table (A2) _
Man Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patierrs (B1QL-..
_ Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI)
_ Mosta yty.irttEs (616)
water Marks (81) ,
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roofs (C31
__'My -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _
Presence of Reduced Iron fCa)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _
Recent iron Reduction in Tiled Sods (C6
_ Saturafion V sible on Acrel Imagery (C9i
_ Algal Mal or Crust (B4) _
I run Muek Surface ((;!)
Geomorphic Positron (U2)
Iron Deposits (BS)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquilaro (03)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5
_ ,Water-Srarned Leaves B9)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observatfons.
Surface Water Present' Yes No
/ Depth pnchesi
Water Table Present'; Yes No
Uepth (inches.
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches, Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No '
(includes Capillary fringe)
(stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous inspections) it available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regan - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants
Absolute Dominant indicator
Tree Stratum (Piot size ) % Cover Statute
FA (I
3 z A n
4
5
6
7
8
= Total Cover
50% oftotal cover s" Q 20% of total cover
Saolsna/Shrub Stratum (Plot size )
2 �y`YY� Yr 1t 1X L �= FALL
3
4
5
5
7
8
t = Total Cover t
50% of total cover _ 20% of total cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
I
2 a.
3 �—
4
5
6
Total % Cover d.
7
OBL species
x t =
8
x 2 =
FAC species
9
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
l
10
r
t7
= Total Cover
504% or total cover 20% of total cover
WCOCY Vine Stratum (PLO size i r
3
4
5
(If observed
J = Total Cover
50% of total cover_ 20% of total cover _
holoacal adaotations below)
M
Sampling Point
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL. FACW or FAC t( (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata (B)
Percent of Dominent Species
That Are OBL. FACW or FAC (AB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover d.
Mu1110IY bv.
OBL species
x t =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals
(A) (8)
Prevalence Index = 8!A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ I • Rapid Test for Hydrophyttc Vegetauor
_ 2 - Dorn finance Tests >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0
Problematic Hydrophyhc Vegetation' (Explain)
r`
Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
tions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants. excluding vines. 3 in. (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DOH), regardless of
height
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants excluding vines, less
than 3 in DBH and greater then 3.28 It (t m) ten
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size and woody plants less then 3 2811 tall
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 11 in
height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Presents Yes No
US Army COrDS of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0

SCAL Sampling Point t
Prollle Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators) `
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (mast) °b TWer Loc-
Texture Remarks
. t r
'Type C=Concentration, D=De letion RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sano Grams
Location PL=Pae Limng, M=Ma
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
_
Indicators fa Problematic Hydric Soils'
_ Histosol (A1n
_ Potyvalue Below Surface (S8i (LRR S, T, U) _ 1 em Muck iA9) (LRR O)
_ Histic tprpedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck ;A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Hislic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral iF1 i (LRR O)
_ Reduced Verlic (F18) (outside MLRA 150AB)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Greyed Matnx IF2)
_ Piedmont Floodpiam Soils (F19) (LRR P. S, T)
_ Slratified Layers (A5)
„ Deleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomaious Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6
(MLRA 1538)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T. U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F 7)
_ Red Parent Matenai (TFI)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (1`8i
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 121
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Man (F 10) (LRR U)
_ CNCer (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1)
Depleted Ochnc IF 11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (At 2)
_ Iran Manganese Masses (F121 (LRR O, P, T) m6calors ofhydiophyhc vegelabon ano
_ Coast Preine Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbnc Surface IF 13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland nydrology muss be present
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S11 (LRR O, S)
_ Delia Ochnc IF 17) (MLRA 151)
unless cislurbed or problematic
_ Sandy Glayed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Verlic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15081
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmront Floodplain Soils (F191 (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Metnx (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F 20) (MLRA 149A, 153C. 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, u)
Restrictive Layer (If observedl:
Type
Depth iinches)
Hydnc Soil PreserN7 Yes No
Remarks
z
US Army Caps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Piain Regan - Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro(ecvStl@ i NN Y` City/County 1�.A1"�'Y'�'_ Sampling Dater
AppkcantrOwner i' State_ Sampling Point fl,
Investigators) f . ' a %tom r, - Section Townykwp. Range
Landform (hiNslope, tenace. etc )'''"�' Local relief (concave. convex nate) "rt Slope (16) 2
Subregion (LRR a MLRA) LP,�,}]]�,,C Lst T ` t:. Long " . `% ✓�P Datum
Sal Map Unit Name t_lr4)%��mKg5Anwt� r� NWI classification �r44�% jYf j 111
Are climatic ' hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no. explain in Remarks 1 /
Are Vegetation � . Sal / or Hydrology / significantly disturbed? Are 'Norma+ C icumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation A Soil V a Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present') Yes •/ No is the Sampled Area /
No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No V
within a Wetland? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
i
Primary Indicators (ininimurn of are is required
chock all that apply)
_ Surface Water (At)
_ Aquatic Fauna (Bt 3)
_ High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (815) (LRR U)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ HyUiuyen Sulfide OUor (C 1)
_ Water Marks (81)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Sediment Deposits (82)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron iCal
_ Daft Deposits (1913)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilted Soils (C6)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (b4)
— 1 Mn Muck Surface (C /I
Iron Deposits (85)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (89)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No JOK Depth (inches,
/
Water Table Present? Yes '/
No Depth (inches)
Secondary Indicators (min mum of two recurred)
Surface Soil Cracks (86)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterrs (810)
Moss Trim Lines (816)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aenol Imagery (C9)
�f c;eomorphic Positron (Ul)
Shallow Aqurtard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T. U)
Saturation Present? Yes ___k/ No Depth (incites) V Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I/ No
includes capillary ht
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring will, aerial photos previous inspections). if available'
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version : 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point a6 -yl#
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size %4a )
%Cover Soewes? ST&
Number of Dominant Species
1
�r
�_
I That Are OBL. FACW or FAC `' (A)
2
&'o' K1
104
3
j -y „� r)iLoi�Q`°�,, "'"
� fAC
Trial Number of Dominent
Species Across All Strata t/ (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL. FACW or FAC (a8)
6
——..------
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of Multiply by
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total
20% of total cover
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinn/SNub
mover
Stratum (Piot size 3P_I . I
_lit
FAC species x 3 =
t
�• �rNre
� �_ �
FACU species x 4 =
2
Vol✓ Py 4,0`1
?„ •, j'j i
<fL7 e�
UPL species x S =
7
r
Column Totals iA) (BY
3
4
Prevalence index = B/A =
5
Mydrophytic Vegetatlon Indicators:
6
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophyllc Vegetal,or
7
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8I
3 - Prevalence Index Is 53 0
= Total Cover
_
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% qf total cover
20% of trial cover �_
_
Herb
m (Plot size 1 .)
tJ
Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
1
a bra•
�IC
be present. unless disturbed or problematic
2
'
DefiNtions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines 3 in (7 6 cm) or
4
more in diameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of
5
height
6
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants excluding vines less
7
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 M (1 mi tall
8
I
Mefb - Ali herbaceous (non -woody) plants. regardless
g
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 tt tail
10
Woody vine - AJI woody vines greater than 3 28 it in
I1
i height
12
= Total Cover
50% Of total c er 20% of ides rover
!
I
VIn ,Stratum (Pl y2e "-0 1
3
`
4
Mydrophytic
= Total Cover
I Vegetation
50% of total cover
2�5 20% of total cover }
+Present? Yes No
Remarks (Hobserved list morphological adaptahors below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point � .,
to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators )
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Cder imcist) _ Color (mast) %_ Tvoe Loc` Te'xtCure R m ri s
'Type C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matnx, MS=Masked Sand Grains
'location PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'.
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvaiue Belo* Surface ($8) ILRR S, T, UI
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, UI
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black H)stic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
_ Reduced Vertic (F 18) (outside MLRA 150A,81
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gteyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodpia n Soils (F191 (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6i
(MLRA 1538)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T. U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F 7)
_ Red Parent Matenai (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Man (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
Depleted Ochnc (F11) (MLRA 151)
r Thick Dark Surface (At 2)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbnc Surface (F/ 3) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochne (F17) (MLRA 1511
unless d,sturbed or problematic
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy SOxS (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S. T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Guff Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
L��+J r.-� /Count ,r"Sampling
- i h y �D%{/':/ Date
ProlecuSite Ci
Appkcant/Owner Pit J1ti*4-+ J�` M; State ftii�— Sampling Point
Investigator(s) ', /� / � Section,!b�hip. Range ° f{ `�
C� I
Landform (hdlsk>pe )errata etc) Local rebel (concave convex. none)
PA. Slope I%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) Let _ Long _ l "» } " a Datum els to
Solt Map Unit Name NWI classification
Are climatic! hydrologic c n "bons on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (11 no explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil of , of Hydrology significartty disturbed? Are "Norma C rcurnslances present? Yes _LI/ No
Are Vegetation . Soil _ / , or Hydrology naturally problematic') (if needed. explain any answers or Remarks ;
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophylrc Vegetation Presents Yes X No Is the Sampled Area '
Hydnc Sod Present, Yes NO s
within a Wetland? Yes No 'f
Wetland Hydrology Present) Yes No }.
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Nydrotogy Indicators
Prunary Indrealors (mrnimurn of one 13 teauired.
cheek all ;hat apply)
_ Surface Soil Cidcks (B8) j
_ SuAact Water (A t)
_Aquatic Fauna (B 13)
vegetatedCl5ncave Surface (B8)
_ High V`/alar Table (A2)
_�.Fpatsoiy
_Marl Deposits (BtS) (LRR U)r�...---' —
_ Drainage Patterns (BtO) j
_ Satuiabun (A3)
_ Hydru(ifen Sutfidee QdorfVf
_ Muss Tnm Lures (B18i
_ Water Marks (Bt f
_ Oxidi aaspheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (82)
_ resence of Reduced iron (C<)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Recent iron Reduction or Titled Soils (C6
Saturation Visible on Aer nl Imagery tC9 i
_ Algal Mat or, (;mist ($a)
_ 1 fin Muck surface (C/ 1
_ Ueomorphic Position (U2)
lion Deposits (851
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aoudard (D3)
_ inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(B7)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (05)
_ Water -Stained Leaves ',B9)
_ Spnagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth 0rochesi
I
Water table Present'? Yes
No ' Depth (inchesI
Saturation Present? Yes
I
No L_ Depth (inches) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes caodiary frmoe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous inspect -ons) if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regan - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point
3
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominant* Test worksMet:
Tree Stratum (PI size
N� X15 3�. - �
Number of Dominant Species
i Pay 4
_- ki 7 EV
That Are 081. FACW. or FAC } (A)
PW*
k,
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants. excluding vines. less
2 4*5
Total NUMiber of Dominent
3
Species Across All Strata (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are 081. FACW or FAC (AIS)
6-
height
Prevalence Index worksMet:
7
Total %Cover of: Multiply by
6
= Taal Cover
OBI species X 1 =
50% of total c_ 20% of total cover ��
FACW species x 2 =
�
FAC species x 3 =
SFaplin r b Stratum (Plot size I �
I �t�i� ��� � sy'L
FACU species X 4 =
2 �-T
Y
�,,,
UPL species x 5 =
ilt�
_
J �_ 1A4
Column Totals (A) (6)
3 it
4
Prevalence index = B/A =
5
Hydrophyttc Vegetation indlcators:
6
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophylic Vegetation
7
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >500/6
8y1�w/
_ 3 Prevalence Index is 53 0
Total Cover
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
y
50% of total cover +� 200% of total cover
Herb Stratum ( Plot size
)
indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present. unless disturbed or problematic.
2
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3
Tree - Woody plants excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
q ,e
m ore in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6 f r
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants. excluding vines. less
7
then 3 in DSH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tail
8
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants. regardless
9
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 R tail
t0
Woody vine - Ali woody vines greater than 3.28 R in
1 t
height
71
12
= Total Cover
50% oftotal cover 20% of total cover
Woo Vine Stratum (PlQI *Xe. y� r / W i
2
3
4
5
- = Total Cover
50% of total cover �_ 20% of total cover
Remarks (ifobserved, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes V No
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document IM Indicator or confirm
the absence of Indicators)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Cdor tmoisl) % -Mgt:— Lx.
Texture Remarks
tiV'' *1
s V
, .
'Type C=Concentration, D=De ielion. RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Giatris.
'Location PL=Pae Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all
LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'.
_ Hislosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8i (LRR S, T, U) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Hisllc Epipedon (A2)
_ tnin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Hislic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vencc (F18) (outside MLRA 150A B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gieyed Matrix IF2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`191 (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (1`3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dario Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
_ S em Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P. T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F81
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF121
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl IF 10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11)
_ Depleted Ochnc (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (AI 2)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) indicators of hydrophyltc vegetation and
_ Coast Praine Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) _ Umbnc Surface (F 13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland nydrology must be present
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral iSi) (LRR O, S)
_ Della Ochnc (1717) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic
_ Sandy Gieyed Metrix (34)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
_ Sandy Redox tS5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Solis (1`19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6i
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods (F 20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 1530)
_ Dark Surface (S?) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (it observed)'
Type
Depth (inches i
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks
I
US Army Caps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
es user manual version o.0
Project Name
Lear Swamp vvetiano mitigation
Date of Evaluation
February 7, 2017
Site
Applicant/Owner Name
Restoration Systems
Wetland Site Name
Leaf Swamp WMS Wetland 2
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Smith/Axiom
Level III Ecoregion
Southeastern Plains
Nearest Named Water Body
Hannah Creek
River Basin
Neuse
USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit
03020201
County
Johnston
NCDWR Region
Raleigh
❑ Yes ® No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.37287, -078.33603
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes []No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
® NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
® Blackwater
❑ Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in
the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the
assessment area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration
(Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch >
1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
El ®C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief —assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
®B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment
area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B 0 ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ®D ®D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
®A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15 -feet wide ❑> 15 -feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
®A ®A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D M From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
El Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
El Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D n From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H n From 0.5 to < 1 acre
01 01 El From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
®A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas > 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑B 1 to
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition —assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o[]A[]A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
o ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
v [:1B❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
� ®A
®A
Dense shrub layer
L ❑B
❑B
Moderate density shrub layer
U) ❑C
❑C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
a ®A
®A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Streams at the upper end of the wetland are ditched; not so from the middle down. The lower portion of the wetland is bounded by a field ditch,
which likely lowers local surficial groundwater.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Leaf Swamp WMS Wetland 2 Date of Assessment
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Ratina Summa
February 7,
2017
Smith/Axiom
YES
vac,
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes [:]No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
® NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
® Blackwater
❑ Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface ConditionNegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in
the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the
assessment area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration
(Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch >
1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Accompanies user manual version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Leaf Swamp Wetland Mitigation
Date of Evaluation
January 26, 2017
Site
Applicant/Owner Name
Restoration Systems
Wetland Site Name
Leaf Swamp WMS Wetland 1
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Smith/Axiom
Level III Ecoregion
Southeastern Plains
Nearest Named Water Body
Hannah Creek
River Basin
Neuse
USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit
03020201
County
Johnston
NCDWR Region
Raleigh
® Yes ❑ No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-deqrees)
35.37587, -078.34652
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes [:]No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
® NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
® Blackwater
❑ Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface ConditionNegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in
the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the
assessment area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration
(Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch >
1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ®A Sandy soil
❑B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment
area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ®D ®D > 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer— assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
®A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches -
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15 -feet wide ❑> 15 -feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
[]Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ®A >— 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
El Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
El Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
®E ®E ®E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
®A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
®D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
F1 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
®A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o®A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
@ ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
z
o ®A
®A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
Moderate layer
L ®B
®B
density shrub
Cn ❑C
❑C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
®C
®C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
®A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
❑B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
®A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
®A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
❑B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Streams at the upper end of the wetland are ditched; not so from the middle down. The lower portion of the wetland is bounded by a field ditch,
which likely lowers local surficial groundwater.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Leaf Swamp WMS Wetland 1 Date of Assessment
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Ratina Summa
January 26,
2017
Smith/Axiom
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
HIGH
Sub -surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC Division of Water Quality —Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWQ Stream !identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 2 ,' ;
Project/Site. } . s
Latitude: 3 3?S S2 G
Evaluator: , ,..
County:
Longitude: _�� "rt
Total Points:,
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other N W ioe 6�s/c n,!
Stream s at least intermittent� •� � �
Ephemeral Interni a Perennial
e g Quad Name:
I >_ 19 or perennial d>_ 30'
21:�
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = !I j
Absent I
W_ea_k____T
Moderate
Strong
13Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
T
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
21:�
3
3 In -channel structureex riffle -pool. step -pool,
ripple -pool se uence
0
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5 Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2-
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
Q
1
i 2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1:7)
2
3
8 Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
05
1.5
10 Natural valley
0
0.5
1,5
11 Second or greater order channel
.- rit0 -
Yes = 3
Sketch
a artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 13
12 Presence of Baseflow
0 1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
. 0 t
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1,5
0.5 0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0 .5
1 1 5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
1 _
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal =± . -;)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
1 5
23. Crayfish
tf)
05
1
1 5
24. Amphibians
Q
05
1
1 5
25 Algae
0.5
1
1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75: OBL = 1 5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch
i
41

NC Division of Water Quality —Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Orisons v. 4.11
NC DWO Strcam Identification Form Wrsion 4.11
Date:
Project/Site A l o r u
f
Latitude:
Evaluator: ,
County: T _
Longitude:
0
�1. 1 0.5
2
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
, '
Other ti.,„je A-1Stream
is at least intermittent — -
- _
Ephemeral {Intermittent Perennial
e g quad Name:
if a 19 or rennial d >- 30'
0
�J
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = : 7
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
�1. 1 0.5
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1�
2
3
3 In -channel structure ex riffle -pool. step -pool.
ripple -pool sequence
0
�J
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
L
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
T�
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0)
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
D
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
FACW� 0 7
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
1 5
10. Natural valley
0
05
1
1 5
11. Second or greater order channel
&0=
Yes = 3
Sketch
a artificial ditches are not rated. see discussions in manual
B Hydrology Subtotal = -i
12 Presence of Baseflow
0 1 1
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1 . 2
3
14 Leaf litter
�1. 1 0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
! 0 0 1
1 5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0 05
1 5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table No = 0 Yes - 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = _ )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2)
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
_
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
ff
05
1
1 5
23, Crayfish
0
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
1L
05
1
15
25. Algae
0
05
1
1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW� 0 7
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
i
Sketch
41

NC Division of Water Quality —Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 1.11
Date:
Project/Site ' y cc-
Latitude:
Evaluator: j f t�
County: r ` v ,
Longitude: _ 3 „ r t Z_
Total Points:
Stream Determin n circle one)
Other AJ"," nr• (rr. /e -
Stream is at least intermittent - _
Ephemeralntermitten erennial
e g Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30' —
0 1 0.5 1
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = (-
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1 1 05
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0 1 0.5 1
3
3 In -channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool se uence
0
1-
�`
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
0.5
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
a').1
0.5
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
05
2
3
8 Headcuts
1
2
3
9 Grade control
J
05
1
1 5
10 Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1 5 I
11. Second or greater order channel
=
Yes = 3
I
Sketch
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloov (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1 1:2:>
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 / 2
3
14 Leaf litter
1 1 05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0 tS 1
1 5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 1 0.5 1
3
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 Yes = 3
1
C. Biology Subtotal = r - .j
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
Z>
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
T7
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
0.5
1
1 5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
0.5
1
1 5
25 Algae
05
1
1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW=6M
OBL = 1 5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also t>e identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
J
Notes
I
Sketch
41

NC Division of Water Quality —Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 1.11
Date:
Project/Site F , e-/
Latitude:
Evaluator:.
County: `--
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Dete on circle one)
Other N�"`' f✓°'� �'�"��
Stream a at /east
p nterml! n Perennial
e quad Name:
B
lif3intermittent'Ephemeral
d a i9 or perennial d>_ 30'
=E:�
3
A- Geomorphology Subtotal = `- ' I
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
_
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
=E:�
3
3 In -channel structure ex. riffle -pool. step -pool.
ripple -pool se uence
16 Organic debris lines or piles
1
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
No = 0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
i',
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
05
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
Q
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
I
t
2
3
9 Grade control
-Q�;
05
1
1 5
10 Natural valley
0 I
Q
1
1 5
11 Second or greater order channel
110 =
E Yes = 3
Sketch
artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B- Hydrology (Subtotal
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
2 j 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
_L_
2 3
14 Leaf litter
1_5
1
05 0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
6
3
1 1 5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1 1 5
17 Sod -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes =
C Biology (Subtotal = 1. * )
18 Fibrous roots to streambed
3
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
1 5
23. Crayfish
05
1
1 5
24. Amphibians
05
1
1 5
25. Algae
0
0.5 _
t
1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 6 7
OBL = 1 5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes.
Sketch
41

NC Division of Water Quality —Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 2 Z 3 t,i-
Project/Site.
Moderate
Latitude: r'
Evaluator: 4>
County: _
a e 5'(�>r
Longitude:
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Total Points:
Stream Dete(circle one)
Other ^�" fly-
Sror.o 4J
Stream is at least intermittent , —
Ephemeral nteffnittenjIi
Perennial
e g Quad Name:
12
if t 19 or perennial if _a 30'
3
9. Grade control
0
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0 1
y'
3
3 In -channel structure ex riffle -pool. step -pool.
0�
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
) 1 _
2
3
5 Active/relict floodplain
0 1'
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches_
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0 _
2
3
8 Headcuts
12
1
3
9. Grade control
0
1
1 5
10 Natural valley
0 0
1
15
11 Second or greater order channel
!No =
24 Amphibians
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
2
1
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
T)
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
05
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1
1 5
16 Organic debris Imes or piles
0
0.5
1
1 5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table*7
-61
No = 0
Yes _
1 5
C Bioloav (Subtotal = _�. 2> )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
JP
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
_0- `
1
2
3
22. Fish
Q')
0.5
1
1 5
23 Crayfish
-61
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
0
0.5-
t
1 5
25 Algae
H
0.5
1
1 5
26 Wetland Dlants in streambed
FACW = 0 75, ORI = 1 5
Other = n
'Perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch
41

r
NC Division of Water Quality —Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
Nu owtj Stream wenllttcatton Norm version 4.11
Date: — — Prof r Latitude:
._ 1
Evaluator: I County:f ,� Longitude: .3 q
-- ---
Total Points: Stream DeterminaUQQ4circle one) Other it/ec4.1
Stream is at least intermittent
if a 19 or perennial if _ 30' 2 7. 2 Ephemeral—Intermiftept Perennial e g Quad Name: Al
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ' ) • ­'
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
15 Sediment on plants or debris
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
37
2
3
3 In -channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool,
npple-pool sequence
0
05
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1 5
3
5 Active/relict floodplain
0
1 ``
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
Q
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0 7
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
3 !
9. Grade control
Q
05
1
1 5
10 Natural valley
0
1
1 5
11 Second or greater order channel
lsta
3 9
Yes = 3
' artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal =
12 Presence of Baseflow
0 t 2
J
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 _L" 2
3
14 Leaf litter
1 1 0.5
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
Q.- 05 1
1 5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 1
1 5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 Yes =
05
C Bioloav (Subtotal = - -- )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
15
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
t
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
1 5
23 Crayfish
05
1 1
1 5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1 5
25. Algae
05
1
1 5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW i -0]2.
OBL = 1 5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods Seep 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch
i
I
i
41

USACE AID14 DWQ z Site u (indicate on attached map)
-.:-; A
FE -3 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Pr•o% ide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ft es icprr- s k ✓"'S 2. Evaluator's name: f JJ r '
3. Date of evaluation: " Z /' " 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: :: A 8 6. River basin: Na <_ -A- �3 - 05 - o A.
7. Approximate drainage area. 1 S. Stream order: I st
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer 1n decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude iex 348723121: _ 47 Z-` ' Longitude (ex -77 5566111: ^3
Method location determined (circle) GP l'opo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): - r ' ' 2 ?
15. Recent weather conditions: f =' 0' e
16. Site conditions at time of visit'
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed 0 -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESt� If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
2 L Estimated watershed land use: 'i o Residential _'% Commercial _% Industrial 1'fl 4•o Agricultural
—r% Forested _o"o Cleared Logged °"o Other (
22. Bankfull width: = 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _-Steep (-10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends /Frequent meander _Very sinuous ,/ Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions. enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): :7 C; Comme
ri
Evaluator's Signature U) ,it^ t� +/-'� Date Z/ 13 9L
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmehtal professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
i
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
f)-4
t)-�
(no flow or saturation = 0: strong 11ow - maxpoints)
Evidence of past human alteration
0 6
-
_
(extensive alteration = 0: no alteration _ max points)
Riparian zone
0- 6
0-4
0-5
(no buffer - 0: conti��uous. wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0 - 5
0 4
t� 4
r
� -
(extensive discharges = it: no discharges = max points(
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 - 4
t) - 4
'
Q
(no discharge = 0. springs. seeps. wetlands, etc. = max points)
v
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 4
(�
f
(no floodplain = 0: extensive floodplain = max points
_
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0 - ;
0-4
0-2
(deepk entrenched - 0. frequent flooding = max points)
S
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0- 6 I
0 t
0-2
(no wetlands = 0: large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5 I
u- 4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0: natural meander = maxpoints)
Iti
Sediment input
0 5
0-4
0-4
-�
(extensive deposition--- 0: little or no sediment = maxpoints)
I I
Size S diversity of channel bed substrate
NA`
0-4
0-5
jfine.
honwaenous - 0: large, diverse sizes = max poir ts)
-
1,
E% idence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
�.
(dee h incised = 0: stable bed R banks = mas points)
1 ;
Presence of major bank failures
O _
i) - i
0 -
�-
-�(severe
erosion = 0: no erosion. stable banks = maxpoints)
Ruot depth and dcnsit} on banks
0 3
0-4
0 5
-
14
no � isible routs = 0: dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
):
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-�
0-4
_
0- 5
-
(substantial impact =0: no evidence = maxpoints)
-
Presence of riffle-poolfripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
l6
(no rifflesiripples or pools = 0: well-developed = maxpoints)
I'
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
F
(,little or no habitat = 0: fre uent. varied habitats = maxpoints)
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 5
0
0 5
-
14
shading vegetation = 0: continuous canopy = max points)
(tit) p
I
14
Substrate embeddedness
NA'
0 -4
((-4
dl
(deeply embedded = 0: loose structure - max)
,0
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0 4
0-5
0 5
(no ev idence - 0. conunon. numerous tv )es = maxpoints)
,1
Presence of amphibians
0-4
o 4
0- 4
-
O
(no e\ idence = 0: common. numerous types - maxpoints)
p
,2
Presence offish
0-4
0 47
0-4
LS
(no evidence = 0: common. numerous types = maxpoints)
Evidence of ��ildlife use
U-6
U -
Flo evidence = 0: abundant eidence - max points)
tov
Total Points Possible
100
( 100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
-r -�
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USAGE AID;; DWQ .. Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: +Zee 4 ar a - rte' 2. Evaluator's name: •J 5
3. Date of evaluation: i ,? 3 x` ,' f 4. Time of evaluation: `� AM
5. Name of stream: Cz r 6. River basin: Nen u ©? — C -1
7. Approximate drainage area:�f 8. Stream order: sr
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County: a �o ✓t
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degree, 12. Subdivision name (if any): /Vi'l
Latitude (ex 34 872312):_
Longitude lex -77 556611):_ — Z g
Method location determined (circle i ai� Topo Sheet (litho [Aerial l Photo/GIS (hher GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N'r - ' r r r 3
15. Recent weather conditions: c r % r .,
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESI�f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 10) 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES 10
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
Forested
22. Bankfull width:
_°,o Commercial _% Industrial `�/u Agricultural
_° a Cleared ; Logged _% Other ( j
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: "' Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (> 100,.)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight ,-Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous raided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 ut the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g.. the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity. and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): /e Comments:
Evaluator's Signature !, tJ , Date 2 / Z f /
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and nvironmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Iliese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POUNT
RANGE
4
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
(
Presence of flo« / persistent pools in stream
I) -i
t) --4
0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0: strong tlow - makpoints)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0 6
0
0
_
`
(extensive alteration = 0: no alteration = max pointsj
Riparian zone
trio buffer = 0; contieuous. wide bufter = max points 1
4
Evidence ot'nutrient or chemical discharges
0_
0 4
0 4 *'
='
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
_
s
Groundwater discharge
0-
0-4
0-4
Q
Ino discharge = 0; springs. seeps. wetlands. etc. = maxpoints)
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 4
0 4
0 -'
f
r
6
(no floodplain = 0: extensive floodplain = max points)
v
y
7
/ floodplain access
0-
0- 4
0-
G
cEntrenchment
= max points)
(dee Iv entrenched = 0: fre ent floodingm
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
fi (
0 - 4
0-11
i no wetlands = 0. large adjacent %%etlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosih
O_;
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max pints
It}
Sediment input
0-
0-4
0-4
('extensive deposition= 0: little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversih of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
( fine. homogenous = 0: large. diverse sizes = max points)
I
Evidence of channel incision or i� idening
0 _ ;
0-4
0-5
�.
(dee lv incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0 - s
0- 5
0-5
--�(severe
erosion = 0; no erosion. stable banks = maxpoints)
Root depth and densith on banks
0-
0-4
0 5
Q
I-1
(no visible roots = 0: dense roots throughout = mar points)
F/
Impact b% agriculture, livestock, or timber production
n
o—a
o—i
j
1 ;
(substantial impact -0: no evidence = max points)
-;
=
160
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
- 3
0-5
o-6
!.
(no riffles, ripples or pools - 0: will-develi� ed = maxpoints)
i-
17
Habitat complexity
0 6
0-6
0-6
(little or no habitat - 0: frequent. varied habitats - maxpoints)
Q
I
Canopy coverage over streambed
0
11 �
0 -�
..
(no shadin, vegetation = 0: continuous canopy = maxpoints)
Substrate embeddedness
( dee 11 embedded = 0: loose structure = max)
_
0
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)0
4
0- i
0 s
(no evidence = 0: common. numerous types = max oints)
}
I
Presence of amphibians
ll-4
0-4
((-4
C
(no evidence = 0; common. numerous types =max Dints)
v,�
Presence of fish
0-4
0 4
t( 4
tlI
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
_.
3
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0
0- i
(no evidence = 0; ahundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
�- TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
Iliese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USAGE AID# DWQ # Site a_ (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: (' • 5fe+Ira, Li 54-_ rV* 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: 2,123 ! r 4. Time of evaluation: !/J5 AM
5. Name of stream: L 6. River basin: e,- 2-e o —owl -oy
7. Approximate drainage area: �� ` '- • °' �"' °' �)8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: s t 10. County: TO 1- n 5 F0 1
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): /VA
Latitude rcx 34 872312): ' ' �" Longitude (ex -77 556611): —?&. F I F 3 3 Z
Method location determined (circle): Topo Sheet Ortho (Aenal) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): r e ` r r ,> a r
15. Recent weather conditions: A L r o a 'Z_1e
r
16. Site conditions at time of visit: wr r' r .rJ� / M
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed _(W\')
18. is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (10 If yes. estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (N-O"D 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: t % Residential —°a Commercial _% Industrial JP Agriculture)
f % Forested _% Cleared i Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ✓Flat (0 to 2%i Gentle (2 to 4%1 _Moderate (4 to 100'.1 _Steep (> 10%1
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends ZFrequent meander _Very sinuous aided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g.. the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 7 Comments:
R
Evaluator's Signature !4) / cge'up Date /
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners an envirAmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to 11SACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06iO3 To Comment. please call 919-876-8411 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
u ;
0-4
0-i
1
(no tlow or saturation = 0: strong flow =maipoints)
_
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0 - 6
0 _ ;
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0: no alteration = maxpoints)
'
Riparian zone
- 6
0 - 4
0-5
f'
no buffer = 0: contiguous, wide buffer = max points) j 0
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0: no discharges = max points i
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0- 4
d
(nu discharge = 0: springs, seeps wetlands. etc. = max points.i
r
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
>
(no floodplain = 0: extensive floodplain = max points)
y
'7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0 5
0-4
0-2
( dee I\ entrenched = 0: frequent flooding = max points )
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
( no wetlands = 0: large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
0
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0: natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-
0-4
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0: little or no sediment = max points (
1(fine,
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
r) -
homogenous = 0: laree. diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 - 5
0-4
0-5
`
�•f
deeply incised = U: stable bed & banks = maxipoints)
FI
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
s
(severe erosion = 0: no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Q
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - !
0
-
(no visible roots = 0: dense roots throughout = max oints)
impact by agriculture, livestock. or timber production
0-5
0-4
IS
(substantial impact =0: no evidence = maxpoints)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
mo riffles/ripples or pools = 0: well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0 -6
0- 6
0-6
( little or no habitat = 0: frequent. varied habitats = max points)
q
Is
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0
(no shadingvegetation = 0: continuous canopy = max points)
o
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
- t �r
(deeply embedded = 0: loose structure = max).
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0->
}
) no evidence = 0, common, numerous es = max points I
21
Presence of amphibians
0. 4
0-4
0-4
i no evidence = 0: common, numerous tv es - maxpoints)
„
Presence of fish
-4
0-4
-4
0-4
0 - 4
i no evidence = 0: common, numerous IN POS = maxpoints)
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
tt - s
0 - s
j
-
(no evidence = 0: abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Passible
( 100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

LSACL AID,
DWQa
1
Site ;;.__, __ ( indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
t. Applicant's name: ens ®ro. i oft 6,t 6 r -c .vf•? S 2. Evaluator's name: Gt% G 4-
3. Date of evaluation: 7/21 i 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: Ca E 1 O 6. River basin: /V LU
7. ,approximate drainage area: '�� a �- 1p • �' '/'8. Stream order: 1 s r
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County: TP 1,7 r° r'
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude le,, 34872312W: 5,E- --E 5 3 longitude (ex -77 5566111: — �p
Methyl location determined (circle) lli;b Toro Sheet Ortho (renal) PhotorGIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams) location)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): ? r r s< r l a t D
15. Recent weather conditions: fi c- > r ell y
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 4K f e "4 t,--) ,a or lY
T
17. Identify any special watenvav classifications known: Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
Frout Water _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES :]Df yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES f�P 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES c�
21. Estimated watershed land use: °% Residential
(P Forested
_°o Commercial —°,o Industrial As21%Agricultural
_% Cleared , Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width: 4, �^Y 23. Bank height ( from bed to top of bank): r
24. Channel slope down center of stream: / Flat (0 to 2"°) _Gentle (2 to 4Q.) _Moderate (a to 10%) _Steep (' 10°0)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends ' Frequent meander _Very sinuous ✓Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation. stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion, Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g.. the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must ranee between 0 and 100. with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):_ '�P'4 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature JJ tf Date 2 /2 3
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners d nviro mental professionals in
gathering the data required by the L nited States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to I SACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change version 06 03 1o Comment. please call `)19-874-8441 x 26

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
(hese characteristics are not arse -.,sed Ill coastal streams
ECORE JON POINT RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
\fountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 5 �
0-4
U - s
(no flow or saturation = 0: strong tloti = mai pints)
_
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
(extensive alteration = 0: no alteration = max pints)
=
t
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
I no buffer = 0: contiI4uous. wide buffer = maxpoints)
.l
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0: no discharges = max points t
Groundwater discharge
0 4
0- 4
Q
(no discharge = 0: springs. seeps. wetlands. etc. = maxpoints)
v
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 -
0-2
I no floodplain = 0: extensive floodplain = max points)
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
I dee Iv entrenched = 0: frequent flooding = maxpoints)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
( no wetlands = 0: large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
0
Channel sinuosity
0_5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0: natural meander = maxpoints)
1 I I
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0- 1
I
(extensive deposition= 0. little or no sediment = maxpoints)
1 1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA
ti 4
0- 5
( tine. homogenous = 0; large. diverse sizes = maxpoints)
I
li
Evidence of channel incision or ss idening
-
0-4
0—?
j
(dee plN incised - U: stable bed & banks - max points I
F
t'
Presence of major bank failures
0-�
( 0-�
0-5
I
a
t severe erosion - 0: no erosion. stable banks - max oints )
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
I 0 -4
0 -
<
Ino visible roots - 0: dense roots throughout = niax oints i
1
Impact by agriculture. livestock, or timber production
U-�
0-4
0- 5
-
lc
Substantial im act =0: no evidence = max points
_
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0
0 5
0-6
16
(no riffles. ripples or pools - 0: «ell -developed - max oinis i
C
17
Habitat complexity
0 6 i) 6
U 6
'-
( little or no habitat = 0. frequent. varied habitats = max pointsI
I
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 s
0- 5
0- 5
r
Ino shading vegetation = 0: continuous canopy = maipoints)
_
19
Substrate embeddedness
N,q=
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0: loose structure = matt
Presence of stream invertebrates I see page 4
0-4
0-5
0-5
i
_0
I no evidence = 0: common. numerous tv es = max points)
I
Presence of amphibians
0- 4
0 t
0- 4
T
(no evidence = 0: common. numerous t` es - max points)
�
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no eridence = 0: common. numerous IN nes - max points)
p
�z
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6 0-5
0-5
-
(no evidence = i); abundant c� idence _max points)
"
Total Points Possible
100 t00
IOU
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
�y
(hese characteristics are not arse -.,sed Ill coastal streams

USAGE AID- DWQ a Site # (indicate on attached map)
a] STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
r
1. Applicant's name: K r- _-+ ' c+ r s ' s" /t" 3. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: L=' (t 7- 4. Time of evaluation: !' : Z AA -17
5. Name of stream: ra E 2 6. River basin: A/c -�L- v `4
7. Approximate drainage area: il8. Stream order. I ~ f
9. Length of reach evaluated: ~'- 0 i t- 10. County: .1 DI't ✓' 'S 'r �''
11. Site coordinates ( if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude ie\ 34 3'7.312): �, `!5- ,5 -�" Longitude (et -7 550611 s: - -7
Method location determined (circle).� 7opo Sheet Ortho (Acnal) PhotorGIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identi(ving stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): < ?- � < . /' J a w .0-7
15. Recent weather conditions: P r'; ? /' y `,-
16.
,
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point' YES3� If yes. estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map" YES N_D� 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
el
21. Estimated watershed land use: "° Residential
Forested
22. Bankfull width:
Commercial _°o Industrial 3v� % Agricultural
Cleared Logged _°ro Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): f
24. Channel slope down center of stream: =Flat (0 to T'�.) _Gentle (2 to 4°,0) _.Lloderate (4 to 10%) _Steep 1>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous ✓Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the must appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g.. the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach The total score assigned to a stream reach must range bet%veen 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ?-j Comments:
1 i
Evaluator's Signature � Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and en Orly omental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAC'E approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change version 06'03 to Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x'_6

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
M
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE '
SCORE
CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont
!Mountain
1
Presence of now / persistent pools in stream
0
0 4
0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0: strong tlo�% - maxpoints)
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
�}
U - 5 i
-
i extensive alteration = 0: no alteration = max points)
3
_
Riparian zone
0-6
0- 4
0-5
(no buffer = 0: contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0 - ;
0 4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0: no discharges = maxpoints)
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0 4
UJ
1 no discharge = 0. springs. seeps, wetlands. etc. = maxpoints)
—
Presence of adjacent floodplain I
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
(no floodplain = 0: extensive flood Iain = max points)
i
,,.
Entrenchment - floodplain access
(1 i
0
)) ,
dee h entrenched = 0: frequent flooding _ max oints)
-"
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-►
0-1
( no wetlands - 0: laree adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
�
Channel sinuosity 0-5
0-4
0-31
(extensive channelization - 0: natural meander = max points)
l i
Sediment input 0- 5
0-4
0-4
(extensive de osition= 0. little or no sediment = max pointsi
/
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA'
0-4
0-5
( fine. homogenous = 0. lark. diverse sizes = max pomisi
1
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 _ ;
0 - 4
ll - 5
y.
(deeph incised = 0: stable bed K banks = maxpoints)
E'
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0--5
a-
,
+�
(severe erosion = 0. no erosion. stable banks = max pointsl
:a
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
(} 4
(1 ;
i
j
14
; no visible roots = 0: dense roots throuchout = max points)
IS
Impact by agriculture, livestock. or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantial impact =0: no evidence = maxpoints)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-_
0-6
(no riflles�ri . les or pools = 0: well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
0 -6
0 6
) (,
(little or no habitat = U: frequent. varied habitats =max points)
1
Canopy coverage over streambed
0- 5
0-5
0- s
j
( no shading vegetation = 0: continuous canopy = maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
N'4"
0-4
0t
( deeply embedded = 0: loose structure = max)
?0
e ag
Presence of stream invertebrates (see 4)
page
0-4
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0: common. numerous tv es = max points;
C:
,1
Presence of amphibians
0 -4 0 . 4
o 4
C
t no evidence = 0: common. numerous types = max pints)
C)
G
��
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0. common. numerous tv pes = max point,)
z
Evidence of wildlife use
0 - 6
t) -
0 - 5
-`
(no evidence = 0: abundant evidence = ntav poinis)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
7
` These characteristics are not assessed ;n coastal streams

USAGE AID- Dk10 Site r. ( indicate on attached map)
FT I 1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 5X" 4"' 1v 2. Evaluator's name: (4)& 1.-
3.
3. Date of evaluation: 2 f' 3 i J. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: h ? 6. River basin: i-Je'd A 03 - -D 7'
7. Approximate drainage area: ?, 2 M ; 2 8. Stream order: ( 4
9. Length of reach evaluated: r i 10. County: Soh h a
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): A1,4
Latitudr Iry 3•i 872312): 7Z 0 -? Longitude (er -77 456011): f3 319 ? �
Method location determined icirclel (t I opo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identify ing stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (i f any): r r e f� t !
15. Recent weather conditions: )4;
16. Site conditions at time of visit.
17. Identifj any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries I labitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES � If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map' a NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: C; 1Residential
9 -qo Forested
i
22. Bankfull width: - 4
24. Channel slope down center of stream. _Flat (0 to 20'.)
/
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey" I NO
_Q,o Commercial _°o Industrial 3&,� °o Agricultural
% Cleared ; Logged _°o Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): �,. •r- r'•` `+-
_Gentle (2 to 44 o) _Moderate (4 to 104,o) _Steep (>100o)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Ver sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification. etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review+ the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.p.. the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality
Total Score (from reverse): 3 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ✓—) I i'—i Date -Z i .: 3 7
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminan assessment of stream
quality. 'The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change version 0603 To Comment, please call 919-876-8.1.11 x '6

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
fltese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
no flog or saturation = 0: strong flow = maxpoints)
0-5
U - 4
0 -
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0: no alteration = matpoints)
0 6
U
0
Riparian zone
no buffer = 0. contiguous. wide buffer = max pints)
p_ 6
U- J
0- 5
-+
a
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0. no discharges = max oints)
0-5
0 4
0-4
J
Groundwater discharge
(( =
0-4
0 -4
Ui
no discharge = 0: springs. seeps. wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
..
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0 ,
}
(no floodplain = 0. extensive floodplain = max pointsi
y
!
Entrenchment / floodplain access0-4i)
--
o
( deeply entrenched = 0: frequent flooding= max points)
�1
S
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 4
0
(no wetlands - 0: large adjacent wetlands = maspoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
(j _ ;
0-4
0-3
(extensive channeliration - 0: natural meander - max oints)
I(1
Sediment input
o-3
0-4
0 --4
(extensive deposition= 0: little or no sediment = maxpoints)
1 1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0 - i
(tine, homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
1,
Evidence of channel Incision or widening
0
i) 4
C(
r
(dee !v incised = 0: stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
E'
Presence of major bank failures
�
13
(severe erosion = 0. no erosion, stable banks = max points)
0-5
U->
0->
14U-3
Root depth and density on banks
0-4
0 �
F
inn visible roots = 0: dense roots throughoutm
= ax points)
f
I,substantial
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0
0 5
impact =0: no evidence = max points)
-
0-4
-
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
(no riffles,ripples or pools = 0: well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
r
( little or no habitat 0. Irc cent. varied habitats = maxpoints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0
0
.,
(no shadingvegetation = 0: continuous canopy = max oints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0 4
0 -4
(deeply embedded = 0: loose structure = max
,0
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0 t
(i s
0 5
}
(no evidence - 0: common. numerous ty-pes = maxpoints)
J
, I
Presence of amphibians
0 -- 4
U- l
0 -4
O
(no evidence - 0. common. numerous types = max points)
O
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
U-4
(no evidence ---0: common. numerous types = max points)
La
-'
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 -
0 - 5
(no evidence = 0. abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
!00
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on fiat page)
fltese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

(-7 (7
USACE AID+`_ _ D%VQ ^".—___._ _.__. Site -_ ____ (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: j< YV 5 2. Evaluator's name: Gt.%&L.
3. Date of evaluation: i 121 /17 4. Time of evaluation: 12-20
5. Name of stream: �–. L� 6. River basin: it l a u S.c o 3 – GKl _ p 4/
7. Approximate drainage area: M 2 ; 8. Stream order: 1 s
9. Length of reach evaluated:___,` p0 F+- 10. County: TPS+ el s ILo
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if an) i:
t_autudc rev 34 8_3(2): `� . S 5 F- Longitude (ex -77 55,6611): -78, 3 q C+O o
Method location determined (urcle) GPS i opo Sheet i6j;;o (Aeriall Phot Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note ncarbv roads and landmar s an attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): :C i r • r+ ��
15. Recent weather conditions: G le n o r M A 71f .,e
16. Site conditions at time of visit: M
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed 0-14 )
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Dllf yes. estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map'' '� NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: S °'° Residential
4&0,° Forested
22. Bankfull width: : T-
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 200)
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (i333 NO
°-o Commercial _4,o Industrial &0 % Agricultural
—0,0 Cleared Logged _% Other (
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3,6- t• r
_Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (.4 to 101'°) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity /�traight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality
Total Score (from reverse): Comments: fes/ 441 r0' ca *' '_ lit r7 e
Evaluator's Signature r1t-) �t Date 2 Z2 -5 / / ?'-
This channel evaluation firm is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmen alal professionals in
gathering the data requited by the United States .army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. I he total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to I SACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06,0-1 To Comment. please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I hese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
4
ECORE.GIOti I'OLN'T
RANGE SCORE
CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont
Nlountam
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in streamVI
0-5
0-4
((-j
I no flow or saturation - ii; strong tlow = max points r
_
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
n-5
(extensive alteration = 0: no alteration - max points)
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
()-3
(no buffer = 0; contiguous. wide buffer = max points)
J
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0 - 4
Z
(extensive discharges = 0: no discharges = maxpoints)
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
U 4
C
(no discharge = 0: springs. seeps. wetlands. etc. = maxpoints)
Presenceofadjacentfloodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
(no floodplain = 0: extensive floodplain = max points
Entrenchment / floodplain access
�j
0-5
0 - 4
0-1
(deeply entrenched = 0: frequent flooding =max ointsl
>;
Presence of adjacent wetlands
a -b
o-4
�
0-_
3
I no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
Channel sinuositv
Cr 5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization =0; natural meander _ rnax Dints)
1 r)
Sediment input
11 - :
0-4
0 -4
( extensive deposition= U: little or no sediment = maxpoints)
]7
11
Size S diversit- of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
( fine. homogenous = 0; lar_c. diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
U-
0-4
0-5 2
(dee )tv incised = 0: stable bed R banks = maxpoints)
1 }
Presence of major bank failures
0- 5
0 5
0 5
3
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion. stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 4
0 - 5
(no visible roots = u: dense roots throughout = max points)
I�
Impact by agriculture. livestock. or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantial impact =0: no evidence - maxpoints)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed - max points)
_
Q
I i
Habitat complexity
U 6
0-6
0-6
( little or no habitat = 0: frequent. varied habitats = max ints)
M
I3
Canopy coverage over streambed
ti -_i
0--5
0-..
2
(n(+ shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy =max Dints
w
1
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
(dee Iv embedded = 0: loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (sec pace 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
'
no evidence = 0. common. numerous types = max points)
,1
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
G
(no evidence - 0: common. numerous tv es max ints
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
Q
M
i o evidence = 0: common. numerous types = max points 1
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
-
(no evidence = 0: abundant evidence = maxpoints)
IJ
Total Points Possible
100
100
l0U
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
r -
I hese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

USAGE AIDn
DWQ a
e-44
Site t: (indicate on attached map)
al STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQV
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: R h1 o r ot b ✓I 5 iz s 4-tp*t1 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: 2.1/ 2 1 l / 7 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: 674 6. River basin: A J r .. u Cl
7. Approximate drainage area: C> Z 8. Stream order: ! ~
9. Length of reach evaluated: 0 (f 10. County: , a o 14 j.- 5 f -o W7 u!
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in de'cimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): /V�
Latitude (c% 14 87_31?): �� . 3 75,y "7 / 9 Longitude (ex -7*7 556611): — ;?3,
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet ho Acnal Plwto/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): K e s t -o ro t, C✓t
15. Recent weather conditions: 4 :c ^ r ^g !,`�, P
16. Site conditions at time r•f visit: `. / a f
17. Identify any special wat_tway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed 11-IV1
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 110117 yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 0>N0 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (j6 NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential Commercial —% Industrial 4t:.6Eb/6 Agricultural
;a% Forested
22. Bankfull width: l F +-
24. Channel slope down 7stmight
f stream: _ lat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: _Occasional bends
_% Cleared; Logged Other (
23. Bank height ( from bed to top of bank):
_Gentle (3 to 4%1 _Nloderate (4 to 10°%0) _Steep (>10%)
_Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation; stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):_— Comments:
Evaluator's Signature &-evtM .4p F? Date 2-1 Z 3 Z17
This channel evaluation form Is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change version 06103. '1'o Comment. please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT N ORKSHEET
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
ECOREGION POINT
ItNNGE
SCORE
CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal j Piedmont
Mountain
l
Presence of now / persistent pools in stream
0- 5
U -4
0 -5
i no flow or saturation = U: strops; flow = max points i
_
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 - 5
(extensive alteration - 0: no alteration = maxpoints)
_
Riparian zone
U- 6
0- 4
U -{
(no buffer = 0: contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0 -
0-4
0 -4
(extensive discharges = 0: no discharges = maxpoints)
Groundwater discharge I
U
0 !
0-4
Z
Q
(no discharge= 0: springs. seeps. wetlands. etc.= max pointsi
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
(!-_
Z
(no flood Iain = (1: extensive floodplain = max ointsi
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
U -?
dee Iv entrenched = 0: frequent flooding = max pDints)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
O
(no wetlands - U: large adjacent wetlands - max points)
��
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-+
I
(extensive channelization - 0. natural meander - maxpoints)
!n
Sediment input
i 0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive -position= 0: little or no sediment = max points)
II
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
i fine, homogenous = 0: large, diverse sices = max points )
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0
0-4 -
(( -
(dee _ k incised = 0: stable bed & banks = max points)
- ,
E'
I;
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
5
0-_
�
( severe erosion = 0: no erosion. stable banks = max pointsi
14
Root depth and density on banks
p
0-3
0-4
0-5
(no visible roots = U: dense roots throughout = max pointo
1
l;
Impact by agriculture, livestock. or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-�
( substantial impact =0: no evidence = maxpoints)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
16
Ino riffles:'ripples or pools= 0: well-developed = max points)
i
E
l
Habitat complexity
i 0-6
0 - 6
0-6
F'
( little or no habitat - 0: frequent. varied habitats = mat points)
I
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 -
0-5
0-_S
(no shading vegetation = 0: continuous canopy = max pointsi
`
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = U: loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates t. see page 41
-4
0-4
0 - .s
t) -
I
(no evidence = 0: common, numerous tv es = max oints)
JPresence
1
of amphibians
0. 4
0 1
1 U- 4
O
tno evidence - 0: common, numerous types - max points)
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
i no evidence = numerous 0: common. mes tv es =max points)
p
,3
Evidence of wildlife use
` 0-6
0-5 I 0-5
(no evidence = U: abundant evidence = maipoints)
-
Total Points Possible 100
100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
.1
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

USAGE AIDg DWQ a Site u_ (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: j 3frM5 2. Evaluator's name: t/�1171-
3. Date of evaluation: 2T Z 3 / t -q 4. Time of evaluation: 12 % 5-7
5. Name of stream: C-* 1- 6. River basin: N e in S r o 'p y
L
7. Approximate drainage area: D . Z 3 M 8. Stream order: J
9. Length of reach evaluated: 3 e {- 10. County: "on
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): i{/14
Latitude tex 3487231-1): 3-s-_ -',"' 3�29 Longitude ler -77 5WI I ): - 78- 39 Z L 7 :7 -
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet �L1tj�,ro (Ac ) Photof �S Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work , if any): k c ! a a 4 SH
15. Recent weather conditions: A1: r n>r M a 0;, , ,;;IrV
16. Site conditions at time of visit: -A) 0r
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (144)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point'. YES fO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map" YES 19) 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 0 NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 4g!!E:°o Agricultural
3% Forested _% Cleared! Logged _opo Other ( j
22. Bankfull width:_ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): Z
24. Channel slope down ceraer stream: _ lat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain. vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): S - Comments:
Evaluator's Signature &J iSJ�� %� Date 21231 /J -?-
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environm ntal professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06,'03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x -6

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
l hese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
!
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of now / persistent pools in stream
00
_ 4
0 _ ;
`+
(no flow or saturation = 0: strop flow= max point I
Evidence of past human alteration I
0-6
0 5 I
O ;
p
-
( extensive alteration - 0: no alteration = max points 1
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0- 5
i no buffer = 0: contiguous. wide buffer = max pints )
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0. no discharges = max points i
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
Z
Q
(no discharge = 0: springs. see s. wetlands. etc. = maxpoints)
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
t no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment r floodplain access0_
5
p_ q
0- _'
R.
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding =max points)
4
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max pointsf
�)
Channel sinuosity
0 5 I
0 4
0 -
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max poinw
_
I)
Sediment Input
0-5
0-4
0--4
iextensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
1 I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
�
(Fine. homogenous = 0: large. diverse sizes = max points i
Evidence or channel incision or widening
;r
tdee Iv incised = 0: stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
�=
tsevere erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max pointsl
Root depth and density on banks
0
0-4
t) -
F
14
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
1,;
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
(substantial impact =0: no evidence= maxpoints)
Presence of riffle-poollripple-pool complexes
0-3
0- 5
0-6
1
F
16
(no riffles -ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points 1
d
l�
Habitat complexity
0 6
0 6
0- 6
F
t little or no habitat = 0; frequent. varied habitats - maxpoints)
q
l8
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
i
0-5 0-5
z
( no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
I9
Substrate embeddedness A.
0-4
0-4
/
(deeply embedded = 0: loose structure = maxi
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) (
5
20
(no evidence = 0. common. numerous types = max points (
( __
3
I
Presence of amphibians 0-4
0--4
0- 4
d
(no evidence = 0: common. numerous ty-pes = max oints)
_
"a
Q
23
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(nu evidence = 0: common. numerous types = maxpoints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
01-6
0 -
i no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max poit is)
Total Points Possible
t00
t00 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first van)
l hese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

Appendix 4
Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document
U r v vc.a 111101 1111W.-
Alliance Headwaters Stream MRlgaWn SRe
Coun Name:
Johnston
EE Number:
1130: 950V Contract* 6832
Project Sponsor:
Restoration Systeme, LLC
ro'ect Contact Name:
Raymond Holz
Project Contact Address,
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211, Raleigh, NC 27604
A ect Contact E-mail:
rholz�restoradonaystama.com
=EP Project Manager:
Crocker, Lindsay U3dsay.CroCkwfincdanr_am
ie Site is located approximately six miles southeast of Four Oaks, NCand one mile eavt of US-7ol with a Latitude
KimeLely of 35 3743 Longitude -79.3426 (NAD 83/WGS 84). Regional physiography is characterized by dreinW
iltural fields and natural muted hardwood timber land.
Restoration of riparian but%rs and stream connectivity will involve 1) low flow channel construction, 2) ditch
ation, 3) elevating existing channels to historic levels, and 4) re -vegetating stream buffer areas. These activities will n
2 streams within 16 acres of conservation easement at the Site.
Reviewed By:
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Adminlstrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:,� �
�- II- J�
Date or Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Alliance Headwaters Stream Mitigation Site
NC DMS Contract #6832 RFP # 16-006477 IMS/Project # 95017
TASK 1 b.) Categorical Exclusion Summary:
Part 1: General Project Information (Attached)
Part 2: All Projects Regulation/Questions
Coastal Zone Management Act
Not applicable — project is not located within a CAMA county.
CERCLA
No Issue — please see the attached Executive Summary from a Limited Phase 1 Site Assessment
performed by Environmental Data Resources, Inc on May 31St, 2016.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 1
No Issue — please see attached letter from Renee Gledhill -Earley State of the Historic Preservation
Office.
Uniform Act
Please see the attached letter, sent to the landowner April 1th 2016.
Part 3: Ground -Disturbing Activates Regulation/Questions
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
Not applicable — project is not located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians.
Antiquities Act (AA)
Not applicable — project is not located on Federal land.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
Not applicable — project is not located on federal or Indian lands.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Below is a summary of federally protected species for Johnston County, NC and our summary of NO
anticipated effects do to the project. A letter was sent to USFWS Raleigh Field Office on 12/16/2016. RS
received a letter of concurrence on 1/12/2017. All documents are attached
Federally Protected Species for Johnston County
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
E
No
No effect
Elliptio steinstansana
Tar River spinymussel
E
No
No effect
Picoides borealis
Red -cockaded woodpecker
E
No
No effect
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
No
No effect
Notes: E — Endangered denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T — Threatened denotes a species that is likely to become on endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Alliance Headwaters Stream Mitigation Site
NC DMS Contract # 6832 RFP # 16-006477 IMS/Project # 95017
Summary of Anticipated Effects
No potential habitat is known to exist on the project site. The proposed project will occur in existing
agricultural fields which are intensively managed for soybeans and other crops. The likelihood of
any habitat occurring on the project site is extremely low.
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites
Not applicable — project is not located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
Please find the attached Form AD -1006 dated 00/00/0000.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
Please find the attached letter from Pete Benjamin USFWS Field Supervisor indicated the project is
"not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species."
Land & Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
Not applicable
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
Not applicable — project is not located within an estuarine system
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
USFWS has no recommendation with the project relative to the MBTA
Wilderness Act
Not applicable —the project is not located within a Wilderness area.

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Project Sponsor: j Restoration Systems, LLC
Project Contact Name: Raymond Holz
Project Contact Address: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211, Raleigh, NC 27604
Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail]
EEP Project Mana er- Crocker. Lindsay [e-mail]
ProjectDescription
The Site is located approximately six miles southeast of Four Oaks, NC and one mile east of US -701 with a Latitude
approximately of 35.3745 Longitude -79.3426 (NAD 83/WGS 84). Regional physiography is characterized by drained
agricultural fields and natural mixed hardwood timber land.
Restoration of riparian buffers and stream connectivity will involve 1) low flow channel construction, 2) ditch plug
installation, 3) elevating existing channels to historic levels, and 4) re -vegetating stream buffer areas. These activities will restore
riparian streams within 16 acres of conservation easement at the Site.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
" �'- d3 of
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
z- ZYZ-
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
..
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Does the project involve ground -disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?✓❑
Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?✓❑
No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
❑✓ No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑i N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real PropertV Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:✓❑
Yes
• prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
• what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 3: Ground -Disturbing Activities
Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of
❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians?
❑✓ No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
✓❑ No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Endan ered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
❑✓ Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑ Yes
✓❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAH-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?✓❑
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
❑ Yes
important farmland?
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
❑✓ Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
❑✓ No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Ma nuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

April 1, 2016
Mr. William F. Lee
922 Peach Orchard Road
Four Oaks, NC 27524
Dear Mr. Lee —
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Restoration Systems, LLC, in offering to purchase
your property in Johnston County, North Carolina, does not have the power to acquire it by eminent
domain. Also, Restoration Systems' offer to purchase your property is based on what we believe to be its
fair market value.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 919-755-9490.
Sincerely,
Raymond Holz
Project Manager
101 HaNnes St.. Suite 21 1 • Raleigh. NC 27604 • �NNcNN.restorat ionsNstems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

P,M NT OR United States Department of the Interior
O r
a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE.
g Raleigh ES Field Office
Qc i `g'9 Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
January 12, 2017
Raymond Holz
Restoration Systems, LLC
1 101 Haynes St., Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Alliance Headwaters Stream Mitigation Site — Johnston County, NC
Dear Mr. Holz:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally -protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlifc
Service's (Service) web page at llttp://www.f"s.gov/raleigh. Therefore, ifyou have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally -protected species.
Our Nveh page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 15' 1 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concerni that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded. or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfil, that requirement and in determining :vilethcr additional consultation :, ith the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information oil the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biologicdi dSSCNSMl :111 01'
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http::'':::::+.fws.go: `raleigh. Please cheep the
web site often for updated information or changes.
I The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation doe,
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimise adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

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

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis of this office at
[phone] ext. 26.
Sincerely,
P to Benjamin
Field Supervisor

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

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
December 29, 2016
Raymond Holz
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Alliance Headwaters Stream Mitigation Site, 61 Old Williams Road, Four Oaks, Johnston County,
ER 16-2347
Dear Mr. Holz:
Thank you for your email of December 16, 2016, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental. rev iewAncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

K> North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
January 18, 2017
Mr. Raymond Holz
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Request for Environmental Information for the Alliance Headwaters Stream Restoration Site,
Johnston County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Holz,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed project description. Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (as amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
Restorations Systems, LLC proposes to complete a stream restoration project for the North Carolina
Division of Mitigation Services. The subject site, referred to as the Alliance Headwater Stream
Restoration Site, is located at the intersection of Joyner Bridge and Old Williams Roads, southeast of
Four Oaks, in the Neuse River Basin USGS HUC 02020201. The proposed work will restore headwater
stream channels through degraded cropland.
Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. The NCWRC recommends the use of biodegradable and
wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control devices. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products
should have loose -weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the
vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing and similar products that have been reinforced with plastic or
metal mesh should be avoided as they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt
and sediment loads can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning
habitat, suffocation of eggs and clogging of gills. Any invasive plant species that are found onsite should
be removed.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
January 18, 2017
Scoping — Alliance Headwaters Stream Mitigation Project
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or gabriela.garrisonAncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

USDA
A"
Natural Resources February 21, 2017
Conservation Service
North Carolina
Raymond Holz
State Office
Senior Project Manager
4407 Bland Road
Restoration Systems, LLC
Suite 117
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27609
Raleigh, NC 27604
Voice 919-873-2171
Fax [phone]
Dear Mr. Holz:
Thank you for your letter dated February 6, 2017, Subject: Request for
Comments — Alliance Headwaters Stream Mitigation Site, Johnston County, NC.
The following guidance is provided for your information.
Projects are subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements
if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to non-
agricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a
federal agency. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section
1540(c)(1) of the FPPA or farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or
unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture to be farmland of statewide local importance.
For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland,
and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA
requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be
forestland, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up
land.
Farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development
or water storage. Farmland already in urban development or water storage
includes all such land with a density of 30 structures per 40 -acre area. Farmland
already in urban development also includes lands identified as urbanized area
(UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a tint overprint
on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, or as
urban -built-up on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Important Farmland Maps.
The area in question meets one or more of the above criteria for Farmland.
Farmland area will be affected or converted. Enclosed is the Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating form AD] 006 with PARTS II, IV and V completed by
NRCS. The corresponding agency will need to complete the evaluation,
according to the Code of Federal Regulation 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection
Policy Act.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources mission.
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

Raymond Holz
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Milton Cortes, Assistant State Soil Scientist at
919-873-2171 or by email: milton.cortes a,nc.usda.gov.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Milton Cortes
Assistant State Soil Scientist
cc:
Kent Clary, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Raleigh, NC

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 02/06/2017
Name of Project Alliance Headwaters
Federal Agency Involved N.C. Division of Mitigation Service
Proposed Land Use Forested Conservation Easement
County and State Johnston County, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received By
NRCS 2/06/2016
P , n Co pleting FQr�
M,lfn fortes RACS NC
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)
YES NO
❑ ❑
Acres Irrigated
none
Average Farm Size
166 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 76% % 390,735 acres
Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 74% % 379,107 acres
Name of Land Evaluation System Used
Johnston Co., NC LESA
Name of State or Local Site Assessment System
none
Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
02/21/2017 by email
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
9.66
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
6.34
C. Total Acres In Site
16.00
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
9.20
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
6.80
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0,0042
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
39
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted Scale of 0 to 100 Points
82
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria Maximum
Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor ro ect use form NRCS-CPA-106 Points
Site A Site B Site C Site D
1. Area In Non -urban Use (15)
15
2. Perimeter In Non -urban Use (10)
10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed (20)
20
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government (20)
0
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area (15)
15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services (15)
15
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average (10)
10
8. Creation Of Nan-farmable Farmland (10)
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services (5)
5
10. On -Farm Investments (20)
5
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services (10)
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use (10)
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
85 0 0 0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
82 0 0 0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment) 160
85 0 0 0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260
167 0 0 0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES ❑ NO ❑
Reason For Selection:
Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 (03-02)

STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
Step 1 - Federal agencies (or Federally funded projects) involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts 1 and III of the form For Corridor type projects, the Federal agency shall use form NRCS-CPA-106 in place
of form AD -1006. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LSSA) process may also be accessed by visiting the FPPA website, hap./Mripa nresusda.aov/lesa/.
Step 2 - Originator (Federal Agency) will send one original copy of the form together with appropriate scaled maps indicating location(s)of project site(s), to the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) local Field Office or USDA Service Center and retain a copy for their files. (NRCS has offices in most counties in the
U S The USDA Of lice Information Locator may be found at http://oftices.usda.aov/scripts/ndlSAP[ dll/oip public/USA map, or the offices can usually be
found in the Phone Book under U S. Government, Department of Agriculture. A list of field offices is available from the NRCS State Conservationist and State
Office in each State-)
Step 3 - NRCS will, within 10 working days after receipt of the completed form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the proposed project contains prime,
unique, statewide or local important farmland (When a site visit or land evaluation system design is needed, NRCS will respond within 30 working days.
Step 4 - For sites where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS will complete Parts 11, IV and V of the form
Step 5 - NRCS will return the original copy of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project, and retain a file copy for NRCS records.
Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form and return the form with the final selected site to the servicing
NRCS office.
Step 7 - The Federal agency providing financial or technical assistance to the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conversion is consistent
with the FPPA.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
(For Federal Agency)
Part I: When completing the "County and State" questions, list all the local governments that are responsible for local land
use controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.
Part III: When completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following
1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conversion, because the
conversion would restrict access to them or other major change in the ability to use the land for agriculture.
2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification (e.g. highways,
utilities planned build out capacity) that will cause a direct conversion.
Part VI: Do not complete Part VI using the standard format if a State or Local site assessment is used. With local and NRCS
assistance, use the local Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA).
1. Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of corridor -type
project such as transportation, power line and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply and will, be weighted zero,
however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points and criterion #11 a maximum of 25 points.
2. Federal agencies may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown on the
FPPA rule after submitting individual agency FPPA policy for review and comment to NRCS. In all cases where other
weights are assigned, relative adjustments must be made to maintain the maximum total points at 160. For project sites
where the total points equal or exceed 160, consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could reduce adverse
impacts (e.g. Alternative Sites, Modifications or Mitigation).
Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used and the total
maximum number of points is other than 160, convert the site assessment points to a base of 160.
Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and the alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:
Total points assigned Site A180 X 160 = 144 points for Site A
Maximum points possible = 200
For assistance in completing this form or FPPA process, contact the local NRCS Field Office or USDA Service Center.
NRCS employees, consult the FPPA Manual and/or policy for additional instructions to complete the AD -1006 form.

Appendix 5
DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018

r�
' I l
,Fcosstem
I1�I1C'l uc t
-11(;.AM ,
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of
the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with
three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Alliance Headwaters
Name if stream or feature:
UT to Hannah Creek
County:
Johnston
Name of river basin:
Neuse
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:
Johnston County, Unincorporated Areas
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
3720158800J
Consultant name:
Erin Bennett, Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
Phone number:
919.388.0787
Address:
559 Jones Franklin Rd
Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
20170830_Alliance[leadwaters_FEMA Floodplain Checklist v4-23-12.docx Page I ot'4

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of I" = 500".
Restoration of a headwater system in Johnston County. The downstream terminus of the
project exists within the 500 year floodplain (Zone X) of Hannah Creek. The project will
have no effect on the existing floodplain mapping.
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority.
Alliance Headwaters Reach Summary Table
Reach
Length linear feet
Priority
UT ]A
87
One (Restoration)
UT 1
3,263
One/Two Restoration
UT 2
865
One/Two (Restoration)
UT3
1,973
One/Two Restoration
UT 3A
977
Preservation
UT 3B
431
Preservation
UT 3C
2
Preservation
UT 4
1,090
One/Two (Restoration)
UT 4
1,080
Preservation
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
❑ Yes E No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
f- Redelineation
F- Study
F- Limited Detail Study
F- Approximate Study
F- Don't know
List flood zone designation: Zone X
Check if applies:
F- AE Zone
❑ Floodway
❑ Non -Encroachment
20170830_Alliancelleadwaters_FEMA Floodplain Checklist v4-23-12.docx Page 2 of 4

E None
I— A Zone
❑ Local Setbacks Required
❑No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?
❑ Yes E No
Land Acquisition (Check)
I— State owned (fee simple)
1— Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
FT Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed
to the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
919 807-4101
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
E Yes ❑ No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP attn: State NFIP Engineer, 919 715-8000
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Berry Gray
Phone Number: 919.989.5150
Email: berry. grayAjohnstonnc.com
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
r No Action
F_ No Rise
r_ Letter of Map Revision
r Conditional Letter of Map Revision
- -. .-I
r Other Requirements
20170830_Alliance}feadwaters_FEMA Floodplain Checklist v4-23-12.docx Page 3 of 4

List other requirements:
None
Comments: Ecosystem Planning and Restoration contacted Berry Grav on August 24,
2017 by email. Mr. Gray confirmed that since the Mitigation Site is in Zone X and
does not include a critical facility. there are no minimum design and construction
requirements because it is outside the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and will not
require a subsequent Conditional Letter or Map Revisions (CLOMR) and a Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR).
Name: Erin Bennett
Title: _Water Resources Engineer
Signature
Date: .08/24/17
2017UR,tl_.\IlianceHeaihNater,_PI:a9n Floodplain Checklist %4-23-12 docx Page 4 ofd

Appendix 6
Assessment Data
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
UT 1 Cross Section Summary
Cross Section 1-1
0 5 10
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 13.4 ft
Width = 8.4 ft
Mean Depth = 1.6 ft
Cross Section 1-2
0 5 10 15
c
1
2
a
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 12.9 ft
Width = 8.4 ft
Mean Depth = 1.54 ft
Cross Section 1-3
0 5 10 15
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 17.8 ft
Width = 12.0 ft
Mean Depth = 1.48 ft
Cross Section 1-1
View facing south toward the start of the ditch
Cross Section 1-2
View facing north toward the start of the ditch
R
Cross Section 1-3
View upstream toward Joyner Bridge Road

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
UT 1 Cross Section Summary
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5
0
i
-2
-3
4
Cross Section 1-4
0 5 10
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 27.0 ft
Width =12.0 ft
Mean Depth = 2.25 ft
Cross Section 1-5
0 5 10 15 20
5
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 42.0 ft`
Width = 24.0 ft
Mean Depth = 1.75 ft
l)
25
Cross Section 1-6
0 5 10 15
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 20.0 ft
Width = 14.0 ft
Mean Depth = 1.43 ft
Cross Section 1-4
View upstream toward Joyner Bridge Road
Cross Section 1-5
View downstream toward farm road and culvert
Cross Section 1-6
View downstream toward farm road and culvert

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
UT 2 Cross Section Summary
Cross Section 2-1
5 10 15
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 18.7 ft Upstream of Cross Section 2-1
Width = 11.5 ft View downstream along ditch channel and upstream
Mean Depth = 1.63 ft of pond and cross section 2-1

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
0
-0.5
-1
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5
LIT 3 Cross Section Summary
Cross Section 3-1
0 5 10 15
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 23.8 ft
Width = 9.5 ft
Mean Depth = 2.51 ft
Cross Section 3-2
0 5 10 15
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
5
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 27.5 ft`
Width = 11.0 ft
Mean Depth = 2.50 ft
Cross Section 3-3
0 5 10 15
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5
Ditch Dimensions
Area = 7.5 ft
Width = 5.0 ft
Mean Depth = 1.5 ft
FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
Cross Section 3-1
View north along ditch channel
Cross Section 3-2
Cross Section 3-3
View northeast along channel near pond

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
0.00 5.00
0
-1
-2
3
-4
XS 4-1
10.00 15.00
5
Bankfull Dimensions
Area = 2.6 ft
Width = 5.2 ft
Mean Depth = 0.5 ft
XS 4-2
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
0
1
2
3
M
Bankfull Dimensions
Area = 2.1 ft
Width = 4.2 ft
Mean Depth = 0.45 ft
FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
Cross Section 4-1
View downstream
Cross Section 4-2
View downstream

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
Reference Reach XS 1
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
0.00
-1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Bankfull Dimensions
Area = 10.2 ftz
Width = 12.2 ft
Mean Depth = 0.84 ft
Reference Reach XS 2
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
5 00
Bankfull Dimensions
Area = 8.6 ft
Width = 12.8 ft
Mean Depth = 0.67 ft
Cross Section 1 -Riffle
View downstream
View downstream

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS FIELD VISITS (2015 - 2017)
Reference Reach XS 3
0.00 5.00 10.00 ls.00
0.00
-1.00 \00*/
2.00
-3.00
-4.00
5.00
Bankfull Dimensions
Area = 3.0 ft
Width = 5.0 ft
Mean Depth = 0.6 ft
Cross Section 3 -Riffle
View downstream

Appendix 7
Plan Sheets
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018

Appendix 8
Maintenance Plan
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018

Maintenance Plan
The Site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be
conducted a minimum of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until
performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and
features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often
in the first two years following site construction and may include the following:
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir
Stream
matting and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along
the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel may
also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head -cutting.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
Vegetation
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species
shall be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control
requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Beaver
Beaver and associated dams are to be removed as they colonize and until the project is
closed.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
Site Boundary
bollard, post, tree- blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be
repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
Road Crossing
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by Conservation
Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.

Appendix 9
Credit Release Schedule
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018

Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey
of the mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the
necessary DA authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE)
has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is
required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency
Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to
meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance
standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case.
Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site
fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject
to the criteria described as follows:
Stream Credit Release Schedule and Milestones — 7 -year Timeframe
Monitoring
Interim
Total
Year
Credit Release Activity
Release
Released
0
Initial Allocation — see requirements below
30%
30%
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
1
standards are being met
10%
40%
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
2
standards are being met
10%
50%(60%-)
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
3
standards are being met
10%
60% (70%*)
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
4
standards are being met
5%
65% (75%*)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
5
standards are being met
10%
75% (85%*)
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
6
standards are being met
5%
80°% (90%*)
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
7
standards are being met and project has received closeout approval
10%
90%(100%)
*Subsequent Credit Releases

Wetland Credit Release Schedule and Milestones — 7 -year Timeframe
Monitoring
Interim
Total
Year
Credit Release Activity
Release
Released
0
Initial Allocation —see requirements below
30%
30%
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
1
standards are being met
10%
40%
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
2
standards are being met
10%
50%
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
3
standards are being met
15%
65%
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
4 A
standards are being met
5%
70%
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
5
standards are being met
15%
85%
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
6 A
standards are being met
5%
90%
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
7
standards are being met and project has received closeout approval
10%
100%
A — Please note that vegetation plot data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring
years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by
the NCEEP without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the
following activities:
a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to
the USACE
covering the property.
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological
improvements to the mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the
NCEEP Instrument, construction means that a mitigation site has been
constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built report has been
produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects
where DA permit issuance is not required.
* Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based
on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream
projects a reserve of 15% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bank -full

events have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance
standards are met. The reserve will be 10% for 7-year monitoring timeframes. In the event that
less than two bank-full events occur duringthe monitoring period, release of these reserve credits
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit
release, the NCEEP will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation
substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be
included with the annual monitoring report.

Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by
the NCEEP
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following
activities:
a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to
the USACE
covering the property.
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological
improvements to the mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the
NCEEP Instrument, construction means that a mitigation site has been
constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built report has been
produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects
where DA permit issuance is not required.
* Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based
on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream
projects a reserve of 1S% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bank -full
events have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance
standards are met. The reserve will be 10% for 7 year monitoring timeframes. In the event that
less than two bank -full events occur duringthe monitoring period, release of these reserve credits
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit
release, the NCEEP will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation
substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be
included with the annual monitoring report.

Appendix 10
Land Use Communication between RS and the USACE
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018

Raymond Holz
From: Tugwell, Todd 1 CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]. mil>
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 5:23 PM
To: Raymond Holz
Cc: Tim Baumgartner ([e-mail]), Crocker, Lindsay, John Preyer
Subject: RE: Alliance Headwaters DMS
Raymond,
After reviewing the information you presented and the technical information from the original proposal, we can agree to
the approach you've described, with a few caveats. I would like it to be clear that the total stream credit provided by the
streams to the east of Joyner Bridge Road (UT 1&2), which will be credited at a 1.3:1 ratio, cannot result in additional credit
beyond the contract amount once sinuosity has been calculated into the project. Additionally, the proposed changes to UT
3 & 4 still need to be reviewed to determine if the channels are present on the site and appropriate for preservation credit.
You also mentioned that RS may be pursuing wetland credit adjacent to the DMS project. This would be a separate
proposal that we would need to consider, and as you indicated, we may again have concerns regarding past activities on
the site with any new proposal. Lastly, keep in mind that there are a number of issues that come up anytime you have two
adjacent projects like this that have different sponsors. Concerns come up about potential conflicts such as responsibility
for performance failures, financial assurances, and long-term management of the sites. Just something to keep in mind
moving forward.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: 919-554-4884 ext 58
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue
to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.
-----Original Message -----
From: Raymond Holz[mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 3:40 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd 1 CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Alliance Headwaters DMS
Todd -
Following up on a voicemail I left you before the break, I had EPR pull together two figures relevant to your questions
below, a project map w/ existing ditch flow direction and a LiDAR map of the upper portion of UT -2 (see attached). When
you have a chance, please give me a call on my cell and we can discuss the questions raised in your last e-mail - 919-604-
9314.
Thank you for time,

Raymond H.
Raymond J. Holz I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 1 Raleigh, NC 27604
tel: [phone] cell: 919.604.9314 1 fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 3:50 PM
To: Raymond Holz <[e-mail]>
Cc: John Preyer <[e-mail]>; Baumgartner, Tim <[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Alliance Headwaters DMS
Raymond,
I have taken a look at the information you submitted. The addition of easement on the western tract seems to be
independent to the issues related to the stream credit within areas that are potentially in violation. Were acquiring these a
requirement of reaching a settlement with the landowner? Also, can you give an estimate of how much additional
mitigation credit you would propose for preserving the headwater features?
With regard to the ratios on UT's 1 & 2, east of Joyner Road, it appears that the location of the proposed easement for UT 2
has totally shifted from what was presented in the original submittal. What is the reason behind this? Would this increase
the creditable length of stream restoration in this area? How did you get to the 453 SMU reduction?
Thanks,
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Raymond Holz[ma iIto: rho [e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 12:22 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW <[e-mail]>
Cc: John Preyer <[e-mail]>; Baumgartner, Tim <[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Alliance Headwaters DMS
Todd -
Please find attached two maps overviewing alterations to the proposed conservation easement at Alliance Headwaters. RS
has been able to negotiate with the landowner on expanding the preservation portion of the easement from 3.6 acres to 10
acres, preserving all headwater features on-site. RS had EPR preform additional survey work to insure we were including all
features and adjacent wetlands. Credit for these preserved streams, is contingent on an IRT site visit during the mitigation
plan review as discussed at the 5-24 meeting and detailed in the attached notes. Regardless of credit approval, the
proposed preservation acreage will remain a part of the project.
In conjuncture with the added preservation acreage attributed to the project (6.4 acres), RS proposes a 1.3:1 mitigation
ratio on UT's 1 and 2, east of Joyner Bridge Road as a resolution to any violation concern on the property. Using the
attached design, this would equate to a 453 SMU reduction. We appreciate your review and consideration of our proposal
to resolve this issue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 919-604-9314.
P]

Sincerely,
Raymond H.
----- ------ ------
Raymond J. Holz I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 1 Raleigh, NC 27604
tel: [phone] cell: 919.604.9314 1 fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW(mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:14 AM
To: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Raymond Holz <[e-mail]>
Cc: Baumgartner, Tim <[e-mail]>; John Preyer<[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea
W SAW <[e-mail]>; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Alliance Headwaters DMS
Lindsay/Raymond,
I apologize for the delay in this. We spoke internally today about this site, and the situation in general. As you know, our
main concern is approving a site for mitigation where the activity that led to the degradation in the first place was in
violation with Clean Water Act regulations in place at the time of the activity. There are obviously many factors that make
each circumstance unique, but to the extent that we can, we try to apply the same standards to all situations.
In the case of Alliance, we have already concurred that tract 1226 can move forward based on the information you
submitted that included a non -wetland determination made by USDA, which we agreed to at the time (even though it
appears that the site did contain wetlands at the time). As for tract 4344, located east of Joyner Bridge Road, we have no
evidence that such a determination was made by USDA, though they did provide a letter stating that they currently
consider the tract to be in full compliance. Unfortunately this does not address our regulations, and a review of aerial
photographs indicates that there were definitely streams on the property and almost certainly wetlands, that were ditched
and filled without receiving required permit authorizations. We also note that this was probably done by the prior owner of
the land, most likely just before the land was purchased by Mr. Lee, the current owner. This is obviously very concerning
for us.
In trying to decide how to proceed in this circumstance, I have considered what potential actions we may take on the
property if it were not used for a mitigation site. In some past cases, we have pursued enforcement actions instead of
allowing the site to be used for mitigation, but this is a bit different because the facts are less clear, USDA has indicated
they would not pursue any violation, and the property ownership has changed. We have also had situations where we have
set up agreements with the sponsor where the mitigation work conducted within the area where the violation occurred
was approved, but at lower credit value to account for the fact that the activity that led to the property being a potential
mitigation site in the first place was not in compliance with our regulations. In this case, I think the easiest way we will see
the site restored is by allowing the mitigation to go forward, which would probably lead to the best environmental
outcome. That said, would DMS and RS consider a slightly reduced mitigation ratio for the restoration work conducted on
Tract 4344? 1 believe the streams in the that tract are proposed for restoration at a 1:1 ratio. If we agree to a 1.5:1 ratio
instead, which would also resolve any concern with the violation, would that be acceptable?
Thanks,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive

Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: 919-554-4884 ext 58
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue
to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
Blocked Blocked http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.
-----Original Message -----
From: Crocker, Lindsay [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 2:56 PM
To: Raymond Holz <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd SAW <[e-mail]>
Cc: Baumgartner, Tim <[e-mail]>; John Preyer <[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea
W SAW <[e-mail]>; Wicker, Henry M 1R SAW <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Alliance Headwaters DMS
Todd,
1 left you a vm, but just checking back in on this. We are currently past a number of contract deadlines, and need your
decision to move this one forward.
Please advise.
Hope you are well,
LC
Lindsay Crocker
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Office 919.707.8944
Cell 919.594.3910
[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
-----Original Message -----
From: Raymond Holz [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 12:59 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW <[e-mail]>
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Baumgartner, Tim <[e-mail]>; John Preyer
<[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W SAW <[e-mail]>; Wicker, Henry M 1R
SAW <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Alliance Headwaters DMS
Todd -
Thank you for the update. I have one last piece of information I would like to pass along regarding the timeline of
ownership and the clearing.

Attached is a June -1997 Timber Deed between Massengill Jr. and the Weyerhaeuser Company. Attachment A of the Deed
is a sketch of the "Sale Area" which aligns with the area of question and reflects that the clearing of the land occurred prior
to the purchase by Mr. Lee. The Attachment A sketch is a little difficult to orient but the corner of SR - 1188 and SR. 1231 is
the corner of today's Joyner Bridge Rd. and Old Williams Rd.
Again, just passing along everything I have uncovered. Look forward to hearing back from you by the end of the week.
Thanks for the time,
Raymond H.
Raymond J. Holz I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 1 Raleigh, NC 27604
tel: [phone] cell: 919.604.9314 1 fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 1:50 PM
To: Raymond Holz <[e-mail]>
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Tim Baumgartner ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; John Preyer<[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W SAW
<[e-mail]>; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Alliance Headwaters DMS
Raymond,
I have looked over the information, including the letter from the FSA office. To me the letter is clear that the USDA does
not consider the tract in question to be in violation. Nevertheless, I am still trying to deal with the fact that the available
historic aerials still show that there were clearly jurisdictional areas, including streams and wetlands, that were in the
process of being ditched/filled as late as February 21, 1999. It is not clear if the work was complete when Mr. Lee
purchased the land five months later on July 6, 1999. Regardless, the regulations in place at the time would have required a
permit authorization for these activities. The fact that FSA does not consider this to be a violation now (as there was no
decision on this at the time) does not change the fact that permits were required for these actions.
I am going to bring this up with Henry & Scott and see how they would like to move forward. I am concerned about
approving any site as a mitigation site that is a past (potentially on-going) violation, regardless of whether we end up
pursuing a violation on the site or not. I don't feel it's appropriate for landowners to benefit from past violations of our
own rules, and doing so could also incentivize such actions in the future.
I'll bring this up ASAP and let you know by the end of next week.
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: 919-554-4884 ext 58

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue
to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
Blocked Blocked Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.
-----Original Message -----
From: Raymond Holz[maiIto: [e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:38 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW <[e-mail]>
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Tim Baumgartner ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; John Preyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Alliance Headwaters DMS
•.•
As discussed on the phone earlier today, I have additional information and correspondence from the Johnston County FSA
regarding the eastern parcel of land of our proposed Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (Johnston County FSA Farm
Number 22612, Tract 4344). As detailed below, current owner Frank Lee was not the owner of Tract 4344 at the time of
timbering and clearing.
When we met on May 24th, it was agreed that RS would work with the landowner and the Johnston County NRCS and FSA
offices to provide a letter re: Tract 4344 currently being in and having been in regulatory compliance; and providing
assurance that the timbering and clearing of the parcel for agricultural purposes between February 1993 and March of 1998
had been done with proper regulatory approval.
At our May meeting, RS had located and provided paperwork dated November 18 1997 from Mr. York, the Johnston County
District Conservationist, regarding the western parcel of our proposed project which was also logged during the same time
period (Johnston County FSA Farm Number 12610, Tract 1226). The paperwork from Mr. York stated, "The wooded area
noted in blue is non -wetland and has no restrictions for agricultural use." It was our assumption at the time of our May
meeting that Mr. Lee owned both Tracts of land during the clearing (since he owns them both now), and that he requested
a delineation be performed on Tract 4344 as he had on Tract 1226, and the paperwork from Tract 4344 had been lost.
Since then, further research has determined that Mr. Lee was not the owner of Tract 4344 during the time of timbering and
clearing. Attachment D, is the Warranty Deed from the sale of the parcel from Raymond A Massengill, Jr. to William Frank
Lee on July 6th 1999. 1 have gone back to both the Johnston County FSA and NRCS office to have them re -search their
records for correspondence with Mr. Massengill but as suspected, this paperwork could still not be found. This did not
surprise FSA and NRCS staff as their records are organized by tract number and not name. Both FSA and NRCS have told me
the paperwork on this parcel is simply lost.
Although historical written documentation could not be located, The Johnston County FSA office was able to provide Mr.
Lee with a letter which definitively states that the subject tract is in full compliance and no violations are known -
Attachment C. If prior or current violations existed, FSA would not make such a statement.
Feel free to call me at 919-604-9314 to discuss further. I appreciate the time and talk soon,
Raymond Holz
Attachments
A.) Figures
- Overview
- Current Ownership Map
B.) Historical Aerial Imagery Overview 1993, 1998, & 1999

C.) Letter from Johnston County FSA Office Regarding Tract 4344
D.) Warranty Deed Regarding Sale of Western Parcel - Tract 4344
E.) Johnston County FSA Farm Number 12610, Tract 1226 Paperwork from Mr. York
Raymond J. Holz I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 1 Raleigh, NC 27604
tel: [phone] cell: 919.604.9314 1 fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
-----Original Message -----
From: Raymond Holz
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 1:50 PM
To: 'Tugwell, Todd SAW' <[e-mail]>; Tim Baumgartner ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Mac Haupt ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Jeff Schaffer ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Martin Dairy & Alliance Headwaters
Todd - your recollection of our May 24th meeting is correct and RS along with Mr. Lee (property owner) are in the process
of getting a letter from NRCS/FSA. Attached are the notes not only from our May 24th meeting but the post award site visit
on April 8th. Please feel free to add to them as you or anyone on the IRT see fit. I can be reached at 919.604.9314 if there
are any questions.
Thanks,
Raymond H.
Raymond J. Holz I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 1 Raleigh, NC 27604
tel: [phone] cell: 919.604.9314 1 fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 12:37 PM
To: Tim Baumgartner ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mac Haupt ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Jeff Schaffer ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Raymond Holz
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Martin Dairy & Alliance Headwaters
Tim,
Also to follow up on the other Neuse 01 sites not covered in my last email, we met to discuss Alliance Headwaters on May
24th, and as I recall, RS is trying to track down more info from NRCS for the stream on the east side of Joyner Bridge Road,
but we concurred with the NRCS determination for the remainder of the site. Let me know if your recollections are
different.

Lastly, for Martin Dairy, we received the notes and had no further comment on those.
Thanks,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: 919-554-4884 ext 58
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue
to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
Blocked Blocked Blocked Blocked http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.

RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
SCALE t in = 667 n
1101 HAYNES ST. SUITE 211
DATE 9-2017
RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone]
SITE: R-04 004
FAX : [phone]
Th. map— A Orta --d .— » ppN az .xM n ady. R­—Syztene. LLC -.sly
d.—rnp .biny Iw damages Aabdey rvm any clams X.al may size ou d tM use a mouse of mis map. M1 n
IM sda .espmsibil rty d tM uzw to ddermne d me d3a on Mis rnap is cw.pabde vilb IM1v usw s rleedz. Tlrs mep
uneY Oeta n eFodd A be used as M1. n iz Ibe �sr s �ezppnitillly Ip obtain capper survey aa. wePa�ee nv as b�eMea wrvevw5 ,.n,.e wu�.ed nv iaw
ATTACHMENT A - OVERVIEW FIGURE
Aenal Imagery. (c) ESRI
Feet Coordinate System.
0 150 300 600 900 1,200 NAD_1983_SP_NC FIPS_3200_Ft.

Farm
Service
Agency
Johnston County
FSA Office
2736 NC Highway
210 Suite C
Smithfield, NC 27577
Ph. 919-9347156 Ext 2
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
July 6, 2016
William Frank Lee
M&B Lee LLC
PO BOX 148
Smithfield, NC 27577
Dear Mr. Lee
This letter is in response to your request concerning Farm # 22612 Tract # 4344 that
is administered by the Johnston County FSA Office . Our records indicate that the
tract is owned by M & B Lee LLC. Our records show that Tract # 4344 is currently
in compliance and has no violations that we are aware of.
Sincerely,
Matthew Brandon Ellis
County Executive Director
Johnston County Farm Service Agency
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

NORTH CAROLINA
JOHNSTON
USDA United States Department of Agriculture FARM : 22612
Agency Farm Service A
9 y Prepared : Ju1 6, 2016
Form: FSA -156E2 Crop Year: 2016
Abbreviated 156 Farm Record
Tract 477 Continued ...
--- — — NOTES
CCC -505 CRP
Reduction Acres
Tract Number
4344
Wheal
Description
M14/18
FAV1WR History Yes
BIA Unit Range Number
:
5.10
HEL Status
HEL determinations not completed for all Fields on the tract
66
Wetland Status
Tract does not contain a wetland
0.00
WL Violations
None
DCP Ag. Related
Owners
M & B LEE LLC
Other Producers
LEWIS BRIAN LEE, CHRISTOPHER MARCUS LEE
Activity
Tract Land Data
000
Farm Land
0.00
Cropland
DCP Cropland
WBP WR�P�C
RP�GRP
67.55 i
63 21
63 21
0.00-0 000
Sugarcane
00—Off) I
State Conservation Other Effective DCP Cropland Double Cropped MPL DCP Ag. Related
Conservation EWP
Activity
000 0.00 63.21 000 0 00 0.00 0.00
I
nrp r- nom"
Crop Name
Base Acres
CCC -505 CRP
Reduction Acres
CTAP Yield
PLC Yield
Wheal
4.20
0.00
0
35
Corn _
5.10
0.00
0
66
Soybeans
7.70
0.00
0
29
u.uu
NOTES
Tract Number 15333
Description M14/1B FAVIWR History : Yes
BIA Unit Range Number
HEL Status HEL determinations not completed for all fields on the tract
Wettand Status Tract contains a wetland or farmed wetland
WL Violations None
Owners WILLIAM FRANK LEE
Other Producers CHRISTOPHER MARCUS LEE, LEWIS BRIAN LEE
Trarf 1 and nnf.
Farm Land
Cropland
DCP Cropland
WBP WRP
CRP
GRP
Sugarcane
2.45
1.99
1.99
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
000
State Conservation
Other
Conservation
Effective DCP Cropland
Double Cropped
MPL
EWP
DCP Ag. Related
_
Activity
0.00
000
1.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DCP Crop Data
Page: 2 of 4

r'
Warranty Deed Massengill, Jr. to William Frank Lee:. 7-6-99
BOOK 18 4 7 PAS[ 5 5 9
20755
TOaI1aTOR tbUaTT RC 07/09/1999
i.
R,naT $140.00
��j�t1NA peal Estate
Excise Tax
ls'7ctsa T— $ 14000
State of North Carolina, to sto
(or Re stratron at J M
�t9 in fhe
g,CPageu54
By
Recording Time. Book _A p...
Tax Lot No Parcel Identifier No. 92KI5024
Verlded by County on the day of
by
Mail4fter rfeording to Gfanlrx
This instrument was prepared by Hinton, Hcwett R Wood, P A. 1329 C-1 N Bnghdeaf Blvd , Smtthfieid, NC 27577
Brief description for the Index
66-33 acro 8emomille township
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED made this 4th day of tub'
• A99.4_ . by and between
GRANTOR GRANTEE
Raymond A. Massengill, Jr. and wife,
Jain 8 Masscngill William Frank Lee, Individually
104 East Wtlscn Streci
t Smithfield, NC 27577
gate, In app-prlaLa bleak for each part,: neam. address, apo u appropriate, character of enut
T a e co rponUoa or partrunalp.
The dealgnatloo Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and
shalt include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which Is hereby
acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee In fee simple, all that
certain lot or parcel of land situated In the City of 8entonvilic
Township
1piplSlon County, North Carolina and more particularly described ns follows:
See Extubn "A' attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.
9

BOOK 1 0 4 7 �PABE 5 6 0
The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in
A map showing the above described property Is recorded In Plat Book .. ....... ...... .................. page
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to
the Grantee in fee simple.
And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to convey
the game in fee simple, that title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend the title against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter stated.
Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following exceptions:
General utility easements, restrictions and right of ways of record,
ter wrrNBs weaesor, the Greats he. hereunto set his hoed and . r Ir coryora.• ba. catls.d Chi. teartlmmt to be .1 ed in Ile
release's
leasasa a by ltd ddY anm.rh.d offlears and us sed to be ber—t..11 'ey a. W.rltr oI Its Boar f Directors, tae day " rear first
.Nee u,ritMn-
(corporate Nam.) A mond A. Masscn ' r.
O Q
BY: .........................-----------'•--------•- .......... x g
] (saAL)
Massengit '
Y
Amar: t
------------------------------------------------------------- (39")
--------------------------------------------------------------- tq
_s.cret.q (Corporate sea) 4M
��1 7
------------------------------ _------------------------------ (BEAL)
````A NORTH CAROLINA. ------------ JSIbulgR............ County.
L a Notary Ptlwe of the county and State ,roreaatd. e"fy Chet R4YR)9Ad.A_M3SXA2W.Jr,aD4ndfelran
2 J N O r'4'•. pi
B. Massentill.--"--"------------------------------"------------------------------------_..._....-" or.pt.r,
a O f _ I1
T A i = ponedlty appsased barer. m. this day and aelmorledged the .a.eatloo .f the forage ImtrelmeSL trlmne mr
N q _
In ' 6th
Y
O L• bona aha afield sump or seal, Cal. --...-- War or ........ -• July--- _ -- -- -----
-9 _.
Bt) GI'
COUNTY ` \\\\\ air eommresloa .spins: ___.__ Notary Ptlb11e
16
saA4sTAY" NORTH CAROLINA, .................................. Cotmty.
L ■ Notary peptic of Ch. C.tmty and $tate aforesaid, eerWy that _________________________"--__-_-_-____--,
r� personally tame before mt thin day ane atknosatedged that _... he Is ...................."•..... seaaaq a
•�7
------------------------------------------------------ a North Carolina corporation, and nut by authority duty
given and Y the act of the Corporation, the foregoing Inetitlmrat rad siga.d N It. name by Ila ---------------
President, sealed With Its corporate ..d sad a1M.ted by ----------- u its ........................... sear.sap.
Witness my bans and afield .tamp or "A this -------dy or -------------------------- --_------_•
errsem-1411— .Bobo.: ------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- Notary Public
•
,be foregeltle Cernrlede4) _. ._.. .._/hl /./�/^}I''�/
!' "'-------------------------------------•--•--•---__.... •
--.-r: --""---____---_"_-"___________________ _ ------------------------- _ _-----___-"--____---"-_--.-..•___.______-_-.--_-____________
'Un.6 o .....em
We wet'aetlt d this artUlcata are ddY re htered at the as d e sad to the Rook end Pe • aboru on the
I _ here. (////���(��,,(• J/1
__ ..
----- -_--_ --- — Or DaaDa ►OR. __. ._.._.. -------
___--- COUNTY
.------DepnWM�M.-ReateMr a Dees No, $
L

" * " DISCLAIMER
—
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the information represented here.
Result 1
id:
02K15024
Tag:
02K15024
Tax Unique Id:
4337608
N C P i n:
159900-81-4425
Mapsheet No:
1599
Owner Name 1:
M AND B LEE LLC
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
Mail Address 2:
P O BOX 148
Mail Address 3:
SMITHFIELD, NC 27577-0000
Site Address 1:
Site Address 2:
Book:
03507
Page:
0060
D WI;LLIAMS
1
Market Value:
208750
Assessed Acreage:
63.82
Calc. Acreage:
63.82
Sales Price:
0
G
Sale Date:
2008-03-06
LIC
W
a(
Ito
Scale: 1:14171 1 in. = 1180.94 feet
ti
(The scale is only accurate when printed landscape on a 8 1/2 x 11 size sheet with no page scaling.)
Johnston County GIS
August 11, 2016

Timber Deed: 06-10-1997 Between Weyerhaeuser & Massengill, Jr.
13(15;
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF JOHNSTON
BOOK 1 6 0 7 PAGE 4 0 8
THIS TIMBER DEED, Made and entered into this � () day of
�LN .1. , 1997, by and between Raymond A. Massengill, Jr.
and wife, .lean B. Massengill, parties of the first part, andl!
Weyerhaeuser Company, a corporation of the State of Washington,)
and duly authorized to do business in the State of North Carolina,
whose address is Post Office Box 1391, New Bern, North Carolina
28560, party of the second part;
W 1 T N E E S E T H:
That the said parties of the first part, for and in
consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 ($10.00) DOLLARS, and
otner good and valuable considerations to them in hand paid, by
the party of the second part, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, have agreed as set out hereinafter, bargained and
sold and by these presents do agree as set out hereinafter,
bargain, sell and convey to the party of the second part, its
successors and assigns, all trees and timber as hereinafter
defined, lying or standing upon those certain tracts or parcels of
land lying and being in Bentonville Township, Johnston County,
State of North Carolina, and being more particularly described as
follows:
`fi}LQA40.
PAEP.AEA 61
T.9 THOMPSON.JR.
µ1110fU MOF(H l'4iOLIH�
vn Bo�; Sod
a •t�vo
The trees and timber conveyed by this timber deed are
located on a portion of the following described property:
BEGINNING at an iron stake in the centerline of NCSR 1185,
said iron stake cornering with property owned by the
Bizzell heirs, thence leaving said NCSR 1185 and along the
line of the Bizzell Heirs South 62 degrees 30 minutes East
990 feet to a stake in the run of a branch cornering with
•
•

•
•
"t"AE0 a,
�. R. THOMPSON, JA.
AT70AMfY AT tAW
AYIIOA& woAtw CAAOUMA
0
BOOK 16 0 7 PASE 4 0 9
the property of Hattie Massengill; thence along the
Massengill line South 79 degrees to minutes East 1,733
feet to a stake at the bend of a ditch in the property
line of Gerald Rhodes; thence along the Rhodes line South
04 degrees West 1,162 feet to a stake in a ditch, a corner
with Lloyd Rhodes, thence along the Rhodes line South 83
degrees West 278 feet; thence North 76 degrees 30 minutes
West 573 feet; thence along property owned now or formerly
by Wadsworth North 70 degrees West 1,100 feet to a stake
in pointers; thence North 02 degrees 30 minutes East 300
feet to a stake on the north side of a branch; thence
North 75 degrees West 760 feet to a point in the
centerline of NCSR 1885, thence with the centerline North
03 degrees 445 feet to an iron stake; thence continuing
North 02 degrees East 503.25 feet to the point and place
of BEGINNING, containing 66.33 acres, more or less, and
being Tracts 10 and 11 of the Land Division for Raymond A.
Massengill, according to plat prepared by Dennis R.
Blackmon, RLS, dated January 6, 1988, reference to the
same being herein made for a more complete and accurate
description_
The property heretofore described was devised to Raymond
A. Maseengill, Jr. by Raymond A. Maseengill.
The trees and timber conveyed by this timber deed are all
of the trees and timber located within the Sale Area as
shown on the attached sketch. The attached sketch is
identified as Exhibit "A'.
This conveyance is made subject to and together with the
following provisions:
This deed shall cover and include all trees and timber of
every sort, kind or character, now standing or lying upon said
land, but shall not include any shade trees within six (6') feet
of any dwelling house upon said property, or any shade trees
marked with white paint around any outdwellings.
All trees and timber which are cut and removed from said
land shall be cut and removed therefrom on or before June 18,
1998.
Party of the second part shall have the right to remove
from said land all of the laps, tops and slabs of the timber cut
2

mcr.nto e.
T. R. THOMPSON. JR.
R..
•MNMI.
r n uw
♦UMM, OHIN GUIOII,M
8301 1 6 0 7 PARE It 10
by it, provided the same are removed from said land on or before
June 18. 1998.
For the purpose of cutting, milling, and removing said
timber, party of the second part shall have the right at such
locations as it may elect, to erect and maintain upon said lands
saw mills, stables, and other buildings which it may consider
necessary and shall have the right to remove the same at any time
on or before ninety (90) days after the date of expiration of the
term of this deed or any extension thereof.
For the purpose of cutting, milling and removing said
timber, party of the second part shall have the right at such
location as it may elect to open and maintain roadways leading to
the public highway, but shall so far as is reasonably convenient
use for such purposes, roadways already opened. The parties of
the first part do hereby grant to the party of the second part a
thirty (30') foot easement around the edges of the cleared land
for the purposes of fulfilling the purposes of this timber deed.
All roads, ditches, drainways, or fences as now located on
the premises herein described will be left in as good or better
condition at the end of this contract as they were upon the date
of the execution of same if damaged by the party of the second
part, its servants, agents. employees, contractors or assigns.
The parties of the first part agree that the party of the
second part shall have no ad valorem tax liability hereby.
The party of the second part and its employees shall at
all times exercise reasonable care to minimize and reduce the
hazard of fire.
3
Ll
•

•
•
wPKPANED sY.
T, R, THOMPSON, JW
ArTOMEY AT LAW
♦~A- NORM C.MUNA
is
09011607 PAGEL) I I
The parties of the first part agree that the boundary
lines of the property on which said trees and timber is to be cut
have been shown to the agents of the party of the second part;
and, should any dispute arise concerning timber and trees cut
under this timber deed within the area defined and described
hereinabove, or should any dispute involving access, either in
general or across any specific rights-of-way herein described or
described on the sketch attached hereto, upon demand by the party
of the second part, the parties of the first part agree that they
will in each and every respect defend any disputed cutting of
timber and trees as set out herein or access rights at their sole
cost and expense, and will undertake to settle any dispute in the
most expeditious manner, and that such defense will be made upon
the demand of the party of the second part. The period of time
from any such dispute arising until such dispute is resolved shall
be added to the length of time given to cut the trees and timber
pursuant to the provisions of this timber deed so that the party
of the second part can cut the timber and trees after the dispute
has been resolved. Further, if the dispute has not been resolved
to the satisfaction of the party of the second part within six (6)
months, the party of the second part, at its option, may demand
the refund of the purchase price. The parties of the first part
agree to refund to the party of the second part the value of the
trees, timber, and pulpwood, located within the disputed area.
The values will be those used by the party of the second part in
purchasing the trees, timber, and pulpwood and the refund will be
paid to the party of the second part within ten (10) days
4

vgkftfto OV.
T. R. TNOMPSON, in,
.TTOPMrr At uw
Aunorl. NORTH CAMOLIHO
BOGX ) h a l PAGE 412
following written notice. The amount to be paid may be determined
by an Arbitration Board as hereinafter provided.
In the event the logging operations of the party of the
second part are prevented on all of the premises due to
governmental regulation of any type, then, in such event, the
parties of the first part shall refund to the party of the second
part, in cash, the purchase price of the timber. trees and
pulpwood. In the event the logging operations of the party of the
second part are prevented on a portion of the premises for such
reason, then, in such evert the parties of the first part shall
immediately refund to the party of the second part a portion of
the purchase price of the timber, trees and pulpwood. The amount'
to be refunded shall be based upon the portion of the timber,
trees and pulpwood which cannot be cut for such reason and shall
be paid in cash. The amount to be paid shall be determined by an
arbitration board constituted as hereinafter provided.
The arbitration board shall consist of three members.
Each party shall select an arbitrator and a third arbitrator shall
be selected by the first two arbitrators. The two arbitrators
must be selected by the parties within thirty days after either
party has requested arbitration. The arbitrators must reach an
agreement within thirty days after the appointment of an
arbitrator by the two parties. Arbitration shall be performed in
accordance with Article 45A of Chapter 1 of the General Statutes
of North Carolina and the cost of arbitration shall be equally
divided between the parties.
5
0
•
0

•
PREPARED "9
T. A. THOMPSON. !A.
ATTORNEY AT UW
AURORA, NORTH CAROIM.
11
BOOK 16 0 7 PAGE 4 13
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said trees and timber, together
with the rights and privileges hereinabove set out to it, the said
party of the second part, and its successors and assigns, in fee
simple forever.
And the said parties of the first part, do covenant to and
with the said party of the second part, its successors and
assigns, that they are seized of said timber and the lands upon
which it is situated in fee simple, and have the right to convey
the same, that the same is free and clear of all encumbrances and
that they will warrant and defend the title herein conveyed
against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part,
have hereunto set their hands and have adopted as their seals the
typewritten word "SEAL" appearing beside their names, this the day
and year first above written.
(SEAL)
RaffmondA. Mk6skrAgill, Jr.
6. (SEAL)
J I
n B. Massengi 1
6

F
"[P.NEo o,
T. q. THOMPSON. A
ArT aHEV AT LAW
AUROFU , HOATY CAAOIAHA
BOOK 16 0 1 PASS 414
STATE OF�oiLlt Cgiol nd
COUNTY OF �''I
c.!�{�oCie� , a Notary Public, do
hereby certify that Raymond A. Massengill, Jr. personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the
foregoing instrument for the uses and purposes therein expressed.)
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this Com' day of
!'i le 1997.
t�pba�' 8kb1 is
W . p,y
My Commission Expires: �O
TA
oyyjOU B L% C �{
Iz
0
•
C

•
0
VwEPAREO W
T. R. NOMPSOM, JR.
.lo -11 AT uw
AURORA. RORTN C.AROUHA
0
BOOK 16 0 7 .FASE 4 15
STATE OF `tl v t i, h CA I a 1; n I-_
COUNTY OF Jt'hnStun
1 a Notary Public, do
hereby certify that Jean B. Massengill personally appeared before
me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing
instrument for the uses and purposes therein expressed.
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this IG1 h day of
LA ncl_ 1997.
My Commission Expires:
;'i pTAgy `Tr+
PU6l\G �.
as r MM& CMdM$-I , do , mno
Dr - , cook" d --i-
ftW,Mehn.d PM k %W* I M b 6A mid
IM w p�YOa ERO n0ddtl
P�y�IE N YAp
Aeppn PI UttOf DeOuA AcEmn d Dedf
e

I f
1
Sa/oo y
I
wE,ERtiAWSER Ci+LES �.:..�, ,. . I
R A /ja ss �,� , << d F BOOK 16 01 PAGE 4 16
EXHIBIT 'A'
Noy,
THIS MAP IS NOT A CERT141) SURVEY
AND NO RELIANCE MAY BE
PLACED IN ITS ACCURACY.
II
•
•I
0

U5� i NATURAL RESOURCES 806 NORTH STREET —7
CONSERVATION SMITHFIELD, NC 27577-9998
SERVICE TELEPHONE [phone]
i
November 18, 1997
Jean Manuele
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Rd.
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6846
Dear Jean:
Enclosed is a concurrence form, AD -1026, aerial photo, USGS
topo maps, soil maps and wetland data forms for tract 1226
owned by William Frank Lee.
The tract is shown partly on the Four Oaks NE Quad and partly
on the Newton Grove North Quad. Drainage is into two unnamed
tributaries of Hannah Creek.
Mr. Lee plans to clear this land for pasture and/or row crops.
The majority of the tract is mapped as Lynchburg and
Goldsboro. One area of Leaf that I checked looked more like
Lynchburg than Leaf.
Please review. If you agree with this determination, please
sign and return the concurrence form.
If you have any questions, please call me at 919-989-5381.
Thanks.
Kenneth C. York
District Conservationist
enclosure

USDA NATURAL RESOURCES 806 NORTH STREET
CONSERVATION SMITHFIELD, NC 27577-9998
MW SERVICE TELEPHONE [phone]
NRCS Correspondence on Tract 1226
February 20, 1998
Mr. Frank Lee
104 East Wilson Street
Smithfield, NC 27577
Dear Frank:
Hers is your copy of the wetland determination for tract 1226.
All of the wooded area noted in blue is non -wetland and has no restrictions for
agricultural use.
I'm sorry it has taken so long to get official documents, but I am required to send all
wetland determinations to the US Army Corps of Engineers for their concurrence. If
they do not send me a signed form within 45 days, my determination is considered
certified.
In this case, they did not respond. If you have any questions, please call me at
919/989-5381.
Sincerely,
Kenneth C. York
District Conservationist
enclosure

luTURALRESOURCES CONSEtiVATION SERVICE
REQUEST FOR CERTIFIED WETLAND DETER MINATION/DELINEATION
(use when the cllenr requWts a certified determrnadon/deiineatfon)
5-95
OWNER
AGENT - (OPERATOR)
Name:
Name:
Address:
/O E W/GS�i✓ ST�P�T
Address:
_57 ' /7i'f/ 5* &-Z /YC o27,5777
Phone: y
9is- �3-y93,�-
Phone:
Are you a USDA program Participant? (if yea, AD -1026 should be on filo.) ["ryes ❑ No
Have you previously received a wetland determination or delineation on this tra from the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(farmeny Sal Conse"don Service) or the Corps of Engineers? ❑ Yes e No
Location of property (description): /�'3'�7 �1 •� ��'¢ p,*" s'r ���5/�•P °� �•O?'¢N �• S
.S %tJ / .5 .
t.uunry:owm
J--15 r�•✓ '
Fyrt No.: /a � / 0 Tract No.: I-R;Z Acres in tract /Oc/ a Map or aerial photo with the VacVarea outlined
PURPOSE OF REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION/DELINEATION (Check one and explain)
Q' Agricultural purpose(s): 4- 4�'%`� �'dT l°'fsTy.�E
(Such as: clearing for cropland, drainage, farm buildings, etc.)
❑ Non -Agricultural purpose(s):
(Such as: commercial development subdWsions, etc.)
❑ Informational purpose(s):
• 1 certify that I am the owner or agent of the owner for the property previously described.
* I grant the Natural Resources Conservation Service (or their designated agents) the right to enter the property previously described to
ascertain the extent of wetlands on said property.
• 1 understand that the information collected and the certified wetland determination/delineation is public information and may be released
to the public or utilized in any of the agencies' data bases, or published on official wetland maps.
Signature of Owns . Date:
Signature of Agent: (As authonzed by Ute owner)
Date:
, a U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, In any manner within the Jurisdiction of any department or agency of The United States knowingly and *Itfully
falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or tmudulent statements or representations or
makes or uses any telae writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000
or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

IQ

_ v. ar..v• oau•a
• -- , ,. .� v v� &/l
RALEIGH
v. N. C.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY&M ry 745 _
7 742 20' (FOUR OAKS NE)
Mm E Mr. m ffy7Fps}ra tF 95 X40
0 _
can foo
Chi
-1 --• � 1..� '.6 _ � �—,Qr (`� 1 �. L--` to /r i '
Nt
fad
t r �1 r"-' �✓,ice � `,1 � ,� ,I '� � � �
i
refj
IONA
1 a -
- ,f

A-
f�r
u CVNT7N26Atti G1tluuw1rcci IqQ
duced by the United States Geological Survey
ooperation with North Carolina Department of
ural Resources and Community Development
rol by USG,, NOSlNOAA. and USCE
graphy by photogrammetric methods from aerial photographs
n 198L Field checked 1982. Map edited 1986
,summand 10.000400t grid ticks: North Carolina coordinate
IM(lambert conformal conic)
1 -meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid. zone 17
I North American Datum
dace an the predicted North American Datum 1983.
MN
�( GN
ah.IlIIB MILS 1'34'
28 MItS
Lr M GRI) AND 1986 MAGNETIC NORTH
w !7
r43 (NEWTON GROVE NORTH) 745
5354 IV SE
SCALE 1:24 000
s _ 0
MILES
0 1000 ZOop _30M 4000 --- _5000 _ 8000 moo 81
FEET
5 0 KILOMEjfRS _ _,o
1000 0 -- METERS — 1000
CONTOUR INTERVALS FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VEFMCAL DA" OF 1929

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ite: Site 1, Tract 1226
Date: 11/17/97
/Owner: William Frank Lee
County: Johnston
or: Kenneth C. York
State: North Carolina
al Circumstances exist on the site? (x)Yes (} No
[El_
Community ID:
significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ( )Yes (x) No
Transect ID:
a a potential Problem Area? ( )Yes (x) No
Plot ID:
ed, explain on reverse.)
Tree
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.Liquidambar Styraciflua
Tree
FAC +
9.Athyrium Filix-femia Herb FAC
2.Quercus Nigra
Tree
FRC
10.
3.Acer Rubrum
Tree
FACW
11.
4.Persea Borbonia
Shrub
FACW
12,
5.Liquidambar Styraciflua
Shrub
FAC+
13,
6.Quercus Nigra
Shrub
FAC
14.
7.Panicum Amarum
Herb
FAC
15.
8.Smilax Rotundifolia
Herb
FAC
16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 9/9=100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
,Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
_Inundated
_Other
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_x–No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
—Drift
Lines
_Sediment Deposits
Field Observations
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
_Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
—Water -Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
_x Local Soil Survey Data
I
—FAC -Neutral Test
_Other (explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Some pockets of water were standing in stump holes and depressions but soil was not saturated at
12 inch depth. Determination was made on the third day after a 2 inch rain,

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Lynchburg_ Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly
Drained_
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup):-f�-C�lC ld-44-6.416? 1u4T's Confirm Mapped Type? (x) Yes (_I No
Profile Description:
Depth
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon
(Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structures, etc.
0-6 A
10YR/3/1 Sandy Loam
6-15 B
10YR/5/4 10YR/6/2 Comm/Dist Sandy Clay Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Histosol
_Histic Epipedon
_Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
_Reducing Conditions
_Gleyed or Lo-Chroma Colors
_Concretions
_High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_x -Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_Listed on National Hydric Soils List
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
It I varvu ut i tKIVIINN I wIv
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (x) Yes (_I No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ( ) Yes (x) No
Hydric Soils Present? O Yes (x) No I Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
(_)Yes (x)No
Remarks:
opr0

.::
,} �'
.t��
�:.
-:.
:�
��'1. ... _�y, t�Y � � � � `�; ,+ice• �i',
.r�i;.;- ...._ _ _ ��`_! =�•�'.% moi•. -_ 3 '�A.s11•

May 26, 2017
Corps Action ID# SAW -2016-00882
Ms. Browning,
I am an adjacent land owner of one of the mitigation sites off Joyner Bridge Road in Johnston County. It
appears that my property will be greatly affected by the amount of water discharged onto my property.
This letter is advising that I would like a set of construction plans showing width, depth and potential
CFS of water discharged onto my property.
I am sure if this project is approved there will be other concerns pertaining to my property.
Sincerely,
JC Rhodes

Appendix 11
Financial Assurance
Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Site (DMS #97086)
June 2018

PERFORMANCE BOND Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America
One Tower Square, Hartford, CT 06183
Bond No. 106807894
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, Restoration Systems, LLC as Principal, and Travelers Casualty
and Surety Company of America, licensed to do business in the State of, North Carolina as Surety, are held and firmly
bound unto North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division of Mitigation Services (Obligee), in the
penal sum of Three Million Three Hundred Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Thirty & no/100 Dollars ($3,312,230.00),
lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be made, the Principal and
Surety do bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, and successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly
by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that whereas the above bounden Principal has entered into certain
written Contract No. 6832 with the above named Obligee, effective the 15 day of March, 2016 for Alliance Headwaters
Cataloging Unit 03020201 and more fully described in said Contract, a copy of which is attached, which Contract is
made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference, except that nothing said therein shall alter, enlarge, expand or
otherwise modify the term of the bond as set out below.
NOW, THEREFORE, if Principal, its executors, administrators, successors and assigns shall promptly and faithfully
perform the Contract, according to the terms, stipulations or conditions thereof, then this obligation shall become null and
void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. This bond is executed by the Surety and accepted by the Obligee
subject to the following express condition:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Contract, this bond will commence on the date of approval of the Alliance
Headwaters Stream Mitigation Site, Option A Mitigation Plan and will remain in effect until the Principal has received
written notification from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division of Mitigation Services that the
requirements of Task 6 (Submittal of Baseline Monitoring Report) have been met, but may be extended by the Surety at
its sole option by Continuation Certificate. However, neither nonrenewal by the Surety, nor the failure or inability of the
Principal to file a replacement bond in the event of nonrenewal, shall itself constitute a loss to the Obligee recoverable
under this bond or any renewal or continuation thereof. The liability of the Surety under this bond and all Continuation
Certificates issued in connection therewith shall not be cumulative and shall in no event exceed the amount as set forth in
this bond or in any additions, riders, or endorsements properly issued by the Surety as supplements thereto.
Sealed with our seals and dated this 14 day of November, 2017.
_ �a
r � ,
Witness
Agreed and acknowledged this _ day of , 2017
By:
Obligee
S-5025 (08-99)
bra Casualt rety Company of America
�LLU
Phoebe C. Honeycutt, Attor ey-in-Fact
B surance Services
4309 Emperor Blvd Suite 300
Durham, NC 27709

i WARNING. THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER ��M. v��.-.� -•-
This Power of Attorney is granted under and by the authority of the following resolutions adopted by the Boards of Directors of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity
and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance
Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States
Fidelity and Guaranty Company, which resolutions are now in full force and effect, reading as follows:
RESOLVED, that the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Second Vice
President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary may appoint Attorneys -in -Fact and Agents to act for and on behalf
of the Company and may give such appointee such authority as his or her certificate of authority may prescribe to sign with the Company's name and seal with the
Company's seal bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking, and any
of said officers or the Board of Directors at any time may remove any such appointee and revoke the power given him or her: and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President may
delegate all or any part of the foregoing authority to one or more officers or employees of this Company, provided that each such delegation is in writing and a copy
thereof is filed in the office of the Secretary; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that any bond, recognizance, contract of indemnity, or writing obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking
shall be valid and binding upon the Company when (a) signed by the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice
President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary and duly attested and sealed with the
Company's seal by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary; or (b) duly executed (under seat, if required) by one or more Attorneys -in -Fact and Agents pursuant to the power
prescribed in his or her certificate or their certificates of authority or by one or more Company officers pursuant to a written delegation of authority; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the signature of each of the following officers: President, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President,
any Assistant Vice President, any Secretary. any Assistant Secretary, and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any Power of .Attorney or to any
certificate relating thereto appointing Resident Vice Presidents, Resident Assistant Secretaries or Attorneys -in -Fact for purposes only of executing and attesting bonds
and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, and any such Power of Attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal
shall be valid and binding upon the Company and any such power so executed and certified by such facsimile signature and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding on
the Company in the future with respect to any bond or understanding to which it is attached.
I, Kevin E. Hughes, the undersigned, Assistant Secretary, of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance
Underwriters, Inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine btsurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and
Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company do hereby certify that the above and foregoing
is a true and correct copy of the Power of Attorney executed by said Companies, which is in full force and effect and has not been revoked.
t p ff
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, [have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seals of said Companies this __ day of 20
Kevin E. Hughes, Assistant Sec tary
pAsu,� pptlSY VIE E°'� /'�%'�iN _""•.. 1r a ye.w<„ "'rt
� ,NS(iH 'i P NO � Fy,Y
�v �0
�3 ' �b" n 77CUftPORptfD %Zoaven��E>m ��•�pavoa4}f�`r.i °i• 13y u�`a''a
t tuarretr). 4 �
n; t o i W CONN.' COhw. 2 m 896
p a 51 a �.SERL.o: SEAL:'a �� ! O<
f'�i/
ATN
To verify the authenticity of this Power of Attorney, call 1-800-421-3880 or contact us at www.travelersborid.coni. Please refer to the Attorney -In -Fact number, the
above-named individuals and the details of the bond to which the power is attached.
WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER

i
00
0
0
z
CL
trD
v1
Ld
Q
L.ij
1E
LI
z
i
J
J
F.d..d
n
O
1
1.
ol GRAPHIC SCALES —14
20 10 C 2D, 40
PLANS
4 �0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL;
PROF'LE .'VERTICAL
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
JOHNSTON COUNTY
LOCATION: JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
�WORK: STREAM RESTORATION
OCT 0
-3
MITIDN18101V OF
REVISIONS
EMMETT PERDUE, PE
INDEX OF SHEETS
.
. . TITLE SHEET
1-A -
STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
APPROV
GENERAL NOTES
1
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1-B
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE (CONT
2 - 2G-
� � DETAILS
3 - 3C.
- TABLES/ VEGETA I ION SELECTION
4- 17...
PLAN AND PROFILE
18 - 20...
PROPOSED GRADING
21 - 23...
VEGETATION PLAN
24 26...
SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL
3495.3 86.6
9967
ol GRAPHIC SCALES —14
20 10 C 2D, 40
PLANS
4 �0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL;
PROF'LE .'VERTICAL
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
JOHNSTON COUNTY
LOCATION: JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
�WORK: STREAM RESTORATION
OCT 0
-3
MITIDN18101V OF
207
PREPARED, FOR
e
{ 1M1, zg
1 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGHNC 27604
t919%755,949C,
RAYMOND HOl Z
PRCJFCT MANAGER
-ATE
REVISIONS
EMMETT PERDUE, PE
LETTING DATE:
PROJECT ENGINEER
IC
DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1
70 M.TIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
?
2
REVISED �:, MITIGA'ION PLAN
,
KILT
EMP
6i 3: '8
K3NO
95`.X CCNSTRUCT ON DRAWINGS
KLT
EMP
.,z; t 11
DESIGN REACH LENGTH
3495.3 86.6
9967
19148
530.9
BANKFULL XSC .AREA
30-70 2.0
4.0
4.0 - 6.0
3.0
BANKPULL WIDTH
65 9.9 5.3
75
7.5-92
6.5
SANKPULL MEAN DEPTH
05-07 0.4
0.6
0,6-07
0.5
WID RATIO
14 14
14
14
14
207
PREPARED, FOR
e
{ 1M1, zg
1 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGHNC 27604
t919%755,949C,
RAYMOND HOl Z
PRCJFCT MANAGER
-ATE
'FI;_ 1—T RE FER.ENCE NO
EMMETT PERDUE, PE
LETTING DATE:
PROJECT ENGINEER
IC
074
1
138'
DESIGN DATA
UTI UT1A
UT2
UT3
UT4
DESIGN STREAM TYPE
C5 C5
C5
C5
C5
DESIGN REACH LENGTH
3495.3 86.6
9967
19148
530.9
BANKFULL XSC .AREA
30-70 2.0
4.0
4.0 - 6.0
3.0
BANKPULL WIDTH
65 9.9 5.3
75
7.5-92
6.5
SANKPULL MEAN DEPTH
05-07 0.4
0.6
0,6-07
0.5
WID RATIO
14 14
14
14
14
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF
, 559 JONES FRANKLIN RD
SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NO 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
FALL 2018
EMMETT PERDUE, PE
LETTING DATE:
PROJECT ENGINEER
PROJECT ENGINEER
.0tH t Ntlp8�
��
....0146669100880,
CAR�'"•
., %
SEAL �r
3254
;.�
��ttbtlNlNtt
P.E.
SIGNATURE

p-
04 04
•
STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
0
a� ROCK J -HOOK Jr{
ROCK VANE Rv
OFFSET ROCK CROSS VANE ov
ROCK CROSS VANE x`✓
&I GRADE CONTROL WOODY RIFFLEE)
— SF — SAFETY FENCE
—TP — TAPE FENCE
— I I I — SILT FENCE
— CE— CONSERVATION EASEMENT
— 20 — EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
21 — EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
------- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
— - BANKFULL BENCH (GRADE)
PROPERTY LINE
ACCESS ROAD
10+co
STREAM THALWEG
STREAM TOP OF BANKS
TEMPORARY SILT CHECK
i— J
r �
ROOT WAD R✓.
na
GRADE CONTROL LOG J -HOOK u
1 MITICATION P 4N
LOG VANE O
EIRP
LOG STEP Ls
COO
ROCK STEP Rs
/—\
LOG CROSS VANE xv
an
CONSTRUCTED CASCADE cc
NOW
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE CR
o
BOULDER CLUSTER
WA,LOG
ROLLER O
&I GRADE CONTROL WOODY RIFFLEE)
— SF — SAFETY FENCE
—TP — TAPE FENCE
— I I I — SILT FENCE
— CE— CONSERVATION EASEMENT
— 20 — EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
21 — EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
------- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
— - BANKFULL BENCH (GRADE)
PROPERTY LINE
ACCESS ROAD
10+co
STREAM THALWEG
STREAM TOP OF BANKS
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING 8
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
FOOT BRIDGE
i— J
r �
TREE PROTECTION
L ---.i
r�
TOEWOOD WITH GEOLIFT O
1 MITICATION P 4N
DITCH PLUG
EIRP
TREE REMOVAL
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING 8
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
DOUBLE WING DEFLECTOR ow
"NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
GENERAL NOTES
1 THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL INSTREAM STRUCTURES USING
A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE
BOULDERS, AND STRUCTURES
2 WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE
SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK
3, CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN FALL 2018
REVISIONS
TREE PROTECTION
ENGR
TOEWOOD WITH GEOLIFT O
1 MITICATION P 4N
DITCH PLUG
EIRP
SOD MATS sM
KLT
CHANNEL FILL
91-
3 91Co, ,STP .c is ^d SkA
KL T
®
GRADE BANK 2:1 OR FLATTER
DEBRIS JAM o_I-Tz
' s
EXISTING WETLANDS
svt
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
SINGLE WING DEFLECTOR
DOUBLE WING DEFLECTOR ow
"NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
GENERAL NOTES
1 THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL INSTREAM STRUCTURES USING
A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE
BOULDERS, AND STRUCTURES
2 WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE
SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK
3, CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN FALL 2018
REVISIONS
NC DESCRIPTION
ENGR
PPROV DATE
1 MITICATION P 4N
KLT
EIRP
2 Fs c 7c v icar�c.
'
KLT
EN— E-r3
91-
3 91Co, ,STP .c is ^d SkA
KL T
EN'
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
PHASE 1
MOBILIZATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF GENERAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES
1. Limits of Disturbance is 57.1 acres.
2. Identify and locate staging areas, stockpile areas, construction entrances, stream crossings required
for construction access; limits of silt fencing, limits of tree protection fencing, and construction access
and haul roads as shown on plans.
2. Install construction entrances.
3. Install stream crossings required for construction access.
4. Stockpile materials in designated staging areas.
5. Install silt fencing to the limits shown on the plans and at any other locations as directed by the
Engineer. Silt fencing will be installed around the limits of all staging and stockpile areas.
6. Install tree protection fencing as shown on the plans and at all other locations as directed by the
Engineer. Flag all vegetation to be transplanted.
7. Emergency Contact for Erosion and Sedimentation Control is Ecosystem Planning and Restoration,
Emmett Perdue, 919-388-0787.
NOTE: With approval from the Engineer, the Contractor may complete Phases 2 through 4 in any
sequence, dependent upon weather and/or site conditions. Regardless of the sequencing of the
phases, each phase will be completed prior to beginning work on another phase. Upon the
completion of each phase, the Contractor shall schedule an inspection of the phase by the Engineer.
The Contractor must have written approval from the Engineer that the phase has been completed to
satisfactory standards before beginning another phase.
PHASE 2
DEWATERING OF OPEN WATER AREAS (PONDS)
1. Prior to conducting any work in Phases 2-4, the Contractor shall identify with the Engineer the three
(3) open water areas (ponds) at the Site and listed below:
General Locations along the Proposed Channel
OPW1 - SHEET No. 26 (UT3 R2 27+00)
OPW2 - SHEET No. 24 (UT1 R1 22+00- 29+50)
OPW3 - SHEET No. 12 (UT2 17+00 - 19+50)
2. The Contractor shall dewater the open water areas (ponds) using appropriate means and methods.
3. Prior to grading activities near these open water areas, the Contractor shall receive approval from the
Engineer.
4. The Contractor can only utilize soil material to fill these open water areas, no other material may be
utilized.
S. Grade these open water areas according to the proposed grading plans.
6. The Contractor shall utilize stockpiled topsoil to tie back into natural ground during the final grading.
RO
PJETC# SHEET NO
074 IA
SYMBOLOGY /
NOTES
�.•`.�N CARS''•.
••
PREPARED FOR PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
ECOSYSTEMS SEAT-
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS PLAN N i V G 8c 0� 54 b
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC(CA.
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086 RESTORA TION
1 1 C1 HAYNES ST 559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD. SUITE 150 ,I�����i %� ••Q��O���`,
RALEIGH. NC 276C4 RALEIGH. INC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182

r
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE (CONTINUED)
PHASES 3 - 5 are required in sequence along a reach, leave impervious dike that was located at the downstream
end of the previous pump -around operation in place to serve as the impervious dike at
PHASE 3 — UT1 R1 10+00.00 to UTI R2 30+32.61 and UTIA 10+00.00 to 10+86.64 the upstream end of the new pump -around operation. Install an impervious dike at the
PHASE 4 — UT1 R3 10+00.00 to UT1 R3 24+50.90 and UT2 10+00.00 to 19+96.72 downstream end of the new pump -around operation. After the new pump -around
PHASE 5 — UT3 RS 10+00.00 to UT3 R2 29+14.86 and UT4 10+00.00 to 15+30.95 operation is properly initiated, repeat steps a. through f, along the entire reach until the
construction of the reach is completed.
1. Perform construction staking.
Begin pump -around operation at upstream end of specified reach. Install an impervious dike at
upstream and downstream ends of the proposed limit of the area of active construction in order to
isolate all work from stream flow. Pump -around operation should be conducted in accordance with
the typical pump -around operation detail as shown on the plans. Turbid water between impervious
dikes must be pumped with a separate pump into sediment bags to be discharged downstream of the
impervious dikes in accordance with the typical pump -around operation detail as shown on the plans.
After the pump -around operation is properly initiated and approved by the Engineer, proceed with
construction in the sequence noted below:
a. Remove all vegetation transplants, including individual specimens and vegetated mats,
stockpile and maintain in accordance with the project specifications.
3. Remove and dispose of all unused vegetation materials.
4. All excavated soil materials not utilized will be stockpiled and maintained according to the project
specifications. While onsite, unused material must be located in designated stockpile locations and
must be provided temporary or permanent stabilization within 14 days of placement. After the
completion of construction, all unused soil materials shall be spread on site in designated areas on
the properties owned and operated by Frank lee at the direction of the Engineer and the said property
owner. Spread soil to be stabilized using seeding per the project specifications within 14 days of
placement. If any excavated soil materials need to be, are specified to, and actually are disposed of
off site by the Contractor, the Contractor is responsible for disposal of such soil materials in a
permitted area, as well as for providing and implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan
and permit, or any other required permit(s), for the location(s) off site where such materials are
disposed.
b. Perform required removal and treatment of exotic vegetation within and adjacent to the
specified reach limits. All required removal and treatment (initial treatment) of exotic 5. All remaining disturbed areas are to be amended, seeded, matted and/or mulched according to the
vegetation should be completed prior to proceeding with the remaining activities in this project specifications and at a minimum within 14 days of disturbance.
phase.
6. Upon the completion of each phase, the Contractor shall schedule an inspection of the phase by the
C. Perform required clearing and grubbing, including specified removal of dead mature trees Engineer. The Contractor must have written approval from the Engineer that the phase has been
and/or dead specimen trees. completed to satisfactory standards before beginning another phase.
d. Segregate and stockpile topsoil and other soil material in accordance with the project
specifications.
e. Beginning at the upstream end of the area of active construction, proceed in the
downstream direction with the in -stream structure construction and repairs as specified
on the plans.
f. Perform all topsoil replacement, vegetation transplanting, seeding (temporary and
permanent), soil amendment, mulching, and installation of all erosion control matting as
specified on the plans and the project specifications. Associated repaired or disturbed
stream banks will have permanent and temporary seed, soil amendments, mulch, and
erosion control matting applied to them as work progresses and by the end of each day.
Erosion control matting will be installed on top of the seeded, amended, and mulched
stream banks according to the project specifications. All disturbed areas associated with
the work in and around the stream channel must be stabilized within 7 days. If the
temporary and permanent seed applied during the work does not show signs of
germination, then other permanent controls will be required as directed by the Engineer.
Complete all work within the limit of the given pump -around operation before beginning
additional work at other locations. After completing all work within the limit of the
current pump -around operation, proceed with the next downstream segment of
construction.
h. Relocate pump -around operation to next location downstream if numerous pump -around
operations are required for the reach. Where numerous pump -around operations
REVISIONS
N0. DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV DATE
1 70. MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
2 REVISED 7o V 71GA-10 J F_AN
KLT
EMP e
3 9`.-. CC'JSuI -10' DRA'Aa ,GS
KLT
FN,F
`":,1 HAYNE SST
Pk --=IGH NO 276C4
PHASE 6
DEMOBILIZATION AND PLANTING
1. Complete remaining minor grading and site planting preparation work, including ripping and/or
discing, as specified in the project specifications.
2. All remaining disturbed areas, including areas that have been ripped and/or disced after temporary
and/or permanent seeding activities, are to be amended, seeded, matted and/or mulched according
to the project specifications and at a minimum within 14 days of disturbance.
3. After all construction requiring heavy equipment is completed, remove silt fence and restore
construction access roads, staging areas, and stockpile areas. Immediately regrade, replace topsoil,
and seed, amend, and mulch as specified in the project specifications and at a minimum within 14
days of disturbance.
4. Remove temporary construction entrances. Immediately regrade, seed, amend, and mulch as
specified in the project specifications and at a minimum within 14 days of disturbance.
5. Remove all tree protection fencing.
6. Complete all remaining proposed permanent vegetation planting, including the specimen tree
replacement plantings, per the plans and project specifications.
7. Remove and dispose of all trash, metal, and debris from the site according to local, state and federal
regulations.
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF
ECOSYSTEM
P-ANNING +sac
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
DJECT# SHEET
074 1B
NOTES
(N CAR
SEAL
03625
���f11111�,��,,

v f t t • r
0/5/2019
:\PROJECTS\R000074_RS-A1.I IA'ICFfIFADWArFRS\CARD',.PIANS\Af-iW_PSf-1_02.DGNUl mLn
i
E22 � /
_= v `
Z>[ m
nZ p j y
JN O
Z1
0 �+ A, i
I ti
A
A n
N
I I
0
M � ml T >1 m ir
T z D o I D TI T (n
D n
(-Om N -a
z _
z
M z 2 0 N m
Z 0> ui a I � N I m U)
0 z NI O
t9 -I O a) z n
0Zm z N
rn n <
m A N
m
N
O � N
J \
i
Ut
U
W
OLI( m
rrl v
nMm m
Zcc)zz X TJ M z
m�� FTl F (} i
�nz U7 D 0 m
N —1 z (n O
��� O z
NOO
C "'� �i } —i Rm1
m 0 Qo
� Z
O
00
jZ Z Vin: =� n
m -1
o •. o,:
GF•••.......• D L
•• m_
$1NN N m
Z
O
W N � �
m A
� � O
O m o
Z O
* � fl
3 D 77
� 1 �
O �+ZO'U
M Z V Z �
7_ 7 O
� Z
N
m
Z
La
C C C C C C C C
A w w N r r• r r
D N
N A W N N �y
W
3
e:
u N N N N N W N O
v+ � rn �o o a o m�
w� w� o+o m w v
N V1 l0 J V W W N
W rn A A N J A w D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl T
01 lD V V � lD V 01
In N tJl lA W Ip t!I to 7C
T
O W O O Oi 00 O O ~G
N V1 lD N 1p
A l!t A A t0 V A vi .A
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �Di
Vt J Vt Vt A J W lJf
O O O O O O O O O
1�f1 N lJJ1 l!1 W l0 unUn(�j1 N
A
N N N N N N
00 00 Oo Oo Oo 00 00 O�
3
W w w w w w w w N
RI
V A lfJ ID V1 � l6 -'j"0
v� rn rn in o rn v
2.
C
_ N
N
N In
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ d
Z
A O�
O O O O l�D 0 0 0 Z
z
O O O O A 0 0 0 b'
O O O O N N O O C
O O O O A 0 0 0 Vil
O� O O A S O O
N W N N N W N
A O A A In
O O O O LD 0 0 0
H
O r 0 0 0 N 0 0 y�j
aSooWS000
0o w r N v to N bo
O O O O V O 0 0�
�+
Ol 01 Q1 01 W V Ql Q1
N
N N N N N N N N
(A
N r r-� r+
W W W W W W W W
N
I-+ N �+ i+ �• r+ F+ F+
V

z
BELOW
LOG VANE SPECIFICATIONS
MATERIALS:
SPECIFICA11OtV `:
NO, DESCRIPTION
TYPE. HARDWOOD
PPROV HATE
SIZE: 1 O INCH O MIN
LOGS
NUMBER OF HEADER LOGS I
2 REVISED 70 MTIGATICN FLAN
NUMBER OF FOOTER LOGS: I
18
EMP 713,17
TYPE: TYPE 2 NON -\WOVEN
FILTER FABRIC.
WIDTH UPSTREAM 6 FT MINIMUM
NOTES FOR LOG VANE STRUCTURES:
1 STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENTS ARE SHOWN ON
THE STRUCTURES TABLE SHEET.
_ LOGS SHOULD BE STRAIGHT. HARDWOOD, AND NOT ROTTEN.
3 SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.
4. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKPL_
0
A41
r -BEGIN INVERT
B
r'
BANK. =L 1.
A�END INVERT
PLAN VIEW
PLAN VIEW
LOG VANE Lv
'<e
3S BURIED IN
STREAMBANK
AT LEAST 5'
TOP OF STREAMBANK
FLOW y
STREAMBED PRM S�-OPE
2
i
HEADER LOG— FOOTER LOG
PROFILE VIEW A- A'
ONSITE ALLUVIUM
(FLOW
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG - ITER
FABRIC
IZ ELEVATION POINT (SEE STRUCTURES TABLE)
GRADE CONTROL WOODY RIFFLE WR
B'
�HEADERLOG
i
I
PRIMARY LOGS
SPACE EVERY 5' -7
HEADER LOG
,VOTES.
1 PRIMARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10' OR MORE IN DIAMETER. RELATIVELY STRAIGHT
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING !NTC THE BANK 5' ON EACH SIDE.
2. SECONDARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST I' IN DIAMETER AND NO LARGER THAN 6" AND EXTEND INTO THE BANK 2 FEET ON EACH SIDE.
WOOD MATERIAL SHALL BE VARYING DIAMETER TO ALLOW MATERIAL TO BE COMPACTED
3. COIR FIBER MATTING CAN BE USED INS -TEAD OF TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES. PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
4 AFTER TRENCH HAS BEEN EXCAVATED A LAYER OF SECONDARY LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHOULD BE PLACED WITH
MINIMAL GAPS. A LAYER OF ON-SITE ALLUVIUM SHOULD BE APPLIED TO FILL VOIDS BETWEEN SECONDARY LOGS
BEFORE ADDITIONAL LAYERS ARE PLACED
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION
ENGR
PPROV HATE
1 70 MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMF 9 7
2 REVISED 70 MTIGATICN FLAN
KLT
18
EMP 713,17
9 =. STRUCTION DRAWINGS
KLT
EMP 0/2�2/1
1 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. INC 27604
A
BACKFILL WITH
O` -SITE ALLUVIUM
HEADER LOG
I
SANDY SOIL BACKFILL —1 /
1
SECONDARY LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS
SECTION B - B'
PRIMARY LOGS
31 PLO r— HEADER LOG
D
®� 0
®�®{� TRegM
JSji1d O \i e
SECTION A -A'
-- TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES
SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR
CHANNEL DIMENSIONS
SET INVERT BASED ON
\ DESIGN STREAM PROFILE
5 M(t ' NIMUM " 1
BURIED INTO
BANK
SECTION B - B'
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
BANKFULL ELEVATION
l
4� HEADERLOG
FOOTER LOG
F MI
BURIED INTO
BANK
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
AECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 15C
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT # SHEET NG
074 2A
DETAILS
\H CAR
SEAL
0 25
:'% :'GJNE�

A
0 - ELEVATION POINT (SEE STRUCTURES TABLE)
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SPECIFICATIONS
MATERIALS
SPECIFICATIONS.
TYPE GRANITE OR COMPARABLE
NO.
SIZE: MIX OF CLASS A. CLASS B AND #57 STONE
STONE BACK; IIL..
THICKNESS: 16 INCHES MIN
COIR FIBER MATTING
SEE MATTING DETAIL
Nl'INSTRUCTEr RIFFLF STR U'n 1pp�
1 GRADE STREAMBED AND BANKS TO PROPOSED DIMENSIONS PER
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION AND PROFILE.
2. EXCAVATE TRENCH BELOW PROPOSED STREAMBED ELEVATION
EOUAL TO OR GREATER THAN RIFFLE THICKNESS
3 INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING ALONG STREAMBANKS ENSURING
MATTING IS SUFFICIENTLY TRENCHED ALONG TOP OF BANK
4.FILL TRENCH WITH STONE TO FINAL DESIGN STREAM GRADE
LOG STEP SPECIFICATIONS
MATERIALSt
SPECIFICATIONS:
TYPE 1-."ARDWOOD
NO.
S'ZE. LENGTH - 2 X WSKF. 12 1NCH 0 MIN
LOG=
NUMBER OF HEADER LOGS: I
DATE
NUMBER OF FOOTER LOGS. i
FILTER FABRIC
TYPE. TYPE 2 NON oVOVEN
EMP
WIDTH UPSTREAM. 6 FT MINIMUM
NOTES FOR LOG STEP STRUCTURES:
I LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER. RELATIVELY STRAIGHT.
HARDWOOD. AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2 LOGS -24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAYBE USED ALONE WIT HOUI AN ADDITIONAL
LOG. GE07EXTILE FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG
3 PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER LOG
AT THE INVERT ELEVATION STATED IN THE STRUCTURE TABLE.
4 USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS
5. PLACE TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF STREAMBANK
6 SOD MAT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED WITH COIR FIBER MATTING AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER
TOP OF BANK
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE tR
RIFFLE WIDTH
A
PLAN VIEW
HEAD OF RIFFLE
FLOW
B' E � RIFFLE THICKNESS
PROFILE A -A'
COIR FIBER
MATTING
ISEE DETAIL
TOE-\ TOP OF BANK
I '-COIR FIBER MATTING SHOULD BE
RIFFLE THICKNESS J TRENCHED THROUGH STONE BACKFILL
SECTION B - B'
LOG STEP Ls
TOP OF STREAMBANK
i FLOW
SOD MATS
PROJECT # SHEET NO
074 2B
DETAILS
SCOUR �" BACKFILL CON -SITE ALLUVIUM)
i- BOTTOM OF SANK RIFFLE WIDTH (SEE 7YP; --
/ HEADERLOG
TOP OF BANK BASEFLL '..'
© �e
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 7 HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG -
O ( -- FOOTER LOG
4" MINIMUM
1/ \ SECTION A -A' SECTION B -B
POOL WIDTH (SEE TYP1
C t SCOUR/ C
SOD MAT '\ \ POOL 1+ - SOD MAT
POOL WIDTH (SEE NPI
( _ I BASEFLObV
BI_ - - _ - _ - _ ' B COIR FIBER MATTING /' COIR FIBER A".ATTNG
5�a -
I'►- 5`"+ � (SEE DETAIL' tSEEDETAIU
I RIFFLE WIDTH LOG WEIR
(SEE TYP)
TOP OF BANK +
PLAN VIEW SECTION C -C'
BOTTOM OF BANK -1
PREPARED FOR
1. 1 - 1 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH NC 276C4
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO. 97086
PREPARED IN THE CF PICE CF
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
_ RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD. SUITE 15C
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P- 1 182
.r:.�,.,.�.r...,. �.9
SEAL
0362
CA
GME•
''lTTioolksoll
PER,`.•`'
REVISIONS
NO.
DESC RIPT. iON
ENGRX..
PPROV
DATE
1
704 MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9,'l?/!7
2
REVISED70/ MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
(5/13/le
3
95% CONSTRUCTION DRA.WI'vG5
KLT
EMF
1 O/02i 1
TOP OF BANK
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE tR
RIFFLE WIDTH
A
PLAN VIEW
HEAD OF RIFFLE
FLOW
B' E � RIFFLE THICKNESS
PROFILE A -A'
COIR FIBER
MATTING
ISEE DETAIL
TOE-\ TOP OF BANK
I '-COIR FIBER MATTING SHOULD BE
RIFFLE THICKNESS J TRENCHED THROUGH STONE BACKFILL
SECTION B - B'
LOG STEP Ls
TOP OF STREAMBANK
i FLOW
SOD MATS
PROJECT # SHEET NO
074 2B
DETAILS
SCOUR �" BACKFILL CON -SITE ALLUVIUM)
i- BOTTOM OF SANK RIFFLE WIDTH (SEE 7YP; --
/ HEADERLOG
TOP OF BANK BASEFLL '..'
© �e
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 7 HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG -
O ( -- FOOTER LOG
4" MINIMUM
1/ \ SECTION A -A' SECTION B -B
POOL WIDTH (SEE TYP1
C t SCOUR/ C
SOD MAT '\ \ POOL 1+ - SOD MAT
POOL WIDTH (SEE NPI
( _ I BASEFLObV
BI_ - - _ - _ - _ ' B COIR FIBER MATTING /' COIR FIBER A".ATTNG
5�a -
I'►- 5`"+ � (SEE DETAIL' tSEEDETAIU
I RIFFLE WIDTH LOG WEIR
(SEE TYP)
TOP OF BANK +
PLAN VIEW SECTION C -C'
BOTTOM OF BANK -1
PREPARED FOR
1. 1 - 1 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH NC 276C4
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO. 97086
PREPARED IN THE CF PICE CF
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
_ RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD. SUITE 15C
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P- 1 182
.r:.�,.,.�.r...,. �.9
SEAL
0362
CA
GME•
''lTTioolksoll
PER,`.•`'

A
2
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
NOTES
1 PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE EXPECTED EQUIPMENT.
2. LOCAL ENTRANCES TO PROVIDE FOR UTILIZATION BY ALL CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES
3 MUST BE MAINTAINED IN THE CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR DIRECT MUD INTO STREETS
4 AND MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUST BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY
5. LOCAL GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT. ALL POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED
PROVIDE FREQUENT CHECKS TO THE ENTRANCE AND TIMELY MAINTENANCE
6 NUMBER AND LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AS SHOWN ON PLANS. OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
E MA}IN'lzM'—
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC AND WIREMESH BACKING
COMPACTFD FII. I—\
EXTENSION OF GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC INTO TRENCH
NOTES
7. USE CLASS "A" STONE OR OTHER COURSE AGGREGATE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 1. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC A MINIMUM OF 36" IN WIDTH AND FASTEN
ADEQUATELY TO THE STEEL POSTS
8 INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES IN A WAY TO PREVENT VEHICLES LEAVING THE PROJECT SITE FROM Bt PASSING CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES 2 PROVIDE 5STEEL POST OF THE SELF -FASTENER ANGLE STEEL TYPE
SMALL ANCHORS ON
2 CENTERS
1 IN AREAS TO BE MATTED. ALL SEEDING. SOIL
AMENDMENTS, AND SOIL PREPARATION MUST BE
COMPLETED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF COIR
FIBER MATTING.
2 WOODEN STAKES AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
WOODEN STAKES ARE PREFERRED. USE STAPLES
AS SMALL ANCHORS MUST BE PRE -APPROVED BY
THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
COIR FIBER
MATTING
ANCHORSON-
2'-3'CENTERS
MATTING
IN TRENCH
--' L 6- OVERLAYIMIN,
PLAN VIEW
B .24
�f .2
BACKFILL 1
FLOODPLAIN/
EXISTING
GROUND
— 6 MIN
SMALL ANCHORS ON
VCENTERS
IN TRENCH
/MATTINGSHALLBE
PLACED IN TRENCH.
BACKFILLED. AND COMPACTED
STREAM BED r / `6- BURIED BELOW STREAMBED
i
BACKFILL WITH
STREAMBED MATERIAL
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
PREPARED FOR
REVISIONS
REMOVE ONCE AREA IS STABLE
SMALL ANCHOR TRENCH
COIR FIBER MATTING
ON 1 CENTERS
APPROV
ANCHOR OVERLAP
0>6 MITIGATION PLAN
ON 1' CENTERS
EMP
9: 13, 7
LARGE
KLT
— ANCHCRS ON
E/ 13/ is
3' CENTERS ALONG CENTER
KLT
LARGE
10/.^2: t
ANCHORS ON
2 CENTERS ALONG TOE
--' L 6- OVERLAYIMIN,
PLAN VIEW
B .24
�f .2
BACKFILL 1
FLOODPLAIN/
EXISTING
GROUND
— 6 MIN
SMALL ANCHORS ON
VCENTERS
IN TRENCH
/MATTINGSHALLBE
PLACED IN TRENCH.
BACKFILLED. AND COMPACTED
STREAM BED r / `6- BURIED BELOW STREAMBED
i
BACKFILL WITH
STREAMBED MATERIAL
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
PREPARED FOR
REVISIONS
NC DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
0>6 MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9: 13, 7
REVISED 70'1, MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
E/ 13/ is
3 D5-�� CONS_RUCTION DRAWINGS
KLT
EMP
10/.^2: t
1 10 1 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 27604
STEEL
MATTING PLACEMENT
SEE PLAN VIFA SHEET FOR MATTING LOCATIONS
TYPICAL MATTING PLAN VIEW
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
PREPARED IN THE CFF CE :_F
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
".. RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE u P 1 182
v1RGE ANCHORS
2'- X2,
!NOMINAL'
WOODEN STAKE
I'
1
L
SVA -L ANCHilKL
WOODEN STAKE
1.F
t ^_
F
2
1 " [NOMINAI 1
STAPLE
J.
ROJECT HEET NO #
074 2C
DETAILS
lilts,,
CAR,
�,SEALS� :
••, SFJ' ...".'�•� �J �.•
.••'
',lilt, I111tsttt,

4
PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
NOTES BARE ROOT P ANTING.
1 PLANT BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE WIDTH OF THE
BUFFER AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS
2. ALLOW FOR 610 FEET BETWEEN PLANTINGS. DEPENDING ON SIZE
AND RATE STATED IN VEGETATION SELECTION.
>F STREAMBANK 3. LOOSEN COMPACTED SOIL.
4. PLANT IN HOLES MADE BY MATTOCK. DIBBLE. PLANTING BAR.
OR OTHER APPROVED MEANS.
5. PLANT IN HOLES DEEP AND WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS
TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN WITHOUT J -ROOTING.
6. KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLANT
BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS, BURLAP. OR STRAW.
7. HEEL -IN PLANTS IN MOIST SOIL OR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY
PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO PROJECT SITE
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING
NOTES.
1 IF STAKES ARE BEING HARVESTED NEAR THE SITE.
STAKES SHOULD BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY.
2 KEEP STAKES COOL AND MOIST WHILE ON THE JOB SITE
AND PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
3. DO NOT INSTALL STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
4 STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.
5STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK.
6 STAKES SHALL BE 1/2 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND 2 TO 3 FT LONG.
SAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED LEAVING 1 /5 OF STAKE ABOVE GROJND
LIVE STAKING
SECTION A - A'
NOTES FOR CONTAINER PLANTING.
I PLANT CONTAINER PLANTS IN LOCATIONS INDICATED ON PLANS
2. WHEN PREPARING THE HOLE FOR A POTTED PLANT OR SHRUB
DIG THE HOLE 8.12 INCHES LARGER THAN THE DIAMETER OF THE
POT AND THE SAME DEPTH AS THE POT
3. REMOVE THE PLANT FROM THE POT. LAY THE PLANT ON ITS SIDE
IF NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE POT
4 IF THE PLANT IS ROOTBOUND (ROOTS GROWING IN A SPIRAL
AROUND THE ROOT BALL). MAKE VERTICAL CUTS IWTH A KNIFE
OF STREAMBANK OR SPADE JUST DEEP ENOUGH TO CUT THE NET OF ROOTS.
ALSO MAKE A CRISSCROSS CUT ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF THE BALL.
5 PLACE THE PLANT IN THE HOLE
6. FILL HALF OF THE HOLE WITH SOIL (SAME SOIL REMOVED FOR BACKFILL.
7. WATER THE SOIL TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS AND FILL THE REST
OF THE HOLE WITH THE REMAINING SOIL.
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF CONTAINER PLANTING
A
TOP OF STREAMBANK
LIVE STAKE `
TOE OF SLOPE J
A'
PLAN VIEW
REVISIONS
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1 704,. MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9,� 73i 17
2 R V SEC 70'- MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
6 1 12
3 9E . CG'NSTRUCTIONDRAW,NGS
KLT
EMP
'0102 11
LIVE STAKES
SEE PLAN VIEW SHEET FOR LIVE STAKING LOCATIONS
TYPICAL LIVE STAKING AREA PLAN VIEW
PARED
I 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH, NC 27604
—TOP OF STREAMBANK
PLANT STAKES FROM TOP OF BANK TO TOE
OF BANK IN A DIAMOND SHAPED STAGGERED
PATTERN AT A 5' SPACING
SQUARE CLTTTOP
BUDS FACING UPWARD ��
AFTERINSTALLED
LIVE CUTTING MIN. 1 /2" DIA
i- 2' - 3' LENGTH
ANGLE CUT 30.45 DEGREES
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PRO )FCT # 77FFY NC
074 2D
DETAILS
-\N
` SEAL
0362
•• FTr�
ool

a
DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD
USING THE KBC PLANTING BAR
11C
i
i
1 INSERT PLANTING BAR AS 2 REMOVE PLANTING BAR AND
SHOWN AND PULL HANDLE PLACESEEDING AT CORRECT
TOWARD PLANTER DEPTH
1
4. PULL HANDLE OF BAR TOWARD 5. PUSH HANDLE FORWARD
PLANTER. FIRMING SOILAT FIRMING SOIL AT TOP
BOTTOM
CULVERT DETAIL
Vxlable
Culvert 1
CYNert 2
Calved 3
Culvert
FloodplaM
CUhert Size Tin I
2036
2@30
3 @ 24
1 1012
CUheri Metenal
RCP
RCP
RCP
HDPE
Mn. Cutyerl Le K
30
30
30
20
Mnunum Pt Class
Class III
Class III
Class III
eam Invert Ste.
1108.0
1083.0
2817.0
eam IrnBrI Ek. ft
10484
106.02
106 18
108.50
Dvvnstream Inven Ste.
1138.0
1113.0
2647.0
D-or&eam Invert Ek. fl
104.77
1 105.97
108.10
108.25
Embedment in.
6.0
6.0
6.0
0.0
aired Coyer Depth ft.
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Farm Path Elevation fl
109 0109.5
111.5
110.5
Farm Path Width(fl)
12.0
15.0
16.0
1 12.0
NOTES.
1, TYPE 4 BEDDING. POSITIVE EMBANKMENT CONDITION.
2. STABILIZE FILL AROUND CULVERTS WITH CLASS B STONE
STABILIZE REMAINING ROAD SIDE SLOPES WITH EROSION
MATTING ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS.
ZN
UPSTREAM
CULVERT
INVERT
0
CLA!
STOI
r
21N
3 INSERT PLANTING BAR 2 INCHES
TOWARD PLANTER FROM SEEDING
I
I
6 LEAVE COMPATION HULE
OPEN. WATERTHOROUGHLY
FARM PATH WIDTH
CULVERTLENGTH
PROFILE VIEW ALONG STREAM
REVISIONS
NO. DESCRIPTION
PPROV
DATE
1 70% MITIGATION PLAN
KILT
EMP
9/ 13/17
REVISED 70% MITIGATION PLAN
KILT
rKLT
EMP
6/13/19
3 95% CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS
EMP
i0/02/t
CROSS SECTION
o)
1 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH, NC 27604
PLANTING NOTES:
PLANTING BAG .� �S i
DURING PLANTING SEEDLINGS SHALL `
BE KEPT IN A MOIST CANVAS BAG OR
SIMILAR CONTAINER TO PREVENT
THE ROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING.
KBC PLANTING BAR
PLAN TING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADE
WITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION.
AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES LONG.
4 INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH THICK
AT CENTER
ROOT PRUNING
ALL SEEDUNGS SHALL BE ROOT PRUNED
IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NO ROOTS
EXTEND MORE THAN 10 INCHES BELOW
THE ROOT COLLAR.
STANDARD DITCH
NATURAL NATURAL
GROUN 7 ♦5 GROUND
F�
STANDARD BASE DITCH (TYPE A)
NOTES.
1. BANKS OF TYPE AD ITCHES PROTECTED WITH GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (SEE SPECIFICATIONS)
DOWNSTREAM 2. BANKS OF TYPE B DITCHES PROTECTED WITH STRAW. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING
CULVERT 3. TYPE B DITCHES TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 0.0005
INVERT 4 SPOIL FROM DITCHES TO BE USED IN FILLING OLD CHANNEL. CONSTRUCTION OF LEVEES.
OR SPREAD EVENLY OVER UPSLOPE AREAS.
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
PROJECT # SHEET NO.
074 2E
DETAILS
NATURAL NATURAL
GROUN.. � GROUND
STANDARD'VDITCH (TYPE B)
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8(
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
�H BAR
SEAL

PERMANENT ROADROJEC, # SL'EETNO
C/4T 2F
DETAILS
EOG 12.0' EO.G.
T' V
G.S.
GS
I
ryq r`RgG
GFT I � aP�G�O J�aO
l 1!4 "/FT 1!4 ,FT` 7 /FT KJ
ryp - 1 aP
4Gp0JNO 00
ram 1777) Q'M `� ryAr�R
�
8" COURSE � hp
0 5' MIN. I O 5' MIN
AGGREGATE BASE
3' GRAVEL SURFACE LAYER SIZE ABC
SALAVAGED ROAD MATERIAL (SECTION 1005 NCDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS)
IMPERVIOUS STREAM CHANNEL PLUG
CHANNEL TO BE PLUGGED COMPACTED BACKFILL UNCOMPACTEO
BACKFILL
5` MIMMUM
FINISH GRADE
`t
t
R.
s
IMPERVIOUS STREAM SLS CHANNEL INVERT
CHANNELPLUG
v COMPACTED BACKFILL
PLAN VIEW SECTION A - A'
NOTES
1 COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON-SITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS
'iiiiiii•iiiill
o.
REVISIONS
NO DESCRIPTION
E7NGR
APPROV
DATE
4, MITIGATION PLAN
Kt `
EMP
9/13/17
L 5 VI ED70:_Mi-LIGATION PLA":
KL.
EMP
6/13/18
O° c::r�sTn(C-IONDRAW J.CIS
KLT
EMP
10/02/I
GREPARED FOP PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF y I.
SS/
•
ECOSYSTEM
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS PLANNING �c SEAI f
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086 RESTORATION
1 10 1 HAYNES ST 559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 150 '%�if•:N J�
E ..
i ___j L �fj
RRALEIGH.
ALEIGH, NC 27604 I 2
CENSE 0 P-7 '82
6 4 "' �C ������ G�?

TEMPORARY FLEXIE
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
,SEE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS)
STABILIZED OUTLE
CONSTRUCT WITH A MIX OF BOULDER
AND STONE BACKFILL TO STABILZ
STREAM AT PUMP AROUND OUTLE
TYPICAL PUMP -AROUND OPERATION
'ERV CUS DIKE
:E PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS)
INSTALL STABILIZED OUTLET AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA
2. THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE THAT
WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK SITE TO THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
OR STABILIZED OUTLET.
3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION.
4 INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND PUMPING APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER THE
ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER
THE WORK AREA. THIS WATER WILL FLOW INTO A SPECIAL STILLING BASIN.
5 THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN AND
FOLLOWING THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.
6. THE CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL OF THE
IMPERVIOUS DIKE. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES. PUMPS. AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE STARTING
WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.
? THE CONTRACTOR WILL COMPLETE ALL GRADING AND STABILIZATION IN ONE DAY WITHIN THE PUMP
AROUND AREA BETWEEN THE IMPERVIOUS DIKES.
8 ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED REMOVE THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTLET
AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MUCH
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION
ENGR.
APPROV
DATE
1 70% MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9/12,'7
2 REVISED 70% MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
6/13/16
3 95% CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS
KLT
EMP
0/02/1
1 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 27604
W
2
7
7
11SIONS,
NOTES:
1 EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY DRY SECTIONS OF CHANNEL.
2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAM FLOW.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED IN ONE
WORKING DAY
4, THE PUMP -AROUND PUMP SHOULD ADEQUATELY CONVEY 1 CFS (450 GALLONS PER MINUTE
-- SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
P INSTALL 2 INCH PAC) OF STONE BACKFILL
/ BETWEEN SPECIAL STILLING BASIN AND
EXISTING GROUND
/ GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC J
15 2C FT -----
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.. 97086
PREPARED IN THE ©FFCE OF
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
' RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT# =2G
G74
DETAILS
Ifff111111/11
1 H_ CAR,
SEAL
036254
•
•k• �� GINE
rT Pei
,��//llltlffi

STRUCTURE TABLES- UT 1 R 1 /R2 & UT 1 A
Log Vanes
Structure
ID
Station at
Point 2
Length (ft)
Arm
jAngle deg)I
Slope (%)
Log Length
(ft)
Elevation (ft)
Pt 1 1 Pt 2
LV1
10+12.00
7.5
26.0
5.0
16.0
114.85
115.23
LV2
10+67.00
6.5
31.0
5.0
15.0
114.74
115.06
LV3
10+94 00
60
34.0
55
14.0
114.67
11500
LV4
11+31.00
7.5
27.0
5.0
16.0
114.56
114.93
LV5
11+9700
65
30.0
5.0
15.0
114.40
114.72
LV6
12+53.00
6.5
30.0
5.0
15.0
114.25
114.58
LV7
13+09.00
7.5
27.0
5.0
16.0
114.10
1 114.47
LV8
13+62.00
6.5
30.0
5.0
15.0
113.97
114.29
LV9
14-2300
6.5
30.0
5.0
150
113.82
114 14
LV10
14+80.00
6.5
30.0
5.0
15.0
113.67
113.99
1-V11
15+35.00
7.5
27.0
5.0
16.0
113.51
113.89
LV 12
15+91.00
6.5
30.0
5.0
15.0
113.38
113.71
LV13
16+42.00
70
28.0
5.0
15.0
113.25
113.60
LV14
16+70.00
8.0
25.0
4.0
16.0
113.08
113.40
LV15
16+98.00
80
28.0
6.0
16.0
112.94
113.42
LV16
17+45.00
7.5
30.0
6.0
16.0
112.74
113.19
LV17
17+95.00
7.5
30.0
6.0
160
112.52
112.97
LV18
18+46.00
8.0
29.0
6.0
16.0
112.30
112.78
LV 19
1 19+0100
8.0 1
29.0
6.0
16.0
112.07
112.55
LV20
19+69.00
9.0
26.0
5.0
17.0
111.77
112.22
L V21
20+31 00
80
29.12 1
6.0 1
160
111 52
11200
LV22
20+82.00
9.0
26.0
5.5
17.0
111.30
111.80
LV23
21+49.00
9.0
260
5.0
17.0
110.96
111 41
LV24
22+34.00
9.0
26.0
5.5
17.0
110.50
111.00
LV25
22+89.00
95
24.0
5.5
18.0
110.15
11068
LV26
23+72.00
8.0
29.0
5.5
16.0
109.79
110.23
LV27
24+'100
8.0
29.0
5.5
16.0
109.60
110.04
LV28
24+69.00
9.0
26.0
5.5
17.0
109.27
109.77
LV29
25-3500
80
28.0
5.5 I
16.0
108.99
109.43
LV30
25+63.00
7.5
30.0
5.5
16.0
108.84
109.26
LV31
25+96.00
9.0
26.0
55
17.0
10862
109 12
LV32
26+44.00
7.0
31.0
5.5
15.0
108.41
108.79
LV33
27+28.00
70
31.0
5.5
15.0
107.97
108.35
LV34
27+63.00
8.0
29.0
5.5
16.0
107.76
108.20
LV35
28+07.00
9.0
26.0
5.5
17.0
107.51
108.01
LV36
28+57.00
8.5
27.0
5.5
17.0
107.29
107.75
LV37
29+02.00 1
80
28.0
5.5
16.0
107.06
107.50
LV38
29+62.00 1
9.0
25.0
5.0
17.0
106.74
107.19
LV39
29-9900 1
8.5
27.0
5.0
170
106.54
10696
Constructed Riffles
REVISiONS
I Point 1
Station Elevation
Point 2
Station Elevation
Bottom
Width
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGR
Structure
ID
Point 1
ation Elevation
Point 2
Station Elevation
Bottom
Width
Length
Slope
CRI
00.00 115.68
!30
10+12.00 114.90
2.6
12.0
6,50%
CR2
12,00 106.59
30+32.61 106.50
3.0
20.6
0.4CR16
114.41
16.00 113.90
10*26.00 113.75
2.1
10.0
1.50%
REVISiONS
I Point 1
Station Elevation
Point 2
Station Elevation
Bottom
Width
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPFOV
DATE
1 70% MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMF
9;'3-"
2 REVISEC 70; M-iGA-ION P -AN
KLT
EMF
6 13." 6
3 95., CONS-R-.CTIOfd DRAWINGS
KLT
EMP
2.6
17.0
0.60%
W R3
12+29.00
114.41
12+53.00
114.30
2.6
24.0
W R4
13+45.00
114.11
13+62.00
114.02
2.6
PREPARED FOR
1 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 276C4
Grade Control Woody Riffles
Structure
D
I Point 1
Station Elevation
Point 2
Station Elevation
Bottom
Width
Length
Slope
W'R1
10+85.00
114,78
10+94.00
114.72
2.6
9.0
0.65%
WR2
11+14.00
114.71
11+31.00
114.61
2.6
17.0
0.60%
W R3
12+29.00
114.41
12+53.00
114.30
2.6
24.0
W R4
13+45.00
114.11
13+62.00
114.02
2.6
17.0
-0.45%
0.57%
W R5
14+56.00----113.83
14+80.00
113.72
2.6
24.0
0.46%
WR6
15+12,00
113.68
15+35.00
113.56
2.6
23.0
0.52%
WR7
1 16+23.00
113.40
16+42.00
113.30
2.6
19.0
0.52%
W R8
16+91.00
113.11
16+98.00
112.99
3.0
7.0
1.67%,
WR9
17+28.00
112.95
17+45.00
112.79
3.0
17.0
0.96%
W R 10
18+84.00
112.29
19+01.00
112.12
3.0
17.0
1.01%
WR11
20+12.00
111.75
20+31.00
111.57
3.0
19.0
0.95%
WR12
21+26.00
111.25
21+49.00
111.01
3.0
23.0
1.04%
WR13
21+88.00
110.92
21+98.00
110.78
3.0
10.0
1.46%
WR14
22+24.00
110.74
22+34.00
110.55
3.0
10.0
1.82%
W R15
22+72.00
11048
22+89.00
110.20
3.0
17.0
1.66
WR16
23+51.00
110.07
23+72.00
109.84
3.0
21.0
1.09%
WR17
24+0300
109.80
24+11.00
109.65
3.0
8.0
1,89%
W R18
24+47.00
109.57
24+69.00
109.32
3.0
22.0
1.11%
WR19
1 25+16.00
109.21
1 25+35.00
109.04
3.0
19.0
0.88%
W R20
25+53.00
109.01
25+63.00
108.89
3.0
10.0
1.20°/.
W R21
25+82.00
108 86
25+96,00
108.67
3.0
14.0
1.34
WR22
26+30.00
108.61
26+44.00
108.46
3.0
14.0
1.08%
W R23
26+71.00
10839
26+87.00
108.23
3.0
16.0
1.01%
W R24
27+13.00
108.17
27+28.00
108.02
3.0
15.0
1.04%
WR25
27+50.00
10798
27+63.00
107.81
30
13.0
1.28%
W R26
27+92.00
107.76
28+07.00
107.56
3.0
15.0
1.32%
W R27
28+42.00
10750
28+57.00
107.34
3.0
15.0
1+08%
W R28
28+87.00
107.26
29+02.00
107.11
3.0
15.0
1.04°!0
W R29
29+39,00
10699
29+69.00
106.79
30
30.0
0.67%
WR30
29+85.00
10675
29+99.00
106.59
3.0
14.0
1.14%
W R68
10+45,00
113.63
10+55.00
113.49
2.1
10.0
1.40
Log Sill
Structure
ID
LS1
L S 2
Point 1
Station Elevation
10+26.00 113.75
10+55.00 113.49
Loy Length
0
10.0
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
PREPARED N THE OFFICE OF
IraEc OSYSTEM
PANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P 1 182
PROJECT # =SHEET074
TABLES
,111111111]
H CAR
SEAL
036254
.
111111 n 1111.1

Log Vanes
STRUCTURE TABLES - UT 1 _R3
Grade Control Woody Riffles
Structure
ID
Station at
Point 2
Arm
Length (ft) Angle (dg)l
Slope (%)
Log Length
(ft)
Elevation (ft)
Pt 1 Pt 2
LV40
10+6500
12 5
240
5.0
21 0
105.32
105.94
LV41
11+49.00
10.0
30.0
5.5
18.0
105.18
105.73
LV42
12+04.00
10.0
30.0
5.5
18.0
105.07
105.62
LV43
12+84.00
10.5
29.0
5.5
19.0
104.92
105.50
LV44
13+65.00
11.5
i 26.0
5.5
20.0
104.76
105.39
LV45
14+43.00
10.0
30.0
5.5
18.0
104.64
105.19
LV46
15+21 00
11.0
270
5.5
19.0
104.49
105 10
LV47
16+36.00
1105
29.0
5.5
19.0
104.29
104.86
LV48
17+07.00
10.5
290
5.5
190
104 15
10473
LV49
17+68,00
10.5
29.0
5.5
19.0
104.04
104.61
LV50
18+5400 1
11 5
26.0
5.5
200
103.88
104.51
LV51
19+37.00 1
11.0 1
27.0
5.5
19.0
103.72
104.33
LV52
20+14.00
10.5 1
29.0
5.5
19.0
103.59
104.17
LV53
20+88.00
10.5 1
29.0
5.5
19.0
103.46
104.04
LV54
21-5200
105
29.0
5.5
190
103 34
103.91
LV55
22+33.00
11.0
27.0
5.5
19.0
103.20
103.81
LV56
23+08.00
10.0
30.0
5.5
18.0
103.08
103.63
LV57
23+82,00
9.5
32.0 1
5.5
18.0
102.95
103.48
Log Vanes
Structure
ID
Point 1
Station Ele�etion
Point 2
Station Elevation
Bottom
Width
Length
Slope j
WR31
11+83.00
105 20
12+04.00
10512
4.0
21.0
0.36!
WR32
14+23.00
104.76
14+43.00
104.69
4.0
20.0
0.37%
WR33
15+6600
104,50
15+86.00
104.45
4.0
20.0
0.28%
W R34
16+1600
10441
16+36.00
104.34
4.0
20.0
0.39%
W R35
17+54 00
104.16
17+6800
104.09
4.0
140
0.56%
W R36
19+94.00
103.73
20+14.00
103.64
4.0
20.0
0.43
W R37
21+32 00
10348
21+52.00
103.39
4 0
200
0.46
W R38
22+88.00
103.20
23+08.00
103.13
4.0
20.0
0.34%
WR39
23+62.00
103 06
23+82.00
103.00
4.0
200
103.75
Constructed Riffles
Structure
Point 1
Point 2
Bottom
Log Length
(ft)
1
ID
Station Elevation
Station Ele�g[ion
Width
Length.
Slope
CR3
10+40.00 105.46
10+65.00 105.37 11
4.0 1
25.0 1
0.37%
CR4
24+30.00 102.94
24+50.90 102.90
4.0
20.9
0.18%
STRUCTURE TABLES - UT2
Grade Control Woody Riffles
Structure
ID
Station at
Point 2
Arm
Length (ft) Angle (deg)
Slope (%j
Log Length
(ft)
ElevaLon (ft)
Pt 1 Pt 2
LV58
11+88.00
9.0
26.0
55
170
105.95
106.45
LV59
12+33.00
8.0
29.0
6.0
16.0
105.64
106.12
LV60
12+89.00
8.0
29.0
6.0
16.0
105.37
105.85
LV61
13+44.00
9.0
26.0
5.5
17.0
105.05
105.55
LV62
13+9700
8.0
29.0
55
16.0
104.76
10520
LV63
14+49.00
8.0
29.0 1
6.0
16.0
104.43
104,91
LV64
15+11.00
8.0
29.0
6.0
16.0
104.10
104.58
LV65
15+73.00
9.0
26.0
5.5
17.0
103.72
104.22
LV66
16+52.00
9.0
25.0
5 5
17.0
103.25
103.75
LV67
17+09.00
9.0
26.0
5.0
17.0
103.18
103.63
LV68
17+65.00
9.0
26.0
5.0
17.0
103.11
103.56
LV69 1
18+20.00 1
9.0
26.0
5.0
17.0
103.05
103.50
LV70
18+88.00
T5
1 30.0
5.5
16.0
102.98
103 39
LV71
19+50.00
9.0
1 26.0
5.0
17.0
102.90
103.35
FOR:
1 1 O 1 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 2 76011
Structure
ID
Point 1
Station Elevation
Point 2
Station Elevation
Bottom
Width
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGR.
APFROV
DATE
1 �'9 MITIGATiON PLAN
KLT
EMF
9
2 REVISED 70- N.71SATIONP-AN
KILT
EMP
6 ,'i a
3 95, C_;%S-RCC-IONDRA.ti!h GS
KLi
EMP
3.0
150
33%
WR42
13+27.00
105.31
13+44-001
105.10
3.0
17.0
1.24%
W R43
13+80.00
105.01
13+97.00 1
104.81
3.0
FOR:
1 1 O 1 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 2 76011
Structure
ID
Point 1
Station Elevation
Point 2
Station Elevation
Bottom
Width
Length
9
Slope
WR40
12+18.00
105.94
12+33.00
105.69
3.0
15.0
1.67%
W R41
12+74.00
105.62
12+89.00
105.42
3.0
150
33%
WR42
13+27.00
105.31
13+44-001
105.10
3.0
17.0
1.24%
W R43
13+80.00
105.01
13+97.00 1
104.81
3.0
17.0
1.18 %
WR44
1 14+33.00
104.70
14+49.00
104.48
3.0
16.0
1.37%
WR45
14+90.00
'04 37
15+11.00
104.15
3.0
21.10
1.05%
WR46
15+53.00
104.01
15+73.00
103.77
3.01
20.0
1.20%
WR47
16+95.00
103.28
17+09.00
103.23 1
3.0
14.0
0.36%
W R48
18+05.00
103.14
18+20.00
103.10 1
3.0
15.0 1
0.27%,
W R49
19+23.00
03.00
19+50.00
102 95
30
270 1
0.19%
Constructed Riffles
Structure
ID
Point 1
Station Elevation
Point 2
Station Elevation
Bottom
Width
Length
Slope
CR5
19+80.00
102.93
19+96,72
102.90
3.0
16.7
0.18%
CR6
10+00.00
107.85
10+50.00
106.78
3.0
50.0
2.14%
CR7
11+20.27
106.43
11+40.00
106.33
3.0
19.7
0.50%
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.. 97086
PROJECT #i SHEET NO
074 3A
TABLES
1111111111
H
PREPARED !N THE OFFICE OF.
EOSYSTEM `
PLANNING & p;
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD SUITE 190
RALEIGH, NC # P27 806
CA

STRUCTURE TABLES - UT3
Log Vanes Grade Control Woody Riffles
Structure
ID
Station at
Point 2
Length (it)
Arm
Angle (deg)
Slope (%)
Log Length
(ft)
Elevation (ft)
Pt 1 Pt 2
LV72
10+01.00
9.0
26.0
5.0
17.0
116.77
117.22
LV73
1D+50.00
8.0
29.0
5.0
16.0
116.23
116.63
LV74
11+04.00
8.0
29.0
5.0
16.0
115.58
115.98
LV75
11+59.00
8.0
28.0
5.0
16.0
115.35
115.75
LV76
12+27.00
9.0
26.0 1
5.0
17.0
11509
1 115.54
LV77
13+08.00
1 8.5
27.0
5.0
17.0
114.78
1 115.21
LV76
13+68.00
8.5
27.0
5.0
17.0
114 54
114.97
LV79
14+27.00
8.5
27.0
5.0
17.0
114.33
114.76
LV80
14+72.00
8.5
27.0
5.0
17.0
114.15
114.58
LV81
15+34.00
9.5
24.0
5.0
18.0
113.91
114.38
LV82
15+88.0
9.0
25.0
5.0
1 17.0
113 70
114.15
LV83
16+38.80
8.5
32.0
5.5
17.0
113.34
113.80
LV84
16-9400
10.5
27.0
5.5
19.0
113 13
113.70
LV85
17+53.00
8.5
32.0
6.0
17.0
112.92
113.43
LV86
18+15.00
95
29.0
5.5
18.0
11269
113.22
LV87
18+81.00
8.5
32.0
6.0
17.0
112.47
112.98
LV88
19+49.00
8.5
33 0
5.5
170
11225
112.72
LV89
20+25.00
9.5
29.0
5.5 1
18.0
111.96
112.49
LV90
2D+85 00
90
30.0
5.5
17.0
111 75
112.25
LV91
21+72.00 1
10.0
28.0
5.5
18.0
111.43
111.98
LV92
22+62.00
8.5
33.0
5.5
17.0
111.13
111.60
LV93
23+18.00
8.5
33.0
5.5
17.0
110.93
111.40
LV94
23+88,00
9.5
290
5.5
18.0
110.67
111.19
LV95
24+45.00
8.5
33.0
6.0
17.0
110.47
110.98
LV96
25+0900
9.0
30.0
5.5
17.0
110.22
110.71
LV97
25+87.00
9.5
29.0
5.5
18.0
109.95
110.47
LV98
26+6100 1
9.5
29.0
5.5
18.0
109.52
110.04
LV99
27+27.00
9.0
31.0
5.5
17.0
109.16
109.65
LV 100
28+0.00
10.0 1
39.0
55 1
18.0 1
108 78
109.33
Log Vanes
Structure
ID
Pant 1
Station Elevation
Point 2
Station Elevation
Bottom
Width
Length
Slope
WR50
11+51.00
115.45
11+59.00
115.40
3.0
8.0
0.64%
W R51
12-1300
115.22
12+27.00
115.14
30
14.0
0.58%
WR52
13+55.00
114.67
13+68.00
114.59
3.0
13.0
0.62%
W R53
14+59.00
114.29
14,7200
114.20
3.0
13.0
067%
WR54
15+21.00
114.03
15+34.00
113.96
3.0
13.0
0.58%
W R55
17+38.00
113.05
17+53.00
112.97
3.7
15.0
0.54
W R56
18+65.00
-20+10.00
112.61
18+81.00
112.52
3.7 1
16.0
0.51%
W R57
14+56.00
112.08
20+2500
112.01
3.7
15.0
0.47%
WR58
21+57.00
171.55
-1+7-2. 0-0
111.48
3.7
15.0
0.49%
WR59
23+03.00
111.06
23+18.00
110.98
3.7
15.0
0.52%
WR60
24+31.00
110.59
24+45.00
110.52
3.7
14.0
0.55%
WR61
25+7200
110.08
25+87 00
110.00
3.7
15.0
0.51%
WR62
I 27+85.00 1
108.93
28+00 00
108.83
3.7
15.0
0.68%
Constructed Riffles
Station at
Point 2
Arm
Length (fl) Angle (deg)
Slope (%)
Log Length
01)
Elevation (1t)
Pt 1 1 Pt 2
LV101
Structure
ID
Pant 1
Station Elution
Point 2
Station Elevation
Bottom
Width
Length
Slope
CR8
10+40.00
116.47
10,5000
116.28
3.0
10.0
1,93%
CR9
10+94.00
11581
11-0400
115.63
3.0
100
1 81%
CR10
16+09.00
113.75
16+38.80
113.39
3.0
29.8
1.21%
CRl l
27+13.00
10932
27+27 00
10921
3 7
140
0 82 %
CR12
28+08.00
108.83
28+24.00
108.74
3.7
16.0
0.561
CR13
28+92.00
108 55
29-1486
10820 1
37 122.9
15.0
1 53 io
STRUCTURE TABLES - UT4
Grade Control Woody Riffles
Structure
ID
Station at
Point 2
Arm
Length (fl) Angle (deg)
Slope (%)
Log Length
01)
Elevation (1t)
Pt 1 1 Pt 2
LV101
10+74.0
6.5
30.0
6.5
15.0
115.61
116.03
LV102
11+18.0
70
29.0
7.0
15.0 1
'.14 96
115.45
LV103
11+76.0
6.0
32.0
6.0
14.0
114.75
115.11
LV104
12+26.0
75
260
50
160
-4 52
11490
LV105 1
13+02.0
7.5
26.0
5.0
16.0
114.22
114.60
LV106
13+66.0
6.0
32.0
6.0
14.0
' 13.99
114 35
LV107
14+13.0
6.5
30.0
5.5
15.0
113.76
114.12
LV108
14+56.00
7.0
28.0
5.5
15.0
3.58
113.96
LV109
15+05.0
7.5
27.0
5.0
16.0
113.36
113.74
REVISIONS
Point 1
Station Elevation
1Point 2
Station Ele\et,on ,
Bottom
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGR
ArPRCV
DATE
1 -. MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
o 3t'
2 R -• V.- GA701, r --AN
KLT
EMF
C. 3 18
3 95 c;',5-HUCT,oN caaW NCS
KLT
EMP
2/1
0.67%
W R65 -
13,5500
114 10
13-6600
114 04
2.6
11.0
0.58%
WR66
14+45.0
113.71
14+56.00
113.63
2.6
11.0
PREPARED FOR
t
' ' Cl HAYNES Sl
RALEIGH ^,C ;�76C4
Structure !
IDWidth
Point 1
Station Elevation
1Point 2
Station Ele\et,on ,
Bottom
Length
Slope
WR63 11+66 00
114 86
11+76 00
114.80
26
1 10.0
0.57%
WR64
12+15.0
114.65
12+26.00
114.57
2.6
11.0
0.67%
W R65 -
13,5500
114 10
13-6600
114 04
2.6
11.0
0.58%
WR66
14+45.0
113.71
14+56.00
113.63
2.6
11.0
0.80%
W R67
14+95.0
113.49
15+05.00 113.41
2.6
10.0
0.75%
Constructed Riffles
Structure
Point 1
Point 2 I
Bottom
1
IDLength
Station Elevation
Station i Elevation 1
Width
Slope
CR14
10+64.0 11588
10+74.0 115.66
2.6
10.0
2.19%
CR15
11*0800 11526
11+1800 11501
26
100
250%
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
ECOSYS TEM
PLANNING &
rem RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT # 511EET NC
^74 3B
TABLES
I,III/1/11111
ZH_C-AR

VEGETATION SELECTION
TEMPORARY SEEDING
Temporary herbaceous seed mixtures for the restoration site shall be planted in all disturbed areas Temporary seed shall be
applied according to the construction specifications and the information specified below
Scientific Name Common Name Rate Dates
Secale cereale Cereal Rye Grair 130 lbs/acre September to March (Cool Season)
Urochloa remosa Browntop Millet 30 lbs/acre April to August (Warm Season)
Total Planting Area for Temporary Seeding 57.1 acreis)
PERMANENT SEEDING -Zones 1 and 2
This permanent herbaceous seed mixture shall be planted in all disturbed areas as specified on the plans as Zones 1 and 2
This permanent herbaceous seed mixture shall be applied with temporary seed, as defined in the construction specifications.
Permanent seed for this zone shall be applied at a rale of 20 lbs/acre.
Total Planting Area for Permanent Seeding. Zones 1 and 2 FZ.21 acreis)
PERMANENT SEEDING - Upland Buffer - Zone 3
This permanent herbaceous seed mixture shall be planted in all disturbed areas as specified on the plans as Zone 3. This
permanent herbaceous seed mixture shall be applied with temporary seed, as defined in the construction specifications
Permanent seed for this zone shall be applied al a rate of 20 lbs/acre.
RIPARIAN AND WETLAND BUFFER SEED MIX
Percent Planted by
NO. DESCRIPTION
Scientific Name
Common Name
by Species
Indicator Status
Panicum vvgatum
Switchgrass
2311,b
FAC
E/ymus npanus
Riterbank Wildrye
20%
FACW
Panicum dichotomrflorum
Smooth Panicgrass
14%
FACW
Carex vulpinoidea
Fox sedge
12%
OBL
Panicum ngidulum
Redlop Pamcgrass
8%
FACW
Dichanthel/um clandestinum
Deer -tongue
8%
FAC
Brdens frondosa (or anstosa)
Beggars Tick
7%
FACW
Juncus effusus
Soft Rush
4%
FACW
Persicana pensylvanrca
Pennsyhenia smartweed
2%
FACW
Spargartium amencanum
American Bur Reed
2%
OBL
Tdpsacum dactyloides
Tota I
100!
FACW
Total Planting Area for Permanent Seeding. Zones 1 and 2 FZ.21 acreis)
PERMANENT SEEDING - Upland Buffer - Zone 3
This permanent herbaceous seed mixture shall be planted in all disturbed areas as specified on the plans as Zone 3. This
permanent herbaceous seed mixture shall be applied with temporary seed, as defined in the construction specifications
Permanent seed for this zone shall be applied al a rate of 20 lbs/acre.
Total Planting Area for Permanent Seeding: Zone 3 6.1 acreis)
REVISIONS
UPLAND BUFFER SEED MIX
Percent Planted by
NO. DESCRIPTION
FNGR
APFROV DATE
1 0i' M17GA7CN PLAN
Wetland
Scientific Name
Common Name
Percent Planted
Indicator Status
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wildrye
2l
FACW
Agrostis perennans
Autumn bentgrass
15%
FACU
Panicum orgatum
Switchgrass
15%
FAC
Rudbeckia hirta
Black -Eyed Susan
10%
FACU
Coreopsis lanceolata
Lance -Leaped Tick Seed
10%
FACU
Andropogon gerardir
Big Blue Stem
10%
FAC
Juncus effusus
Soft Rush
5%
FACW
Schi2achyrium scopanum
Little Blue Stem
5%
FACU
Sorghastrum nutans
Yellow Indian Grass
5%
FACU
Tdpsacum dactyloides
Eastern Gamma Grass
5%
FACW
Total
100%
Total Planting Area for Permanent Seeding: Zone 3 6.1 acreis)
REVISIONS
River Birch
Percent Planted by
NO. DESCRIPTION
FNGR
APFROV DATE
1 0i' M17GA7CN PLAN
KLT
EMG
2FEVISED-c r 71CtA—iC_r_4N
KLT
EMP E i /t8
3 s>; c vs�F�c—�ov oFc�a :cs
KLT
EMF LVD2lI
FACW
Salix nigra
Black willow
10%
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
15%
FAC
Quemus launfolia
Tota 1
100%
1 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 27604
ZONE 1 -Live Staking
Ll%e stakes will be installed as shown on plans and details at a 5 x 5 spacing (1.742 live stakes/acre) To
ensure the proper quantity during construction, an additional 10% was added to each of the species totals
These adjusted slues are shown below. Note: See plan sheets and details for live stake planting
locations.
Total Planting Area for Llvestakes 0.30
ZONE 2 - Riparian and Wetland Buffer
Riparian and wetland �egetahon species (bare -roots) shall be planted in the areas as designated on the plans and details
Species shall be planted at an o�erail density of 680 stems/acre, using the mixture of species and percentages listed below
Wetland
Scientific Name Common Name Percent Planted Indicator Status
Betula nigra
River Birch
Percent Planted by
Wetland
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Indicator Status
Cephelanthus occidentalis
Button bush
25%
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
50%
FACW
Salix nigra
Black willow
10%
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
15%
FAC
Quemus launfolia
Tota 1
100%
FACW
Total Planting Area for Llvestakes 0.30
ZONE 2 - Riparian and Wetland Buffer
Riparian and wetland �egetahon species (bare -roots) shall be planted in the areas as designated on the plans and details
Species shall be planted at an o�erail density of 680 stems/acre, using the mixture of species and percentages listed below
Wetland
Scientific Name Common Name Percent Planted Indicator Status
Betula nigra
River Birch
7%
FACW
Carpinus carolm+ana
Ironwood
4%
FAC
L.unodendron tulipdera
Tulip Poplar
7%
FACU
Magnolia virginiana
Sweet Bay
4%
FACW
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Black Gum
7%
OBL
Persea palustris
Red Bay
4°;,
FACW
Quemus launfolia
Laurel Oak
15%
FACW
Quercus lyrata
O�ercup Oak
15%
OBL
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
15%
FACW
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
15%
OBL
Ulmus americana
American elm
7%
FAC
Tota 1
100%
Total Planting Area for Riparian Vegetation 43.8 acre(s)
ZONE 3 - Upland Buffer
Upland %egetanon species (bare -roots) shall be planted in the areas as designated on the plans and details. Species shall be
planted at ar o%erall density of 680 stems/acre. using the mixture of species and percentages listed below
Total Planting Area for Upland Vegetation 6.1 acre(s)
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
-'PEPARED iN Ti--iE OFFICE CF
ECOSYS T EM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD SUITE 15C
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT # SHEET NO
074 3C
TABLES
t1141il12111 ji l
1N CAR,
L,iJCHL - "
036 54
1�''• FrT PER .•�,.
'�''�►IIi111/1/111
Wetland
Scientific Name
Common Name
Percent Planted
Indicator Status
Acer saccharum
Sugar Maple
4"4
FACU
Diospyros wrginiana
Persimmon
4%
FAC
Lwodendron tuliplfera
Tulip Poplar
12%
FACU
Nyssa sylvabca
Black Gum
12%
FAC
Prunus serotina
Black Chert'
4%
FACU
Quercus alba
White Oak
26%
FACU
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
121/
FACW
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
26%
FAC
Total
1001
Total Planting Area for Upland Vegetation 6.1 acre(s)
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
-'PEPARED iN Ti--iE OFFICE CF
ECOSYS T EM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD SUITE 15C
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT # SHEET NO
074 3C
TABLES
t1141il12111 ji l
1N CAR,
L,iJCHL - "
036 54
1�''• FrT PER .•�,.
'�''�►IIi111/1/111

UTI -R1
125
REVISIONS
en� e7
NO.
DESCRIP-ION
ENGR
APPROV DATE
EXISTING GROUND
72) : MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP o '7
2
REVISED 70 M,TIGA-ION PWN
KLT
EMP C 1 ; 1 e
3
otis-G os o w:Ncs
KLT
EM,..
z
-
J
DESIGN BANKFULL
= 0.0026 FT/FT
G
0
m O o
0
O
S
0
S
S
Q
II II
a w
" J
a w
120
C^
N a
;
Ip
�S
Q r
O f0
Q m 0
N
,;
r
eh f0
O
V '°
O
N
Q
Q
O
rn Q
0
0 O
Nl M
O
M
O O
N N
O
r
8 N O
o
N
... +
O
i ���TTT
O O •t-
.'-
4 Q
+ Q
.. "
~
+ Q
•- r'
O
o'
N
+
+
m
Of l N .-
O Q N Q
N
Q Q
N O 0
fp r
O
11
J II II.
II II
II
J.
J II JI II
J
II J
II
1. II
N
JI
N
�-
M fh
m
M f7
aw
aw
aw
awaw
awatn.w
aw
aw
awaw
aw
aw
aw
aw
aw aw
aw
aw aw
115or
O
pNOpmQ
+
: o
;:
fi
'
NI
ONo
.
v
00
n
o�
110
.I
a
w a
wN
J
aw
'aw
J
J
JI
II
J
N
til
"''
��
aw
au.
aw
a
w
�'�
o
J
aw
aw
105
DESIGN THALWEG
10+00
11+00 12+00
PREPi,RFD =OP.
1
10 1
01 GAYNESS-
RALEIGG f�,C a 6�1
13+00
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO. 97086
PRO. ECT # SHEET NO.
074 l 4 J
PLAN /
PROFILE
10 O 20 40
I
SCALE (FT)
REVISIONS
en� e7
NO.
DESCRIP-ION
ENGR
APPROV DATE
1
72) : MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP o '7
2
REVISED 70 M,TIGA-ION PWN
KLT
EMP C 1 ; 1 e
3
otis-G os o w:Ncs
KLT
EM,..
z
-
J
O m
~
N N
m m cQ
11+00 12+00
PREPi,RFD =OP.
1
10 1
01 GAYNESS-
RALEIGG f�,C a 6�1
13+00
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO. 97086
PRO. ECT # SHEET NO.
074 l 4 J
PLAN /
PROFILE
10 O 20 40
I
SCALE (FT)
14+00
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
ECOSYSTEM
PANNING &
IqM RES—ORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
LIT
en� e7
{+ �
m ,.j T ' W
7
Q
Q W
J II II
II JI
II II II II 2
w aw
aw
aw aw (n
w
z
-
J
O m
~
N N
m m cQ
Q
II II
a w
" J
a w
14+00
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
ECOSYSTEM
PANNING &
IqM RES—ORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
LIT

PROJECT ti SHEET NO
�F C74 5
PLAN
PROFILE
REVISIONS
o m
N tD
N
�
r N
�„I
oM
Q M Q
oo
M
2 REVISED 7C MT1GA-I0NPLAN
pop
pop
3 s >. CONS-RCC-lCN IRAw.NGS
S
EMP 2:
o i?
o
YI
O
tD
10
Q
N
(+Q
M Q
M
t0
t0
n
115
~
O
V
EEi�DD
aw
N
JI J
aw
J fl J
aw
J
J
II
Ql a
�
11 „ 11
11
IL
1W
m
°
a
�I
w
a
w a
=
.N-
u
aw
'
U O
J li
aw
aw
°'
aw
aw a
E-
itJ
_�,
a
,il
w
aw
n
8��
11
O v
p
110
z_
#
N
.—eaw
�N
+�
��
O
_I
aw
=
J
n r
—
a
w
II J
a w
11 w
11 11
fD
C
O
M
O
O
S
OM
1� O
DESIGN
p
O
Q N
°
w
a w
n
105
<
Lo
Z
Z
BANKFULL
^
a w
++ '
v#'
= 0.0026 FT/FT
EXISTING
15+00
�I
w
16+00
�a
w n
8
DESIGN °
_N
O
n
-GROUNDU
m
`
Q
M
a
M M
M Q M IfI
t0 r
THALWEG a
w
DESIGN a `�'
O"
a
O'
iN,
O
O
O '_. ++ M {p
�'o
115
IgTJIIJ
BANKFULL
O
I �1-
2
a
w
a w
a
w a w a w a w a
w u w a w
=
0.0042 FT/FT
0
�
0
o
18+00
19+00
110N
+ N
w m
N
UTIA
o
+
o S2
I: J
FL
w
a w
DESIGN
EXISTING
105
DESIGN BANKFULL THALWEG
_
GROUND
10+00
REVISIONS
Nc DESCRIFTION
ENGR
APPROV DATE
'.-. MITIGATION PLAN
KL-
EMP 9;'3i'7
2 REVISED 7C MT1GA-I0NPLAN
KILT
EMP
3 s >. CONS-RCC-lCN IRAw.NGS
KLT
EMP 2:
N
N
R
1 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH NC 27604
10 C 20 4C
R
SCALE (FT)
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
PPEFARED IN THE CFFCF CF
` ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE a P-1 182
�1u1►ua11
.O
rr
SEAI_ �'�
7N)�
�. Jac,
�''oFrT PER r•
'14#11111140"0
UTI R 1& R
N
N
N
OiN
A
•M-
N
Q
n
r
M
O
V
EEi�DD
N
N
8
p
p
O
c�
O
+�
II
Ql a
W
!
a
11
IL
II �I
a w
m
°
a
�I
w
n
u
a
.N-
u
ry
-
'
U O
J li
u
rn it
li
°'
n
O
E-
itJ
_�,
a
,il
w
aw
n
11
sr sr
.—eaw
aw
aw
=
C
O
M
O
O
S
OM
1� O
O
p
O
Q N
p
p
O
O
O
Lo
Z
Z
r
^
++ '
v#'
8
EXISTING
a
�I
w
it
�a
w n
a w
DESIGN °
_N
n
-GROUNDU
m
`
a
w
a
w
THALWEG a
w
DESIGN a `�'
a
JI
w
Q
BANKFULL
2
=
0.0042 FT/FT
17+00
18+00
19+00
20+00
UTIA
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
PPEFARED IN THE CFFCF CF
` ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE a P-1 182
�1u1►ua11
.O
rr
SEAI_ �'�
7N)�
�. Jac,
�''oFrT PER r•
'14#11111140"0

UT1-R2
FROJE: T Jt7DE
074 PLAPRO
10 O 20 40
SCALE (FT)
125
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1 701>:, MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9- ', 3."' 7
2 REMISED 10 M71GATION P'AN
KLT
EMP
6.-1 17
3 95< CONST Pt CT,CN DRAWINGS
KLT
EMP
16/02,'
EXISTING GROUND
DESIGN BANKFULL
= 0.0042 FT/ FT
120
DESIGN
BANKFULL
= 0.0052 FT/FT
O
CJ O m S eD S^ OO
S
O
O OJ
O
O
S
O
pp
~
O
N
O r
N
O r
N
f
+_
Q
T F m O O N O rA
O
N
O
A Q
O
m N
m
N N
N
p
S Q
N p
S O
Q O O N
OJ M e0
O N
O
O
O
O
O
115
11 J
d W
II
d W
111
d W
N II
d W
N 11
d W
N
11 11
J
t1 W
N I
II J
N �I
it
N ry •' fV
N
1i J II 11 11 IJ N II N it
it
N
N it
11
N V
11
N
H
M
M�
M O p p� i O
4 0
Q O
(+O m
N
OI m
d W
d W
J
d W d W d W d W d W
J
d w
d W
11 11
11 J
d W
~ II
J
N 11
II
_
lV 11 N II N
_ II II
N II
Q
N
Q
NLd
N O
1-
d LL:
Q W
_
d W d W d W
d W
d W11
JI
a w
II J
a
---.
\
w
S
110 ?
t
-----•-•--
•-•-
-----
-
_J
0
-Lo
-
Lij
U
vo
mM
o`er'
0
52
om
o
J
105
N I
N J
�m
N O
om
N O
av
O \
o.-
M
Nm
om
O O
o
N
2
U
cQ
L
d w
_� JI
IL w
d W
W
N
1
d LLl
d W
11 J
d W
II J
N 11
d W
d W
100
DESIGN THALWEG
95
20+00
REVISIONS
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1 701>:, MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9- ', 3."' 7
2 REMISED 10 M71GATION P'AN
KLT
EMP
6.-1 17
3 95< CONST Pt CT,CN DRAWINGS
KLT
EMP
16/02,'
21+00 22+00 23+00
PREPARED FOR.
�t
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
110t. HAINES ST
RALEIGH. INC 27604
24+00
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF.
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
ml
,,,�Frr PE�o♦ ♦,,

z
1�
PROJECT # SHEET NO
�\ 074 7
l
PLAN /
PROFILE
•
6
�
MP�GNL�NE SNEO
CE
_ l
WR 26+00
19 REMOVE EXISTING
WR LV 6" PVC PIPE
21 31
LV REMOVE EXISTING �- 30' 00
29 _ 111" CPP PIPE 1
W21 R LV LV
LV 23 2'>X�� 34 36 29 39
O O Vtl RLV
VIR O 29+00 38 WR CR
22 25 27 30 `1
LV x00
32 WR WR LVi
24 33 WR L 8 37
V
35 END CONSTRUCTION UT ---R2
STA: 30+32.61 '
MAINTAIN EXISTING 36' RCP PIPE ����� ,,rte`•'
MAINTAIN EXISTING 30" RCP PIPE Ego
20 10 0 20 40
SCALE (FT)
25+00
26+00
REVISIONS
fd0 DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV DATE
1 70':. MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP .7
2 REV SEE) 7o v-ICAr;ONP_AN
KLT
EMP 2 1e
3 , CONSTRICTION DKAwINGS
KLT
UT1-R2
EXISTING GROUND
F
w
w
T
(0
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.0052 FT/FT
115
z
8
N
pp
OM
O
O h
T O
OD N
p
OI S
00 N
t0
m
00 r
��pp
O r
O
O p
pOp IO O 0
O
O
O S
O
O r
S O
O Wtp
O O
O
O
p
8
N A np
N r
0
p
8 6
OI (gyp
OD
N m
N
N
OI
N
N
N
U
J
I
J
I
J
II N
J 11
N
J i.
11 N
J II
I
0
N
11 II
0
N II
11
tp
N
O O
N I
D
ry
O
II
b O
N
O
}
0 O
N
r
m
0
O O
r
}
r
O
10
♦
r
r
♦
r
m
}
r 0
O
} 0
N r
i p
Q
4
r
p
r
N
{
W
p
!� {
M N
Q
r r
N
O
r
O
M
O
J
J
N
II O
N
rn m
N N
N
d
W
d
W a
W a
W a
W 4
W Q
J
W
J
1 W
a W
11 J
W W
11 J
d W
I
a
W
II II
J
II 11
i!
1
N II
11
N II
N
11 II
N
11
11
N
11
N ry 11
11
N If
II
O
N
II,
m
ry
O
O O
m
}
O
O
Qt O
}
0
O
0
Q
W W
W W
—�
a
W
t7
r
110
Q
a W
d W
d W
d W
d W
a w
d
W
a
J J
w a w
a w
II J
a w
11
a w
11
a
J
W
a
11
w 0.
JI 11
w a s
N
a
II
w
N II
a w
N
a
II
w21
/
O
D
q �
O
�
�W
105
N
p
\
O
N O
p{np
f+
O
`
+V^
/•
r0
N eNj
O r
ID
O
J
O
1V
0
O
O O
0 0
Oi O
_"
O
0
f
0 M
cOp
O
II
100
O
O
a
w
/
\
a
W
O
N
J d
W
d
W
n J
a w
�.
W
a W11
aw
^ 11
- J
_..�
aw
��
EL Lu
95
a w
25+00
26+00
REVISIONS
fd0 DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV DATE
1 70':. MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP .7
2 REV SEE) 7o v-ICAr;ONP_AN
KLT
EMP 2 1e
3 , CONSTRICTION DKAwINGS
KLT
EMP G02,'
PREPARED
1 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 27604
�- DESIGN THALWEG
27+00 28+00
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
29+00
PREPARED N THE OFFICE CF
ECOSYSTEM
1x' PLANNING &
RES "ORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 15C
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # P- 1 182
30+00
Ti
N
,OS �-
GINE��
•.,���FTT p���J��.

115
110
105
100
95
UT1-R3
PROJECT ##(LIT NO
074
PLAN /
PROFILE
0
wu
10 O 20 40
SCALE (FT)
10+00
REVISIONS
NO
DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1
EXISTING GROUND
KLT
EMP
of i-
2
RE SEC 7C Ml10r 10N P -AN
KLT
EMF
_ l5
3
,CONE-RUC-ONDRAWWGS
KLT
EMP
c 32,...
DESIGN BANKFULL = C.001 8 FT/FT
p
Q
00 M
O 4
00 M
Q
"„
N_O
N
O+ �p
O
�
x
n
y�
u
n.w
O
F((BOO
Ew F- id aw
Ew
O
m
IL
aw
In
ry
O
O Oi
m O
�-
a
O
o'
a�
m
M
N
c7
0
M t00
O<
v
y V
E w
E w
E w
--
„�'
a
w
w
w
"
�I
"
u
u"
n W
--
_ — _ —
_ —
a
Ew
aw
Ew
aw
aw 7-
U) N
z—
o�
mm
N
O
Q
11
E
J
w
11 J
w w
1 11
a w
E
r
J
�2
II
O
n
'
CULVERT # 1
w
a
w
E
w
(SIZE T.B.D.)
10+00
11+00
PREPARED FOR
� t
1 1 O 1 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 27604
12+00
DESIGN THALWEG
13+00
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.' 97086
14+00
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF'.
ECOSYSTEM
PANNING &
a '
RFS—ORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD SUITE 15('
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # P 1 182
15+ ;
'ESS • '.
P=A�R'f
03625��
ccs'%
'•• FrT PER .•`�
REVISIONS
NO
DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1
70 �, MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
of i-
2
RE SEC 7C Ml10r 10N P -AN
KLT
EMF
_ l5
3
,CONE-RUC-ONDRAWWGS
KLT
EMP
c 32,...
11+00
PREPARED FOR
� t
1 1 O 1 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 27604
12+00
DESIGN THALWEG
13+00
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.' 97086
14+00
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF'.
ECOSYSTEM
PANNING &
a '
RFS—ORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD SUITE 15('
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # P 1 182
15+ ;
'ESS • '.
P=A�R'f
03625��
ccs'%
'•• FrT PER .•`�

UT1-R3
PROJECT# SHEETNO
074
PLAN /
PROFILE
�l
20 10 O 20 4C
SCALE (FT)
115
NC DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APFROV DATE
70n MITIGATION PLAN
KL'
EMP %
2 JIs D 7C, V-1GA71CN P�,N
KLT
EMP '-e
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.0018 FT/FT
KLT
EXISTING GROUND
pp
Q
orn
0N 0ON
0
8 Q
0
r110
8
MO
N
$
�
�
{0 M 0
W
11
11 11
II J
II 101 li 101
II J
IIr-
J
J
_
11
11 11 I
11
II
'- II
W
_
a
—
a W
a W
_
a W a W
a
-�
a W
a W
a W
a W a W J
aw
J
aw
n
-
a w
n
-
a w
L
w
�I
w
it II
W
105
J
W
100
=
U
0
o�
n
o
00
o
oom
m m
Q
o N
0
o 0
^�
0
0
all�
80
Z_
C
.�
11 J
11 J
II 11
r
1�
GD
m O
U
L
a W
a W
a
1111
J
II 11
W
a w
a w
a w
1al JI
Q
W
95
DESIGN THALWEG
15+00
16+00
17+00
18+00
19+00
20+n
REVISIONS
NC DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APFROV DATE
70n MITIGATION PLAN
KL'
EMP %
2 JIs D 7C, V-1GA71CN P�,N
KLT
EMP '-e
3
KLT
EMP
1 101 H.AYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 27604
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF
• ECOSYSTEM
PANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
ow
#01N E •
E �
SEML
0362 4 •
1'11'• GINEF; J�4 ��•

20+00
REVISIONS
NC.
CONFLUENCE �.\'"
ENGR
PF`ROV DATE
PROJECT# O
SHEET N
10
MIT GATION PLAN
KLT
EV3%'.
2
RE\ISEL-C VTIGA`ION P --AN
UT 1 - R3 STA. 24+50.90 \
UT2 STA. 19+9&72 `
EMP E 1?:'?F3
3
274
KLT
E%!= D<,'!,
ELEV. 102.90
CR
_ _
------
PLAN
PROFILE
Z�XOO 4
LV
57
CR
5
LV
WR 71
END CONSTRUCTION
39
UT 1-R3
R
67
STA. 24+62.73
ELE. 1 01 .79
LV
21 *00
5V 2
53
3*0 O
MATCHLINE SHEET 9
i O
I +
O
WR
36
WR LV 70
38 56
OO
LV
52
X
�
N
WR
37
LV
69
J�2
TC) i jti
G�
LV
54
O
0
�RF1�jO Z!A
R
66
20 1 O O 20 40
irJl
SCALE (FT)
UT1-R3
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.00 1 8 FT/FT EXISTING GROUND
110
W
��* oQ o�
b N ap .1)
N 11 N IJI
it J 11 tl J
o- o�
r7 N Q
C
N N
I 11
it J 11
N
M 8
N 11
II J
0M
1�J
N 11
II
0 N S $ N 8 S 8
m N m aD Uf N O
O + [7 m O O+ t7 N cj r0
N N N 0 cin M
N N N N N
11 11 11
J J
p p
O I7 O
cp M pl O
O O O
Q
O T O�
`
Q O O
I Y
W
105
a w a w a w
a w a w
a w
a w
J J J 11 J
a w a w a w a w a w a w
J JI
a w 'L w
Y
a w a w
z
— --
–� – – –
=
100 J
U
0
o
O
N J
g a
N
N O
S n o
a O
N 11 N 11
0
O
N 11
m
o m
N
i J O
d W
J
d W
G W
11 J II J
aw E: Lu
11
aw
d W N JI
aw
95
20+00
21+00
I 1 O' HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 27604
L- DESIGN THALWEG
22+00 23+00
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
24+00
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF.
CAECOSYSTEM
PANNING &
RES -ORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # R 1 182
IID
REVISIONS
NC.
DESCRIPTION
ENGR
PF`ROV DATE
1
MIT GATION PLAN
KLT
EV3%'.
2
RE\ISEL-C VTIGA`ION P --AN
KLT
EMP E 1?:'?F3
3
KLT
E%!= D<,'!,
21+00
I 1 O' HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 27604
L- DESIGN THALWEG
22+00 23+00
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
24+00
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF.
CAECOSYSTEM
PANNING &
RES -ORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # R 1 182
IID

UT2
PROJECT # S' ,EET NO
C74 11
PLAN /
PROFILE
210 10 O 20 40
SCALE (Fn
10+00
REVISIONS
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.0214 FT/FT
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.0050 FT/FT
NC DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1 MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9,12-17
2 RF E D?e M IGA7ilNF'JAN
KILT
EMP
e 1 %i8
3 CONsrauc ION DPAIVINGS
KILT
EMP
'c,'02,'!
DESIGN BANKFULL
= 0.0057 FT/FT
EXISTING GROUND
115
S
a
no �o
m
;
og
O
O
O
O
om
��
e�
0�
g;
8�
80
O
O r O
O
r r
i 0
4
N 0
N
j
m N
N
m
O
N
Q
00
M .-
0_
O O
8�
f� W
8� g
On
o
O m
0
O m 8
110
w
a
II II
4 W a w
II
d w
� II
d w C. ''
f J
a
11 J
0 u
°
�' J
N
N
Y Ji
ry O
f
N
i O
it
N
+ O
11
M O^
Q u
o
r
m
0
r
m N
M 0
m y
M O
0 M
+
Q +
m QO
o
N yQy p
rn
W
W
w
aw
.j
'aw
aw
'
0. Lu
a.w
H
aw
n
aw
n
aw
u
aw
aw
aw
v
O
O
aw
a w a
105
O
aw
+oo :'Ici
)
/
M
,�
N O
r•rn o
°'
o
orn
v `O
oor
o0
o
o
J
11 J
^ II J
N
oS M
N`
M o
} Q
m
O,
S
N a
100
�• W
�. W
a w
�1
d W E w
it J
11 II
M O
O
a W
a w
E LL
a w
i J
a w
95
10+00
REVISIONS
NC DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1 MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9,12-17
2 RF E D?e M IGA7ilNF'JAN
KILT
EMP
e 1 %i8
3 CONsrauc ION DPAIVINGS
KILT
EMP
'c,'02,'!
NEW CULVERT#2
(SIZE T B.D.)
11+00
1 1 01 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. N'-: 276:%4
�— DESIGN THALWEG
12+00 13+00
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
14+00
PR -FARED iN THE OFFICE OF:
'j�. ECOSYSTEM
PANNING &
' RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # F-1 1 82
1
ml
. G

SEE SHEET 10
PROJECT it SHEET NO
12
J/
ILE
UT2
15+00
REVISIONS
NO DESCRIPTION
ENG -R.
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.0057 FT/FT
1 70 MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP T
2 r .S c.o V71GA-10N P -AN
KLT
EN1P e 3 1e
3 ., , CONSTRucnoN DRIAI NCs
KLT
EMPC, 02, '
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.001 2 FT/FT
115
EXISTING GROUND
110
W
L11
n
f
m -
N
+
O
S
�
M r
i 0
o-
N r
W MO
o
4
0
R O
n
o
O N
g M
O N
S M
O N
o
O p
0
O p
;
0
0,
Q .-
0
0 0
N
0
0 0
O •-
p
8 M o M
W O t� O
0
O S
M
0 0
p
O W
o
N
Iw7
N
N
{ 0
♦
p
f 0
M
O
A M
O
{
M
O
M
O
{ M
O
M
O
{ M
m
M
O
M
O
N
M
O
N
N IA
O
N
O
m
O
h
ID
p
��=l1
Ul
d
W
J
E w
J
E W
II II
a w
�I
a
I)
J
�I 11
a w
it
I J
a
II 11
a w
II
J
11 II
J
II II
w
11 II
J
_O
II it
J
'
it
it
J 11
II
J
11
II
J
11
�I 11
II
J
II
II
J
C
105
W\
?
w
w
a
w
a w
a
a w
a w
awaw
a
w
awaw
a
w
n
aw
J
_ _
Q
o0---------------
r___
OIt
00,1
O
'2 F''2
N
Oi
a W
II
J
__
II
J
11 J
11 J
J
JI
11
J
aw
aw
aw
aw
aw
a.w
aw
95
15+00
REVISIONS
NO DESCRIPTION
ENG -R.
APPROV DATE
1 70 MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP T
2 r .S c.o V71GA-10N P -AN
KLT
EN1P e 3 1e
3 ., , CONSTRucnoN DRIAI NCs
KLT
EMPC, 02, '
16+00
PREPARED FOR.
1 01 HAYNES S7
RA_DGH N 276(%:
` DESIGN THALWEG
17+00
18+00
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
19+00
PREPAREC W -"-HE OFFICE OF
+ ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
)S9 JONES FRANKLIN RD SUITE 15C
RALEIGH. NO 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
Lin

UCTION UT3 - R 1
STA. 1C+00.00
LV
CR 73
x00 e
R
J 50
7
LV
DCR xO
7 9
LV !`'?
74
UT3
PROJE_CT #MI
074
PLAN /
PROFILE
NOTE:
BEGINNING OF UT3 WILL TRANSITION
FROM EXISTING CHANNELS INSIDE
WOODL-INE PER ENGINEERS DIRECTION.
DISTURBANCE WITHIN WOODS
WILL BE MINIMIZED
DLV
79
N�`x
h ti
WR
53 Sxy
0 LV FFA
'8
LV Q
80
REVISIONS
0,
p
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGR-
APPROV
DATE
1 701, MITIGATION PLAN
EXISTING GROUND
EMP
9,13/ ' 7
2 REVSEC-0 M-IGA-ION PLAN
125
EMF
C113/18
3 95, LQNSTRULTnON ORAw;NGE
KLT
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.0030
T/FT
FT/FT—
�
$N
IN
N Q
O
O M
c7
120
11 11
aw
r
"�
aw
p
p
N
��
N
m
NQ -
+" +�
Ql OC
+
Ot m
+�
aw
aw
�� u
a w a w
Itn°
a w
a w
u I,
a w a w
iii
a w
n
a w
115
S N
p
m
p 7uj+
110
0-
aw
w
u w
a w
a w
a w
105
DESIGN THALWEG
100
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
REVISIONS
0,
p
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGR-
APPROV
DATE
1 701, MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9,13/ ' 7
2 REVSEC-0 M-IGA-ION PLAN
KLT
EMF
C113/18
3 95, LQNSTRULTnON ORAw;NGE
KLT
EMP
10/02/4
P EPAti D FCR
7777 x
xE
1 01 HAYNES S-
RALEIGH. NC 2 6=14
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.0040 FT/FT
0,
p
N
O m
O
m T
rn�
a
n
Q
,n
v
(L w
a
w
a
w
a
14+00
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH INC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
20 10 O 20 40
SCALE (FT)
O O O N
+ LLI
Q� a� W
FL w n w 1)
W
_ _ z
J
gQ U
h
o � �
a1w
•,f_ C C �I
Z-�AL�'�
030G54 ?
.,�?��TT. PE�p����

v
0
0
0
p
m
oN,
10
SEE SHEET 17
w
o
LV 65
10
77
PROJECT # 7 -S1 ( -4-E NO.
074 14
PLAN /
PROFILE
END CONSTRUCTION UT4 LV 19+00 MgTC,
LV STA. 15+30.95 87
+ 108 CONFLUENCE UT3 - R 1 S
STA. 16+38.82 y�Frr
WR S
LV LV 57
1 C7 WR 85
66
LV 67R --� 7�x 56 f
8? + LV 00 LV
WR LV O
-Z,
p0 �
16+00 4 17+00
2� 55 LV
k 86
� CR
LV
� 82 84
20 10 O 20 4C
SCALE (FT)
UT3
REVISIONS
NC DESCRIPTION
DESIGN BANKFULL = O.0030 FT/FT
PPROV
EXISTING GROUND
1 770?" MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9 3, "-
2 rEVSEo70M I ,-IONPAN
KLT
EMP
125
3
KLT
EMF
0i02;
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.0040 FT/FT
t*1
tti
120
W
c rn
00
In
+'�
0 0
o^ o N
w m o rn
o
rn�
0
0
��
o e
mr
oN qN
g o
W
��ff��
V/
Ing
d w
Ing
d W
�� �'
a W a W
+ f +ri
[O eo
O J
N f
^ 4
II J Iil J
III J
It
II
N N
N O
OI N
oin vM
!T
W
d W d W
aiw
aw aw
EL
Ew
E w
a w aw
_rn .- r
-' J °
115
Z
a w E w
z
��
g�
o
�_
110
c¢
o
O M
c~c
L
E W
J
d W
7,
4
d W
d W
E w
E wII
J
11 J
105
W w
a w
DESIGN THALWEG
100
%��.u,�8 0.
15+00
16+00
17+00
18+00
19+00
Qe� '•.
2% .. O
REVISIONS
NC DESCRIPTION
ENGR
PPROV
DATE
1 770?" MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9 3, "-
2 rEVSEo70M I ,-IONPAN
KLT
EMP
5 i2'ie
3
KLT
EMF
0i02;
1 1 OHAYNES ST
RALEiGH NC 276,;4
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO. 97086
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF: --
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
rr-A, RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH NC 276C6
:.!CENSE t F 1 ' 82
?P FZJ GIN
SEAL ,:
54
of Alto 10%

0
0
C
C
i
3u
N -c
WR
58
LV
89
�xp0
00
5 R LV
FSy�F�' 9G
4
LV
93
��+•-- J W R L V
59 95
LV
92
24+00
WR
60
LV �
94
SHEET 16
Mp,TGHLINE
UT3
PROJECT$.)(777707)
074 15
PLAN /
PROFILE
d�
�O
6
20 10 O 20 40
milli
SCALE
125
NO. DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1 70V, MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
2 REVISEC A." MITIGATION PLAN
KILT
EMP
6i 17 / 18
3 9,. c,!)N5-RLC.-'0NLRA`nlNG5
KL-
EMP
c"012"t
DESIGN
BANKFULL = 0.0030 FT/FT
DESIGN BANKFULL =
0.0040 FT/FT
120
uio
N`
mo
Q N
��
pp
1�m
O .-
S
r
m
P
S m
OI
g
�^
g
O �^
w Of
o
fD
g N
g NID
g
g
115
r
O
11
J
O
„ 11
J
p �_
N II
J
J
I
r.
11
�Np
♦`
N r
N 11
f`
N'
N 11
O
N
t7 O
N
mm n
m
mO r
Q
N N
Q
u] N
Q
r
W
C W
d w
a W
d W
J
W
J
d W
11 J
a w
11 J
a W
II 11
G W
11 II
1 W
N II
1 J
N li
11 J
N
11 J
N
N J
I.LI
u1
n w
a w
a w
a w
Ltl
_. �.�
__
_ _ _
_ _ _.._
_ -
— _ .....
—
--
110
z =�_�..
— _
�—
--_'
— — — —
—
—
—
— — —
z
I
U
$
m 6
O
o
�Op
@
p
ly-)
C
ap
4
N
C
p N
O m
r r
p
p p
pp
O N
U
105
C
N i1
d W
O`
a
W
a
i
N If
Q
ND
ui N
Np
C
G
w
a W
a w
11 11
a w
C
100
EXISTING GROUND
20+00
REVISIONS
NO. DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1 70V, MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
2 REVISEC A." MITIGATION PLAN
KILT
EMP
6i 17 / 18
3 9,. c,!)N5-RLC.-'0NLRA`nlNG5
KL-
EMP
c"012"t
21+00 22+00
RFFARFD FOR
1 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 27604
1— DESIGN THALWEG
23+00
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
24+00
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF
lECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH, NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182

125
120
115
110
105
100
UT3
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.0030 FT FT
r
.�Q N
O
O ^
to N
p
O
NO DESCRIPTION
O
Of O
8 r
O
O n
8.
KLT
EI`QP
9 7
2 RFV'SED 7C% MITIGATION F�:.N
KLT
EMF
IA O
3 '-. CONSTRUCTION DRA'W'NGS
N O
N
EMP
00
OI
tl 0
m O
�p O
N N
♦
♦ m
8 8
O OBD
C �p
8
N
O tl
Q Yl �1
N
W I J
a W
11
a W
N
11 J
d W
M
11
1 W
II
fi
1�
N J
O
N J
dp
i O O
♦
N
m O
O C
4 W
d W
a W
a W
II 11
J- J
11
J
N
11 J
N t
11 J 11
W
---
�y
0. Wa W 1 W
W
W n
p
N
Of
8
n
8
o
Q
Q
N p
Op
6
CJ
r
N
m
O
W
O. W
11
N J
N
N O
a W
m W
L W
N J
aw
EXISTING GROUND
DESIGN THALWEG
(70=77 #) SHEET NO
074 16
PLAN
PROFILE
101
d�
�o
10 O 20 40
SCALE (FT)
1 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 ��`,�Q�`;.,%•�••�.:v j
REVISIONS
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1 70% MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EI`QP
9 7
2 RFV'SED 7C% MITIGATION F�:.N
KLT
EMF
E,'13, 16
3 '-. CONSTRUCTION DRA'W'NGS
KLT
EMP
PREFARED FOR
1 ' O 1 HAYNES ST
RALEfG"n NC 2-7604
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF;
r
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
''SEAL -

125
120
,0x00
STA. 10+00.00
Q
0
II i
m
0
a
Q
L
C�
X
L
�O
R
f 64
t
Lv
J
�y
ND CONSTRUCTION UT4
STA. 15+30.95
LV
106
7v
x00
J_7p
LV
107
LV
O QLV
UT4
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.0030 FT/FT EXISTING GROUND
0
0
Mv� om Qc� 0 0
0 0
10+00
p�
(p
^ m
N
O
m0
O
O>O
APPROV DATE
1
O
m�
O
NCO.
EMF '.s '.,
2
RE✓SED7C. V71GATONR-AN
KLT
00
Sr
O
KLT
11
II.
+
+�
Of r
+
4
,a7
r Q
O
Q
N
1
Q
N N
N
E
cu
J
d W
J
a W
J
JI
it II
II
Il
li
II
r
M
a 111
n.
W
d W
w
W
11
J
11 J
N II
71
-•—
aw
CL
awowo
a
---
+�
8
p
Or
it
II
W
'
m
N
M
O
r
N
�
FL
it N
7
it
w
a w
a
w
9
10+00
11+00 12+00
PREPARED FOR
1 O 1 "A.YNES S7
nA_E,.GH NC 2761±
CL w
DESIGN THALWEG
13+00
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
SEE SHEET 14
V
1 --
LJ
w
v�
w
LL
u;
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.0040 FT/FT —
O S O O
so OO
+ *�v
Q Q
II J II J it II
d W d W ' II
a w a w
O� N �
+ +
I�1 � Q �
Lt II
. w E w
14+00
PROJECT# SHEETNO
074 17
PLAN /
PROFILE
NOTE:
BEGINNING OF UT4 WILL TRANSITION
FROM EXISTING CHANNELS INSIDE
WOODLINE PER ENGINEERS DIRECTION
DISTURBANCE WITHIN WOODS
WILL BE MINIMIZED.
JIZ
D
O
00
w
20 10 O 20 40
SCALE (FT)
6, 5,
mm
REVISIONS
S—
--PR
-
NO
DESCRIPTION
EN --R
APPROV DATE
1
70�/ MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMF '.s '.,
2
RE✓SED7C. V71GATONR-AN
KLT
EMP 1 3,-18
3
esu CONS-RU--ONDRAWNGE
KLT
EMP
a
w
•
11+00 12+00
PREPARED FOR
1 O 1 "A.YNES S7
nA_E,.GH NC 2761±
CL w
DESIGN THALWEG
13+00
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
SEE SHEET 14
V
1 --
LJ
w
v�
w
LL
u;
DESIGN BANKFULL = 0.0040 FT/FT —
O S O O
so OO
+ *�v
Q Q
II J II J it II
d W d W ' II
a w a w
O� N �
+ +
I�1 � Q �
Lt II
. w E w
14+00
PROJECT# SHEETNO
074 17
PLAN /
PROFILE
NOTE:
BEGINNING OF UT4 WILL TRANSITION
FROM EXISTING CHANNELS INSIDE
WOODLINE PER ENGINEERS DIRECTION
DISTURBANCE WITHIN WOODS
WILL BE MINIMIZED.
JIZ
D
O
00
w
20 10 O 20 40
SCALE (FT)
6, 5,
mm
O—
S—
--PR
-
�mm
+ + M
InQ
O
mQ
M +
�M
M •M-
' 1
Ii J I J
a w a w
11
a
J II
w a
J 11
w a w
O
0
m I
O
0 N
m
Q
m
N
it
a
J
w
a
w
•
PREPARED
IN THE OFFICE OF
--PR
-
ECOSYSTEM
0�
Ar
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH NC 27606
LICENSE = V' 1 82
'•ti�?�FTT

v
0
0
0
ar
"J
Np
'dir
wa
o�
REVISIONS
NO. DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1 701 MITIGATION PLAN
KILT
EMP
9. ' 3/17
2 REVISED 70-A MITIGATION PLAN
KILT
EMP
61131,18
3 95--/ CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS
KLT
EMP
o!ov+
Ei
1 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 27604
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
PREPARED iN THE OFFICE OF
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
i RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH, INC 27606
LICENSE # P 1 182
F)"
w
W
c;
W
z
J
S
U
H
Q
PROJECT # SHEET NO.
074 18
PROPOSED
GRADING
75 0 75
-\N
" SEAL
���i�1111gN��

w
I—
-low
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGF
APPROV DATE
1 70',_ MITIGATION PLAN
KILT
EMP
2 REVISED ?CV ieA'ION N_AN
KILT
EMP e. 3, i8
3 ctisti r no v"5
KLT
EMP
w:
, o
z
\
w
PROPOSED PIPE �
Z
U
got
� ,
Q
REDIRECT PROPOSED FARM PATH
DITCH
FLOW
i s eroi
CHANNEL PLUGS
CHANNEL PLUG
h
�
REVISIONS
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGF
APPROV DATE
1 70',_ MITIGATION PLAN
KILT
EMP
2 REVISED ?CV ieA'ION N_AN
KILT
EMP e. 3, i8
3 ctisti r no v"5
KLT
EMP
FREFARED FOR
1 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH NC 27604
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO. 97086
7OJECT # SHEET NO
v74 19
PROPOSED
GRADING
75 O 75 1
ECOSYSTEM
SEAL
PLANNING & '
0 2�5d c
Ar RESTORATION
'J
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUE 150 ��� ••• �
IT..E
�G ;
RALEIGH. NC 27606 r,���
LICENSE 7tP 1'82.

CHANNELPLUGS
PROPOSED FOREST CLEARING--N
CHANNELPLUGS
777777)
PROJECT SHEET NO
CHANNEL PLUG 074 20
i
PROPOSED
GRADING
CHANNEL PLUG -X ' ;♦`, i'
1
GRADING TO SPREAD WATER
OUT OF EXISTING DITCH
p
CHANNELPLUGS
J^ s
CHANNELPLUGS 44
♦ a t
♦
m
CHANNEL PLUG ♦ /' {
l
V � i
1C Odd
GRADING TO SPREAD WATER
OUT OF EXISTING DITCH PROPOSED FARM PATH
75 O 75 1
REVISIONS
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV DATE
1 C MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMF ' :7
KLT
EMP E-3,18
T8
DRAW,NGS
KLT
EMP
PREPARED FOR. P ,FFP %7 _ OFFICE OF: I
!�T
g6 C
OSYSTEM ��•:
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS PLANNING & = SEAL
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC 's 2
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086 RESTORATION A_ jN
1 10 1 HAYNES ST 559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150 ��y,,//�� J;
RALEIGH, NC 27606
RALEIGH. NC 27604 +���
LICENSE # P-1 182 ����� rT PS X0'1"

— (777777-707) 1
PROJECT # FET
(mr =E:77 #)
74 21
F,
RIPARIAN PLANTING ZONE
VEGETATION
PLAN
UPLAND PLANTING ZONE
STREAM BANK PLANTING
77—
lj
W
ui
75 0 75 150
b -t d-dommill, I -, -
SC4I►Klffiiwl,
NCAr?
PREPARED FCR PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF
REVISION5;
�FROVI
NO I DESCRIPTION EN�-,R DATF ECOSYSTEM z '11"EAL
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
REVISED 7a- W-IGATION P -A\ KILT ENIF 6 1�—R
1 70� MITIGATION PLAN KILT EMP 91
R2 F.ANNING 036254
3 Q5-,cc)N P—CTO%DRAWINL�S KLT ENIF JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086 RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD SUITE 150
c 101 AYNESST RALEIGH NC 27606 T Ple
P�A-EIGH NC 276�)4 LICENSE# P. 1 182
C.
L

r
f
L
i
L
4
o`
REVISIONS
NO. DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1 MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9,13, l7
2 PENIS= 10 M -IGA-ioN PL AN
KLT
EMP
E,113,18
3
KLT
EMP
Or,v!
PREPARED FOR
1 101 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 27604
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
RIPARIAN PLANTING ZONE
UPLAND PLANTING ZONE
STREAM BANK PLANTING
PREPARED IN THE OFF!i.:E O�
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NO 27606
LICENSE 4 F1 182
PROJECT #SHEET NO
074 22
VEGETATION
PLAN
75 O 75 1
CAR
ra SEAQ -
0 2
''� �FrT PES •`�
'''��Ii/11111/••1•,
a
PREPARED IN THE OFF!i.:E O�
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NO 27606
LICENSE 4 F1 182
PROJECT #SHEET NO
074 22
VEGETATION
PLAN
75 O 75 1
CAR
ra SEAQ -
0 2
''� �FrT PES •`�
'''��Ii/11111/••1•,

I
PROJECT # SHEET NO.
074 23
VEGETATION
PLAN
I
1 101 h-AYNES ST
KALEIGH IAC 276:%4
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
CE OF
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
re- a RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
0 75 '5C
•a SEAL
.!GIN. J
I• �
TT
REVISIONS
NO
DESCRIPTION
ENGR.
PPROV
DATE
1
70 ( MIT GATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
1 3," 7
2
REVISED 70 M `iGA-ioN FLAN
KLT
EMP
c-13118,
3
e5; DRAWNGS
KLT
EMP
-0.02/t
1 101 h-AYNES ST
KALEIGH IAC 276:%4
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
CE OF
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
re- a RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
0 75 '5C
•a SEAL
.!GIN. J
I• �
TT

PROJECT # SHEET NO
24
EROSION
f
\ CONTROL
PROPOSED
BORROW>�
AREA
OPW2 W
to � z
o r
<
-
PROPOSED
BORROW "
tt2s
AREA��
q tt5 16
'a
1�5
f t t 5.5 -4,le
f 40
7s
75 O 75 15C
SCALE,SFT)
PREPARED FOR PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF
�SEAL
ALLIANCE HEADWATERSECOSYSTEM;
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC .. PLANNING & - 0362�
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086 RESTORATION ll�Q�;�
101 HAYNES ST 559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150 !� y
RALEIGH. NC 27604 RALEIGH, NC 27606 /........PE�Q,,`
LICENSE # P-1 182
Q
r
0
0
0
i
mr
U
Q
n
REVISIONS
NO
DESCRIPTION
ENGR
PPROV
DATE
1
70';'; MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9: '3i t7
2
pis cnr �ciGaTi�NF on
KLT
EMP
6 !3: !e
3
KLT
EMP
c -

I
s
0
0
tt
i
m�
REVISIONS
NO, DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1 70% MITIGATION PLAN
KLT
EMP
9/13/17
2 REVISED 70'—MITIGA'ION PLAN
KLT
EMP
6%13,'1 B
3 as..., CONS-PocTIoN ORAwlNcs
KLT
EMP
0i02/ 1
1.
D FOR:
1 1 O 1 HAYNES ST
RALEIGH. NC 27604
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO.: 97086
Ij
,1
\
4
1.
PREPARED IN 1 HE OF F ICE OF.
ECOSYSTEM
r- PLANNING &
RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE # P-1 182
PROJECT #) SHEET NO.
074 25
EROSION
CONTROL
6/
75 O 75 150
SCALE (FT)
_" SEAL `

PROPOSED FOREST CLEARING
V
A
REVISIONS
-I
NO DESCRIPTION
ENGR
APPROV
DATE
1 70% MITIGATION PLAN
KILT
ENIF
'7
2 REVISED 70% MMGA7]C)N P -AN
KLT
EMP
6,'13,B
3 95% CONSTFUC"T-ION DRANINGS
KILT
EMP
10/32-6
PREPARED FOR
tai
11 01 HAYNESS
RALEIGH. NC 27664
OJECT # SHEET NO
074 26
EROSION
CONTROL
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DMS PROJECT NO. 97086
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF
Ar
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING & RESTORATION
559 JONES FRANKLIN RD. SUITE 150
RALEIGH. NC 27606
LICENSE# P-1 182
\m
75 0 75 1
SEAL
vo�l I I