20160981 Ver 1_Final Mitigation Plan_20181210

ID#* 20160981
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review
Completed Date
12/11/2018
Mitigation Project Submittal -12/10/2018
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? *
Type of Mitigation Project:*
W Stream r Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jamey McEachran
Project Information
Existing 20160981
(DWR) (nunbers only no dash)
I D#: *
Project Name: Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site
County: Johnston
Document Information
r Yes r No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Existing 1
Version: (nun-bersonly)
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plan
File Upload: Llmle FINAL Mitigation Plan 12082018.pdf 47.66MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the corrplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jamey McEachran
Signature:*
J" J�madtob

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400

res.us

December 7, 2018

Ms. Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

RE: Uzzle (SAW-2016-01973) Final Mitigation Plan

Dear Ms. Dailey,

Resource Environmental Solutions is pleased to submit the NeuCon UMBI Uzzle Site (SAW-2016-01985)
Final Mitigation Plan and Nationwide Permit 27 Pre-Construction Notification (PCN). The Mitigation Plan
submittal includes a response memo to IRT comments on the draft plan. All IRT comments were addressed.
The attached PCN package includes PCN Form, PCN supplemental information, supporting figures, and
an updated JD with an updated aquatic resource inventory table and Waters of the US Map. The PCN has
also been submitted to NCDWR and USACE via the joint online submission tool.

The conservation easement for the project has not yet been recorded but will be shortly. Following approval
of the mitigation plan, recording of the conservation easement, 404/401 NWP acceptance, and performance
bonding RES is requesting the initial credit release of 431 SMUs. These credits represent 15 percent of the
restoration/enhancement credits.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this important project. Please contact me at 239-233-7570 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions or require any additional information.

Sincerely yours,

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Bob White
Project Manager
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:

CESAW-RG/Dailey October 17, 2018

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Neu-Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank (UMB) Draft Mitigation Bank Instrument
Review

PURPOSE: The comments listed below are in response to the Neu-Con UMB: Uzzle Draft
Mitigation Plan

PROJECT NAME: Neu-Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank: Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site (SAW-
2016-01973) Johnston County, North Carolina.

USACE Comments

1. Please include a Service Area Map with the final mitigation plan.
2. Existing wetlands on site should be monitored prior to stream restoration activities,
and throughout the monitoring period to ensure no loss of wetlands occur.
3. One proposed crossing is planned. The narrative in section 3.4 discusses the use of
appropriate sized culverts; however, the detail drawing D5 indicates that a rock ford
crossing will be installed. Please clarify.
4. Table 9: Please explain the projected rating of HF (Highly Functioning), as this is not
a standard category in the function pyramid. Also, it would be beneficial to discuss
the NCSAM ratings in this section since that is the approved stream functional rating
tool for the Wilmington District. Furthermore, in Section 8, Monitoring Plan,
treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and performance standards should
be tied to the NCSAM ratings, and not solely based on the Stream Functions Pyramid
Framework.
5. Section 6.6 – Please include the buffer calculation spreadsheet data. It appears the
calculations are incorrect and should be recalculated.
6. Section 6.7 - Additional 2% credit for benthic and water quality monitoring is
proposed. Please include a monitoring schedule and baseline data. Additionally, this
section discusses preservation reaches. Please remove that section.
7. Section 7.1: Entrenchment ratio should be no less than 2.2 for C/E type streams, not
1.4 as indicated in this section.
8. Section 7.1: Digital image stations should be labeled on a map and remain consistent
throughout the monitoring period.
9. Reach LP5 – it appears that the minimum 50 ft buffer is not attainable on both sides
due to the pipeline right-of-way, near the agricultural crossing. Please provide a
narrative on this discrepancy, and the addition/loss of credits in this area.
10. Section 8.6 – Effects of livestock, such as fecal monitoring, should be included.
11. Long Term Management Plan - should include a description of all maintenance and
repair activities, the annual cost for each, and the total amount of the funding.
12. Financial Assurances – We need a letter from UP2S confirming that they agree to
receive the funds and ensure the work is successfully completed.

DWR Comments

1. Section 3.3 makes no mention of a huge junk car lot that borders the western edge of
the project. In addition, the Section does not mention the extensive nursery
operations that are just north of the site across US 70. Both of these areas represent
possible significant point source pollutant possibilities. Given the fact that RES is
proposing water quality monitoring for the site, these areas should be considered in
the monitoring plan for water quality metrics.
2. In Section 3.4 – Property, Boundary, and Utilities paragraph, a 60 feet crossing is
proposed. It states the crossing will utilize culverts, however, in the design sheets
(S9), a rock ford crossing is proposed. DWR prefers culverted crossings, with
floodplain pipes in these type of crossings. In addition, the primary functional uplift
for the project is getting the cows out of the stream, if the cows are allowed to cross
in a ford-like crossing, much of the upstream benefit will be lost to the downstream
reaches of the project.
3. DWR supports the decision by RES to monitor water quality on the site. However,
DWR needs more specifics in regard to the plan and placement of the monitoring
devices. Two particular missing metrics DWR believes should be monitored for this
project are nutrients and fecal sampling. Also, there does not appear to be a sampling
station at the end of the project. Given the watershed characteristics mentioned in #1
and the overall goal of removing cattle from the site, it would seem measuring
nutrient and fecal changes would be the primary metrics utilized. Moreover, has
water quality monitoring commenced on site? What about the status of the cattle on
the site, do they still have access? Measuring pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen and
conductivity only will not suffice for this site.
4. DWR believes a reworking of the buffer width (for extra stream credit) calculations is
necessary.

USEPA Comments
1. Executive Summary/Page ii:
a. Recommend adding the name of the Mitigation Bank (Neu-Con Stream and
Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank) that this mitigation site is a component
of.
2. Section 1/Page 6:
a. Recommend adding the name of the Mitigation Bank (Neu-Con Stream and
Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank) that this mitigation site is a component
of.
b. Recommend adding the Corps Public Notice ID Number for the Uzzle site
(SAW-2016-01973).
c. Recommend adding the classification for Little Poplar Creek if known.
3. Section 2.1/Page 7:
a. Recommend caution in using the claim "nutrient and sediment transport from
agricultural areas to Class C waterways will be reduced" unless actual
evidence to support this claim is provided via water quality sampling for
nutrients and sediment. The proposed water quality monitoring plan does not
currently include these parameters.
4. Section 3.5/Pages 15-18:
a. First paragraph is unclear between a contiguous easement and an easement
that has one agricultural crossing.
b. Table 7 is missing a footnote (1).
c. Recommend adding Bank Height Ratios for existing channel conditions to
Table 7.
d. Table 4 in Channel Classification should be Table 7.
e. The existing length of LP4 is missing (599 lf).
f. The existing length of LP5 (2325 lf) is significantly different than the
proposed EII reach of 2258 lf.
g. The existing length of LP7 (322 lf) is slightly different than the proposed EII
reach of 319 lf.
5. Section 5/Table 9/Pages 24-25:
a. Please explain or define the "HF" or "Highly Functioning" category as it
pertains to function. This is not a functional level of performance based on the
Function Based Framework.
b. Please explain how a resource function can increase from "Functioning" to
"Highly Functioning". Functioning is a category that encompasses a range of
nearly fully functioning to a reference or pristine condition when using a
Stream Quantification Tool. Where does "Highly Functioning" fit on the
spectrum of stream function when "Functioning" includes the 100 percent or
highest value?
6. Section 6.4/Page 36:
a. "Forested riparian buffers of at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel will
be established along the project reach" is somewhat erroneous as portions of
reach LP5 and reach LP6 have buffers less than 50 feet along the right banks.
b. Highly recommend the sponsor recalculate the Non-Standard Buffer Width
Adjustments for a few reasons. First, the lack of or thin buffer along LP5 and
LP6 right banks should be calculated as a loss of credit. Second, additional
credit does not begin to accumulate until the buffer width exceeds 75 feet for
Coastal Plain streams (see comment below). It appears that the sponsor has
included credit for buffer within the 50-75 feet zone at a 7% percent rate and
carried that error forward into calculations for the other zones (75-100, 100-
125 etc.). The chart in Figure 11b needs to be updated with new calculations
with a subsequent update to Tables 1 and 15.
c. The 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update Section XI. (B)1. states: "To provide an incentive for buffers that
exceed the minimum standard width, additional credit may be awarded using
the procedures outlined in Section XI(C) below. Additional credit is not
provided until buffer widths exceed 50 feet from the normal wetted perimeter
for mountain streams and 75 feet from the normal wetted perimeter for
piedmont and coastal plain streams."
7. Section 8.3/Page 40:
a. Groundwater monitoring gauge locations are not shown in the Figure 12
Monitoring Plan Map.
8. Section 8.5/Page 41:
a. The planted area of 3.6 acres requires at least 4 plots to monitor 2 percent of
the planted vegetation. Recommend adding an additional permanent or
random vegetation monitoring plot.
9. Sections 8.6 and 8.7/Page 41:
a. EPA Region 4 applauds the bank sponsor for considering and including a plan
to monitor water quality and macroinvertebrates at designated points within
the project. The Region highly encourages any additional efforts to support
the goals outlined in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities
especially those that may demonstrate the efficacy of restored aquatic
functions. Therefore, I recommend that nutrients and pathogens are included
in water quality monitoring since the project streams are downstream of heavy
agricultural land use including livestock. The receiving waters, Poplar Creek,
are designated as Class C Nutrient Sensitive Waters and one of the goals of
the project is to support the Neuse RBRP by promoting nutrient and sediment
reduction in agricultural areas.
10. Section 10/Page 45:
a. Would the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation be willing to add a
small clause in their long-term management plan to include "trash removal" in
the list of items included to be covered by the endowment funds?

11. Section 12/Table 19/Page 48:
a. Recommend adding an additional component/feature to Table 19 Maintenance
Plan to address trash, litter and other roadside debris. This site is adjacent to a
major highway and is subject to the constant input of garbage from heavy
traffic and illegal dumps. Without active monitoring and maintenance of trash
and other refuse over the 7-year monitoring period, it is highly likely that this
site may be full of refuse and plastic debris at closeout.

Samantha Dailey
Project Manager
Raleigh Field Office

MEMORANDUM

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel.
919.829.9913 fax
TO: NCIRT
FROM: Bob White - RES
DATE: December 7, 2018
RE: Response to Neu-Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank: Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site
(SAW-2016-01973) Johnston County, North Carolina NCIRT Comments

USACE comments

1. Please include a Service Area Map with the final mitigation plan.
Figure 1 has been updated to show the entire service area.

2. Existing wetlands on site should be monitored prior to stream restoration activities, and
throughout the monitoring period to ensure no loss of wetlands occur.
Two wetland gauges have been added adjacent to Reach LP1. Section 9.3 Hydrology Events has
been revised to state “Wetland monitoring gauges with data recording devices will be installed
adjacent to LP1; the data will be downloaded on a quarterly basis during the growing season.”
Figure 12 has also been updated to reflect this addition.

3. One proposed crossing is planned. The narrative in section 3.4 discusses the use of appropriate
sized culverts; however, the detail drawing D5 indicates that a rock ford crossing will be
installed. Please clarify.
The rock ford crossing in the design plans found in Appendix A is the accurate type of crossing
that will be used. Section 3.4 has been revised to accurately describe the type of crossing that will
be installed.

4. Table 9: Please explain the projected rating of HF (Highly Functioning), as this is not a standard
category in the function pyramid. Also, it would be beneficial to discuss the NCSAM ratings in
this section since that is the approved stream functional rating tool for the Wilmington District.
Furthermore, in Section 8, Monitoring Plan, treatments and their associated monitoring metrics
and performance standards should be tied to the NCSAM ratings, and not solely based on the
Stream Functions Pyramid Framework.
“Highly Functioning” ratings have been revised to “Functioning” rating, as Highly Functioning
will not be demonstrated.

5. Section 6.6 – Please include the buffer calculation spreadsheet data. It appears the calculations
are incorrect and should be recalculated.

The calculation was performed incorrectly. Thus, the buffer width adjustments have been
recalculated with the appropriate methodology. Figures 11a and 11b have been consolidated into
Figure 11, which shows all buffer width zones. Furthermore, language has been revised on Page
38 that reflects the appropriate methodology, and Table 16 removed. A copy of the spreadsheet is
in Appendix B, and the GIS and excel document has been provided with this submission.

6. Section 6.7 - Additional 2% credit for benthic and water quality monitoring is proposed. Please
include a monitoring schedule and baseline data. Additionally, this section discusses preservation
reaches. Please remove that section.
Due to the schedule of construction and budgetary constraints RES has determined that it will not
be possible to conduct the macroinvertebrate and water quality monitoring adequately for this site
and will not be generating the additional two percent SMU credit at this Site. The Mitigation Plan
has been revised to reflect the removal of the water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring in
the Table 1, Table 9, Determination of Credits section (Section 6), as well as in the Monitoring
Plan section (Section 8).

7. Section 7.1: Entrenchment ratio should be no less than 2.2 for C/E type streams, not 1.4 as
indicated in this section.
The entrenchment ratio performance criteria for the entrenchment ratio, described in section 8.1
Performance Standards under the subheading Cross Sections has been revised to say no less than
2.2.

8. Section 7.1: Digital image stations should be labeled on a map and remain consistent throughout
the monitoring period.
Digital image stations are not specifically called out on the map because there are digital image
stations at the corner of each vegetation plot taken at the same position each year and digital images
taken of the right bank, left bank, upstream and downstream of each cross section. These images
remain consistent throughout the monitoring period.

9. Reach LP5 – it appears that the minimum 50 ft buffer is not attainable on both sides due to the
pipeline right-of-way, near the agricultural crossing. Please provide a narrative on this
discrepancy, and the addition/loss of credits in this area.
The following statement has been added to clarify: “A portion of the right bank of LP5, and most
of the right bank of LP6 will have a buffer less than 50-feet; however, this is due to a parallel 50-
foot gas easement that is maintained vegetation (Figure 10, Figure 11).” Furthermore, the non-
standard buffer credits have been recalculated to reflect the loss in the required buffer, and changes
were made in Table 1 and 15, and Figures 10 and 11.

10. Section 8.6 – Effects of livestock, such as fecal monitoring, should be included.
RES will not be performing water quality monitoring.

11. Long Term Management Plan - should include a description of all maintenance and repair
activities, the annual cost for each, and the total amount of the funding.
The Long-term Management plan section was revised to show the correct Long-term Steward as
well as to provide further information about the type of activities that will occur. A more in-depth
description of the costs in an endowment letter from North Carolina Wildlife and Habitat
Foundation was added to Appendix C.

12. Financial Assurances – We need a letter from UP2S confirming that they agree to receive the
funds and ensure the work is successfully completed.

The long term steward should have been North Carolina Habitat and Wildlife Foundation. This
has been revised in the Final Mitigation Plan. A letter confirming that they agree to receive the
funds and ensure the work is now added to Appendix C.

DWR comments

13. Section 3.3 makes no mention of a huge junk car lot that borders the western edge of the project.
In addition, the Section does not mention the extensive nursery operations that are just north of
the site across US 70. Both areas represent possible significant point source pollutant
possibilities. Given the fact that RES is proposing water quality monitoring for the site, these
areas should be considered in the monitoring plan for water quality metrics.
Language has been added to Section 3.1 Drainage Area and Section 3.3 Land Use that describes
the junk car lot and the nursery operation. Furthermore, RES will not be performing water quality
monitoring on this site, as state previously.

14. In Section 3.4 – Property, Boundary, and Utilities paragraph, a 60 feet crossing is proposed. It
states the crossing will utilize culverts, however, in the design sheets (S9), a rock ford crossing is
proposed. DWR prefers culverted crossings, with floodplain pipes in these types of crossings. In
addition, the primary functional uplift for the project is getting the cows out of the stream, if the
cows are allowed to cross in a ford-like crossing, much of the upstream benefit will be lost to the
downstream reaches of the project.
The rock ford crossing in the design plans found in Appendix A is the accurate type of crossing
that will be used. Section 3.4 has been revised to accurately describe the type of crossing that will
be installed. Furthermore, the ford crossing will be gated, and livestock will not have extended
access to the stream.

15. DWR supports the decision by RES to monitor water quality on the site. However, DWR needs
more specifics regarding the plan and placement of the monitoring devices. Two missing metrics
DWR believes should be monitored for this project are nutrients and fecal sampling. Also, there
does not appear to be a sampling station at the end of the project. Given the watershed
characteristics mentioned in #1 and the overall goal of removing cattle from the site, it would
seem measuring nutrient and fecal changes would be the primary metrics utilized. Moreover, has
water quality monitoring commenced on site? What about the status of the cattle on the site, do
they still have access? Measuring pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen and conductivity only will
not suffice for this site.
Due to the schedule of construction and budgetary constraints RES has determined that it will not
be possible to conduct the macroinvertebrate and water quality monitoring adequately for this site
and will not be generating the additional two percent SMU credit at this Site. The Mitigation Plan
has been revised to reflect the removal of the water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring in
the Table 1, Table 9, Determination of Credits section (Section 6), as well as in the Monitoring
Plan section (Section 8).

16. DWR believes a reworking of the buffer width (for extra stream credit) calculations is necessary.
The buffer width adjustment has been recalculated with the appropriate methodology. Figures 11a
and 11b have been consolidated into Figure 11, which shows all buffer width zones. Furthermore,
language has been revised on Page 38 that reflects the appropriate methodology, and Table 16
removed. A copy of the spreadsheet is in Appendix B, and the GIS and excel document has been
provided with this submission.

USEPA Comments

1. Executive Summary/Page ii: a. Recommend adding the name of the Mitigation Bank (Neu-Con
Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank) that this mitigation site is a component of.
Neu-Con Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank has been added to the introductory
paragraph of the executive summary.

2. Section 1/Page 6:
a. Recommend adding the name of the Mitigation Bank (Neu-Con Stream and Wetland
Umbrella Mitigation Bank) that this mitigation site is a component of.
Neu-Con Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank has been added to the project
introduction paragraph.

b. Recommend adding the Corps Public Notice ID Number for the Uzzle site (SAW-2016-
01973).
The Corps SAW ID (SAW-2016-01973) has been added to the introductory paragraph.

c. Recommend adding the classification for Little Poplar Creek if known.
The classification for Little Poplar Creek is added in Section 3.1 under the Surface Water
Classification section.

3. Section 2.1/Page 7: a. Recommend caution in using the claim "nutrient and sediment transport
from agricultural areas to Class C waterways will be reduced" unless actual evidence to support
this claim is provided via water quality sampling for nutrients and sediment. The proposed water
quality monitoring plan does not currently include these parameters.
This statement was revised to make sure it does not overstate the goal of the project. It now says,
“By excluding livestock and establishing a conservation easement that will be protected in
perpetuity, the Uzzle Mitigation Site will support the RBRP Goal 2 to promote nutrient and
sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving wetlands, streams and riparian
buffers.”

4. Section 3.5/Pages 15-18:
a. First paragraph is unclear between a contiguous easement and an easement that has one
agricultural crossing.
The phrasing contiguous easement has been removed as there is an agricultural crossing at
the Site.

b. Table 7 is missing a footnote (1).
The footnote for Table 7 (1ABKF= cross-sectional area (measured at approximate bankfull stage
as estimated using existing conditions data and NC Regional Curve equations where field
indicators were not present) was added at the bottom of Table 7.

c. Recommend adding Bank Height Ratios for existing channel conditions to Table 7.
The Bank Height Ratio was added to Table 7 for all existing channels.

d. Table 4 in Channel Classification should be Table 7.
The Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics has been updated to be Table 7 instead of
Table 4.

e. The existing length of LP4 is missing (599 lf).

The statement “The existing length of LP4 is 559 LF.” Has been added to the Existing
Channel Morphology description of LP4. The length was revised in the final mitigation plan
due to further survey information.

f. The existing length of LP5 (2325 lf) is significantly different than the proposed EII reach of
2258 lf.
The existing length of LP5 in the Draft Mitigation Plan unintentionally still had the length of
the crossing within it and was using old stationing information. The existing length of EII
has been revised to correctly say it is 2,258 LF.

g. The existing length of LP7 (322 lf) is slightly different than the proposed EII reach of 319 lf.
The existing length of LP7 was incorrectly calculated using the centerline instead of the top
of bank. The existing length of LP7 was revised in all locations to the accurate length of 312
LF.

5. Section 5/Table 9/Pages 24-25:
a. Please explain or define the "HF" or "Highly Functioning" category as it pertains to function.
This is not a functional level of performance based on the Function Based Framework.
“Highly Functioning” ratings have been revised to “Functioning” rating, as Highly
Functioning will not be demonstrated.

b. Please explain how a resource function can increase from "Functioning" to "Highly
Functioning". Functioning is a category that encompasses a range of nearly fully functioning
to a reference or pristine condition when using a Stream Quantification Tool. Where does
"Highly Functioning" fit on the spectrum of stream function when "Functioning" includes
the 100 percent or highest value?
See above response.

6. Section 6.4/Page 36:
a. "Forested riparian buffers of at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel will be established
along the project reach" is somewhat erroneous as portions of reach LP5 and reach LP6 have
buffers less than 50 feet along the right banks.
The following statement has been added: “Both Reaches LP5 and LP6 right bank have less
than 50 feet buffers, but they run parallel to a 50 feet utility easement corridor that is fully
vegetated maintained herbaceous cover with some foot paths. (Figure 10, Figure 11).”

b. Highly recommend the sponsor recalculate the Non-Standard Buffer Width Adjustments for
a few reasons. First, the lack of or thin buffer along LP5 and LP6 right banks should be
calculated as a loss of credit. Second, additional credit does not begin to accumulate until the
buffer width exceeds 75 feet for Coastal Plain streams (see comment below). It appears that
the sponsor has included credit for buffer within the 50-75 feet zone at a 7% percent rate and
carried that error forward into calculations for the other zones (75-100, 100- 125 etc.). The
chart in Figure 11b needs to be updated with new calculations with a subsequent update to
Tables 1 and 15.
The calculation was performed incorrectly. Thus, the buffer width adjustments have been
recalculated with the appropriate methodology. Figures 11a and 11b have been consolidated
into Figure 11, which shows all buffer width zones. Tables 1 and 15 have been revised with
the correct credit adjustments. Furthermore, language has been revised on Page 38 that
reflects the appropriate methodology, and Table 16 removed. A copy of the spreadsheet is in
Appendix B, and the GIS and excel document has been provided with this submission.

c. The 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update
Section XI. (B)1. states: "To provide an incentive for buffers that exceed the minimum
standard width, additional credit may be awarded using the procedures outlined in Section
XI(C) below. Additional credit is not provided until buffer widths exceed 50 feet from the
normal wetted perimeter for mountain streams and 75 feet from the normal wetted perimeter
for piedmont and coastal plain streams."
See above response.

7. Section 8.3/Page 40: a. Groundwater monitoring gauge locations are not shown in the Figure 12
Monitoring Plan Map.
This has been revised and states: “Wetland monitoring gauges with data recording devices will be
installed adjacent to LP1; the data will be downloaded on a quarterly basis during the growing
season.” (See Page 39, and Figure 12).

8. Section 8.5/Page 41: a. The planted area of 3.6 acres requires at least 4 plots to monitor 2 percent
of the planted vegetation. Recommend adding an additional permanent or random vegetation
monitoring plot.
As stated in the section 9.4 Vegetation Monitoring, the vegetation monitoring plots will be a
minimum of 0.02 acres in size. Our plots are 100 meters squared and are therefore 0.0247 acres.
Two percent of 3.6 acres is 0.072 acres, divided by our 0.0247 plot acres gives us a total of 2.9
plots, which is where the 3 plots came from.

9. Sections 8.6 and 8.7/Page 41: a. EPA Region 4 applauds the bank sponsor for considering and
including a plan to monitor water quality and macroinvertebrates at designated points within the
project. The Region highly encourages any additional efforts to support the goals outlined in the
2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities especially those that may demonstrate the efficacy
of restored aquatic functions. Therefore, I recommend that nutrients and pathogens are included in
water quality monitoring since the project streams are downstream of heavy agricultural land use
including livestock. The receiving waters, Poplar Creek, are designated as Class C Nutrient
Sensitive Waters and one of the goals of the project is to support the Neuse RBRP by promoting
nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas.
Due to the schedule of construction and budgetary constraints RES has determined that it will not
be possible to conduct the macroinvertebrate and water quality monitoring adequately for this site
and will not be generating the additional two percent SMU credit at this Site. The Mitigation Plan
has been revised to reflect the removal of the water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring in
the Table 1, Table 9, Determination of Credits section (Section 6), as well as in the Monitoring
Plan section (Section 8).

10. Section 10/Page 45: a. Would the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation be willing to add a
small clause in their long-term management plan to include "trash removal" in the list of items
included to be covered by the endowment funds?
RES professionals typically remove trash from within the project easement during annual
monitoring and site visits. General debris removal by RES employees is limited to that which can
be gathered and removed without mechanized means. RES cannot commit a long-term steward to
trash removal from the project mitigation site.
11. Section 12/Table 19/Page 48: a. Recommend adding an additional component/feature to Table 19
Maintenance Plan to address trash, litter and other roadside debris. This site is adjacent to a major
highway and is subject to the constant input of garbage from heavy traffic and illegal dumps.

Without active monitoring and maintenance of trash and other refuse over the 7-year monitoring
period, it is highly likely that this site may be full of refuse and plastic debris at closeout.
See the comment response above. If there is a need to remove heavy debris because it is
destroying the Project, this could be covered under the maintenance and discussed during the
Monitoring Site Visits.

“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).

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN

Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
USACE ID: SAW-2016-01973

Neuse Basin
HUC 03020201

Prepared by:

Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse I, LLC

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1056

December 2018
Uzzle Mitigation Plan i December 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site (the “Site”), a component of the Neu-Con Stream and Wetland
Umbrella Mitigation Bank, is located in Johnston County, North Carolina, approximately six miles
southeast of Clayton. Water quality stressors currently affecting the Site include livestock production,
agricultural production, and improper flow dynamics due to impervious surface runoff. The Site
presents 5,897 linear feet of stream restoration and enhancement generating 2,876 Stream Mitigation
Units (SMU) along Little Poplar Creek and two unnamed tributaries.
The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03020201, TLW 03020201100040,
part of the Neuse Regional Watershed Planning (RWP) area, and the Wake-Johnston Collaborative
Local Watershed Plan (WJCLWP). As part of the RWP and WJCLWP, the Site is located in a
subwatershed identified as High Priority for stream corridor restoration due to current surrounding land
use, hydrologic impairment due to stormwater runoff, and projected impact from highway
development.
Consisting of pasture land and wooded areas, the Site’s total easement area is 27.3 acres within the
overall drainage area of 1,312 acres. Grazing livestock have historically had access to all stream reaches
within the Site. The lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel
characteristics have contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the Site. Erosion and
aggradation are especially prominent at the upstream end of the Site where Little Poplar Creek enters
via culvert under HWY US-70.
Goals for the Site include an increase to hydrological function and restoration to ecological function
within the existing stream and riparian corridor, and protect these features in perpetuity. These will be
accomplished by returning streams to stable conditions by constructing an E/C type stream with
appropriate dimensions and pattern, which accommodate high-flow events, and by backfilling the
overflow channel created by continual erosion from high-flow events. In-stream structures will be
utilized for vertical stability ad to improve habitat. Buffer improvements will filter runoff from the
agricultural fields and neighboring car lot, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel.
Livestock exclusion fence will be installed along the easement boundary. The widening and restoration
of the riparian areas will also provide wildlife corridors throughout the Site. Benefits to be accrued
from these activities include improved water quality and terrestrial aquatic habitat.
The stream design approach for the Site is to combine the analog method of natural channel design with
analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain.
The analog method involves the use of a reference reach, or “template” stream adjacent to, nearby, or
previously in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are
replicated to create the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and
boundary conditions are similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001).
Hydraulic geometry was developed using analytical methods to identify the design discharge.
After completion of all construction and planting activities, the Site will be monitored on a regular basis
throughout the seven-year post-construction monitoring period, or until performance standards are met.
Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the Site will be transferred to the
North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation (NCWHF). The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic
inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed
restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed
restrictions will be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
This site will be co-located with a DWR Riparian Buffer Bank. The width of the riparian restoration
and enhancement areas where buffer or nutrient offset credits are generated will begin at the most
landward limit of the top of bank and extend landward to a distance of at least 50 feet perpendicular to
the streams, then again 151-200 feet from the top of bank. There will be no overlapping buffer crediting
areas with stream crediting areas between 51-150 feet from the top of bank.
Uzzle Mitigation Plan ii December 2018

Table of Contents
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Components................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Outcomes.................................................................................................................... 1
2 WATERSHED APPROACH ......................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Site Selection .......................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Site Protection Instrument(s) .................................................................................................. 2
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 3
3.1 Watershed Process and Resource Conditions ......................................................................... 3
3.2 Landscape Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Land Use – Historic, Current, and Future .............................................................................. 6
3.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints ............................................................ 7
3.5 Reach Summary Information ................................................................................................. 8
3.6 Site Photographs ................................................................................................................... 13
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL ....................................................................................... 15
4.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements ............................................................ 15
5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................ 17
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ..................................................................................................... 19
6.1 Reference Stream Studies ..................................................................................................... 19
6.2 Design Parameters ................................................................................................................ 20
6.3 Vegetation and Planting Plan ............................................................................................... 25
6.4 Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................. 27
7 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ............................................................................................. 28
7.1 Credit Calculations for Non-Standard Buffer Widths .......................................................... 28
8 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................................ 29
8.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria..................................................................................... 29
8.2 Vegetation Success Criteria .................................................................................................. 29
9 MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................. 30
9.1 As-Built Survey .................................................................................................................... 30
9.2 Visual Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 30
9.3 Hydrology Events ................................................................................................................. 30
9.4 Cross Sections ...................................................................................................................... 30
9.5 Vegetation Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 31
9.6 Scheduling/Reporting ........................................................................................................... 31
10 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................... 33
11 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................................................... 33
12 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ............................................................................................... 34
12.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits .................................................................................. 34
12.2 Subsequent Credit Releases .................................................................................................. 34
13 MAINTENANCE PLAN ............................................................................................................. 35
14 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ...................................................................................................... 36
15 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 37

Uzzle Mitigation Plan iii December 2018

List of Tables
Table 1. Uzzle Site Components Summary ............................................................................................ 1
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information .............................................................................. 3
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information ................................................................................ 3
Table 4. Uzzle Vegetation Plot Summary .............................................................................................. 4
Table 5. Mapped Soil Series ................................................................................................................... 6
Table 6. Regulatory Considerations ....................................................................................................... 8
Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics ......................................................................... 9
Table 8. Channel Stability Assessment Results.................................................................................... 12
Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements .................................................................................. 18
Table 10. Scaling Factors for Sizing Planform Design Parameters ...................................................... 22
Table 11. Peak Flow Comparison ........................................................................................................ 24
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses ...................................................... 25
Table 13. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities ............................................................. 25
Table 14. Proposed Plant List ............................................................................................................... 26
Table 15. Mitigation Credits................................................................................................................. 28
Table 16. Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................... 32
Table 17. Stream Credit Release Schedule ........................................................................................... 34
Table 18. Maintenance Plan ................................................................................................................. 35
Table 19. Financial Assurances ............................................................................................................ 36

List of Figures
Figure 1 – Service Area and Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 – Landowner Map
Figure 4 – Land-use Map
Figure 5 – Existing Conditions Map
Figure 6 – National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 7 – Soils Map
Figure 8 – Historical Conditions Map
Figure 9 – FEMA Map
Figure 10 – Conceptual Plan Map
Figure 11 – DWR Buffer Mitigation Bank
Figure 12 – Buffer Width Zones
Figure 13 – Monitoring Plan Map

Appendices
A. Plan Sheets
B. Data Analysis Supplementary Information and Maps
C. Site Protection Instrument
D. DWR Stream Identification & Buffer Viability Forms
E. Wetland JD Forms
F. Invasive Species Plan
G. Regulatory Agency Scoping Letters
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 1 December 2018
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Components
The Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site (the “Site”), a component of the Neu-Con Stream and Wetland Umbrella
Mitigation Bank, is located within a rural watershed in Johnston County, approximately six miles southeast
of Clayton, North Carolina. The Site (USACE Action ID: SAW-2016-01973) lies within the Neuse River
Basin, North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub-basin 03-04-02 and United States
Geological Survey (USGS) 14-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03020201100040 (Figure 1). The Site
proposes to restore 629 linear feet (LF) and enhance 5,268 LF of stream, and provide water quality benefit
for 1,312 acres of drainage area. This site will be co-located with a DWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient
Offset Bank of the same name (Uzzle). The width of the riparian enhancement areas where buffer credits
are generated will begin at the most landward limit of the top of bank and extend landward to a distance of
at least 50 feet perpendicular to the streams, and again from 151-200 feet from the top of bank. There will
be no overlapping buffer crediting areas with stream crediting areas from 51-150 feet.
The Site is comprised of one easement location involving Little Poplar Creek and two unnamed tributaries,
totaling an existing 6,034 LF, which eventually drain into the Neuse River. The surface water classification
of Little Poplar Creek is Water Supply-IV (WS-IV) and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW).
The stream mitigation components are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 10. The Site is accessible from
the end of Meta Drive. Coordinates for the Site are as follows: 35.585186 N, -78.393553 W.
1.2 Project Outcomes
The streams proposed for restoration have been significantly impacted by livestock production, agricultural
practices, stormwater runoff, and a lack of sufficient riparian buffer. The Site is identified as a High Priority
candidate for stream corridor condition improvement due to its location within the Neuse Regional
Watershed Planning (RWP) subwatershed and Wake-Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan
(WJCLWP). The proposed improvements to the Site will meet the water quality improvement needs
expressed in the Neuse RWP, WJCLWP, and the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP)
as well as ecological improvements to the riparian corridor within the easement.
Through stream restoration and enhancement, the Site presents 5,897 LF of proposed stream, generating
2,736 Base Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) plus an additional 140 credits using the non-standard buffer
zones (Table 1).
Table 1. Uzzle Site Components Summary
Mitigation
Approach Linear Feet Ratio Base SMU
P1 Restoration 626 1 629
Enhancement II 5,268 2.5 2,107
Total 5,897 2,736
Non-Standard Buffer Width Adjustment 140
Total Adjusted SMUs 2,876

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 2 December 2018
2 WATERSHED APPROACH
The 2010 Neuse RBRP identified several restoration needs for the entire Neuse River Basin, as well as for
HUC 03020201. The Site watershed was identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) (HUC
03020201100040, Poplar Creek TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the need and opportunity stream, and
riparian buffer restoration. More specifically, goals outlined in the 2010 Neuse River RBRP include:
1. Promote nutrient reduction in municipal areas through the implementation of stormwater best
management practices;
2. Promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving wetlands,
streams, and riparian buffers;
3. Continue targeted implementation of projects under Nutrient Offset and Buffer programs, as well as
focusing DOT-sponsored restoration in areas where they will provide the most functional improvement to
the ecosystem;
4. Support the Falls Lake Watershed Management Plan; a separate prioritization process for DMS that
will be developed in next 1-2 years;
5. Continue to implement planning initiatives including DMS Phase IV LWP for the Upper Neuse
(incorporates updated plans for the Ellerbe Creek, Lake Rogers/Ledge Creek, Lick Creek, Little Lick Creek,
and Upper Swift Creek) and the Upper Neuse River Basin Association’s Upper Neuse Watershed
Management Plan; and
6. Protect, augment, and connect Natural Heritage Areas and other conservations lands.
2.1 Site Selection
The Site was identified as a stream restoration opportunity to improve water quality, habitat, and hydrology
within the Neuse River Basin, and more specifically, as a TLW within the 2010 Neuse RBRP. The Site
lends itself to accomplish multiple RBRP goals along reaches due to severely disturbed riparian buffers,
cattle access to the stream, and the historic land use, which has led to channelization. Additionally,
Department of Transportation (DOT) highway projects and private residential and commercial
development is anticipated in the future for this TLW. Many of the Site design goals and objectives will be
addressed further in Section 5. A watershed map with the Site’s drainage areas is shown on Figure 2 and
watershed planning priority boundaries are shown on Figure 1.
The Site will address two of the six goals outlined in the 2010 Neuse RBRP. By excluding livestock and
establishing a conservation easement that will be protected in perpetuity, the Uzzle Mitigation Site will
support the RBRP Goal 2 to promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and
preserving wetlands, streams and riparian buffers. By establishing a conservation easement that will be
protected in perpetuity, watershed connectivity will be met with downstream parcels managed by the NC
Clean Water Management Trust Fund for biodiversity and suppression of disturbance events (Goal 6).
2.2 Site Protection Instrument(s)
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Site includes three parcels in
Johnston County with the following ownership in Table 2 & Figure 3. Once finalized, a copy of the land
protection instrument will be included in Appendix C.
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 3 December 2018
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Landowner Pin or Tax Parcel
ID County Deed Book &
Page Number
Parcel
Acreage
Protected
Acreage
George C. Uzzle
III and Linda
Uzzle
168600-09-3644
168600-07-9981
168600-08-5325
Johnston 01236/0130
45.61
57.62
23.38
12.26
6.09
8.91
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Watershed Process and Resource Conditions
Drainage Area
The Site area is comprised of Little Poplar Creek and two unnamed tributaries that flow north to south and
eventually drain into the Neuse River. The total drainage area at the downstream limits of the Site is 1,312
acres (2.05 mi2). Primary land use within the rural watershed consists of approximately 49 percent forest,
28 percent agricultural land, and 16 percent residential/urban land cover. Impervious surface accounts for
substantial land use at approximately six percent (Table 3 & Figure 4). Although the watershed is largely
forested, agriculture, commercial, and road development within the watershed are in close proximity to the
Site and play a significant role in the degradation of the Site’s streams. Historic and current land-use within
the immediate Site area have allowed cattle direct access to the streams. A large car lot to the west and the
proposed widening of HWY US-70 to the north contribute to higher than normal amounts of surface runoff
and sediment load input to the Site. These activities have negatively impacted both water quality and
streambank stability along the Site streams and their tributaries. The resulting observed stressors include
excess nutrient input, streambank erosion, sedimentation, livestock access to streams, channel modification,
and the loss of functioning riparian buffers.

Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information
Level IV Ecoregion 65m – Rolling Coastal Plain
River Basin Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03020201100040
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-02
Project Drainage Area (acres) 1,312
Percent Impervious Area 6%

Surface Water Classification
Little Poplar Creek is classified as WS-IV and NSW. WS-IV are waters used as sources of water supply
for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes (NCDEQ 2018). NSW is a supplemental classification
intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation (NCDEQ 2018).
3.2 Landscape Characteristics
Vegetation
Vegetation around the main channel of Little Poplar Creek and its tributaries are primarily composed of
disturbed forest with sparse mid- or understory vegetation. The forested riparian area is grazed by cattle
and most closely resembles an interface between a Piedmont bottomland hardwood forest and Coastal Plain
small stream swamp. These areas are typically dominated by hardwoods and contain well developed mid-
tier and shrub strata. However, due to livestock grazing and soil compaction, the Uzzle Site largely lacks a
shrub stratum. On April 10, 2018 two 100 meter squared plots were surveyed along the floodplain of the
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 4 December 2018
main channel to categorize the existing vegetation community (Appendix B). Canopy species data was
calculated to quantify the existing natural community (Schafale, 2012) (Table 4). Shrub species and
herbaceous species were also identified and the percent cover was estimated.

Table 4. Uzzle Vegetation Plot Summary
Plot Basal Area
(m2/ha) Avg. DBH (cm) Trees per Acre Total Tree
Species Natural Community
1 26.8 21.1 364 6 Disturbed Mesic Mixed
Hardwood/Nonriverine Swamp Forest
2 51.6 11.0 324 5 Disturbed Mesic Mixed
Hardwood/Nonriverine Swamp Forest
AVG 39.2 16.1 344 5.5

Dominant canopy species included loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), green ash (Fraxinus americana), swamp
tupelo (Nyssa biflora), tulip-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black cherry (Prunus serotine), white oak
(Quercus alba), water oak (Quercus nigra), and willow oak (Quercus phellos). Sub-canopy species
included red cedar (Juniperus virginaiana), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), American holly (Ilex opaca),
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Carolina jasmine (Gelsemium sempervirens), blackberry (Rubus
argutus), and roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). Herbaceous species included Carolina geranium
(Geranium carolinianum), bedstraw (Gallium aparine), crossvine (Bignonia capreolata), jewelweed
(Impatiens capensis), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), wild
yam (Dioscorea villosa), and sedges (Carex spp.).

Invasive species were also found within the vegetation survey plots, and in the vicinity of the site: Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Nepalese browntop (Microstegium
vimineum), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Non-native species included common chickweed
(Stellaria media), common vetch (Vicia sativa), wavy bitter-cress (Cardamine flexuosa), lesser trefoil
(Trifolium dubium), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens).
Existing Wetlands
A survey of existing wetlands was performed on January 5, 2017. Wetland boundaries were delineated
using current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Soils were characterized and classified using the
Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0 (USDA-NRCS 2010). Within the
boundaries of the proposed Site, one large wetland is present (Figure 5), and is labeled as WA (Wetland
A). WA within the easement boundary is approximately 20.93 acres in size, and portions of the wetland are
present outside the easement boundary. The wetland is found within the floodplain along both banks of
Little Poplar Creek for the entirety of the Site and is impacted by cattle access throughout. Vegetation
within the wetland areas is predominantly white oak, water oak, American holly (Ilex opaca), red maple,
tulip poplar, sweetgum, loblolly pine, blackberry, Nepalese browntop, dogfennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), partridgeberry (Mitchella repens), roundleaf greenbrier, and muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia).
Outside of the easement and wetland areas, cattle are actively managed, and fescue is the predominant
forage. Jurisdiction determination was confirmed in the field by USACE representative Samantha Dailey
on June 22, 2017.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts one potential
wetland area within the Site (Figure 6). During site evaluations on January 5, 2017, this wetland was
confirmed and delineated on-site by senior ecologist Jeremy Schmid.
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 5 December 2018
Soil Survey
The Site is located in a transition zone between the Northern Outer Piedmont and the Rolling Coastal Plain
Level IV ecoregion. The Northern Outer Piedmont is composed of mostly gneiss and schist rock intruded
by granitic plutons, and veneered with saprolite. It is lithologically distinct from the adjacent Piedmont
regions (Carolina Slate Belt & Triassic Basins), as well as from the younger unconsolidated sediments of
Rolling Coastal Plain. Rocks and soils are similar to Southern Outer Piedmont, but is cooler with a shorter
growing season. The region contains more loblolly pine compared to the Virginia pine and shortleaf pine
found in the Piedmont to the west, but it also contains local concentrations of mountain disjunct plant
species. At the eastern boundary, the Fall Line is a broad transition zone where Piedmont rocks occur on
the same landscape with Coastal Plain sediments. Some areas near this boundary have metavolcanics and
metasedimentary rocks similar to the Carolina Slate Belt.

The Rolling Coastal Plain extends south from Virginia and covers much of the northern upper coastal plain
of North Carolina. Relief, elevation, and stream gradients are generally greater than in the Middle Atlantic
Coastal Plain to the east, and soils tend to be better drained. It has a slightly cooler and shorter growing
season than the Atlantic Southern Loam Plains, but is a productive agricultural region with typical crops of
corn, soybeans, tobacco, cotton, sweet potatoes, peanuts, and wheat. The region appears to be biologically
less diverse than the Atlantic Southern Loam Plains and Carolina Flatwoods to the south.

The Johnston County Soil Survey shows two mapping units across the Site. Map units include six soil
series. The soil series found on the Site are described below and summarized in Table 5.

Site soils are mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as Appling-Marlboro
complex, Cecil loam, Lynchburg sandy loam, Pacolet loam, Rains sandy loam, and Wehadkee loam within
the easement (Figure 7). Lynchburg sandy loam, Rains sandy loam, and Wehadkee loam soils are generally
poorly drained loamy soils and range from zero to five percent slopes. Appling-Marlboro complex, Cecil
loam, and Pacolet loam are well-drained located on uplands or interfluves ranging from one to 15 percent
slopes. Lynchburg sandy loam, Rains sandy loam, and Wehadkee loam soils are listed on the NRCS hydric
soil list as hydric or having hydric inclusions. The surrounding upland soils are primarily Appling-Marlboro
complex, Pacolet loam.

Appling-Marlboro complex. This is a deep, well-drained soil that occurs on interfluves. They formed from
saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist, and generally occur on slopes between one to six
percent. Runoff is low and permeability is moderate. Major uses are in cultivation or pasture land. Appling-
Marlboro complex occurs in 0.2 percent of the easement.

Cecil loam. This is a deep, well-drained soil that occurs on interfluves. They formed from saprolite derived
from granite and gneiss and/or schist and generally occur on slopes between six to ten percent. Runoff is
medium and permeability moderate. Major uses are cultivation and pasture land. Cecil loam occurs in 6.8
percent of the easement at the northern limits.

Lynchburg sandy loam. This is a very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs on marine terraces
or flats in the coastal plain. They formed in marine or fluviomarine deposits, and generally occur on slopes
between zero and five percent. Runoff is negligable and permeability is moderate. Major uses are
agricultural or woodland. Lynchburg sandy loam occurs in <0.1 percent of the Site easement.

Pacolet loam. This is a very deep, well-drained soil that occurs on mesic Piedmont uplands. They formed
in residuum weathered mostly from felsic igneous and metamorphic rocks, and generally occur on slopes
between 10 and 15 percent. Runoff and permeability is moderate. Major uses are mixed hardwood and
pine forest. Pacolet loam occurs in approximately 0.2 percent of the easement on the downstream end.
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 6 December 2018

Rains sandy loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil that occurs on flat depressions and Carolina
bays. They formed from marine or fluviomarine deposits, and generally occur on slopes between zero and
two percent. Runoff is negligable and permeability is moderate. Major uses include forest and cropland.
Rains sandy loam occurs in approximately 8.2 percent of the easement.

Wehadkee loam. This is very deep, poorly drained soil that occurs on floodplains from the mountains and
piedmont. They are formed in loamy sediments, and generally occur on slopes between zero and two
percent. Runoff is very slow and permeability is moderate. Major uses include forest. Wehadkee loam
occurs in approximately 84.6 percent of the easement, making it the dominant soil type on-site.

Table 5. Mapped Soil Series
Map
Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name Percent
Hydric
Drainage
Class
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Landscape
Setting
AmB Appling-Marlboro
complex, 1-6% slopes 0% Well B Interfluves
CeC Cecil loam, 6-10%
slopes 0% Well A Interfluves
Ly Lynchburg sandy
loam, 0-2% slopes 8% Somewhat
poor B/D Flat on marine
terraces
PaD Pacolet loam, 10-15%
slopes 0% Well B Hillslopes on
ridges
Ra Rains sandy loam, 0-
2% slopes 90% Poor A/D Flat on marine
terraces
Wt
Wehadkee loam, 0-2%
slopes, frequently
flooded
90% Poor B/D Depressions on
floodplains

3.3 Land Use – Historic, Current, and Future
Historic aerial imagery indicates that the Site has been sparse woodland surrounded by agricultural
operations, and that the location of the streams has not significantly changed in over 50 years (Figure 8).
Reforestation of wet agricultural land to the southwest of the Project, and conversion from agriculture to
impervious surface directly next to the Project on the northwestern edge has occurred within the last 40
years. The area remains in an agricultural community with some neighboring forested properties. Urban
development began northwest of the Project in the late 1980s and farming operations were expanded east
of the Site in the early 2000s. Several watershed characteristics, such as groundwater, vegetation, surface
drainage, and potentially soil parameters have been modified. Soil structure and surface texture have been
altered from intensive agricultural operations.

The Project is currently in agricultural use as pasture land for cattle. Livestock have full access to the project
reaches, and these reaches remain heavily impacted. Little Poplar Creek and its two tributaries have canopy
cover, but virtually no functioning understory remains due to erosion and livestock access. Outside of the
Project is largely in agricultural use and remains partially forested, in addition to extensive urban
development both north, east, and west of the Project. Furthermore, there is a large auto salvage yard that
borders the western edge of the project, and a large commercial nursey to the north (upstream) of the project.
Approximately 44 acres of the auto salvage yard are within the Project watershed; the entire, approximately
53 acres, of the commercial nursey are within the Project watershed (Figure 2).

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 7 December 2018
Future land use for the Project will include an established 27.3-acre conservation easement, that will be
protected in perpetuity. The Project easement will have 5,897 linear feet of functioning streams, a minimum
of 50- to 100-foot riparian buffer, and will exclude livestock with fencing. Within the watershed, DOT
highway projects and private residential and commercial development is anticipated in the future. Directly
outside the Project, the area will likely remain in agricultural and urban use with a proposed road widening
project directly upstream and adjacent to the Project, however establishing a conservation easement will
provide nutrient and sediment mitigation to downstream portions of the watershed.
3.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
Property, Boundary, and Utilities
One proposed 60-foot wide crossing will be constructed along Reach LP5 for landowner access. A rock
ford crossing will be installed on LP5 and be gated to prevent extended livestock access to the stream
channel. The Site is located within five miles of Johnston County Airport, a General Aviation airport. The
Site is not located on the extended runway centerline (approach) and will not interfere with any airspace
exclusion zones. RES will coordinate with Johnston County Airport Authority to ensure potential conflicts
are eliminated or minimized. Two parallel gas line easements are located to the west of the Site. The
proposed conservation easement will not be impacted by the gas easement but it may limit buffer width in
some areas. Construction access is slightly constrained in some areas by existing mature hardwood
vegetation.
DWR Buffer Mitigation Bank
This site will be co-located with a DWR Buffer Bank. The width of the riparian enhancement areas where
credits are generated will begin at the most landward limit of the top of bank and extend landward to a
distance of at least 50 feet perpendicular to the streams, and again 151-200 feet from the top of bank. There
will be no overlapping buffer crediting areas with stream crediting areas from 51-150 feet. The Bank Parcel
Development Plan in currently in development and will be designed accordance with the Consolidated
Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295, 15A NCAC 02B.0240.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, all Site reaches are located
within the FEMA 100-year floodway of Little Poplar Creek (Zone AE) (Figure 9). Grading activities are
proposed within the Little Poplar Creek floodway for the stream restoration portion of the project for reach
LP1. Therefore, it is anticipated that a No-rise or Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will be
required for the project. Hydrologic trespass is a not a concern for this project. While designing the Uzzle
project, appropriate measures were taken to eliminate hydrologic trespass of the adjacent properties. The
adjacent land use will not be affected by the proposed design, and no detrimental impacts are expected
beyond the easement limits. The Site can be found on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels 1676,
1677, 1686 (map numbers 3720167700K, 3720167600K, 3720168600K), effective date June 20th, 2018.
Environmental Screening and Documentation
To ensure that a project meets environmental screening, scoping letters were sent to the regulatory agencies
of the IRT during the public notice. Responses are provided in Appendix G.

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 8 December 2018
Table 6. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes No N/A
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes No N/A
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix G
National Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix G
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes No N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Act - Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under provisions
of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) database (accessed 12 March 2017) lists seven threatened, endangered, and proposed species for
Johnston County, North Carolina: red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River spinymussel (Parvaspina steinstansana), Yellow lance (Elliptio
lanceolate), and Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii). The Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is
protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA), which prohibits take of bald and golden
eagles. No protected species or potential habitat for protected species was observed during preliminary Site
evaluations.
In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database was consulted
to determine whether previously cataloged occurrences of protected species are mapped within one mile of
the Site. Results from NHP indicated that there are no known occurrences of federally protected species
within a one-mile radius of the Site. Based on initial site investigations, no impacts to federally protected
species are anticipated as a result of the proposed Site and no federally listed species are likely to occur in
the project area due to lack of appropriate habitat. A letter from USFWS was received on July 12, 2018 to
confirm these findings (Appendix G).
Cultural Resources
Cultural resources include historic and archeological resources located in or near the Site. RES completed
a preliminary survey of cultural resources to determine potential project impacts. A review of North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service (accessed 26 June 2017) database
did not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or archeological resources on the proposed Site
properties. There are no anticipated impacts from project activities to state surveyed properties as there are
none in the proposed Site vicinity. A letter from SHPO was received on November 28, 2016 to confirm
these findings (Appendix G).

3.5 Reach Summary Information
The Site area is comprised of two easement areas, that are separated by a crossing, along Little Poplar
Creek, a tributary to the Neuse River. The one agricultural crossing occurs on Reach LP5. The stream
channels include Little Poplar Creek and two unnamed tributaries, split into seven reaches by treatment
type and location (Figure 5). Results of the preliminary data collection are presented in Table 7.
In general, all or portions of reaches within the Site, do not function to their full potential. Current conditions
demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts from livestock and high storm flows from
the upstream culvert. These impacts have dislocated some of the stream from its floodplain and created
poorly functioning overflow “channels.” Floodplain canopy along the reach is fair; however, livestock have
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 9 December 2018
prevented understory vegetative growth, caused localized areas of erosion, and are a constant source of
nutrients to the stream. Morphological parameters are located in Appendix B.
Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach Drainage
Area (ac)
ABKF 1
(ft2)
Width
(ft)
Mean
Depth
(ft)
Width:Depth
Ratio
Bank
Height
Ratio
Sinuosity Slope
(ft/ft)
LP1 1124 12.4 7.6 1.6 4.6 1.1 1.52 0.0055
LP2 1174 14.6 10.8 1.3 8.0 1.7 1.49 0.0028
LP3 23 3.3 5.6 0.6 9.5 2.9 1.06 0.0095
LP4 1202 17.1 16.1 1.1 15.2 1.1 1.50 0.0023
LP5 1296 16.2 13.7 1.2 11.6 1.4 1.39 0.0049
LP6 42 1.3 4.0 0.3 12.2 3.0 1.12 0.0057
LP7 1312 21.0 19.8 1.1 18.7 1.0 1.14 0.0012
1ABKF= cross-sectional area (measured at approximate bankfull stage as estimated using existing conditions data and NC
Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present)
Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as intermittent and perennial streams using the NCDWR Stream
Identification Form version 4.11 and are E-, and C-stream types as classified using the Rosgen stream
classification system (Rosgen, 1996). The design reaches are described in Section 6.2. Channel
characteristics are summarized in Table 7, and Appendix B. Stream determinations have been verified by
NCDWR staff (Appendix D).
Discharge
Several models, existing survey, regression equations, and both the Coastal Plain Regional curves and
Piedmont Regional curves were used to estimate existing bankfull discharges. Land use and slope were
considered when the discharge calculations were developed. All hydraulic and hydrologic analyses are
discussed in Section 6.2. Data and analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic models are included as
Appendix B.
Existing Channel Morphology
LP1
Reach LP1 has a drainage area of 1.76 square miles (1,124 acres), the reach begins at the northern limits of
the project, just downstream of a DOT culvert extension, flowing south to Reach LP2. The planform of this
E-type channel is highly sinuous (K = 1.52) and slightly entrenched. The approximate bankfull cross-
sectional area is 12.4 square feet with approximate dimensions of 7.6 feet width and 1.6 feet deep, while
the cross-sectional area of the channel at top of bank is 16.2 square feet. The existing length of LP1 is 766
feet, and the dominate bed material is very coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0055
ft/ft. US Highway 70 is located directly upstream of this reach. Wooded active pasture is located adjacent
to the reach.
LP2
Reach LP2 has a drainage area of 1.83 square miles (1174 acres), and begins at the downstream end of
Reach LP1 flowing south through wooded active pasture to the confluence of Reach LP3 and Reach LP4.
The planform of this E-type channel is highly sinuous (K = 1.49) and slightly entrenched. The approximate
bankfull cross-sectional area is 14.6 square feet with approximate dimensions of 10.8 feet width and 1.3
feet deep, while the cross-sectional area of the channel at top of bank is 32.0 square feet. The existing
length of LP2 is 1,619 feet, and the dominate bed material is very coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 10 December 2018
approximately 0.0028 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any functional riparian buffer or aquatic habitat.
Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle access were found throughout the reach.
LP3
Reach LP3 has a drainage area of 0.04 square miles (23 acres), and begins at the edge of a gas pipeline
easement and flows east to the confluence with Reach LP2. The planform of this G-type channel has low
sinuosity (K = 1.06) and is entrenched. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 3.3 square feet
with approximate dimensions of 5.6 feet width and 0.6 feet deep, while the cross-sectional area of the
channel at top of bank is 14.6 square feet. The existing length of LP3 is 142 feet, and the dominate bed
material is very course sand. Wooded active pasture is located adjacent to the reach. The gradient of the
reach is approximately 0.0095 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any functional riparian buffer or aquatic
habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle access were found throughout the reach.
LP4
Reach LP4 has a drainage area of 1.88 square miles (1202 acres), and begins at the downstream end of
Reach LP2 and Reach LP3 and flows south through wooded active pasture. The existing length of LP4 is
559 LF. The planform of this C-type channel is highly sinuous (K = 1.50) and is slightly entrenched. The
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 17.1 square feet with approximate dimensions of 16.1 feet
width and 1.1 feet depth, while the cross-sectional area of the channel at top of bank is 26.7 square feet.
The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0023 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any functional riparian
buffer or aquatic habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle access were found throughout
the reach.
LP5
Reach LP5 has a drainage area of 2.03 square miles (1296 acres), and begins at the downstream end of
Reach LP4 and flows south through wooded active pasture and ends at the confluence with Reach LP6. A
60 linear feet easement break is located within this reach to accommodate a proposed crossing. The
planform of this E-type channel is moderately sinuous (K = 1.39) and is slightly entrenched. The
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 16.2 square feet with approximate dimensions of 13.7 feet
width and 1.2 feet depth, while the cross-sectional area of the channel at top of bank is 30.7 square feet.
The existing length of LP5 is 2,258 feet and the dominate bed material is very coarse sand. The gradient of
the reach is approximately 0.0049 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any functional riparian buffer or aquatic
habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle access were found throughout the reach.
LP6
Reach LP6 has a drainage area of 0.07 square miles (42 acres), and begins at the edge of a gas pipeline
easement and flows east to the confluence point with Reach LP5. The planform of this G-type channel has
low sinuosity (K = 1.12) and is entrenched. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 1.3 square feet
with approximate dimensions of 4.0 feet width and 0.3 feet deep, while the cross-sectional area of the
channel at top of bank is 7.8 square feet. The existing length of LP6 is 378 feet, and the dominate bed
material is very coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0057 ft/ft. Wooded active pasture
is located adjacent to the reach. Cattle access has eliminated any functional riparian buffer or aquatic habitat.
Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle access were found throughout the reach.
LP7
Reach LP7 has a drainage area of 2.05 square miles (1312 acres), and begins at the confluence of Reach
LP5 and Reach LP6, flowing southeast through wooded active pasture towards the Neuse River. The
planform of this C-type channel has low sinuosity (K = 1.14) and is slightly entrenched. The approximate
bankfull cross-sectional area is 21.0 square feet with approximate dimensions of 19.8 feet width and 1.1
feet deep, while the cross-sectional area of the channel at top of bank is 23.3 square feet. The existing length
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 11 December 2018
of LP7 is 312 feet, and the dominate bed material is very coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is
approximately 0.0012 ft/ft.

Channel Stability Assessment
A modified version of the Channel Stability Assessment method provided in “Assessing Stream Channel
Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions” by Johnson (2006) was used to assess channel stability for
the Uzzle existing channels and reference reach. This method may be rapidly applied on a variety of stream
types in different physiographic regions having a range of bed and bank materials.
The original Channel Stability Assessment method was designed to evaluate thirteen stability indicators in
the field. These parameters are: watershed characteristics (frequency of watershed disturbances such as
agricultural activities, urbanization, etc), flow habit, channel pattern, entrenchment/channel confinement,
bed material, bar development, presence of obstructions/debris jams, bank soil texture and coherence,
average bank angle, bank vegetation/protection, bank cutting, mass wasting/bank failure, and upstream
distance to bridge. As this method was initially developed to assess stability at bridges, a few minor
adjustments were made to remove indicators that contradict stability characteristics of natural channels in
favor of providing hydraulic efficiency at bridges. First, the “channel pattern” indicator was altered such
that naturally meandering channels scored low as opposed to straightened/engineered channels that are
favorable for stability near bridges. Secondly, the last indicator, “upstream distance to bridge,” was
removed from the assessment as bridges are not a focus of channel stability for this project. The twelve
indicators were then scored in the field, and a rating of excellent, good, fair, or poor was assigned to each
project reach based on the total score.
The channel assessment results (scores and ratings) for the Uzzle project are provided in Table 8. Four of
the seven project streams received “Fair” ratings, while three reaches received “Good” ratings. The reach
score trended upward as we move downstream through the project. This improvement correlated with a
decrease in bank cutting and wasting in the downstream portion of the project. Overall, the upstream project
streams appear to be actively adjusting due to constant stress from surrounding livestock. The downstream
portions of the project are stable but have localized areas of erosion and deposition due to cattle impacts
and upstream sediment inputs. These characteristics are reflected in the weaker Channel Stability
Assessment scores throughout the project.

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 12 December 2018
Table 8. Channel Stability Assessment Results
LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4 LP5 LP6 LP7 (Reference Reach:
Hannah Creek)
1 Watershed characteristics 7 7 11 9 7 7 7 7
2 Flow habit 3 3 7 3 3 2 2 3
3 Channel pattern 2 2 4 2 2 3 2 2
4 Entrenchment/channel
confinement 2 4 8 3 2 7 1 4
5 Bed material 7 10 6 10 5 10 9 4
6 Bar development 8 6 3 6 2 7 8 3
7 Obstructions/debris jams 9 6 7 10 3 4 2 4
8 Bank soil texture and coherence 7 10 8 9 9 10 9 7
9 Average bank angle 11 9 11 9 7 7 8 5
10 Bank vegetation/protection 2 2 2 1 2 9 2 4
11 Bank cutting 10 7 6 2 4 2 2 4
12 Mass wasting/bank failure 7 5 5 1 2 1 1 2
13 Upstream distance to bridge NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Score 75 71 78 65 48 69 53 49
Rating* Fair Fair Fair Good Good Fair Good Good
* Excellent (0 < Score <= 36), Good (36 < Score <= 72), Fair (72 < Score <= 108), Poor (108 < Score <= 144)

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 13 December 2018
3.6 Site Photographs

Top of project on Reach LP1.
04/10/2018

Looking downstream along Reach LP1.
04/10/2018

Looking downstream at overflow channel on LP1
left bank.
04/10/2018

Looking downstream along Reach LP2.
04/10/2018

Looking upstream towards pipeline easement
along Reach LP3.
04/10/2018

Looking downstream along Reach LP4.
04/10/2018

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 14 December 2018

Looking downstream where Reach LP4 becomes
one distinct channel again.
04/10/2018

Looking downstream on Reach LP5.
04/10/2018

Looking upstream on Reach LP6.
04/10/2018

Looking downstream at bottom of project on
LP7.
04/10/2018

General conditions at downstream easement
edge/Reach LP7.
04/10/2018

General condition of forested riparian wetlands
on-site.
04/10/2018

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 15 December 2018
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
The Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Harman et. al. 2012) separates stream functions to describe
project objectives, existing conditions assessments and monitoring, performance metrics, and design
criteria. The Framework separates stream functions into five categories, ordered into a hierarchy, which
communicate the interrelations among functions and illustrate the dependence of higher level functions
(biology, physicochemical and geomorphology) on lower level functions (hydrology and hydraulics).
Functions that affect the greatest number of other functions are illustrated at the base of the pyramid,
while functions that have the least effect on other functions are illustrated at the top of the pyramid.

Fischenich (2006) found that the most critical functions include those that address hydrodynamic
processes, sediment transport processes, stream stability and riparian buffer restoration. By addressing
these fundamental functions and processes, a restored stream and riparian system are capable of
supporting more dependent functions that typically require time to establish, such as diverse biological
communities, chemical and nutrient processes, diverse habitats and improved water and soil quality.
The objectives of this Site will address the most critical functional objectives that will allow for a more
restored stream and riparian system over time.

While traditional mitigation approaches have generally relied on surrogate measures of success (i.e.
linear feet of restoration) for determining SMU credit yields, a function-based approach provides a
more objective and flexible approach to quantify the expected ecological benefits of a mitigation
design. Additionally, a functional based approach broadens the reach-scale goals of a restoration project
by contextualizing the functional uplift to the watershed scale. The proposed Uzzle Stream Mitigation
Site will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the Neuse River Basin by
applying an ecosystem restoration approach. The restoration approach at the reach scale of this Site
will have the greatest effect on the hydraulic and geomorphology function of the system but will benefit
the upper-level functions (physicochemical and biology) over time and in combination with other sites
within the watershed. Anticipated functional benefits and improvements within the Site, as based on
the Function-Based Framework, are outlined in Table 9.
4.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
Hydrology
According to the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework, hydrology is defined as the transport of water
from the watershed to the channel. Therefore, this project does not intend to make significant
improvements to the already functioning hydrology. Mainly, landuse within the Site’s catchment area
will not be altered outside of the easement area, meaning hydrologic parameters such as reach runoff,
flow duration, and discharge will continue to be determined by existing watershed characteristics
occurring beyond the boundaries of the Site. Although hydrology will remain largely unaffected by the
project, restoration design and activities will account for poor watershed conditions and will provide
considerable functional uplift through the following functional tiers of the Pyramid.
Hydraulic
The hydraulic function of the Pyramid Framework is defined as the transport of water in the channel,
on the floodplain, and through sediments. Perhaps the greatest potential uplift at the Project will be
achieved through establishing healthy floodplain connectivity. Reaches at the Site do not have stable
flow dynamics. Reaches in which stable flow dynamics are not functioning or functioning at risk will
be improved to functioning by constructing a new channel that is geometrically stable based on the
Site’s hydrology inputs. Additionally, instream structures will be installed to address the energy and
erosive power of the water so that a stable base flow is achieved post-project.
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 16 December 2018
Geomorphology
Geomorphology, as defined within the Pyramid Framework, is the transport of wood and sediment to
create bed forms and dynamic equilibrium. Sediment transport will be improved in reaches that are
currently function-at-risk or not functioning by designing a channel on the restoration reach that is
sinuous and sized so that water velocities are maintained in a stable manor and allows for sediment to
move efficiently through the other six downstream reaches. Large Woody Debris Transport and Storage
will be improved through the addition of woody debris to the system by installing in-stream structures
on the restoration reach such as log vanes, root wads, log weirs, and log toes. Some of these woody
structures will also deliver functional uplift by providing aquatic habitat. The restoration reach will be
designed to accumulate woody debris by having defined shallow riffles where cobble catches and holds
woody debris and leaf packs. In reaches proposed for restoration, lateral stability is not functioning. To
achieve functioning lateral stability, sinuous channels will be constructed with grade-control structures,
graded banks, and live-stake planted banks that will significantly reduce erosion rates compared to
existing conditions. Existing riparian vegetation is either functioning at risk or not functioning in
Project reaches. Therefore, riparian buffers will be planted out to a minimum of 50 feet to improve the
riparian vegetation to functioning levels, while also providing terrestrial habitat. Bed form diversity
will be improved in restoration reaches by designing natural riffle-pool sequences in constructed
channels based on reference reach conditions. This bed form diversity will also further improve aquatic
habitat. All of these functional parameters are interconnected and ultimately depend on each other in
order to function properly. Therefore, by focusing improvements on these parameters, the restored
channels will achieve dynamic equilibrium and provide maximum geomorphic functional uplift.
Physicochemical
The Pyramid Framework defines the physicochemical category as temperature and oxygen regulation
and the processing of organic matter and nutrients. Although this Project would support the overarching
goal in the Neuse River Basin Priorities to promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural
areas, it is difficult to make the direct link to this reach-scale stream restoration project to a measurable
reduction in nutrients and sediments because they depend on many variables. However, several
restoration practices are known to help reduce nutrients and sediment although it is not feasible to
measure these results directly at the project level. These activities include cattle exclusion and direct
removal of fecal inputs, filtering sediment from runoff through buffer areas, conversion of active farm
fields to forested buffers, and improved denitrification and nutrient uptake through buffer zones. It is
anticipated that temperature regulation will also be improved through the restoration of canopy tree
species in the stream buffer areas. Oxygen regulation will occur through two actions: first the
temperature of the water directly impacts the amount of gas held by the water. Therefore, through buffer
plantings, the channel will experience shading and temperature will decrease; thereby, increasing
dissolved oxygen content. Secondly, log structures placed in the stream will create aeration zones where
oxygen dissolves more readily than in a stagnant air-water surface exchange. The processing of organic
matter will improve once healthy riffles are shallow enough to catch twigs and branches that then retain
leaves. Many of these physicochemical benefits occur slowly over time and are dependent on multiple
variables within the stream ecosystem.
Biology
The highest category of the Pyramid is biology and is defined as the biodiversity and life histories of
aquatic and terrestrial life, specifically referring to animals. As mentioned for the physicochemical
category, at a reach and project level it is not guaranteed that high functional uplift for biology will
necessarily be demonstrated at the Site within the monitoring time-frame of this project. It is also
important to understand that since life histories depend on all the lower-level functional categories
(Hydrology, Hydraulics, Geomorphology, and Physicochemical), benefit to biology over time and in
combination with other projects within the watershed is anticipated.

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 17 December 2018
5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Site’s maximum functional uplift using the Stream
Functions Pyramid Framework, specific attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Site.
These goals address the excess nutrient input, streambank erosion, and sedimentation that were
identified as major watershed stressors in the 2010 Neuse RBRP. The Site will address outlined RBRP
Goals 2 and 6 (listed in Section 2).

The Site Goals are:
• Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non-erosive manner in a stable
channel;
• Improve water quality within the restored channel reach and downstream water sources by
reducing sediment and nutrient loads, and increasing dissolved oxygen levels;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on-site and downstream by allowing for overbank flows and
connection to the active floodplain; and
• Improve ecological processes by reducing water temperature, improving terrestrial and aquatic
habitat, and restoring a native plant community.

The Site objectives to address the goals are:
• Design and construct stable stream channels with appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile
based on reference reach conditions;
• Permanently exclude livestock from stream channels and their associated buffers;
• Add in-stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced
streams;
• Reduce bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios to reference reach conditions;
• Increase forested riparian buffers to at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel along all
reaches with a coastal plain hardwood riparian community;
• Treat exotic invasive species; and
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Site.

Anticipated functional benefits and improvements within the Site area, as based on the Function-Based
Framework are outlined in Table 9.

Limitations to achieving these watershed goals arise by remaining constrained to our Site boundaries.
While we are restoring the habitat and streams to stable and effective conditions that achieve our goals
within the Site parcels, we are unable to influence the effect of poor riparian buffers and livestock
impact in other areas within the watershed. However, through this Site’s connectivity with other
projects in the watershed and responsible stewardship of current restoration projects, overall watershed
functionality and health will improve to meet the RBRP goals.
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 18 December 2018
Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements

Level Function Goal Functional Parameter
Existing
Rating/Projected
Rating
(Reach)
Objective Measurement Method
1 Hydrology
Transport of water from the watershed
to the channel
to transport water from the
watershed to the channel in a
non-erosive manner and maintain
a stable water table in riparian
wetlands
Channel-Forming Discharge
Precipitation/Runoff Relationship
Flow Duration
Flood Frequency
Catchment Hydrology
Reach Runoff
Baseflow Alteration
F/F
(All reaches)
No proposed improvements to
streams because all project
streams already are characterized
as functioning.
NM
2
Hydraulic
Transport of water in the channel, on
the floodplain, and through the
sediments
to transport water in a stable non-
erosive manner
Flood Bank Connectivity
Flow Dynamics
Groundwater/Surface water exchange
FAR/F
(LP2, LP3, LP4 LP5,
LP6, LP7)
NF/F
(LP1)
Improve flood bank connectivity
by reducing bank height ratios,
increase entrenchment ratios, and
installing a BMP
Cross sections
Crest gauges
Bank Height Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
3
Geomorphology
Transport of wood and sediment to
create diverse bedforms and dynamic
equilibrium
to create a diverse bedform
to achieve dynamic equilibrium
Lateral Stability
Channel Evolution
Channel Sinuosity
Sediment Transport
LWD Transport/Storage
Bedform Diversity
Bed Material
Riparian Buffer
FAR/F
(LP2, LP3, LP4 LP5,
LP6, LP7)
NF/F
(LP1)
Reduce erosion rates and channel
stability to reference reach
conditions
Improve bedform diversity (pool
spacing, percent riffles, etc
Increase buffer width to 50-100
feet
As-built stream profile
Cross sections
Visual Monitoring
Vegetation plots
4
Physiochemical
Temperature and oxygen regulation;
processing of organic matter and
nutrients
to achieve appropriate levels for
water temperature, dissolved
oxygen concentration, and other
important nutrients including but
not limited to Nitrogen and
Phosphorus
Water Quality
Water Temperature
Nutrient load
Organic Carbon
Bacteria
NF/F
(All Reaches)
Unmeasured Objectives
Improve stream temperature
regulation through introduction of
canopy
Decrease nutrient loading through
filtration of planted riparian buffer,
and removing livestock from the
riparian areas
Vegetation plots
(indirect measurement)
Established fencing and
perpetual conservation
easement
(indirect measurement)
5 Biology
Biodiversity and life histories of
aquatic life histories and riparian life
to achieve functionality in levels
1-4 to support the life histories of
aquatic and riparian plants and
animals
Microbial Communities
Macrophyte Communities
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities
Fish Communities
Landscape Connectivity
NF/F
(All Reaches)
Unmeasured Objective
Improve aquatic habitat through
the installation of habitat features,
construction of pools at varying
depths, and planting the riparian
buffer
Vegetation plots
(indirect measurement)
Not Functioning (NF); Functioning-at-risk (FAR); Functioning (F); Not Measured (NM)
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 19 December 2018
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
6.1 Reference Stream Studies
The restoration portions of the Site are characterized by livestock practices. Portions of the Site were
historically diverted to form poorly-functioning stream channels. Physical parameters of the Site were used,
as well as other reference materials, to determine the target stream type. The “Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina” was also used to narrow the potential community types that would have
existed at the Site (Schafale, 2012). An iterative process was used to develop the final information for the
Site design.

Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the Physiographic Region and ecoregion,
• Similar watershed size,
• Similar land use on-site and in the watershed,
• Similar soil types on-site and in the watershed,
• Ideal, undisturbed habitat – several types of woody debris present,
• Similar topography,
• Similar slope,
• Pattern common among Coastal Plain streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.

Obtaining property owner information and owner authorization for access was another factor in locating
suitable reference sites for the project. For this project, there was no predetermined amount of reference
sites needed as long as the site was suitable and met the parameters. Several potential reference sites were
assessed, and their characteristics were noted. It is difficult to find reference sites on the coastal plain
because many have been disturbed by farming or urban development. Most streams tend to be modified
ditches and may have some of the characteristics that are sought in a reference, but too few to make it an
ideal reference for the project site. One reference stream site that proves to be ideal in both geomorphology
and habitat is located near the intersection of Little Divine Road and Howard Drive. Located approximately
14 miles north of the project site the reference reach is in the wooded area east of Howard Drive.
Reference Watershed Characterization
The reference stream is an unnamed tributary that flows west to east and drains to Hannah Creek. The
portion of the reference reach that was surveyed and analyzed is approximately 275 feet long. The drainage
area for the reach is 1.24 square miles (795 acres). The land use in the watershed is characterized by mostly
agricultural (52 percent), mixed pines and hardwoods (42 percent), residential (four percent), and open
water (two percent).

The current State classification for reference reach is undefined, but the tributary runs into Hannah Creek.
Hannah Creek is defined as Class C NSW (NCDEQ 2018). Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life,
secondary recreation, and agricultural usage. The NSW is a designation for nutrient sensitive waters –
intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge for the reference site.
Existing drainage area, land use, slope, roughness, and cross-sectional area were all factors considered when
performing the calculations. Using a combination of Coastal Plain Regional Curves, in-house spreadsheet
tools, and a project specific regional flood frequency analysis, the existing discharge was found to be around
34 cubic feet per second (ft3/s).
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 20 December 2018
Reference Channel Morphology
In comparison to the restoration reaches, the reference reach is approximately the same size as Reach LP1
when comparing pattern, dimension and profile, therefore a scaling factor was not needed for the design.
The stream was typically 12.2 feet wide and 1.65 feet deep. The cross-sectional area was typically around
15.4 square feet with a width to depth ratio around 9.7.
Reference Channel Stability Assessment
The reference reach was stable and showed no evidence of incision or erosion in the portion that was
surveyed and analyzed. The stream appeared to maintain its slope and had sufficient amounts of vegetation
to secure its banks. Riparian buffer widths exceeded fifty feet on each side. The Channel Stability
Assessment results (scores and ratings) for the reference reach are provided above in Table 8 (Section 3.5).
The reference reach received a “Good” rating as the channel demonstrates a stable meandering pattern and
a well vegetated riparian buffer.
Reference Bankfull Verification
Typical indicators of bankfull include vegetation at the bankfull elevation, scour lines, wrack lines,
vegetation lines, benches/inner berm, and point bars. Throughout the entire length of the reference reach,
bankfull is located at the top of bank elevation. The accuracy of this bankfull stage is verified by the Coastal
Plain Regional Curves and hydrologic analyses using existing cross sections to calculate area and discharge.
Evidence that can further support the location of bankfull is the lack of any bench or berm features within
the channel, and wrack lines present within the floodplain.
Reference Riparian Vegetation
The reference reach riparian community is characteristic of a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
community. This community was determined to have had past disturbance altering the species composition.
It is anticipated that a local seed source for high dispersal species is present and will disperse across much
of the mitigation site. These species are often found in early successional communities and quickly fill
disturbance gaps. Because many of these high dispersal species often become aggressive in these sites, they
are not included in the Restoration Planting List (Section 6.3). Hardwood species typical of the target
community were observed in adjacent and nearby communities, providing further guidance for planting
efforts.
6.2 Design Parameters
Stream Restoration Approach
Stream restoration and enhancement efforts along the tributaries at the Uzzle Stream Mitigation site will be
accomplished through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design
approach applies a combination of analytical and reference reach based design methods that meet objectives
commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed treatment activities may
range from minor bank grading and planting to re-establishing a stable planform and hydraulic geometry.
For reaches requiring full restoration, natural design concepts have been applied and verified through
rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach is to design a geomorphically
stable channel that provides habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape. A conceptual plan
view is provided in Figure 10.

The Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site has been broken into the following design reaches:

Reach LP1 – Reach beginning downstream of US HWY 70 at the northern project limits flowing south to
Reach LP2 totaling 629 linear feet of Priority I Restoration. Wooded active pasture is located adjacent to
the reach. Priority I Restoration is proposed along Reach LP1 to address channel degradation and bank
erosion caused by cattle access and high energy storm flows from the upstream culvert. The design approach
will include meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley, aligning the channel with the
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 21 December 2018
upstream culvert, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and excluding
livestock from the stream. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian
vegetation. Woody debris and grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in-stream
habitat and stability. The watershed that drains to the upper end of the project is approximately 1,124 acres,
and land use it primarily agricultural. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 1,174 acres.

Reaches LP2, LP3, LP4, LP5, LP6, and LP7
Enhancement Level II is proposed for all remaining Reaches LP2 through LP7 which will include treatment
of invasive vegetation, debris removal, and livestock exclusion. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be
established along the reach and will be planted with native riparian vegetation where existing vegetation is
non-native or limited density. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reaches is 1,312 acres. A
rock ford crossing will be constructed at the crossing in the middle of Reach LP5. Both Reaches LP5 and
LP6 right bank have less than 50 feet buffers but they run parallel to a 50 feet utility easement corridor that
is fully vegetated maintained herbaceous cover with some foot paths (Figure 10, Figure 11).
Design Discharge
Based upon the hydrologic analyses described below, design discharges were selected that fall near model
results for the 1.1-year Flood Frequency Analysis for the restoration reach. The selected flow for reach LP1
is 34 ft3/s. This discharge will provide frequent inundation of the adjacent floodplain.

The design discharge was selected based on the following rationale:
• The calculated bankfull discharge for the analog/reference reach and existing reaches fall near the
results of the 1.1-year Flood Frequency Analysis,
• The results of the 1.1-year Flood Frequency Analysis are slightly higher than the NC regional curve
(Doll et al., 2003), and
• Selecting design discharges around the 1.1-year storm events allows frequent inundation of the
adjacent floodplain.

Design Methods
There are three primary methods that have demonstrated success in stream restoration: analog, empirical,
and analytical. All three methods have advantages and limitations, and it is often best to utilize more than
one method to address site-specific conditions or to verify the applicability of design elements. This is
particularly true in developed watersheds where existing conditions do not always reflect current inputs and
events, and sediment and hydrologic inputs may remain unstable for some time. Combinations of analytical
and analog methods were used to develop the stream designs for the Uzzle site.

Analytical Approach
Analytical design is based on principles and processes considered universal to all streams, and can entail
many traditional engineering techniques. The analytical approach utilizes continuity, roughness equations,
hydrologic and hydraulic models, and sediment transport functions to derive equilibrium conditions. Since
the project is located within a rural watershed, restoration designs are based on hydrologic and hydraulic
analyses, including rainfall-runoff models to determine design discharges coupled with reference reach
techniques.

Analog Approach
The analog method of natural channel design involves the use of a “template” or reference stream located
near the design reach, and is particularly useful when watershed and boundary conditions are similar
between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). In an analog approach, the planform pattern,
cross-sectional shape, longitudinal profile, and frequency and locations of woody debris along the analog
reaches are mimicked when developing the design parameters for the subject stream.
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 22 December 2018
1. The appropriate bankfull cross-sectional area (CSA) of each design reach was calculated using an
in-house spreadsheet based on Manning’s Equation. The input parameters included the design
discharge as determined by the hydrologic analysis described above, and proposed slope based on
site conditions and the sinuosity measured for the analog reach.
2. The cross-sectional shape was adjusted within the spreadsheet to replicate the width-depth ratios
and side slopes surveyed along the analog reach, while also maintaining the CSA necessary to
convey the design discharge.
3. The scaling factor is determined from the ratio of the design top width to the analog top width
(Table 10). For this project, several cross-sections and planform geometry were measured at the
analog site, resulting in an average width of 12.2 feet.
4. Pool cross-sectional areas were calculated using both typical reference reach techniques and the
analog approach. Design CSA areas were determined using the measured analog ratios of
shallow/riffle CSA to pool CSA as applied to the design CSAs. The pool cross-sectional shape was
adjusted within the in-house spreadsheet as described above in step 2.
Table 10. Scaling Factors for Sizing Planform Design Parameters
Reach Drainage Area
(ac)
Proposed Bankfull
CSA (ft2)
Design Topwidth
(ft)
Analog Reach
Topwidth (ft)
Scaling
Factor
LP1 1,124 15.5 12.2 12.2 1.00

Typical Design Sections
Typical cross sections for shallows and pools are shown on the design plan sheets in Appendix A. The
cross-section dimensions were developed for the two design reaches by using a WK Dickson in-house
spreadsheet. The cross-sections were altered slightly to facilitate constructability; however, the cross-
sectional area, width to depth ratio, and side slopes were preserved. Typical pool sections include pools
located on straight reaches and pools on meander bends.
Meander Pattern
The design plans showing the proposed channel alignment are provided in Appendix A. The meander
pattern was derived directly from the analog reach and was altered in some locations to provide variability
in pattern, to avoid onsite constraints, to follow the valley pattern, and to make the channel more
constructible. The morphologic parameters summarized in the Appendix B were applied wherever these
deviations occurred.
Longitudinal Profiles
The design profiles are presented in Appendix A. These profiles extend throughout the entire Site for the
proposed channel alignment. The profiles were designed using the analog reach bed features that were sized
with the scaling factors. The bed slopes and bankfull energy gradients were determined for each design
reach based on the existing valley slope and the sinuosity of the design reach. A mix of rock and log
structures will be utilized in the design to control grade, divert flows, and provide additional habitat
diversity and stability.
In-Stream Structures
Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional stability and improve aquatic
habitat. Native materials and vegetation will be used for revetments and grade control structures where
applicable.

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 23 December 2018
Woody debris will be placed throughout the restoration channel at locations and at a frequency that is
similar to those observed in the analog reaches. Woody habitat features installed will include brush toes,
log sills, and log j-hooks. To provide additional bank stability, sod mats harvested onsite will be installed
along stream banks during construction if and when feasible. Sod mats will only be harvested and used if
comprised of appropriate vegetation. The use of sod mats that include aggressive turf grasses will be
avoided. Sod mats are natural sections of vegetation taken from the banks when they were cut during
construction and are about nine inches thick. Before installation, proposed banks are graded lower than
specified to accommodate the thickness of the mat. The mats are placed on top of the bank to act as a natural
stabilizer of native species, and they grow much faster than the combination of coir fiber matting and
seeding. Other bank stability measures include the installation of live stakes, log sills, and brush toes.
Typical details for proposed in-stream structures and revetments are in Appendix A.
Data Analysis
Stream Hydrologic Flows
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to determine and
validate the design bankfull discharge and channel geometry required to provide regular floodplain
inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a single
model. Peak flows (Table 11) and corresponding channel cross-sectional areas were determined for
comparison to design parameters using the following methods:

• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• AutoCAD’s Hydraflow Hydrographs,
• NC and VA/MD Regional Curves for the Coastal Plain, and
• US Geological Survey (USGS) regional regression equations for rural conditions in the Coastal
Plain.

Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby
USGS gauges with drainage areas less than 6,400 acres (10 mi2) which passed the Dalrymple homogeneity
test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations. Regional flood
frequency equations were developed for the 1.1-, 1.5-, and 2-year peak discharges based on the gauge data.
Discharges were then computed for the design reach. These discharges were compared to those predicted
by the discharge regional curve and USGS regional regression 2-year discharge equations.

AutoCAD’s Hydraflow Express
Hydraflow Express was used to simulate the rainfall-runoff process and establish peak flows for the
watersheds. This model was chosen over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers model HEC-HMS because it
allows the user to adjust the peak shape factor for the watershed conditions. Rainfall data reflecting 100,
284 and 484 peak shape factors were used along with a standard Type II distribution, and NRCS hydrology
(time of concentrations and runoff curve numbers), to simulate the rainfall-runoff process. A 100 peak
shape factor was determined to be the most representative for this watershed.

Regional Curve Regression Equations
The North Carolina Coastal regional curves by Doll et al. (2003) and Sweet and Geratz (2003), and the
Virginia/Maryland (Krstolic and Chaplin, 2007) Coastal Plain regional curves for discharge were used to
predict the bankfull discharge for the site. The NC regional curves predicted flows that are similar to those
predicted by the 1.1-year flood frequency, while the VA/MD curves are comparable to flows predicted by
the 1.5-year flood frequency equation. The regional curve equations for NC discharges by Doll et al. (2003)
(1), Sweet and Geratz (2003) (2), and VA/MD (3) discharges are:

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 24 December 2018
(1) Qbkf=16.56*(DA)0.72 (Doll et al., 2003)
(2) Qbkf=8.49*(DA)0.76 (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
(3) Qbkf= 28.3076*(DA)0.59834 (Krstolic and Chaplin, 2007)

Where Qbkf=bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mi2).
USGS Regional Regression Equations
USGS regression equations estimate the magnitude and frequency of flood-peak discharges (Weaver, et al.,
2009). The regression equations were developed from gauge data in different physiographic regions of the
Southeastern United States. For this analysis, there was only concern for the 2-year return interval. The
equation for the rural Piedmont (Hydrologic Region X) is:

(4) Q2=60.3*(DA)0.649

Table 11. Peak Flow Comparison
Reach
Drainage
Area
(Ac)
Hydraflow
Q1
FFQ
Q1.1
FFQ
Q1.5
NC
Regional
Curve Q (1)
NC Regional
Curve Q (2)
VA/MD
Regional
Curve Q (3)
Regional
Regression
Eqns. Q2
Design/
Calculated
Q
LP1 1,124 37.3 35.0 72.5 24.8 13.5 39.7 87 34

Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a stable
sand bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically, sediment transport is assessed to
determine a stream’s ability to move a specific grain size at specified flows. Various sediment transport
equations may be easily applied when estimating entrainment for gravel bed streams; however, these
equations are not as effectively applied to sand bed channels where the entire bed becomes mobile during
geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, more sophisticated modeling techniques were used to analyze
the stream design for this project. The following methods and functions were utilized during the sediment
transport analysis:
• Permissible Shear Stress Approach
• Permissible Velocity Approach

Shear Stress Approach
Shear stress is a commonly used tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear stresses are
a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size, and gradation), cohesiveness of
bank materials, and vegetative cover. The shear stress approach compares calculated shear stresses to those
found in the literature. Shear stress is the force exerted on a boundary during the resistance of motion as
calculated using the following formula:

(5) τ = γRS
τ = shear stress (lb/ft2)
γ = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft3)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 25 December 2018
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Reach
Proposed Shear Stress
at Bankfull Stage
(lbs/ft2)
Critical Shear Stress
(lbs/ft2)
Allowable Shear Stress1
Sand/Silt/Clay
(lbs/ft2)
Gravel
(lbs/ft2)
Vegetation
(lbs/ft2)
LP1 0.26 >0.06 0.03 to 0.26 0.33 to 0.67 0.2 to 1.7
1(Fischenich, 2001)

Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Uzzle design reaches fall between
the critical shear stress (shear stress required to initiate motion) and the allowable limits. Therefore, the
proposed channel should remain stable.

Velocity Approach
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank materials.
A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method to aid in the
verification of channel stability. Table 13 compares the proposed velocities calculated using Manning’s
equation with the permissible velocities presented in the Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NRCS,
2007).

Table 13. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities
Reach Manning’s “n”
value Design Velocity (ft/s) Allowable Velocity1 (ft/s)
Fine Sand Coarse Sand Fine Gravel
LP1 0.045 2.2 2.0 4.0 6.0
1(NRCS, 2007)

6.3 Vegetation and Planting Plan
Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration project. The selection of
plant species is based on what was observed at the reference reach, species present in the forest surrounding
the restoration site, and what is typically native to the area. Several sources of information were used to
determine the most appropriate species for the restoration project. The reference stream is located within a
disturbed Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. Species dominant in the canopy included sweetgum, red
maple, tulip poplar, swamp tupelo, and various oak species (Quercus sp.) in the canopy. Shrubs included
sweetbay and American holly. The reference site was chosen due to the stability of the channel, the physical
structure of the forest community, and to evaluate stream habitat. The species present are indicative of early
successional species that have high dispersal rates. The mitigation site also supports many species typical
of this community type due to its past disturbance history. Typically, Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamps
would occur along the stream banks and adjacent floodplain of the proposed restoration site.

Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp will be the target community type and will be used for all areas within
the project, as well as for buffer around the site. The plant species list has been developed and can be found
in Table 14. Species with high dispersal rates are not included because of local occurrence, adjacent seed
sources, and the high potential for natural regeneration. The high dispersal species include red maple, tulip
poplar, and sweetgum.

The restoration of plant communities along the Site will provide stabilization and diversity. Planting
activities will be divided into three approaches. Approach one is the full restorative planting surrounding
Reach LP1, in response to disturbance during construction activities. Approach two is the projected areas
of supplemental planting along the easement boundary and downslope from the current gate where cattle
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 26 December 2018
access the floodplain from the above pasture. Approach three is low density supplemental planting in small
canopy openings throughout the Project, caused by historic cattle access, and will be identified as-needed
during the other planting activities. Supplemental planting in approaches two and three will utilize primarily
oaks (Quercus spp.) and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum).

For rapid stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), a mix of or all of either
cottonwood (Populus deltoides), silky dogwood (Cornus sericea), and/or black willow (Salix nigra) were
chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because of their rapid growth patterns and high success
rates. Willows grow at a faster rate than the species planted around them, and they stabilize the stream
banks. Willows will also be quicker to contribute organic matter to the channel. When the other species are
bigger, the black willows will slowly stop growing or die out because the other species would outgrow them
and create shade that the willows do not tolerate. The live stake species will be planted along the outside of
the meander bends three feet from the top of bank, creating a three-foot section along the top of bank. The
live stakes will be spaced three feet apart with alternate spacing vertically. Live stakes will also be utilized
throughout the enhancement portions of the Project to ensure bank stabilization where historic cattle access
have caused the lack of understory vegetation along channel banks. Since the goal is to achieve a Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp, bare root bald cypress will also be planted in clumps of six, approximately
every 100 feet, along bank meanders to aid in bank stabilization.

Table 14. Proposed Plant List
Tree Species- Floodplain and Wetland
Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Indicator* Growth Rate
Swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora OBL moderate
Bald cypress Taxodium distichum OBL rapid
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata OBL moderate
River birch Betula nigra FACW rapid
Willow oak Quercus phellos FACW rapid
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii FACW moderate
American sycamore Platanus occidentalis FACW rapid
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Indicator*
Black willow Salix nigra OBL rapid
Silky Dogwood Cornus sericea FACW rapid
Cottonwood Populus deltoides FAC rapid
*National Wetland Indicator Status from Draft Rating 2012-Atlantic Gulf Coastal Plain.
On-Site Invasive Species Management
Treatment for invasive species will be required within all grading limits associated with stream restoration.
Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant phenology and
the location of the species being treated. All treatment will be conducted so as to maximize its effectiveness
and reduce chances of detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods will include
mechanical (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical (foliar spray, cut stump, and hack
and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds will be removed from the site and properly
disposed. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a certified ground pesticide applicator with a North
Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) license and adhere to all legal
and safety requirements according to herbicide labels and NC and Federal laws. Management records will
be kept on the plant species treated, type of treatment employed, type of herbicide used, application
technique, and herbicide concentration and quantities used. These records will be included in all reporting
documents.
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 27 December 2018
Soil Restoration
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before the
topsoil is placed back over the site. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be stockpiled and
placed over the site during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil conditions for
plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the site.

6.4 Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the restoration designs described in this
document. The combination of the analog and analytical design methods was determined to be appropriate
for this project because the watershed is rural, the causes of disturbance are known and have been abated,
and there are minimal infrastructure constraints. The original design parameters were developed from the
measured analog/reference reach data and applied to the subject stream. The parameters were then analyzed
and adjusted through an iterative process using analytical tools and numerical simulations of fluvial
processes. The designs presented in this report provide for the restoration of natural Coastal sand-bed
channel features and stream bed diversity to improve benthic habitat. The proposed design will allow flows
that exceed the design bankfull stage to spread out over the floodplain, restoring wetland hydrology to the
overbank areas.
A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the restoration channel.
However, many segments will be left partially filled to provide habitat diversity and flood storage. Native
woody material will be installed throughout the restored reach to reduce bank stress, provide grade control,
and increase habitat diversity.
Forested riparian buffers of at least 50-feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the project
reaches. A portion of the right bank of LP5, and the majority of the right bank of LP6 will have a buffer
less than 50-feet; however this is due to a parallel 50 foot gas easement that is maintained vegetation (Figure
10). An appropriate riparian plant community will be established to include a diverse mix of species. The
plant species list has been developed and can be found in Table 14. Replanting of native species will occur
where the existing buffer is impacted during construction.
Due to the nature of the Project, complete avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is not possible.
Proposed stream impacts, including stream relocation and culverts, will be replaced on site. Wetland
impacts associated with restoration and enhancement efforts will only temporarily impact wetlands and will
provide an overall increase in wetland function with the addition of native trees and shrubs along the stream
banks, and restored hydrology. All stream and wetland impacts will be accounted for in the Pre-
Construction Notification (PCN) form.

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 28 December 2018
7 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in Table 15 are projections based upon Project design (Figure 10). Upon
completion of Site construction, the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent
with the as-built condition if there is a large discrepancy. This will be approved by the USACE. The Project
will be co-located with a DWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Bank, which is currently in
development. The width of the riparian enhancement areas where buffer credits are generated will begin
at the most landward limit of the top of bank and extend landward to a distance of at least 50 feet
perpendicular to the streams and from 151 – 200 feet, as the 50 – 151 will be used to generate credit using
the non-standard buffer credit calculation (Section 7.1). There will be no overlapping buffer crediting areas
with stream crediting areas from 51 – 150 feet (Figure 11).
Table 15. Mitigation Credits
Reach Mitigation
Type
Stationing
(Proposed)
Existing
Length
(LF)
Proposed
Length
(LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Base
SMUs
LP1 Restoration 1+24 to 07+53 766 629 1: 1 629
LP2 Enhancement II 07+53 to 23+72 1,619 1,619 1 : 2.5 648
LP3 Enhancement II 0+50 to 1+92 142 142 1 : 2.5 57
LP4 Enhancement II 23+72 to 29+31 559 559 1 : 2.5 223
LP5 Enhancement II 29+31 to 36+45 714 714 1 : 2.5 286
LP5 Enhancement II 37+06 to 52+50 1,544 1,544 1 : 2.5 618
LP6 Enhancement II 0+22 to 4+00 378 378 1 : 2.5 155
LP7 Enhancement II 52+50 to 55+62 312 312 1 : 2.5 128
Totals 6,034 5,897 2,736
Credit Loss in Required Buffer -150
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer 289
Total Adjusted SMUs 2,876
*SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- “Procedures to Calculate Credits for Non-standard Buffer Widths”,
published in the October 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. A detailed description
of the methodology and calculations is described below and in Figure(s) 11.

7.1 Credit Calculations for Non-Standard Buffer Widths
To calculate functional uplift credit adjustments, the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
from the USACE in January 2018 was utilized. To perform this calculation, GIS analysis was performed to
determine the area (in square feet) of ideal buffer zones and actual buffer zones around all streams within
the project. Minimum standard buffer widths are measured from the top of bank (50 feet in Piedmont and
Coastal Plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties). The ideal buffers are the maximum potential size
(in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS,
including areas outside of the easement. The actual buffer is the square feet in each buffer zone, as measured
by GIS, excluding non-forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement
exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is
given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are more than 150 feet from creditable
streams were not included in this measurement. Non-creditable stream reaches within the easement are
removed prior to calculating this area with GIS (for both ideal and actual). The stream lengths, mitigation
type, ideal buffer, and actual buffer are all entered into the calculator. This is data is processed, and the
resulting credit amounts are totaled for the whole project (Table 15, Figure 10 and Figure 12).
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 29 December 2018
8 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Site will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in the
2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update and
subsequent agency guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
8.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Bankfull Events
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The four
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four
bankfull events have been documented in separate years. Channel stability should be demonstrated
through a minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring period.
Cross Sections
There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down-
cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall
be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio
shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches.
Channel stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events documented in
the seven-year monitoring period.
Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images
should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
Surface Flow
The stream restoration reach will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This
will be accomplished through direct observation and the use of stream gauge transducers with data
loggers. Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow.
8.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site will
follow IRT Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover
a minimum of two percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually between July
15 and leaf drop. The interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least
320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 five-year old trees that are at least 7
feet tall at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an
average height of ten feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species,
and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of
total planted stems. Additionally, no species may account for over 50 percent of total stems at a given
plot.
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 30 December 2018
9 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the IRT monitoring template. A detailed monitoring plan
is provided in Figure 13. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will
facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, research purposes, and assist in decision making
regarding project close-out. Monitoring reports will be prepared annually and submitted to the USACE.
Monitoring of the Site will adhere to metrics and performance standards established by the USACE’s
April 2003 Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the NC IRT’s October 2016
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Table 16 outlines the links
between project goals, objectives, and treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and
performance standards within the context of functional uplift based on the Stream Functions Pyramid
Framework.
9.1 As-Built Survey
An as-built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank
to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by USACE. Stream channel stationing will be marked with stakes
placed near the top of bank every 200 feet.
9.2 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species,
and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete
streamwalk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to
record each monitoring event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual
monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital
images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
9.3 Hydrology Events
Crest gauges will be installed to document the occurrence of bankfull events. A minimum of one gauge
will be installed. Crest gauges and/or pressure transducers will be installed on site to monitor surface
water hydrology For at least 30 days of flow each year. The devices will be inspected on a semiannual
basis to document the occurrence of bankfull events. Wetland monitoring gauges with data recording
devices will be installed adjacent to LP1; the data will be downloaded on a quarterly basis during the
growing season.
9.4 Cross Sections
Permanent cross-sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in
pools and half in shallows within the restoration area. Additional cross-sections will be installed at a
minimum of one per 50 bankfull widths along enhancement reaches to monitor stability as a result of
upstream restoration. All cross-section measurements will include bank height ratio and entrenchment
ratio. Cross-sections will be monitored in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. There should be little change in as-
built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent
movement toward a less stable condition (for example down-cutting or erosion), or are minor changes
Uzzle Mitigation Plan 31 December 2018
that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the
banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
9.5 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be 3 plots within the planted area (3.6 acres). Planted area
indicates all area in the easement that will be planted with trees. Existing wooded areas are not included
in the planted area. A combination of permanent fixed plots and random plots will be used to
demonstrate vegetation cover. Random plots will not make up more than 50% of the required plots.
The following data will be recorded for all trees in the plots: species, height, planting date (or
volunteer), and grid location. Monitoring will occur on years 1,2,3,5,7. Invasive and noxious species
will be monitored and treated so that none become dominant or alter the desired community structure
of the site. If necessary, RES will develop a species-specific control plan.
9.6 Scheduling/Reporting
A mitigation plan and as-built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be developed
within 60 days of the planting completion on the Site. The report will include all information required
by IRT mitigation plan guidelines, including elevations, photographs and sampling plot locations,
gauge locations, and a description of initial species composition by community type. The report will
also include a list of the species planted and the associated densities. Baseline vegetation monitoring
will include species, height, date of planting, and grid location of each stem. The baseline report will
follow USACE guidelines.

The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the
success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final
success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.

Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to the IRT.
The monitoring reports will include all information, and be in the format required by USACE.

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 32 December 2018
Table 16. Monitoring Plan

Level Goal Treatment Outcome Monitoring Method Performance Standard
1 Hydrology ° To transport
water from the
watershed to the
channel in a non-
erosive manner
Convert land-use
of Project reaches
from disturbed
riparian forest to
protected riparian
forest
Improve the
transport of water
from the watershed
to the Project
reaches in a non-
erosive way
N/A N/A
2 Hydraulic To transport
water in a stable
non-erosive
manner
Reduce bank
height ratios and
increase
entrenchment
ratios by
reconstructing
channels to mimic
reference reach
conditions
Improve flood bank
connectivity by
reducing bank
height ratios and
increase
entrenchment ratios
Crest gauges and/or
pressure transducers:
Inspected
semiannually
Four bankfull events documented in the seven-
year monitoring period
At least 30 days of continuous flow each year
Cross Sections:
Surveyed in years 1,
2, 3, 5 and 7

Entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2
within restored reach
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2 on riffles
3 Geomorphology To create a
diverse bedform

To achieve
dynamic
equilibrium
Establish a riparian
buffer to reduce
erosion and
sediment transport
into Project
streams. Establish
stable banks with
livestakes, erosion
control matting,
and other in-stream
structures
Reduce erosion
rates and channel
instability to
reference reach
conditions

Improve bedform
diversity (pool
spacing, percent
riffles, etc.

Increase buffer
width to ≥50 feet
As-built stream
profile Perform stream profile survey post-construction
Cross sections:
surveyed in years 1,
2, 3, 5 and 7
Entrenchment ratio shall be no less than
2.2 within restored reach
Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2 on riffles
Visual monitoring:
Performed at least
semiannually
Identify and document significant stream
problem areas; i.e. erosion, degradation,
aggradation, etc.
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in years 1,
2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 4-5: 260 trees/acre (7ft. tall)
MY 6-7: 210 trees/acre (10ft. tall)
4 Physicochemical To achieve
appropriate
levels for water
temperature,
dissolved
oxygen
concentration,
and other
important
nutrients
including but not
limited to
Nitrogen and
Phosphorus
Exclude livestock
from riparian areas
with exclusion
fence, and plant a
riparian buffer
Decrease stream
temperature
regulation through
introduction of
canopy

Increase DO by
installing in-stream
structures to create
aeration zones

Decrease nutrient
loading through
buffer filtration and
livestock removal
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in years 1,
2, 3, 5 and 7
(indirect
measurement)
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 4-5: 260 trees/acre (7ft. tall)
MY 6-7: 210 trees/acre (10ft. tall)
Visual assessment of
established fencing
and conservation
signage: Performed
at least semiannually
(indirect
measurement)

Inspect fencing and signage. Identify and
document any damaged or missing fencing
and/or signs.

5 Biology To achieve
functionality in
levels 1-4 to
support the life
histories of
aquatic and
riparian plants
and animals
Plant a riparian
buffer, install
habitat features,
and construct pools
of varying depths
Provided more
suitable aquatic
habitat that can
support biodiversity
and life histories of
aquatic and
terrestrial animals
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in years 1,
2, 3, 5 and 7
(indirect
measurement)

MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 4-5: 260 trees/acre (7ft. tall)
MY 6-7: 210 trees/acre (10ft. tall)

° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 33 December 2018
10 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of Site construction, RES will implement the post-construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Site maintenance will be performed as described previously in this
document. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is determined that the Site’s ability to achieve
performance standards are jeopardized, RES will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of
Corrective Action. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized RES will:

1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed.

11 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval of the Site by the IRT, the Site will be transferred to the NCWHF:

North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation
[phone]
PO Box 29187
Greensboro, NC 27429
www.ncwhf.org

The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in
the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Easements held by the NCWHF
are stewarded in general accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land Trust Alliance.
These guidelines include annual monitoring visits to easements and related communication with the
landowner(s). During the visit, a standard report is completed and pictures taken for the record. If the Site
is found to be in violation of the easement terms NCWHF works with the landowner to see the problem
rectified. When appropriate NCWHF pursues legal action to enforce the easement terms. NCWHF typically
requires the site developer to install standard NCWHF signage as part of the easement transfer package.
This includes well marked corners of the easement boundary, as well as plastic or metal signs identifying
the easement. The current sign standard is a six foot by six foot aluminum sign with contact information.
Signs are refreshed on an as needed basis. Typically, a sign will last five to ten years before it is no longer
legible due to sun fading. An overview of the NCWHF Easement Stewardship program is included in
Appendix C.

NCWHF requires an endowment for each easement it agrees to hold. All endowments are held together in
an investment fund. Endowments are sized so that the interest from the principal will pay the expected
monitoring costs for that easement. This assumes a seven-year monitoring period for the site during which
NCWHF will not incur any expenses. It also assumes a five percent annual return. Currently NCWHF
employs a contractor to handle annual monitoring visits and basic easement stewardship. This flat fee
includes a property walkthrough, report, pictures, sign installation, etc. The endowment fee and the
breakdown of cost that is proposed is found in Appendix C, it has not yet been confirmed for the easement
transfer of the Uzzle Site, and it will be updated once finalized.

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 34 December 2018
12 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved mitigation plan of
the 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 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 in Table 18.

Table 17. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Release Milestone Credit Release Activity Interim Release Total Released
1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated above) 15% 15%
2 Baseline Monitoring Report and As-built Survey 15% 30%
3 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met. 10% 40%
4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met. 10% 50%
5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met. 10% 60%
6 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met. 5% 65%
(75%**)
7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met. 10% 75%
(85%**)
8 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met. 5% 80%
(90%**)
9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met, and project has received close-out
approval.
10% 90%
(100%**)
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
12.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the IRT with
written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a) Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE
b) Approval of the final mitigation plan
c) Mitigation site must be secured
d) Delivery of financial assurances.
e) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE
f) Issuance of the 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
12.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
The second credit release will occur after the completion of implementation of the Mitigation Plan and IRT
approval of the Baseline Monitoring Report and As-built Survey. All subsequent credit releases must be
approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a determination that required performance

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 35 December 2018
standards have been achieved. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the Sponsor
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.

13 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The Site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection will 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:

Table 18. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in-stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir 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. Stream maintenance activities will be
documented and reported in annual monitoring reports. Stream maintenance will
continue through the monitoring period.
Vegetation Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species
shall be treated 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. Vegetation maintenance activities will
be documented and reported in annual monitoring reports. Vegetation maintenance will
continue through the monitoring period.
Site Boundary Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be marked with signs
identifying the property as a mitigation site, and will include the name of the long-term
steward and a contact number. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, 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. Easement monitoring and staking/signage maintenance
will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
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.
Crossings in easement breaks are the responsibility of the landowner to maintain.
Livestock Fencing Livestock Fencing is to be placed outside the easement limits. Maintenance of fencing
is the responsibility of the landowner.
Beaver Routine site visits and monitoring will be used to determine if beaver management is
needed. If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability or vegetative success, RES
will trap beavers and remove impoundments as needed. All beaver management
activities will be documented and included in annual monitoring reports. Beaver
monitoring and management will continue through the monitoring period.

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 36 December 2018
14 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL

The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $416,500 Construction Performance Bond
to the USACE to assure completion of mitigation construction and planting. Construction and planting costs
are estimated to be at or below $416,500 based on the Engineer's construction materials estimate and recent
bid tabulation unit costs for construction materials. Following completion of construction and planting the
Construction Performance Bond will be retired and a $206,650 Monitoring Performance Bond will be
provided to assure completion of seven years of monitoring and reporting, and any remedial work required
during the monitoring period. The $206,650 amount includes contingency and estimated monitoring costs
from the Engineer. The Monitoring Performance Bond will be reduced by $37,000 following approval of
each annual monitoring report. The Monitoring Performance Bond will be retired in total following official
notice of site close-out from the IRT. Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby trust or other
designee at the direction of the obligee. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in
the event of default by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable. A financial assurance must be in the form that
ensures that the USACE receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
The Performance Bonds will be provided by a surety listed with the U.S. Treasury and has an A.M. Best
Rating of B or above. All Performance Bonds will be submitted to the USACE in draft form for approval
prior to execution. In the event of Sponsor default, the NCWHF has agreed to receive the funds and ensure
the work is successfully completed.

Table 19. Financial Assurances
Construction Costs
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc) $54,000
Sitework $66,500
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs, logs, rocks, coir, etc) $143,000
Crossings $14,000
Vegetation $108,000
Miscellaneous $31,000
Total $416,500
Monitoring Costs
Annual Monitoring and Reports $154,500
Equipment (e.g. gauges, markers, etc) $5,500
Miscellaneous $5,000
Contingency (10%) $41,650
Total $206,650

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 37 December 2018
15 REFERENCES
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood Frequency Analyses. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1543-A.

Doll, Barbara A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton and D.A. Bidelspach. 2003. Hydraulic
Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams. NC Stream Restoration
Institute, Report to N.C. Division of Water Quality for 319 Grant Project No. EW20011.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

Fischenich, C. 2001. ‘‘Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials.’’ ERDC Technical Note No.
EMRRP-SR-29, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Miss.

Fischenich, J.C., 2006. Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration, EMRRP Technical Notes
Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-52), US Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. (available online at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr52.pdf)

Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function-
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.

Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number FHWA-HRT-
05-072.

Krstolic, J.L., and Chaplin, J.J. 2007. Bankfull regional curves for streams in the non-urban, non-tidal
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2007–5162, 48 p. (available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2007–
5162)

NCDEQ 2018. “Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina.” Classifications and
Standards. https://deq.nc.gov/. (April 2018).

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). “Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities
2010.” (April 2018).

NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2013. Wake-Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan: Phase
I Preliminary Findings and Recommendations. North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality.
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fspublic/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/
Neuse_River_Basin/Wake_Johnston_Collaborative/WJC%20LWP%20Preliminary%20Findings%20Rep
ort%20FINAL.pdf. (February 2018).

Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO

Uzzle Mitigation Plan 38 December 2018
Schafale, M.P. (2012). Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.

Sweet, W. V. and Geratz, J. W. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships And Recurrence
Intervals For North Carolina's Coastal Plain. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 39: 861–871.

Tweedy, K. A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater Systems. Stream
Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and Practice, November 2008, Asheville,
NC. Unpublished Conference Paper, 2008.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/srp/2008conference/tweedy_paper.pdf

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.

USACE, 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

USACE, 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1994. Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina.

NRCS, 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH 654).

NRCS. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt,
and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for
Hydric Soils.

NRCS, Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov (September 2014).

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. EPA Manual. Quantifying Physical Habitat in
Wadeable Streams.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. “Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina.” North
Carolina Ecological Services. http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. (September 2014).

Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J., 2009, Magnitude and frequency of rural floods in the
Southeastern United States, through 2006—Volume 2, North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5158, 111 p.
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Service Area and Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – USGS Map
Figure 3 – Landowner Map
Figure 4 – Land-use Map
Figure 5 – Existing Conditions Map
Figure 6 – National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 7 – Soils Map
Figure 8 – Historical Conditions Map
Figure 9 – FEMA Map
Figure 10 – Conceptual Plan Map
Figure 11 – DWR Buffer Mitigation Bank
Figure 12 – Buffer Width Zones
Figure 13 – Monitoring Plan
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
©Date: 12/5/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Figure 1_Vicinity Map_Uzzle.mxdUzzle MitigationBank
Legend
Proposed Ea sement
TLW - 030 20201100040
Service Area - 0302020 1
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGS Map(Powhatan 1980)
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
©Date: 12/5/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Figure 2_USGS Map_Uzzle.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area - 1,312 ac
Streams
LP11,124 ac
LP21,174 acLP323 ac
LP71,312 acLP6 42 ac
LP5 1,296 ac
LP41,202 ac
UZZLE, G C III168600-07-9981
UZZLE, G C III168600-08-5325
UZZLE, GEORGE CLIFFORD III &168600-09-3644
0 600300
Feet
Figure 3 - Landow ner Map
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
©Date: 12/5/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Figure 3_Landowner Map_Uzzle.mxdLegend
Proposed Ea sement (27.3ac)
Projec t Parcels
0 1,750875
Feet
Figure 4 - Land Use Map
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
©Date: 12/5/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Figure 4_Land Use Map_Uzzle.mxdLegend
Proposed Ea sement
Drainage Area
Land Use
Fore st - 4 9%
Crops - 2 3%
Residential - 8 %
Urban - 8 %
Impe rvious - 6 %
Pasture - 5 %
Water - <1%
PPPPP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
PLP2L
P
4
LP5
LP7
L
ittle
P
o
pla
r
C
r
e
e
k
LP6
L P 3
0 600300
Feet
Figure 5 - Existing Conditions Map
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
©Date: 12/5/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Figure 5_Existing Conditions Map_Uzzle.mxdAgriculturalCrossing
Legend
Streams
P Gasline Easement
Proposed Ea sement
Existing Wetland
WA
PFO1A
PFO1A
R4SBC
PUBHh
R4SBC
R5UBH
PEM1Cx
0 600300
Feet
Figure 6 - NW I M ap
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
©Date: 12/5/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Figure 6_NWI Map_Uzzle.mxdLegend
Proposed Ea sement
NWI Wetlands
Am B
Am B
Wt
Tn
Tn
Tn
Ra
Am B
NoB
Ly
NoA
NoB
Gr
CeC
Ra
Ra
Am B
CeC
PaD
GoA
GoA
UcB
CeC
McB
Am B
Ra
Ly
Tn
Am B
NoA
Ly
Ra
GoA
0 600300
Feet
Figure 7 - Soils Map
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
©Date: 12/5/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Figure 7_Soils Map_Uzzle.mxdSybmol Name
AmB Appl i ng-Marl boro compl e x , 1-6% sl ope s
Ce C Ceci l l oam, 6-10% slopes
Ly Lynchburg sandy loam, 0-2% sl ope s
PaD Pace l ot l oam,. 10-15% Slopes
Ra Rai ns sandy l oam, 0-2% sl ope s
Wt We hadke e l oam, 0-2% sl ope s, fre quentl y flooded
Legend
Pro posed Ease ment
Hydric (10 0%)
Pre dom in antly Hydric (66-99%)
Partia lly Hydric (33-65%)
Pre dom in antly Nonhydric (1-32%)
Non hydric (0%)
0 900450
Feet
Figure 8 - Historical Aerial Photography
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
©Date: 12/5/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Figure 8 - Historical Imagery map_Uzzle.mxd1949
1993 2017
Legend
Proposed Ea sement
1971
0 600300
Feet
Figure 9 - FEMA Map
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
©Date: 12/5/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Figure 9_FEMA Map_Uzzle.mxdLegend
Proposed Ea sement
FIRM Panels
FEMA Zone AE
FEMA Regulatory Floodway
.2% Chance Annual Flood Source: https://hazards.fema.gov/gis/nfhl/rest/services
XXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X X X X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
L
P5
LP2LP1
LP4
LP6
LP7
L P 3
LP5
0 400200
Feet
Figure 10 - Conceptual Plan Map
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
©Date: 12/5/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Figure 10_Conceptual Plan Map_Uzzle.mxdUpgrade AgriculturalCrossing
Legend
X Proposed Fen ce
Proposed Easement
Stream Approach
Restoration
Enha nce ment II
Construction on LP1 will beginat downstr eam e nd of DOT culvert extension
Proposed Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Length (LF)
Mitigation Ratio Base SMUs
LP1 Res toration 629 1:1 629
LP2 Enhancem ent II 1,619 2.5:1 648
LP3 Enhancem ent II 142 2.5:1 57
LP4 Enhancem ent II 559 2.5:1 223
LP5 Enhancem ent II 2,258 2.5:1 903
LP6 Enhancem ent II 378 2.5:1 151
LP7 Enhancem ent II 312 2.5:1 125
5,897 2,736
150
290
2,876
Total
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
Total Adjusted SMUs
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
XXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X X X X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
0 400200
Feet
Figure 11 - DWR Buffer M itigation Bank
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
©Date: 12/5/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Figure 11_DWR Buffer Mitigation Bank_Uzzle.mxdLegend
X Proposed Fence
Proposed Easement
Proposed Stream Channel
Buffer Mitigation
Buffer Enhancement (0-50')
Buffer Enhancement (151-200')
Areas from 51-150 fee t from the top of bank will not persued for buffer credit, but for stream credit for wider buffers
©
0 500250
Feet
Date: 12/5/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: RMW
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Figure 12 - Buffer Width Zones.mxdFigure 12 - Non-Standard Buffer Zones
UzzleMitigation Site
Johnston County,North Carolina
1 in = 500 feet
Ideal Buffers Actual Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Buffer Width Zones
0-15 feet
15-20 feet
20-25 feet
25-30 feet
30-35 feet
35-40 feet
40-45 feet
45-50 feet
50-75 feet
75-100 feet
100-125 feet
125-150 feet
Buffer Zones les s than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 35 feet >35 to 40 feet >40 to 45 feet >45 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feetMax Possible Buffer (square feet)179,460 59,820 59,820 59,820 59,820 59,820 59,820 59,820 299,100 299,100 299,100 299,100Ideal Buffer (square feet)177,740 58,346 57,824 56,541 54,649 54,022 53,526 53,090 260,701 256,653 254,793 254,666Actual Buffer (square feet)173,138 55,251 53,942 51,739 49,517 48,508 47,459 46,511 203,382 140,784 91,624 59,765Zone Multiplier 50%10%10%10%5%5%5%5%7%5%4%4%Buffer Credit Equivalent 1,388 278 278 278 139 139 139 139 194 139 111 111Percent of Ideal Buffer 97%95%93%92%91%90%89%88%78%55%36%23%Credit Adjustment -36 -15 -19 -24 -13 -14 -16 -17 152 76 40 26
Total Baseline Credit
2,747
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-151
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
290
Net Change inCredit from Buffers139
Total Credit
2,886
Buffer Zones les s than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 35 feet >35 to 40 feet >40 to 45 feet >45 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feetMax Possible Buffer (square feet)179,460 59,820 59,820 59,820 59,820 59,820 59,820 59,820 299,100 299,100 299,100 299,100Ideal Buffer (square feet)177,400 58,232 57,711 56,428 54,537 53,909 53,413 52,976 260,137 256,090 254,232 254,105Actual Buffer (square feet)172,864 55,161 53,857 51,646 49,422 48,414 47,368 46,420 202,900 140,424 91,963 60,059Zone Multiplier 50%10%10%10%5%5%5%5%7%5%4%4%Buffer Credit Equivalent 1,388 278 278 278 139 139 139 139 194 139 111 111Percent of Ideal Buffer 97%95%93%92%91%90%89%88%78%55%36%23%Credit Adjustment -36 -15 -19 -24 -13 -14 -16 -17 152 76 40 26
Total Baseline Credit
2,736
Buffer W idth Zone (feet from Ordinary High W ater Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-150
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
290
Net Change inCredit from Buffers140
Total Credit
2,876
!((!>!!WG!!WG
L
P5
LP2LP1
LP4
LP6
LP7
L P 3
LP5
0 400200
Feet
Figure 13 - Monitoring Plan Map
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
©Date: 12/5/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Figure 13_Monitoring Plan Map_Uzzle.mxdUpgrade AgriculturalCrossingLegend
Proposed XS
Proposed Easement
Stream Approach
Restoration
Enhancement II
Planting Approach
Restoration
Supplemental
Monitoring Approach
!>Crest Gauge
!((Flow Gauge
!!WG Wetland G auge
Veg Plot
Construction on LP1 will beginat downstream e nd of DOT culvert extension
Appendix A
Plan Sheets
COVER1RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC302 JEFFERSON ST, SUITE 110RALEIGH, NC 27605VICINITY MAPNTSUZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNEUSE RIVER BASIN: HUC 03020201NOVEMBER 2018WKD PROJ. NO.: 2017024200RA‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DELETIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF W.K. DICKSON & CO., INC., IS PROHIBITED. ONLY COPIESFROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE VALID, TRUE COPIES.DRAWING NUMBER:PLOT DATE:DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT NAME:community infrastructure consultants720 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVERALEIGH, NC 27607(t)919-782-0495(f)919-782-9672WWW.WKDICKSON.COMLICENSE NO. F-0374FILE PATH:O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_COVER.dwgO:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_COVER.dwg, RSMITH, 11/28/2018 10:04:42 AMPROFESSIONAL SEALPROJ. DATE:Q.C.:Q.C. DATE:REV RECORD:DESCRIPTIONBY DATEREV RECORD:NOTICE TO CONTRACTORPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DIGGING, OR EXCAVATION THECONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE) THAT MAY EXIST AND CROSS THROUGHTHE AREA(S) OF CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER INDICATED ON THE PLANSOR NOT. CALL "811" A MINIMUM OF 72 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING OREXCAVATING. REPAIRS TO ANY UTILITY DAMAGED RESULTING FROMCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THECONTRACTOR.DESCRIPTIONBY DATEPROJ. MGR.:DESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:8==/(0,7,*$7,216,7(DNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018)HHWLQ IWSASBRCNBH0(7$'586+:<6+((7/,677$%/(6+((7180%(5 6+((77,7/(&29(5$29(5$//$(5,$/((;,67,1*&21',7,216,1'(;((;,67,1*&21',7,216((;,67,1*&21',7,2166 5($&+/36 5($&+(6/3 /36 5($&+/36 5($&+/36 5($&+/36 5($&+(6/3 /36 5($&+/36 5($&+/36 5($&+/36 5($&+/36 5($&+/36 5($&+/36 5($&+/36 5($&+/36 5($&+/3))(1&,1*3/$1''(7$,/6''(7$,/6''(7$,/6''(7$,/6''(7$,/6''(7$,/6
O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_COVER.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith200400200'---- ---- ----OVERALL AERIAL2017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:86+:<0(7$'58==/(,1'8675,$/'55($&+/35($&+/35($&+/35($&+/35($&+/35($&+/35($&+/35($&+/3
O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_EX_COND.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith200400200---- ---- ----EXISTING CONDITIONS INDEX2017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:/(*(1'6((':*(6((':*(0$7&+/,1(0$7&+/,1(
O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_EX_COND.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith100200100'---- ---- ----EXISTING CONDITIONS2017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:0$7&+/,1(6((':*12(/(*(1'
O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_EX_COND.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith100200100'---- ---- ----EXISTING CONDITIONS2017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:0$7&+/,1(6((':*12(/(*(1'
CULVERT HAS STEP-UPSAND STEP-DOWNS INBOTTOM5($&+/335(6725$7,2167$72),//(;,67,1*&+$11(/6((':*'352326('5:)251&'27352-:)8785(&8/9(57(;7(16,21)251&'27352-:352326('&216758&7,21($6(0(17)251&'27352326('3(50$1(17'5$,1$*(($6(0(17)251&'270$7&+/,1(66&$/(+25 
9(57 
       52&.&52669$1(67$(/(9/2*6,//67$(/(9/2*6,//67$(/(9352326('7232)%$1.352326('&+$11(/%27720(;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1((;,67,1*7232)%$1.6/()7$1'5,*+7(;,67,1*5&%&&+$11(/*5$'( &+$11(/*5$'( )8785(&8/9(57(;7(16,21)251&'27352-:O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_MAIN.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACH LP12017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:






%$1.)8//67$*(7<3,&$/322/&52666(&7,21675$,*+75($&+7<3,&$/5,*+70($1'(5&52666(&7,21ȭȭȭ

%$1.)8//67$*(7<3,&$/6+$//2:&52666(&7,21%$1.)8//67$*(
7<3,&$//()70($1'(5&52666(&7,21


%$1.)8//67$*(ȭ


5($&+/335(6725$7,2167$72),//(;,67,1*&+$11(/6((':*'),//(;,67,1*&+$11(/6((':*'0$7&+
/,
1
(




60$7&+/,1(66&$/(+25 
9(57 
         /2*6,//67$(/(9352326('7232)%$1.352326('&+$11(/%27720(;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(/2*6,//67$(/(9/2*-+22.67$(/(9&+$11(/*5$'( &+$11(/*5$'( O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_MAIN.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACHES LP1 & LP22017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:






%$1.)8//67$*(7<3,&$/322/&52666(&7,21675$,*+75($&+7<3,&$/5,*+70($1'(5&52666(&7,21ȭȭȭ

%$1.)8//67$*(7<3,&$/6+$//2:&52666(&7,21%$1.)8//67$*(
7<3,&$//()70($1'(5&52666(&7,21


%$1.)8//67$*(ȭ


5($&+/335(6725$7,2167$725($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$720$7&+/,1(60$7&+/,1(66&$/(+25 
9(57 
         (;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_MAIN.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACH LP22017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:
5($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$720$7&+/,1(60$7&+/,1(66&$/(+25 
9(57 
          (;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_MAIN.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACH LP22017024200RAPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:
(1+67$5($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$725($&+/31&(0(17,,720$7&+/,1(60$7&+/,1(66&$/(+25 
9(57 
         (;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_MAIN.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACH LP22017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:
5($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$725($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$725($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$720$7&+/,1(60$7&+/,1(66&$/(+25 
9(57 
         (;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_MAIN.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACHES LP2 & LP42017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:
7,,5($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$72
0$7&+/,1(60$7&+/,1(66&$/(+25 
9(57 
        (;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_MAIN.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACH LP42017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:
(1+$1&(0(17,,67$725($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$720$7&
+/,
1
(
60$7&+/,1(66&$/(+25 
9(57 
           (;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_MAIN.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACH LP52017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:
5($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$725($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$720$7&+/,1(60$7&+/,1(66&$/(+25 
9(57 
         (;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_MAIN.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACH LP52017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:
5($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$720$7&+/,1(60$7&+/,1(66&$/(+25 
9(57 
         (;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_MAIN.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACH LP52017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:
5($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$72+/31&(0(17,,725($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$720$7&+/,1(60$7&+/,1(66&$/(+25 
9(57 
         (;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_MAIN.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACH LP52017024200RAPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:DNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018
5($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$720$7&+/,1(60$7&+/,1(66&$/(+25 
9(57 
         (;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_MAIN.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACH LP52017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:
5($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$720$7&
+/,
1
(
66&$/(+25 
9(57 
       (;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_MAIN.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACH LP72017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:
6&$/(+25 
9(57 
    (;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_TRIBS.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACH LP32017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:5($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$725($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$725($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$72
6&$/(+25 
9(57 
        (;,67,1**5$'($/21*675($0&(17(5/,1(O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_TRIBS.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith306030---- ---- ----REACH LP62017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:5($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$725($&+/3(1+$1&(0(17,,67$72
O:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT_FENCE.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith200400200---- ---- ----FENCING PLAN2017024200RADNPNOV. 2018NOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCNC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.com0FULL SCALE: 1"=‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:(;,67,1*)(1&(/(*(1'352326(')(1&(
0,10,172727(0325$5<6,/7)(1&(&2,50$77,1*(526,21&21752/0$77,1*08670((725(;&(('7+()2//2:,1*5(48,5(0(176x&2&2187),%(5&2,57:,1(:29(1,172$+,*+675(1*7+0$75,;x7+,&.1(66,10,1,080x‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡x)/2:9(/2&,7<2%6(59(')76(&x:(,*+72=6<x23(1$5($x‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡7(0325$5<*5$9(/&216758&7,21(175$1&(127(+26(6+28/'%(.(372876,'(2):25.$5($6,/7%$*352),/(
72
)/2:,17$.(+26(3803$5281'3803&/$66$6721(:25.$5($'(:$7(5,1*3803,03(59,286',.(6,/7%$*/2&$7,2167$%,/,=('287)$//&/$66$6721(),/7(5)$%5,&(;,67,1**5281'',6&+$5*(+26(2)&/$66$6721(),/7(5)$%5,&67$%,/,=('287)$//&/$66$6721((;,67,1*&+$11(/',6&+$5*(+26(,03(59,286',.(&/$66$6721(3803$5281' '(:$7(5,1*'(7$,/%$%)/2:$2'
7(0325$5<52&.&+(&.'$0)/2:723/$<(5($57+685)$&(%27720/$<(50,''/(/$<(56(&7,21$$($57+685)$&((1'62)%$*6,1$'-$&(1752:6%877('6/,*+7/<72*(7+(575(1&+
'((321/<:+(13/$&('21($57+685)$&(127((1'2)',.($7*5281'/(9(/72%(+,*+(57+$17+(/2:(6732,172))/2:&+(&.68)),&,(176$1'%$*6$5(72%(3/$&('7235(9(176&285,1*/2:(6732,176((127(*5281'/(9(/6((127(6(&7,21%%%%$$3/$19,(:6$1'%$*%$55,(566+$//%(&216758&7('2)7+5((/$<(562)6$1'%$*67+(%27720/$<(56+$//&216,672)52:62)%$*67+(0,''/(/$<(56+$//&216,672)52:62)%$*6$1'7+(723/$<(56+$//&216,672)52:2)%$*67+(5(&200(1'('',0(16,212)$),//('6$1'%$*6+$//%($3352;,0$7(/<)7;)7;)76$1'%$*,03(59,286',.(
0,1
0,1‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡FILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:NC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.comO:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT DETAILS.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith---- ---- ----DETAILS 12017024200RAAPR. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018BRCMAR. 2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡FILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:NC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.comO:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT DETAILS.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith352326('%('722)/2*',$0(7(5&$1%((;326('35,2572),1$/*5$',1*0,1,0802)2)/2*',$0(7(5%(''('%(/2:(;,67,1*&+$11(/,19(57%$1.)8//(/(9$7,21127(6 /2*66+28/'%($7/($67,1&+(6,1',$0(7(5)((7/21*5(/$7,9(/<675$,*+7$1'+$5':22' &$%/($1&+2566+28/'%(3/$&('
72
)520($&+(1'2)/2*5(%$50,1,080',$0(7(5
0,1/(1*7+7<3,&$/0$<%(86('$6$68%67,787,21)25&$%/($1&+2563(5',5(&7,212)(1*,1((5 ,)5(%$5,686('35('5,//+2/(6:,7+'5,//%,71(:&+$11(/%$1.6+$//%(75($7('$663(&,),(',13/$16352326('&+$11(/,19(57),1,6+('*5$'(%$1.)8//(/(9$7,21
/2*72(25&2,5/2*)/2:0,1
&+$11(/3/8*3/$19,(:7<3,&$/6(&7,21/2*72(3527(&7,21&+$11(/3/8*3/$17('&2,5),%(552//1250$/:$7(5/(9(/'(16(&2,50$77,1*52/$1.$%LR'0DW‡‡25(48,9$/(17:22'67$.((;,67,1*%$1.3/$17('&2,5),%(552//:22'67$.(69(*(7$7('6,//'()/(&725176
72

72
127(6 '(6,*1(5720$5./2&$7,216$1'',0(16,2162)6,//6,17+(),(/'35,2572&216758&7,21 ,167$//67$.(621
&(17(5621($&+6,'(2)52//7232)67$.(6+28/'127(;7(1'$%29(52// (;&$9$7($60$//75(1&+$3352;LQ'((3)253/$&(0(172)52//%$&.),//$5($%(7:((1%$1.$1'&2,5),%(552//$33/<3(50$1(176(('0,; &2,50$7,1*.(<,183675($0(1'2)52//$3352;)7,172%$1.127(6 ,167$//67$.(621
&(17(5621($&+6,'(2)52//7232)67$.(6+28/'127(;7(1'$%29(52// (;&$9$7($60$//75(1&+'(37+$3352;722)/2*',$0)253/$&(0(172)52// &2,5/2*66+$//%()7/21*$1'+$9($',$0(7(52),1352326('%('722)/2*',$0(7(5&$1%((;326('35,2572),1$/*5$',1*0,1,0802)722)/2*',$0(7(5%(''('%(/2:&+$11(/,19(57%$1.)8//(/(9$7,21&2,5/2*72(3527(&7,21:22'67$.(6127( $&&(37$%/(63(&,(6,1&/8'(%/$&.:,//2:6$/,;1,*5$6,/.<:,//2:6$/,;6(5,&($&27721:22'3238/86'(/72,'(6$1'6,/.<'2*:22'&25186$002080 /,9(67$.(66+$//%(3/$17(',1$1$5($(;7(1',1*)((7287)5207232)%$1.72-867%(/2:%$1.)8//
72
0,10,1
726,'(%5$1&+5(029('$76/,*+7$1*/(/$7(5$/%8')/$7723(1''(*5((7$3(5('%877(1''(7$,//,9(67$.(66+28/'%(/21*(128*+725($&+%(/2:7+(*5281':$7(57$%/(*(1(5$//<$/(1*7+2)72)((7,668)),&,(17$'',7,21$//<7+(67$.(66+28/'+$9($',$0(7(5,17+(5$1*(2)72,1&+(66(&7,219,(:/,9(67$.(66+$//%(63$&(')((7$3$57$/7(51$7(63$&,1*:$7(57$%/(&2,5),%(50$77,1*&2,5),%(50$77,1*/,9(67$.(',%%/(3/$17,1*0(7+2'86,1*7+(.%&3/$17,1*%$5LQFK,16(573/$17,1*%$5$66+2:1$1'38//+$1'/(72:$5'3/$17(538//+$1'/(2)%$572:$5'3/$17(5),50,1*62,/$7%277205(029(3/$17,1*%$5$1'3/$&(6((',1*$7&255(&7'(37+,16(573/$17,1*%$5,1&+(672:$5'3/$17(5)5206((',1*386++$1'/()25:$5'),50,1*62,/$7723/($9(&203$&7,21+2/(23(1:$7(57+2528*+/<3/$17,1*127(63/$17,1*%$*'85,1*3/$17,1*6(('/,1*66+$//%(.(37,1$02,67&$19$6%$*256,0,/$5&217$,1(57235(9(177+(52276<67(06)520'5<,1*.%&3/$17,1*%$53/$17,1*%$56+$//+$9($%/$'(:,7+$75,$1*8/$5&52666(&7,21$1'6+$//%(,1&+(6/21*,1&+(6:,'($1',1&+7+,&.$7&(17(552273581,1*$//6(('/,1*66+$//%(52273581(',)1(&(66$5<627+$71252276(;7(1'025(7+$1,1&+(6%(/2:7+(5227&2//$5127(6%$5(522766+$//%(3/$17(')772)721&(17(55$1'2063$&,1*$9(5$*,1*)721&(17(5$3352;,0$7(/<3/$1763(5$&5(%$5(52273/$17,1*1760$;
0,1
0$;
0,1
&+$11(/%$&.),//&203$&7('%$&.),//72/,)76---- ---- ----DETAILS 22017024200RANOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/20182/'&+$11(/72%(',9(57('25$%$1'21('1(:&+$11(/72%(&216758&7('&203$&7('%$&.),///,)76,03(59,2866(/(&70$7(5,$/3(5',5(&7,212)(1*,1((5
0,181&203$&7('%$&.),//
0,1,080DNPNOV. 2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡FILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:NC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.comO:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT DETAILS.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith/2*9$1(176&52666(&7,219,(:3/$19,(:75(1&+,1*0(7+2')/2:3/$19,(:'5,9(32,170(7+2')/2:)227(5/2*!',$0(7(50,1,0802)2)',$0(7(5,167$//('%(/2:675($0%('5227:$'176)227(5/2*/()7255,*+79$1($50%$1.,17(5&(37&21752/32,17%$//$67%28/'(525'8&.%,//$1&+256+($'(5/2*%$1.)8//9$5,(6
72
%$1.)8//+($'(5/2*)227(5/2*675($0%(',1322/9$5,(6
72:,'7+675($0%$1.72(2)%$1./2*9$1(121:29(1*(27(;7,/()$%5,&1&'277<3(,,72(2)%$1.%$1.)8//:,'7+&2$56($**5(*$7(%$&.),//72&2$56($**5(*$7(%$&.),//720,1
/()7255,*+79$1($50%$1.,17(5&(37&21752/32,17 /2*9$1(66+$//%(&216758&7('2)21(25025(/2*6+(/',13/$&(%<(,7+(5%$//$67%28/'(56'8&.%,//$1&+256255(%$5/2*66+$//%(2)$/(1*7+$1'',$0(7(563(&,),('%<7+('(6,*1(5$1'%(5(/$7,9(/<675$,*+7+$5':22'5(&(17/<+$59(67('7+(/(1*7+6+$//%(68&+7+$77+(/2*,6%85,(',1727+(62,/2)7+(675($0%$1.2121((1'$1'675($0%('217+(27+(5(1'$0,1,080',67$1&(2)
)/$76,'('%$//$67%28/'(566+$//%(2)6,=(
;
;
25$663(&,),('%<7+('(6,*1(5 ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡$1(/(9$7,21&21752/32,170$<%((67$%/,6+('$77+(/()7255,*+7675($0%$1.9$1(,17(5&(3732,177+(9$1(,17(5&(37/2&$7,210$<%(27+(5:,6('(6&5,%('%<,765(/$7,216+,372%$1.)8//67$*(25%<7+(/(1*7+$1'6/23(2)7+(9$1($50%$1.)8//,61271(&(66$5,/<7+(7232)7+(675($0%$1.6/23( ),/7(5)$%5,&6+$//%(86('726($/7+(*$36%(7:((17+(/2*6$1'81'(57+(&2$56(%$&.),//0$7(5,$/2)7+(9$1(7+(5(6+$//%(12),/7(5)$%5,&9,6,%/(,17+(),1,6+(':25.('*(66+$//%()2/'('78&.('2575,00('$61(('(' /2*9$1(66+$//%(%8,/77<3,&$//<$6)2//2:6$ 29(5(;&$9$7(675($0%('72$'(37+(48$/727+(727$/7+,&.1(662)7+(+($'(5$1')227(5,)63(&,),('/2*6% 3/$&()227(5/2*2)7+(9$1($50,)63(&,),('7+(6/23(2)7+(9$1($50,60($685('$/21*7+(9$1($50:+,&+,6,167$//('$7$1$1*/(727+(675($0%$1.$1'352),/(& ,167$//+($'(5/2*2)7+(9$1($50217232)$1'6/,*+7/<)25:$5'25%$&.)5207+()227(5/2*' 1$,/),/7(5)$%5,&727+(+($'(5/2*86,1*$*$/9$1,=('1$,/:,7+$3/$67,&&$37+(6,=($1'*$*(2)1$,/$1'1$,/63$&,1*6+$//%(63(&,),('%<7+('(6,*1(5( 3/$&(%$//$67%28/'(5625'8&.%,//$1&+25217+(9$1() 3/$&(&2$56(%$&.),//%(+,1'/2*6(1685,1*7+$7$1<92,'6%(7:((17+(/2*6$5(),//('* %$&.),//5(0$,1'(52)9$1(:,7+35(9,286/<(;&$9$7('0$7(5,$/ ,)$1<(526,21&21752/0$77,1*,663(&,),(')2586(,17+(9,&,1,7<2)7+(675($0%$1.9$1(,17(5&(3732,177+(0$77,1*('*(66+$//%(1($7/<6(&85('$5281'7+(/2*63/$19,(:352),/(9,(:‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡---- ---- ----DETAILS 32017024200RANOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/20187<3,&$/3/$19,(:&+$11(/7232)%$1.&+$11(/%277202)%$1.&2,50$77,1*%586+72(17660$///2*6$1'25/$5*(%5$1&+(6:,7+$0,1',$0(7(52)60$//%5$1&+(6$1'%586+&203$&7('62,/7232)%$1./,9(67$.(6 29(5(;&$9$7(7+(2876,'(%(1'2)7+(&+$11(/3/$&(/$5*(5%5$1&+(6$1'/2*6,1$&5,66&52663$77(51/2&.,13/$&(:,7+),//&29(5,1*,172,12)7+(/$5*(5%5$1&+(660$///2*6 3/$&(60$//(5%5$1&+(6$1'%586+29(57+(/$5*(5%5$1&+(660$///2*6+$5':22'63(&,(621/<$1'&203$&7/,*+7/<72*(7+(5%$&.),//$1'&203$&772/2&.,13/$&( $&&(37$%/(/,9(&877,1*663(&,(6$,1&/8'(%/$&.:,//2:6$/,;1,*5$$1'6,/.<:,//2:6$/,;6(5,&($:,//2:&877,1*66+28/'%(5,16('$7&877,1*32,1772$//2:%(77(55227,1* ,167$//(526,21&21752/&2,50$77,1*29(5&203$&7('62,/3(5',5(&7,212)(1*,1((5 ,167$//7252:62)/,9(67$.(6$%29(7+(/,9(&877,1*6/$<(53(5',5(&7,212)(1*,1((50$;322/'(37+0$;322/'(37+/,9(&877,1*6121:29(1*(27(;7,/()$%5,&1&'277<3(,,,167$//&2,50$77,1*3(5'(7$,/':*'0,1
DNPNOV. 2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC127(6 +($'(5$1')227(5%28/'(566+$//%($3352;,0$7(/<;;$6$0,1,0806,=(7+(833(5/,0,7)25%28/'(566+$//%($33529('%<7+((1*,1((535,2572,167$//$7,212)7+(6758&785( &52669$1(66+$//%(&216758&7('627+$7$'-2,1,1*%28/'(567$3(5,1$183675($0',5(&7,21)5207+(%$1.)8//(/(9$7,21727+(675($0,19(577+(83675($0(1'2)7+(&52669$1(,66(7$7$1$1*/(2)72'(*5((67$1*(17727+(352-(&7('675($0%$1.',5(&7,217+(723(/(9$7,212)%27+9$1(6:,//'(&5($6(72:$5'7+(&(17(52)7+(&+$11(/ 7+('2:1675($0(1'2)7+(&52669$1(6+$//%(.(<(',1727+(675($0%$1.$77+(%$1.)8//(/(9$7,217+(&52669$1(6+$//%(.(<('$0,1,0802)),9()((7,1727+(675($0%$1.7+(83675($0(1'2)&52669$1(6+$//%(.(<(',1727+(675($0%$1.$77+('(6,*1('675($0%(',19(57(/(9$7,21 9$1(%28/'(566+$//%(3/$&(',1$/,1($5)$6+,2162$672352'8&(7+(6/23,1*&52669$1($1'6+$//%(3/$&(':,7+7,*+7&217,18286685)$&(&217$&7%(7:((1$'-2,1,1*%28/'(5%28/'(56+$//%(3/$&(62$672+$9(126,*1,),&$17*$36%(7:((1$'-2,1,1*%28/'(5 9$1(%28/'(566+$//%(3/$&('62$672+$9($),1$/60227+685)$&($/21*7+(7233/$1(2)7+(&52669$1(129$1(%28/'(56+$//352758'(+,*+(57+$17+(27+(5%28/'(5,17+(%28/'(59$1($&203/(7('&52669$1(+$6$60227+&217,18286),1,6+*5$'()5207+(%$1.)8//(/(9$7,21727+(675($0%(' $67+(&52669$1(,6&216758&7('7+(&2175$&7256+$//&+,1.$//92,'6%(7:((17+()227(5%28/'(56$1'%(7:((17+()227(5%28/'(56$1'9$1(%28/'(5692,'66+$//%(&+,1.(':,7+60$//(552&.68&+7+$71292,'6*5($7(57+$1)285,1&+(6,16,=(:,//%(35(6(17&52669$1(176
,EE>dKWK&E<‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡FILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:NC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.comO:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT DETAILS.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith3/$19,(:6(&7,21$/9,(:$$
%$1.)8///,0,762)352326('&+$11(/127(5(%$50,1,080',$0(7(5
0,1/(1*7+7<3,&$/6+28/'%(3/$&('
72
)520(1'2)/2*$'',7,21$/5(%$572%(3/$&('$7
2))6(76/$675(%$56+28/'%(3/$&('
72
)520(1'2)/2*'8&.%,//$1&+2560$<%(86('$6$68%67,787,21)255(%$53(5/2*/(1*7+9$5,(6
7<3

)/22'3/$,16,//176176/2*6,//KZ^<&/>>,EE>KddKDK&E<ZZKZh</>>E,KZZZ;ϱͬϴΗD/E͘/DdZ͕ϰΖD/E͘>E'd,ͿKZh</>>E,KZ^/E^d>>WZDEh&dhZZ^/E^dZhd/KE^;dzW͘ͿK/ZDdd/E'WZKWK^^dZDd<&Z/dK>K',Z>K'&KKdZ>K'KZ^''Z'd<&/>>;ϭΗdKϱΗͿWKK>WKK>WWZKy͘Ϭ͘ϳϱΖdKϭ͘ϱΖWKZ^''Z'd<&/>>;ϭΗdKϱΗͿ'28%/(/2*'523176121:29(1*(27(;7,/()$%5,&1&'277<3(,,&KKdZ>K',Z>K'/EsZd>sd/KEDy>>Kt>ZKWK&Ϭ͘ϱ&dE<&h>>&KKdZ>K',Z>K',/',>Kt/2*%85,(',1%$1.0,1)7/2*%85,(',1%$1.0,1)7DyWd,ϭϮK&>K'/DdZ;dzWͿϰйdKϲйϰйdKϲйD/E͘Ϯ͘ϱΖK&KsZ0,1)70,1)70,1)70,1)7KsZ>WK&hW^dZD>K'KsZ>WK&KtE^dZD>K',/',,/',>Kt>Kt127(6 /2*66+28/'%(5(/$7,9(/<675$,*+7+$5':22'$1'5(&(17/<+$59(67(' /2*',0(16,2160,1',$0 0,1/(1*7+ 
 1$,/),/7(5)$%5,&86,1*'*$/9$1,=('&200211$,/(9(5<
$/21*7+(/2*KZ^''Z'd<&/>>;ϮΗdKϲΗͿKZ^''Z'd<&/>>;ϮΗdKϲΗͿKZ^''Z'd<&/>>;ϮΗdKϲΗͿKZ^''Z'd<&/>>;ϮΗdKϲΗͿ,/',>Kt
72
WK/EdZ&ZE/E^dZhdhZd>WK/EdZ&ZE/E^dZhdhZd>,Z>K'/EsZd>sd/KE',))86()/2:6758&785(1769$5,(67<3,&$//<
72
9$5,(67<3,&$//<
72
/2*6758&785(6(('(7$,/352326('/,0,762)*5$',1**5$'($5($68&+7+$70$;6/23(%(/2:/2*6758&785(,6),//',7&+68&+7+$77+('2:1675($0(/(9$7,217,(6,172(;,67,1**5$'(2)7+()/22'3/$,1352326('&216(59$7,21($6(0(17/,0,76(;,67,1*',7&+%$1.(;,67,1*',7&+7232)%$1.(;,67,1*',7&+,19(57352326('*5$'((;,67,1**5$'(7,(,172(;,67,1*)/22'3/$,1(/(9$7,21),//',7&+$1',167$//&2,50$77,1*6(&7,21%%(;,67,1**5281'0$;6/23(0$;6/23(),//',7&+&87&216758&7322/,167$//&2,50$77,1*3(50$18)$&785(5
6,16758&7,216---- ---- ----DETAILS 42017024200RANOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018ϭйdKϯй,/',>KtZKKdtKZZh^,dKϭйdKϯй,/',>Kt127(6 /2*66+28/'%(5(/$7,9(/<675$,*+7+$5':22'$1'5(&(17/<+$59(67(' /2*',0(16,2160,1',$0 0,1/(1*7+ 
1$,/),/7(5)$%5,&86,1*'*$/9$1,=('&200211$,/(9(5<
$/21*7+(/2* '8&.%,//$1&+2560$<%(86(',13/$&(2)5(%$5,EE>dKWK&E<WKK>ϭйdKϯй,/',>KtZKKdtKZZh^,dK>KtWZKWK^^dZDE<,Z>K'&KKdZ>K'ϭйdKϯй,/',>KtKsZ>WK&KtE^dZD>K'ZZ;ϱͬϴΗD/E͘/DdZ͕ϰΖD/E͘>E'd,ͿKZh</>>E,KZ^/E^d>>WZDEh&dhZZ^/E^dZhd/KE^;dzW͘ͿKZ^<&/>>,EE>KddKDK&E<&/>dZ&Z/0,1
0,1
121:29(1*(27(;7,/()$%5,&1&'277<3(,,121:29(1*(27(;7,/()$%5,&1&'277<3(,,DNPNOV. 2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡FILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:NC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.comO:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT DETAILS.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel Smith/,1(3$1(/63(&,(6$1'75($70(17)25$//:22'/,1(32676:22'(10,1,1',$025,1648$5(/,1(3267667((/678''('25381&+('7825<6+$3(':,7+$1&+253/$7(60,1:(,*+7/%6)7(;&/8',1*$1&+253/$7(326766+$//%('5,9(1$0,1,0802)'((3$1'0867%($7/($67)7,1/(1*7+:29(1:,5()(1&(15&6'(7$,/$176dKWK&E<>^^Z/WZWd/DZDd/E^d>>WZWE/h>Zd/DZDd/E^d>>WZ>>>d/DZDd͕dzW/>ZZ/'K>ddKK&E<͕dzW/>d/DZDd/E^d>>WZWE/h>ZdKWK&E<>^^Z/WZWZZ/'K>d͕dzW/>&/>dZ&Z/WWZKy/Dd^&>KttdZ^hZ&d/DZDd/E^d>>WZ>>>dKK&E<7,0%(50$77(0325$5<&5266,1*176127(6 7,0%(50$766+$//%(86(')257(0325$5<&216758&7,21$&&(667275$9(56(:(7$1'2508''<$5(6$'-$&(17727+(675($0$1'72&52667+(675($0$1'27+(5&21&(175$7(')/2:$5($6 7+(675($0&5266,1*6+$//%(,167$//(':+(1)/2:,6/2:7+(5(6+$//%(0,1,0$/7212',6785%$1&(2)7+(&+$11(/%('$1'%$1.6$6$5(68/72),167$//,1*7+($3352$&+(625&5266,1* 7+(/(1*7+2)7,0%(50$75(48,5('72&52667+(675($025&21&(175$7(')/2:$5($66+$//%(68&+7+$77+(7,0%(50$7(;7(1'63$677+(7232)%$1.21($&+6,'(2)7+(&5266,1*$68)),&,(17',67$1&(7268332577+(0$;,080(48,30(176,=(86,1*7+(&5266,1* 675($0&5266,1*66+$//%(,167$//(':,7+7+(7,0%(50$7/(1*7+625,(17('3(53(1',&8/$5727+(72362)7+(675($0%$1.67,0%(50$7675($0$3352$&+(66+$//%(,167$//(':,7+7+(7,0%(50$7/(1*7+625,(17('3$5$//(/727+(72362)7+(675($0%$1.6 675($0&5266,1*$3352$&+(6)520'5<$5($66+$//%(&216758&7('86,1*&/$66%5,35$33/$&('29(5),/7(5)$%5,& $//7,0%(50$76),/7(5)$%5,&$1'5,35$36+$//%(&203/(7(/<5(029(')5207+(6,7(:+(17+(&5266,1*,65(029('---- ---- ----DETAILS 52017024200RANOV. 2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/28/2018DNPNOV. 2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC&KKdZ>K'/EsZd>K'^dZDϭϯtϭϯt&/>dZ&Z/^dZDE<^͕dzW/>ZK^^sE/EsZd/EsZd>K';^EKdϲΘϭϭͿ,Z>K'E<&h>>h</>>E,KZD/EϱΖE<&h>>,Z>K'&KKdZ>K'͕/&^W/&/^dZD/EWKK>&/>dZ&Z/ϬΖdKϭϯt^dZDE<&/>dZ&Z/&KKdZ>K'E<&h>>dKK&E<͕dzW/>ϭϯtϯйdKϴйKZ^''Z'd<&/>>;ϮΗdKϲΗͿKZ^''Z'd<&/>>;ϮΗdKϲΗͿKZ^''Z'd<&/>>;ϮΗdKϲΗͿ/2*&52669$1(176ϭ͘ >K'^^,>>K&D/E/DhDK&ϭϮΖ/E>E'd,EϭϬΗ/E/DdZEZ>d/s>z^dZ/',d,ZtKK͕ZEd>z,Zs^d͘Ϯ͘ ^/E'>>K'Dzh^/E>/hK&,Zͬ&KKdZ>K'KD/Ed/KE͕WZ/Zd/KEK&^/'EZ͘ϯ͘ &/>dZ&Z/^,>>h^dK^>d,'W^dtEd,>K';^ͿEd,^dZD͕hEZd,KZ^<&/>>DdZ/>͘d,Z^,>>EK&/>dZ&Z/s/^/>/Ed,&/E/^,tKZ<͖'^^,>>&K>͕dh<͕KZdZ/DD^E͘ϰ͘ KZ^<&/>>^,>>W>dKd,/<E^^Yh>dKd,Wd,K&d,,Z;EEz&KKdZͿ>K'^E^,>>ydEKhd&ZKDd,sEZD^dKd,^dZDE<EhW^dZD͘ϱ͘ ^EKWd/KE͕&>dͲ^/Kh>Z^DzW>^>>^dKEdKWK&d,^dZDE<^/K&d,DsEZD^͘h</>>E,KZ^Dzh^/E>/hK&>>^dKh>Z^͘ϲ͘ h</>>E,KZ^t/d,'>sE/>dd,Dzh^dK^hZ>K'^/EdKd,^dZDEͬKZE<^͘&>d^/Kh>Z^Eh^/E>/hK&d,>K'/EsZdͬh</>>E,KZ^z^dD͘sEZD>K'͕dzW/>KWd/KE>>>^dKh>Z,Z>K'0,;2)&/$66$$1'%5,35$30,;2)&/$66$$1'%5,35$329(5),/7(5)$%5,&)25'&5266,1*
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡FILE NAME:‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:PROJ. N0.:DRAWING NUMBER:PROJ. DATE:Q.C. DATE:Q.C.:OWNER / 24 HR CONTACT:ADDRESS:PHONE:MOBILE:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATEREVISIONS:RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:NC. LICENSE NO. F-0374community infrastructure consultantsTransportationUrban Development GeomaticsWater Resources++720 Corporate DriveRaleigh, NC 27607(v) 919.782.0495(f) 919.782.9672www.wkdickson.comO:\Projects\Resource Environmental Solutions\2017024200RA - TO14 Uzzle Mitigation Site\CADD\Plan Set\2017024200RA_SHT DETAILS.dwg - November 28, 2018 - Rachel SmithϮйdKϰй9$1(/(1*7+/2*%85,(',1675($0%$1.2))6(7)5207232)%$1.0$;'(37+2)1($5(675,))/(/2*%85,(',1675($0%$1.0,1)7^KhZWKK>ΖΖ&>KtWK/EdZE<&h>>&KKdZ>K'ZKKdtE<&h>>/EsZd^dZD>sd/KEKhd^/DEZE^/>>>K'KZZKKdt>/s^d</E',ZKh>Z^&KKdZKh>Z^^>d<&/>>DdZ/>;D/yK&KZ^''Z'dEηϱ^dKEͿE<&h>>^K/><&/>>^>d<&/>>DdZ/>,Z>K'&KKdZ>K'^dZD127(6 /2*66+$//+$9(0,1,080',0(16,216$6)2//2:60,1',$0 0,1/(1*7+ 
 $///2*66+$//%(5(/$7,9(/<675$,*+7+$5':22'$1'/,0%66+$//%(75,00(')/86+ )227(5/2*6%28/'(56$5(/2*6%28/'(53/$&('723529,'($)281'$7,21$1'6&2853527(&7,21)257+(+($'(5/2*6%28/'(56 +($'(5/2*6%28/'(566+$//%(81'(5/$,1%<)227(5/2*6%28/'(5681/(6627+(5:,6(',5(&7('%<7+((1*,1((5 +($'(5/2*6$5(7+(7230267/2*686(',1($&+/2*6758&785($//+($'(5/2*6&$1%(6((1352758',1*)5207+(:$7(5685)$&('85,1*(;75(0(/</2:)/2:6 +($'(5/2*66+$//%(2))6(76/,*+7/<'2:1675($02)7+()227,1*/2*6:+(5(6&285322/6$5($17,&,3$7('72)250$66+2:1,17+('(7$,/ 6,///2*66+$//%(3/$&('3(53(1',&8/$5727+(%$1.)8//)/2:',5(&7,21 7+()227(5/2*66+$//(;7(1')5207+(6,///2*727+((1'2)7+(+($'(5/2*72:$5'7+(%$1. +22.%28/'(566+$//(;7(1')5207+(+($'(5/2*72%(<21'%$1.)8//:,'7+ 6(7,19(576$7(/(9$7,216+2:1217+(3/$1$1'352),/(6+((76 +($'(5/2*6+$//7,(,1727+(675($0%$1.$7$0$;,080(/(9$7,212)'0$;0($685('$77+(1(;7'2:1675($05,))/(%(/2:%$1.)8//(/(9$7,21$1'$0,1,080(/(9$7,212)'0$;0($685($77+(1(;7'2:1675($05,))/(%(/2:%$1.)8//(/(9$7,2181/(6627+(5:,6(',5(&7('%<7+((1*,1((5 &877,1*2)7+(6,///2*5227:$'%$<%(5(48,5('7235(9(177+(5227:$')520352758',1*$%29(7+(%$1.)8//(/(9$7,21 $//*$3692,'6/$5*(57+$1,1&+%(7:((17+(+($'(5$1')227,1*/2*66+$//%(&+,1.(':,7+/,0%6$1'25%586+217+(83675($06,'(35,25723/$&(0(172)7+(*(27(;7,/( $//*$3692,'6/$5*(57+$1,1&+%(7:((17+(+($'(5$1')227,1*%28/'(566+$//%(&+,1.(':,7+*5$9(/$1'&2%%/(6 217+(83675($06,'(2)7+(/2*6$1'25%28/'(56121:29(1*(27(;7,/()$%5,&6+$//%(3/$&('$66+2:1,13/$19,(:$1',16(&7,21%%
3/$&(6(/(&7%$&.),//)257+((17,5(/(1*7+2)7+(/2*$1'%28/'(5+22. %$&.),//6758&785(:,7+6(/(&7%$&.),//0$7(5,$/$66+2:16+2:1,13/$19,(:$1',16(&7,21%%
 6(/(&7%$&.),//$1'62,/%$&.),//0$7(5,$/6+$//%(&203$&7('68&+7+$7)8785(6(77/(0(172)7+(0$7(5,$/,6.(3772$0,1,080 1$,/121:29(1*(27(;7,/(86,1*'*$/9$1,=('&200211$,/72('*(2)+($'(5/2*$1'%$&.),//$66+2:1,17+(*(27(;7,/(3/$&(0(17$1'6(/(&7%$&.),//'(7$,/,Z>K'&KKdZ>K'---- ---- ----DETAILS 62017024200RADNPAPRIL 2017NOV. 2018----11/28/2018UZZLE MITIGATION SITEJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCEZ/&&>KEdZK>WK/EdWZKWK^dKWK&E<'/EZ/&&>KEdZK>WK/Ed'/EZ/&&>EZ/&&>Z/&&>DdZ/>dKWK&E<dKK&E<^D>>WKK>>Z'K>ͬ^D>>Kh>Z^>K'^ͬtKKzZ/^dKWK&E<Z/&&>DdZ/>dKWK&E<WZKWK^dKK&E<'ZKEdZK>ZK<ϱϬͬϱϬD/yK&>^^EZ/WZW>K'^ͬtKKzZ/^^D>>WKK>͕dzW>Z'K>ͬ^D>>Kh>Z^͕dzWZ/&&>DdZ/>͖Yh>D/yK&ηϱͬηϱϳ^dKE͕^hZ'^dKEEEd/s^h^dZdDdZ/>d,>t'd,>t'127(6 &216758&7('5,))/(66+$//%(,167$//(',11(:/<*5$'('&+$11(/6(&7,216$663(&,),('%<7+('(6,*1(5 (/(9$7,21&21752/32,1766+$//%('(6,*1$7('$77+(%(*,11,1*$1'(1'2)5,))/(32,17672(67$%/,6+3$572)7+(352),/(2)7+(&+$11(/6859(<2)&21752/32,1766+$//%(‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡ *5$'(&21752/52&.6+$//%(&2035,6('2)$0,;2)&/$66$$1'%5,35$3*5$'(&21752/52&.6+$//%(3/$&('68&+7+$77+($'',7,212)7+(63(&,),('7+,&.1(662)5,))/(0$7(5,$/6+$//$&+,(9(7+('(6,*1$7('*5$'(6 5,))/(0$7(5,$/6+$//%(&2035,6('2)52&.6$1':22'7+(52&.0$7(5,$/6+$//&216,672)$1(48$/0,;2)6721(685*(6721($1'1$7,9(68%675$7(0$7(5,$/5,))/(0$7(5,$/6+$//%((;&$9$7('672&.3,/('$1'5(86(')520$%$1'21('&+$11(/6(&7,21627+(5:,6(52&.5,))/(0$7(5,$/6+$//%(6/,*+7/<‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡&+$11(/,1$'',7,21/2*6$1':22'<'(%5,66+$//%(,1&/8'(':,7+7+(52&.0$7(5,$/$663(&,),('%<7+('(6,*1(5 7+(3/$&(0(172)*5$'(&21752/52&.$1'255,))/(0$7(5,$/6+$//%('21(,1$0$11(5‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡$1'7+('2:1675($0581322/7+(),1,6+('&52666(&7,212)7+(5,))/(0$7(5,$/6+$//*(1(5$//<0$7&+7+(6+$3($1'',0(16,2166+2:1217+(5,))/(7<3,&$/6(&7,21:,7+620(9$5,$%,/,7<2)7+(7+$/:(*/2&$7,21$6$5(68/72)7+(60$//322/6$1'/2*6 7+((1'2)5,))/(&21752/32,170$<7,(,172$127+(5,1675($06758&785(/2*6,//25-+22. 7+(&216758&7('5,))/(6+$//%(.(<(',1727+(675($0%$1.6$1'25%('$6'(6,*1$7('%<7+('(6,*1(57+(.(<6+$//(;7(1'%(<21'7+(7232)%$1.$77+(%(*,11,1*&5(672)7+(5,))/(:+(5(35(6(59$7,212)(;,67,1*675($0%$1.9(*(7$7,21,6$35,25,7<$.(<0$<127%(86('257+(',0(16,2160$<%($'-867('72/,0,7',6785%$1&(Z/&&>DdZ/>͖Yh>D/yK&ηϱͬηϱϳ^dKE͕^hZ'^dKEEEd/s^h^dZdDdZ/>'ZKEdZK>ZK<ϱϬͬϱϬD/yK&>^^EZ/WZW5,))/(*5$'(&21752/176121:29(1*(27(;7,/()$%5,&1&'277<3(,,121:29(1*(27(;7,/()$%5,&1&'277<3(,,^>d<&/>>DdZ/>;D/yK&KZ^''Z'dEηϱ^dKEͿ
Appendix B
Vegetation Survey Data SheetsChannel Stability Assessment FormMorphology Tables Cross Section PlotsNon-Standard Buffer Width Calculations
")
")
VP2
VP1
0 600300
Feet
Existing Vegetation Survey Plot Locations
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/18/2018
Drawn by: EW T
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\MItigation Plan\Veg Plot Locations_Uzzle.mxdLegend
")Veg Plots
Existing Streams
Proposed Easement
Basal=26.77m^2/haStems/acre=364.23Campsis radicansNyssa bifloraGeranium carolinianumGallium aparineVicia sativaCardamine flexuosaSmilax sp.Stellaria mediaStellaria mediaTrifolium dubiumBignonia capreolataPoa annua
Ranunculus repensRanunculus repens
Basal=51.57m^2/haStems/acre=323.76Phytolacca americanaArisaema triphyllumDioscorea villosaGelsemium sempervirensStellaria mediaPoa annua
Stream:Observers:Reach:Project:Date:Drainage Area:Weather:Stream Type:Location:Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score1. Watershed and flood plain activity and characteristicsStable, forested, undisturbed watershedOccasional minor disturbances in the watershed, including cattle activity (grazing and/or access to stream), construction, logging, or other minor deforestation. Limited agricultural activitiesFrequent disturbances in the watershed, including cattle activity, landslides, channel sand or gravel mining, logging, farming, or construction of buildings, roads, or other infrastructure. Urbanization over significant portion of watershedContinual disturbances in the watershed. Significant cattle activity, landslides, channel sand or gravel mining, logging, farming, or construction of buildings, roads, or other infrastructure. Highly urbanized or rapidly urbanizing watershed2. Flow habit Perennial stream with no flashy behaviorPerennial stream or ephemeral first-order stream with slightly increased rate of floodingPerennial or intermittent stream with flashy behaviorExtremely flashy; flash floods prevalent mode of discharge; ephemeral stream other than first-order stream3. Channel pattern Straight to meandering with low radius of curvature; primarily suspended load Meandering, moderate radius of curvature; mix of suspended and bed loads; well-maintained engineered channel Meandering with some braiding; tortuous meandering; primarily bed load; poorly maintained engineered channel Braided; primarily bed load; engineered channel that is maintained 3. Channel pattern (revised) No evidence of channelization. Meandering, stable channel or straight(step-pool system, narrow valley), stable channel.Appears to have previously been channelized. Stream is relatively stable. Channel has some meanders due to previous channel adjustment.Appears to have previously been channelized. Stream is actively adjusting (meandering); localized areas of instability and/or erosion around bends. Straightened, stable channel.Appears to have previously been channelized. Stream is actively adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with few bends. Straight, unstable reach.4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement Active flood plain exists at top of banks; no sign of undercutting infrastructure; no leveesActive flood plain abandoned, but is currently rebuilding; minimal channel confinement; infrastructure not exposed; levees are low and set well back from the riverModerate confinement in valley or channel walls; some exposure of infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain abandoned; levees are moderate in size and have minimal setback from the riverKnickpoints visible downstream; exposed water lines or other infrastructure; channel-width-to-top-of-banks ration small; deeply confined; no active flood plain; levees are high and along the channel edge5. Bed material Fs = approximate portion of sand in the bedAssorted sized tightly packed, overlapping, and possibly imbricated. Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20% Moderately packed with some overlapping. Very small amounts of material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50% Loose assortment with no apparent overlap. Small to medium amounts of material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%Very loose assortment with no packing. Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs > 70%6. Bar development For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are mature, narrow relative to stream width at low flow, well-vegetated, and composed of coarse gravel to cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are < 12, no bars are evidentFor S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars may have vegetation and/or be composed of coarse gravel to cobbles, but minimal recent growth of bar evident by lack of vegetation on portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and w/y <12, no bars are evidentFor S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths tend to be wide and composed of newly deposited coarse sand to small cobbles and/or may be sparsely vegetated. Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2 the stream width at low flow. Bars are composed of extensive deposits of fine particles up to coarse gravel with little to no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and w/y > 127. Obstructions, including bedrock outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade control, bridge bed paving, revetments, dikes or vanes, riprapRare or not present Occasional, causing cross currents and minor bank and bottom erosionModerately frequent and occasionally unstable obstructions, cause noticeable erosion of the channel. Considerable sediment accumulation behind obstructionsFrequent and often unstable, causing a continual shift of sediment and flow. Traps are easily filled, causing channel to migrate and/or widen
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score8. Bank soil texture and coherence Clay and silty clay; cohesive material Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor amounts of noncohesive or unconsolidated mixtures; layers may exist, but are cohesive materialsSandy clay to sandy loam; unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or other materials; small layers and lenses of noncohesive or unconsolidated mixturesLoamy sand to sand; noncohesive material; unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or other materials; layers of lenses that include noncohesive sands and gravels9. Average bank slope angle (where 90° is a vertical bank)Bank slopes < 3H:1V (18°) for noncohesive or unconsolidated materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on both sidesBank slopes up to 2H:1V (27°) in noncohesive or unconsolidated materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on one or occasionally both banksBank slopes to 1H:1V (45°) in noncohesive or unconsolidated materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays common on one or both banksBank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or unconsolidated materials or over 60° in clays common on one or both banks10. Vegetative or engineered bank protectionWide band of woody vegetation with at least 90% density and cover. Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous trees with mature, healthy, and diverse vegetation located on the bank. Woody vegetation oriented vertically. In absence of vegetation, both banks are lined or heavily armoredMedium band of woody vegetation with 70-90% plant density and cover. A majority of hard wood, leafy, deciduous trees with maturing, diverse vegetation located on the bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-90% from horizontal with minimal root exposure. Partial lining or armoring of one or both banksSmall band of woody vegetation with 50-70% plant density and cover. A majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous trees with young or old vegetation lacking in diversity located on or near the top of bank. Woody vegetation oriented at 70-80% from horizontal, often with evident root exposure. No lining of banks, but some armoring may be in place on one bankWoody vegetation band may vary depending on age and health with less than 50% plant density and cover. Primarily soft wood, piney, coniferous trees with very young, old and dying, and/or monostand vegetation located off of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented at less than 70% from horizontal with extensive root exposure. No lining or armoring of banks11. Bank cutting Little or none evident. Infrequent raw banks, insignificant percentage of totalbankSome intermittently along channel bends and at prominent constrictions. Raw banks comprise minor portion of bank in vertical directionSignificant and frequent on both banks. Raw banks comprise large portion of bank in vertical direction. Root mat overhangsAlmost continuous cuts on both banks, some extending over most of the banks. Undercutting and sod-root overhangs12. Mass wasting or bank failure No or little evidence of potential or very small amounts of mass wasting. Uniform channel width over the entire reachEvidence of infrequent and/or minor mass wasting. Mostly healed over with vegetation. Relatively constant channel width and minimal scalloping of banksEvidence of frequent and/or significant occurrences of mass wasting that can be aggravated by higher flows, which may cause undercutting and mass wasting of unstable banks. Channel width quite irregular, and scalloping of banks is evidentFrequent and extensive mass wasting. The potential for bank failure, as evidenced by tension cracks, massive undercuttings, and bank slumping is considerable. Channel width is highly irregular, and banks are scalloped13. Upstream distance to bridge from meander impact point and alignmentMore than 35 m; bridge is well-aligned with river flow20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow 10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or flow alignment is otherwise not centeredbeneath bridgeLess than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned with flowTotal ScoreH = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width-to-depth ratio
Uzzle Morphological ParametersHB2 HB2 HB2 LP1 LP1LP1 LP1FeatureShallow Pool Shallow RIFFLE POOLRIFFLE POOLDrainage Area (ac)Drainage Area (mi2)NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)2NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)3Design/Calculated Discharge (cfs)BF Width (ft) 12.2 11.4 10.8 7.6 9.512.2 14.6Floodprone Width (ft) >50 >50 >50 150 150150 150BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)15.8 16.5 14.7 12.4 18.215.5 19.5BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.91.3 1.3BF Max Depth (ft) 2.0 2.5 1.8 2.1 2.51.6 2.3Width/Depth Ratio 9.4 7.9 7.9 4.6 4.99.6 10.9Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 19.7 15.812.3 10.3Wetted Perimeter (ft) 13.6 13.5 12.1 9.8 12.713.1 15.8Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.41.2 1.2Max Bank Height 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.4 2.71.2 1.2Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.11.0 1.0SubstrateDescription (D50) VERY COARSE SANDVERY COARSE SANDD16 (mm) 0.55 0.39 N/AD50 (mm) 4.4 1.6 N/AD84 (mm) 11 8.9 N/AMax MIN MAXMIN MAXMIN MAXMIN MAXMIN MAXMIN MAXMIN MAXMIN MAXChannel Beltwidth (ft) 57 4 16 21 28 - - 29 53 16 43 15 19 36 69 17 63Radius of Curvature (ft) 28 18 37 14 46 - - 20 26 9 58 10 18 13 61 20 45Radius of Curvature Ratio 2.6 2.4 4.9 1.3 4.3 - - 1.2 1.6 0.7 4.2 2.5 4.5 0.73.1 1.6 3.7Meander Wavelength (ft) 170 56 100 54 135 - - 54 91 46 133 33 37 76 180 51 131Meander Width Ratio 5.3 0.5 2.0 1.9 2.6 - - 1.8 3.3 1.2 3.1 3.8 4.8 1.8 3.5 1.45.2ProfileMAXMIN MAX- - - - - - - - - - - - MIN MAXShallow Length (ft) 23 5 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Run Length (ft) 18 4 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Pool Length (ft) 45.6 20 45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft) 55.7 35 56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Additional Reach ParametersValley Length (ft)Channel Length (ft)SinuosityWater Surface Slope (ft/ft)Channel Slope (ft/ft)Rosgen Classification 1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data 2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003) 3 NC Regional Curve equations source: Sweet and Geratz (2003)0.641.12.72.6 2.3 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.51.0VERY COARSE SAND----E4/50.290.0038429951.18Reference7521.1818.69.929-31FINE GRAVELMin19100.9491.6MIN51011.637.25600.641.12.78521.52-0.0055E5Design11241.7624.813.53411241.7624.813.534LP7RIFFLE13122.0527.815.2-1.1-LP6RUN420.075606911.23-0.0039E5-2833221.14-7.620.71.01.12-0.0057G5870.0012C519.815021.01.1---77.54.60.33.0VERY COARSE SAND1.30.30.612.21.44.061.518.72.3C5LP5RIFFLE13.715016.21.21.411.610.915.31.11.4372.55591.50-0.0023VERY COARSE SAND-15.29.316.81.01.1-0.0095G5LP4RIFFLE12021.8826.114.2-16.115017.11.11.4--188.7200.31.060.52.9VERY COARSE SAND-0.60.89.51.16.5E5--10851.11.7VERY COARSE SAND-1618.91.49-0.0028RUN230.041.512.9-10.815014.6-5.663.31.31.58.013.9Existing1E5166823251.39-0.0049-VERY COARSE SAND---LP2RIFFLE11741.8312962.0327.515.025.613.9 0.7LP3
Upstream Downstream
95
95.5
96
96.5
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
100.5
101
101.5
102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation(ft)Distance (ft)
Reach LP1 -XS1 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
100.5
101
101.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach LP2 -XS2 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
96.5
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
100.5
101
101.5
102
102.5
103
0 5 10 15 20 25Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach LP3 -XS3 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
100.5
101
101.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach LP4-XS4 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
100.5
101
101.5
102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Distance(ft)
Reach LP5 -XS5 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach LP6 -XS6 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
100.5
101
101.5
102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach LP7-XS7 (Run)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Site Name:
USACE Action ID:
NCDWR Project Number:
Sponsor:
County:Johnston
Minimum Required Buffer Width1:50
Mitigation Type Mitigation Ratio
Multiplier2
Creditable Stream
Length3 Baseline Stream Credit
Restoration (1:1)1 629 629.00
Enhancement I (1.5:1)1.5
Enhancement II (2.5:1)2.5 5268 2107.20
Preservation (5:1)5
Other (7.5:1)7.5
Other (10:1)10
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals 5897.00 2736.20
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 35 feet >35 to 40 feet >40 to 45 feet >45 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)4 176910 58970 58970 58970 58970 58970 58970 58970 294850 294850 294850 294850
Ideal Buffer (square feet)5 177399.59 58232.29 57711.3 56428.11 54536.87 53908.89 53412.56 52976.45 260137.28 256089.73 254231.97 254104.82
Actual Buffer (square feet)6 172863.64 55160.59 53856.88 51646.02 49422.43 48414.35 47367.77 46420.23 202900.07 140424.44 91962.82 60059.04
Zone Multiplier 50%10%10%10%5%5%5%5%7%5%4%4%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 1368.10 273.62 273.62 273.62 136.81 136.81 136.81 136.81 191.53 136.81 109.45 109.45
Percent of Ideal Buffer 97%95%93%92%91%90%89%88%78%55%36%24%
Credit Adjustment -34.98 -14.43 -18.27 -23.19 -12.83 -13.94 -15.48 -16.93 149.39 75.02 39.59 25.87
Total Baseline Credit Credit Loss in Required
Buffer
Credit Gain for
Additional Buffer
Net Change in
Credit from Buffers Total Credit
2736.20 -150.07 289.87 139.80 2876.00
RES
4This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
6Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non-forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that
are more than 150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non-creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
5Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The inner zone (0-15') should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known. Non-creditable stream
reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
2Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet-to-credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
1Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
3Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Uzzle
SAW-2016-01973
Appendix C
Site Protection Instrument and
Longterm Steward Information
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Site includes portions of
the following parcels (Table 1).
Table 1. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Owner of Record
PIN
Or
Tax Parcel ID#
Stream Reach
George C. Uzzle III and Linda
Uzzle
168600-09-3644
168600-07-9981
168600-08-5325
(Johnston County)
All Reaches
The Wilmington District Conservation Easement model template was utilized to draft the site
protection instrument. Once finalized, a copy of the final recorded easement will be provided.
EBX-Neuse I, LLC, acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a Conservation Easement, and will
monitor the Site for a minimum of seven years. This Mitigation Plan provides detailed information
regarding bank operation, including long term management and annual monitoring activities, for review
and approval by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). Upon approval of the Site by the IRT, the Site
will be transferred to the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation (NCWHF). The NCWHF will be
responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation
Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold
easement and deed restrictions will be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the Conservation Easement will allow for the implementation of an
initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during the design phase and conducted by the Bank
Sponsor. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring and, if necessary, maintenance
of the Site during the initial monitoring phase. These activities will be conducted in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the approved Mitigation Plan for the Uzzle Mitigation Site. The Uzzle Site
will be authorized under the Neu-Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank made and entered
into by EBX-Neuse I, LLC, US Army Corps of Engineers, and NC Division of Water Resources.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT (“Conservation Easement”) made this
day of , 201_ by and between ,
(“Grantor”) and _________________ (“Grantee”).
The designation 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.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and
being in ___________ County, North Carolina, more particularly described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”);
WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not-for-profit or educational corporation,
association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue
Code, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq., the purposes or powers of which include
one or more of the purposes (a) – (d) listed below;
(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open-space aspects of real
property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational, educational,
or open-space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or
aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the following
natural communities: add or delete as appropriate: wetlands, streams, and riparian
buffers. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain streams, wetlands
and riparian resources and other natural values of approximately ___acres, more or
less, and being more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated fully herein by reference (the “Conservation Easement Area”), and
prevent the use or development of the Conservation Easement Area for any purpose
or in any manner that would conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition.
WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the Conservation
Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation Banking Instrument
(MBI) and Mitigation Plan for the ___________ Mitigation Bank, Department of the
Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW-_____________, entitled “Agreement to Establish
the ____________ Mitigation Bank in the _________ River Basin within the State of
North Carolina”, to be made and entered into by and between ___________ acting as
the Bank Sponsor and the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in
consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The __________
Mitigation Site has been approved by the Corps for use as a mitigation bank to
compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts authorized by DA permits.
WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the Conservation
Easement Area is also a condition of the approval of the __________ Riparian Buffer
and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) and Bank Parcel Development
Package (BPDP) for the ____________ Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation
Bank, North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Project ID# __________,
which was approved by the NCDWR, and will be made and entered into by and
between ____________, acting as the Bank Sponsor, and the NCDWR. The
__________ Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Site is intended to be used to
compensate for riparian buffer and nutrient impacts to surface waters.
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third-party rights of enforcement
shall be held by the NCDWR and the Corps (to include any successor agencies) (“Third-
Parties”), and may be exercised through the appropriate enforcement agencies of the
United States and the State of North Carolina, and that these rights are in addition to,
and do not limit, the rights of enforcement under the NC DWR Project ID# __________
and the Department of the Army instrument number SAW- _____________
(“Mitigation Banking Instrument”), or any permit or certification issued by the Third-
Parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby
unconditionally and irrevocably grants and conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors
and assigns, forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and
character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area
described on Exhibit B, together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation
values thereof, as follows:
ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation Easement is
an easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor,
Grantor’s personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, lessees, agents and
licensees.
ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent with
the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Conservation
Easement Area shall be preserved in its natural condition and restricted from any
development that would impair or interfere with the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and
uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated hereunder:
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any
introduction of non-native plants and/or animal species is prohibited.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building,
mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising
display, antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other
temporary or permanent structure or facility on or above the Conservation
Easement Area.
C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and/or
commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes are
prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal
husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming,
cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the Conservation Easement
Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan and Bank Parcel Development Plan.
Mowing of invasive and herbaceous vegetation for purposes of enhancing planted or
volunteer trees and shrubs approved in the Mitigation Plan and BPDP is allowable once
a year for no more than five consecutive years from the date on page 1 of this
Conservation Easement, except where mowing will negatively impact vegetation or
disturb soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed by ___________ and shall not
violate any part of Item L of Article II.
F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways
on the Conservation Easement Area; nor enlargement or modification to existing
roads, trails or walkways.
G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation Easement
Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation
values of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving directions or proscribing rules
and regulations for the use of the Conservation Easement Area and/or signs identifying
the Grantor as owner of the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage,
waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or
other materials on the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.
I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any
manner on the Conservation Easement Area, except to restore natural topography or
drainage patterns. For purposes of restoring and enhancing streams and wetlands
within the Conservation Easement Area, ___________is allowed to perform grading,
filling, and excavation associated with stream and wetland restoration and
enhancement activities as described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by
Department of the Army Nationwide Permit 27.
J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or
alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition,
diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into,
within or out of the easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is
prohibited.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered
or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.
L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited other than for
temporary or occasional access by the Enter Sponsor Name, the Grantee, its
employees and agents, successors, assigns, NCDWR, and the Corps for purposes of
constructing, maintaining and monitoring the restoration, enhancement and
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation
Easement Area..
M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Conservation
Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant,
the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area substantially in its natural
condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is prohibited.
ARTICLE III
GRANTOR’S RESEVERED RIGHTS
The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation Easement Area
for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation Easement, including, but not
limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area, the rights
of ingress and egress, the right to hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement
Area, the right to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement
Area, in whole or in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to
the terms of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor, its
successors and assigns, including __________ acting as the Bank Sponsor, the right to
construct and perform activities related to the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation
Easement Area in accordance with the approved ___________ Mitigation Plan, the
_____________ Bank Parcel Development Package, and the two Mitigation Banking
Instruments described in the Recitals of this Conservation Easement.
ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE’S RIGHTS
The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, the Corps
and NCDWR, shall have the right to enter the Property and Conservation Easement Area
at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the Conservation Easement Area to
determine if the Grantor, or his personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns,
is complying with the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation
Easement. The Grantee, Enter Sponsor Name, and its authorized representatives,
successors and assigns, the Corps and NCDWR shall also have the right to enter and go
upon the Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making scientific or educational
observations and studies, and taking samples. The easement rights granted herein do
not include public access rights.
ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, the Corps, and
NCDWR are allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation Easement
Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to require the
restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Easement Area that may be
damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation
Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall
notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have 30 days after
receipt of such notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If the breach
remains uncured after 30 days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement
by appropriate legal proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief.
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 of the terms of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances
damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be 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. The costs of a breach, correction or restoration,
including the Grantee’s expenses, court costs, and attorneys’ fees, shall be paid by
Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach. The Corps
and the NCDWR shall have the same rights and privileges as the said Grantee to
enforce the terms and conditions of this Conservation easement..
B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision
hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition,
or provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of
a subsequent breach or default.
C. 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 resulting from causes beyond the Grantor’s control,
including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of God or third parties, except
Grantor’s lessees or invitees; or from any prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor
under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life,
damage to property or harm to the Conservation Easement Area resulting from such
causes.
ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns the
Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which
may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement or that there are no
outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in the Property
which have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor
further warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived
from and arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend title to the Property against the claims of all persons.
B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this
Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any
interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area. The Grantor agrees to
provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of the
transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement
shall survive any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Conservation
Easement Area or any portion thereof and shall not be amended, modified or
terminated without the prior written consent and approval of the Corps.
C. Assignment. 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 pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 501 (c)(3)
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.
D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The combined Mitigation Banking
Instruments: MBI with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and MBI with corresponding
BPDP, and this Conservation Easement 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 void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction,
the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.
E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes,
assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the
Property free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor.
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. 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.
F. Long-Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term
management activities associated with fencing. These activities include the
maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic resource
functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are sustained.
G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the
continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the conservation purposes, this
Conservation Easement may only be extinguished, in whole or in part, by judicial
proceeding.
H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation Easement Area
is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to substantially abrogate the
Restrictions imposed by this Conservation Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in
appropriate actions at the time of such taking to recover the full value of the taking,
and all incidental and direct damages due to the taking.
I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest
immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the Conservation
Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted following an
extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to the fair
market value of this Conservation Easement as determined at the time of the
extinguishment or condemnation.
J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication
required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such address as may be hereafter
specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):
To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Sponsor:
To the Corps:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
To NCDEQ -DWR:
NCDEQ – Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this
Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee, and if within a
reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee fails to
make an assignment pursuant to this Conservation Easement, then the Grantee’s
interest shall become vested in another qualified grantee in accordance with an
appropriate proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.
L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in
a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided 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 conservation purposes of this
grant.
M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The wetlands, scenic,
resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of the Conservation
Easement Area, and its current use and state of improvement, are described in Section
____ of the Mitigation Plan, prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor
and Grantee to be complete and accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and
Grantee have copies of this report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any
future changes in the use of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with
the terms of this Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to
preclude the use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the
Conservation Easement Area if there is a controversy over its use.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee for
the aforesaid purposes.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]
Kelly Harrill
Chairman
Greensboro, NC
Tenna Koury
Vice Chairman
Burlington, NC
John C. Hagan
Secretary
Greensboro, NC
W. Harrison Stewart
Treasurer
Greensboro, NC
Eddie C. Bridges
Executive Director
Greensboro, NC
Dan Barker
Greensboro, NC
Thomas A. Berry
Greensboro, NC
Samuel E. Bridges
Greensboro, NC
Tracy Brooks
Greensboro, NC
Tonnie E. Davis
Roxboro, NC
Johnny Dinkins
Greensboro, NC
William DuBose
Greensboro, NC
Gregory Erwin
Raleigh, NC
John D. Goins
Hendersonville, NC
Stewart Gordon
Winston-Salem, NC
Scott Heffernan
Greensboro, NC
Maurice S. Hull
High Point, NC
John Preyer
Chapel Hill, NC
Dr. Wes Perry
Kinston, NC
Mark Ruffin
Greensboro, NC
John Saslow
Greensboro, NC
Michelle Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
Mark Toland
Asheville, NC
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is intended to provide a brief overview of the NCWHF Easement
Stewardship program. We currently hold over thirty individual conservation easements
across North Carolina, including over 2,000 acres of land. These perpetual easements
were mostly established through environmental mitigation projects which restored or
preserved important wildlife habitat along with ecological functions of streams and
wetlands. We continue to accept and hold easements that fit with our Mission Statement:
The purpose of the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation is to assist in the
acquisition, management and protection of wildlife habitat within the state of North
Carolina and promote conservation education for the benefit of future generations.
Easements held by the NCWHF are stewarded in general accordance with the guidelines
published by the National Land Trust Alliance. For each easement it accepts, the
NCWHF requires an endowment fee which is held in trust. The funds are used for
ongoing monitoring of the specific site as well as any legal costs which may arise.
Monitoring is conducted on an annual basis. This involves a preliminary review of
ownership via tax records and a GIS -based review of the site each year. After the file is
updated an on-site inspection is conducted to confirm that the terms of the easement are
being honored. Visits are coordinated with the landowner when possible. The visit is
recorded in a written report and with photographs that are then archived. Signs
identifying the boundary of the easement are refreshed as needed during these visits.
Each landowner associated with the site is contacted at least annually and updated on the
status of the easement, even when in full compliance. The aim is to prevent violations by
maintaining a working partnership with the landowners. Any violations of easement
terms are promptly communicated to the landowner. Minor violations are typically
resolved with clear communication and reminders of the easement terms. However, if a
violation occurs that is not resolved through cooperative means in a timely manner, the
NCWHF is prepared to draw on the endowment funds to initiate legal recourse.
For any questions about the Easement Stewardship Program at the NCWHF, please
contact Matthew Harrell, [phone] or Harrell.conservationggmail.com
Sincerely,
Matthew Harrell
On Behalf of the NCWHF
P.O. Box 29187 - Greensboro, NC 27429-9187
[phone] • www.ncwhf.org

Conservation Easement Monitoring Report
Site :Date:
Arrival Time:
Address:Departure Time:
Weather Conditions:
Monitor Name:
Others Present:1)
2)
3)
Circle appropriately Features Present in Easement?
Y or N 1. Landowner contacted prior to visit?Y or N Powerlines
Y or N 2. Landowner/representative present during visit?Y or N Fences
Y or N 3. Recorded easement reviewed prior to inspection?Y or N Stream Crossings
Y or N 4. Recorded plat reviewed prior to inspection?Y or N Deer Stands/ Duck Blinds
5. Indicate monitoring method: Walking ATV Air
6. Indicate observed disturbances to the site:
Y or N a. Beaver activity Explain:
Y or N b. Invasive Vegetation Privet Kudzu Bamboo Multifloral Rose Other
Y or N c. Other land management issues (Erosion, water quality, fire, etc)
Y or N d. Grading/ Excavation/ or Construction activities
Y or N e. Depositing or dumping (trash, dirt, yard debris, etc)
Y or N f. Vegetative damage, including mowing, trimming, or tree removal
Y or N g. Livestock (present or signs of recent presence)
Y or N h. Vehicle use within easement other than on designated paths
atv dirtbike truck machinery
Y or N Points of access located GPS:
Overview of Observations:
Wildlife:
Y or N i. Photo's taken?
Y or N j. Followup required/ Site under Review? List primary issue:
Notes on Reverse
Greg Erwin
Chairman
Raleigh, NC
Teena Koury
Vice Chairman
Burlington, NC
John Hagan
Secretary
Greensboro, NC
Eddie Bridges
Executive Director
Greensboro, NC
Michelle Sharpe
Administrative Assistant
Greensboro, NC
Tom Berry
Greensboro, NC
Sandy Brady
Greensboro, NC
Tracy Brooks
Greensboro, NC
Rocky Carter
Swansboro, NC
Tommie Davis
Climax, NC
Patrick Gilliam
Cary, NC
Gary Graham
Summerfield, NC
Greg Harrell
Reidsville, NC
Kelly Harrill
Greensboro, NC
Maurice Hull
High Point, NC
John McKee
Greensboro, NC
William Mclvor
Greensboro, NC
Jeff Montgomery
Greensboro, NC
Mark Ruffin
Sunimerfield, NC
Allen Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
Harrison Stewart
Reidsville, NC
Jay Stuart
Oak Ridge, NC
Will Stewart
Greensboro, NC
Richard Vanore,Jr.
Greensboro, NC
November 8, 2018
EBX Neuse I, LLC
Ely J Perry, III
P.O. Drawer 1475
Kinston, NC 28503
Re: Uzzle
This letter on behalf of the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation is in regards to
the Uzzle project in Johnston County. We have reviewed the provided project documents
for this site and believe that the completed project will provide real and lasting benefits to
wildlife habitat. Since the project aligns with the mission and interests of the NCWHF,
our organization is willing to serve in the following roles:
Easement Holder for a perpetual conservation easement on this site. This offer is
subject to final review and acceptance of easement terms. The required
endowment fee is $25,000.
Long Term Steward of the conservation easement on this site. This offer is subject
to final review and acceptance of easement terms. The required endowment fee is
$25,000.
• Bond Holder for the Construction and Monitoring Bonds required and discussed
for this project. The required endowment fee is $5,000.
The NCWHF appreciates the opportunity to serve in this way, which is consistent with
both our existing easement stewardship program and our broader mission. This proposal
is with the understanding that the current monitoring and reporting efforts of the
NCWHF easement holding program meet the standards required by USACE for serving
as Easement Holder and Long Term Steward. As always, the endowment fees required for
this site will be held and invested according to best practices for stewardship funds. The
funds will be used for ongoing monitoring of this specific site as well as any legal costs
which may arise from efforts to resolve specific violations of the easement terms.
P.O. Box 29187 • Greensboro, NC 27429-9187
[phone] • www.ncwhf.org

Greg Erwin
Chairman
Raleigh, NC
Teena Koury
Vice Chairman
Burlington, NC
John Hagan
Secretary
Greensboro, NC
Eddie Bridges
Executive Director
Greensboro, NC
Michelle Sharpe
Administrative Assistant
Greensboro, NC
Tom Berry
Greensboro, NC
Sandy Brady
Greensboro, NC
The fees listed here are subject to a favorable review of the final conservation easement
document, boundaries, and details. There are a few other standard requirements as well.
The Developer will be responsible for installing standard NCWHF easement signage at
the site. The Developer must also keep NCWHF informed of progress on the project,
both in construction and monitoring phases. At closeout, Developer must provide
handoff details to facilitate continued NCWHF monitoring of the easement.
Tracy Brooks
Greensboro, NC
Rocky Carter
Sincerely,
Swansboro, NC
TonnieDavis
p
Climax, NC
Patrick Gilliam
Cary, NC
W. Harrison Stewart, Jr.
Gary Graham
NCWHF, Conservation Easement Committee Chair
Summerfield, NC
Greg Harrell
c: Greg Erwin - NCWHF Chairman
Reidsville, NC
Kelly Harrill
Greensboro, NC
Maurice Hull
High Point, NC
John McKee
Greensboro, NC
William Mclvor
Greensboro, NC
Jeff' Montgomery
Greensboro, NC
Mark Ruffin
Summerfield, NC
Allen Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
Harrison Stewart
Reidsville, NC
Jay Stuart
Oak Ridge, NC
Will Stewart
Greensboro, NC
Richard Vanore,Jr.
Greensboro, NC
P.O. Box 29187 • Greensboro, NC 27429-9187
[phone] • www.newhf.org

Appendix D
DWR Stream Identification & Buffer Viability Forms
i
Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
January 27, 2017
George C. Uzzle III and Linda Uzzle
PO Box 101
Wilson Mills, NC 27593
Subject: Surface Water Determination Letter
ROY COOPER
Ciro einur
MICHAEL S. REGAN
S ...(
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Direcmr
DWR# 2016-1270
Johnston County
Determination Type:
Buffer Subjectivity Call Stream Determination
Neuse (15A NCAC 213 .0233)
Start@
Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B .0259)
Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial Determination
USGS
El Isolated Welland Determination
E] Jordan (15A NCAC 2B .0267)
Subject
Project Name: Uzzle Mitigation Site
Location/Directions: 105 Meta Drive, Clayton, NC
Subject Stream Little Poplar Creek
Determination Date: 1-13-2017 Staff: Mac Haupt
Feature E/1/P* Not Subject Start@ Stop@ Soil USGS
or Subject Survey Topo
Ditch
Little Poplar P X Northern property throughout X X
Creek- boundary -US 70
Mainstem
Upper I X pipeline easement Little Poplar
Tributary western property Creek
boundary
Lower I X 35 34 58.1833 N, Little Poplar X
Tributary 78 23 32.1005 W Creek
cair = npnemerautntermutenarerenniat
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300
Uzzle Mitigation Site
January 27, 2017
Page 2 of 2
Explanation: Staff with Division of Water Resources (DWR), visited the subject site on
January 13, 2017, at the request of Cara Conder with EBX-Neuse I, LLC. Features listed
on the Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina and/or the most recent copy of the
USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale, are checked as "Subject' to the Neuse
Buffer Protection Rule. Features that are checked "Subject' have been located on the
property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There may be other
streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but,
still may be considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers
and/or to the Division of Water Resources (DWR).
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR or
Delegated Local Authority may request a determination by the Director. An appeal request
must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter or from the date the affected party
including downstream and/or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter. A request for a
determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Karen
Higgins, DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or
appeal within sixty (60) days.
The owner/future owners should notify the Division of Water Resources (including any
other Local, State, and Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future
correspondences regarding the subject property (stated above). This project may require a
Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should be directed to the
Division of Water Resources (Central Office) at (919)-807-6300, and the US Army Corp of
Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-554-4884.
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact Mac Haupt
at [phone].
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
KAH/MH
Attachments: Initialed Soil Survey and Aerial Map
cc: Danny Smith, Raleigh Regional Office DWR File Copy
Cara Conder, (RES), EBX-Neuse I, LLC (via electronic mail)
Figure 3.
NRCS Map presI Uale Mitigation Site
i
o 0 00
i
Feet
lm = 700 k.
Figure 2.
Current Conditions Map
Uzzle Mitigation Site
0 350 BOG
Feet
1 in. = 700 ft.
Figure 1.
USGS Map
up•a' Jp`
Uzzle Mitigation Site
m t000 2,000 4,000 Preg
rte•
Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DATE STAMP HERE
o LS U l/LrmInI PAT MCCRORY
DEC 2 2 2016 U Govemw
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
WATER RESOURC S Secremry
B FF R PERMITTIN S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
DWR Use Only: Project # q tf/– tet" 1 V
Stream Origin/Buffer Applicability Determination
for Potential Mitigation Sites
3. MITIGATION PROVIDER OR CONSULTANT
Required Information
1. LAND OWNER INFORMATION
3b. Mailing address
1 a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed George C. Uzzle III and Linda Uzzle
1b. Mailing Address PO Box 101, Wilson Mills, NC 27593
1 c. Telephone Number n/a 1d. Email Address: n/a
2. Has DWR visited the site before? Y / N NO
Staff Name:
Date Visited:
3. MITIGATION PROVIDER OR CONSULTANT
3a. Individual Name Cara Conder Company: EBX-Neuse 1, LLC
3b. Mailing address 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raleigh, NC 27605
3c. Telephone no. 919-209-1052 3d. Email address: [e-mail]
3e. Do you have permission to be on this property? Y / N YES
4. PROJECT & SITE INFORMATION
4a. Name of project I Uzzle Mitigation Site 4b. County: Johnston
4c. Nearest Named Stream I Little Poplar Creek 4d. River Basin: Neuse
4e. Do you have permission to be on this property? Y / N YES
5f. Physical property addresstnearest intersection:
150 Meta Drive, Clayton, NC
Longitude: -78.393553
Latitude: 35.585186
Is this stream call f r the purpo of:
o
B(1F ER MITIGATION _x_ and/or NUTRIENT OFFSET_x_
1 4. rFl—oa—seattach a map of the site indicalting project boundaries on the USGS 1:24,000 Topo and NRCS Soil Survey.
Please include a site aerial labeling all of the features needing a determination
Please return form to: Katie Merritt
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Email: [e-mail]
Please contact the Central Office at [phone] if you have any questions.
Swe ofNonh Camlm I Environmental QuaEry 1 Water RmtIrms
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, Nonh Camlim 27699-1617
919 807 6300
Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
January 13, 2017
Cara Conder
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
(via electronic mail)
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Uzzle Site
150 Meta Drive, Clayton NC
Johnston County
Dear Ms. Conder,
ROY COOPER
col, <„
WILLIAM G. ROSS. JR.
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
On December 28, 2016, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a
request from Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES), for a site visit near the above -
referenced site in the 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201 of the Neuse River Basin to determine
the potential for riparian buffer mitigation and nutrient offset. On January 13, 2017, Ms. Merritt
performed a site assessment of the subject site, which is more accurately shown in the attached aerial
initialed by Ms. Merritt on January 13, 2017.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. The evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB)
out to 200' from each feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective
November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Feature
Classification
1Subiect
Riparian Land uses
0-200'
Buffer
Credit
2Nutrient Offset
Mitigation Type
to Buffer
Viable at 2,273
Determination w/in
Rule
lbs acre
riparian areas
Viable
UT1
Stream
No
Closed canopy of native hardwoods and
Yes
No
Enhancement site per
pines actively grazed by cattle
15A NCAC 026 .0295
(areas within pipeline easement not viable
(o)(6)
for mitigation credit)
UT2
Stream
Yes
Closed canopy of native hardwoods and
Yes
No
Enhancement site per
pines actively grazed by cattle
15A NCAC 02B.0295
(areas within pipeline easement not viable
(o)(6)
for mitigation credit)
Little
Stream
Yes
Closed canopy of native hardwoods and
Yes
No
Enhancement site per
Poplar
pines actively grazed by cattle
15A NCAC 02B .0295
Creek
(areas within pipeline easement not viable
(o)(6)
for mitigation credit)
'Subjectivity calls for the streams were determined by DWR on January 13, 2017 using the 1:24,000 scale quadrangle
topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by the NRCS.
2 NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with
Riparian Buffer Establishment
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Uzzle Site (RES)
January 13, 2017
A map showing the project site and the features was provided by RES and was initialed by Ms.
Merritt on January 13, 2017. This letter should be provided in all future stream, wetland or buffer
mitigation plans for this Site.
This letter does not constitute an approval of this site to generate mitigation credits. Pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to DWR for written
approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240, a proposal regarding a proposed nutrient load -reducing measure
shall be submitted to DWR for approval prior to any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or
surface waters.
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset according to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
KAH/km
Attachments: Site Aerial prepared by RES
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
Sincerely,
MUM�_ .
1
Karen Higgins, Supervi
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
Page 212

Figure 2.
Current Conditions Map
Uzzle Mitigation Site
0 350 700 res
Feet
1 in. = 700 ft. 0

Appendix E
Wetland JD Forms

January 30, 2017

Ms. Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587

Dear Ms. Samantha Dailey,

Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) is pleased to present this Request for a Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination for the Uzzle Mitigation Site located in Clayton, Johnston County,
North Carolina. As part of this scope of work, RES is submitting this request to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a confirmation of the limits of Waters of the U.S. on the subject
site.

The purpose of this project is the establishment of a mitigation site under the existing Neu-con
Umbrella Banking Instrument to generate stream mitigation credits that may be used to provide
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to warm water streams associated with
Department of the Army permit authorizations pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Delineation Information
RES completed its delineation of potentially jurisdictional areas on this property on January 5,
2017 in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual methodology
(Environmental Laboratory 1987), as well as the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Delineation Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain (Version 2.0). Flags
were numbered and placed onsite to mark the limits of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other
Waters of the U.S. Wetland flags were located using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology
with sub-meter accuracy and the streams were drawn using the available National Hydrography
Dataset Flowlines. Stream determinations were verified by a NCDWR representative on January
13, 2017. The approximate size and location of these areas are depicted on the attached Waters of
the U.S. Delineation Map. All wetland areas are shown on this figure, but only the ones within the
easement limits need confirmation.

The current land use on-site is active pasture and grazed forest. The site contains Little Poplar
Creek and two (2) of it’s unnamed tributaries. One (1) large wetland area was found on-site and
is located in the floodplain of the streams.

Attachments for Reference

- Jurisdictional Determination Request Form
- Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form
- Landowner Authorization Form
- Project Vicinity Map
- Project Location Map (with topography)
- National Wetlands Inventory Map
- Aerial Imagery
- Soils Map
- NCDWR Site Viability Letter
- Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
- Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map

10055 Red Run Blvd.
Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD
21117

412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802

100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401

5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
Houston, TX
77006

1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
70508

137½ East Main St.
Suite 210
Oak Hill, WV
25901

33 Terminal Way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
15219

302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605

1521 W. Main
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
23220

RES respectfully requests that the Corps confirm this delineation of Waters of the U.S. on this property. I will
contact you in the coming days to arrange a site visit for this purpose. Please contact me ([phone]) if
you have any additional questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Schmid, PWS Ryan Medric
Ecologist Ecologist

Attachments
cc: Daniel Ingram—Resource Environmental Solutions

Jurisdictional Determination Request
M
US army Corps
of Engineers.
Mmingmn abmq
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (113) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
to the appropriate Corps Field Office (or project manager, if known) via mail, electronic mail, or
facsimile. A current list of county assignments by Field Office and project manager can be
found on-line at: htti)://www.saw.usace.army.miUMissions/RegulatoryPermitPro rg am.aspxx , by
telephoning: 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below:
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers.
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE.
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
Version: December 2013 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E and F.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part G.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that all JD
requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to proceed with the
determination, which may include inspection of the property when necessary. This form must be
signed by the current property owner to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for JD
requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects will be
conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD 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 also request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: December 2013 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: See Landowner Authorization Form
1.3
C.
City, State:
County:
Directions:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN):
REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address t:
See Landowner Authorization Form
Jeremy Schmid, PWS- Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raliegh, NC 27605
919-345-3034
[e-mail]
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
❑✓ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: See Landowner Authorization Form
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address3:
❑ Proof of Ownership Attached (e.g. a copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record data)
1 If available
z Must attach completed Agent Authorization Form
31f available
Version: December 2013 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations
and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
See Landowner Authorization Form
Property Owner (please print) Date
Property Owner Signature
E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TYPE
Select One:
I am requesting that the Corps provide a ,preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does include a delineation.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does NOT include a delineation.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps investigate the property/project area for the presence or
absence of WoUS5 and provide an approved JD for the property identified herein. This
request does NOT include a request for a verified delineation.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps delineate the boundaries of all WoUS on a property/project
area and provide an annroved JD (this may or may not include a survey plat).
I am requesting that the Corps evaluate and approve a delineation of WoUS (conducted
by others) on a property/project area and provide an approved JD (may or may not
include a survey plat).
° For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USAGE protocols, skip to Part E
5 Waters of the United States
Version: December 2013 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. ALL REQUESTS
© Map of Property or Project Area (attached). This Map must clearly depict the boundaries
of the area of evaluation.
❑✓
Size of Property or Project Area Easement= 26
acres
II✓ I verify that the property (or project) boundaries have recently been surveyed and marked
by a licensed land surveyor OR are otherwise clearly marked or distinguishable.
G. JD REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS OR AGENCIES
(1) Preliminary JD Requests:
❑✓ Completed and signed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form 6.
Project Coordinates: 35.585975 Latitude -78.392246 Longitude
Maps (no larger than 11x17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
zLarge and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
❑✓ Aerial Photography of the project area
Z USGS Topographic Map
© Soil Survey Map
ROther Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
6 See Appendix A of this Form. From Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-02, dated June 26, 2008
Version: December 2013 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
❑✓ Wetland Data Sheets
Tributaries:
❑ USACE Assessment Forms
Upland Data Sheets ❑✓ Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑ Landscape Photos, if taken
❑✓ Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
• All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
■ Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
■ Locations of photo stations
■ Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
(2) Approved JDs including Verification of a Delineation:
❑ Project Coordinates:
Latitude
Longitude
Maps (no larger than l 1x17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
❑ Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
❑ Aerial Photography of the project area
❑ USGS Topographic Map
❑ Soil Survey Map
❑ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site Plan,
previous delineation maps)
1987 Manual Regional Supplements and Data forms can be found at:
httr)://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits/reg suiyasox
Wetland and Stream Assessment Methodologies can be found at:
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/c/­document library/get file?uuid=76f3c58b dab8 4960 ba43 45b7faf06f4c&grouold-38364 and,
http//www saw usace army mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/Publicnotices/2013/NCSAM Draft User Manual 130318 odf
F Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 6

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
❑ Wetland Data Sheets
Tributaries:
❑ USACE Assessment Forms
❑ Upland Data Sheets ❑ Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑ Landscape Photos, if taken
❑ Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
• All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
• Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
• Locations of photo stations
• Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
Supporting Jurisdictional Information (for Approved JDs only)
❑ Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form(s) (also known as "Rapanos
Form(s)")
❑ Map(s) depicting the potential (or lack of potential) hydrologic connection(s),
adjacency, etc. to navigable waters.
9 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 7

Jurisdictional Determination Request
I. REQUESTS FOR CORPS APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLAT
Prior to final production of a Plat, the Wilmington District recommends that the Land
Surveyor electronically submit a draft of a Survey Plat to the Corps project manager for
review.
Due to storage limitations of our administrative records, the Corps requires that all hard-
copy submittals include at least one original Plat (to scale) that is no larger than 11 "x17"
(the use of match lines for larger tracts acceptable). Additional copies of a plat, including
those larger than 11 "x17", may also be submitted for Corps signature as needed. The
Corps also accepts electronic submittals of plats, such as those transmitted as a Portable
Document Format (PDF) file. Upon verification, the Corps can electronically sign these
plats and return them via e-mail to the requestor.
(1) PLATS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
❑ Must be sealed and signed by a licensed professional land surveyor
❑ Must be to scale (all maps must include both a graphic scale and a verbal scale)
R Must be legible
Must include a North Arrow, Scale(s), Title, Property Information
❑ Must include a legible WoUS Delineation Table of distances and bearings/metes
and bounds/GPS coordinates of all surveyed delineation points
ElMust clearly depict surveyed property or project boundaries
❑ Must clearly identify the known surveyed point(s) used as reference (e.g. property
corner, USGS monument)
DWhen wetlands are depicted:
• Must include acreage (or square footage) of wetland polygons
• Must identify each wetland polygon using an alphanumeric system
Version: December 2013 Page 8

Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑ When tributaries are depicted:
• Must include either a surveyed, approximate centerline of tributary with
approximate width of tributary OR surveyed Ordinary High Water Marks
(OHWM) of tributary
• Must identify each tributary using an alphanumeric system
• Must include linear footage of tributaries and calculated area (using approximate
widths or surveyed OHWM)
• Must include name of tributary (based on the most recent USGS topographic
map) or, when no USGS name exists, identify as "unnamed tributary"
all depicted WoUS (wetland polygons and tributary lines) must intersect or tie -to
surveyed project/property boundaries
❑ Must include the location of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment
reaches
❑ Must include, label accordingly, and depict acreage of all waters not currently
subject to the requirements of the CWA (e.g. "isolated wetlands", "non -
jurisdictional waters"). NOTE: An approved JD must be conducted in order to
make an official Corps determination that a particular waterbody or wetland is not
jurisdictional.
F1Must include and survey all existing conveyances (pipes, culverts, etc.) that
transport WoUS
Version: December 2013 Page 9

Jurisdictional Determination Request
(2) CERTIFICATION LANGUAGE
❑ When the entire actual Jurisdictional Boundary is depicted:
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plat accurately depicts the boundary of the jurisdiction
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the undersigned on this date.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, the determination of
Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five (5) years from
this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the appropriate Regional
Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official.
Title:
Date:
USACE Action ID No.:
❑ When uplands may be present within a depicted Jurisdictional Boundary:
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plat identifies all areas of waters of the United States
regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the
undersigned on this date. Unless there is change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years from this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the
appropriate Regional Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official:
Title:
Date:
USACE Action ID No.:
Version: December 2013 Page 10

Jurisdictional Determination Request
(3) GPS SURVEYS
For Surveys prepared using a Global Positioning System (GPS), the Survey must include
all of the above, as well as:
❑ be at sub -meter accuracy at each survey point.
EJinclude an accuracy verification:
One or more known points (property comer, monument) shall be located with the
GPS and cross-referenced with the existing traditional property survey (metes and
bounds).
EJinclude a brief description of the GPS equipment utilized.
Version: December 2013 Page 11

ATTACHMENTA
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raleiqh, NC 27605
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
Raleigh Regulatory Field Once
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC
County/parish/borough: Johnston
City: Clayton
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.565975 ON; Long. -76.392246
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Poplar creek
f TAVA
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non -wetland waters:
5032 linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Cowardin Class: R4 and R5
Stream Flow: Intermittent and Perennial
Wetlands: 20.66 acres.
Cowardin Class: PFO
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non -Tidal:
1

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
THAT
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:
❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
app nt/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad
❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
FEN
100 -year Floodplain Elevation is:
(National Geodectic 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
2

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 "maybe" 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:
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)
iH
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

Exhibit C
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
Site: Uzzle Site
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book Page County
1236 130 Johnston
Parcel ID Number: 168600-09-36449 16800-07-9981 and 168600-08-5325 in Johnston County
North Carolina as shown on Exhibit A.
Street Address: 150 Meta Dr., Clayton NC shown on Exhibit A.
Property Owner (please print): George C Uzzle and wife Linda Uzzle
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
EBX, Neuse I, LLC, Resource Environmental Solutions ("RES"), 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.
Property Owners(s) Address: P O Box 101
Wilsons Mills, NC 27593
Property Owner Telephone Number: I, 9 - 2 4[1- Y11 p
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
By:
Owner Authorized Signature)
lO ,Zli,h�

Waters_Name State Cowardin_Code HGM_Code Meas_Type Amount Units Waters_Type Latitude Longitude Local_Waterway
Wetland A NORTH CAROLINA PFO Area 20.93 ACRE DELINEATE 35.5881 -78.3952 Little Poplar Creek
Little Poplar Creek NORTH CAROLINA R5 Linear 5514 FOOT DELINEATE 35.5902 -78.3952 Little Poplar Creek
LP3 NORTH CAROLINA R4 Linear 142 FOOT DELINEATE 35.588 -78.3954 Little Poplar Creek
LP6 NORTH CAROLINA R4 Linear 378 FOOT DELINEATE 35.5864 -78.3945 Little Poplar Creek
VICINITY MAP
UZZLE MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Street Map Source:World Street Map ESRI ArcGIS Online³1 inch = 500 feet
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\projects\NC\Uzzle \MXD\JD_Figures\Uzzle_Vicinity.mxd - Date Save d: 1/27/2017
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
UZZLE MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\projects\NC\Uzzle \MXD\JD_Figures\Uzzle_Proje ct _Location.mxd - Date Save d: 1/27/2017
Street Map Source:USA Topo Maps ESRI ArcGIS Online³1 inch = 2,000 feet
PFO1A
PFO1A
PUBHh
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
NATIONAL WETLANDSINVENTORY MAP
UZZLE MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Digital Ortho Photo Source:World ImageryESRI ArcGIS OnlineNational Inventory Wetlands (NWI)Sourcehttp://www.fws.gov/³1 inch = 500 feet
LEGEND
NWI MAPPED WETLANDS
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\projects\NC\Uzzle \MXD\JD_Figures\Uzzle_NWI.mxd - Date Sav ed: 1/27/2017
AERIAL IMAGERY
UZZLE MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Digital Orthophoto Source: World ImageryESRI ArcGIS Online³1 inch = 500 feet
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\projects\NC\Uzzle \MXD\JD_Figures\Uzzle_Ae rial_Image ry.mxd - Date Sav ed: 1/27/2017
AmB
AmB
Wt
Ly
Ra
AmB
NoB
Ra
CeC
NoB
CeC
GoA
PaD
GoA
CeC
Tn
Tn Ra
NoA
UcB Tn
McB
Ly Tn
GoA
Ra
SOILS MAP
UZZLE MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Source:U.S. Department of AgricultureNatural ResourcesConservation ServiceSoil Survey Geographic(SSURGO)³1 inch = 500 feet
LEGENDAPPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITSHYDRIC SOILSOIL WITH HYDRIC INCLUSIONSNON-HYDRIC SOIL
Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\projects\NC\Uzzle \MXD\JD_Figures\Uzzle_Soils.mxd - Date Sav ed: 1/27/2017
Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
January 13, 2017
Cara Conder
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
(via electronic mail)
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Uzzle Site
150 Meta Drive, Clayton NC
Johnston County
Dear Ms. Conder,
ROY COOPER
col, <„
WILLIAM G. ROSS. JR.
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
On December 28, 2016, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a
request from Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES), for a site visit near the above -
referenced site in the 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201 of the Neuse River Basin to determine
the potential for riparian buffer mitigation and nutrient offset. On January 13, 2017, Ms. Merritt
performed a site assessment of the subject site, which is more accurately shown in the attached aerial
initialed by Ms. Merritt on January 13, 2017.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. The evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB)
out to 200' from each feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective
November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Feature
Classification
1Subiect
Riparian Land uses
0-200'
Buffer
Credit
2Nutrient Offset
Mitigation Type
to Buffer
Viable at 2,273
Determination w/in
Rule
lbs acre
riparian areas
Viable
UT1
Stream
No
Closed canopy of native hardwoods and
Yes
No
Enhancement site per
pines actively grazed by cattle
15A NCAC 026 .0295
(areas within pipeline easement not viable
(o)(6)
for mitigation credit)
UT2
Stream
Yes
Closed canopy of native hardwoods and
Yes
No
Enhancement site per
pines actively grazed by cattle
15A NCAC 02B.0295
(areas within pipeline easement not viable
(o)(6)
for mitigation credit)
Little
Stream
Yes
Closed canopy of native hardwoods and
Yes
No
Enhancement site per
Poplar
pines actively grazed by cattle
15A NCAC 02B .0295
Creek
(areas within pipeline easement not viable
(o)(6)
for mitigation credit)
'Subjectivity calls for the streams were determined by DWR on January 13, 2017 using the 1:24,000 scale quadrangle
topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by the NRCS.
2 NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with
Riparian Buffer Establishment
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Uzzle Site (RES)
January 13, 2017
A map showing the project site and the features was provided by RES and was initialed by Ms.
Merritt on January 13, 2017. This letter should be provided in all future stream, wetland or buffer
mitigation plans for this Site.
This letter does not constitute an approval of this site to generate mitigation credits. Pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to DWR for written
approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240, a proposal regarding a proposed nutrient load -reducing measure
shall be submitted to DWR for approval prior to any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or
surface waters.
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset according to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
1
Karen Higgins, Super,
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
KAH/km
Attachments: Site Aerial prepared by RES
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
212

Figure 2.
Current Conditions Map
Uzzle Mitigation Site
0 350 700 res
Feet
1 in. = 700 ft. 0

DP-1
05-Jan-17
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
City/County:
State:
, or Hydrology
, or Hydrology
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Long.:
Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Soil Map Unit Name:
Datum:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
NWI classification:
Remarks:
R
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Are Vegetation
Section, Township, Range: S
significantly disturbed?
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
, Soil
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
% /
, Soil
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0US Army Corps of Engineers
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Uzzle Mitigation Site Johnston
Resource Environmental Solutions NC
J. Schmid, R. Medric, M. DeAngelo
Hillside
LRR P 35.5877 -78.3958 NAD83
Wehadkee loam Upland
Slope:5.0Local relief (concave, convex, none):°2.9convex
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Use scientific names of plants.
40
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
380.0%FAC
20.0%FACU
60.0%
0.0%
50.0%
50
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
75 225
30 120
0
0 0
0.0%
105 345
0.0%
3.286
50.0%FACU
50.0%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
Indicator
Status
= Total Cover
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) -
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
1
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25
10
0
0
71.4%FAC
28.6%FAC
0.0%
35
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%Definition of Vegetation Strata:
DP-1Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)(Plot size:30
50% of Total Cover:0 20% of Total Cover:0
50% of Total Cover:10 20% of Total Cover:4
50% of Total Cover:0 20% of Total Cover:0
50% of Total Cover:17.5 20% of Total Cover:7
0 0.0%
50% of Total Cover:25 20% of Total Cover:10
0 0.0%
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1m) tall.
Pinus taeda
(Plot size:30
Quercus alba
(Plot size:30
Ilex opaca
Quercus nigra
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:30
Mitchella repens
Eupatorium capillifolium
DP-1SOILSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
1
1
3
3
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0-8
8-12
12-18
10YR
10YR
10YR 4/4
2/1
2/2 100
100
100
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Sandy Loam
DP-2
05-Jan-17
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
City/County:
State:
, or Hydrology
, or Hydrology
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Long.:
Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Soil Map Unit Name:
Datum:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
NWI classification:
Remarks:
R
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Are Vegetation
Section, Township, Range: S
significantly disturbed?
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
, Soil
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
% /
, Soil
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0US Army Corps of Engineers
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Uzzle Mitigation Site Johnston
Resource Environmental Solutions NC
J. Schmid, R. Medric, M. DeAngelo
Toeslope
LRR P 35.5878 -78.3957 NAD83
Wehadkee loam PFO
Slope:0.0Local relief (concave, convex, none):°0.0

concave
3
0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Use scientific names of plants.
45
15
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
569.2%FAC
23.1%FAC
57.7%FACU
0.0%
100.0%
65
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
85 255
5 20
0
0 0
0.0%
90 275
0.0%
3.056
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
10
0 0.0%
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
Indicator
Status
= Total Cover
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) -
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
1
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0
10
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10
5
0
0
66.7%FAC
33.3%FAC
0.0%
15
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%Definition of Vegetation Strata:
DP-2Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)(Plot size:30
50% of Total Cover:5 20% of Total Cover:2
50% of Total Cover:0 20% of Total Cover:0
50% of Total Cover:0 20% of Total Cover:0
50% of Total Cover:7.5 20% of Total Cover:3
0 0.0%
50% of Total Cover:32.5 20% of Total Cover:13
0 0.0%
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1m) tall.
Pinus taeda
(Plot size:30
Acer rubrum
Liriodendron tulipifera
(Plot size:30
Quercus nigra
Ilex opaca
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:30
Smilax rotundifolia
DP-2SOILSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
1
1
3
3
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0-6
6-10
10-18
10YR
10YR
10YR 5/1
4/1
2/1 100
70
55
10YR
10YR
4/4
4/6
30
45
C
C
M
M
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Sandy Loam
DP-3
05-Jan-17
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
City/County:
State:
, or Hydrology
, or Hydrology
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Long.:
Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Soil Map Unit Name:
Datum:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
NWI classification:
Remarks:
R
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Are Vegetation
Section, Township, Range: S
significantly disturbed?
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
, Soil
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
% /
, Soil
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0US Army Corps of Engineers
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Uzzle Mitigation Site Johnston
Resource Environmental Solutions NC
J. Schmid, R. Medric, M. DeAngelo
Toeslope
LRR P 35.5826 -78.3903 NAD83
Wehadkee loam PFO
Slope:0.0Local relief (concave, convex, none):°0.0

concave
3
0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Use scientific names of plants.
35
15
10
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
446.7%FAC
20.0%FAC
413.3%FACU
13.3%FAC
100.0%
75
6.7%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
140 420
10 40
0
0 0
0.0%
150 460
0.0%
3.067
100.0%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
70
0.0%
0.0%
5
0 0.0%
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
Indicator
Status
= Total Cover
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) -
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
1
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0
5
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%Definition of Vegetation Strata:
DP-3Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)(Plot size:30
50% of Total Cover:2.5 20% of Total Cover:1
50% of Total Cover:35 20% of Total Cover:14
50% of Total Cover:0 20% of Total Cover:0
50% of Total Cover:0 20% of Total Cover:0
0 0.0%
50% of Total Cover:37.5 20% of Total Cover:15
0 0.0%
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1m) tall.
Acer rubrum
(Plot size:30
Liquidambar styraciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera
Ilex opaca
Pinus taeda
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:30
Microstegium vimineum
Smilax rotundifolia
DP-3SOILSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
1
1
3
3
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0-8
8-18
10YR
10YR 6/2
3/2 100
70 10YR 5/6 30 C M
Silty Clay Loam
Sandy Clay Loam
DP-4
05-Jan-17
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
City/County:
State:
, or Hydrology
, or Hydrology
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Long.:
Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Soil Map Unit Name:
Datum:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
NWI classification:
Remarks:
R
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Are Vegetation
Section, Township, Range: S
significantly disturbed?
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
, Soil
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
% /
, Soil
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0US Army Corps of Engineers
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Uzzle Mitigation Site Johnston
Resource Environmental Solutions NC
J. Schmid, R. Medric, M. DeAngelo
Upland Island
LRR P 35.5828 -78.3903 NAD83
Wehadkee loam Upland
Slope:0.0Local relief (concave, convex, none):°0.0

convex
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Use scientific names of plants.
50
20
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
471.4%FAC
28.6%FACU
50.0%
0.0%
80.0%
70
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
100.0%FAC
0 0
0.0%
70 210
20 80
5
0 0
0.0%
90 290
0.0%
3.222
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
5
0 0.0%
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
Indicator
Status
= Total Cover
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) -
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
1
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0
5
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10
0
0
0
100.0%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
10
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%Definition of Vegetation Strata:
DP-4Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)(Plot size:
50% of Total Cover:2.5 20% of Total Cover:1
50% of Total Cover:0 20% of Total Cover:0
50% of Total Cover:2.5 20% of Total Cover:1
50% of Total Cover:5 20% of Total Cover:2
0 0.0%
50% of Total Cover:35 20% of Total Cover:14
0 0.0%
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1m) tall.
Pinus taeda
(Plot size:30
Liriodendron tulipifera
(Plot size:30
Liquidambar styraciflua
(Plot size:30
Rubus argutus
(Plot size:30
Vitis rotundifolia
DP-4SOILSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
1
1
3
3
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0-2
2-8
8-18
10YR
10YR
10YR 6/4
4/3
3/2 100
100
100
Silt Loam
Sandy Loam
Sandy Loam
MDP-2MDP-3``aDP-4``aDP-1Little Poplar Creek
LP6LP3 ©0 300150
Feet
REFERENCE
1) Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Z15N.
2) Map Projection is NAD_1983_StatePlane_
North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Date: 01/27/2017 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Uzzle\MXD\JD_Figures\Uzzle_WOUS11x17 - REVISED.mxdLegend
Study Area
M!Wetland Datapoint
"))Upland Datapoint
Stream s
Wetland Within
Easement (20.93 ac)
Wetland Area
Outside of Easment
(6.96 ac)
Potential Wetland or Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
1 in = 300 feet
Revised: 11/05/2018
Appendix F
Invasive Species Plan
INVASIVE SPECIES PLAN
During existing site conditions analysis, RES will perform an invasive species survey as part of the existing
vegetation community survey within the Site easement. Common species that personnel will be trained to
identify upon encountering include, but are not limited to, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), mimosa tree (Albizia julibrissin), kudzu
(Pueraria spp.), oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica),
autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach),
Porcelain-berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata), English ivy (Hedera helix), and Chinese wisteria (Wisteria
sinensis).
If required to meet monitoring standards, invasive species within the project easement will be identified
and treated to promote the growth and establishment of native species that match the target habitat type of
the restoration project. Treatment of invasive species may include mechanical removal via cutting and/or
mowing or a combination of mechanical removal and herbicide application to minimize presence in the
project easement. All herbicide application will be conducted in accordance with the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) rules and regulations by trained and
licensed applicators. If areas of invasive species exist within the easement, they will be monitored yearly
as part of the monitoring protocol, and treated if necessary. If required, problem areas will continue to be
treated until the project easement shows overall trending towards meeting all monitoring requirements.
Appendix G
Regulatory Agency Scoping Letters
'United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
.July 121.2018
Bob White
Resource Environmental Solutions, LC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 2760
Re: Uzzle Stream Mitigation — Johnston County, NC
Dear Mr. White:
This letter is to inform you that the Service has established an on-li.n% project planning and
consultation process which assists developers and consultants in determining whether a
federally -listed species or designated critical. habitat may be affected by a proposed project. For
fiture projects; please visit the Raleigh -Field Offic;e`s project planning ,��ebsite at
haps:%!iti v;:f�Ns: ori/rzcl�i hita .l_t�n . If you are only searching fora list of species that may be
present in the project's Action Area., then yoit may use the Service's Information, Platuaing, and
Consultation System (IPaC) website to detennine if any listed, proposed, or candidate species
may be present in the Action Area and generate a species list. The IPaC website may be viewed
at ht_ tps://ecos.fws.Lov/i ac/. The IPaC web site contains a complete and frequently updated list
of all endangered and threatened species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), a list of federal .species of concern' that
are known to occur in each county in North Carolina, and other resources.
,a. t . t , .... • _ i tet,: ; :+ a k r
JeCla()Tl 7 (31 the Act ieCjl iris that iii' 1GLi rC!.i agt ii:rii or tlicir &isi i.C"cd nkon rk.
cdcrw
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized.,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and. in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species 'list, information on the
Species' life histories anal habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
t .The term "federal species of concern." refers to those speer-? which the Service believes rnight be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the spacies will cventaallybe pmposed for listing as a federally endangeivil or threatener;
species. However, we recommend that all practicable ineasur(:s be takers To avoid or minirnize adverse irnf:acts to
federal species ofconcern.

evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
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
Environmental 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 the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information a\ailable. it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to ad\ ersely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatcned 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 measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby 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 Coni nission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
I

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 Emily Wells of this office
at [phone] ext. 25.
Sincerely,
�( Pete n'amin
Field Supervisor

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Maltz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
November 28, 2016
John Thomas
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Street, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Add Uzzle Mitigation Site to the New -Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank, SAW 2016-01973,
Johnston County, ER 16-2082
Dear Mr. Thomas:
We have received a public notice 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.reviewkncdcr.eov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos v
Location -109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 2760 I Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699A617 Telephone/Rax:[phone]/807-6599

fires
June 11, 2018
Samantha Dailey
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Ms. Dailey:
302 Jefferson St. Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
RES is pleased to submit the Draft Mitigation Plan for the Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site. The
attached plan includes several important modifications from the Instrument Modification. In total
the Draft Mitigation Plan presents 3,118 stream credits (versus 4,547 in the Instrument
Modification). These modifications are based on an IRT site visit with Todd Tugwell and Mac
Haupt on March 1s', 2016, subsequent regulatory guidance, IRT comments on other recent RES
submittals, NCDWR coordination, and changes from design inputs. The alterations are detailed
below:
• All stream origins in the project have been verified by NCDWR and accurately mapped.
• LP -1 Restoration reach is now 640 If.
• LP -2 Enhancement II reach is 1,619 If.
• LP -3 Enhancement II reach is now 200 If.
• LP -4 Enhancement II reach is now 599 If.
• LP -5 Enhancement II reach is now 2,258 If.
• LP -6 Enhancement II reach is now 387 If.
• LP -7 Enhancement II reach is now 319 If.
• Total project linear feet of stream mitigation is 5,982 If.
We look forward to discussing this project with you in more detail as your review progresses.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
RES
Bob hite, Project Manager
cc: North Carolina IRT
Fes. us