20120080 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20110930

UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE
Chatham County, NC
DENR Contract No. 003268
Mitigation Plan
September 2011
Prepared for:
NCDENR, EEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Ebb-
Raleigh, NC
1 fem
LI loll nlent
I`R4GRM1M
27699-1652

Prepared by:
k�w
WILDLANDS
E N GI NE E P.1 NG
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5605 Chapel Hill Road
Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
P — 919-851-9986
F — 919-851-9987
Attn : Jeff Keaton, P.E.

UNDERWOOD MITIGATION SITE
Mitigation Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................... i
1.0
Project Site Identification and Location.............................................................
1
1.1
Directions to Project Site..................................................................................
1
1.2
USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations..........
1
1.3
Project Components and Structure.................................................................
2
2.0
Watershed Characterization.................................................................................
3
2.1
Drainage Area, Project Area, and Easement Acreage .................................
3
2.2
Surface Water Classification and Water Quality ...........................................
4
2.3
Physiography, Geology, and Soils...................................................................
5
2.4
Historical Land Use and Development Trends ..............................................
6
2.5
Watershed Planning..........................................................................................
6
2.6
Endangered and Threatened Species.............................................................
7
2.6.1
Site Evaluation Methodology.....................................................................
7
2.6.2
Threatened and Endangered Species Descriptions ...............................
7
2.6.3
Biological Conclusion..................................................................................
8
2.6.4
Federal Designated Critical Habitat...........................................................
8
2.6.5
USFWS Concurrence....................................................................................
9
2.7
Cultural Resources.............................................................................................
9
2.7.1
Site Evaluation Methodology.....................................................................
9
2.7.2
SHPO/THPO Concurrence..........................................................................
9
2.8
Physical Constraints.........................................................................................
10
2.8.1
Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities .......................................
10
2.8.2
Site Access.................................................................................................
10
2.8.3
FEMA and Hydrologic Trespass..............................................................
10
3.0
Project Site Streams — Existing Conditions......................................................
10
3.1
Existing Conditions Survey.............................................................................
10
3.2
Channel Classification.....................................................................................
12
3.3
Valley Classification.........................................................................................
20
3.4
Discharge..........................................................................................................
20
3.5
Channel Morphology.......................................................................................
22
3.6
Channel Evolution............................................................................................22
3.7
Channel Stability Assessment........................................................................
23
3.8
Bankfull Verification.........................................................................................
24
3.9
Vegetation Community Types Descriptions .................................................
25
4.0
Reference Streams..............................................................................................
25
4.1
Reference Streams Channel Morphology and Classification .....................
26
4.2
Reference Streams Vegetation Community Types Descriptions ..............
27
5.0
Project Site Wetlands — Existing Conditions....................................................
28
5.1
Jurisdictional Wetlands...................................................................................
28

5.2 Hydrological Characterization........................................................................
28
5.2.1 Groundwater Modeling........................................................................................
28
5.2.1.1 Data Collection..................................................................................................
28
5.2.1.3 Proposed Conditions Model Setup..................................................................
29
5.2.1.4 Modeling Results and Conclusions.................................................................
30
5.2.2 Surface Water Modeling at Restoration Site .........................................
30
5.2.3 Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site .................................................
30
5.3 Soil Characterization........................................................................................
32
5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification.........................................................................
33
5.3.1.1 RWI.....................................................................................................................
33
5.3.1.2 RW2....................................................................................................................
33
5.3.1.3 NRWI..................................................................................................................
33
5.3.1.4 RW3.....................................................................................................................
34
5.3.1.5 NR W2 ..................................................................................................................
34
5.3.1.4 RW4.....................................................................................................................
34
5.3.2 Profile Description.......................................................................................
34
5.3.3 Hydraulic Conductivity.............................................................................
35
5.4 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions and Disturbance History .....
36
6.0 Reference Wetland..............................................................................................
36
6.1 Hydrological Characterization........................................................................
36
6.2 Soil Characterization and Taxonomic Classification ...................................
36
6.3 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions and Disturbance History .....
36
7.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan................................................................................
37
7.1 Overarching Goals of Mitigation Plans..........................................................
37
7.2 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives.......................................................
38
7.2.1 Designed Channel Classification.............................................................
39
7.2.2 Target Buffer Communities........................................................................
48
7.3 Stream Project and Design Justification......................................................
48
7.3.1 Sediment Transport Analysis..................................................................
49
7.3.2 HEC -RAS Analysis........................................................................................
56
7.4 Site Construction..............................................................................................
56
7.4.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation and Other Project Related
Construction............................................................................................................
57
7.4.2 Natural Plant Community Restoration......................................................
58
8.0 Monitoring Plan....................................................................................................
59
8.1 Streams.............................................................................................................
60
8.1.1 Dimension..................................................................................................
60
8.1.2 Pattern and Profile....................................................................................
60
8.1.3 Photo Documentation..............................................................................
60
8.1.4 Substrate....................................................................................................60
8.1.5 Bankfull Events..........................................................................................
61
8.2 Vegetation.........................................................................................................61
8.3 Wetlands...........................................................................................................61
8.4 Schedule............................................................................................................61

9.0 Performance Criteria...........................................................................................
62
9.1 Streams.............................................................................................................62
9.1.1 Dimension..................................................................................................
62
9.1.2 Pattern and Profile....................................................................................
62
9.1.3 Photo Documentation..............................................................................
63
9.1.4 Substrate....................................................................................................63
9.1.5 Bankfull Events..........................................................................................
63
9.2 Vegetation.........................................................................................................63
9.3 Wetlands...........................................................................................................63
10.0 Site Protection and Adaptive Management Strategy ..................................
63
11.0 References........................................................................................................
64
TABLES
Table ES. 1. Project Goals and Objectives
Table ES.2.a Summary of Mitigation Levels
Table ES.2.b Summary of Mitigation Levels
Table 1a. Project Components
Table 1b. Summary of Mitigation Levels
Table 2. Drainage Areas
Table 3. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 4. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Chatham County, NC
Table 5a. Project Attributes
Table 5b. Mitigation Component Attributes
Table 6 Existing Stream Conditions
Table 7. Summary of Stream Valley Characteristics
Table 8 Summary of Design Discharge Analysis
Table 9. Existing Conditions Channel Stability Assessment Results
Table 10. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Table 11 Summary Water Balance for Groundwater Gauges
Table 12. Wetland Area Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 13 Design Morphologic Parameters
Table 14. Summary of Shear Stress in Design Reaches by Bed Feature Type
Table 15. Summary of Dimensionless Critical Shear Stress Calculations
Table 16. Summary of SF3 Bedload Data
Table 17. Summary of SF3 Bedload Transport Equation Results
Table 18. Summary of SF3 Transport Capacity Analysis
Table 19 Permanent Riparian Herbaceous Seed Mix
Table 20. Permanent Wetland Herbaceous Seed Mix
Table 21. Riparian Woody Vegetation
Table 22. Project Activity and Reporting Schedule
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Watershed Map

Figure 3
Site Map
Figure 4
Soils Map
Figure 5
FEMA Flood Map
Figure 6
Hydrologic Features Map
Figure 7
Regional Curves
Figure 8
Reference Site Vicinity Map
Figure 9
Soil Borings — Upstream Area
Figure 10
Soil Borings — Downstream Area
Figure 11
Stream And Wetland Design — Upstream Area
Figure 12
Stream and Wetland Design — Downstream Area
Figure 13
Grading Plan — Upstream Area
Figure 14
Grading Plan — Downstream Area
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2 Project Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms and
Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix 3 Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4 Soil Boring Data
Appendix 5 Resource Agency Correspondence
Appendix 6 Historic Aerial Photographs
Appendix 7 Existing Morphologic Survey Data
Appendix 8 Drainmod Calibration Plots
Appendix 9 Floodplain Checklist

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Underwood Mitigation Project site is located in northwestern Chatham County
approximately 5 miles northeast of Siler City. The project will consist of a combination
of restoration and enhancement of streams and non -riparian wetlands and restoration and
creation of riparian wetlands. Restoration is proposed for three segments of the South
Fork of Cane Creek and portions of three tributaries totaling 4,602 linear feet (LF) of
stream restoration. Enhancement I is proposed for 1,182 LF of two unnamed tributaries
of the South Fork referred to as UT2 SF4A and a short section of South Fork.
Enhancement II is proposed for 3,405 LF of stream including a section of the South Fork
called SF2 and the upstream portion of reach SF3 along with portions of tributaries UTI,
UT 1 A and UT 1 B. A total of 13.76 acres of riparian wetlands will be restored and created
adjacent to the streams and 1.54 acres of non -riparian wetlands will be restored and
enhanced. A small unnamed tributary to the South Fork (SF1A) will be reconstructed to
provide a stable outlet for an existing pond and improve adjacent wetland hydrology.
However, no mitigation credit will be claimed for this channel.
The project is located within the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) targeted watershed for the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit
03030002050050 and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Subbasin 03-
06-04. The proposed project will provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape
Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the Underwood Site
project area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial
habitat have more far-reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality and
ecological processes are outlined below in Table ES.I as project goals.
Table ES.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Underwood Mitigation Proiect
Primary Goals Measured
Project goal
How project will seek to reach goal
Restore and stabilize
Riffle cross sections of the restoration and enhancement reaches will
stream dimensions
be constructed to remain stable and will show little change in bank -full
area maximum depth ratio and width -to -depth ratio over time.
Restore and stabilize
The project will be constructed so that the bedform features of the
stream pattern and
restoration reaches will remain stable overtime. This will include
profile
riffles that remain steeper and shallower than the pools and pools
that are deep with flat water surface slopes. The relative percentage
of riffles and pools will not change significantly over time. Banks will
be constructed so that bank height ratios will remain very near to 1.0
for nearly all of the restoration reaches.
Establish proper
Stream substrate will remain coarse in the riffles and finer in the
substrate
pools.
distribution
throughout stream
Establish wetland
A free groundwater surface will be present within 12 inches of the
hydroloff for
Underwood Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page i

Primary Goals Measured
restored and created
ground surface for a minimum of 6.5 percent of the growing season
wetlands
measured on consecutive days under typical precipitation conditions.
Restore native
Native vegetation appropriate for the wetland and riparian buffer
vegetation
zones on the site will be planted throughout. The planted trees will
throughout
become well established and survival criteria will be met.
wetlands and
s
V
riparian buffers
o+
c
Secondary Goals Unmeasured
Project goal
How project will seek to reach goal
Improve aquatic and
Channel form will include riffle and pool sequences, gravel and cobble
benthic habitat
zones of macroinvertebrate habitat and deep pool habitat for fish.
to J M
O `� `�
Introduction of large woody debris, rock structures, root wads, and
*, O
M
native stream bank vegetation will substantially increase habitat
Q V
value.
Decrease nutrient
Livestock will be fenced out of the stream and riparian zone. Nutrient
loads
input will be absorbed on-site by filtering flood flows through restored
floodplain areas and wetlands, where flood flows can disperse
through native vegetation and be captured in wetlands. Increased
o
surface water residency time will provide contact treatment time and
i
roundwater recharge potential.
Reduce sediment,
Sediment input from eroding stream banks will be reduced by
bacteria, and other
installing bioengineering and in -stream structures while creating a
pollutant inputs
stable channel form using geomorphic design principles. Pollutants
J
from off-site sources will be captured by deposition on restored
floodplain areas where native vegetation will slow overland flow
velocities. Bacteria pollution from livestock will be reduced.
Decrease water
Gravel bed channel designs will incorporate restored riffle sequences
temperature and
where distinct points of re -aeration can occur will allow for oxygen
increase dissolved
levels to be maintained in the perennial reaches. Deep pool zones
oxygen
will lower temperature, helping to maintain dissolved oxygen
concentrations
concentrations. The establishment and maintenance of riparian
buffers will create long-term shading of the channel flow to minimize
SH
thermal heating.
Create appropriate
Adjacent buffer areas will be restored by removing invasive
terrestrial habitat
vegetation and planting native vegetation. These areas will be
1:1
allowed to receive more regular inundating flows. Riparian wetland
2.0
areas will be restored and enhanced to provide wetland habitat.
Table ES.2.a Project Components
Underwood Mitigation Project
t
Lo
o
Vl
o
...-.
IM LL
=
o
s
V
Mr. r.
y U. V
o+
c
_
o
_ ..
O g
M
L
= J Q
}, �
*+ y
M>O
to
to J M
O `� `�
'_
O
*, O
M
M
Q V
�
°1�3
a'J
0.
c� W
o,M
a�'v`
o
W =a
i
a
L °'L
a
o
a
J
JQiC
CO
Streams
Priority
100+00 to
SH
773
R
1
878
108+78
1:1
878
2.0
Underwood Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page ii

Underwood Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page iii
IM LL
O
v
oLL
c
oo
g(A
L
= J Q
++ 47
fC
Vl J f0
=
m- O
.k
Im
J
a
c4j a
` °1 L
�m
= �
°1�3
Iri 45
o
W
Q
a
J
300+00 to
SF2
302
E II
N/A
302
303+02
2.5:1
121
0.7
419+84 to
SF3
152
E I
N/A
153
421+37
1.5:1
102
0.35
400+00 to
404+87,
405+08 to
SF3
532
E II
N/A
513
405+34
2.5:1
205
1.2
Priority
405+34 to
SF3
1,499
R
1
1,450
419+84
1:1
1,450
3.3
Priority
800+00 to
SF4
1,450
R
1
1,424
814+24
1:1
1,424
3.3
Priority
906+09 to
SF4A
0
R
1
259
908+68
1:1
259
0.6
900+00 to
SF4A
609
E I
N/A
609
906+09
2.5:1
406
1.4
500+00 to
509+73,
510+30 to
UTI
1,463
E II
N/A
1,406
514+63
2.5:1
572
3.3
Priority
514+63 to
UTI
452
R
1
591
520+54
1:1
591
1.2
700+00 to
UT1A
524
E II
N/A
524
705+24
2.5:1
210
1.2
600+00 to
UT113
660
E II
N/A
660
606+60
2.5:1
264
1.5
UT2
421
E I
N/A
421
0+00 to 4+21
1.5:1
281
1.0
Total
8,837
---
---
9,189
---
---
6,752
21.1
Wetlands
RW1
1.25
R
N/A
1.25
N/A
1:1
1.3
N/A
RW2
0.45
C
N/A
0.45
N/A
3:1
0.2
N/A
RW2
0.5
R
N/A
0.5
N/A
1:1
0.5
N/A
RW3
2.63
C
N/A
2.63
N/A
3:1
0.9
N/A
RW3
1.33
R
N/A
1.33
N/A
1:1
1.3
N/A
RW4
3.95
C
N/A
3.95
N/A
3:1
1.3
N/A
RW4
3.65
R
N/A
3.65
N/A
1:1
3.7
N/A
NRW1
1.2
R
N/A
1.2
N/A
1:1
1.2
N/A
NRW2
0.34
E
N/A
0.34
N/A
2:1
0.17
Total
15.3
---
N/A
15.3
---
---
10.4
---
Underwood Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page iii

Table ES.2.b Summary of Mitigation
Underwood Mitioation Proiect
c
c
.%
LL
E�
v,
_ �
MCn
•L
_
MV
c
M
L.
c
M
MV►
o,4)
M
LZ
g
M a)
M="
L
Mi
a M W
;R= L.
a
-i
3�
3
03-
03
J
Z
Z
Restoration (R)
4,602
4,602
6.7
6.7
1.2
1.2
Enhancement (E)
4,588
2,151
0.0
0.0
0.34
0.2
Preservation (P)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Creation (C)
N/A
N/A
7.03
2.3
N/A
N/A
TOTAL
9,190
6,753
13.8
9.1
1.5
1.4
This document is consistent with the requirements of the 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).
Specifically the document addresses the following requirements of the federal rule:
(2) Objectives. A description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be
provided, the method of compensation (i.e., restoration, establishment,
enhancement, and/or preservation), and the manner in which the resource
functions of the compensatory mitigation project will address the needs of the
watershed, Ecoregion, physiographic province, or other geographic area of
interest.
(3) Site selection. A description of the factors considered during the site selection
process. This should include consideration of watershed needs, onsite alternatives
where applicable, and the practicability of accomplishing ecologically self-
sustaining aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or
preservation at the compensatory mitigation project site. (See §332.3(d))
(4) Site protection instrument. A description of the legal arrangements and
instrument, including site ownership, that will be used to ensure the long-term
protection of the compensatory mitigation project site (see §332.7(a)).
(5) Baseline information. A description of the ecological characteristics of the
proposed compensatory mitigation project site and, in the case of an application
for a DA permit, the impact site. This may include descriptions of historic and
existing plant communities, historic and existing hydrology, soil conditions, a
map showing the locations of the impact and mitigation site (s) or the geographic
coordinates for those sites (s), and other site characteristics appropriate to the type
of resource proposed as compensations. The baseline information should also
include a delineation of waters of the United States on the proposed compensatory
mitigation project site. A prospective permittee planning to secure credits from
an approved mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program only needs to provide baseline
information about the impact site, not the mitigation bank or in -lieu fee project
site.
Underwood Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page iv

(6) Determination of credits. A description of the number of credits to be provided,
including a brief explanation of the rationale for this determination (see
§332.3(f)).
(7) Mitigation work plan. Detailed written specifications and work descriptions for
the compensatory mitigation project; construction methods, timing, and sequence;
source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and uplands; methods
for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant
species; the proposed grading plan, including elevations and slopes of the
substrate; soil management; and erosion control measures. For stream
compensatory mitigation projects, the mitigation work plan may also include
other relevant information, such as plan form geometry, channel form (e.g. typical
channel cross sections), watershed size, design discharge, and riparian area
plantings.
(8) Maintenance plan. A description and schedule of maintenance requirements to
ensure the continued viability of the resource once initial construction is
completed.
(9) Performance standards. Ecologically -based standards that will be used to
determine whether the compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives
(See §332.5).
(10) Monitoring requirements. A description of parameters to be monitored in order
to determine if the compensatory mitigation project is on track to meet
performance standards and if adaptive management is needed. A schedule for
monitoring and reporting on monitoring results to the district engineer must be
included. (See §332.6)
(11) Long-term management plan. A description of how the compensatory mitigation
project will be managed after performance standards have been achieved to
ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource, including long-term financing
mechanisms and the party responsible for long-term management. (See
§332.7(d))
(12) Adaptive management plan. A management strategy to address unforeseen
changes in site conditions or other components of the compensatory mitigation
project, including the party or parties responsible for implementing adaptive
management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide decisions for
management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide decisions for
revising compensatory mitigation plans and implementing measures to address
both foreseeable and unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect
compensatory mitigation success. (See §332.7(c))
(13) Financial assurances. A description of financial assurances that will be
provided and how they are sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the
compensatory mitigation project will be successfully completed, in accordance
with its performance standards (See §332.3(n))
Underwood Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page v

1.0 Project Site Identification and Location
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) proposes to restore and enhance
9,214 linear feet (LF) of stream, restore and create 13.76 acres of riparian wetlands, and restore
and enhance 1.54 acres of non -riparian wetlands in Chatham County, NC. The mitigation site
includes two separate areas referred to as the Upstream Area and the Downstream Area which
are approximately two miles apart but within the same watershed (Figure 1). The streams
proposed for restoration and enhancement include South Fork Cane Creek (South Fork) and five
unnamed tributaries: UTI, UT1A, UT1B, UT2, and SF4A. South Fork is broken into 4 reaches
(SF1, SF2, S173, & S174) based on geographic separation. A small tributary (SF1A) will be
reconstructed to stabilize the channel and aid in wetland creation but no credit will be claimed
for this reach. The project also includes restoration and enhancement of degraded wetlands
located adjacent to South Fork and three of the unnamed tributaries. The project streams
ultimately flow into the Haw River which is part of the Cape Fear River Basin. Photographs of
the project site are included in Appendix 1.
As a result of the proposed restoration activities, total stream length within the project area will
be increased from approximately 8,622 LF to 9,189 LF. The proposed stream restoration designs
will primarily be a Priority 1 approach and the stream types for the restored streams will be
similar to E or C channels under the Rosgen classification system. Stream enhancements will
include restoring riparian buffer and performing bed and bank improvements as needed and, in
some cases include raising the channel bed. The wetland restoration and enhancement designs
will be based on reference conditions and will restore and enhance Piedmont bottomland
hardwood forest. Based on the proposed mitigation effort, the project will result in 6,752 stream
mitigation units (SMUs), 9.07 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMUs), and 1.37 non -riparian
WMUs. The mitigation activities are summarized in Tables la and lb.
1.1 Directions to Project Site
The two locations of the proposed stream and wetland mitigation sites are located in western
Chatham County along Clyde Underwood Road just west of Planfield Church Road (Upstream
Area) and southwest of Moon Lindley Road between Johnny Lindley Road and Bob Clark Road
(Downstream Area) north of Siler City, North Carolina (Figure 1). The sites are currently used
for agriculture and are within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030002).
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
South Fork Cane Creek and its tributaries are located within North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) Subbasin 03-06-04 of the Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit
03030002) as shown in Figure 1. Subbasin 03-06-04 includes the Haw River and the Haw River
arm of Jordan Lake. The targeted local watershed within the Cape Fear River Basin is
hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002050050. South Fork flows north into Alamance County
where it joins Cane Creek. Cane Creek flows into the Haw River from the south at the
Alamance -Orange County line. It should not be confused with the Cane Creek that flows into a
water supply reservoir in Orange County and then joins the Hall from the north near the Orange -
Alamance County Line.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 1
Draft Mitigation Plan

The NCDWQ assigns best usage classifications to State Waters that reflect water quality
conditions and potential resource usage. The South Fork of Cane Creek (NCDWQ AU No. 16-
28-5) is the main stream of the project and has been classified as Class WS -V; NSW waters.
Class WS -V waters are water supplies which are generally upstream and draining to Class
1.3 Project Components and Structure
Table 1a. Project Components
Underwood Mitigation Project
to
o
v►
�
O
at L U
O
v
47 U.
O
O
O
= J Q
a:+
to
(AJ to
=
.k
4)a
c
L
�+M
p1�3
�M
O
W Im
a
IM
o
m
a
J
Streams
Priority
100+00 to
SF1
773
R
1
878
108+78
1:1
878
2.0
300+00 to
SF2
302
E II
N/A
302
303+02
2.5:1
121
0.7
419+84 to
SF3
152
E I
N/A
153
421+37
1.5:1
102
1.2
400+00 to
404+87,
405+08 to
SH
532
E II
N/A
513
405+34
2.5:1
205
3.3
Priority
405+34 to
SF3
1,499
R
1
1,450
419+84
1:1
1,450
3.3
Priority
800+00 to
SF4
1,450
R
1
1,424
814+24
1:1
1,424
0.6
Priority
906+09 to
SF4A
0
R
1
259
908+68
1:1
259
1.4
900+00 to
SF4A
609
E I
N/A
609
906+09
2.5:1
406
3.3
500+00 to
509+73,
510+30 to
UT1
1,463
E II
N/A
1,406
514+63
2.5:1
562
1.4
Priority
514+63 to
UT1
452
R
1
591
520+54
1:1
591
1.2
700+00 to
UT1A
524
E II
N/A
524
705+24
2.5:1
210
1.5
600+00 to
UT113
660
E II
N/A
660
606+60
2.5:1
264
1.0
200+00 to
UT2
421
E I
N/A
421
204+21
1.5:1
281
20.8
Total
8,837
---
---
9 215
---
---
6 763
41.6
Wetlands
RW1
1.25
R
N/A
1.25
N/A
1:1
1.3
N/A
RW2
0.45
C
N/A
0.45
N/A
3:1
0.2
N/A
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 2
Draft Mitigation Plan

Table 1b. Summary of Mitigation
Underwood Mitiaation Proiect
..
LL
�
_
.aM
_
.a.�
&a a)
�+
...-.
CMLLU
=
O
s
v
•a ....
oLL
a+
=
c
o
C
og (A
M
L
�3
= J Q
++ 47
fC
Vl J f0
=
O
Z
Z
•k 4J ami
°1-
a
°m
o Q
+�
rd ' d
°1 5
Iri
a� M
w
O
W Im
0.0
Q
L °1 L
a
0.2
i
i o
m
a
J
N/A
N/A
JQ
N/A
N/A
7.03
2.3
RW2
0.5
R
N/A
0.5
N/A
1:1
0.5
N/A
RW3
2.63
C
N/A
2.63
N/A
3:1
0.9
N/A
RW3
1.33
R
N/A
1.33
N/A
1:1
1.3
N/A
RW4
3.95
C
N/A
3.95
N/A
3:1
1.3
N/A
RW4
3.65
R
N/A
3.65
N/A
1:1
3.7
N/A
NRW1
1.2
R
N/A
1.2
N/A
1:1
1.2
N/A
NRW2
0.34
E
N/A
0.34
N/A
1 2:1
0.17
Total
15.3
---
N/A
15.3
1 ---
1 10.4
---
Table 1b. Summary of Mitigation
Underwood Mitiaation Proiect
WS -IV waters which include waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking
water or as waters formerly used as water supply. These waters are also protected for Class C
uses. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) classification is a supplemental classification for
waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation (NCDWQ, 2011).
2.0 Watershed Characterization
2.1 Drainage Area, Project Area, and Easement Acreage
The drainage areas for the Upstream Area and Downstream Area portions of South Fork are
1,051 acres (1.64 square miles) and 3,362 acres (5.25 square miles) respectively. This watershed
is located in the Piedmont, northeast of Siler City, NC and is shown in Figure 2. The drainage
area of each of the stream project reaches is included in Table 2.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 3
Draft Mitigation Plan
..
LL
�
_
.aM
_
.a.�
&a a)
�+
.i M a
e. d U
L�
a.
a
oG y
oG
°' J
(n C
�'
oc3v
�3
03�
03
J
Z
Z
Restoration (R)
416-02
4,602
6.7
6.7
1.2
1.2
Enhancement (E)
4,588
2,151
0.0
0.0
0.34
0.2
Preservation (P)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Creation (C)
N/A
N/A
7.03
2.3
N/A
N/A
TOTAL
9,190
6,753
13.8
9.1
1.5
1.4
WS -IV waters which include waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking
water or as waters formerly used as water supply. These waters are also protected for Class C
uses. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) classification is a supplemental classification for
waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation (NCDWQ, 2011).
2.0 Watershed Characterization
2.1 Drainage Area, Project Area, and Easement Acreage
The drainage areas for the Upstream Area and Downstream Area portions of South Fork are
1,051 acres (1.64 square miles) and 3,362 acres (5.25 square miles) respectively. This watershed
is located in the Piedmont, northeast of Siler City, NC and is shown in Figure 2. The drainage
area of each of the stream project reaches is included in Table 2.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 3
Draft Mitigation Plan

Table 2. Drainage Areas
Underwood Mitigation Proiect
Project Reach
Existing Length
(LF)
Drainage Area
(acres)
SF1
682
134
SF2
302
781
SF3
2,165
1,056
SF4
1,350
3,362
SMA
868
637
UTI
1,843
230
UT1A
524
11
UT113
660
11
UT2
421
78
The Upstream Area of the Underwood mitigation project is located within three tracts of land.
The first is an 84 acre tract owned by Mary Jean Harris (Deed Book 05E, Page Number 0102).
A conservation easement has been recorded on 7.68 acres of this tract. The second and third
tracts include a 46.4 acre tract owned by William Darrel Harris (Deed Book 673, Page Number
532) and a 47.2 -acre tract also owned by William Darrel Harris (Deed Book 972, Page Number
0977). A conservation easement has been recorded on 18.44 acres of these tracts. The
Downstream Area of the project is located within two tracts of land. The first is a 150 -acre tract
owned by James Randall Lindley (Deed Book 06E, Page Number 0098). A conservation
easement has been recorded on the 5.34 -acre project area within this tract. The second is an 82 -
acre tract owned by Jonathan Marshall Lindley (Deed Book 716, Page Number 0707). A
conservation easement has been recorded on the 6.29 -acre project area within this tract. The
conservation easements allow for the restoration work to occur and protect the project area in
perpetuity.
2.2 Surface Water Classification and Water Quality
On February 19, 2010 and May 6, 2011, Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI) investigated and
assessed on-site jurisdictional Waters of the United States using the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the
1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Determination methods included stream
classification utilizing the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form and the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet. Potential jurisdictional wetland areas as well as typical upland areas
were classified using the USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form. On-site
jurisdictional wetland areas were also assessed using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment
Method (NCWAM). All USACE and NCWAM wetland forms are included in Appendix 2.
The results of the on-site field investigation indicate that there are 11 jurisdictional stream
channels on the Upstream Area and Downstream Area properties, nine of which are included in
the project. These include South Fork Cane Creek and six unnamed tributaries (Figure 3). Other
intermittent tributaries have been identified that will not be included in the project. No
jurisdictional wetlands were identified on the site. South Fork is classified as Class WS -V,
Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) by the NCDWQ. All NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
are included in Appendix 3. The proposed restoration project includes South Fork and six of the
unnamed tributaries. All of these streams are protected under the conservation easement that has
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 4
Draft Mitigation Plan

been placed on the property. A copy of the Jurisdictional Determination is included in Appendix
2.
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The Underwood Mitigation Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont
Physiographic Province. The Piedmont Province is characterized by gently rolling, well rounded
hills with long low ridges, with elevations ranging anywhere from 300 to 1,500 feet above sea
level. The Carolina Slate Belt consists of heated and deformed volcanic and sedimentary rocks.
Approximately 550 to 650 million years ago, this region was the site of a series of oceanic
volcanic islands. The belt is known for its numerous abandoned gold mines and prospects.
Specifically, the project site is located in the CZfv formation of the Carolina Slate Belt. This
formation consists of light gray to greenish gray, felsic metavolcanic rock interbedded with
mafic and intermediate metavolcanic rock, meta-argillite, and metamudstone. (NCGS, 2009).
The floodplain areas of the proposed project are mapped by the Chatham County Soil Survey.
Soils along the UTI, UT1A, UT1B, SF2 and SF3 floodplains are primarily mapped as the
Nanford-Badin complex. SH is primarily mapped as the Cid-Lignum complex. UT2 is located
in Georgeville silt loam soil. SF4 and SF4A are mapped in the Chewacla and Wehadkee soils.
These soils are described below in Table 3. A soils map is provided in Figure 4. Soil profiles
sealed by a NC registered soil scientist are included in Appendix 4. Appendix 4 also includes
data for additional borings collected by WEI.
Table 3. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions
Underwood Mitigation Proiect
Soil Name
Location
Description
Chewacla and
Majority of SF4 and
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils consist of nearly level, very
Wehadkee, 0-
SF4A
deep, poorly and somewhat poorly drained soils. These are
2% slopes
typically floodplain areas. They have a loamy surface layer and
subsoil. Permeability is moderate and shrink -swell potential is
low. These soils are subject to frequent flooding.
Cid-Lignum
Majority of SF1, and
Cid and Lignum soils series are gently sloping, moderately deep
complex, 2-6%
portions of SF2, SF3,
to deep, moderately well -drained to somewhat poorly drained
slopes
and UT2
soils. They are often found in uplands. The surface layer and
subsoil are silt loam. Permeability is slow and shrink -swell
potential is moderate.
Georgeville silt
Majority of UT2 and
Georgeville soils are gently sloping to strongly sloping, very
loam, 2-6%
portions of UT2A and
deep, well -drained soils. They are often found in uplands. The
slopes
SH
surface layer and subsoil are silt loam. Permeability is
moderate and shrink -swell potential is low.
Georgeville-
Portion of SF4A
Georgeville and Badin soils are gently sloping to strongly
Badin
sloping, moderately deep to very deep, well -drained soils. They
complex, 10-
are often found in uplands. The surface layer and subsoil are silt
15% slopes
loam. Permeability is moderate and shrink -swell potential is low
to moderate.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 5
Draft Mitigation Plan

Soil Name
Location
Description
Nanford-Badin
Portions of UT1A, SF3,
These Nanford and Badin soils are gently sloping, moderately
complex, 2-6%
and SF4A
deep to deep, well -drained soils. They are often found in
slopes
uplands. The surface layer and subsoil are silt loam.
Permeability is moderate and shrink -swell potential is low to
moderate.
Nanford-Badin
Majority of UT1, UT1 A,
These Nanford and Badin soils are gently sloping to steep,
complex, 6-
UT1 B, UT2A, SF2, and
moderately deep to deep, well -drained soils. They are often
10% slopes
SF3, and portions of
found in uplands. The surface layer and subsoil are silt loam.
SF4, and SF4A
Permeability is moderate and shrink -swell potential is low to
moderate.
Nanford-Badin
Portions of UT1 and
These Nanford and Badin soils are steep, moderately deep to
complex, 10-
UT1 B
deep, well -drained soils. They are often found in uplands. The
15% slopes
surface layer and subsoil are silt loam. Permeability is
moderate and shrink -swell potential is low to moderate.
Source: Chatham County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, http://efotg.nres.usda.gov
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The Cape Fear 0303002 includes developing areas such as the cities of Greensboro, Durham,
Burlington, and Chapel Hill as well as the I-40/1-85 transportation corridor. Population growth
and the associated development and infrastructure projects create the necessity for mitigation
projects in this region. Land in western Chatham County, other than the town of Siler City, is
largely forested or used for agriculture. Approximately 60% of the land in the project watershed
is forest, 39% is classified as managed herbaceous cover or agricultural, and the remaining 1% is
split between unmanaged herbaceous and open water (MRLC, 2001).
2.5 Watershed Planning
The NCEEP follows the Compensation Planning Framework when targeting mitigation sites for
implementation. The first planning stage is the development of River Basin Restoration Priority
Plans (RBRPs) to prioritize specific watersheds within the 8 -digit hydrologic units in which to
implement mitigation projects. Through the development of RBRPs, NCEEP develops
restoration goals and priorities for 14 -digit hydrologic units referred to as "Targeted Local
Watersheds." All Full Delivery Procurement projects must be located within Targeted Local
Watersheds. The next phase of planning is the development of Local Watershed Plans to
identify and prioritize specific mitigation projects. To date, no local watershed plan has been
developed that includes the Cane Creek watershed. The NCDWQ prepares basinwide water
quality plans for each of the State's 17 river basins. The 2005 Cape Fear Basinwide Water
Quality Plan does not include any assessment information or recommendations for Cane Creek
or South Fork Cane Creek (note: the basinwide plan does include information on a different
Cane Creek that is a tributary to the Haw River).
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 6
Draft Mitigation Plan

2.6 Endangered and Threatened Species
2.6.1 Site Evaluation Methodology
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), defines
protection for species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E).
An "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" and a "Threatened Species" is defined as
"any species which is likely to become an Endangered Species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC
databases were searched for federally listed threatened
species for Chatham County, NC. Four federally
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), bald eagle (Haliaeetus
(Notropis mekistocholas), and harperella (Ptilimnium
Chatham County (Table 4).
Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
and endangered plant and animal
listed species, the red -cockaded
leucocephalus), Cape Fear shiner
nodosum) are currently listed in
Table 4. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Chatham County, NC
Underwood Mitigation Project
Species
Federal
Habitat AJIL
Biological
Status
Conclusion
Vertebrate
Red -cockaded woodpecker
E
Open stands of mature
No effect
Picoides borealis
pines
Bald eagle
Near large open water
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
BGEPA
bodies: lakes, marshes,
No effect
seacoasts, and rivers
Cape Fear shiner
Pools, riffles, and runs of
(Notropis mekistocholas)
E
rocky, clean freshwater
No effect
streams
Vascular Plants
Harperella
E
Rocky or gravely shoals of
No effect
Ptilimnium nodosum
clear swift -moving streams
E = Endangered; T=Threatened; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
2.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Descriptions
Red -Cockaded Woodpecker
The red -cockaded woodpecker is a medium-sized woodpecker species (8 to 9 inches in
length). Distinctive coloration includes black and white feathers with a large white cheek
patch and a black back with a white barred pattern. This species is typically found year-
round in large open stands of pines with mature trees of 60+ years in age. The foraging
habitat for this species may include pine hardwood stands of longleaf and southern pine,
30+ years in age. Occurrences of the red -cockaded woodpecker are listed as historic
within Chatham County.
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle is a very large raptor species, typically 28 to 38 inches in length. Adult
individuals are brown in color with a very distinctive white head and tail. Bald eagles
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 7
Draft Mitigation Plan

typically live near large bodies of open water with suitable fish habitat including: lakes,
marshes, seacoasts, and rivers. This species generally requires tall, mature tree species
for nesting and roosting. Bald eagles were de -listed from the Endangered Species List in
June 2007; however, this species remains under the protection of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA). This species is
known to occur in every U.S. state except Hawaii.
Cape Fear Shiner
The Cape Fear shiner is a small minnow fish species, typically 6 centimeters in length.
This species is pale silvery yellow in color with a black stripe along each side and yellow
fins. Water willow beds in flowing areas of creeks and rivers appear to be part of the
essential habitat for this species. Individuals can be found in pools, riffles, and slow runs
of clean, rocky streams composed of gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates. Critical
habitat for this species within Chatham County includes approximately 4.1 miles of the
Rocky River from the NC -902 bridge downstream to the County Road 1010 Bridge.
Additional critical habitat includes 0.5 mile of Bear Creek from the County Road 2156
bridge downstream to the Rocky River and 4.2 miles downstream within the Rocky River
to 2.6 miles of the Deep River.
Harperella
Harperella is an obligate, annual vascular plant ranging in height from 6 to 36 inches.
This plant exhibits small white clusters of flowers at the stem tops similar to Queen
Anne's lace. This species typically flowers from May until the first frost. Ideal habitat
for this species includes pond and riverine areas with gravelly shoals of clear, swift -
flowing streams. These areas typically require moderately intensive spring floods to
scour gravel bars and rock crevices to remove any competing vegetation. Known
population occurrences of harperella have been observed in Chatham County within the
past 20 years.
2.6.3 Biological Conclusion
A pedestrian survey of the site was performed on February 18, 2010. On-site habitats
include active pastures, successional woodlands, and streamside thickets. The creeks on
site provide poor quality potential habitat for Cape Fear shiner. Known populations in
the area are in a different river basin (Deep Creek). No shoals of the type utilized by
harperella occur on the project site. No habitat for red -cockaded woodpecker occurs on
site as they require 60+ year old pine trees. There is no suitable nesting or breeding
habitat for bald eagles located within the site, as they require tall, mature trees.
Additionally, no suitable feeding habitat for bald eagles is located at the site or within
close proximity, such as lakes or large rivers. As a result of the pedestrian survey, no
individual species were found to exist on the site.
2.6.4 Federal Designated Critical Habitat
2.6.4.1 Habitat Description
The USFWS has designated Chatham County as exhibiting critical habitat for the Cape
Fear shiner. This Critical Habitat includes approximately 4.1 miles of the Rocky River
from the NC -902 Bridge downstream to the County Road 1010 Bridge. Additional
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 8
Draft Mitigation Plan

critical habitat includes 0.5 mile of Bear Creek from the County Road 2156 Bridge
downstream to the Rocky River and 4.2 miles downstream within the Rocky River to 2.6
miles of the Deep River. These Critical Habitat locations, however, do not fall within the
South Fork Cane Creek watershed. Clean, rocky streams composed of gravel, cobble,
and boulder substrates with water willow beds in the flowing areas of creeks and rivers
appear to be part of the essential habitat for this species. The results of the pedestrian
survey performed on February 18, 2010 indicate that in -stream habitat exhibits poor
conditions for the presence of Cape Fear shiner. In -stream habitat includes some gravel
and cobble; however these substrates are dominated by finer sands and silts as a result of
heavy bank erosion throughout the project reaches. No Critical Habitat for the listed
species exists within the project areas.
2.6.4.2 Biological Conclusion
It is determined that the proposed restoration activities will have no impact on the Critical
Habitat of the Cape Fear shiner.
2.6.5 USFWS Concurrence
WEI requested review and comment from the USFWS on July 12, 2010, regarding the results
of the site investigation of the Underwood Mitigation Site and its potential impacts on
threatened or endangered species. Since no response was received from the USFWS within a
30 -day time frame, it is assumed that the site determination is correct and that no additional,
relevant information is available for this site. A further review of the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program's (NCNHP) element occurrence GIS data layer shows that no natural
heritage elements occur within 3.5 miles of the proposed project areas. All correspondence is
included in Appendix 5.
2.7 Cu/tura/ Resources
2.7.1 Site Evaluation Methodology
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, amended (16 U.S.C. 470), defines
the policy of historic preservation to protect, restore, and reuse districts, sites, structures, and
objects significant in American history, architecture, and culture. Section 106 of the NHPA
mandates that federal agencies take into account the effect of an undertaking on any property,
which is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. A
letter was sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on July 12,
2010 requesting review and comment for the potential of cultural resources potentially
affected by the Underwood Mitigation Project.
2.7.2 SHPO/THPO Concurrence
A request for records search was submitted on July 12, 2010 and to the NC State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic,
or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. In a letter dated July 28,
2010 (see Appendix 5) the SHPO stated that they have reviewed the project and are "aware
of no historic resources which would be affected by the project."
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 9
Draft Mitigation Plan

2.8 Physical Constraints
2.8.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities
The Upstream Area of the project is located on two parcels owned by William Daryl Harris
and Mary Jean Harris. A conservation easement, held by the State of North Carolina, has
been recorded over 18.44 and 7.68 of these parcels respectively. The Downstream Area of
the project is on two adjacent parcels owned by James Randall Lindley and Jonathan
Marshall Lindley. A conservation easement, also held by the State of North Carolina, has
been recorded over 11.63 acres of these parcels. The stream reaches that are proposed for
restoration and enhancement activities are mostly bound on both sides by active agricultural
fields, although the upstream portions of SF4A and UTI are partially bound by forest. The
wetland restoration and creation areas are all adjacent to the streams and are within active
agricultural fields. There are no known utilities or other easements located on the properties.
One road crossing exists on UTI (it will be relocated to another location on UTI) and one
crossing will be constructed on SF2 as well. No mitigation credit is requested for these
portions of the streams.
2.8.2 Site Access
The Upstream Area of the project includes three parcels — two north and one south of Clyde
Underwood Road. The road will be the primary access point to the all of the project streams
and wetland areas on this portion of the site. Farm roads and open fields will allow easy
movement of construction equipment within the properties. The Downstream Area is located
adjacent to Moon Lindley Road. This site is also open agricultural land, and farm roads and
open fields will provide access from the paved road and allow for easy movement around the
site.
2.8.3 FEMA and Hydrologic Trespass
SF4 is a FEMA mapped stream (Figure 5). The project will be designed so that any increase
in flooding will be contained on the project site and will not extend upstream to adjacent
parcels, so hydrologic trespass will not be a concern. The proposed restoration has been
designed to transition back to the existing boundary conditions in a gradual manner.
3.0 Project Site Streams — Existing Conditions
3.1 Existing Conditions Survey
The streams located within the Upstream Area of the Underwood Mitigation Site flow through
pastures used primarily for grazing livestock. The streams themselves are used as water sources
for the animals. As a result, the stream banks are heavily trampled, the channels have over -
widened, and the banks remain unstable in most cases. The majority of the riparian buffers were
removed decades ago when the sites were cleared for agricultural use. A few sparse trees remain
in the riparian zones of some of the channels. There are multiple farm ponds on the site
including two that are at the headwaters of project streams and one that is an impoundment on a
project stream. Review of historic aerial photos indicates that the land cover patterns have
remained essentially the same at least as far back as 1973. However, there was substantial
clearing performed between 1951 and 1973 including removal of the buffers along SF2, SF3,
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 10
Draft Mitigation Plan

UT 1, and UT 1 A. UT 1 B was cleared after 1973 (historic aerial photos are included in Appendix
6).
The streams located within the Downstream Area of the site flow through open fields used for
row crop cultivation. The upstream end of South Fork (SF4) on this portion of the site is wooded
on one side and the upstream portion of the unnamed tributary (SF4A) is wooded on both sides.
The riparian buffers on the remaining reaches of stream are primarily herbaceous vegetation.
These streams have been straightened and deepened and have vertical banks. Some sections are
undergoing significant bank erosion.
On-site existing conditions assessments were conducted by WEI between August 2010 and
February 2011. The assessments were performed on each of the streams listed in Table 1. All of
the streams were determined to be perennial except for UT 1 B and UT 1 A which are intermittent.
The locations of the project reaches and surveyed cross sections are shown in Figure 6. Existing
geomorphic survey data is included in Appendix 7. Tables 5a and 5b summarize the attributes of
the overall project and of the project reaches.
Table 5a. Project Attributes
Underwood Mitigation Project
Project County
Chatam County
Physiographic
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
Region
Ecoregion
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC (14
03030002050050
digit)
NCDWQ Sub -basin
03-06-04
Within NCEEP
The project is within an NCEEP Targeted Watershed
Watershed Plan?
WRC Class
Warm
Percent of
The easement has been recorded but is proposed to be
Easement Fenced
demarcated post construction.
or Demarcated
Beaver Activity
Yes
Observed During
Design Phase?
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 11
Draft Mitigation Plan

Table 5b. Mitigation Component Attributes
Underwood Mitigation Project
*Reaches UTI, SF4, and SF4a are classified as sand bad channels under the Rosgen classification system based on
the D50. However, each of these reaches has a bimodal distribution of gravel and sand including some large gravel.
3.2 Channel Classification
The streams included in the Underwood Mitigation project are all on active farmland and have
all been significantly manipulated over the last 35 years. In addition to the channelization and
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 12
Draft Mitigation Plan
SF1
SF2
SF3
UT1
UT1A
UT1113
UT2
SF4
SMA
Drainage Area acres
134
781
1,056
230
11
11
78
3,362
637
Stream Order
2
3
3
2
1
1
2
4
3
Restored Length LF
878
302
1 2,116
1,997
1 524
660
421
1 1,424
868
Perennial or Intermittent
P
P
P
P
I
I
P
P
P
Watershed Type
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Watershed Land Use
Developed
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Forested/Scrubland
33%
48%
47%
51%
1 80%
45%
2%
1 60%
61%
Agriculture/Managed Herb.
57%
52%
52%
45%
20%
55%
98%
39%
38%
Open Water
5%
0%
1%
4%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
Watershed Impervious Cover
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
NCDWQ Index Number
16-28-5
16-28-5
16-28-5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
16-28-5
N/A
NCDWQ Classification
Ws -v,
NSW
Ws -v,
NSW
Ws -v,
NSW
c
C
c
C
Ws -v,
NSW
c
303d Listed
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Upstream of a 303d Stream
Yes
Yes
I Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reasons for 303d Listing
Chl a H
Chl-a H
Chl-a, 2LL
Chl-a,
pH
Chl-a,
pH
Chl-a,
H
Chl-a,
pH
Chl-a H
Chl-a,
pH
Total Acreage of Easement
37.75
Total Vegetated Acreage
within Easement
15.2(existing)
Total Planted Acreage as part
of Restoration
36.53 does not include streambeds
Rosgen Classification of Pre -
Existing
E4
E4
E4
E/G5*
Cb4
B4
E4
E5*
E5*
Rosgen Classification of
Design
C4
C4
C4
C4
B4
B 4
C4
C4
C4
Valley Type
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Valley Sloe feet/ foot
0.012
0.008
0.0049
0.012
1 0.040
0.039
0.0126
1 0.0039
0.009
Trout Waters Designation
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Endangered or Threatened
Species
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Dominant Soil Series
x
C N
o o a
C t�0 E
z m U
x
C a)
o v a
C t�0 E
0
z m U
x
C N
o v a
C
fa t�0 E
0
z m U
x
C N
o v a
C
fa t�0 E
z m U
x
C N
ooa
C f�6 E
z m U
x
C a)
o o a
C t�0 E
z m U
)
f0
v o
21 J
5)
f6 Y
a
3 N
L
U
m y
m Y
a
N
L
U
*Reaches UTI, SF4, and SF4a are classified as sand bad channels under the Rosgen classification system based on
the D50. However, each of these reaches has a bimodal distribution of gravel and sand including some large gravel.
3.2 Channel Classification
The streams included in the Underwood Mitigation project are all on active farmland and have
all been significantly manipulated over the last 35 years. In addition to the channelization and
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 12
Draft Mitigation Plan

maintenance of the channels, livestock have trampled many sections of the stream banks.
Therefore the streams are all in a very unnatural condition and reliable bankfull features were
difficult to identify. An estimate of bankfull stage was made for each reach based on potential
field indicators and comparison to channel dimensions predicted by the rural Piedmont regional
curves. WEI classified the streams based on the Rosgen classification system to the degree
possible using these best estimates of bankfull stage. Existing geomorphic conditions for each
reach included in the project are summarized below in Tables 6a and 6b and the reaches are
mapped on Figure 6.
South Fork (SF) is broken into 4 reaches based primarily on geographic separation. SF1 is 682
LF and located within the upstream area of the project, on the property south of Clyde
Underwood Road. This reach drains 0.21 square miles. The reach has been channelized and is
essentially straight, except for some areas where lateral erosion has created some minor variation
in pattern. The channel is in a fairly tight valley and the floodplain side slopes are relatively
steep. The channel has a width to depth ratio of 6.15, an entrenchment ratio of 6.97, and a slope
of 0.011 ft/ft. The d50 of the bed material is 4.7 mm. The channel classifies as a straightened E4.
The bank height ratio is 1.12 indicating that the reach is somewhat incised, however, the most
significant problems with this channel are lateral erosion and lack of floodplain vegetation.
SF2 is a short reach (302 LF not including culvert under Clyde Underwood Road) significantly
downstream of SF 1 on either side of Clyde Underwood Road. This reach is larger with a
(drainage area of 1.22 square miles) and has slightly more plan view pattern than SH with a
sinuosity of 1.20. A few trees are spread around the floodplain and there are bedrock
outcroppings in the channel. The valley is not as confining along this reach but there has been
more vertical incision of the channel resulting in an apparent bank height ratio of 1.2. The width
to depth ratio is 11.91, the entrenchment ratio is 3.29, the channel slope is 0.010 ft/ft, and the
channel is most similar to a straightened E4 stream type.
SF3 is 2,132 LF long and flows from the north side of Clyde Underwood Road (immediately
downstream of SF2) in a northward direction through active pastures. UT 1 enters from the west
approximately 500 LF before the end of the reach. There are a few trees in the riparian zone all
along SF3, however cattle graze up to the top of the banks and use the stream as a water source.
The banks of this reach have been trampled for much of its length. Some sections of the reach
have meander bends while others are relatively straight. Overall the reach has a sinuosity of
1.23. The width to depth ratio is 8.76, the entrenchment ratio is 3.06, and the channel slope is
0.004. The bed material is primarily small to large gravel and sand. The channel classifies as an
E4.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 13
Draft Mitigation Plan

Table 6a. Existing Stream Conditions
Underwood Mitigation Project
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 14
Draft Mitigation Plan
Notation
Units
SFI
SF2
SF3 - u/s of
UT1
SF3 - d/s
of UT1
UTI
Min
Max
Min
I Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
stream type
E4
E4
E4
E/G5
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.21
1.22
1.27
1.65
0.36
Dischar e
Q- NC Rural Regional Curve
Qbkf
cfs
28.9
103.0
105.8
127.6
42.4
Q2 - ,r NFF regression
Q2 - yr
cfs
45.2
155.6
159.7
191.6
65.7
bankfull design discharge
Q
cfs
20.0
79.1
81.5
99.8
30.3
Cross -Section Features
bankfull cross-sectional area
Abkf
SF
9.48
35.44
28.90
---
7.22
average velocity during bankfull
event
Vbkf
fps
3.05
2.91
3.66
---
5.87
width at bankfull
wbkf
feet
7.64
20.54
15.90
---
8.96
maximum depth at bankfull
dmax
feet
2.21
2.04
2.40
---
1.47
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
1.24
1.73
1.81
---
0.81
bankfull width to depth ratio
wbkf/dbkf
6.15
11.91
8.76
---
11.11
low bank height
feet
3.54
2.43
3.78
---
2.71
bank height ratio
BHR
1.60
1.19
1.57
---
1.85
floodprone area width
wf a
feet
51.90
67.58
48.59
---
14.17
entrenchment ratio
ER
6.79
3.29
3.06
---
1.58
Slope & Sinuosity
valley sloe
Svalley
feet/
foot
0.012
0.012
0.005
0.007
0.012
channel slope
Schannel
feet/
foot
0.011
0.010
0.004
0.004
0.010
sinuosity
K
1.06
1.20
1.23
1.81
1.22
Riffle Features
riffle sloe
Sriffle
feet/
foot
---
---
0.03
0.05
---
0.01
0.02
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 14
Draft Mitigation Plan

Underwood Mitigation Site Page 15
Draft Mitigation Plan
Notation
Units
SF1
SF2
SF3 - u/s of
UTI
SF3 - d/s
of UTI
UT1
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
I
Max
riffle slope ratio
rife Schannel
---
---
6.5
11.4
---
1.5
2.0
Pool Features
pool sloe
Soo,
feet/
foot
---
---
0.00
0.01
---
0.00
0.01
pool sloe ratio
S ool/Scbannel
---
---
0.8
2.5
---
0.4
0.9
pool -to -pool spacing
L _
feet
---
---
45.98
205.96
---
37.20
54.67
pool spacing ratio
L _ /Wbkf
---
---
2.9
13.0
---
4.2
6.1
Pattern Features
belt width
Wb,t
feet
N/A
N/A
49
49
51
106
85
31
59
meander width ratio
Wbi/Wbkf
---
---
2.4
2.4
3.2
6.7
---
3.4
6.6
meander length
Lm
feet
N/A
N/A
49
49
46
127
272
80
161
meander length ratio
Lm/wbV
---
---
2.4
2.4
25.6
70.2
---
8.9
17.9
radius of curvature
Rc
feet
N/A
N/A
18
22
27
61
105
10
83
radius of curvature ratio
RJ Wbkf
---
---
0.9
1.1
7.2
16.0
---
1.1
9.2
Sediment
Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Pebble Count
d16
mm
NA
---
NA
---
NA
d35
mm
0.9
---
6.3
---
NA
d50
mm
4.7
---
4.7
---
1.0
d84
mm
20.9
---
34.9
---
16.0
d95
mm
87.0
---
107.3
---
107.3
4100
mm
362.0
---
1024.0
---
256.0
Particle Size Distribution from Subpavement Analysis
d16
mm
---
---
1.55
---
0.72
d35
mm
---
---
5.47
---
3.48
d50
mm
---
---
9.63
---
8.21
d84
mm
---
---
38.8
---
23.91
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 15
Draft Mitigation Plan

Table 6b. Existing Conditions
Underwood Mitigation Project
Notation
Units
SH
SF2
SF3 - u/s of
UTI
SF3 - d/s
of UTI
UT1
in
Max
Min
I Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Min
I Max
stream type
d94
mm
---
---
56.03
---
36.41
drainage area
d99
mm
---
---
>2048
---
>2048
Particle Size Distribution from Riffle 100 Pebble Count
Q- NC Rural Regional Curve
d16
mm
---
---
7.53
---
---
Q2 - y, NFF regression
d35
mm
---
---
16.66
---
---
bankfull design discharge
d50
mm
---
---
40.82
---
---
Cross -Section Features
d84
mm
SF
---
---
74.02
---
---
16.89
d95
mm
fps
---
---
97.42
---
---
5.26
d99
mm
feet
---
---
180
---
---
Table 6b. Existing Conditions
Underwood Mitigation Project
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 16
Draft Mitigation Plan
Notation
Units
UT1A
UTIB
UT2
SF4
SF4A
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
stream type
Cb4
B4
E4
E5
E5
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.02
0.02
0.12
5.26
1.00
Discharge
Q- NC Rural Regional Curve
Qbkf
cfs
4.61
4.83
19.57
295.32
88.76
Q2 - y, NFF regression
Q2 - yr
cfs
7.59
7.95
30.96
432.92
134.59
bankfull design discharge
Q
cfs
---
---
13.1
247.4
67.3
Cross -Section Features
bankfull cross-sectional area
Abkf
SF
1.03
2.2
9.6
49.73
16.89
average velocity during bankfull
event
Vbkf
fps
4.48
2.20
2.04
5.94
5.26
width at bankfull
wbkf
feet
4.94
3.23
7.04
18.55
10.32
maximum depth at bankfull
dmax
feet
0.31
1.04
1.82
3.95
2.15
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
0.21
0.67
1.36
2.68
1.64
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 16
Draft Mitigation Plan

Underwood Mitigation Site Page 17
Draft Mitigation Plan
Notation
Units
UT1A
UT1B
UT2
SF4
SMA
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
bankfull width to depth ratio
Wbkf/dbkf
23.63
4.85
5.17
6.92
6.31
low bank height
feet
0.61
2.03
2.77
5.50
3.89
bank height ratio
BHR
1.97
1.95
1.52
1.39
1.81
floodprone area width
Wf a
feet
11.20
6.15
133.21
157.30
29.40
entrenchment ratio
ER
2.25
1.9
18.91
3.48
2.85
Slope & Sinuosity
valley sloe
Svalley
feet/
foot
0.040
0.039
0.015
0.004
0.009
channel slope
Schannel
feet/
foot
0.035
0.035
0.012
0.003
0.008
sinuosity
K
1.14
1.11
1.02
1.27
1.13
Riffle Features
rifflef
slope e
Sriffle
feet/
foot
---
---
---
---
---
riffle sloe ratio
Sriffle/Schannel
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Features
pool sloe
S ool
feet/
foot
---
---
---
---
---
pool slope ratio
S ool/Schannel
---
---
---
---
---
pool-to-pool spacing
L -j)
feet
---
---
---
---
---
pool spacing ratio
L _ /Wbkf
---
---
---
---
---
Pattern Features
belt width
Wblt
feet
---
---
---
---
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
26
72
meander width ratio
Wblt/Wbkf
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
2.5
7.0
meander length
Ln,
feet
---
---
---
---
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
120
231
meander length ratio
Lm/Wbkf
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
11.6
22.3
radius of curvature
Rc
feet
---
---
---
---
N/A
N/A
36
49
14
40
radius of curvature ratio
R�/ Wbkf
---
---
---
---
---
--'
2.0
2.6
1.4
3.9
Sediment
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 17
Draft Mitigation Plan

Underwood Mitigation Site Page 18
Draft Mitigation Plan
Notation
Units
UT1A
UT1B
UT2
SF4
SMA
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Pebble Count
d16
mm
NA
---
NA
NA
NA
d35
mm
NA
---
NA
NA
0.1
d50
mm
NA
---
6.1
0.3
0.8
d84
mm
4.7
---
62.0
17.9
20.4
d95
mm
14.8
---
128.045.8
62.9
dloo
mm
90.0
---
256.0
90.0
362.0
Particle Size Distribution from Subpavement Analysis
d16
mm
---
---
---
1.76
---
d35
mm
---
---
---
6.44
---
d5o
mm
---
---
---
13.66
---
d84
mm
---
---
---
36.38
---
d94
mm
---
---
---
48.07
---
d99
mm
---
---
---
76.1
---
Particle Size Distribution from Riffle 100 Pebble Count
d16
mm
---
---
---
19.07
---
d35
mm
---
---
---
26.78
---
d50
mm
---
---
---
32.84
---
d84
mm
---
---
---
44.26
---
d95
mm
---
---
---
59.12
---
d99
mm
---
I ---
---
1 >2048
---
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 18
Draft Mitigation Plan

The downstream end of the project is located on a separate parcel referred to in this report as the
Downstream Area. The South Fork reach that runs through this area is called SF4. SF4 is much
larger than the other reaches of the South Fork with a drainage area of 5.26 sq. mi. This reach
has also been straightened and manipulated for agricultural purposes, but the adjacent fields are
used for planting row crops rather than as pastures for livestock. Bank erosion is not as severe
on this reach, however it has been dug deep to drain adjacent fields (portions of which were
historically wetlands), straightened, and has a riparian zone with few mature trees. The width to
depth ratio is 6.92, the entrenchment ratio is 3.48, the slope is 0.003, and the sinuosity is 1.27.
Due to a channel bed that is predominantly sand, the reach classifies as an E5 channel.
The project site also includes five smaller tributaries that flow into the South Fork that are
proposed for restoration and enhancement. These include UTI, UT1A, UT1B, UT2, and SF4A.
UTI flows eastward through active pastures and joins SF3 near the end of that reach. UT 1 has a
drainage area of 0.36 miles. The riparian buffer has sparse trees throughout. It has a higher
sinuosity (1.22) compared to the other reaches in the project. The reach has a width to depth
ratio of 8.46, an entrenchment ratio of 1.58, and a channel slope of 0.010. The bed material in
the channel is bimodal including significant portions of both sand and gravel; however its D50 is
1.0 resulting in a bed material classification of very coarse sand. The channel does not fit
exactly into any of the Rosgen system classifications but is most similar to an E5 or G5.
UT1A and UT1B are small intermittent tributaries that flow off of the adjacent hillslope through
pasture lands into UTL Riparian zones of both tributaries are completely devoid of woody
vegetation. UT1B has an in-line pond approximately 100 LF above its confluence with UTL
UT1A and UT1B are both nearly straight with sinuosities very near 1. UT1A has a width to
depth ratio of 23.63, an entrenchment ratio of 2.25, and a reach -wide D50 of 4.7 mm making it
most similar to a straightened C4 channel. UT1B has a width to depth ratio of 4.85 and an
entrenchment ratio of 1.9 making it most similar to a straightened G channel (with a slightly high
entrenchment ratio).
UT2 is a small tributary with drainage area of 0.12 square miles just to the east of SF 1 and
eventually flows into SF1 downstream of the project reach. It has been straightened and has a
sinuosity of nearly 1. UT2 has some trees and woody vegetation in its riparian buffer but is
otherwise surrounded by active pasture. It has a width to depth ratio of 5.17, an entrenchment
ratio of 18.91, a channel slope of 0.012 ft/ft, and a D50 of 6.1 mm. It is most similar to a
straightened E4 in the Rosgen classification system.
SF4A is a relatively large tributary with a drainage area of 1.0 square mile that flows northward,
mostly through crop fields, into S174 near the downstream end of the project. Most of the length
of SF4A has been channelized although the upstream portion (approximately 475 LF) flows
through a wooded area and may have been less manipulated historically. The reach has a width
to depth ratio of 6.3 1, an entrenchment ratio of 2.85, a channel slope of 0.008 ft./ft., a sinuosity
of 1. 13, and a D50 of 0.8 mm making it most similar to a straightened E5 stream type.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 19
Draft Mitigation Plan

3.3 Valley Classification
The majority of the Underwood project area is bound by broad valleys and gentle elevation
relief, typical of the region. The surrounding fluvial and morphological landforms do not fit
neatly into any valley type according to the Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1996);
therefore the valley was not classified according to that system. WEI used GIS tools to analyze
topography data in order to describe the valley morphology of each project stream.
Characteristics of each project stream valley are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Summary of Project Stream Valley Characteristics
Underwood Mitiaation Proiect
3.4 Discharge
Multiple methods were used to approximate the bankfull discharge and choose a design
discharge for each of the separate design reaches. Due to the agricultural and forest land cover
within the watershed, discharge estimates were made using methods intended for rural
watersheds.
Regional curves relating bankfull discharge to drainage area for rural watersheds in the Piedmont
region of North Carolina (Harman, et al., 1999) were used to estimate the bankfull discharge for
each reach. In addition, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flood frequency equations for rural
watersheds in the North Carolina Piedmont (USGS, 2009) were used to estimate peak discharges
for each reach for floods with a recurrence interval of two years. The two-year discharge
provides a reasonable approximation of bankfull discharge, but is generally slightly larger than
the discharge predicted by the appropriate regional curve. In addition, historic gauge data were
collected from multiple nearby stream gauges operated by the USGS. Two of these gauges with
long-term, continuous records of discharge and relatively small drainage areas were selected to
assist with developing the design discharge. These two gauges passed the homogeneity test
(Dalrymple, 1960) indicating that they are located within a single homogenous region in terms of
streamflow characteristics. The river reach near the gauge for one of these sites — Cane Creek
near Orange Grove (drainage area = 7.54 square miles) — appeared to have reasonable, consistent
bankfull indicators. So a survey of this site was performed to identify the bankfull stage and
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 20
Draft Mitigation Plan
Avg. Valley Floor
Width (ft)
Valley Aspect
Typical Valley Side
Slopes (ft/ft)
SF1
75
SW to NE
0.04
SF2
180
S to N
0.05
SF3 U/S
230
S to N
0.06
SF3 D/S
195
SW to NE
0.07
SF4
335
W to E
0.075
SF4A
260
SW to NE
0.045
UT1
120
W to E
0.065
UT1A
35
N to S
0.045
UT1B
40
N to S
0.06
UT2
100
S to N
0.04
3.4 Discharge
Multiple methods were used to approximate the bankfull discharge and choose a design
discharge for each of the separate design reaches. Due to the agricultural and forest land cover
within the watershed, discharge estimates were made using methods intended for rural
watersheds.
Regional curves relating bankfull discharge to drainage area for rural watersheds in the Piedmont
region of North Carolina (Harman, et al., 1999) were used to estimate the bankfull discharge for
each reach. In addition, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flood frequency equations for rural
watersheds in the North Carolina Piedmont (USGS, 2009) were used to estimate peak discharges
for each reach for floods with a recurrence interval of two years. The two-year discharge
provides a reasonable approximation of bankfull discharge, but is generally slightly larger than
the discharge predicted by the appropriate regional curve. In addition, historic gauge data were
collected from multiple nearby stream gauges operated by the USGS. Two of these gauges with
long-term, continuous records of discharge and relatively small drainage areas were selected to
assist with developing the design discharge. These two gauges passed the homogeneity test
(Dalrymple, 1960) indicating that they are located within a single homogenous region in terms of
streamflow characteristics. The river reach near the gauge for one of these sites — Cane Creek
near Orange Grove (drainage area = 7.54 square miles) — appeared to have reasonable, consistent
bankfull indicators. So a survey of this site was performed to identify the bankfull stage and
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 20
Draft Mitigation Plan

relate it to the established stage -discharge curve of the gauge to estimate the bankfull discharge
for the site. The bankfull recurrence interval for this site was determined to be 1.15 years.
Because the other gauge used in the analysis - Rocky River near Crutchfield Crossroads
(drainage area = 7.42 square miles) did not appear to have consistent bankfull features, methods
described in Bulletin 17 B (Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982) were used to
determine the discharge associated with a 1.5 -year recurrence interval for this gauge. The basin
ratio method was then used to estimate a bankfull discharge for each project reach based on the
bankfull discharge at the Cane Creek gauge and the 1.5 -year discharge for the Rocky River
gauge. This method was applied by simply multiplying the ratio of discharge to drainage area of
a gauge to the drainage area of the design reaches. Each of the methods described above was
used to estimate a bankfull discharge or discharge with recurrence interval approximating
bankfull for each design reach.
A design discharge was selected for each reach based on the analyses described above. The
design discharges were chosen to be slightly smaller than the bankfull discharges estimated by
the regional curve for multiple reasons:
1) Due to wetland mitigation areas adjacent to the project stream reaches, frequent flooding
and smaller, more shallow channels are desirable.
2) The bankfull discharge estimates derived from the basin ratio method with the nearby
gauges were smaller than the bankfull discharges predicted by the regional curve.
3) When compared to the rural Piedmont regional curve, the estimated bankfull discharge of
the two reference reaches and two gauge sites plotted below the curve (Figure 7).
Table 8 summarizes the results of each of the discharge analyses described in this section.
Table 8. Summary of Design Discharge Analysis
Underwood Mitigation Proiect
Site
Rural
Piedmont
Regional Curve
Qbkf cfs
USGS Rural
NFF 2 -yr Q
Rocky River
Gauge Ratio
1.5 -yr Q
*
Cane Creek
Gauge
Ratio
Bankfull Q
cfs *
Design Q
cfs
SH
28.9
45.2
11.4
8.82
20.0
SF2
103.0
155.5
66.1
51.28
79.0
SF3 - u/s of
UTI
105.8
159.7
68.6
53.23
81.5
SF3 @ outlet
127.6
191.6
88.9
68.99
100.0
SF4
295.3
432.9
284.2
220.41
247.5
SMA
88.8
134.6
53.8
41.73
67.5
UTI
42.4
65.7
19.3
15.01
30.5
UT1A
4.6
7.6
0.9
0.69
2.75
UTIB
4.8
8.0
1.0
0.74
2.9
UT2
19.6
31.0
6.6
5.14
13.1
UT2A
5.2
8.5
1.1
0.82
3.1
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 21
Draft Mitigation Plan

3.5 Channel Morphology
Existing conditions channel morphology surveys were performed to document the current
condition of the streams on the Underwood site and to provide a basis for the design. The
existing conditions assessment of the project reaches indicated that channelization of the streams
and surrounding agricultural land use has led to channel incision and over -widening, severe bank
erosion, and loss of aquatic habitat. Based on the morphologic survey data the streams were
mostly classified as E or E/GG channels (Tables 6a and 6b). UT1A, classifies as a Cb stream
type and UT1B is a B stream. It is likely that all of these streams (with the exception of UT1A
and UTIB) were originally E stream types and have either incised to the point at which they now
classify as E/G streams (which have a lower entrenchment ratio) or are in the process of
transitioning to G streams. It is important to note, however, that reliable bankfull features were
difficult to identify in most cases due to erosion and trampling of the stream banks by livestock.
Therefore, it is difficult to determine the degree to which these streams have incised. In most
cases the planview pattern of the streams is far less sinuous than is normal for E stream types.
The sinuosity values of these streams range from 1.02 (nearly perfectly straight) to 1.23
(moderately sinuous) while E channels are typically highly sinuous (>1.5). A short section of
SF3 has a high sinuosity which is unusual for the site. Review of historical aerial photos
(Appendix 6) indicates that the streams were channelized at least as far back as the early 1970s
and have been maintained in a straight condition since.
The bed material of the channels is a bimodal distribution of sand and fine gravel. D50 values
range from 0.3 (sand) to 6.1 (fine gravel). However, all of the channels have both sand and
gravel. While the coarser material predominated in the riffles and runs and the finer material in
the pools, particles of both size ranges were found throughout all of the reaches. In some reaches
including SF3 and UTI pool features outnumbered riffles and runs but the opposite was true in
S171, SF4, UT1A, UT2, and UT2A. In other reaches pools and riffles/runs were more evenly
distributed.
3.6 Channel Evolution
A review of aerial photos for the project area dating back to 1973 indicates that the streams
included in the project were channelized and much of the woody vegetation along the channels
was removed prior to that time (but in most cases, after 1951). The surrounding land cover has
changed very little since the early 1970's. Channelization usually includes straightening and
deepening of streams and is one of the major causes of channel down -cutting, or incision
(Simon, 1989; Simon and Rinaldi, 2006). Based on Simon's well-established model of channel
evolution (1989), the likely sequence of events that has led to the current state of degradation of
the project streams began with channelization sometime prior to 1973. The channelization
induced channel incision which led directly to over -steepened banks that subsequently began to
fail resulting in channel widening and creation of the current U-shaped channels. Livestock have
had access to most of the streams located in the upstream area for decades which has increased
the degree of lateral erosion. Bank erosion liberates sediment into the streams which deposits in
downstream water bodies. Currently, the project streams appear to be in Stage IV of the Simon
model — Channel Widening. In the Rosgen channel evolution model this progression
corresponds to the E stream type to G stream type scenario. Most of the streams included in the
project have been classified as incised E channels (considering bank height ratios greater than 1)
or E/G channels except for UT 1 A (classified as a Cb stream) and UT 1 B (classified as a B
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 22
Draft Mitigation Plan

stream). The next likely stage will be increased widening to an F stream type. However, the
next phase of the Simon model, Stage V — Deposition, does not appear to have begun based on
the lack of fine sediment accumulations in the channels. Stage V corresponds with creation of a
C stream type at a lower base level in the Rosgen system when a channel with more stable
geometry is constructed through sediment deposition. UTI is an exception; there is evidence in
some portions of the channel of deposition and on-going creation of a new bankfull channel at a
lower base level. It is likely, however, that this channel is still migrating towards a C stream
type.
3.7 Channel Stability Assessment
WEI utilized a modified version of the Rapid Assessment of Channel Stability as described in
Hydrologic Engineering Circular (HEC) -20 (Lagasse, 2001). The method is semi -quantitative
and incorporates thirteen stability indicators that are evaluated in the field. In a 2007 publication,
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) updated the method for HEC -20 by modifying the
metrics included in the assessment and incorporating a stream type determination. The result is
an assessment method that can be rapidly applied on a variety of stream types in different
physiographic settings with a range of bed and bank materials.
The Channel Stability Assessment protocol was designed to evaluate 12 parameters: watershed
land use, status of flow, channel pattern, entrenchment/channel confinement, bed substrate
material, bar development, presence of obstructions and debris jams, bank soil texture and
coherence, average bank angle, bank vegetation, bank cutting, and mass wasting/bank failure.
Once all parameters are scored, the individual scores are totaled and the stability of the stream is
then classified as Excellent (score = 12-36), Good (score = 37-72), Fair (score = 73-108), or Poor
(score =109-144). As the protocol was designed to assess stream channel stability near bridges,
two minor modifications were made to the methodology to make it more applicable to project
specific conditions. The first modification involved adjusting the scoring so that naturally
meandering streams score lower (better condition) than straight and/or engineered channels.
Because straight, engineered channels are hydraulically efficient and necessary for bridge
protection, they score low (excellent to good rating) with the original methodology. Secondly,
the last assessment parameter — upstream distance to bridge — was removed from the protocol
because it relates directly to the potential effects of instability on a bridge and should not
influence stability ratings for the streams assessed for this project. The final scores and
corresponding ratings were based on the twelve remaining parameters. The rating adjectives
were assigned to the streams based on the FHWA guidelines for pool -riffle stream types.
The HEC -20 manual also describes both lateral and vertical components of overall channel
stability which can be separated with this assessment methodology. Some of the 13 parameters
described above relate specifically to either vertical or horizontal stability. When all parameter
scores for the vertical category or all parameter scores for the horizontal category are summed
and normalized by the total possible scores for their respective categories, a vertical or horizontal
fraction is produced. These fractions may then be compared to one another determine if the
channel is more vertically or horizontally unstable.
The assessment results for the streams on the Underwood sites indicate that all of the streams
except for UT1A and UT113 are rated in the second to the lowest category — fair. UT1A and
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 23
Draft Mitigation Plan

UT 1 B are relatively stable sites but they rated poor for bank protection. For every stream
assessed, the lateral fraction was greater than the vertical fraction. This indicates that lateral
instability is a greater problem for these streams than vertical instability. Total scores, stability
ratings, and vertical and horizontal fractions are provided in Table 9.
Table 9. Existing Conditions Channel Stability Assessment Results
Underwood Mitiaation Proiect
3.8 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull stage indicators on the project streams were few and difficult to identify due to incision
of the channels and trampling of the banks by livestock. However, during the existing conditions
assessment, WEI staff identified the best available bankfull indicators and surveyed cross
sections at those locations. Bank features considered to be potential bankfull indicators included
flat depositional features and prominent breaks in slope. In addition, a nearby USGS gauging
station (station 02096846 - Cane Creek near Orange Grove, NC) was used to develop a
calibrated estimate of bankfull discharge and channel geometry at a local site. Bankfull data for
the gauge site, the surveyed project reaches, and two nearby reference reaches were compared
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 24
Draft Mitigation Plan
SF3
SF3
UTI
UTI
Parameter
SF1
SF2
U/S
D/S
SF4
SF4A
U/S
D/S
UT1A
UT113
UT2
1. Watershed
characteristics
7
8
8
8
6
5
6
6
6
6
8
2. Flow habit
4
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
3. Channel pattern
7
6
8
8
8
7
6
6
3
4
8
4. Entrenchment
4
4
7
9
6
7
5
8
2
4
7
5. Bed material
8
8
7
8
10
8
8
7
8
7
8
6. Bar development
2
6
10
6
6
7
6
6
2
3
2
7. Obstructions
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
2
7
5
8. Bank soil texture
and coherence
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
5
5
5
8
9. Average bank
slope angle
10
10
11
11
10
10
10
10
7
8
11
10. Bank protection
11
5
9
9
8
7
7
9
10
10
7
11. Bank cutting
6
7
10
10
8
7
7
9
3
4
6
12. Mass wasting or
bank failure
8
7
7
7
5
5
9
9
3
3
6
Score
79
74
91
90
80
77
77
83
53
63
78
Rating
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Lateral Fraction
0.72
0.62
0.75
0.75
0.65
0.62
0.63
0.70
0.47
0.50
0.63
Vertical Fraction
0.39
0.50
0.67
0.64
0.61
0.61
0.53
0.58
0.33
0.39
0.47
3.8 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull stage indicators on the project streams were few and difficult to identify due to incision
of the channels and trampling of the banks by livestock. However, during the existing conditions
assessment, WEI staff identified the best available bankfull indicators and surveyed cross
sections at those locations. Bank features considered to be potential bankfull indicators included
flat depositional features and prominent breaks in slope. In addition, a nearby USGS gauging
station (station 02096846 - Cane Creek near Orange Grove, NC) was used to develop a
calibrated estimate of bankfull discharge and channel geometry at a local site. Bankfull data for
the gauge site, the surveyed project reaches, and two nearby reference reaches were compared
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 24
Draft Mitigation Plan

with the NC rural Piedmont regional curves and are shown overlaid with the rural curves for area
and discharge in Figure 7. Analysis of the bankfull cross-sectional areas and discharges for the
project reaches reveal that the data consistently plot within the 95% confidence intervals of the
area and discharge regional curves in all cases where the points are within the range of drainage
area (independent variable) covered by the regional curves. This information indicates that the
bankfull indicators identified during the existing conditions assessment provide reasonable
estimates of bankfull geometry for the existing conditions. The USGS gauge bankfull discharge
was 83% of that predicted by the rural Piedmont regional curve for discharge for a site with a
drainage area the same as the gauge site (7.54 sq. mi.) and the cross sectional area was 66% of
the regional curve prediction (both well within the lower 95% confidence intervals). The
recurrence interval for the bankfull discharge of the gauge site was determined to be 1.15 years.
While this recurrence interval is lower than that of many of the gauged sites included on the
regional curve, it is reasonable to represent bankfull discharge and provides further support for
the use of the regional curves in the project area.
3.9 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions
The existing vegetation communities within the proposed project area are predominately
disturbed cattle pasture and row crop agricultural systems dominated by fescue grasses. Based
on conversations with the landowners and the age of abandoned farm houses on the properties,
row crop agriculture and cattle grazing have been the predominant land use on these farms since
at least the early 1900's. Due to heavy agricultural activities and vegetation management over
the past century, several major strata are completely absent from this area resulting in a dominant
herbaceous layer with few sparse mature trees. Overstory vegetation is thicker and more mature
along the UT2 and SF3 tops of bank and within the UTI floodplain. Dominant herbaceous
species within this area include fescue (Festuca spp.) and soft stem rush (Juncus effuses). Sparse
tree species include shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash
(Fraxinus sylvatica), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), box elder (Acer negundo), water oak
(Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), black willow (Salix nigra), and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua).
4.0 Reference Streams
Two reference reaches were identified near the project area and used to support the design of the
project reaches (Figure 8). Reference reaches can be used as a basis for design or, more
appropriately, as one source of information on which to base a stream restoration design. Most,
if not all, reference reaches identified in the North Carolina Piedmont are in heavily wooded
areas and the mature vegetation contributes greatly to their stability. Design parameters for this
project were also developed based on the design discharge along with dimensionless ratio values
associated with successful restoration designs of streams in the North Carolina Piedmont.
Reference reach data for similar streams were obtained from existing data sets and used to verify
design parameters. The reference streams considered when developing design parameters for
this project include Long Branch and UT to Cane Creek. These reference streams were chosen
because of similarities to the project streams including drainage area, valley slope and
morphology, bed material, and location within the Carolina Slate Belt region of the Piedmont.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 25
Draft Mitigation Plan

4 Reference Streams Channel Morphology and Classification
Long Branch is located in the central portion of Orange County northwest of Chapel Hill.
According to the Collins Creek Restoration Plan (KCI Technologies, 2007), the drainage area is
1.49 mit and the land use within the drainage area is low-density residential, agricultural lands,
and forest. The Long Branch reference site was classified as a C4 channel type according to the
KCI report. The channel has a width to depth ratio ranging from 8.8 to 13.8 and an entrenchment
ratio of >2.5. The reach has a valley slope of 0.6% while the channel slope is 0.4%. The bed
material D50 for the reach is 7.6 mm. WEI visited the reference site to verify the data presented
in the KCI report. Two riffles were surveyed during the site visit. These riffles had width to
depth ratios of 9.4 and 7.9 and entrenchment ratios of 11.7 and 12.1. Some cross sections are
more typical of E stream types while others would classify as a C stream type. This is true of
both the sections documented in the KCI report and those surveyed by Wildlands.
The second reference reach investigated for the project, UT to Cane Creek, is located in southern
Alamance County approximately seven miles from the Underwood site. This site was classified
as an E4 stream type in the Unnamed Tributary to Cane Creek Restoration Plan (URS, 2007) and
has a drainage area of 0.28 mit. This reach also flows through a mature forest and has a channel
slope of 0.46%. The morphological parameters reported for the riffle cross section include a
width to depth ratio of 13.1 and an entrenchment ratio of >2.2. WEI conducted a site visit for
this reference reach and surveyed an additional cross section typical of the reference reach. The
width to depth ratio of this reach was 7.9 and the entrenchment ratio was approximately 25
indicating that the channel would fall into the E classification.
Both of these reference reaches have width to depth ratios in the C to E range depending on the
particular cross section considered. For general classification purposes, they are on the cusp
between E and narrow C streams. There is often considerable variability of the widths and
depths of a stable natural channel - even within a morphologically similar reach. This is very
common of smaller Piedmont streams and is representative of the conditions planned for the
Underwood site. Summaries of geomorphic parameters for the reference reaches analyzed for
this project are included in Table 10.
Table 10. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Underwood Mitigation Proiect
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 26
Draft Mitigation Plan
Lon Branch
UT to Cane Creek
Parameter
Notation
Units
min
max
min
max
stream type
C/E4
C/E4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
1.49
0.28
bankfull discharge
Qbkf
cfs
101.0
124.0
20.6
53.2
bankfull cross-
sectional area
Abkf
SF
25.0
34.6
8.5
10.7
average velocity
during bankfull event
Vbkf
fps
3.6
4.0
2.4
5.0
width at bankfull
wbkf
feet
14.8
18.6
8.2
11.8
maximum depth at
bankfull
dmax
feet
1.9
2.9
1.5
1.7
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 26
Draft Mitigation Plan

4.2 Reference Streams Vegetation Community Types Descriptions
Stream vegetation communities will be similar to those of Long Branch and UT to Cane Creek.
Both of those streams are both surrounded by mature hardwood forests composed of typical
Piedmont bottomland riparian forest tree species. The mature trees within the riparian buffers
provide significant bank reinforcement to keep the streams from eroding horizontally and
maintain channels with small width to depth ratios. The Long Branch site is classified as a
combination of Piedmont levee and bottomland forest types (Schafale & Weakley, 1990). The
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 27
Draft Mitigation Plan
Long Branch
UT to Cane Creek
Parameter
Notation
Units
min
max
min
max
mean depth at
bankfull
dbkf
feet
1.3
2.1
0.9
1.0
bankfull width to
depth ratio
Wbkf/dbkf
7.9
13.8
7.9
13.1
depth ratio
dmax/dbkf
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.7
bank height ratio
BHR
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.0
floodprone area
width
wf a
feet
1 >50
>40
entrenchment ratio
ER
>3.4
>4.59
valley sloe
Svalle
ft/ft
0.006
channel slope
Schannel
ft/ft
0.004
0.005
sinuosity
K
1.3
1.2
riffle sloe
Sriffle
ft/ft
0.013
0.012
0.012
riffle slope ratio
SrifFle/Schannel
3.3
3.0
2.6
pool sloe
Soo,
ft/ft
0.0003
0.0030
0.001
001 slope ratio
S000l/Schannel
0.1
0.8
0.3
pool -to -pool spacing
L _
feet
50.0
105.0
1.6
95.0
pool spacing ratio
L _ /wb,f
3.4
7.1
0.1
8.6
maximum pool depth
at bankfull
d oo,
feet
2.2
2.6
Dol depth ratio
d ool/dbkf
0.8
1.2
1.7
pool width at bankfull
woo,
feet
16.2
18.8
12.3
Dol width ratio
wool/Wbkf
0.9
1.3
1.5
pool cross-sectional
area at bankfull
A,001
SF
25.5
33.4
12.5
pool area ratio
A ool/Abkf
1.0
1.3
1.5
belt width
wb,t
feet
60.0
50.0
77.0
meander width ratio
WbidWbkf
3.2
4.1
50.0
77.0
meander length
Lm
feet
66
191
29.0
96.0
meander length ratio
Lm/Wbkf
4.5
10.3
2.6
8.7
radius of curvature
R,
feet
16.0
87.0
11.3
27.1
radius of curvature
ratio
Rc/ Wbkf
1.1
4.7
1.0
2.5
4.2 Reference Streams Vegetation Community Types Descriptions
Stream vegetation communities will be similar to those of Long Branch and UT to Cane Creek.
Both of those streams are both surrounded by mature hardwood forests composed of typical
Piedmont bottomland riparian forest tree species. The mature trees within the riparian buffers
provide significant bank reinforcement to keep the streams from eroding horizontally and
maintain channels with small width to depth ratios. The Long Branch site is classified as a
combination of Piedmont levee and bottomland forest types (Schafale & Weakley, 1990). The
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 27
Draft Mitigation Plan

Levee forest type occurs closer to the creek and grades back to the bottomland forest. Dominant
species include river birch (Betula nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis). Common understory vegetation includes ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), paw
paw (Asimina triloba), and American silverberry (Eleagnus commutata). The UT to Cane Creek
site is classified as a Piedmont bottomland forest type (Schafale & Weakley, 1990). Dominant
species include southern red oak (Quercus falcata), red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch, tulip
poplar, sweetgum, green ash, and sycamore. Common understory vegetation includes ironwood
and paw paw.
5.0 Project Site Wetlands — Existing Conditions
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
On February 19, 2010, WEI delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project
easement area. Potential jurisdictional areas were delineated using the USACE Routine On -Site
Determination Method. This method is defined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual and subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement.
Routine On -Site Data Forms have been included in Appendix 2. The results of the on-site
jurisdictional determination indicate that there are no jurisdictional wetlands located within the
project easement.
5.2 Hydrological Characterization
In order to develop a wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation design for the Underwood
Site, an analysis of the existing and proposed conditions for groundwater hydrology was
necessary. DrainMod (version 6.0) was used to model existing and proposed groundwater
hydrology at the site. DrainMod simulates water table depth over time and produces statistics
describing long term water table characteristics and an annual water budget. DrainMod was
selected for this application because it is a well-documented modeling tool for assessing wetland
hydrology (NCSU, 2010) and is commonly used in wetland creation and restoration projects.
For more information on DrainMod and its application to high water table soils see Skaggs
(1980).
5.2.1 Groundwater Modeling
For the Underwood wetlands, four total models were developed and calibrated to represent
the existing and proposed conditions at four different groundwater monitoring gauge
locations across the site. Resulting model output was used to validate and refine the
proposed grading plan for wetland restoration and creation on site and to develop a water
budget for the site. The modeling procedures are described below.
5.2.1.1 Data Collection
DrainMod models are built using site hydrology, soil, climate, and crop data. Prior to
building the models, soil cores were taken to validate existing mapped soils across the
site. Further explanation of the site soils can be found in Section 5.3 of this report.
Rainfall and temperature data were obtained from nearby weather station Siler City 2 N
(Station No. 317924) operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) National Weather Service. The data set for this station was obtained from the
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 28
Draft Mitigation Plan

North Carolina State Climate Office from January of 1960 through April of 2011. These
data were used to calibrate the models and perform the long term simulations.
Information to develop model inputs for crops previously grown on the site was obtained
through interviews with the landowner.
5.2.1.2 Existing Conditions Base Model Set up and Calibration
Models were created to represent four monitoring gauge locations on the site at as shown
on Figure 6. The models were developed using the conventional drainage water
management option with contributing surface water runoff to best simulate the drainage
of the site. Each of the four gauges was installed in July, 2010 and recorded groundwater
depth twice per day with In-situ Level TROLL® 100 or 300 pressure transducers through
early December 2010. The gauges were reactivated in March, 2011 and collected
additional data through early April, 2011. These periods were used as the calibration
period for the groundwater models.
The first step in developing the model was to prepare input files from various data
sources. A soil input file obtained from N.C. State University, which has similar
characteristics to the soils on the site, was used as a base soil input file for each model.
The soil files were refined by adjusting certain parameters for each of the mapped soils
found on-site from published soil survey data (MRCS, 2006, 2011). Temperature and
precipitation data from a nearby weather station, described above, were used to produce
weather input files for each model.
Once the necessary input files were created, the project settings were adjusted for this
application and then calibration runs were conducted. To calibrate the model, parameters
not measured in the field were adjusted within the limits typically encountered under
similar soil and geomorphic conditions until model simulation results were similar to
observed gauge data. After calibration of each of the models was complete, the
calibrated models were used as the basis for the proposed conditions models. Plots
showing the calibration results are included in Appendix 8. Trends in the observed data
are well -represented by the calibration simulations. Although hydrograph peaks between
plots of observed and simulated data do not match exactly, relative changes in water table
hydrology as a result of precipitation events correspond well between observed data and
model results.
5.2.1.3 Proposed Conditions Model Setup
The proposed conditions models were developed based on the existing conditions models
to predict whether wetland criteria would be met over a long period of recorded climate
data. Proposed plans for the site include grading portions of the site to lower elevations,
raising the inverts of adjacent stream channels, planting native wetland plants, and
roughing the surface soil through disking. A ditch that currently drains a riparian wetland
restoration area referred to as RW4 will also be filled. These proposed plans were
developed to increase the wetland hydrology on site. Settings for the proposed conditions
model were altered to reflect these changes to the site. To account for changes to stream
alignments, the ditch spacing values in the models were altered. To simulate proposed
site grading conditions, the ground surface elevations were decreased by the depth of
ground to be graded at gauges 4 and 5. Changes in the vegetation on the site were
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 29
Draft Mitigation Plan

simulated by altering the rooting depth of plants on the site from variable shallow depths
for crops (varying by time of year) to consistent and deeper values for hardwood tree
species. Surface storage values were increased at all gauges to account for proposed
disking to the site. Once the proposed conditions models were developed, each model
was run for a 51 -year period from January 1960 through March 2011 using the weather
data from the Siler City 2 N weather station to perform the long term simulation.
5.2.1.4 Modeling Results and Conclusions
DrainMod was used to compare calibrated existing conditions models with proposed
conditions scenarios to determine the effect of proposed practices on site hydrology.
Each gauge location was evaluated to establish how often annual wetland criteria would
be met over the 51 -year simulation period. The wetland criteria are that the water table
must be within 12 inches of the ground surface at each gauge for a minimum of 6.5% of
the growing season (April 1 through November 3). The modeling results show that
Gauges 2 (representing riparian wetland RW1) and 3 (riparian wetland RW4) would meet
the criteria 45 and 39 years respectively out of the 51 -year simulation period if in the
restored condition. Gauges 4 (riparian wetland RW3) and 5 (riparian wetland RW4)
represent wetlands that would not regularly meet criteria without grading the portion of
the site represented by that gauge (the wetland creation zone) to a lower elevation. The
model results show that if grading is performed to lower the ground surface at each gage
by 12 inches, those portions of the site would meet criteria 40 and 43 years respectively
out of the out of the 51 -year period. Note: gauge 1 was removed and not used in the
simulations.
5.2.2 Surface Water Modeling at Restoration Site
The only surface water modeling necessary to support the wetland designs was performed
with DrainMod by simulating a contributing area runoff for the hillslope areas adjacent to
gauges 3 and 5 (RW4). The runoff simulated for theses hillslopes provided one of the
hydrologic inputs for the adjacent wetland areas. No other modeling of surface hydrology,
other than the HEC -RAS hydraulic flood study, was performed for this project.
5.2.3 Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site
DrainMod computes daily water balance information and outputs summaries that describe the
loss pathways for rainfall over the model simulation period. Tables Ila, Ilb, Ilc, and IId
summarize the average annual amount of rainfall, infiltration, drainage, runoff, and
evapotranspiration estimated for the three modeled locations on site. Infiltration represents the
amount of water that percolates into the soil. Drainage is the loss of infiltrated water that travels
through the soil profile and is discharged to the drainage ditches or to underlying aquifers.
Runoff is water that flows overland and reaches the drainage ditches before infiltration.
Evapotranspiration is water that is lost by the direct evaporation of water from the soil or through
the transpiration of plants. From the water balance results provided in Tables l la, l lb, l lc, and
I Id it can be seen that, in most cases evapotranspiration is larger in the proposed condition when
compared to the existing condition while runoff is smaller. The evapotranspiration stays
essentially the same for gauge 3 because there is a higher existing condition evapotranspiration
due to the corn crop planted on the site than would be the case for pastureland. For all gauges
except gauge 5, runoff is decreased and infiltration is increased for the proposed condition.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 30
Draft Mitigation Plan

Gauge 5 is unusual because there is a large volume of runon from an existing ditch that will be
discharged to the wetland area that currently discharges directly to SF4A and, therefore, does not
contribute to the hydrology of the existing site. Some of this additional water will run off the
site, increasing the runoff volume for the gauge 5 area.
Table 11a. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 2 for Existing and Proposed
Conditions
Underwood Miti ation Project
Table 11b. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 3 for Existing and Proposed
Conditions
Underwood Mitigation Project
Existing Conditions
Proposed Conditions
Average
Average
Average
Average
Hydrologic
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Parameter
Amount
Amount
Amount
Amount
(cm of
(% of
(cm of
(% of
water)
precip +
water)
precip +
runon
runon
Precipitation
118.45
100.0%
118.45
100.0%
Runon
0.00
0.0%
0.00
0.0%
Precip + Runon
118.45
100.0%
118.45
100.0%
Infiltration
101.92
86.0%
112.86
95.3%
Evapotranspiration
78.28
66.1%
83.57
70.6%
Drainage
25.29
21.4%
30.39
1 25.7%
Runoff
16.53
14.0%
5.57
4.7%
Table 11b. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 3 for Existing and Proposed
Conditions
Underwood Mitigation Project
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 31
Draft Mitigation Plan
Existing Conditions
Proposed Conditions
Average
Average
Average
Average
Hydrologic
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Parameter
Amount
Amount
Amount*
Amount
(cm of
(% of
(cm of
(% of
water)
precip +
water)
precip +
runon
runon
Precipitation
118.45
70.2%
118.45
100.0%
Runon
50.19
29.8%
50.19
29.8%
Precip + Runon
168.64
100.0%
168.64
100.0%
Infiltration
115.2
68.3%
139.49
82.7%
Evapotranspiration
80.49
47.7%
80.28
47.6%
Drainage
37.92
22.5%
61.21
36.3%
Runoff
53.43
31.7%
29.09
17.2%
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 31
Draft Mitigation Plan

Table 11c. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 4 for Existing and Proposed
Conditions
Underwood Miti ation Project
Table 11d. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 5 for Existing and Proposed
Conditions
Underwood Mitigation Project
Existing Conditions
Proposed Conditions
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Hydrologic
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Parameter
Amount
Amount
Amount
Amount
Amount
(cm of
(% of
(cm of
(% of
(% of
water)
precip +
water)
precip +
precip +
runon
runon)
runon
Precipitation
118.45
54.1%
218.83
100.0%
Runon
100.38
45.9%
100.38
45.9%
Precip + Runon
218.83
100.0%
319.21
145.9%
Infiltration
148.73
68.0%
157.12
71.8%
Evapotranspiration
70.85
32.4%
84.07
38.4%
Drainage
82.15
37.5%
75.15
34.3%
Runoff
68.82
31.4%
61.65
28.2%
Table 11d. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 5 for Existing and Proposed
Conditions
Underwood Mitigation Project
5.3 Soil Characterization
An investigation of the existing soils within the wetland restoration/enhancement/creation areas
was performed by WEI staff between October, 2010 and May, 2011. This investigation
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 32
Draft Mitigation Plan
Existing Conditions
Proposed
Conditions
Average
Average
Average
Average
Hydrologic
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Parameter
Amount
Amount
Amount
Amount
(cm of
(% of
(cm of
(% of
water)
precip +
water)
precip +
runon)
runon)
Precipitation
118.45
100.0%
118.45
72.1%
Runon
0.00
0.0%
45.74
27.9%
Precip + Runon
118.45
100.0%
164.19
100.0%
Infiltration
110.68
93.4%
136.14
82.9%
Evapotranspiration
65.02
54.9%
78.31
47.7%
Drainage
48.12
40.6%
59.72
36.4%
Runoff
7.77
6.6%
27.99
17.0%
5.3 Soil Characterization
An investigation of the existing soils within the wetland restoration/enhancement/creation areas
was performed by WEI staff between October, 2010 and May, 2011. This investigation
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 32
Draft Mitigation Plan

supplemented the soils analysis performed by a licensed soil scientist (LSS) on March 1, 2010.
Soil cores were collected at locations across the site to provide data to refine NRCS soils
mapping units, establish areas suitable for wetland restoration and creation, and aid in
developing a wetland grading plan. Fifty-one soil cores were taken at approximately 100- to
200 -foot grid spacing in key wetland areas across the site (Figures 9 and 10). Nineteen of the
fifty-one soil cores were taken by the licensed soil scientist in March 2010. Soil texture, Munsell
chart hue, chroma and value, and hydric soil characteristics were recorded for each core. At each
break in soil chroma or texture a new description was recorded and the depth of the change was
recorded. The depth to hydric indicators was then measured as well. Detailed soil borings logs
are included in Appendix 4.
5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification
Analysis of the soil core samples collected from the project site along with consideration of
site topography indicated that soils classifications did not agree with the mapped soil units in
many locations. Soil classifications are discussed by wetland zone below. Soil chroma and
texture are summarized by zone but Figures 9 and 10 and Appendix 4 contain more detailed
information concerning individual soil borings.
5.3.1.1 RWI
Soils within the RW 1 area are predominately mapped as Georgeville silt loam which is
not listed on the NC Hydric Soil list. This map unit is broad and accurately reflects the
surrounding upland soils, however, soil borings throughout the proposed wetland area
indicate that the map unit is incorrectly applied to the floodplain area. Soil cores 24-29
(Appendix 4) indicate chroma values of one and two throughout the matrix to a depth of
24 inches with 20%-40% mottling, blackened manganese, and concretions. The soils in
this confined floodplain match more closely to the Chewacla and Wehadkee series which
are mapped in the downstream floodplains. Monitoring gauge data confirm that the soil
in this area is poorly drained.
5,3.1.2 RW2
Soils within the area referred to as RW2 are predominately Cid-Lignum Complex which
is listed on the NC Hydric Soil list primarily for inclusions of the Wehadkee soil type.
Soil cores indicate chroma values of one and two at a depth of 12-18 inches. The soil
mapping unit was confirmed to be correct in this area.
5.3.1.3 NRWI
Soils within the NRW 1 area are predominately Cid-Lignum Complex which is listed on
the NC Hydric Soil list, primarily for inclusions of the Wehadkee soil type, and Nanford-
Badin Complex which is not listed. These map units are broad and accurately reflect the
surrounding upland soils; however, soil borings throughout the proposed NRW 1 area
indicate that the map unit is incorrectly applied to this area which is not associated with a
stream channel. Soil cores 30 to 33 indicate chroma values of one to three throughout the
matrix to a depth of 24 inches with 20%-30% mottling and blackened manganese. The
soils in this confined wetland area match more closely to the Chewacla and Wehadkee
series.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 33
Draft Mitigation Plan

5.3.1.4 RW3
Soils within the RW3 area are predominately mapped as Nanford-Badin Complex which
is not listed on the NC Hydric Soil list. This broad map unit accurately reflects the
surrounding upland soils and portions of the floodplain; however, soil borings throughout
and between the proposed wetland areas indicate that the map unit is incorrectly applied
at a finer scale. Soil cores 1-20 (Appendix 4) indicate variable conditions within the
floodplain of S173. In the portions of the floodplain proposed for wetland restoration and
creation, chroma values of one to three characterized the matrix to a depth of 24 inches
with 10%-40% mottling, blackened manganese, and oxidized rhizospheres. Soils in the
zones proposed for creation had a higher sand content in the upper 12 inches than soils in
the areas proposed for restoration. The soils in this floodplain matched the mapping unit
in some locations while matching more closely to the Chewacla and Wehadkee series in
other locations.
5.3.1.5 NRW2
Soils within the area referred to as NRW2 are predominately Nanford-Badin Complex
which is not listed on the NC Hydric Soil list. This broad map unit accurately reflects the
surrounding upland soils. However, soil borings indicate that the map unit is incorrectly
applied to this wetland area which is not associated with a stream channel. Soil cores 21
and 22 indicate chroma values of one throughout the matrix to a depth of 24 inches with
10%-30% mottling. Soil core 23 is an adjacent upland point. The soils in this confined
wetland area match more closely to the Chewacla and Wehadkee series.
5,3.1.4 RW4
Soils within the RW4 area are predominately mapped as Chewacla and Wehadkee, which
is listed on the NC Hydric Soil list, and has margins of Nanford-Badin Complex, which is
not listed on the NC Hydric Soil list. This floodplain area was confirmed to be a mix of
the two soil types with some areas showing more hydric conditions consistent with
Chewacla and Wehadkee and other areas showing higher chroma soils more consistent
with Nanford-Badin Complex. Soil cores 34-51 (Appendix 4) indicate these variable
conditions within the floodplain of SF4. In the portions of the floodplain proposed for
wetland restoration and creation, chroma values of one to three characterized the matrix
to a depth of 24 inches with 10%-40% mottling, blackened manganese, and oxidized
rhizospheres.
5.3.2 Profile Description
The floodplain areas of the proposed project are mapped by the Chatham County Soil Survey
(MRCS, 2006). Soils along the UTI, UTIA, UTIB, MA, SF2 and SF3 floodplains are
primarily mapped as the Nanford-Badin complex. S171 is primarily mapped as the Cid-Lignum
complex. UT2 is located in the Georgeville silt loam soil. SF4 and SF4A are mapped in the
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils. These soils are described below in Table 12. A soils map is
provided in Figure 4.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 34
Draft Mitigation Plan

Table 12. Wetland Area Soil Types and Descriptions
Underwood Mitigation Project
Soil Name
Location
Description
Chewacla and
Majority of SF4 and SF4A
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils consist of nearly level, very deep,
Wehadkee, 0-
poorly and somewhat poorly drained soils. These are typically
2% slopes
floodplain areas. They have a loamy surface layer and subsoil.
Permeability is moderate and shrink -swell potential is low.
These soils are subject to frequent flooding.
Cid-Lignum
Majority of SF1, and
Cid and Lignum soils series are gently sloping, moderately deep
complex, 2-6%
portions of SF2, SF3, and
to deep, moderately well -drained to somewhat poorly drained
slopes
UT2
soils. They are often found in uplands. The surface layer and
subsoil are silt loam. Permeability is slow and shrink -swell
potential is moderate.
Georgeville silt
Majority of UT2 and
Georgeville soils are gently sloping to strongly sloping, very
loam, 2-6%
portions of UT2A and
deep, well -drained soils. They are often found in uplands. The
slopes
SF1
surface layer and subsoil are silt loam. Permeability is
moderate and shrink -swell potential is low.
Georgeville-
Portion of SF4A
Georgeville and Badin soils are gently sloping to strongly
Badin complex,
sloping, moderately deep to very deep, well -drained soils. They
10-15% slopes
are often found in uplands. The surface layer and subsoil are
silt loam. Permeability is moderate and shrink -swell potential is
low to moderate.
Nanford-Badin
Portions of UT1A, SF3,
These Nanford and Badin soils are gently sloping, moderately
complex, 2-6%
and SF4A
deep to deep, well -drained soils. They are often found in
slopes
uplands. The surface layer and subsoil are silt loam.
Permeability is moderate and shrink -swell potential is low to
moderate.
Nanford-Badin
Majority of UT1, UT1A,
These Nanford and Badin soils are gently sloping to steep,
complex, 6-
UT1B, UT2A, SF2, and
moderately deep to deep, well -drained soils. They are often
10% slopes
SF3, and portions of SF4,
found in uplands. The surface layer and subsoil are silt loam.
and SF4A
Permeability is moderate and shrink -swell potential is low to
moderate.
Nanford-Badin
Portions of UT1 and
These Nanford and Badin soils are steep, moderately deep to
complex, 10-
UT1B
deep, well -drained soils. They are often found in uplands. The
15% slopes
surface layer and subsoil are silt loam. Permeability is
moderate and shrink -swell potential is low to moderate.
Notes:
Source: Chatham County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, http://efotg.nres.usda.gov
5.3.3 Hydraulic Conductivity
The Chewacla-Wehadkee series has a moderate permeability. It consists of somewhat poorly
to poorly drained soils. The Cid-Lignum complex is moderately well to somewhat poorly -
drained and the permeability is slow to very slow. Georgeville and Georgevill-Baden
complex soils are well -drained soils with moderate permeability. Nanford-Baden soils are
well -drained with moderate permeability.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 35
Draft Mitigation Plan

5.4 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions and Disturbance History
The existing vegetation communities within the proposed wetland areas are predominately
disturbed cattle pasture and row crop agricultural systems dominated by fescue grasses. Based
on conversations with the landowners and the age of abandoned farm houses on the properties,
row crop agriculture and cattle grazing have been the predominant land use on these farms since
at least the early 1900's. Due to heavy agricultural activities and vegetation management over
the past century, several major strata are completely absent from this area resulting in a dominant
herbaceous layer with few sparse mature trees. Dominant herbaceous species within this area
include fescue (Festuca spp.) and soft stem rush (Juncus effuses). Sparse tree species include
shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus sylvatica),
hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), box elder (Acer negundo), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow
oak (Quercus phellos), black willow (Salix nigra), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
6.0 Reference Wetland
A reference wetland was identified immediately adjacent to RW4. The property is classified as a
Piedmont bottomland forest (Shafale & Weakley, 1990). Because the site is immediately
adjacent to the project site, it offers the best opportunity to provide reference information on the
appropriate natural community to use in restoring and creating wetlands on the project site. The
reference wetland is primarily bottomland hardwood forest and the natural community present on
the site was used in combination with other sources as a basis to develop the planting plan for the
restoration/enhancement/creation project.
6.1 Hydrological Characterization
A groundwater monitoring gauge was installed on July 29, 2010 on the reference site to
document the reference wetland hydrology. However, after further analysis during the fall of
2010 it was determined that this particular location represented drier than average conditions for
this wetland complex due to its proximity to a drainage feature. The gauge was moved to a more
appropriate reference location in March of 2011. The gauge has not been installed for an
adequate period to assess hydrologic conditions and determine the appropriateness of this
reference location. Other reference sites are currently being evaluated and a permanent reference
location will be selected prior to beginning the post -construction monitoring period. This
information will be used to provide a comparison for the restored and created wetland hydrology
throughout the monitoring period.
6.2 Soil Characterization and Taxonomic Classification
The soils on the reference site are mapped as Chewacla and Wehadkee which are listed on the
NC Hydric Soils list. This floodplain area was confirmed to match the mapped soil unit which is
described in more detail above.
6.3 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions and Disturbance History
Historical aerials reveal that the reference wetland area was vegetated in 1951 and 1993 to
present. In the 1951 photograph, this area was the only vegetated zone within several hundred
acres of surrounding cleared agricultural land indicating that it has generally been too wet to use
as productive farm land. The existing vegetation communities are typical of a bottomland
Hardwood Forest and include semi -mature canopy tree species, moderate subcanopy and shrub
species, as well as an herbaceous layer. Dominant canopy species include sweetgum, red maple,
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 36
Draft Mitigation Plan

sycamore, willow oak, and water oak. Typical subcanopy and shrub species include American
elm, box elder, and black willow.
7.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan
A local watershed plan has not been developed at this time for the Cane Creek watershed, the 14 -
digit HUC in which the project is located. The goals for the Haw River watershed, which
includes Cane Creek, discussed in the 2009 NCEEP planning document Cape Fear River Basin
Restoration Priorities (CFRBRP) are focused on the Jordan Lake nutrient strategy which calls
for reductions in nutrient loads to the lake. The lake was designated as nutrient sensitive waters
(NSW) by the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) in 1983. The NCDWQ
determined that the Haw River arm of the lake was failing to meet its designated uses in 2006
due to exceedences of chlorophyll -a (chl-a) and pH standards. Both chl-a and pH can be
indicators of eutrophication which is driven by excessive nutrient loads. As a result, the entire
reservoir is now on North Carolina's list of impaired waters under Section 303(d) of the federal
Clean Water Act. The CFRBRP discusses "a number of stream and wetland restoration projects"
which have been completed in the Cane Creek watershed. The specific goals for the watershed
are continued restoration and preservation work, promotion of healthy riparian corridors,
improvements to "aquatic conditions" and benthic habitats, and, because it is part of the Jordan
Lake watershed, reductions in nitrogen and phosphorous loads to help meet established nutrient
reductions for the lake. The 51 cattle, dairy, and poultry operations within the watershed are
implied to be a major stressor to aquatic resources by the CFRBRP.
The restoration design developed for this project was completed with careful consideration of
goals and objectives that were described in the CFRBRP. The goals were established to meet
NCEEP's mitigation needs while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift provided by
the project. The goals represent the "ends" that the finer objectives (or "means") were
formulated to achieve and were directed by the specific stressors discussed above. The
overarching goals of this mitigation plan are broad and similar to those of other mitigation plans.
The objectives are more specific in order to replace specific ecological functions and to remain
sustainable given watershed trajectory.
7.1 Overarching Goals of Mitigation Plans
The following list provides the intended goals of this mitigation plan:
• The timely, cost effective delivery of sustainable ecological uplift for the purpose of
meeting compensatory mitigation requirements.
• Link project specific goals to watershed goals as provided in planning documents.
• Articulate how the proposed approach or levels of intervention are proportional and
optimized.
• Demonstrate that the factors of influence and the data streams that are part of the
design effort converge (or provide explanation when they don't) to justify the
proposed level of intervention.
• Define project level goals and objectives.
• Provide a pre -restoration baseline to which monitoring data can be compared for the
purpose of demonstrating attainment of goals and objectives.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 37
Draft Mitigation Plan

• Provide impact and other information necessary to obtain regulatory permits.
• Document whether or not the project will result in a rise in flood elevations.
• Address how project goals and objectives address stressors identified in watershed
characterization section of the plan.
7.2 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
The Underwood Mitigation Project has been designed to meet the over -arching goals described
above. The project will also address multiple watershed stressors that have been documented for
both Cane Creek and the Jordan Lake watersheds. The project specific goals include:
• Restore and stabilize stream dimensions, pattern, and profile
• Establish proper substrate distribution throughout restored and enhanced streams
• Improve aquatic and benthic habitat
• Reduce nutrient loads within the watershed and to downstream waters
• Further improve water quality within the watershed through reductions of sediment,
bacteria, and other pollutants
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations
• Establish appropriate hydrology for wetland areas
• Restore native vegetation to wetlands and riparian buffers/improve existing buffers
• Create appropriate terrestrial habitat
The design features of this project were developed to achieve multiple project objectives. The
stream restoration elements have been designed to frequently flood the reconnected floodplain
and adjacent riparian wetlands. This design will provide more frequent dissipation of energy
from higher flows (bankfull and above) to improve channel stability; provide water quality
treatment through detention, settling, and biological removal of pollutants; and restore a more
natural hydrologic regime. Existing, restored, and created wetlands are key components of the
design incorporated to better meet goals described above. The project objectives have been
defined as follows:
• Construct stream channels that will remain relatively stable over time and adequately
transport their sediment loads without significant erosion or agradation.
• Construct stream channels that maintain riffles with course bed material and pools
with finer bed material.
• Provide aquatic and benthic habitat diversity in the form of pools, riffles, woody
debris, and in -stream structures.
• Add riffle features and structures and riparian vegetation to decrease water
temperatures and increase dissolved oxygen to improve water quality.
• Construct stream reaches so that floodplains and wetlands are frequently flooded to
provide energy dissipation, detain and treat flood flows, and create a more natural
hydrologic regime.
• Construct fencing to keep livestock out of the streams.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 38
Draft Mitigation Plan

• Raise local groundwater table through raising stream beds and removing agricultural
drainage features.
• Grade wetland creation areas as necessary to promote wetland hydrology.
• Plant native tree species to establish appropriate wetland and floodplain communities
and retain existing, native trees were possible.
7.2.1 Designed Channel Classification
The design streams and wetlands will be restored to the appropriate type based on the
surrounding landscape, climate, and natural vegetation communities but also with strong
consideration to existing watershed conditions and trajectory. The project includes stream
restoration and enhancement as well as wetland restoration and creation (Figures 11 and 12).
The specific proposed stream and wetland types are described below.
7.2.1.1 Designed Channel Classification
The stream restoration portion of this project includes five reaches:
SF 1: South Fork from approximately 2,600 LF upstream of Clyde Underwood Road to
approximately 1,900 feet upstream of Clyde Underwood Road
SF3: South Fork from approximately 590 feet downstream of Clyde Underwood Road
to approximately 2,000 feet downstream of Clyde Underwood Road
SF4: South Fork from approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Moon Lindley Road to
Moon Lindley Road
SF4A: Unnamed tributary to South Fork including approximately 600 feet at the
downstream end of SF4A to the confluence of SF4A with SF4
UT1: Unnamed tributary to South Fork including approximately 400 feet at the
downstream end of UT 1 to the confluence of UT 1 with SF3
The project also includes stream enhancement on seven reaches classified as either
Enhancement I (EI) or Enhancement II (EII):
SF2, EII: South Fork from approximately 320 feet upstream of Clyde Underwood Road
to Clyde Underwood Road
SF3, EI: South Fork from 152 LF upstream of the end of the reach to the end of the reach
SF3, EII: South Fork from Clyde Underwood Road to approximately 590 feet
downstream of Clyde Underwood Road
SF4A, EI: Tributary to SF4 including approximately 620 feet at the downstream end of
SF4A to the confluence of SF4A with SF4
UTI, EII: Unnamed tributary to South Fork from approximately 2000 feet upstream of
the confluence of UTI with SF3 to approximately 400 feet upstream of the
confluence
UT 1 A, EIl: Unnamed tributary to UTI including approximately 520 feet at the
downstream end of UT 1 A to the confluence of UT 1 A with UT 1
UT 1 B, EII: Unnamed tributary to UTI including approximately 650 feet at the
downstream end of UTIB to the confluence of UTIB with UTI
UT2, EI: Unnamed tributary to SF1 from approximately 850 feet upstream of the
confluence of UT2 and SF to approximately 390 feet upstream of the confluence
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 39
Draft Mitigation Plan

All stream restoration and enhancement I reaches included in the design for this project
will be constructed as C type streams according to the Rosgen classification system
(Rosgen, 1996). Type C streams are slightly entrenched, meandering streams with well-
developed floodplains and gentle gradients of 2% or less. They occur within a wide
range of valley types and are appropriate for the project landscape.
The morphologic design parameters for the restoration and enhancement I reaches (Table
13) fall within the ranges specified for C streams (Rosgen, 1996). However, the specific
values for the design parameters were selected based on designer experience and
judgment and were verified with morphologic data form reference reach data sets. The
width to depth ratio for most of the reaches will be approximately 12. The expectation is
that the streams will narrow over time and classify as E stream types in some locations
and, therefore, resemble the C/E morphology of the references. A width to depth ratio of
14 was used for SF4 to raise the invert of the restored channel and improve adjacent
wetland hydrology.
The design channel slopes of the restoration and enhancement I reaches ranged from
0.0034 to 0.0141. Each of the design reaches will be reconnected with the existing
floodplain (Priority 1). The restored channels will have entrenchment ratios of greater
than 2. The sinuosity for the restored channels will be near 1.2.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 40
Draft Mitigation Plan

Table 13a. Design Morphologic Parameters
Underwood Mitiqation Proiect
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 41 Page 41
Draft Mitigation Plan
SH
SF3 - u/s of
SF3 - d/s of
UTi
Notation
Units
UTI
UTi
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Stream Type
C4
C4
C4
C5
Drainage
Area
DA
sq mi
0.21
1.27
1.65
0.36
Discharge
Q- NC Rural
Regional
Curve
Qbkf
cfs
28.9
105.8
127.6
42.4
Bankfull
Design
Discharge
Q
cfs
20.0
81.5
99.8
30.3
Cross -Section Features
Bankfull
Cross -
Sectional
Area
Abkf
SF
6.5
27.5
27.1
9.6
Average
Velocity
During
Bankfull
Event
Vbkf
fps
3.1
3.0
3.7
3.2
Width at
Bankfull
Wbkf
feet
8.8
18.2
18.0
10.7
Maximum
Depth at
Bankfull
dmax
feet
1.0
2.1
2.1
1.3
Mean Depth
at Bankfull
dbkf
feet
0.7
1.5
1.5
0.9
Bankfull
Width to
Depth Ratio
wbkf/dbkf
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 41 Page 41
Draft Mitigation Plan

Underwood Mitigation Site Page 42 Page 42
Draft Mitigation Plan
Notation
Units
SF1
SF3 - u/s of
UTI
SF3 - d/s of
UT1
UTI
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Low Bank
Height
1.0
2.1
2.1
1.3
Bank Height
Ratio
BHR
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Floodprone
Area Width
Wf a
feet
>50
>200
>50
>100
Entrenchment
Ratio
ER
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Sinuosity
Valley Sloe
Svalley
feet/
foot
0.0122
0.0042
0.0067
0.0100
Channel
Slope
Schannel
feet/
foot
0.0102
0.0036
0.0056
0.0084
Sinuosity
K
1.20
1.17
1.19
1.19
Riffle Features
Riffle Slope
Sriffle
feet/
foot
0.0143
0.0255
0.0050
0.0090
0.0078
0.0140
0.0118
0.0210
Riffle Slope
Ratio
Sriffle/Schannel
1.4
2.5
1.4
2.5
1.4
2.5
1.4
2.5
Pool Features
Pool Sloe
Spool
feet/
foot
0.0010
0.0020
0.0004
0.0007
0.0006
0.0011
0.0008
0.0017
Pool Slope
Ratio
S ool/Schannel
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
Pool -to -Pool
Spacing
L _
feet
35.0
62.0
73.0
127.0
72.0
126.0
43.0
75.0
Pool Spacing
Ratio
L _ /Wbkf
4.0
7.0
4.0
7.0
4.0
7.0
4.0
7.0
Pattern Features
Belt Width
Wblt
feet
26.0
1 44.0
54.0
91.0
54.0
1 90.0
32.0
54.0
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 42 Page 42
Draft Mitigation Plan

Table 13b. Design Morphologic Parameters
Underwood Mitiqation Proiect
Notation
Units
SF1
SF3 - u/s of
SF3 - d/s of
UTI
Notation
Units
Min
Max
UTI
UT1
Min
Max
Stream Type
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Meander
Area
DA
I sq mi
1
1 0.12
1 5.26
1 1.00
Discharge
Q- NC Rural
Width Ratio
WbIdWbkf
3.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
Meander
Curve
Qbkf
cfs
19.6
295.3
88.8
Bankfull
Length
Ln,
feet
Design
62.0
106.0
127.0
218.0
126.0
216.0
75.0
129.0
Meander
13.1
204.0
67.3
Cross -Section Features
Bankfull
Length Ratio
Lm/wbkf
7.0
12.0
7.0
12.0
7.0
12.0
7.0
12.0
Radius of
Area
Abkf
SF
4.2
53.0
18.0
Curvature
Rc
feet
15.0
25.0
31.0
51.0
31.0
50.0
21.0
30.0
Radius of
Curvature
Ratio
Rd Wbkf
1.7
2.8
1.7
2.8
1.7
2.8
2.0
2.8
Table 13b. Design Morphologic Parameters
Underwood Mitiqation Proiect
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 43 Page 43
Draft Mitigation Plan
Notation
Units
UT2
SF4
SF4A
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Stream Type
C4
C5
C5
Drainage
Area
DA
I sq mi
1
1 0.12
1 5.26
1 1.00
Discharge
Q- NC Rural
Regional
Curve
Qbkf
cfs
19.6
295.3
88.8
Bankfull
Design
Discharge
Q
cfs
13.1
204.0
67.3
Cross -Section Features
Bankfull
Cross -
Sectional
Area
Abkf
SF
4.2
53.0
18.0
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 43 Page 43
Draft Mitigation Plan

Underwood Mitigation Site Page 44 Page 44
Draft Mitigation Plan
Notation
Units
UT2
SF4
SF4A
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I Max
Average
Velocity
During
Bankfull
Event
Vbkf
fps
3.1
3.9
3.7
Width at
Bankfull
Wbkf
feet
7.1
27.3
14.7
Maximum
Depth At
Bankfull
dmax
feet
0.7
2.3
1.7
Mean Depth
at Bankfull
dbkf
feet
0.6
1.9
1.2
Bankfull
Width to
Depth Ratio
wbkf/dbkf
12.0
14.0
12.0
Low Bank
Height
0.7
2.3
1.7
Bank Height
Ratio
BHR
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
Floodprone
Area Width
wf a
feet
>200
>200
>200
Entrenchment
Ratio
ER
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Sinuosity
feet/
Valley Sloe
Svalley
foot
0.0145
0.0041
0.0080
Channel
feet/
Slope
Schannel
foot
0.0141
0.0034
0.0077
Sinuosity
K
1.03
1.21
1.04
Riffle Features
feet/
Riffle Slope
Sriffle
foot
0.0197
0.0353
0.0048
0.0085
0.0108
0.0193
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 44 Page 44
Draft Mitigation Plan

Underwood Mitigation Site Page 45 Page 45
Draft Mitigation Plan
Notation
Units
UT2
SF4
SF4A
Min
Max
Min
Max
MinMax
Riffle Slope
Ratio
Sriffle/Schannel
1.4
2.5
1.4
2.5
1.4
2.5
Pool Features
feet/
Pool Sloe
S ool
foot
0.0014
0.0042
0.0003
0.0007
0.0008
0.0015
Pool Slope
Ratio
S ool/Schannel
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
Pool -to -Pool
S acin
Ln -n
I feet
1
1 29.0
50.0
109.0
191.0
59.0
103.0
Pool Spacing
Ratio
L _ /Wbkf
4.0
7.0
4.0
7.0
4.0
7.0
Pattern Features
Belt Width
wblf
feet
N/A
82.0
136.0
44.0
74.0
Meander
Width Ratio
WbldWbkf
N/A
3.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
Meander
Length
Ln,
feet
N/A
191.0
327.0
103.0
177.0
Meander
Length Ratio
Ln,/Wbkf
N/A
7.0
12.0
7.0
12.0
Radius of
Curvature
Rc
feet
N/A
46.0
76.0
25.0
41.0
Radius of
Curvature
Ratio
p
Rc/ Wbkf
N/A
1.7
2.8
1.7
2.8
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 45 Page 45
Draft Mitigation Plan

7.2.1.2 Designed Wetland Type
The proposed stream and wetland restoration project includes six distinct wetland zones.
The four riparian wetland restoration/creation zones are labeled as RW1, RW2, RW3,
and RW4 (Figures 11 and 12). The two non -riparian wetland restoration/enhancement
zones are labeled as NRW1 and NRW2 (Figure 11). Soil investigations for the different
wetland areas are described in detail in Section 5.3.1.
RW1 consists of the floodplain adjacent to UT2. Existing bank height ratios on UT2
range from 1.4 to 1.7 which increases the drainage effect on the surrounding historic
wetlands. The drainage effect from the incised stream and the lack of surface water
retention in the pasture has impaired wetland hydrology and function. RW 1 will be
restored by raising the bed elevation of UT2 which will decrease the drainage effect on
the surrounding historic wetlands and restore a natural flooding regime. In -stream
structures will be used to raise the channel grade and any unstable banks will be re-
graded, seeded, and matted. Wetland areas will be disked to increase surface roughness
and better capture rainfall which will improve connection with the water table for
groundwater recharge. Furrows will not exceed 6" to 9" in depth.
RW2 consists of two nearly adjacent areas. One zone is situated downstream of a farm
pond and consists of the floodplain adjacent to an intermittent tributary. The second is
immediately downstream within the floodplain of SF 1. Existing bank height ratios on
SF 1 range from 1.4 to 1.7 which has increased the drainage effect on the surrounding
historic wetlands. The drainage effect from the incised streams and the lack of surface
water retention in the pasture has impaired wetland hydrology and function. RW2 will be
restored through a combination of grading in the creation zone and raising the bed
elevations of SF 1. This will decrease the drainage effect on the surrounding historic
wetlands and restore a natural flooding regime. SF1 will be restored through a Priority 1
restoration approach with a bankfull elevation that matches the surrounding floodplain
grade. Wetland areas will be disked to increase surface roughness and better capture
rainfall which will improve connection with the water table for groundwater recharge.
Furrows will not exceed 6" to 9" in depth.
RW3 consists of the floodplain adjacent to SF3. Existing bank height ratios on SF3 range
from 1.1 at the upstream end to 2.0 at the downstream end. The incised nature of the
downstream section increases the drainage effect on the surrounding historic wetlands
and non -wetland floodplain. The drainage effect from the incised stream and floodplain
drainage ditches and the lack of surface water retention in the pasture has impaired
wetland hydrology and function. Vegetation is dominated by fescue and juncus and
cattle have access to the entire area. RW3 will be restored and created by a combination
of grading in the creation zones and raising the bed elevation of SF3 which will decrease
the drainage effect on the surrounding historic wetlands and restore a natural flooding
regime. SF3 will be restored through a Priority 1 restoration approach with a bankfull
elevation that matches the surrounding floodplain grade. Wetland areas will be disked to
increase surface roughness and better capture rainfall which will improve connection
with the water table for groundwater recharge. Furrows will not exceed 6" to 9" in depth.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 46
Draft Mitigation Plan

The RW3 restoration zone is an area with confirmed hydric soils. Bedrock seams in this
area appear to create a subsurface damming effect that pushes groundwater towards the
surface, however the drainage effect from the incised SF3 channel and poor surface
retention have impacted hydrology. The RW3 creation zone differed from the restoration
zone in that soils appeared to have a higher sand content in the upper 12 inches. Signs of
standing water or other indicators of surface water were not noted as frequently in this
area indicating that infiltration rates are currently higher. Minor excavation of this area
will intercept groundwater movement and encourage storage of surface water in this
zone. Note: Bedrock should not have an effect on wetland or stream grading.
RW4 is situated in the floodplain adjacent to SF4 and SF4A. Bank height ratios on SF4
and SF4A range from 1.4 to 1.8. Incision, in combination with several ditches that have
been excavated through the floodplain, has increased the drainage effect on the
surrounding historic wetlands. The drainage effects from the incised stream, floodplain
ditches, and the lack of surface water retention in the field has impaired wetland
hydrology and function. The field is actively maintained in row crop agriculture and has
been grazed by cattle in the past. RW4 will be restored and created by a combination of
grading in the creation zones, plugging and filling several floodplain ditches, and raising
the bed elevation of SF4 and SF4A which will decrease the drainage effect on the
surrounding historic wetlands and restore a natural flooding regime. SF4 and SF4A will
be restored within RW4 through a Priority 1 restoration approach with a bankfull
elevation that matches the surrounding floodplain grade. The creation zones include a
mix of minor grading in the Chewacla zones and slightly deeper grading in the Nanford-
Badin Complex soil mapping unit. Wetland areas will be disked to increase surface
roughness and better capture rainfall which will improve connection with the water table
for groundwater recharge. Furrows will not exceed 6" to 9" in depth.
NRW 1 is comprised of a farm pond and the valley downstream of the pond draining
toward SF 1. The farm pond creates an open water system. Water retained in the pond is
subject to high evaporation rates in the summer months which have decreased hydrologic
inputs to the wetland system below. The lack of surface water retention in the pasture
has impaired wetland hydrology and function. Widely spaced larger trees exist along
most of NRW 1. The understory is dominated by fescue and juncus and cattle have access
to the entire area. The dam creating the farm pond will be removed, restoring a natural
hydrologic regime to the entire wetland area. Wetland areas will be disked to increase
surface roughness and better capture rainfall which will improve connection with the
water table for groundwater recharge. Furrows will not exceed 6" to 9" in depth.
NRW2 is located at the downstream end of a small valley with an ephemeral drainage
channel. The channel form is less apparent at the downstream end where water disperses
through the flat wetland area. Hydrology does not appear to be altered or manipulated in
this non -riparian wetland. Vegetation is dominated by fescue and juncus with some
sparse larger trees and cattle have access to the entire area. This wetland will be
enhanced by planting native vegetation and by using agricultural disking equipment to
increase surface roughness and better capture rainfall which will improve connection
with the water table for groundwater recharge. Furrows will not exceed 6" to 9" in depth.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 47
Draft Mitigation Plan

7.2.2 Target Buffer Communities
The target communities for the restored and created wetlands and riparian buffer zones will
be based on reference conditions, existing mature trees throughout the project area,
comparison to vegetation listed for these community types in Shafale and Weakley (1990),
and through consultation with native tree suppliers. The main reference site is a Piedmont
bottomland forest adjacent to RW4. This reference floodplain wetland is described in more
detail in Section 6.0. Existing mature trees within the project area are described in Section
5.4. The species to be planted are described in Section 7.4.2.
7.3 Stream Project and Design Justification
Based on assessments of the watershed and existing channels, the designs have been developed
to correct incision and lack of pattern caused by channelization, bank instability caused by
erosion and livestock access, lack of vegetation in riparian zones, lack of riparian and aquatic
habitat, and depletion of hydrology for adjacent wetlands. The existing conditions assessment of
the project reaches of South Fork Cane Creek and the tributaries included in the project area
indicated that channelization of the streams and livestock operations have resulted in incision
and enlargement of the channels. Bank erosion and trampling of the stream banks by livestock is
causing lateral erosion and enlargement of the streams. Results from a channel stability
assessment indicate that the bank erosion along the project reaches ranges from moderate to
severe and results in sediment delivered to downstream waters. The incision and lateral erosion
have also resulted in degraded aquatic and benthic habitat, altered hydrology (related to loss of
floodplain connection and lowered water table) and reduction of quality and amount of riparian
wetlands. The enlargement of the channels has also contributed to water quality problems
including lower dissolved oxygen levels (due to wide channels with shallow flow). These
conditions exist on many streams throughout the project area including SF1, S173, portions of
UTI, SF4, and SF4A. SF2, the upstream portion of UTI, UTIA, and UTIB have less bed and
bank erosion but still have localized areas of scour and generally degraded habitat. The riparian
buffers on all of these streams have either been removed completely or are severely degraded.
The restoration reaches — SF 1, SF3, portions of UT 1, SF4, and SF4A — are all currently unstable.
According the Simon channel evolution model (Simon, 1989), the project reaches are at Stage IV
— Channel Widening. Bank erosion is occurring and has progressed quite far in many locations.
If not for continual livestock access to SF1, SF3, and UTI, lateral erosion would eventually
decrease and depositional processes would dictate further changes in channel form. Because of
the trampling of the banks, it is impossible to determine the degree to which fluvial erosion of
the banks has progressed. However, there is little evidence in the streams that depositional
processes have taken over. According to the Rosgen channel type succession model, these
streams have progressed from E streams which is the likely natural condition of the streams
given the size and regional physiography, to more incised E/G streams and are likely moving
towards the wider, incised F type.
The next stages in many streams would likely be increased sediment deposition caused by
decreased depth of flow and shear stress in the wider channels (Stage V according to Simon's
model), eventually creating a small C type channel (or potentially a more narrow E type) with a
lower floodplain and base level (Stage VI - Recovery). However, with continued livestock
access, the streams will not stabilize. If the livestock were permanently removed and the streams
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 48
Draft Mitigation Plan

eventually become stable at a lower base level, the floodplains would remain largely
unconnected to the stream and the riparian wetlands wouldl not function due to inadequate
hydrology. In this situation, even if the riparian buffers were permitted to regrow, the water
quality improvements would be greatly reduced.
The portions of the project that are planned for enhancement activities are not in as poor
condition as the restoration reaches and are not as unstable. However, aquatic, benthic, and
riparian habitats are degraded in all of these reaches. Intervention will be required to improve
the habitat conditions in all of the project reaches. Livestock will also be excluded from the
enhancement reaches in order to prevent further degradation and the potential instability.
The objectives described in Section 7.2 were partially developed to deal with the issues
described in the paragraphs above. The key factors driving the need for this intervention are:
• Without intervention, it is likely that lateral erosion in all of the project reaches will
continue for some time contributing a large volume of sediment to downstream waters.
• Intervention will be required to restore aquatic, benthic, and riparian habitat.
• Treatment of agricultural runoff is needed to reduce nutrient loads and help meet nutrient
reduction goals in downstream waters. The restored floodplain and created and restored
wetlands will provide both increased flood storage and treatment.
• The project will restore and enhance well over a mile of riparian buffers.
• The project offers the opportunity to meet many goals established in the NCEEP
watershed planning documents described in Section 7.0.
7.3.1 Sediment Transport Analysis
A sediment transport analysis was performed for the restoration reaches including UT 1, SF 1,
S173, and S174. In general, the analysis was performed to answer two questions:
1) What size bed material particles will become entrained at flows at or near the bankf ill
discharge (competence) and
2) Does the stream have the ability to pass the sediment load supplied to it (capacity).
The analysis performed for this project addresses both the competence and capacity questions
with the information available. Stream competence can be determined through calculations
performed with data commonly collected for stream restoration projects. The issue of
capacity is much more difficult to analyze due to lack of reliable data on sediment supply for
a given stream and, therefore, must often be analyzed qualitatively — unless initial qualitative
analysis warrants further field data collection.
Two of the four reaches proposed for restoration (SF1, and SF3) were determined to be
gravel bed streams through reach wide pebble counts. UTI was classified as a sand bed
channel because the diameter of the D50 was 1.0. However, the reach has a significant gravel
component and many riffles with coarse bed material including some cobble. SF4 was also
determined to be a sand bed stream through reach wide pebble counts. However, further
analysis of the current stream dynamics and underlying bed material indicated that this reach
would likely has a substrate with a large gravel component. The slope on this reach is lower
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 49
Draft Mitigation Plan

than the surrounding valley slope due to channelization and maintenance for agricultural
purposes. In recent years, beaver have constructed numerous dams that have created
backwater conditions. WEI staff removed these dams to conduct existing conditions surveys
and sample bed material. The low slope and flow restrictions have resulted in significant
deposition of fine bed material overtop of the native material. Coarse riffles were discovered
during site reconnaissance and were used for analyzing native pavement and subpavement
material. Furthermore, the bed was excavated in several locations that appeared to have bed
material comprised of gravel and sand. The slope will be increased in the restored condition
and beaver will be managed. The intent is to return this reach to a gravel bed channel. Due
to the reasons discussed above, both UTI and SF4were analyzed for sediment transport
competence.
The existing bed material matrix in all design reaches is comprised of both gravel and sand.
Multiple pebble counts and pavement and subpavement samples throughout the project
reaches show bimodal distributions of particle size with a larger sand fraction in UT1 and
SF4 as discussed above. In gravel bed streams, including bimodal systems, bedload is the
dominant component of sediment transport (Wilcock, et al., 2009). Therefore bedload was
the focus of this sediment transport analysis.
7.3.1.1 Competence Analysis
A competence analysis was performed for each of the design reaches by comparing shear
stresses along the channel at the design bankfull discharge with the size distribution of
the bed material. A HEC -RAS model was built to represent the proposed conditions of
each restoration reach and bankfull shear stresses were calculated with the model at each
pool and riffle cross section throughout each restoration reach. In addition, standard
equations were used to calculate the critical dimensionless shear stress needed to move
the bed material and the depth and slope combination needed to produce that stress. The
equations are:
(1) ic, = 0.0834(d50/ds50 -0.872
(2) ic, = ds/(ys*Di)
(3) d = (i,;*ys*Di)/S
where r,i is critical dimensionless shear stress, d50 is median diameter of pavement
material, ds50 is median diameter of subpavement material, ys is specific weight of
sediment, Di is the largest diameter of subpavement material, d is mean bankfull depth of
channel, and S is the water surface slope at bankfull stage.
The summary of shear stresses modeled with HEC -RAS shown in Table 14 can be
compared with the critical shear stresses obtained from the revised Shields Diagram
(Rosgen, 2001), shown in Table 15, to provide a rough estimate of the degree to which
shear stress in the proposed stream will be able to move the bed material. As expected,
the shear stresses summarized in Table 13 are greater in riffles than pools for each reach.
In most cases these ranges of shear stress indicate excess shear stress, or that the largest
bed material can be moved at bankfull flow. Note: UT 1 and SF4A were not modeled
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 50
Draft Mitigation Plan

with HEC -RAS due to the relatively short sections of restoration planned for this
tributary.
Table 14. Summary of Shear Stress in Design
Reaches by Bed Feature Type
Underwood Mitigation Project
SF1
Shear Stress
Statistic
(Ib/ft)
Channel
Riffle
Pool
Minimum
0.06
0.24
0.06
25 Percentile
0.1
0.47
0.08
50 Percentile
0.33
0.56
0.1
75 Percentile
0.56
0.85
0.11
Maximum
0.92
0.92
0.16
SF3
Shear Stress
Statistic
(Ib/ft2)
Channel
Riffle
Pool
Minimum
0.04
0.2
0.04
25 Percentile
0.06
0.26
0.05
50 Percentile
0.23
0.43
3.24
75 Percentile
0.45
0.57
0.06
Maximum
0.78
0.78
0.09
SF4
Shear Stress
Statistic
(Ib/ft2)
Channel
Riffle
Pool
Minimum
0.02
0.22
0.02
25 Percentile
0.02
0.25
0.02
50 Percentile
0.24
0.31
0.02
75 Percentile
0.315
0.3875
0.03
Maximum
1 0.48
j 0.48
0.05
Critical depth and slope combinations were calculated for each design reach using
equations 1 through 3 above. The results of this analysis were compared to channel size
and slope from hydraulic calculations based on USGS gage and reference reach discharge
analyses (See Section 3.4 for a detailed discussion of design discharge analysis).
Calculated critical depth and slope matched design channel depth and slope well within
the expected range of error from the sediment transport equations. For instance,
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 51
Draft Mitigation Plan

hydraulic calculations on SF 1 provided a design mean depth of 0.7 ft while the
competence equations calculated critical depth at 0.5 to 0.7 ft. The results of these two
competence analyses for all restoration reaches indicated that no adjustment to channel
size or slope as designed based on hydraulics was necessary to adequately move sediment
through the systems.
Table 15. Summary of Dimensionless Critical
Shear Stress Calculations
Underwood Mitigation Project
'From revised Shields Diagram
The results of the competence analyses indicate that the channel will move the bed
material at design bankfull flow. While there appears to be excess shear stress, the shear
stress values for the riffle features in the design reaches are not uncommonly high. It
should be noted that the revised Shields diagram analysis does not directly predict scour
but rather provides information that may be used to estimate if and where bed material
will be entrained. Secondly, the revised Shields diagram was developed for gravel bed
streams that have a consistent bed material particle size (i.e. not bimodal systems with
large quantities of sand). Research has shown that bed material that is bimodal with large
proportions of both gravel and sand is more difficult to move than bed material that is
uniform in size (Wilcock, et al., 2009). Therefore the revised Shields diagram analysis
likely under predicts the critical shear stress required to mobilize the bed within the
design reaches. However, measures will be taken to prevent significant scour at key
locations in the channel, especially riffles. Grade control structures including reinforced
constructed riffles, J -hook vanes, and others will be installed during construction at
locations were bed scour potential is significant. Natural material revetments such as root
wads and brush toe will be used along with bioengineering to prevent bank erosion. In -
stream structures and revetments are shown on the design plans.
7.3.1.2 Capacity Analysis
The competence analysis described above only provides an estimate of the necessary
shear stress and related slope and flow depth needed to move the existing bed material.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 52
Draft Mitigation Plan
SF3 -
SF3 -
Above
Below
UT1
SF1
UT1
UT1
SF4
Calculated Dait;ca, ft
0.7 - 0.9
0.5 -0.7
1.6-2.0
1.1- 1.3
2.2-2.7
Design riffle mean depth ft
0.9
0.7
1.5
1.5
1.9
0.0059-
0.0076-
0.0041-
0.0041-
0.0039 -
Calculated Scritica, ft/ft
0.0078
0.0100
0.0050
0.0050
0.0049
Design channel slope ft/ft
0.0078
0.0106
0.0037
0.0056
0.0034
Critical shear stress required
to move largest subpavement
0.30-
0.25 -
0.25 -
article** lbs/ft2
0.30
0.40
0.25 -0.30
0.30
0.40
Bank -full boundary shear
stress Ibs/ft2 1
0.37
0.42
0.35
0.52
0.32-0.63
'From revised Shields Diagram
The results of the competence analyses indicate that the channel will move the bed
material at design bankfull flow. While there appears to be excess shear stress, the shear
stress values for the riffle features in the design reaches are not uncommonly high. It
should be noted that the revised Shields diagram analysis does not directly predict scour
but rather provides information that may be used to estimate if and where bed material
will be entrained. Secondly, the revised Shields diagram was developed for gravel bed
streams that have a consistent bed material particle size (i.e. not bimodal systems with
large quantities of sand). Research has shown that bed material that is bimodal with large
proportions of both gravel and sand is more difficult to move than bed material that is
uniform in size (Wilcock, et al., 2009). Therefore the revised Shields diagram analysis
likely under predicts the critical shear stress required to mobilize the bed within the
design reaches. However, measures will be taken to prevent significant scour at key
locations in the channel, especially riffles. Grade control structures including reinforced
constructed riffles, J -hook vanes, and others will be installed during construction at
locations were bed scour potential is significant. Natural material revetments such as root
wads and brush toe will be used along with bioengineering to prevent bank erosion. In -
stream structures and revetments are shown on the design plans.
7.3.1.2 Capacity Analysis
The competence analysis described above only provides an estimate of the necessary
shear stress and related slope and flow depth needed to move the existing bed material.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 52
Draft Mitigation Plan

A capacity analysis is necessary to determine if the stream has the ability to pass its
sediment load. A capacity analysis is much more difficult to perform and is prone to
error. In order to perform the analysis, an estimate of sediment supply must be developed
and compared with computation of the stream's ability or capacity to move the load.
This analysis was performed for the three main restoration reaches, SF 1, SF3, and SF4 as
described below.
To begin an analysis of sediment supply a watershed assessment must be performed.
WEI staff performed a watershed reconnaissance, reviewed a series of aerial photographs
dating back to the 1950's, and reviewed land cover data in order to assess the current
condition of the watersheds and identify time periods when the watersheds underwent
changes that would affect the sediment load such as development or land clearing. As
previously described, land cover within the watersheds has remained essentially the same
since sometime prior to the early 1970's. Substantial land clearing was performed
between 1951 and 1973, especially affecting the watersheds of SF 1 and SF3. The
watersheds of the project streams become more forested and less agricultural progressing
in the downstream direction. The watershed of SF 1 is approximately 57 percent farm
land while the watersheds of SF3 and SF4 are 52 percent and 39 percent farm land
respectively. The majority of the remaining land area in the watersheds is forest. The
percent development within the watersheds is five percent for SF and less than 1 percent
for SF3 and SF4. There is little sign of recent or ongoing land disturbance in the
watersheds. The farm land in the watersheds of SF 1 and SF3 are primarily used for
grazing livestock. Some of the land in the SF4 watershed is used for row crops
(including the fields adjacent to SF4 and SF4A), however, row crops are limited to
certain areas. The vast majority of unbuffered streams are located within the watersheds
of SF 1 and SF3 providing some indication that stream stability may be more of a problem
in those two watersheds than in the much larger S174 watershed. There are no signs that
land disturbance is likely in the near future of these rural watersheds, although some
recent clearing was observed downstream of S173. In general the watersheds are stable
and vegetated, row cropping and development are limited, and land cover has been
largely unchanged for decades.
The results of the watershed assessment indicate generally stable watersheds and no
reason to expect unusually high sediment supply. Although stream stability is a concern
in terms of sediment contributions of SF1 and SF3, no other major sources of sediment
have been observed. Limited sediment deposition was observed in the existing channels
(for more detail on exiting stream conditions see Section 3) indicating that the existing
channels are moving the sediment supplied to them. There is no indication that the
deterioration of these channels has been driven by recent watershed disturbances. A
threshold channel design approach will therefore be used for each of the restoration
reaches. This design approach is based on the concept that the morphology of the
channels is not sensitive to sediment supply and channel migration and changes in slopes
are not expected or desired.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 53
Draft Mitigation Plan

To validate the threshold design approach, a sediment monitoring and modeling analysis
was performed for a representative reach. SF3 was chosen as the representative reach
because:
• The bed material of S174 (important for the calculations) is expected to coarsen
after construction of the restoration project while that of S173 (and other reaches)
is expected to remain the same.
• S173 is more geographically centered in the watershed and is in between SF 1 and
SF4 in size.
• SF3 has cross sections appropriate for data collection.
To perform the analysis, an estimate of the sediment supply was developed and compared
that to the sediment transport capacity of the channel restoration designs. A bedload and
streamflow monitoring station was established on SF3 to represent the general conditions
on the project site. Bedload traps described by Bunte et al. (2007) were used to collect
bedload and a current meter and staff gauge were used to collect coupled discharge
measurements and stage readings. Several attempts were made to collect bedload
samples throughout the data collection phase of the project. At streamflows up to 13 cfs
no bedload was collected by the samplers (summer baseflow measurements were as low
as 0.04 cfs). Two samples were collected during higher flows as shown in Table 16.
Table 16. Summary of SF3 Bedload Data
Underwood Mitiaation Proiect
Discharge cfs
Bedload (g/sec.)
19
0.69
27
1.54
In addition, four bedload transport equations for gravel bed streams were used to compute
estimates of bedload transport at design (bankfull) discharge for SF3 (81 cfs) in the
existing channel. These equations and the results of the computations of bedload
transport at design discharge are listed in Table 17. All of the equations use bed material
size distributions, channel cross section and slope, and Manning's n (back calculated
from discharge measurements) in the calculations. The equations were run in the U.S.
Forest Service's (USFS) spreadsheet program called `Bedload Assessment in Gravel Bed
Streams" or BAGS (Pitlick et al., 2009).
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 54
Draft Mitigation Plan

Table 17. Summary of SF3 Bedload Transport Equation Results
Underwood Mitigation Project
Equation'
Bedload
Transport Rate
/sec.
Parker 1990
4.82E-03
Parker et al. 1982
2.72
Klin eman 1982
0.16
Wilcock and Crowe 2003
0.09
'For information on equations see Pitlick et al. (2009)
Bedload equations are known to be prone to error and to produce questionable results
(Wilcock, 2009). The results shown in Table 17 cover three orders of magnitude and all,
with the possible exception of Parker et al. (1982) appear to under predict transport when
compared to the bedload samples. However, the results of the equations and the bedload
samples provide the best available estimate of sediment supply, assuming that supply is
similar to transport (i.e., the channel is not capacity -limited).
The HEC -RAS model for SF3 was used to perform a sediment transport capacity analysis
for the design flow in the proposed SF3 channel. The Hydraulic Design module of HEC -
RAS includes tools to perform multiple hydraulic analyses of proposed designs. Included
in these tools is a "Sediment Transport Capacity" function that allows the user to input
flow data, bed material data, and cross section and slope data and then choose from a
variety of transport equations to analyze transport capacity. For this analysis the three
equations most appropriate for the sediment sizes transported through SF3 were selected:
Meyer -Peter -Mueller (MPM), Toffaleti, and Yang. Again, these equations are not
expected to produce precise results but provide an estimate of the proposed channel's
capacity that can be compared to the estimated loads in Tables 16 and 17. The results of
the HEC -RAS capacity analysis for SF3 are summarized in Table 18. While the transport
capacity results vary throughout the channel, each equation predicts capacity that is a
minimum of one order of magnitude (and sometimes several) greater than the highest
estimate of supply.
Table 18. Summary of SF3 Transport Capacity Analysis
Underwood Mitigation Project
Statistic
MPM
(g/sec.)
Toffaletti
(g/sec.)
Yang
(g/sec.)
Min
19.56
17.92
6.34
Mean
825.08
123.43
1930.71
Max
3238.20
199.71
8008.35
In general, the sediment transport analyses described in this section confirm that the
project streams are threshold channels as described Sheilds, et al. (2003). The results
validate WEI's initial assessment conclusions that sediment supply is limited in this
watershed and channel capacity is not a determining factor in calculating channel
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 55
Draft Mitigation Plan

dimensions. The proposed channels will move their sediment loads and any bed
adjustments will most likely be in the form of scour. Grade control structures will
therefore be a key component of the design. For more information on grade control, see
Section 7.4.
7.3.2 HEC -RAS Analysis
7.3.2.1 No -rise, LOMR, CLOMR
A flood study for the Underwood project will be completed for the stream restoration
work proposed for SF4. This portion of the site includes approximately 1,400 LF of
South Fork Cane Creek. This area is mapped as a FEMA Zone AE floodplain on FIRM
panel 8784 (Figure 5). The remaining project streams are within Zone X and currently
not modeled by FEMA.
South Fork Cane Creek was modeled as a limited detailed study. Base flood elevations
have been defined, but no floodway is mapped on the FIRM panel. Non -encroachment
widths are published in the Chatham County Community 370299 Flood Insurance Study
dated February 2, 2007.
Preliminary modeling of SF4 indicates the proposed action will result in an increase in
the 100 -year base flood elevations, and further study will be required. The effective
hydraulic model has been obtained from the NC Floodplain Mapping Program. WEI will
model existing and proposed hydraulic conditions on the site for the 100 -year flood event
along South Fork. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will be prepared for
submittal to the Chatham County local floodplain administrator and the NC Floodplain
Mapping Program for approval prior to construction to document the increase in base
flood elevations. If completed hydraulic modeling indicates that the elevations will not
increase, then a no -rise study will be submitted. Following construction completion, if a
CLOMR is required, or if it is apparent that flood elevations will drop by more than 0.1
foot, or non -encroachment widths will change, an as -built survey and Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) will be finalized and submitted to the Chatham County local
floodplain administrator and the NC Floodplain Mapping Program. The NCEEP
Floodplain Requirements Checklist is included in Appendix 9.
7.3.2.2 Hydrologic Trespass
The project will be designed so that any increase in flooding will be contained on the
project site and will not extend upstream to adjacent parcels, so hydrologic trespass will
not be a concern. The proposed restoration has been designed to transition back to the
existing boundary conditions in a gradual manner.
7.4 Site Construction
The stream and wetland restoration will be constructed as described in this section. A full set of
preliminary design plans are included with this mitigation plan for review.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 56
Draft Mitigation Plan

7.4.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation and Other Project Related Construction
7.4.1.1
The stream restoration elements of the project will be constructed as Priority 1 restoration
in which the stream bed is raised so that the bankfull elevation will coincide with the
existing floodplain, the cross sections are sized for the design discharge, and the pattern is
reconstructed so that the channel meanders through the floodplain. Due to excavation
required for the wetland creation zone, the floodplain for the lower 700 LF of SF4 will be
lowered. Enhancement I components of the project will involve raising the channel bed
and sizing the cross sections appropriately but will not involve altering the existing
channel pattern. Enhancement II construction will include bank treatments and
stabilization only.
The stream reconstruction will result in appropriately sized channels that will meander
across the floodplain. The cross-sectional dimensions of the design channels will be
constructed to flood the adjacent floodplain and wetlands frequently. The reconstructed
channel banks will be built with stable side slopes, planted with native materials, matted,
and planted for long-term stability. The sinuous planform of the channel will be built to
mimic a natural Piedmont stream.
The bedform of the reconstructed gravel bed channels will vary between pools and riffles.
Generally the pools will occur in the outside of the meander bends and the riffles in the
straight sections of channel between meanders. Riffle -pool sequences such as those that
will be built in the new channels are common for gravel bed streams in the Piedmont and
provide energy dissipation and aquatic habitat.
As a result of the project, the floodplain will be more frequently inundated. Wetland
hydrology will be improved as a byproduct of raising the channel bed. Wetland
restoration and creation are proposed in areas adjacent to the stream channels. Grading
of the floodplain and wetlands will improve or create wetland functions. Site grading is
described below.
7.4.1.2 Scaled Schematic of Grading
The proposed grading is included in the preliminary design plans but is also shown in
Figures 13 and 14. Preliminary estimates of grading on the site include approximately
17,265 cubic yards of cut and 9,692 cubic yards of fill, with a net cut of 7,573 cubic
yards.
7.4.1.3 In -Stream Structures and Other Construction Elements
Grade control is an important element of the design and many riffles will be constructed
with grade control features. These include native gravel/cobble material riffles harvested
from the existing channel, native material riffles reinforced with larger quarry stone,
boulder and log sills, and cross vanes. Log vanes and log j -hook vanes will be among
other in -stream structures constructed along the stream project. These structures will
provide additional grade control and will deflect flows away from banks while creating
habitat diversity. The channel banks will also be armored with native materials from the
site including root wads and brush toe features. These structures and revetments are
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 57
Draft Mitigation Plan

shown on the preliminary design plans. A mix of log and rock structures will be used on
this site due to the occurrence of woody debris and large cobble features found in the
existing channels and reference reaches.
Two crossings will be installed along the streams in the Upstream Area (with easement
breaks) at the request of the landowner. These include a culvert crossing along UTI and
a ford crossing along SF3. Additionally, two culvert crossings will be installed outside of
the easement boundaries and upstream of the restoration reaches to allow landowner
access to adjacent parcels. These crossings will be placed on the restoration reach SF3
upstream of UTI, and the enhancement reach UTI between UT1A and UT1B. Fencing
will be installed to keep livestock out of the conservation easements on the Upstream
Area properties. There are no livestock on the Downstream Area properties.
7.4.2 Natural Plant Community Restoration
7 4.2.1 Narrative of Plant Community Restoration
As a final stage of construction, riparian stream buffers and wetlands will be planted and
restored with native trees and herbaceous plants representative of the natural plant
community that exists within the project watershed. The natural community within and
adjacent to the project easement can be classified as Piedmont bottomland forest
(Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The woody and herbaceous species selected are based on
this community type, observations of the occurrence of species in the surrounding area,
and best professional judgment on species establishment and anticipated site conditions
in the early years following project implementation. Permanent herbaceous seed will be
placed on stream banks and bench areas and all disturbed areas within the project
easement. The stream banks will be planted with live stakes. The riparian buffers and
wetland areas will be planted with bare root seedlings. Proposed permanent herbaceous
species are shown in Tables 19 and 20.
Table 19: Permanent Riparian Herbaceous Seed Mix (Applied at 20/lbs acre)
Underwood Mitigation Proiect
Scientific Name
Common Name
Percentage
Elymus virginicus
Virginia Wild Rye
50%
Sorghastrum nutans
Indiangrass
10%
Panicum clandestinum
Deer Tongue
10%
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
25%
Rudbeckia hirta
Black Eyed Susan
5%
Table 20: Permanent Wetland Herbaceous Seed Mix (Applied at 20/lbs acre)
Underwood Mitiaation Proiect
Scientific Name
Common Name
Percentage
Elymus virginicus
Virginia Wild Rye
50%
Juncus effusus
Soft Rush
10%
Panicum clandestinum
Deer Tongue
20%
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
20%
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 58
Draft Mitigation Plan

Individual tree and shrub species will be planted throughout the project easement
including stream banks, benches, tops of banks, and floodplains zones. These species
will be planted as bare root and live stakes and will provide additional stabilization to the
outsides of constructed meander bends and side slopes. Species planted as bare roots will
be spaced at an initial density of 680 plants per acre (8 feet on center). Live stakes will
be planted on channel banks at 2 -foot to 3 -foot spacing on the outside of meander bends
and 6 -foot to 8 -foot spacing on tangent sections. Point bars will not be planted with live
stakes. Targeted densities after monitoring year 3 are 320 woody stems per acre.
Proposed tree and shrub species are representative of existing on-site vegetation
communities and are typical of Piedmont bottomland forests (Table 21).
Table 21. Riparian Woody Vegetation
Underwood Mitigation Proiect
Scientific Name
common Name
Percentage
Live Stakes
Salix nigra
Black Willow
20%
Salix serecia
Silky Willow
40%
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
40%
Riparian Bare Root Planting
Alnus serrulate
Tag Alder
10%
Betula nigra
River Birch
15%
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
10%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
15%
Liriodendron tulipfera
Tulip Poplar
10%
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
20%
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
5%
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
10%
Quercus rubra
Red Oak
5%
Wetland Bare Root Planting
Alnus serrulate
Tag Alder
10%
Betula nigra
River Birch
15%
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
10%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
20%
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
10%
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
20%
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
5%
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
10%
8.0 Monitoring Plan
Using the EEP Baseline Monitoring Plan Template (version 1.0. 11/19/2009), a baseline
monitoring plan report and an as -built record drawing of the project documenting the stream and
wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation will be developed within 60 days of the planting
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 59
Draft Mitigation Plan

completion and monitoring installation on the project site. Monitoring reports will be prepared
in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to NCEEP. These annual monitoring reports
will be based on the NCEEP Monitoring Report Template (version 1.2.1, 12/01/2009). The
monitoring period will extend five years for stream and wetland hydrology assessments and
seven years for wetland vegetation assessments beyond completion of construction or until
performance criteria have been met.
8.1 Streams
8.1.1 Dimension
In order to monitor the channel dimension, a total of two permanent cross-sections will be
installed along SF 1, five on S173, four on S174, three on S174A, two on UT 1, and two on UT2.
Cross-sections will be located at representative riffle and pool sections on each monitored
reach. Each cross-section will be permanently marked with pins to establish its location.
Cross-section surveys will be performed annually and will include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankf ill, edge of water, and thalweg.
8.1.2 Pattern and Profile
A longitudinal profile will be completed for the 5,784 LF of the restoration and enhancement
level I reaches (878 LF on SF1, 1,602 LF on SF3, 1,424 LF on SF4, 868 LF on SF4A, 591
LF on UTI, and 421 LF on UT2) immediately post -construction and annually throughout the
five year monitoring period. The initial as -built survey will be used for baseline
comparisons. Measurements in the survey will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and
top of low bank. These profile measurements will be taken at the head of each riffle, run,
pool, and glide, as well as at the maximum pool depth. The survey will be tied to a
permanent benchmark and NC State Plane coordinates.
8.1.3 Photo Documentation
Approximately 46 permanent photographs will be established within the project stream and
wetland areas after construction. Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document
stability for five years following construction. Permanent markers will be established so that
the same locations and view directions on the site are monitored each year. Photographs will
be used to monitor restoration, enhancement, and creation stream and wetland areas as well
as vegetation plots. The photographer will make every effort to maintain the same area in
each photo over time. Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation plots
and cross-sections. The representative digital photo(s) will be taken on the same day surveys
are conducted.
8.1.4 Substrate
A reach -wide pebble count will be conducted for classification purposes on each of the
restoration and enhancement I reaches (SF1, SF3, SF4, SF4A, UTI, and UT2). Pebble
counts will also be conducted on at permanent riffle cross-sections on all restoration and
enhancement level I project reaches, for a total of 11 cross-sections. The pebble counts will
be done annually and compared with data from previous years. Also, a subpavement sample
will be taken at each surveyed riffle to characterize the subpavement particle size
distribution.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 60
Draft Mitigation Plan

8.1.5 Bankfull Events
Bankfull events will be documented using a crest gauge, photographs, and visual assessments
such as debris lines. Seven crest gauges will be installed; one on SF1, one on SF3, one on
S174, one on S174A, one on UTI and the other gauge on UT2. The crest gauges will be
installed onsite in a riffle cross-section floodplain of the restored channels at a central site
location. The gauges will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has
occurred. Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment
deposition.
8.2 Vegetation
A total of 38 vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and evaluated within the restoration,
enhancement, and creation areas to measure the survival of the planted trees. The number of
monitoring quadrants required is based on the NCEEP monitoring guidance documents (version
1.0, 11/19/2009). The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters for woody tree
species and shrubs. Vegetation assessments will be conducted following the Carolina Vegetation
Survey (CVS) Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2006).
The initial baseline survey will be conducted within 21 days from completion of site planting and
used for subsequent monitoring year comparisons. The first annual vegetation monitoring
activities will commence at the end of the first growing season, during the month of September.
The restoration and enhancement sites will then be evaluated each subsequent year between June
1st and September 31St. Species composition, density, and survival rates will be evaluated on an
annual basis by plot and for the entire site. Individual plot data will be provided and will include
diameter, height, density, vigor, damage (if any), and survival. Planted woody stems will be
marked annually as needed and given a coordinate, based off of a known origin, so they can be
found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between
the previous year's living planted stems and the current year's living planted stems.
8.3 Wetlands
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be established throughout the wetland restoration,
enhancement, and creation areas. Generally, the gauges will be installed at appropriate locations
so that the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the wetland
project area.
8.4 Schedule
The monitoring program described above will be performed on an annual basis. The estimated
reporting schedule is shown below in Table 22.
Table 22. Project Activity and Reporting Schedule
Underwood Mitigation Proiect
Activity or Report
Completion or Delivery
Mitigation Plan
September 2011
Final Design -Construction Plans
November 2011
Permanent Seed Mix Applied
February 2012
Bare Root Plantings
March 2012
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 61
Draft Mitigation Plan

Activity or Report
Completion or Delivery
As -Built Report and Record Drawings
June 2012
Year 1 Monitoring
December 2012
Year 2 Monitoring
December 2013
Year 3 Monitoring
December 2014
Year 4 Monitoring
December 2015
Year 5 Monitoring
December 2016
Year 6 Monitoring
December 2017
Year 7 Monitoring
December 2018
9.0 Performance Criteria
The stream restoration success criteria for the project site will follow approved performance
criteria presented in the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 1.0, 11/20/2009) and the
Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Annual
monitoring and quarterly site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
project for five years, or until success criteria are met. The stream restoration and enhancement
level I reaches (SF1, SF3, SF4, SF4A, UT1, and UT2) of the project will be assigned specific
performance criteria components for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. The
enhancement level II reaches (SF2, SF3, UTI, and UT1A) will be documented through
photographs and visual assessments to verify that no significant degradational changes are
occurring in the stream channel or riparian corridor. The wetland restoration, enhancement, and
creation sections will be assigned specific performance criteria for hydrology and vegetation.
These success criteria are covered in detail as follows.
9.1 Streams
9.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross-sections on the restoration reaches should remain relatively stable; however, due
to the sand/silt nature of the substrate throughout the project reaches, fluctuations of the riffle
bed elevation over time are expected. These fluctuations should be temporary and will likely
correspond to storm events. Riffle cross-sectional ratios (width -to -depth, depth ratio, and
bank height ratio) should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate
Rosgen stream type. If persistent changes are observed, these changes will be evaluated to
assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of long term instability. Indicators of
instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks. Changes in the
channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in
the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial
action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
9.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile data for the stream restoration reaches should show that the bedform
features are remaining stable. The riffles should be steeper and shallower than the pools,
while the pools should be deep with flat water surface slopes. The relative percentage of
riffles and pools should not change significantly from the design parameters. Adjustments in
length and slope of run and glide features are expected and will not be considered a sign of
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 62
Draft Mitigation Plan

instability. The longitudinal profile should show that the bank height ratio remains very near
to 1.0 for the majority of the restoration reaches.
9.1.3 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual
basis. Cross-section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the
banks. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel
or vertical incision. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment
on the bank side of vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side
of vane arms is expected. Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation
plots.
9.1.4 Substrate
Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the
maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool
features.
9.1.5 Bank -full Events
Two bankfull flow events in separate years must be documented on the project within the
five-year monitoring period. Bankfull events will be documented using a crest gage,
photographs, and visual assessments such as debris lines.
9.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the
riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches and within the wetland restoration and
creation areas at the end of the required monitoring year (year five or seven). The interim
measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per
acre at the end of the third monitoring year. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be
monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period (year five or
seven).
9.3 Wet/ands
The final performance criteria for wetland hydrology will be a free groundwater surface within
12 inches of the ground surface for 6.5 percent of the growing season, which is measured on
consecutive days under typical precipitation conditions. This success criteria was determined
through model simulations of post restoration conditions and comparison to an immediately
adjacent existing wetland system. If a particular well does not meet this criteria for a given
monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed and the hydrograph will be compared to that
of the reference well to assess whether atypical weather conditions occurred during the
monitoring period.
10.0 Site Protection and Adaptive Management Strategy
Adaptive measures will be developed or appropriate remedial actions will be implemented in the
event that the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the success criteria outlined
in this report. The project -specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase will
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 63
Draft Mitigation Plan

identify an appropriate threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items.
Any actions implemented will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously,
and will include a work schedule and updated monitoring criteria.
11.0 References
Bunte, K, Swingle, K.W., and Abt, S.R., 2007. Guidelines for Using Bedload Traps in Course -
Bedded Mountain Streams: Construction, Installation, Operation, and Sample Processing.
General Technical Report RMRS-GTR- 19 1. USDA, Fort Collins, CO.
Dalrymple, Tate, 1960. Flood -Frequency Analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply
Paper 1543-A. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 80 p.
Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1981. Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow
Frequency. Bulletin 17B. Washington, D.C.
KCI Technologies, 2007. Collins Creek Restoration Plan. Morrisville, NC
Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC), 2001. National Land Cover
Database. http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd.php
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 2011. Web Soil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 2006. Chatham County Soil Survey.
htip:Hsoils.usda.aov/survey/online_ surveys/north carolina/
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NC CGIA), 2001. Landcover
GIS layer. http:Hdata.nconemgp.com/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. hllp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.htm
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
hLtp://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq`/Ts/csu/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 2009. Mineral Resources.
http://www. geology. enr. state.nc.us/Mineral%20resources/mineralresources.htrnl
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence
Database, Chatham County, NC. http://149.168.1.196/nhp/county.html
North Carolina State University (NCSU), 2010. DrainMod Related Publications. Accessed May
10, 2010, at: http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/soil water/drainmod/drainmod_papers.html#wetland
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 64
Draft Mitigation Plan

Lagasse, P.F., Schall, J.D., Johnson, F., Richardson, E.V., Richardson, J.R., and Chang, F., 2001.
Stream Stability at Highway Structures, Second Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation,
Report No. FHWA-IP-90-014, HEC -20 -ED -2. Washington, DC.: Federal Highway
Administration, 132 p.
Pitlick, J., Cui, Y., and Wilcock, P., 2009. Manual for Computing Bed Load Transport Using
BAGS (Bedload Assessment for Gravel Bed Streams) Software. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-
GTR-223. Fort Collins, Co: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station, 45 p.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology
Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers.
Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel
Incision. Center For Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus,
University of Mississippi, Pages 12-22.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, 3rd approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Simon, A., Rinaldi, M. 2006. Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution: The roles of
excess transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response.
Geomorphology 79: 361-383.
Simon, A. 2006. Flow energy, time, and evolution of dynamic fluvial systems: implications for
stabilization and restoration of unstable systems. In: Proceedings of the 2006 World
Environmental and Water Resources Congress (R. Graham, Ed.), May 21-25, 2006, Omaha,
Nebraska. CDROM.
Skaggs, R. W. 1980. DrainMod Reference Report: Methods for design and evaluation of
drainage -water management systems for soils with high water tables. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 329 pp.
Shields, D. F., Copeland, R. R, Klingman, P. C., Doyle, M. W., and Simon, A. 2003. Design for
Stream Restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129(8): 575-582.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2009. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Chatham County, North Carolina.
http://SoilDataMart.nres.usda.gov
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 65
Draft Mitigation Plan

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2006.
Assessing Stream Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions. Publication no.
FHWA-HRT-05-072. McLean, VA.: Federal Highway Administration Office of
Infrastructure Research and Development, 147 p.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Endangered Species, Threatened
Species, Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Rockingham County, NC.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
URS Corporation, 2007. Unnamed Tributary to Cane Creek Restoration Plan. Morrisville, NC
Wilcock, P., et al., 2009. Sediment Transport Primer: Estimating Bed -Material Transport in
Gravel Bed Rivers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-226. Fort Collins, Co: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 78 p.
Underwood Mitigation Site Page 66
Draft Mitigation Plan

Figures

IL MIM' Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
EEP Targeted Local Watershed
03030002050050
+,i
m2rice COY Fit ti
ath ,w County,
r�r
.. Project Location
Alamaane
Chatham
Ire`,
r'
J
03030002050070
rpt ; • �w
1
r
Nnckr H1v�r
011w,00020
Sider
Ci `'��Sher
,— City 03030003070020
r
r
.121 !,i• - ■
)03020070
` -L +'• 1 r :�•_��f �j rf ; 4300030
WILDLAI DS 0 0.625 1.25 Miles
ENGINEERING I I
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Underwood Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC

k.
Project Streams
1EProject Watersheds
r
S F4
3362ac
r
UT1A
11ac
11ac \
i
UT1
230ac SF3
.µJ& 051 ac
Upstream S
` •i 781 ac .
- Area
WTSil ti aux
� '• 'Y - - •f 78aC a 3 - •
.iii -
0 enal Photoplay - r1 • `,-
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
ISI
Figure 2 Watershed Map
Underwood Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC
Downstream
Area
* d
r
UT1A
11ac
11ac \
i
UT1
230ac SF3
.µJ& 051 ac
Upstream S
` •i 781 ac .
- Area
WTSil ti aux
� '• 'Y - - •f 78aC a 3 - •
.iii -
0 enal Photoplay - r1 • `,-
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
ISI
Figure 2 Watershed Map
Underwood Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC

uownstream Area UH
�..� Easement Area .�,......�..�.
Project Streams
SF4 ...........
1. "• �
�m Area (UA)
UT 1B UT 1A I ♦ �'�., 1
SF4A
� S F 3 r - - =►s
U T 1'
r 0 200 400 Feet
I i i i I
Into', NDERWOOD 11D
SF 2 - •
WI LDLAN D5
ENGINEERING
'2007 Aerial Photography
Figure 3 Site Map
Underwood Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC
-
1
i
SF 1
. r
r
.�" w
UT2
i t
0 350 7W�eet i
•�.!
; ``
1 1 I
�•.
%�`� ,�
.�
,� - `'fes.
WI LDLAN D5
ENGINEERING
'2007 Aerial Photography
Figure 3 Site Map
Underwood Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC

U
Easement Area
— — Project Streams
- ChA -
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0-2%slopes
- CmB
- Cid-Lignum complex, 2-6% slopes
- GaB -
Georgeville silt loam, 2-6% slopes
- NaB -
Nanford-Badin complex, 2-6% slopes
- NaC -
Nanford-Badin complex 6-10% slopes
- NaD -
Nanford-Badin complex, 10-15% slopes
Area
.� UT 1A
UT 113
�%%O NaD r'a I� ■
- �' _ jiffy AN
hILaI
EE
2 ■".` _
■
Downstream Area
W
f��aft,
SF 1
jCmB.1
} .�` ��� UT2UT2
... .� ► (•aB!
0 350 a 7P0 Feet - • •
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
NaC ;k
�.
iChA 1�#
ill
• SF4A
r �
7
'2007 Aerial Photography
Figure 4 Soils Map
Underwood Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC

�.r.=�.-rs :: <•c--::: r...�.- .�s-•.•rte,---.
.. 20NE AF
ZONE x j
Easement Area f .
ISO
ZONEAE �' .�\`
�Y • �Y
TIENT OF' -. .
_ - ..1. _ — _ _.t -
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 1,083 2,166 Feet
I I I I 1
Figure 5 FEMA Flood Map
Underwood Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC
V.•
®�
PANEL 5784)
FIRM
O
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS
�
-NORTH C:AROLI\A
PANEL 8784
ISEE LOCATOR MA6PAM ON MPP IMObf FOCI FIRM ,
PAML NWlln
WNTOMS:
b
0
COMMLINFrf CID Na PNlR SLWF%
rI1411NA1 Ld1H11' .fm� uiw r
m
NmM n Uflr. iM �P NPCP. fhaxn PN+n' aMitl G ��rd '
d
Pew. Pwutl oa weP v. mwwn Poaemr. w, v.. PPo.d .
ca�....Ax
EFFECTIVE BATE MAP NUMBER
FEBRUARY 2, 2007 37108784001
Federal Emerersency Mmagnnont Aseocy ;
Figure 5 FEMA Flood Map
Underwood Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC

�I M I M I EL
Easement Area
$ Monitoring Well Gauges
Cross Sections
Project Streams
m Area (UA
ANIk
.;
UT 1A +�
UT 1B
SF4A
10I
UT1
SF 3
yi �p.a �j �TchTi � i
' 0 20s'a_ �" f _ _ i i 000 Feet
*I milk
i
-- t
r'
i�r< •..
SF 1
I`
0 350 700 Feet
I i i iIse ■
,. :•�,ix � �`, '2007 Aerial Photography
UT2
Figure 6 Hydrologic Features Map
Underwood Mitigation Site
WILDLANDS Mitigation Plan
ENGINEERING Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC

4.4
___— __ ww �_ ___ _ w — ®— __� w ■ —_ __—__ w —_wwi _w____w
w--__rrr—�_—�_wrwr—_�—_w�rr—_�—ww�r■ _�—___r
rrrrr■rQN■rlrr�rr■r■ MErrrrrrr■rrNr■N■rlrrrrrrrrrErr■!N■rlrF, rr■r■N■rlrr
E■■■■■11�■■■■1111■■■■■1111•■■IIID■■■■■11
NE11111MENNIHIMME 11111 WWPI.ME011111
,,, ■■1�111��1111111■111 ���II■■■1111
---__rrw—_--_rwwr—rr•r-- ■rr—►ss__r�c—_--__rr
rrrrr■rrrrr■Nmmum■■rr�rr■r■ N■rrrrrrrrrrwrrrrr■ ■rrrrrrr� ��rrrr■r�rrrrrr■rr■rrr�s■rr
���■man ■r= 01■■■■■rte!' �■■■■'"►■■■■
� a■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1�� �■■ ■ ■ ■1 moo■■■ ■■ ■ ■.:>_� � IA■ ■ n��a■■■■
�■■■■■11�■■■1111���■���' 1��■■■■111■■■■■11
���11111■■■�Ill�i�■rfi Iii■�•■.■■■��■■M■■■■
■1111111■■�iIIII��11111i1■■I -
—_w_ww__rrr rw_w_�_wwr•. . .r
rte_--__rrMENE r-_--ArryRr �_ir—_wirr—moi
N■0N■■0■■NIF.■ dam'
NN�"N■■■■■NNNIN■■
��■■■■111►I1■■1111■■■■■111■1 -
■■��11111■�11■I�J:�I■■■■11111■1
milli NO I1 ■111 IL_.....____
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 7 Regional Curve
Underwood Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC
www_ i _w_
i•i�__w■ww____i�__rrrr�i_f
rrrr.rNNi.■■
_ w ■ ■ w____i _w __ www. �� �_ _ww _� i _w _ _ w.i ■ ____ �� __ _ ww
__rrwri�__rJrr�ii__rrr
■rr�rr■�■■mr�m�.■rrrr�m�■�rrrr��r•�■■rrr
CC®G:1111�■Ci11Nl■■i:1�1111■
� ■ ■■
:C�.5111!:i■CGtllll
■ 1111■ ■ ■■ ■11 � �■ ■■ ■■111 � ■ ■ �iiill• ■■ ■■■ 11
■■■111111■■■111111■■■111111■dill!#!I�■■1111
Ci�__w
� i ��
■ww____i�__www■www_ir___w._r_��—�__wwww____i�__www
� w ■ w w____i � __www ■ ___w�■ws�■ ■w■■_ w•'.w rr.,w■wsw �� ^ A ^ * ww r �_� i� _w, wl rr
rrrr■rN�■■rrrrrrrr■r��■■rrrrrrrr.m�r�►�
rr.�mm�■■rrrr�m�■■rrr
���■■■
��■■■11111♦■■■/sil[
1111♦�1♦■■■■Il�li��JL�■�i1���■■■■11���■■■■1
7'►i■■Gilll�■■■■1111-■■■111
----�
■■■111111■■A'i�lll�!■1ii111111■■-------
,
■■1111111■�I�iiIlM�ii�1111111■■
0 Rural Regional Curve Data
■
��__wwwii_•wrr
�_w-�wrr�—.�r�wrwwr�� i
fwrnNr.rrr�r
NN■ �■
rrrrirm srrr�rrrr�■rruN �rAwrrrrrr��
■ ■ ■ ■ ANN■N■! J■ ■■■ 1 NN■N■ NI■ ■■■ ■■NN■ m
���■■■111��1�■■■■11���■■■■11��
�■■■■1111��■■■■■111■�■■■■111��
_
�
!�■111111■■■111111■■111111■■X
UTto Cane Cr Reference
ONE11111MINNIONMER-L--um
4.4
___— __ ww �_ ___ _ w — ®— __� w ■ —_ __—__ w —_wwi _w____w
w--__rrr—�_—�_wrwr—_�—_w�rr—_�—ww�r■ _�—___r
rrrrr■rQN■rlrr�rr■r■ MErrrrrrr■rrNr■N■rlrrrrrrrrrErr■!N■rlrF, rr■r■N■rlrr
E■■■■■11�■■■■1111■■■■■1111•■■IIID■■■■■11
NE11111MENNIHIMME 11111 WWPI.ME011111
,,, ■■1�111��1111111■111 ���II■■■1111
---__rrw—_--_rwwr—rr•r-- ■rr—►ss__r�c—_--__rr
rrrrr■rrrrr■Nmmum■■rr�rr■r■ N■rrrrrrrrrrwrrrrr■ ■rrrrrrr� ��rrrr■r�rrrrrr■rr■rrr�s■rr
���■man ■r= 01■■■■■rte!' �■■■■'"►■■■■
� a■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1�� �■■ ■ ■ ■1 moo■■■ ■■ ■ ■.:>_� � IA■ ■ n��a■■■■
�■■■■■11�■■■1111���■���' 1��■■■■111■■■■■11
���11111■■■�Ill�i�■rfi Iii■�•■.■■■��■■M■■■■
■1111111■■�iIIII��11111i1■■I -
—_w_ww__rrr rw_w_�_wwr•. . .r
rte_--__rrMENE r-_--ArryRr �_ir—_wirr—moi
N■0N■■0■■NIF.■ dam'
NN�"N■■■■■NNNIN■■
��■■■■111►I1■■1111■■■■■111■1 -
■■��11111■�11■I�J:�I■■■■11111■1
milli NO I1 ■111 IL_.....____
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 7 Regional Curve
Underwood Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC

'S 1, r �—� ;is"e C.4n1aa I
29 &n�nnnon4(%gn 11 0303S(IO2te630
30002030 0 t
L _ _, Hydrologic Unit Code (14) k o 0j 0306002030040 r /
_ EEP Targeted Local Watershed _ r 0430002030010 03020201030010
�~ 03030002030010 y�6? �rf �� 03030002030070
130300020 040 r�1�pip.�
1 Groen
Levelr /
03030002030050 �
1� / r� 0302020103 3(
303000 0050
L4'hi { M3000204005
- 70 ,� ilnl� rsilS Iiir rigt-
s�•d.e11.1
�� Raw M1lzhri5r 'ti �f
03030002040020 41� � %3(3000204011$- 0303000F57080
- j •"'� 0300�� �h
}JaWr Alta
(�3' 40030 �l �� ��4/•, �+ra�^~V302020113 03
- ^ 30300 2040Y ��ir�' _•, ®flg Bfl�flC i
03030002050010
030OD20400�� �.� i } ♦d
03030002040010 �� , , i .1,` - ,r ,� �J0303000205003 0303000#60110
j� �r,F
A� 10./ /r i..�•
03030002040070/ cline C6k
P / (03001�020400jo
r03030002�010If SS heasEKeck3." r � 03030002b50040� �Gree shoro Ai 0 ! 03030002040080 `: �' v�•Iq;rnAir rtS 03030002050020A03
. 030002060070
1.i / ��� 030300020500
� +v��r ;
)f30003010080 1 :f
I =/ }iins +rti 03030002050050
Greertact - yy
f-ihr y (03030002050080
lit
03O3OgOi�20010 tr1��
W r
l a
{.
Creel, -I 03030002050070
03030003070010 ! y�
J p� '� -0303000205010
1 , I ri �j"` L 1 030306001
73� 003010100
j� si k � r 03030002050090 �'.
4z1 I v1 .t '•�� '" �►�i+��..�
} i �� �i� i' ` 030300020600"��
►nk 000302�(J20 �. + �� ` f� • ��V� 03030002 004
40 ( I ° 030 003070020
~~ H ty►t[riJ r ° Siler 0303000307003 ,r
J77 r Slier City �•� i�[}' �_ r,1.` + - i'i[LCl1ur-u Lam,
03030003020030 1 03030002060030
0 030003( AnPOF al
11- ,rpart , 1.w,i•�� 3oa � 1� �,r
L 7+ ^ (0 3030003070040�► v� 1 ~' -003fl3670,20 6005
IL 30300030600
03030d03020060%3000302�jJ80 03030003070050 1E13030003070�68
.'Ii
WILDLAIDS 0 2.25 4.5 Miles
ENGINEERING I I I
Figure 8 Reference Site Vicinity Map
Underwood Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC

20 j ■ ��
UT 1B
E����' UT 1A 19 s.^.•'
/ 18
♦
17
21
'� ♦ ♦ ' `a
�... �.� 22/23 ,Its.— 15 ✓ 16
i it •�000���• �•` 14
13 a
12
t }. UT 1 SF 310
,Y ::�iF w ■ 8
6.,
.�.'J� '•ti` _�,ix•,._� _� �- •4• y :y � � �, •� _ .. .�41 a tii}ii-ii�j -
,�-: t _
■
SF 2 - ■
-
* • .. Y� .•Y`• vtiT
33
r '
SRA "'4
31 ` SF 1
jk
27
■� �� Easement Area26L
i,„r F UT2
Project StreamsI + ■ 25 ■ �28
��O Soil Boring Locations Y' . - i'�,� ■
\I
24
—29
Figure 9 Soil Borings - Upstream Area
WILDLANDS 0 237.5 475 Feet Underwood Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC

•4
8.
.� 38 # 1,
'1 �\ 37 SF4 39 tip........................
35 41
"1 I4♦_ 34
�i.ir ;
Project Streams111116
sr
O Soil Boring Locations
I
Figure 10 Soil Borings - Downstream Area
WILDLANDS t Underwood Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING o 100 200 Feet Mitigation Plan
Il Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC
40 42
�..
49
43
51L 50
`
144
��`����•`•`•`•`•`
,,,'II
�
' I j 46
j
SF4A I
" .
1 48 47
.'
- I Easement Area
S v
�i.ir ;
Project Streams111116
sr
O Soil Boring Locations
I
Figure 10 Soil Borings - Downstream Area
WILDLANDS t Underwood Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING o 100 200 Feet Mitigation Plan
Il Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC

UT 1B
�. � � ♦ RW3 •.r'
♦ '� ♦ �`
j
lots
10110
..
Stream SF 3 , RW3
CrossingUT 1
! "
Stream I
it 45 - —�' _ �y� Crossing
.., ♦ 3
SF2 , ■ �!i n.
AO
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Creation
Wetland Enhancement
NRW1 €€ 7'i
W
777,, -
Is, falls,
SF 1`J�
7 M. IV itl
A 1 - I:
� .,.. a fay .♦ � fa�-i-` ._
RW2
',�, �. ■ RW1
,favi
Figure 11 Stream and Wetland Design - Upstream Area
WILDLANDS 0 237.5 475 Feet Underwood Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC

Stream Enhancement I
Wetland Restoration
�T Wetland Creation
Figure 12 Stream and Wetland Design - Downstream Area
WILDLANDS t Underwood Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING o 100 200 Feet Mitigation Plan
I I Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC

y
EL—RW♦' j4OdWW-- E UT 1B
3P'OO,WA-
■ '
Stream SF 3 + ■ RW3
Crossing
'
UT1 - w
Stream
Crossing
r TT iii S
_ f
■
[SF2 ■ -
" ♦
r
2 A
6 '
s
Stream Restoration
- Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
® Wetland Restoration
Wetland Creation
Wetland Enhancement
- 0-6" Grading
- 6-12" Grading
- 12-24" Grading
- 24"+ Grading
a
.� NRW1 � •.
i
M SF 1
1
RW2 f UT2 •Fl1ht�N��t.i�1
■ i
■
RW1 1
Figure 13 Proposed Wetland Grading - Upstream Area
WILDLANDS 0 237.5 475 Feet Underwood Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
a
Chatham County, NC
`1
.� NRW1 � •.
i
M SF 1
1
RW2 f UT2 •Fl1ht�N��t.i�1
■ i
■
RW1 1
Figure 13 Proposed Wetland Grading - Upstream Area
WILDLANDS 0 237.5 475 Feet Underwood Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
a
Chatham County, NC

■iMiM-
IL
Easement Area
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Creation
- 0-6" Grading
6-12" Grading
- 12-24" Grading
' 24"+ Grading
s I
_ I
SF4A j
�'�^` §may ' • �
1`
441i lfi
S !i
I
Figure 14 Proposed Wetland Grading - Downstream Area
WILDLANDS t Underwood Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING o 100 200 Feet Mitigation Plan
Il ill Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Chatham County, NC

Appendix 1 Project Site Photographs

`�; Vis►,• � ,� "F=� • r .. ��•
i f ,
i; � `,:t ,riijel� � � ��•
ON
IT
1. �_r: +,.'2'' � t,. ,� � '�- Liar .. � �.4: '•�_ - ��+11 .rl'
�.i, _ - '�`e �.{�. •',.:� ter. . � . .:-' .� � �...

I At

.MR, i, , f y
i
t4 �i--
77
j �s' jo Ir f i
• ti 1 .. �: .5;.
VIC.
i
t4 �i--
77
j �s' jo Ir f i

eV,

SAN, -L,- "ll 1
��-4 - j --M&

. �� , • ,' S 1 1 • �� p .1 031
F •!:� • �'. 111lll i+ I j}i' •:
_�-
_ _ =-"-
_�.y= Jam"
-mac'. v
dw
g
'jf{ ;%def
�i!•.l.f�c.il.=��j*`�I �A..•J..• �I���':� - �'_ . i��,
�' AV

.1 ;111 low If"i
401k

Existing Conditions RW 1
eat
Existing Conditions RW2

Existing Conditions RW 3
Existing Conditions RW 4

q,
wv 1. 4
• �'..rG�wx,Y�'. ..�-mow _ 'ILT
�'• - Sit ". ` A� -. . .
. �.�--..1._ r -lv�� - •icy �.�i: � k:� .�... rf•_•. - �.•�":�=.,.�. - -
:sY-�
� ��lp.•: �rl `' .v`a'�:rr� I CS>�a e. 's "r
g �•'1 +,' �+ l .;�1A.�.; ;�r�rz � + � rf � �,�.#I� � � I I � � I ��I, 'I � :P �I ;'-H' 11
�M {� I Tii - �--•

Appendix 2 Project Site USACE Routine Wetland
Determination Data Forms and Jurisdictional
Determination

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1— UT2 (Perennial)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 2/19/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:15 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT2 to South Fork Cane Creek 6. River Basin: Cape Fear 03030002
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 78 acres 8. Stream Order: Second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f 10. County: Chatham
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Greensboro, NC, travel south on US -421 for
approximately 20 miles. Take Old Liberty Road exit toward Liberty, turn left at Old Liberty Road and continue on to Swannanoa
Avenue. Turn right at S. Greensboro Street and travel approximately 0.5 mile to make a left at Dameron Avenue; continue on to Silk
Hope Road and Silk Hope Liberty Road. Travel approximately 8 miles to Clyde Underwood Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35.801304°, W 79.401141°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): restoration/enhancement
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point?(!� NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: —1-2 acres
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (D NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 90 % Agricultural
10 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 12-15 feet 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-4 feet
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X Straight _Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 45 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 2/19/2010
This channel evaluation foy& is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1— UT2 (Perennial)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1no
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 4
0-5
3
flow or saturation = 0; strongflow = maxpoints)0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0 — 4
0-4
2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)0-5
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
Uno
dischar e = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points
=
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0
p'
7
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = maxpoints)
0-5
0-4
0-2
3
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
4
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
,>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
,H_,
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
Root depth and density on banks
H
14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
0-3
0-4
0-5
3
cr)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
15
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
0
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0 — 6
0-6
2
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)0-6
Canopy coverage over streambed
,x
18
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
Cx�
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
04
22
Presence of fish
0 — 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = maxpoints)0-4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
45
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP2 — South Fork Cane Creek (Perennial)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 2/19/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: South Fork Cane Creek 6. River Basin: Cape Fear 03030002
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 70 acres 8. Stream Order: Second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f 10. County: Chatham
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Greensboro, NC, travel south on US -421 for
approximately 20 miles. Take Old Liberty Road exit toward Liberty, turn left at Old Liberty Road and continue on to Swannanoa
Avenue. Turn right at S. Greensboro Street and travel approximately 0.5 mile to make a left at Dameron Avenue; continue on to Silk
Hope Road and Silk Hope Liberty Road. Travel approximately 8 miles to Clyde Underwood Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35.802778°, W 79.401822°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): restoration/enhancement
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point?(!� NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 0.6 acre
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (D NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 90 % Agricultural
10 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 10-12 feet 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-4 feet
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 48 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 2/19/2010
This channel evaluation foy& is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP2 — South Fork Cane Creek (Perennial)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1no
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 4
0-5
3
flow or saturation = 0; strongflow = maxpoints)0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
00
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding= max points)
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
2
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
,>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
,H_,
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
Root depth and density on banks
H
14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
cr)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
15
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
1
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0 — 6
0-6
3
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)0-6
Canopy coverage over streambed
,x
18
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
Cx�
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
04
22
Presence of fish
0 — 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = maxpoints)0-4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
48
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP3 — South Fork Cane Creek (Perennial)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 2/19/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: South Fork Cane Creek 6. River Basin: Cape Fear 03030002
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 1,051 acres 8. Stream Order: Third
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 3001f 10. County: Chatham
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Greensboro, NC, travel south on US -421 for
approximately 20 miles. Take Old Liberty Road exit toward Liberty, turn left at Old Liberty Road and continue on to Swannanoa
Avenue. Turn right at S. Greensboro Street and travel approximately 0.5 mile to make a left at Dameron Avenue; continue on to Silk
Hope Road and Silk Hope Liberty Road. Travel approximately 8 miles to Clyde Underwood Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35.809256°, W 79.401698°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): restoration/ enhancement
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? (S NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: —5-6 acres
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (D NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 70 % Agricultural
30 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 15-20 feet 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-5 feet
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 55 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 2/19/2010
This channel evaluation foy& is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP3 — South Fork Cane Creek (Perennial)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1no
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 4
0-5
4
flow or saturation = 0; strongflow = maxpoints)0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
4
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
4
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
00
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding= max points)
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
3
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
4
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
,>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
,H_,
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
Root depth and density on banks
H
14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
0-3
0-4
0-5
1
cr)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
15
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
0
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16
0-3
0-5
0-6
5
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0 — 6
0-6
4
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)0-6
Canopy coverage over streambed
,x
18
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
Cx�
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
04
22
Presence of fish
0 — 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = maxpoints)0-4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
55
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP4 — UTI (Perennial)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 2/19/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 12:30 pm
5. Name of Stream: UTI to South Fork Cane Creek 6. River Basin: Cape Fear 03030002
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 230 acres 8. Stream Order: Second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 2001f 10. County: Chatham
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Greensboro, NC, travel south on US -421 for
approximately 20 miles. Take Old Liberty Road exit toward Liberty, turn left at Old Liberty Road and continue on to Swannanoa
Avenue. Turn right at S. Greensboro Street and travel approximately 0.5 mile to make a left at Dameron Avenue; continue on to Silk
Hope Road and Silk Hope Liberty Road. Travel approximately 8 miles to Clyde Underwood Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35.811274°, W 79.403625°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): restoration/ enhancement
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? (S NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 8.4 acres
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (D NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 60 % Agricultural
40 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 12-15 feet 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4-5 feet
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight _Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 46 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 2/19/2010
This channel evaluation foy& is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP4 — UT1 (Perennial)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1no
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 4
0-5
4
flow or saturation = 0; strongflow = maxpoints)0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0 — 4
0-4
2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)0-5
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
4
Uno
dischar e = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points
=
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0
p'
7
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = maxpoints)
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
4
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
1
,>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
,H_,
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
Root depth and density on banks
H
14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
0-3
0-4
0-5
1
cr)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
15
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
0
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16
0-3
0-5
0-6
5
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0 — 6
0-6
3
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)0-6
Canopy coverage over streambed
,x
18
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
Cx�
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
04
22
Presence of fish
0 — 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = maxpoints)0-4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
46
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP5 — UT1A (Intermittent)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 2/19/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 12:15 pm
5. Name of Stream:—UT I A to South Fork Cane Creek 6. River Basin: Cape Fear 03030002
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 11 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f 10. County: Chatham
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Greensboro, NC, travel south on US -421 for
approximately 20 miles. Take Old Liberty Road exit toward Liberty, turn left at Old Liberty Road and continue on to Swannanoa
Avenue. Turn right at S. Greensboro Street and travel approximately 0.5 mile to make a left at Dameron Avenue; continue on to Silk
Hope Road and Silk Hope Liberty Road. Travel approximately 8 miles to Clyde Underwood Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35.812115°, W 79.404562°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): restoration/enhancement
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (2s If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (�D 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 80 % Agricultural
20 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankf ill Width: 5-6 feet 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1-2 feet
23. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 23 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 2/19/2010
This channel evaluation foy& is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP5 — UT1A (Intermittent)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1no
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 4
0-5
2
flow or saturation = 0; strongflow = maxpoints)0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
0
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
0
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
00
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding= max points)
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
2
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
1
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
,>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
,H_,
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
Root depth and density on banks
H
14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
0-3
0-4
0-5
1
cr)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
15
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
0
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0 — 6
0-6
2
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)0-6
Canopy coverage over streambed
,x
18
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
Cx�
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
04
22
Presence of fish
0 — 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = maxpoints)0-4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
23
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP6 — UT1B (Intermittent)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 2/19/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 12:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Cane Creek 6. River Basin: Cape Fear 03030002
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 15 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f 10. County: Chatham
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Greensboro, NC, travel south on US -421 for
approximately 20 miles. Take Old Liberty Road exit toward Liberty, turn left at Old Liberty Road and continue on to Swannanoa
Avenue. Turn right at S. Greensboro Street and travel approximately 0.5 mile to make a left at Dameron Avenue; continue on to Silk
Hope Road and Silk Hope Liberty Road. Travel approximately 8 miles to Clyde Underwood Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35.811499°, W 79.405879°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): restoration/enhancement
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (2s If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (�D 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 80 % Agricultural
20 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankf ill Width: 5-8 feet 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1-2 feet
23. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 22 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 2/19/2010
This channel evaluation foy& is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP6 — UT1B (Intermittent)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1no
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 4
0-5
2
flow or saturation = 0; strongflow = maxpoints)0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
0
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
0
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
00
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding= max points)
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
2
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
,>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
,H_,
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
Root depth and density on banks
H
14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
0-3
0-4
0-5
0
cr)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
15
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
0
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0 — 6
0-6
2
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)0-6
Canopy coverage over streambed
,x
18
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5
0
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
Cx�
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
04
22
Presence of fish
0 — 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = maxpoints)0-4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
22
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP7 - South Fork Cane Creek (Perennial)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's Name: John Hutton
3. Date of Evaluation: 3/1/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: South Fork Cane Creek 6. River Basin: Cape Fear 03030002
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 5.3 square miles 8. Stream Order: Third
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 3001f 10. County: Chatham
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Greensboro, NC, travel south on US -421 for
annroximately 20 miles. Take Old Libertv Road exit toward Libertv. turn left at Old Libertv Road and continue on to Swannanoa Avenue. Turn
right at S. Greensboro Street and travel approximately 0.5 mile to make a left at Dameron Avenue: continue on to Silk Hope Road and Silk Hope
Liberty Road. Travel approximately 8 miles and turn left onto Siler City Snow Camp Road and take an immediate right onto Tom Stevens Road.
Travel approximately 3.5 miles and turn right onto Moon Lindley Road, site will be 'h mile on the right.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35.811383°, W 79.409065°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): restoration/ enhancement
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? (S NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: -5-6 acres
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (D NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 6BNO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 5 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 45 % Agricultural
50 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 18-23 feet 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4-6 feet
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 61 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature t for John Hutton Date 3/1/2010
This channel evaluation foo is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP7 — South Fork Cane Creek (Perennial)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1no
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 4
0-5
4
flow or saturation = 0; strongflow = maxpoints)0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0 — 4
0-4
2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)0-5
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
4
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
4
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
00
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding= max points)
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
2
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
4
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
,>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
,H_,
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
Root depth and density on banks
H
14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
cr)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
15
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
0
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16
0-3
0-5
0-6
5
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0 — 6
0-6
3
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)0-6
Canopy coverage over streambed
,x
18
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
Cx�
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
4
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
04
22
Presence of fish
0 — 4
0-4
1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = maxpoints)0-4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
61
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP8 — SF4A (Perennial)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's Name: John Hutton
3. Date of Evaluation: 3/1/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:30 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT SF4A to South Fork Cane Creek 6. River Basin: Cape Fear 03030002
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 650 acres 8. Stream Order: Second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f 10. County: Chatham
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Greensboro, NC, travel south on US -421 for
annroximately 20 miles. Take Old Libertv Road exit toward Libertv. turn left at Old Libertv Road and continue on to Swannanoa Avenue. Turn
right at S. Greensboro Street and travel approximately 0.5 mile to make a left at Dameron Avenue: continue on to Silk Hope Road and Silk Hope
Liberty Road. Travel approximately 8 miles and turn left onto Siler City Snow Camp Road and take an immediate right onto Tom Stevens Road.
Travel approximately 3.5 miles and turn right onto Moon Lindley Road, site will be 'h mile on the right.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35.811383°, W 79.409065°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): restoration/ enhancement
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Q If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 60 % Agricultural
40 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 10-12 feet 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-4 feet
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 46 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature t for John Hutton Date 3/1/2010
This channel evaluation foo is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP8 — SF4A (Perennial)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1no
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 4
0-5
3
flow or saturation = 0; strongflow = maxpoints)0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
Uno
dischar e = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points
=
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0
p'
7
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = maxpoints)
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
,>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
,H_,
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
Root depth and density on banks
H
14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
cr)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
15
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
0
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0 — 6
0-6
3
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)0-6
Canopy coverage over streambed
,x
18
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
Cx�
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
04
22
Presence of fish
0 — 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = maxpoints)0-4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
46
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP9 — SF2A (Intermittent)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's Name: Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 2/19/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:45 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to South Fork Cane Creek 6. River Basin: Cape Fear 03030002
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 44 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f 10. County: Chatham
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Greensboro, NC, travel south on US -421 for
approximately 20 miles. Take Old Liberty Road exit toward Liberty, turn left at Old Liberty Road and continue on to Swannanoa
Avenue. Turn right at S. Greensboro Street and travel approximately 0.5 mile to make a left at Dameron Avenue; continue on to Silk
Hope Road and Silk Hope Liberty Road. Travel approximately 8 miles to Clyde Underwood Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35.80248°, W 79.402701°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): restoration/enhancement
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 40°
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point?(!� NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 0.3 acre
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (D NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 100 % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankf ill Width: 6-8 feet 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1-2 feet
23. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight _Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 32 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP9 — SF2A (Intermittent)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1no
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 4
0-5
2
flow or saturation = 0; strongflow = maxpoints)0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
0
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
00
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding= max points)
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
3
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
,>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
,H_,
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
Root depth and density on banks
H
14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
0-3
0-4
0-5
1
cr)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
15
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
0
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
16
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
Habitat
0 — 6
0-6
2
or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)0-6
Canopy coverage over streambed
,x
18
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5
0
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
Cx�
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
04
22
Presence of fish
0 — 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = maxpoints)0-4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
32
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Underwood Mitigation Site City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 2/19/10
Applicant/Owner: Wildands Engineering State: INC Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Albright Township
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0.5%
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.810119 Long: W 79.401341 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Nanford-Badin complex (NaC) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a non -jurisdictional upland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Site is an active pasture/floodplain.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Platanus occidentalis
5 Yes FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
5 = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
2.
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
51
0 = Total Cover
_ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Festuca paradoxa
95 Yes FAC
- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2 Juncus effusus 5 No FACW
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
0 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Site is an active pasture/floodplain.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LoC2 Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 5/3 95 10YR 3/3 5 C PL silt loam
12-24 10YR 4/3
90 10YR 5/6
lu aui ivaiii
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric
Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Underwood Mitigation Site City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 2/19/10
Applicant/Owner: Wildands Engineering State: INC Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Albright Township
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.831427 Long: W 79.38243 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla soils (ChA) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a non -jurisdictional upland area. Data point is located within an
active agricultural crop field.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP2
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Site is an active agricultural crop field.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
0 = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
2.
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
51
0 = Total Cover
_ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Festuca paradoxa
50 Yes FAC
- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Xanthium strumarium 30 Yes FAC
3 Polygonum pensylvanicum 5 No FACW
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
g.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
0 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Site is an active agricultural crop field.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LoC2 Texture Remarks
0-24 10YR 5/3 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C PL silt loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Underwood Mitigation Site City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 5/6/11
Applicant/Owner: Wildands Engineering State: INC Sampling Point: DP3
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Albright Township
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.810833 Long: W 79.407538 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Nanford-Badin complex (NaC) NWI classification: PEM1
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area. Data point is located down slope of
an old breached farm pond.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes '' No
Depth (inches): `12
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP3
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Site is an active agricultural pasture, downstream of breached farm pond.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
0 = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
2.
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
51
0 = Total Cover
_ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Festuca paradoxa
70 Yes FAC
- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2 Juncus effusus 30 Yes FACW
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
0 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Site is an active agricultural pasture, downstream of breached farm pond.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
0-4 7.5YR 3/1 100 organic
4-20 7.5YR 6/1
90 7.5YR 5/6
IV IVI — -Y ivaiii
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
'' Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric
Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Underwood Mitigation Site City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 5/6/11
Applicant/Owner: Wildands Engineering State: INC Sampling Point: DP4
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Albright Township
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.810833 Long: W 79.407538 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Nanford-Badin complex (NaC) NWI classification: PEM1
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area. Data point is located down slope of
an old breached farm pond.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes '' No
Depth (inches): `12
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP4
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Site is an active agricultural pasture, downstream of breached farm pond.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
0 = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
2.
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
51
0 = Total Cover
_ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Festuca paradoxa
70 Yes FAC
- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2 Juncus effusus 30 Yes FACW
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
0 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Site is an active agricultural pasture, downstream of breached farm pond.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LoC2 Texture Remarks
0-24 7.5YR 5/1 90 7.5YR 5/6 10 C PL sandy loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Underwood Mitigation Site City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 5/6/11
Applicant/Owner: Wildands Engineering State: INC Sampling Point: DP5
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Albright Township
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.810833 Long: W 79.407538 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Nanford-Badin complex (NaC) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a non -jurisdictional upland area. Data point is located in an
active agricultural pasture.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
'' Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP5
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
0 = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
2_
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is:53.01
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
0-
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Festuca paradoxa
70 Yes FAC
-
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2.
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes No
0 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
0-20 7.5YR 5/4 100 loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 3.0
Rating Calculator Version 3.0
Wetland Site Name Underwood Mitigation Site: Wetland AA Date 05/06/11
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Matt Jenkins, PWS
Level III Ecoregion I Piedmont w Nearest Named Water Body South Fork
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03030002
Yes F, No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.810833°N, 79.407538°W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note below if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in recent
past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? F Yes No
Describe effects of stressors that are present.
Wetland located within an actively agricultural pasture. Vegetation is regularly mowed, soils are driven on and occansionally compacted.
Regulatory Considerations
Select all that apply to the assessment area.
F Anadromous fish
F Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
F Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F Publicly owned property
F N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
F Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
F Designated NCNHP reference community
F Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (Check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes . No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
A FA Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], artificial hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A FA Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
A FA Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

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

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

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

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 3.0
Rating Calculator Version
3.0
Wetland Site Name Underwood Mitigation Site: Wetland AA
Date
05/06/11
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Matt Jenkins, PWS
Presence of stressor affecting assessment area (Y/N)
YES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

Appendix 3 Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms

Date: 1L'tyo
Project/Site: { �
Latitude: . C 0 �
Evaluator:
County: 0644Longitude:
7?.40114t
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent53
Stream Determination(ci
Ephemeral Intermittent
Other
Quad Name:
if 2:19 or erennial if >_ 30"
erenni
e.g.
ru
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
la. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
sequence
0
1
2
3
-ripple-pool
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
W
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
M
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
3
Q artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= 8)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1 2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1 2
3
14. Leaf litter
Q.5 1 0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
05 1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5 CV
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 Yes
1
C. Biology (Subtotal=
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
D.
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Date:�11_01 0
Project/Site: �
rt f
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: A4 I.,
Longitude: "
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent nni ere
Other . r
e.g. Quad Name:
if >- 19 orerenniat if > 30
-
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal - - )
Absent
Weak
moderate
Strong
1a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
M
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
5
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
Yes - 3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
0
7TD
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolopv (Subtotal = }
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
0
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
1
No = 0
Yes - 3
0.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= G
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish 0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae 0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
(Votes:
Sketch:

I\[f11i1'i'[il.T3 Tii�[i[ iiiiT i7111111;WiTiTi-o1W413TITTKINI
Date: / Pro,ectlSite: Latitude: WSOV96
W
Evaluator: /ft -IT County: Cl"+4m
Total Points:-
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determination (ci Other
if>_ 19 or erennial if >: 30" Ephemeral Intermh n Perenni e.g. Quad Name:
Cole- cat -L
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
1.5
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
1
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes 3
1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
rn
2
L0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
CO)
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW jo j0.7
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

I 1" l70i=0t1 ii>�T i1 9Crn'HWIr 0 r Til
Date: MiflfoloProject/Site:
dra
Latitude: 3FF1k27qo
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at feast intermittent
Stream Determination(cir
Other d
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30*
Ephemeral Intermittent erennia
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = e )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
1.5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
Yes
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1.5
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
3
' artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= 0.5}
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes
1.5
C. Biologv (Subtotal= 7 }
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
co
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Date: 1plo
Project/Site: IIWOO
Latitude: l 1/ 0
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
0
0
2
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Dete ' circle one)
Ephemeral termitten Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
0
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
0
Yes -='3
Sketch:
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv (Subtotal 7)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
0
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
5
1
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
1.5
C. Biolociv (Subtotal = a 7 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
0
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW =12.7
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

111WW L`[WWW O MTH iLg�.T3Tiiil riii i1vL3r4Cin"E we 1
Date: Project/Site:.Latitude: a li g
Evaluator: County: . Longitude:7,7.
Total Points: Stream Deter circle one) Other SCP - T
Stream is at least intermittent s Ephemera intermitten Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or eerennial if >_ 30*
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = U a )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
CD
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5)
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
01
0.5
1
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = > l&- )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
CO)
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW =
.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
Verenniai streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

i\1y11�1'l�rgr/ ' 1 i'll i
1 I
Date: E Project/Site: 01 Latitude: 11
Evaluator: County: Longitude:
Total Points: Stream Determination (c' Other P 1
Stream is at feast intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 99 or eerennial if >_ 30" 1 ale
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = Q )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
0.5
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1.5
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
1.5
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
1.5
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes V3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 13.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
02
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

It.[�111`�'[lli r i�� ��m iii 'i'ii1�lT�TiTiC 11 f a
Date: < 010 Project/Site: OvJer woo Latitude:35-8,113rr Al
Evaluator: TOYCounty: h T Longitude:
Total Points: Stream Determination (c' Other - S
Stream is at least intermittent 31f. Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or 2erennial if >_ 30"
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ®,S )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
01
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
= 0
Yes
3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 7 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes 3
1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 1 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1)
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 02/19/2010 Project: Underwood Site
Evaluator. MLJ Site: SCP9
L2111Ud": N 35.802480
Lon!pItUde: W 79.4027010
I lvtmp VVMA�a- CYOW JrLA - iniermitTent
S"191" fs at O"M M*rYMftnf'ou bounty. e.g Owd None."
N a ; 9 crPWgRMW fl 2:30 23.501 ( Chatham
A. Geomoroholoov rsubtatat = 12.0 1 Abse -it Weak Moderate Stro n a
11". Contiruoijs bed and bank 0
1
2 3
2- Sinuay 0
3. in -channel structure riffle -pool sequeloo 1 0
l 1
j 1
2 P
2
3.
4. SOO texture or stream substrate sorting E, 0
1
2
1
5- Activehelic floodplain 2-0 0
j 12
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0
1
2
3
7- Braided &.annel 0
1
2
3
B. Recent allivial deposits. 1.0 0
1
2
0'5 3
9' Natural leve" 0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts0
1
2
3
11. Grade contrcis 0
�21N-wurWl valley or drairrageway 0
13 Second ergreaw order clannel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other dccumented
evidence.
0,51
().6
No = 0
1
Yes
1.5
1.5
- Men -made dt ches are ri ol rated. see d iscu ssi ons in manual
B Hvdroloov fSLAAoral = 6 -ft
14 Grorundwaterfloyddischarge
0
1
2
3.
15 Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
0
1
2
0
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
---------- . .. ....
1
1.5
-
4
- --- - ---------
-------------------- -
1
05
16. Leaffinev
2
1
3
1
0'5 3
a
17 Sediffwg-d on plants or debr9%
115
0,5
1
It
1
27 Filamentous algae-. neriphyton
1-11-1-1-1- . 1--.1-1
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
-+--0-5
-
2
-1 -
1 J
1.5
19. Hydric Sods (.?edoxignorphic featu2es) prose i,5
9�
;7ACW L
Mo=O
15
1 5
-
C Biolow 'SUMAal = 5.50
20'. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21 Rooted plants in channel
22. Crayfish
3
0
.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. &valves . .........
24. Fish
0
1
05
j
2
1
3
25. Amphibians5
. ..... ......
0,5
115
26 Macrobentivm (note dve" and mOV rda nce) 0
1
1.5
27 Filamentous algae-. neriphyton
0
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriatfungus
.... ... ... ... .... ... .
Hand plants in strearnbed
0
. .. . . .. ...........
FAC - 05,
;7ACW L
15
" Items 20 and 21focus on the pr-- sence of upland plan is. It am 29 focuses on the presence of a Quatic or weB an d p4a n t s
N 0 as use bark side of this form for a-dati oo &I r o(e s, 8 k ef -- h

Appendix 4 Soil Boring Data

Old
Number
New
Number
Depth
in
Munsell
Color
Texture
Mottle
%
Munsell
Color
Mottle
%
Munsell
Color
Notes
1
1
0-10
7.5YR 5/2
clay loam
7.5YR 6/3
10-24 7.5YR 5/6 clay loam 40% 7.5YR 4/1
24+ gravel
2
2
0-16
10YR 5/3
silt loam
10%
7.5YR 5/6
16+ 2.5Y 7/4 silt loam
3
3
0-4
10YR 5/3
silt loam
10%
7.5YR 5/6
4-14 2.5Y 7/4 silt loam
Harris 1
4
0-12
2.5Y 5/3
silt loam
20%
7.5YR 5/6
12-20 10YR 5/3 silt loam 20% 10YR 5/6
20-24 2.5Y 5/4 silt loam
4
5
0-20
7.5YR 6/2
clay loam
25%
7.5YR 5/6
10%
7.5YR 4/1
edge of drainage swale, water moving
through swale in top 20" but drier below
20+ 7.5YR 6/6 clay loam 20% 7.5YR 6/2 10%
7.5YR 4/1
5
6
0-8
10YR 5/2
loam
20%
7.5YR 6/3
20%
10YR 6/3
8-24 2.5Y 6/4 loam 20% 7.5YR 5/6
24+ bedrock
Harris 2
7
0-12 10YR 5/2 silt loam 30% 10YR 5/6
12-24 2.5Y 5/4 silt loam
6
8
0-14
7.5YR 5/2
clay loam
10%
7.5YR 4/1
10%
7.5YR 5/6
14-24 5YR 5/4 clay loam 40% 7.5YR 4/1
7
9
0-24
7.5YR 5/1
clay loam
10%
7.5YR 5/6
blackened manganese, oxidized
rhizospheres
24+ bedrock
8
10
0-14
7.5YR 5/1
sandy clay loam
30%
7.5YR 5/6
14-24 10YR 7/4 sandy clay loam 40% 10YR 4/1
9
11
0-24
7.5YR 5/2
clay loam
10%
7.5YR 5/6
Harris 3
12
0-12
10YR 5/3
silt loam
30%
10YR 3/3
12-24 10YR 4/3 silt loam 20% 10YR 5/6
10
13
0-16
7.5YR 5/3
clay loam
no mottles
11
14
0-24
7.5YR 6/2
clay loam
10%
7.5YR 5/6
blackened manganese
12
15
0-16
7.5YR 6/3
clay loam
20%
7.5YR 4/1
16-24 7.5YR 5/2 clay loam 50% 7.5YR 6/6
Harris 4
16
0-22
22-24
2.5Y 5/3
10YR 5/6
silt loam
silt loam
30%
10YR 4/4
Concretions
13
17
0-14
7.5YR 5/3
clay loam
10%
7.5YR 5/1
20%
7.5YR 5/6
14-24 7.5YR 6/6 clay loam 40% 7.5YR 5/2
14
18
0-14
7.5YR 5/2
oxidized rhizospheres
14-24 7.5YR 5/2 gravel 40% 7.5YR 6/6
15
19
0-14
7.5YR 5/2
14-24 7.5YR 6/6 40% 7.5YR 5/2
Harris 5
20
0-18
18-24
10YR 5/3
10YR 5/2
silt loam
silt loam
30%
20%
7.5YR 3/4
10YR 5/6
16
21
0-4
7.5YR 3/1
organic layer
NRW2
4-20 7.5YR 6/1 sandy loam 10% 7.5YR 5/6 10%
7.5YR 4/1
17
22
0-24
7.5YR 5/1
sandy loam
10%
7.5YR 5/6
oxidized rhizospheres
18
23
0-20
7.5YR 5/4
loam
upland point
29
24
0-9
7.5YR 5/2
clay loam
10%
7.5YR 5/6
blackened manganese
9-20 7.5YR 6/1 clay loam 40% 7.5YR 6/6 10%
7.5YR 5/2
Harris 6
25
0-12
7.5YR 5/2
silt loam
30%
7.5YR 4/6
12-24 7.5YR 5/2 silty clay loam 20% 10YR 5/6
28
26
0-9
7.5YR 5/2
clay loam
10%
7.5YR 5/6
blackened manganese
9-20 7.5YR 6/1 clay loam 40% 7.5YR 6/6 10%
7.5YR 5/2
Harris 7
31
27
28
0-12
2.5Y 5/2
silt loam
30%
7.5YR 4/6
Concretions
12-24 7.5YR 5/2 silt loam 20% 10YR 5/6
0-24 7.5YR 5/1 clay loam 20% 7.5YR 5/6
30
29
0-10
7.5YR 5/1
clay loam
10%
7.5YR 5/6
free water at 10in
10-16 7.5YR 5/2 clay loam 20% 7.5YR 6/1 40%
7.5YR 5/6
32
30
0-24
7.5YR 5/1
clay loam
20%
7.5YR 5/6
blackened manganese
Harris 8
33
31
32
0-18
10YR 5/3
silt loam
30%
7.5YR 3/4
18-24 2.5Y 6/2 silt loam 20% 10YR 3/4
0-24 7.5YR 5/1 clay loam 20% 7.5YR 5/6
blackened manganese
W -Ar o
0-2
2.5Y 5/3
silt loam
30%
5YR 4/6

Old
New
Depth
Munsell
Mottle
Munsell
Mottle Munsell
Texture
Notes
Number
Number
in
Color
%
Color
% Color
J J
2-24
2.5Y 6/3
silt loam
20%
10YR 3/4
24
34
0-20
7.5YR 5/2
sandy loam
10%
7.5YR 5/6
saturated at surface
Lindley 1
35
0-24
10YR 5/3
silt loam
10%
7.5YR 4/6
23
36
0-16
7.5YR 5/2
sandy loam
10%
7.5YR 5/6
saturated at surface
Lindley 2
37
0-24
7.5YR 6/3
sandy silt loam
20%
7.5YR 5/6
0-10
7.5YR 5/1
40%
7.5YR 5/3
10% 7.5YR 4/1
blackened manganese, saturated at
22
38
10-25
7.5YR 5/4
20%
7.5YR 5/2
surface
25+
7.5YR 6/1
20%
7.5YR 4/1
30% 7.5YR 5/6
21
39
0-20
7.5YR 5/2
sandy loam
10%
7.5YR 4/1
10% 7.5YR 5/6 saturated at surface
Lindley 3
40
0-24
2.5Y 6/3
silt loam
20%
5YR 4/6
20
41
0-20
7.5YR 5/2
loam
15%
7.5YR 5/6
0-20
10YR 5/4
silt loam
Lindley 4
42
20-24
10YR 5/3
silt loam
20%
7.5YR 4/6
19
43
0-30
7.5YR 4/4
sandy loam
27
44
0-20
7.5YR 5/3
clay loam
20%
7.5YR 5/6
0-18
10YR 4/4
silt loam
Lindley 7
45
18-24
10YR 5/3
silt loam
20%
7.5YR 4/4
Lindley 9
46
0-24
7.5YR 4/4
sandy silt loam
0-18
7.5YR 4/3
silt loam
Lindley 8
47
18-24
10YR 4/3
silt loam
20%
7.5YR 4/4
26
48
0-20
7.5YR 5/4
0-20
7.5YR 4/4
silt loam
Lindley 6
49
20-24
10YR 4/2
silt loam
20%
7.5YR 5/8
0-18
10YR 5/3
silt loam
20%
7.5YR 4/6
Lindley 5
50
18-24
10YR 6/2
silt loam
30%
7.5YR 5/6
25
51
0-20
7.5YR 5/2
50%
7.5YR 5/61
recently disked, juncus nearby

1 Project Area
r� Wetland Creation
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Restoration
Project Streams
0 Soil Boring Locations
Upstream Area (UA)
•
•:±'. g.:• ,•111
f e
�
_._.� �� ��:.
�
i i
�,..� �
ice': �. i� ���'-•-._,'
� F� ..harris-4
�
,,.- -'�'�� `_'_-•-•-•�'I
� ; harris-3
1
_
harris-2
harris-1 f'
1 1
RM
IN
Y R
P h •
Downstream Area DA
A.
harris-9 �.: - _ "•,
tAL
'-•• liarris-8
110
, - - -,_,_ �,�,..� ` �'�,�� �• , .L•�,i _ .. ; ,i ; �-harris-7
lindley-2 `'• " "r t' }' i i i
lindley-1MLI
harris-6
_���� O /
1.1ndle _3 lindley-4'� �,.� i3O ,;'•,
yU • ,
lindley-67�% k a wK »a�e14 A
lindley-5 0 :�0' 500 Feet
1indle'�yO%7
*2007 Aerial Photography
•. ti � 1
• ��� / lindley-9•
� I
'�ti lindley-8
O
I
W
b
. i
-4
_a
ti.
0 150 300 Fee
t
�—� Soil Boring Locations
Underwood Mitigation Site
j Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
WILDL NDS Chatham county, NC

Soil Profile Descriptions Wildlands Proiect Sites
Soils Descriptions performed by Mike Ortosky (NC Licensed Soil Scientist # 1075
�
Harris Property - 1/28/10 Irr1
Profile #1
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture
Notes
0-8
10 YR 4/3
C2D l OYR 5/2
Loam
Manganese bodies
8-24
10 YR 5/5
C2D 10YR 5/2
Clay Loam
Manganese bodies
Profile #2
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Tcxture
Notes
0-8
10 YR 4/4
F2D l OYR 5/2
Loam
8-24
10 YR 5/5
C2D l OYR 5!2
Clay Loam
Profile #3
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture
Notes
0-8
10 YR 4/2
Loam
Manganese bodies
8-24
10 YR 5/2
Clay Loam
Manganese bodies
Profile #4
Profile #5
Depth_ Color (Munsell) Mottles Texture Notes
0-24 10 YR 5.4 Loam
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA Wildlands Project Sites

Profile #6
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture
Notes
0-12
10 YR 4/3
F2D 10YR 5.12
Loam
Manganese bodies
8-24
10 YR 5/5
C2D 10YR 5/2
Loam
Manganese bodies
Soil & Environmental Consultants. PA Wildlands Project Sites

Soil Profile Descriptions Wildlands Project Sites
Soils Descriptions performed by Mike Ortosky (NC Licensed Soil Scientist # 1"075)
0
James Property - 1/28/10
Profile #1
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture
Notes
0-8
10 YR 4/5
C2D I O R 5/2
Loam
8-24
10 YR 4i2
Clay Loam
Profile #2
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture
Notes
0-14
10 YR 4/4
F21) IOYR 5/2
Loam
14-24
10 YR 5/2
Clay Loam
Relic low-chroma colors
Profile #3
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture
Notes
0-8
10 YR 4/3
C2D 10 YR 5/2
Loam
8-12
10 YR 5/2
Loam
Profile #4
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture
Notes
0-12
10 YR 4/3
C2D 10 YR 5!2
Loam
Manganese bodies
12-30
10 YR 5!2
C2D 10 YR 5/3
Clay Loam
Manganese bodies
Profile #5
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture
Notes
0-24
10 YR 4./2
Loam
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA Wildlands Project Sites

Profile #6
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture Notes
0-12
10 YR 5/3
C2D 10 YR 5/2
Loam
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA Wildlands Project Sites

Soil Profile Descriptions Wildlands Project Sites
Soils Descriptions performed by Mike Ortosky (NC Licensed Soil Scientist #10
Underwood Property - 3/1/10
*11
Profile #1
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture Notes
0-10
10 YR 6/2
F2D 10 YR 5/3
Sandy Loam
10-16
10 YR 6i2
C2D 7.5 YR 4/4
Sandy CL
C2D 10 YR 5,2
& 7.5 YR 4/4
Loam
Profile #2
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture
Notes
0-3
10 YR 5/2
Loam
Fine SL
3-15
10 YR 5/3
C2D 10 YR 5,2
& 7.5 YR 4/4
Loam
Profile #4
Depth
Profile #3
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture Notes
0-24
10 YR 5/4
Loam
Profile #4
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture Notes
0-12
10 YR 4/4
Loam
12-24
10 YR 44
C2D 10 YR 4i2
Sandy CL
Profile #5
Depth
Color (Munsell)
Mottles
Texture Notes
0-10
10 YR 5/3
Loam
10-18
10 YR 5/2
M2D 10 YR 5i6
Sandy CL
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA Wildlands Project Sites

Profile #6
Depth Color (Munsell) Mottles Texture Notes
0-6 10 YR 4/2 & 5/3 Loam 50% - 50% color mix
6-20 10 YR 5/2 Loam
Profile #7
Depth Color (Munsell) Mottles Texture Notes
0-10 10 YR 5/4 Loam Alluvial deposit - Manganese
10-20 10 YR 4/2 Loam
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA Wildlands Project Sites

Appendix 5 Resource Agency Correspondence

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
July 28, 2010
Andrea Spangler
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, #104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Underwood Mitigation Project, Chatham County, ER 10-1313
Dear Ms. Spangler:
Thank you for your letter of July 12, 2010, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
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,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
6$�� Peter Sandbeck
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
Underwood Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation
0.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
July 28, 2010
Andrea Spangler
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, #104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Underwood Mitigation Project, Chatham County, ER 10-1313
Dear Ms. Spangler:
Thank you for your letter of July 12, 2010, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
6$�� Peter Sandbeck
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
Underwood Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation

North Carolina Wildlife Resources CominissionlP
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
28 July 2010
Matt L. Jenkins, PWS
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street
Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Subject: Underwood Mitigation Site — Chatham County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
information. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The proposed project includes restoration of a degraded stream channel and wetland creation and
restoration along South Fork Cane Creek and its tributaries. South Fork Cane Creek is a tributary to Cane Creek
in the Cape Fear River basin. There are records for the federal species of concern and state endangered Carolina
creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), the state special concern notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), and the state
significantly rare Eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis) in Cane Creek.
Stream and wetland restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. We
recommend establishing native, forested buffers in riparian areas to protect water quality, improve terrestrial
habitat, and provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Provided natural channel design methods are used and
measures are taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation from construction/restoration activities, we do not
anticipate the project to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposed project. If we can provide further assistance,
please contact our office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Underwood Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation

Appendix 6 Historic Aerial Photographs

1, 0 a re -,m
s
4-4,544 M�
INQUIRY #: 2827723.4 4 N
YEAR: 1973
= 1000'

` 4 '
7
tis
�# r
f
t 1

1
■
N

+
AMMON
• - ilk-
14L
r4

� 7 � "�,;d - �� •,.ya'�Lr T ,. 33 'iii • �{f�� �-
rt Y. _ �_i t�a'� ,.�• j f,.i� �.�1 ,y r�d'��• iif r' 1•�.• _d, r�'�j' „t
•ya. .f i' 'SE'�� l a% �}fr r_y ��S,-C. '•:Ari �� `+w°j?'e� --
IL
`'
:ata• `�'�i > � k � x �' i t e'tA.,��* rr s, ,�4jVVy'- � i �t� � , �.
tri ' t+ �,�Jt �e`t; i ! ii1�fy"�ctt.'y44ii'.ty 1
/; -
It
�S� L
77
4�et•F2".�ei�t(s.. ab�t,�iyWJifiN'i`',:.1a�: ,� _ " • - -#�J ., .... '
1
r-� t
a F• '
S •3l . "�"1 � � r a.
� I ry• �r•l r

INQUIRY #: 2827723.8
YEAR: 1973
= 500'
ir—
Lk 'ww-
Ow q
Illr.r i�w
4N
'- f

OVA
I �l
--M
f

w
1
h

INQUIRY M 2827723.8
YEAR: 1999 4 N
750'
4
Err a

r ,
�•
J +4r m
t tl `y
��rs�3f�wi we `t
Lr br ;�jfs�3�
ii

'41
1*
jj�'- ;: "
aft
ice(` (• 4 1 aT� ,.t• �v . f!+_
I ll 1;
I Ad� dp
, L
•
44-0,
Ilk
0 If .0
or
Pox 1 90. 1 All
4f
j
ol
-4
All, Alf
qlok
�v
411 4 01. 10
0'
for
to
4,
'11 all Ir
PA t
'a
OL
—f -
Off
1
0. a i ice
74 f. 41
Ps 7.
I
to
I,
'T4 A ao
— -
. j
if
I& It
.4
)*or p
A4
for,
A -1w I
Ir
jo . f-114 If!
IF
,4.
qggo

1- 9'-51
,f
�e
r.wV
AR -1 H- 12-0-
�'• r. fir,
v°
i
•
r •
I- J
� �•.� x fit,, A�
,
Vfill

Appendix 7 Existing Morphologic Survey Data

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Upstream Area South
Reach Name: SF 1
Cross Section Name: XS 6
Survey Date: 09/21/10
---------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation:
Backsight Rod Reading
TAPE FS
0
Channel
0
11.48
596.117528
0
15.92
596.38
0
19.33
594.17
0
21.01
Floodprone Width (ft)
0
21.84
-----
0
23.32
7.64
0
24.86
0
25.77
-----
0
28.42
Mean Depth (ft)
0
37.35
1.33
0
52.22
2.21
0
2.21
Width/Depth Ratio
0 ft
0 ft
ELEV NOTE
596.233549
Channel
594.820598
595.855614
596.117528
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
595.505928
596.38
596.38
594.174299
594.17
BKF
593.389687
Floodprone Width (ft)
51.88
592.305062
-----
LEW
591.961387
7.64
TW
592.176775
REW
593.626585
Channel
594.820598
Right
596.117528
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
596.384791
596.38
596.38
---------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
I
ope channel Left side Right side
S
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
596.38
596.38
596.38
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
594.17
594.17
594.17
Floodprone Width (ft)
51.88
-----
-----
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.64
3.8
3.84
Entrenchment Ratio
6.79
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
1.24
1.15
1.33
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.21
2.17
2.21
Width/Depth Ratio
6.15
3.31
2.88
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
9.48
4.37
5.11
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.32
6.71
6.94
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.02
0.65
0.74
Begin BKF Station
19.34
19.34
23.14
End BKF Station
26.98
23.14
26.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
I
ope channel Left side Right side
S
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Upstream Area North
Reach Name: SF 2
Cross Section Name: XS 10
Survey Date: 09/27/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------
cross section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
0
Channel
0
580.310902
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
11.22
580.15
0
579.201798
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
578.11
18.21
578.11
0
578.563962
67.58
-----
20.81
0
578.109025
10.27
BKF
21.67
Entrenchment Ratio
0
576.069961
-----
LEW
25.76
1.73
0
576.101953
TW
29.82
2.04
0
576.201078
Width/Depth Ratio
11.91
31.65
6.56
0
576.565883
35.44
19.34
37.6
0
576.263807
13.3
12.67
39.65
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0
576.405762
1.27
REW
42.28
20.8
0
579.049436
RB
48.19
31.07
0
579.785514
55.6
0
580.149241
65.37
0
579.929737
73.57
0
580.40061
Cross Sectional Geometry
-----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
channel Left side Right Side
slope
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
580.15
580.15
580.15
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
578.11
578.11
578.11
Floodprone width (ft)
67.58
-----
-----
Bankfull Width (ft)
20.54
10.27
10.28
Entrenchment Ratio
3.29
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
1.73
1.88
1.57
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.04
2.04
1.85
Width/Depth Ratio
11.91
5.45
6.56
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
35.44
19.34
16.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
22.65
13.3
12.67
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.56
1.45
1.27
Begin BKF station
20.8
20.8
31.07
End BKF Station
41.35
31.07
41.35
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
channel Left side Right Side
slope
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Upstream
Reach Name: SF 3
Cross Section Name: XS 9
Survey Date: 09/27/10
----------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation:
Backsight Rod Reading
TAPE FS
----------------------
0
Channel
0
12.46
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
0
18.74
577.14
0
23.68
574.74
0
25.43
48.59
0
29.13
Bankfull width (ft)
0
30.49
7.95
0
33.76
-----
0
38.3
1.81
0
40.77
Maximum Depth (ft)
0
55.51
2.34
0
74.93
4.49
0
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
28.85
14.06
Area North
0 ft
0 ft
ELEV NOTE
-------------------
576.060781
576.129954
574.910033
574.7376
Channel
BKF
573.095374
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
LEW
572.599035
577.14
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
572.342842
574.74
574.74
572.530653
48.59
-----
573.079962
Bankfull width (ft)
REW
576.464212
7.95
RB
577.731898
578.46657
-------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
-------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
Slope
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
577.14
577.14
577.14
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
574.74
574.74
574.74
Floodprone width (ft)
48.59
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
15.9
7.95
7.95
Entrenchment Ratio
3.06
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
1.81
1.77
1.86
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.4
2.4
2.34
Width/Depth Ratio
8.76
4.49
4.27
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
28.85
14.06
14.79
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
17.49
10.99
11.17
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.65
1.28
1.32
Begin BKF Station
23.61
23.61
31.56
End BKF Station
39.51
31.56
39.51
----------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
Slope
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------------
River Name: Downstream
Reach Name: SF 4
Cross Section Name: XS 27
Survey Date: 09/21/10
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation:
Backsight Rod Reading
TAPE FS
0
Channel
0
24.17
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
0
42.35
543.69
0
51.77
539.74
0
58.29
157.31
0
64.83
Bankfull Width (ft)
0
68.46
11.55
0
71.41
-----
0
74.35
2.68
0
76.34
Maximum Depth (ft)
0
79.87
3.95
0
81.78
3
0
85.13
49.73
0
100.47
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
0
130.91
16.29
0
157.31
1.4
0
0 ft
0 ft
ELEV NOTE
540.516132
Channel
Left
540.557823
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
543.69
540.741362
543.69
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
541.14924
539.74
539.74
541.352592
157.31
LB
539.742895
Bankfull Width (ft)
BKF
536.783319
11.55
LEW
536.266929
-----
-----
535.794817
2.68
TW
536.29395
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.95
536.785617
3.95
REW
538.311822
3
3.99
541.288536
49.73
16.35
540.730927
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
20.86
540.230367
16.29
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
540.514334
1.4
2.05
Begin BKF Station
64.83
64.83
71.84
End BKF Station
83.39
------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
Slope channel Left side Right side
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
543.69
543.69
543.69
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
539.74
539.74
539.74
Floodprone Width (ft)
157.31
-----
-----
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.55
7.01
11.55
Entrenchment Ratio
8.48
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
2.68
2.33
2.89
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.95
3.54
3.95
Width/Depth Ratio
6.92
3
3.99
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
49.73
16.35
33.38
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
20.86
11.65
16.29
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.38
1.4
2.05
Begin BKF Station
64.83
64.83
71.84
End BKF Station
83.39
71.84
83.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
Slope channel Left side Right side
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Downstream Area
Reach Name: SF 4A
Cross Section Name: XS 29
Survey Date: 09/21/10
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation:
Channel
0 ft
Right
Backsight
Rod Reading:
0 ft
541.87
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
539.72
539.72
539.72
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
0
541.980498
5.16
18.75
0
542.011765
-----
26.66
0
541.721211
1.69
30.41
0
541.40856
LB
33.63
0
539.725003
BKF
35.71
0
537.805416
LEW
39.47
0
537.573278
TW
42.23
0
537.80111
REW
45.89
0
541.87025
RB
53.1
0
541.873644
43.96
68.52
0
541.862049
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional
Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
541.87
541.87
541.87
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
539.72
539.72
539.72
Floodprone width (ft)
29.4
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
10.32
5.16
5.16
Entrenchment Ratio
2.85
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
1.64
1.59
1.69
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.15
2.11
2.15
width/Depth Ratio
6.31
3.25
3.06
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
16.89
8.2
8.69
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.94
8.02
8.13
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.41
1.02
1.07
Begin BKF Station
33.64
33.64
38.8
End BKF Station
43.96
38.8
43.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

River Name:
Reach Name:
Cross Section Name
Survey Date:
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
Upstream Area North
uT 1
XS 15
09/21/10
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
alt
0
channel
16.35
590.731728
22.49
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
24.02
588.49
30.32
591.313888
35.54
587.02
43.43
587.02
54.23
591.44712
61.33
-----
69.23
74.7
589.056774
76.87
4.47
78.58
Entrenchment Ratio
80.21
588.875569
82.25
84.04
0.81
85.87
587.052846
88.2
Maximum Depth (ft)
90.24
1.47
94.35
585.545872
100.89
TW
105.41
8.31
REW
113.27
7.22
4.81
FS
ELEV
NOTE
-----------------------
591.488739
channel
Left
590.731728
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
590.95998
588.49
588.49
591.313888
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
587.02
592.285778
587.02
591.44712
14.17
-----
589.924136
Bankfull width (ft)
589.056774
4.48
4.47
588.821219
Entrenchment Ratio
1.58
588.875569
-----
588.839013
0.81
LB
587.052846
Maximum Depth (ft)
585.81693
1.47
LEW
585.545872
Width/Depth Ratio
TW
585.899342
8.31
REW
586.807817
7.22
4.81
587.01879
BKF
588.295338
6.18
5.98
588.667393
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.75
589.29686
0.4
590.337884
76.92
76.92
591.357406
End BKF Station
592.432297
81.4
85.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
------------------
channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
588.49
588.49
588.49
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
587.02
587.02
587.02
Floodprone width (ft)
14.17
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
8.96
4.48
4.47
Entrenchment Ratio
1.58
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
0.81
1.07
0.54
Maximum Depth (ft)
1.47
1.47
1.27
Width/Depth Ratio
11.11
4.18
8.31
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
7.22
4.81
2.4
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.63
6.18
5.98
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.75
0.78
0.4
Begin BKF Station
76.92
76.92
81.4
End BKF Station
85.87
81.4
85.87
-------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
channel Left side Right side
Slope
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Upstream Area North
Reach Name: UT 1A
Cross section Name: XS 24
Survey Date: 09/21/10
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation:
0 ft
7.66
Backsight Rod
Reading:
0 ft
2.22
0.2
56.52
58.38
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
0
0
597.198583
...........
23.26
0
596.147864
35.75
0
594.792082
47.01
0
594.129928
53.66
0
593.544332
LB
54.55
0
593.231984
56.52
0
593.28698
bkf
57.15
0
593.004641
LEW
59.07
0
592.979829
TW
62.93
0
593.48045
66.19
0
593.800693
68.89
0
593.855361
REW
70.29
0
594.458096
72.22
0
595.038285
RB
78.15
0
595.643374
107.73
0
597.526207
131.79
0
601.315126
156.33
0
603.842325
------------------------
Cross sectional Geometry
------------------------
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
Floodprone width (ft)
Bankfull Width (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Mean Depth (ft)
Maximum Depth (ft)
width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Begin BKF Station
End BKF Station
Channel
593.6
593.29
11.12
4.94
2.25
0.21
0.31
23.63
1.03
5.03
0.21
56.52
61.46
Left
593.6
593.29
1.86
0.24
0.3
7.66
0.45
2.22
0.2
56.52
58.38
Right
593.6
593.29
3.08
0.19
0.31
16.3
0.58
3.4
0.17
58.38
61.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
channel Left side Right side
Slone

shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
..........
River Name: Upstream Area North
Reach Name: UT A
Cross section Name: XS 22
Survey Date: 09/21/10
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS ELEV
0
channel
0
603.457087
24.17
600.89
0
601.9216
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
42.14
599.85
0
600.871401
Floodprone width (ft)
44.2
-----
0
599.245239
Bankfull width (ft)
45.4
1.62
0
598.874322
Entrenchment Ratio
46.05
-----
0
598.808501
Mean Depth (ft)
46.66
0.53
0
599.845353
Maximum Depth (ft)
48.02
0.87
0
600.953243
width/Depth Ratio
58.01
3.05
0
601.047462
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
73.34
0.86
0
601.964867
wetted Perimeter (ft)
95.76
2.73
0
602.830283
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
NOTE
-------------------------
LB
LEw
TW
REw
BKF
RB
----------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Slope channel Left side Right side
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
600.89
600.89
600.89
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
599.85
599.85
599.85
Floodprone width (ft)
6.15
-----
-----
Bankfull width (ft)
3.23
1.62
1.62
Entrenchment Ratio
1.9
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
0.67
0.53
0.8
Maximum Depth (ft)
1.04
0.87
1.04
width/Depth Ratio
4.85
3.05
2.01
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
2.15
0.86
1.3
wetted Perimeter (ft)
4.1
2.73
3.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.53
0.31
0.42
Begin BKF Station
43.43
43.43
45.05
End BKF Station
46.67
45.05
46.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Slope channel Left side Right side
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
River Name: Upstream
Reach Name: UT 2
Cross section Name: Xs 3
Survey Date: 09/21/10
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation:
Backsight Rod Reading
TAPE FS
0
0
50.3
0
68.93
0
79.63
0
81.23
0
82.5
0
84.63
0
86.96
0
88.99
0
94.69
0
100.54
0
113.46
0
146.26
0
159.62
0
-----
601.89479
Area South
0 ft
0 ft
ELEV NOTE
-------------------
601.076034
599.402516
600.052792
599.770653
Channel
RB
598.6869
BKF
597.187287
600.51
LEW
596.868668
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
TW
597.053305
598.69
REW
599.592667
133.21
RB
600.060645
Bankfull Width (ft)
599.536109
3.52
3.52
599.704145
Entrenchment Ratio
18.91
599.937119
-----
601.89479
1.36
1.34
1.39
Maximum Depth (ft)
1.82
1.82
1.81
--------- -------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
................ .......
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
600.51
600.51
600.51
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
598.69
598.69
598.69
Floodprone Width (ft)
133.21
-----
-----
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.04
3.52
3.52
Entrenchment Ratio
18.91
-----
-----
Mean Depth (ft)
1.36
1.34
1.39
Maximum Depth (ft)
1.82
1.82
1.81
Width/Depth Ratio
5.17
2.64
2.54
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
9.6
4.71
4.88
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.56
6.06
6.12
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.12
0.78
0.8
Begin BKF Station
81.23
81.23
84.75
End BKF station
88.27
84.75
88.27
Calculations
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
channel Left Side Right Side
Slope
Shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

Appendix 8 Drainmod Calibration Plots

E
u
30
10
-10
-30
Underwood Wetland Well 2 Calibration
4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500 c
-90
-110
-130
-150
7/16/2010
9/4/2010 10/24/2010 12/13/2010 2/1/2011 3/23/2011
Date
2.000 I=
1.500 Observed I
Observed II
—Simulated
1.000
Well Bottom
Precip
0.500

20.00
M
-20.00
-40.00
E
U
a -60.00
a
0
v
~ -80.00
L
0
3
-100.00
-120.00
-140.00
-160.00
7/16/2010
Underwood Wetland Well 3 Calibration
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.500 Well Bottom
Observed 1
2.000 Observed II
Simulated
9/4/2010 10/24/2010 12/13/2010 2/1/2011 3/23/2011
Date

50.00
M
E -50.00
U
s
CL
v
v
v
-100.00
-150.00
-200.00
2/26/2011 3/3/2011 3/8/2011 3/13/2011 3/18/2011 3/23/2011 3/28/2011 4/2/2011
Date
Underwood Wetland Well 4 Calibration
- 4.500
- 4.000
- 3.500
3.000
2.500
_ _ Well Bottom
Observed I
c
2.000
Observed 11
Simulated
Precip
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
4/7/2011

M
-20.00
-40.00
-60.00
E
U
Underwood Wetland Well 5 Calibration
3' -100.00
-120.00
-140.00
-160.00
7/16/2010
9/4/2010 10/24/2010 12/13/2010 2/1/2011
Date
4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
Well Bottom
Observed 1
c
2.000
Observed II
— Simulated
Precip
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
3/23/2011

r�
F�cos sfem
En lal ement
PROSPAM
EEF Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (arm. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
Project Location
Name of project:
Underwood Stream &Wetland Mitigation Site
Name if stream or feature:
Unnamed Tributary to South Fork
County:
Chatham County, NC
Name of river basin:
Cape Fear River Basin
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:
Chatham County, NC
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
Firm Panels 8764 and 8784
Community No.: 370299
Map Numbers: 3710876400J and 3710878400J
Effective Map Date: February 2, 2007
Consultant name:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Nicole Macaluso, PE
Phone number:
[phone]
Address:
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
FEMA_EEP_Floodplain_Checklis[-Darre112 Page 1 of3

Design Information
Provide a
general description
of project
(one
paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference
orthophotograph at
a scale of
1" =
500".
Wildlands Engineering is designing a stream and wetland restoration project to provide
stream and wetland mitigation units (SMUs and WMUs) for the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. The stream restoration work includes channel and floodplain
grading for approximately 9,200LF of South Fork and its unnamed tributaries. A total of
13.76 acres of riparian wetlands will be restored and created adjacent to the streams and
1.54 acres of non -riparian wetlands will be restored and enhanced.
Stream Reaches
Reach
Type of Mitigation
Length (LF)
Priority
UT1
Enhancement II
11406
4
UT1
Restoration
591
1
UT1A
Enhancement II
524
4
UT113
Enhancement 11
660
4
Total
31181
Non -riparian Wetland Areas
Reach
Type of Mitigation
Area (acres)
NRW2
Enhancement
0.34
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
r Yes No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
r Redelineation
f' Detailed Study
r' Limited Detail Study
r Approximate Study
1" Don't know
List flood zone designation: Zone X
Check if applies:
lW AE Zone
r" Floodway
r Non -Encroachment
t None
r" A Zone
f Local Setbacks Required
FEMA_E1sP_Floodplain_Checldist- Dai
Tell 2 Page 2 of 3

r No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: N/A
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks? N/A
r Yes r No
Land Acquisition (Check)
r State owned (fee simple)
r Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
Re Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
[phone])
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
1: Yes C No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (attn: Edward Curtis, [phone] x369)
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Dan LaMontagne
Phone Number: 919) 542-0945
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
r No Action
r No Rise
r Letter of
Map Revision
r Conditional Letter of Mal
Revision
r Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Name: Nicole Macaluso. PE Signature: %G4 �!��
Title: Water Resources Engineer
Date: 9/14/2011
FEMA_EEP_Flood plain _Checklist
-Darrell 2 Page 3 of 3

r�
Ecosystem
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (atm. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
Project Location
Name of project:
Underwood Stream &Wetland Mitigation Site
Name if stream or feature:
South Fork
County:
Chatham County, NC
Name of river basin:
Cape Fear River Basin
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:
Chatham County, NC
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
Firm Panel 8784
Community No.: 370299
Map Number: 3710878400J
Effective Map Date: February 2, 2007
Consultant name:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Nicole Macaluso, PE
Phone number:
[phone]
Address:
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
FEMA_EEP_Floodplain_Ghecklist - Darrell 1 Page 1 oF3

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of V = 500".
Wildlands Engineering is designing a stream and wetland restoration project to provide
stream and wetland mitigation units (SMUs and WMUs) for the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. The stream restoration work includes channel and floodplain
grading for approximately 9,200LF of South Fork and its unnamed tributaries. A total of
13.76 acres of riparian wetlands will be restored and created adjacent to the streams and
1.54 acres of non -riparian wetlands will be restored and enhanced.
Stream Reaches
Reach
Type of Mitigation
Length (LF)
Priority
SF2
Enhancement II
302
4
SF3
Enhancement)
152
3
SF3
Enhancement II
513
4
SF3
Restoration
11450
1
Total
21417
Riparian Wetland Areas
Reach
Type of Mitigation
Area (acres)
RW3
Creation
2.63
RW3
Restoration
1.33
Total
13.76
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
r" Yes ('* No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
f' Redeliineation
h Detailed Study
f Limited Detail Study
• Approximate Study
• Don't know
List flood zone designation: Zone X
Check if applies:
r AE Zone
r Floodway
t' Non -Encroachment
C None
r A Zone
FEMA_EEP_Floodpluin_Checklist -Darrell ) Paget of

r Local Setbacks Required
r No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: N/A
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks? N/A
r Yes f: No
Land Acquisition (Check)
1— State owned (fee simple)
r Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
r Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
[phone])
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
r Yes r No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (atm: Edward Curtis, [phone] x369)
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Dan LaMontagne
Phone Number: [phone]
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
r No Action
I— No Rise
1'' Letter of
Map Revision
Conditional Letter of Map Revision
r Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Name: Nicole Macaluso, PE Signature: jC__ "
Title: Water Resources Engineer Date: 9/14/2011
PEMA EEP Floodplain Checklist
- Darrell I Page 3 of 3

r~
A0 fem
ntruTement
PROGRAM
EEF Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Underwood Stream &Wetland Mitigation Site
Name if stream or feature:
South Fork and Unnamed Tributary to South Fork
County:
Chatham County, NC
Name of river basin:
Cape Fear River Basin
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:
Chatham County, NC
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
Firm Panel 8784
Community No.: 370299
Map Number: 3710878400J
Effective Map Date: February 2, 2007
Consultant name:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Nicole Macaluso, PE
Phone number:
[phone]
Address:
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
FEMA EEP Floodplain_Checklist-Mary Page I of3

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500".
Wildlauds Engineering is designing a stream and wetland restoration project to provide
stream and wetland mitigation units (SMUs and WMUs) for the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. The stream restoration work includes channel and floodplain
grading for approximately 9,200LF of South Fork and its unnamed tributaries. A total of
13.76 acres of riparian wetlands will be restored and created adjacent to the streams and
1.54 acres of non -riparian wetlands will be restored and enhanced.
Stream Reaches
Reach
Type of Mitigation
Length (LF)
Priority
SF1
Restoration
878
1
UT2
Enhancement 1
421
3
Total
11299
Riparian Wetland Areas
Reach
Type of Mitigation
Area (acres)
RW1
Restoration
1.25
RW2
Creation
0.45
RW2
Restoration
0.50
Total
2.2
Non-ri arian Wetland Areas
Reach
Type of Mitigation
Area (acres)
NRW1
Restoration
1.20
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
t" Yes t% No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
r Redelineation
f" Detailed Study
r' Limited Detail Study
r Approximate Study
r Don't know
List flood zone designation: Zone X
Check if applies:
r AE Zone
t" Floodway
Non -Encroachment
FEMA LEP _Floodplain _Checklist -Mary
Page 2 of 3

f None
r A Zone
C Local Setbacks Required
C No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: N/A
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks? N/A
r Yes r No
Land Acquisition (Check)
F State owned (fee simple)
F Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
P Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (atm: Herbert Neily,
[phone])
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
G Yes r No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (arm: Edward Curtis, [phone] x369)
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Dan LaMontagne
Phone Number: [phone]
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
r No Action
r No Rise
r Letter of
Map Revision
r Conditional Letter ofMap Revision
r Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Name: Nicole Macaluso,
PE Signature:
Title: Water Resources Engineer
Date: 9/14/2011
FEMA_EEP_Floodplain _Checklist -Mary
Page 3. of 3

r~
[,IF
laanTeem
nt
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This. form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(atm. John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
Project Location
Name of project:
Underwood Stream &Wetland Mitigation Site
Name if stream or feature:
South Fork and Unnamed Tributary to South Fork
County:
Chatham County, NC
Name of river basin:
Cape Fear River Basin
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:
Chatham County, NC
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
Firm Panel 8784
Community No.: 370299
Map Number:. 3710878400J
Effective Map Date: February 2, 2007
Consultant name:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Nicole Macaluso, PE
Phone number:
[phone]
Address:
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
FEMA EEP Floodplain_Checklist -Lindley Page 1 of 3

Design Information
Provide a
general description
of project
(one
paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference
orthophotograph at
a scale of
I" =
500".
Wildlands Engineering is designing a stream and wetland restoration project to provide
stream and wetland mitigation units (SMUs and WMUs) for the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. The stream restoration work includes channel and floodplain
grading for approximately 9,200LF of South Fork and its unnamed tributaries. A total of
13.76 acres of riparian wetlands will be restored and created adjacent to the streams and
1.54 acres of non -riparian wetlands will be restored and enhanced.
Stream Reaches
Reach
Type of Mitigation
Length (LF)
Priority
SF4
Restoration
11424
1
SF4A
Restoration
259
1
SF4A
Enhancement I
609
3
Total
2,292
Riparian Wetland Areas
Reach
Type of Mitigation
Area (acres)
RW4
Creation
3.95
RW4
Restoration
3.65
Total
7.6
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
t� Yes r No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
r' Redelineation
r' Detailed Study
W Limited Detail Study
r' Approximate Study
r" Dontknow
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
Fw AE Zone
r Floodway
C•` Non -Encroachment
r' None
r' A Zone
i Local Setbacks Required
FF'MA_ENP_Floodptaia_Checldist -Lindley Page 2 of 3

r No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: N/A
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside fioodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?
r Yes r No
Land Acquisition (Check)
r State owned (fee simple)
r Conservation easment (Design Bid Bund)
r Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
[phone])
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
Yes r No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (attn: Edward Curtis, [phone] x369)
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Dan LaMontagne
Phone Number: [phone]
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
r No Action
r Letter ofMap Revision
r Conditional Letter of Map Revision
F Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Name: Nicole Macaluso, PE Signature:. �%rz_,
Title: Water Resources Engineer Date: 9/14/2011
FEMA_EEP_Floodplain_Checklist -Lindley Page 3 of 3

Legend
m� Proposed Easement
Project Streams
All Wetlands
ur i�
�40 _ 1 �.♦;
a,
{ t
200 400 Feet
1,
, y(j
lk
> It
♦ i "'
NRW7
RW2 `' �� 4''i1T2 -.
f' r 6Y •
0 400 800 Feet ,^
'2007 Aerial Photography
Site Map
Underwood Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
WILDS Chatham County, NC

Underwood Mitigation Site
Chatham County NC
Vicinity Neap
Not to Scale
BEFORE YOU DIG!
CALL 1-800-632-4949
N.C. ONE -CALL CENTER
IT'S THE LAW
for
North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program
1sememe En anos nt
PROGRAM
Sweet Index
Title Sheet 0.1
Stream Overview 0.2-0.3
General Notes and Symbols 0.4
Structure Tables 0.5-0.6
TYpical Sections 1.1
]Plan and Profile 2.1-2.17
Wetland Overview 3.1-3.2
Wetland Grading 3.3-3.10
Planting Dotes & Vegetation Tables 4.0
Planting 4.1-4.17
]Erosion Control (Section 5) NOT INCLUDED
Details 6.1-6.5
]Project Directory
Engineering Owner
Wildlands Engineering, Inc ]Ecosystems Enhancement Programs
License No. ]F-0831 1652 Mail Service Center
5605 Chapel Hill Road Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Suite 122 Gray Pearce
Raleigh, NC 27607 919-715-1157
Nicole Macaluso, PE
919-851-9986
]Project Summary
Streams Restoration Length
4602 LF
Stream Enhancement I Length
1182 LF
Streams Enhancement II Length
3405 LF
Wetland Restoration
7.93 Acres
Wetland Enhancement
0.34 Acres
Wetland Creations
7.03 Acres
Disturbed Area
TBD
River Basin
Cape ]Fear
HUC
03030002
0*4
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Sm.122
Raldgh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
eb
TITLE
SHEET
b
Sheet
o}ISI
o JL
$
U
a�
U
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
N m
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
eb
TITLE
SHEET
b
Sheet
o}ISI
o JL

PL
PL PL PL
PL PL PL
PL p
r
r
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
UT1�
STA. 500+00
350 48'37.68'. N
79° 24'26.44" W
f
v
PL PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL
� PL
� Pl PL
END CONSTRUCTION
UT 1B
STA. 606+60.20
35° 48'37.75" N
79° 24' 19.92" W
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
SF 1
STA. 100+00
35° 48' 05.05" N BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
79°24'10.08W SF 1A—PL_PLPL
d STA. 200+00 P L P L
35° 48'08.81 " N
SHEET 2.9
79° 24'09.90" W SHEET 2.10
n
y/Q END CONSTRUCTION
SHEET 2.2 SHEET
a
ce
���`, � X11•
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
UT 2 a
STA. 0+00
35'48:03.53:: 03.53 N
79'24 03.73" W
a
4 •�
SHE
I
— END CONSTRUCTION
SF 1A
STA. 201+77.27
35° 48' 08.95" N
79° 24' 07.89" W
T 2.3
I
�l d � l d
ld—ld —
V
T END CONSTRUCTION
SF1
UT 1A
v
STA. 108+77.56
STA 700+00
35'48'-44.41' N71
35° 48' 10.82" N
END CONSTRUCTION
79° 24'04.90" W
UT 2
SHEET 2.11
STA. 4+20.92
-C!
35° 48' 07.58" N
v
79° 24'03.41"W
PL
a PL
a
�
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh NC 27607
Td 919.851.9986
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_N°. F-0831
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
UT 1B
STA.600+00
35° 48' 43.07 N
79° 24'23.09 W
SHEET 2.12
/ cl
P L —d� /f
END CONSTRUCTION UT 1A
STA. 705+24.08
SF 2
35° 48' 40.38" N
STA. 303+01.55
35° 48' 27.23" N 79° 24' 14.02" W
1 79° 24' 07.06" W
END CONSTRUCTION
U.38
35'48'41.79" 38
CLYDE UNDERWOOD ROAD STA. 5 N
SHEET 2.5 79° 24'07.18" w
SHEET 2.6 SHEET 2.7
G� CE CE I
CE CE CE CE CE
ab
J� 3.
BEGIN
3J• 3J�
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
SF 2 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION d l d
STA. 300+00 SF 3 d d
35'48'24 ' 94" N STA. 400+00 P L
79° 24'06.04" W 35'48'27.95" N
790 24' 06.91" W
a
a
a
a
PL
2.13
BEGIN CONSTR CTION
UT 1A
u
STA 700+00
35'48'-44.41' N71
79° 24'rl7.20" W
SHEET 2.11
-C!
Inn
u
SHEETI2.8
1-4
BEGIN CONSTR CTION
UT 1A
u
STA 700+00
35'48'-44.41' N71
79° 24'rl7.20" W
SHEET 2.11
-C!
Inn
u
SHEETI2.8
END CONSTRUCTION I
SF 3
STA. 421+3684
35'48'44.91;' N
790 24' 06.37" W
PL ld
STREAM
eb OVERVIEW
b
Sheet
0' 100' 200' 300' 400' 0.2(HORIZONTAL)
Inn
C
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
N m
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
STREAM
eb OVERVIEW
b
Sheet
0' 100' 200' 300' 400' 0.2(HORIZONTAL)

\>d\ vv lENDLAND S
GINEERING
�d
a WILDLANDS
ENGINEE]RIIn INC.
p Ecological R.toxaa..
5605 Cha,l H01 Ruad, Suite 122 C \ dgh. NC 27607
T 9
Td: 1.9986
Fu: 919.851.9987
d P C Firm Licevse N°. F-0831
4
cE_cE�cE� PC
CE CE CE
ce QE/
/ Q ® ® ® Q a ® a ® ® SHEET 2.15
PC
k
® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® = SFDCONSTRUCTION
t /® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® STA. 814+24.26
35° 49'52.89" N
3 cE w cE cE c — cE cE CE — 79° 22'45.68" W
SHEET 2.17
END CONSTRUCTION �
® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ��,,, ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® SF 4A
cE �� \ I STA. 908+68.04
35° 49'52.49" N
3o ® ® ® ® ® 79° 22'46.87" W
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION \ �•! ® ®••� / ao / ®SF4 ® ® ® ® b
i'1-4
STA. 800+00m
b
35'49'50.67" N
a'
79° 22'59.63" W
\ac �ao�ao 4 j
21
SHEET 2.14 a i ® ® ® ® . 3� a Pte
\/
j I
I
/ u
I SHEET 2.16
o Date: Austug31, 2011
•b...y,. Job Number 005-02125
Pxq-Engineer: NMM
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION VV---pvv D.By: JTL
SF 4A / Clee Ey. 'WH
STA. 900+00 u \ Revisions
35° 49' 45.25" N a'
79° 22'50.37" W a \ b
�u\ao
l d 0' 50' 100' 150' 200' 0 STREAM
d (HORIZONTAL) OVERVIEW
ld ld
ld ld
ld ld b
e--1
Sheet
0 II�''/p�''
o

GENERAL NOTES
1. Various types of constructed riffles are specified in this plan set per details and
constructed riffle tables on plan sheets. Contractor will build the specific types of
constructed riffles at locations shown on the plans. Changes in constructed riffle
type must be approved by the engineer.
2. Contractor is to make every effort to avoid removing trees from the present site.
The tree protection measures included in these plans are to be followed at all times.
P L
Existing Property Line
— -100— —
Existing Major Contour
- - - - -
Existing Minor Contour
4
Existing Tree/Shrub Line
Existing Tree
.il/.
Existing Wetland
-WL-- mal
p
Existing Power Pole
Existing Bedrock
CE CE CE
Conservation Easement
to+oo
— - t - —
Proposed Channel Centerline
- - - - -
- Proposed Bank -full
4
Proposed Major Contour
Proposed Minor Contour
�1
Proposed Wetlands
Proposed Root Wads
See Detail 1. Sheet 6.3
® Proposed Log Vane
See Detail 2, Sheet 6.1
Proposed Constructed Riffle
EM Varies per details on Sheets 6.1 & 6.2.
Coordinate with designer in the field.
® Proposed Log Sill
See Detail 4, Sheet 6.1
(�® Proposed Log J -Hook
See Detail 1, Sheet 6.1
Proposed Drainage Berm
am See Detail 2, Sheet 6.4
OProposed Structure Number
ILDLANDS
5605 Chapel H01 Rd, Suite 122
Ruldgh, NC 27607
Td: 919.851.9986
Fas: 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
eb DOTES AND
SYMBOLS
WJ
sb
b
b
l�
b
U
FF-�--�
Proposed Brush Toe Protection
Zone 1 - Stream Bank Planting Zone
I�
See Detail 3, Sheet 6.3
a�
®
Proposed Stream Plug
See Detail 2, Sheet 6.3
Zone 2 -Floodplain Planting Zone
X x
Proposed Ephemeral Pool
See Detail 1, Sheet 6.4
0
W W
W W
Zone 3 - Wetland Planting Zone
U
FT -A77=1
0 0 0 0 0
Proposed Sod Mat
See Detail 3, Sheet 6.5
®
Date:
Aust ug31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
C)
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
eb DOTES AND
SYMBOLS

CR -14 B 591.38 590.89
CR -15 A 590.82 590.35
CR -16 B 590.28 590.08
Constructed Riffle Table
UT 1 B (Construction)
Structure
Number
Type
SF 1 (Design)
Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation
SF 1 (Construction)
Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation
CR -1
B
597.90 597.44
CR -59 B
CR -2
A
597.39 597.07
CR -3
A
597.03 596.67
CR -4
A
598.62 598.28
CR -21
A
599.23 599.09
CR -22
WILDLANDS
598.82 598.65
CR -23
B
598.10 597.93
CR -24
A
597.44 597.28
CR -25
C
597.16 596.75
CR -26
C
572.21 571.80
CR -56
iVILDLANDS
571.37 570.68
CR -57
C
570.60 570.30
CR -58
A
570.00 569.72
ENGINEERIING, INC.
Ecoluxiral Restoration
se ees
CR -44
C
587.67 587.48
s605 Ceara H 1 xmaa.�a��az
CR -45
C
567.22 566.87
RAA 1, NC 271KTA 919.851.9986
Fax- 919.85 9987
Firm Lkc .... N. E-11831
CR -5
A
598.24 595.79
C
b
b
u
ea
C12
e�
]nb N.-ber 0051
Rojeet E..,,h-r. NMM
L". -B2 ]TL
C R-35
A
572.58 572.27
Ceechecl n`- JwH
Re�T��ona
03
STRUCTURE
CR -41
B
570.19 569.72
TA13L ES
CR -42
D
569.67 568.98
�F
sheet
0.5
CR -14 B 591.38 590.89
CR -15 A 590.82 590.35
CR -16 B 590.28 590.08
Constructed Riffle Table
UT 1 B (Construction)
Structure
Number
Type
SF 1 (Design)
Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation
SF 1 (Construction)
Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation
CR -1
B
597.90 597.44
CR -59 B
CR -2
A
597.39 597.07
CR -3
A
597.03 596.67
CR -4
A
598.62 598.28
CR -21
A
599.23 599.09
CR -22
A
598.82 598.65
CR -23
B
598.10 597.93
CR -24
A
597.44 597.28
CR -25
C
597.16 596.75
CR -26
C
572.21 571.80
CR -56
B
571.37 570.68
CR -57
C
570.60 570.30
CR -58
A
570.00 569.72
C R-28 A 574.73 574.67
C R-29 A 574.53 574.37
CR -30 D 574.35 574.14
Constructed Riffle Table
CR -31 A 574.13 573.80
SF 4A (Design) SF 4A (Construction)
Structure
Number Type Beginning Ending Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation
CR -89 A 540.60 540.48
C R-36 D 572.24 571.83
CR -70 B 539.49 539.43
CR -37 A 571.80 571.49
CR -71 A 538.92 538.87
CR -38 A 571.44 571.09
CR -72 A 538.45 538.37
C R-39 D 571.05 570.68
CR -73 A 537.99 537.95
CR -40 B 570.64 570.25
CR -74 B 537.56 537.46
CR -75 B 537.31 536.70
CR -76 C 535.87 535.62
CR -43 C 588.90 588.10
CR -6 D 595.74 595.50
CR -7 A 595.28 594.85
CR -8 C 594.80 594.29
CR -9 B 594.23 593.73
CR -10 A 593.66 593.20
CR -11 C 593.15 592.85
CR -12 A 592.57 592.14
CR -13 A 592.10 591.47
Constructed Riffle Table
UT 1 B (Construction)
Structure
Number
Type
UT 2 (Design)
Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation
UT 2 (Construction)
Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation
CR -17
B
601.09 600.94
CR -59 B
CR -18
A
600.59 600.48
CR -48
C
576.60 575.92
CR -20
A
599.67 599.53
CR -21
A
599.23 599.09
CR -22
A
598.82 598.65
CR -23
B
598.10 597.93
CR -24
A
597.44 597.28
CR -25
C
597.16 596.75
CR -26
C
572.21 571.80
C R-28 A 574.73 574.67
C R-29 A 574.53 574.37
CR -30 D 574.35 574.14
Constructed Riffle Table
CR -31 A 574.13 573.80
SF 4A (Design) SF 4A (Construction)
Structure
Number Type Beginning Ending Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation
CR -89 A 540.60 540.48
C R-36 D 572.24 571.83
CR -70 B 539.49 539.43
CR -37 A 571.80 571.49
CR -71 A 538.92 538.87
CR -38 A 571.44 571.09
CR -72 A 538.45 538.37
C R-39 D 571.05 570.68
CR -73 A 537.99 537.95
CR -40 B 570.64 570.25
CR -74 B 537.56 537.46
CR -75 B 537.31 536.70
CR -76 C 535.87 535.62
CR -43 C 588.90 588.10
CR -6 D 595.74 595.50
CR -7 A 595.28 594.85
CR -8 C 594.80 594.29
CR -9 B 594.23 593.73
CR -10 A 593.66 593.20
CR -11 C 593.15 592.85
CR -12 A 592.57 592.14
CR -13 A 592.10 591.47
Constructed Riffle Table
UT 1 B (Construction)
Structure
Number
Type
SF 3 (Design)
Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation
SF 3 (Construction)
Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation
CR -48
B
586.34 586.04
CR -59 B
CR -47
D
581.08 580.87
CR -48
C
576.60 575.92
CR -49
A
574.18 574.75
CR -50
A
573.95 573.85
CR -32
B
573.77 573.40
CR -33
A
573.37 573.00
CR -34
D
572.98 572.60
CR -54
B
572.80 572.28
CR -55
C
572.21 571.80
CR -56
B
571.37 570.68
CR -57
C
570.60 570.30
CR -58
A
570.00 569.72
CR -44
C
587.67 587.48
CR -45
C
567.22 566.87
CR -6 D 595.74 595.50
CR -7 A 595.28 594.85
CR -8 C 594.80 594.29
CR -9 B 594.23 593.73
CR -10 A 593.66 593.20
CR -11 C 593.15 592.85
CR -12 A 592.57 592.14
CR -13 A 592.10 591.47
Constructed Riffle Table
UT 1 B (Construction)
Structure
Number
Type
UT 1 (Design)
Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation
UT 1 (Construction)
Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation
CR -48
B
586.34 586.04
CR -59 B
CR -47
D
581.08 580.87
CR -48
C
576.60 575.92
CR -49
A
574.18 574.75
CR -50
A
573.95 573.85
CR -51
A
573.70 573.46
CR -52
A
573.42 573.16
CR -53
A
573.13 572.84
CR -54
B
572.80 572.28
CR -55
C
572.21 571.80
CR -56
B
571.37 570.68
CR -57
C
570.60 570.30
CR -58
A
570.00 569.72
Constructed Riffle Table
Constructed Riffle Table
UT 1 B (Design)
UT 1 B (Construction)
Structure
Beginning Ending
Beginning Ending
Number Type
CR -81
Elevation Elevation
Elevation Elevation
CR -59 B
582.45 582.07
A
Constructed Riffle Table
CR -19 B 600.09 599.96
UT 1A (Design)
UT 1A (Construction)
Structure
Beginning Ending
Beginning Ending
Number Type
CR -81
Elevation Elevation
Elevation Elevation
CR -80 B
572.95 572.03
A
C 596.24 595.90
Constructed Riffle Table
C R-27 C 574.94 574.88
Constructed Riffle Table
Structure
Number
Type
SF 4 (Design)
Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation
SF 4 (Construction)
Beginning Ending
Elevation Elevation
CR -81
B
538.90 538.77
CR -82
A
538.71 538.25
CR -83
A
538.27 537.72
CR -84
B
537.65 537.25
CR -85
C
537.20 536.51
CR -88
A
536.44 535.74
CR -87
C
535.67 535.10
CR -88
D
535.03 534.28
CR -77
A
535.42 535.05
CR -78
C
535.00 534.51
CR -79
A
534.45 534.28

J,2
Raleigh. r7
NC 1K
TA 919.851.9986
Fax- 919.851.998]
Firm
Liceme N. E-11831
C
b
e�
,
LOCATION AND QUANTITIES OF LOGS ON UT1A & UT1B
ea
C12
7
�b
e�
1 "J,
Rojeet E.v�lvev.
L)n.vn Rr. ]TL
Chechecl R`-
Re�T��ona
�F
®v6 Structure Table
Structure
Number
Structure
Type
UUP B (Construction)
Thalweg Bankfull
Elevation Elevation Invert Arm Angle Arm Slope
Elevation
S39
Log Vane
S40
Log Vane
WILDLANDS
Log Vane
S44
Log Vane
S45
Log Vane
S46
Log Vane
S3
iVILDLANDS
590.89
582.15
ENGINEERIING, INC.
Ecoluxiral Restoration
Sen ices
560'5 Chapel Hill R -I SWI,
S4 Log Vane 590.35 591.81
Structure Table
Structure Structure Constructed
Number Type Thalweg Bankfull Invert Constructed Constructed
Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
S1 Log Vane 594.85 596.07
S2 Log Vane 591.47 592.82
SF 1 (Construction) UT1A (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Number Type Thalweg Bankfull Invert Constructed Constructed
Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
Elevation
Structure Table S38 Log Vane
SF 1A (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Number Type Thalweg Bankfull Invert Constructed Constructed
Elevation Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
S5 Log Weir 593.97 594.97
S11 Log Vane 577.87 579.47
S12 Log Vane 577.47 579.27 NOTE:
S13 Log Vane 576.35 578.15 WILL BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER.
S14 Lo Vane 576.35 578.15
Structure Table
SF 3 (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Thalweg Bankfull Constructed Constructed
Number Type Invert
Elevation Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
S15 Log Vane 574.78 576.94
Structure Table
U 164
P (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Number Type Thalweg Bankfull Invert Constructed Constructed
Elevation Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
S16 Log Vane 586.88 587.98
S17 Log Vane 586.50 587.80 lob N.-ber 005
S18 Log Vane 586.20 587.50 \M\2
S19 Log Vane 586.00 587.30 JwH
S20 Log Vane 585.38 586.68
S21 Log Vane 585.20 586.50
S22 Log Vane 584.80 585.90
S23 Log Vane 582.97 584.27
S24 Log Vane 582.59 583.89 STRUCTURE
S25 Log Vane 580.74 582.04
S26 Log Vane 579.90 581.20 TA13L ES
S27 Log Vane 578.82 579.92
S28 Log Vane 577.18 578.48 sheet Pei
S29 Log Vane 576.72 578.02
S30 Log Vane 575.60 576.90
Structure
Number
Structure
Type
UUP B (Construction)
Thalweg Bankfull
Elevation Elevation Invert Arm Angle Arm Slope
Elevation
S39
Log Vane
S40
Log Vane
S33
Log Vane
S44
Log Vane
S45
Log Vane
S46
Log Vane
S3
Log Vane
590.89
582.15
Structure Table S38 Log Vane
SF 1A (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Number Type Thalweg Bankfull Invert Constructed Constructed
Elevation Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
S5 Log Weir 593.97 594.97
S11 Log Vane 577.87 579.47
S12 Log Vane 577.47 579.27 NOTE:
S13 Log Vane 576.35 578.15 WILL BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER.
S14 Lo Vane 576.35 578.15
Structure Table
SF 3 (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Thalweg Bankfull Constructed Constructed
Number Type Invert
Elevation Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
S15 Log Vane 574.78 576.94
Structure Table
U 164
P (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Number Type Thalweg Bankfull Invert Constructed Constructed
Elevation Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
S16 Log Vane 586.88 587.98
S17 Log Vane 586.50 587.80 lob N.-ber 005
S18 Log Vane 586.20 587.50 \M\2
S19 Log Vane 586.00 587.30 JwH
S20 Log Vane 585.38 586.68
S21 Log Vane 585.20 586.50
S22 Log Vane 584.80 585.90
S23 Log Vane 582.97 584.27
S24 Log Vane 582.59 583.89 STRUCTURE
S25 Log Vane 580.74 582.04
S26 Log Vane 579.90 581.20 TA13L ES
S27 Log Vane 578.82 579.92
S28 Log Vane 577.18 578.48 sheet Pei
S29 Log Vane 576.72 578.02
S30 Log Vane 575.60 576.90
Structure
Number
Structure
Type
UUP B (Construction)
Thalweg Bankfull
Elevation Elevation Invert Arm Angle Arm Slope
Elevation
S39
Log Vane
S40
Log Vane
S33
Log Vane
S44
Log Vane
S11 Log Vane 577.87 579.47
S12 Log Vane 577.47 579.27 NOTE:
S13 Log Vane 576.35 578.15 WILL BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER.
S14 Lo Vane 576.35 578.15
Structure Table
SF 3 (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Thalweg Bankfull Constructed Constructed
Number Type Invert
Elevation Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
S15 Log Vane 574.78 576.94
Structure Table
U 164
P (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Number Type Thalweg Bankfull Invert Constructed Constructed
Elevation Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
S16 Log Vane 586.88 587.98
S17 Log Vane 586.50 587.80 lob N.-ber 005
S18 Log Vane 586.20 587.50 \M\2
S19 Log Vane 586.00 587.30 JwH
S20 Log Vane 585.38 586.68
S21 Log Vane 585.20 586.50
S22 Log Vane 584.80 585.90
S23 Log Vane 582.97 584.27
S24 Log Vane 582.59 583.89 STRUCTURE
S25 Log Vane 580.74 582.04
S26 Log Vane 579.90 581.20 TA13L ES
S27 Log Vane 578.82 579.92
S28 Log Vane 577.18 578.48 sheet Pei
S29 Log Vane 576.72 578.02
S30 Log Vane 575.60 576.90
Structure
Number
Structure
Type
UUP B (Construction)
Thalweg Bankfull
Elevation Elevation Invert Arm Angle Arm Slope
Elevation
S39
Log Vane
S40
Log Vane
S33
Log Vane
S44
Log Vane
S45
Log Vane
S46
Log Vane
S47
Log Vane
Structure Table
SF 3 (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Thalweg Bankfull Constructed Constructed
Number Type Invert
Elevation Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
S15 Log Vane 574.78 576.94
Structure Table
U 164
P (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Number Type Thalweg Bankfull Invert Constructed Constructed
Elevation Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
S16 Log Vane 586.88 587.98
S17 Log Vane 586.50 587.80 lob N.-ber 005
S18 Log Vane 586.20 587.50 \M\2
S19 Log Vane 586.00 587.30 JwH
S20 Log Vane 585.38 586.68
S21 Log Vane 585.20 586.50
S22 Log Vane 584.80 585.90
S23 Log Vane 582.97 584.27
S24 Log Vane 582.59 583.89 STRUCTURE
S25 Log Vane 580.74 582.04
S26 Log Vane 579.90 581.20 TA13L ES
S27 Log Vane 578.82 579.92
S28 Log Vane 577.18 578.48 sheet Pei
S29 Log Vane 576.72 578.02
S30 Log Vane 575.60 576.90
Structure
Number
Structure
Type
UUP B (Construction)
Thalweg Bankfull
Elevation Elevation Invert Arm Angle Arm Slope
Elevation
S39
Log Vane
S40
Log Vane
Structure Table
U 164
P (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Number Type Thalweg Bankfull Invert Constructed Constructed
Elevation Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
S16 Log Vane 586.88 587.98
S17 Log Vane 586.50 587.80 lob N.-ber 005
S18 Log Vane 586.20 587.50 \M\2
S19 Log Vane 586.00 587.30 JwH
S20 Log Vane 585.38 586.68
S21 Log Vane 585.20 586.50
S22 Log Vane 584.80 585.90
S23 Log Vane 582.97 584.27
S24 Log Vane 582.59 583.89 STRUCTURE
S25 Log Vane 580.74 582.04
S26 Log Vane 579.90 581.20 TA13L ES
S27 Log Vane 578.82 579.92
S28 Log Vane 577.18 578.48 sheet Pei
S29 Log Vane 576.72 578.02
S30 Log Vane 575.60 576.90
Structure
Number
Structure
Type
UUP B (Construction)
Thalweg Bankfull
Elevation Elevation Invert Arm Angle Arm Slope
Elevation
S39
Log Vane
S40
Log Vane
S33
Log Vane
S44
Log Vane
S45
Log Vane
S46
Log Vane
S47
Log Vane
S34 Log Vane
Elevation
S31 Log Vane
S32 Log Vane
S35 Log Vane
S36 Log Vane
S37 Log Vane
S6 Log Weir 593.93 594.93
S7 Log Weir 593.88 594.88
S8 Log Weir 593.82 594.82
S9 Log Weir 593.76 594.76
S10 Log Weir 593.70 594.70
Structure Table
SF 2 (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Thalweg Bankfull Constructed Constructed
Number Type Invert
Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
Elevation
Structure
Number
Structure
Type
UUP B (Construction)
Thalweg Bankfull
Elevation Elevation Invert Arm Angle Arm Slope
Elevation
S39
Log Vane
S40
Log Vane
S33
Log Vane
S44
Log Vane
S45
Log Vane
S46
Log Vane
S6 Log Weir 593.93 594.93
S7 Log Weir 593.88 594.88
S8 Log Weir 593.82 594.82
S9 Log Weir 593.76 594.76
S10 Log Weir 593.70 594.70
Structure Table
SF 2 (Construction)
Structure Structure Constructed
Thalweg Bankfull Constructed Constructed
Number Type Invert
Elevation Elevation Arm Angle Arm Slope
Elevation
Structure
Number
Structure
Type
UUP B (Construction)
Thalweg Bankfull
Elevation Elevation Invert Arm Angle Arm Slope
Elevation
S39
Log Vane
S40
Log Vane
S44
Log Vane
S45
Log Vane
S46
Log Vane
S47
Log Vane

SLOPE STAKE
LINE (TYP.)
Wbkf
RIFFLE WITHOUT BANKFULL BENCE
VARIES
SLOPE STAKE
LINE (TYP.)
Wbkf VARIES
s Lq D -Max
BANKFULL BENCH (TYP.) Fac Rigs �P� P��
veZ,
Wb
RIFFLE WITCH ]BANKFULL BENCH
NOTES
1. DURING CONSTRUCTION CORNERS OF DESIGN CHANNEL WILL BE
ROUNDED AND A THALWEG WILL BE SHAPED PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
2. POOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE LEFT POOLS ONLY.
3. SEE PLANS FOR BANKFULL BENCH LIMITS.
4. ENHANCEMENT REACHES WILL UTILIZE STRUCTURES TO ADJUST GRADE AND CREATE
STREAMBED FEATURES BUT ARE NOT DESIGNED TO SPECIFIC DESIGN PARAMETERS.
SLOPE STAKE
LINE (TYP.)
Wbkf
Wb CHANNEL
]POOL WITHOUT BANKFULL ]BENCH
SLOPE STAKE -
LINE (TYP.)
VARIES Wbkf VARIES
'7 -- -
-� -- -- -
r? D -Max
BANKFULL BENCH (TYP.)
Wb
POOL WITH ]BANKFULL BENCH
DESIGN PARAMETER
SF 1
SF 1A
SF 3
UT 1
SF 4
SF 4A
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE I POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
BANKFULL AREA (Abkf)
6.5 ft2
11.4 ft2
3.3 ft2
5.7 ft2
27.5 ft2
48.0 ft2
9.6 ft2
16.7 ft2
53.0 ft2
101.4 ft2
18.0 ft2
31.5 ft2
BANKFULL WIDTH (Wbkf)
8.8'
11.9'
6.2'
8.4'
18.2'
24.5'
10.7'
14.5'
27.3'
36.8'
14.7'
19.9'
MAXIMUM DEPTH (D -Max)
1.0'
1.6'
0.7'
1.1'
2.1'
3.3'
1.3'
1.9'
2.3'
4.2'
1.7'
2.6'
WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (Wbkf/D)
12.0
12.5
12.0
12.5
12.0
12.5
12.0
12.5
14.0
13.3
12.0
12.5
BOTTOM WIDTH (Wb)
3.2'
2.4'
2.2'
1.7'
5.4'
5.0'
4.5'
2.9'
13.2'
11.7'
6.1'
4.0'
SIDE SLOPE (SS)
31
2.5:1
31
2.5:1
3:1
2.5:1
-
ILDLANDS
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh. NC 27607
TA: 919.851.9986
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
SECTIONS
Sheet
b
�1,
U
lc
711
u
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
N m
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
SECTIONS
Sheet

605
c
C
+
C
u
600
595
590
0+00
M
\\ ` `\ CR -20
2%9/
—/ ,�
Type
CR -2 `\®
r 1 UT2
STA. 0+00.00
CR -18
A
CR -19
B
CR -20
A
CR -21
J
CR-
A
CR -23
B
L
A
CR -25
C
CR -26
C
v
M M
V O
+ co
co W
M O
+ 0]
O V O V
m o 0 0
\
O
/
-- — —
— — — — ——
U `
_
/
\\`
30 �\�O- 3� ----3- --_-30
30-----32- --30 -_ 30\ _-313
30
,I.
--30-- _ 30 \\�
>
o rn o rn
LU
o�
rn w
o�
cn w
o ° + °
Q w Q w
M C3)--(6 rn
+ In + In
$ M-0 o
m 0i v ai
PROPO ED
O M O M
GRADE
_
H J H J
rn W
II > II
LU
LOD
4Zd
m O M m M O
O O O O
n M o
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
()1.12
% -
-- _
ai w U) w
11
w w
N
N> u' v 0
co In
(0
' 1.61
%
-
(n LU (nW
Q W Q W N�
+
o
OO1 O rn
r r
M N
O N
--
'1.57%
–
(n W (n W Q W
H J
N>
H J
M
N In M lln
–
(')1.77%
-
-1.69
(nw
nw
u > u >
fn W W
vrn
M
Q W
urrn on
M M M
Q M
_
L
O
rn rn
1—
(-2.209,.–
_
--
fn W
W
4 W Q w
OI
M
rn
M
M O
0
(.�j
(Mno
p
oto ooln
R
\
(-)1.74
%
_
-
)1.74%
- -
-
Co
�
(nw
01
LU 'IT
<w
N
v
11
ISI
H�
(n W
O
��
W
W
m M
o j ��
Q W Q
O O O
((Onrn ��
W + + Iln
oo<0 0(N0
r M Oi ap
OO N O W
–
i2.63o
n W
to
(U)W—oiw
¢W ¢w
(5 J J
(n W
+ _+ n
II > II >
M� roa6 mm
+ I17 + n (i r
rom
OO
N W
EXISTING GRADE
H J Q w
N W W
N II N II IT M
>
w—� W Q W
u]
+ M
Q w
+
N O W
O
M +
o
M
o
n
(n W
N l j(II
> jI
�
co
O
M
H
J Q W
V+
M
m O
co_M M
H J
m
M
11
OLi
11 + 0CQ
N
W
N W
O
O—ONi
N
W y
LU
+ u
W II
>
HJ
B
(n
�
W (n L
1E.4
-::d
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
`-CE
- CE � CE CE i
CE CE CE
CE
- CE CE CE �= /
TO �� CE --- -- - - --
END CONSTRUCTION
(B q) (k i/ UT2
6 ✓ 6� / S 4+20.92
Uj
605
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
I 5605 Chapel HT Ruad, Suite 122
RA.gh NC 27607
600 Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
m
OOi
>
W
Lu
595
590
4+20.92
0' 2' 4' 6' 8'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60' 80'
(HORIZONTAL)
BEGINSONSTRUUCTION
\\ ` `\ CR -20
2%9/
—/ ,�
Type
CR -2 `\®
r 1 UT2
STA. 0+00.00
CR -18
A
CR -19
B
CR -20
A
CR -21
J
CR-
A
CR -23
B
L
A
CR -25
C
CR -26
C
I —
U
\
O
/
-- — —
— — — — ——
U `
_
/
\\`
30 �\�O- 3� ----3- --_-30
30-----32- --30 -_ 30\ _-313
30
,I.
--30-- _ 30 \\�
—_——— — — — — — —
Constructed Riffle
Table
UT2
Job Number
Structure
Number
Type
CR -17
B
CR -18
A
CR -19
B
CR -20
A
CR -21
A
CR -22
A
CR -23
B
CR -24
A
CR -25
C
CR -26
C
b
711
U
0"M
u
Q
c
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
Sheet
21 JL

BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
SF 1
STA. 100+00.00
600 -
C
C
C
Q
v
595
590
100+00
mIT , C,
c6
w
Type
w
B
CR -2
A
O
O
CR -4
A
CR -5
O In + W W
CR -6
Ip
ID M r
O
tD r
M r
7 M
M N
T O
C
O II O to O
> o II o
lD
" o
II + N
+
o>
w
°
o EXISTING GRADE
WILD LANDS
¢w ¢w
2w
->
O
j
o
o ° uoiN 600
ENGINEERING
100+50 101+00 101+50 102+00 102+50 103+00 103+50 104+00 104+50
i U
i ROCK CHSK DAM \
SF 1A
SEE SHEET 2.4 �—
— ' — CE — — — CE _GE' CE� / CE /
Z�/ CE
------------
103+00
�(
ee tee°
-�
- CR- � �\ CR- —
/ CR-
\ O —
\ \ / FILL EXISTING CHANNEL/
TO ELEVATION OF FLOODPLAIN
9, \—
---- — — — —— —
-a \
r
595
590
Constructed Riffle
Table
w W
w
Type
w
B
CR -2
A
O
A
CR -4
A
CR -5
A
CR -6
D
CR -7
A
f/l
--—
C
N
��
W
In
H
W
Q J Q J + M (�'
H W H O ill (i O
O W
W
O
j
4
co O
ID
N (O
44
—
(n
W
N N
In
I
r
.0 --vi
CA—
—
I
-
�I W o
W
N
f+rl �j
+
l0 O M
O
N(0.83%
(157%
uQ~iwQr
W
LU
>
T
�in
011lm­
rnw
r
711
.
U) wIni
LIJ
iw
LU o
W
- >
v01.67%
a�
_
CID
NJi
w
No>
oNoH
U
)1.52%
I
LU
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
(0.75%
-
N m
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
N OCID
rtu>nIIJ
IN
0o
t
to
OII
OO�+I
MW
0,
'o
oONII
01+
10M
00+ _
O LO>W
A°PROPOSED
GRADE
w
>I
D
Lo
U,
O-
WIW i>lN M
wQ w >
mOW
+ O
`n
rn
01
OwtamvH
CIE, M
co
r-: C? Iv_n rn
In
+rn}
fnJHw
JO
U2 w H W
o I
> >
Q J QJ
~ W H
n
O>
II
0 >
ID
O
II
O
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
w
y u3
W
II
w
O
W wl
LID
LU
w
uJ
�w �w
to
W
J
u
W
100+50 101+00 101+50 102+00 102+50 103+00 103+50 104+00 104+50
i U
i ROCK CHSK DAM \
SF 1A
SEE SHEET 2.4 �—
— ' — CE — — — CE _GE' CE� / CE /
Z�/ CE
------------
103+00
�(
ee tee°
-�
- CR- � �\ CR- —
/ CR-
\ O —
\ \ / FILL EXISTING CHANNEL/
TO ELEVATION OF FLOODPLAIN
9, \—
---- — — — —— —
-a \
r
595
590
Constructed Riffle
Table
SF 1
Structure
Number
Type
CR -1
B
CR -2
A
CR -3
A
CR -4
A
CR -5
A
CR -6
D
CR -7
A
CR -8 I
C
0' 2' 4' 6' 8'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60' 80'
(HORIZONTAL)
5605 Chapel H01 Rd, Suite 122
Ruldgh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
ab
Sheet
2°2
"mob -
4
44
711
a�
U
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
N m
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
ab
Sheet
2°2

600-
595
590
104+65 105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50 108+00 108+50
� / I
Q
G
SF 1A
SEE SHEET 2.4
_ \`__-- CIE /��GE � X595"CE / —
CE I-- C'�CIE
\ '
C,
600
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
I 5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
595 RA gh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Licevs N.. F-0831
590
585
108+77.56
Constructed Riffle
Table
SF 1
e
Structure
Number
Type
CR -9
B
CR -10
A
CR -11
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
A
CR -13
A
CR -14
B
CR -15
A
CR -16
B
_ 33
0' 20' 40' 60' 80'
14
_
V
(HORIZONTAL)
°
N
M
t O
x°107
O
0�
+O
rom
n
N
t0
Q
+ 0
M
J
W
O
>j
Uj J
w
rj
+ GMj
117
it >
W
O
m V r
O N N
7 + rn
O
r V N O
EXISTING
GRADE
Q
M
O u7
II LUp
w
+ pM11
O 117
>
II
Q
1n
H
J
_0
II
W O>
O N
� + O
O
O r
N
O
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
W
U)
H
(n w
Q
J II W
JTL
O11
O II p
r
O
M
Rewet°ns
W W
¢ J 11 >
W
+�
(O lD
N
r
m
n t0
O
N N
N CC!
—
H w H w
U)
O>
u w
O
II M
a
M O
+ m
O
O ID O p
M
11
Q
_
Q J
J O I
LU
O I I
>
+ O O
�~Tcow�Q�
()1 .85%
U)()2.33%
w
M
mr
()
_
W
pM
c
m1.16%
L
()1.89%
ODy
M
()29994
_
H
r
N
0282
+
O
O
p r
M� 07
N
j
—
'T
03-- �
L0p>
v�
03.0
2/
II
0
LU
n
oi7
<p+0moM
Nm
(-)1.33%
fw
w_� >
In
u7 1�
0g
fj)u
-i
LU w
o
w U)M
+ M
LO
v
(-)1.91°
U)
Q
H
J O II
W_� >
II W
Q J
H W
O II O II
II W-jl W
LU
Q J Q J
W W
U)
+ p7 N r
M
O_ 1170
>+ lA
II W Co M
U� I'-
CO_
W O O
+ M O
+
O +
M
O
m
In
O
O N
7
to
U)
N
Q J O II
w- n w
O II
n w—o
>
tJ
n+
rn
n
r -o
C6
PROPOSED
GRADE
w
w ¢
p 1
-
°+ +
(n
fn
N
w
i1 w
Q W
U)
>
Q J
w
, M ,ro
O II -O II
W
Q J II >
fn w W
104+65 105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50 108+00 108+50
� / I
Q
G
SF 1A
SEE SHEET 2.4
_ \`__-- CIE /��GE � X595"CE / —
CE I-- C'�CIE
\ '
C,
600
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
I 5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
595 RA gh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Licevs N.. F-0831
590
585
108+77.56
Constructed Riffle
Table
SF 1
e
Structure
Number
Type
CR -9
B
CR -10
A
CR -11
C
CR -12
A
CR -13
A
CR -14
B
CR -15
A
CR -16
B
END CONSTRUCTION
SF 1
STA. 108+77.56
U 30
30 � 30
e
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
0 2 4 6 8 b
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
(VERTICAL) (VERTICAL)
TO ELEVATION OF FLOODPLAIN
-33
30
P54
_ 33
0' 20' 40' 60' 80'
14
_
V
(HORIZONTAL)
°
Q
e�
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Rewet°ns
U 30
30 � 30
e
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
0 2 4 6 8 b
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
(VERTICAL) (VERTICAL)
TO ELEVATION OF FLOODPLAIN
-33
30
P54
_ 33
0' 20' 40' 60' 80'
14
_
V
(HORIZONTAL)
°

600
595
590
200+00
200+50 201+00 201+50
soo 1&4*4
WILDLANDS
�
y, Ecological R�toxaaotaiy,
Services
EXISTING GRADE
5605 Chapel H01 Suite 122
>
U
Raldg607
91 NC 27 C 27
Tel: [phone]
LI
Fu: 919.851.9987
, Lir_ No. F-0831
PROP
OSED BANKFULL
rm
o1
r
rn
N M M
M m
V to
m m-
PROPOSED
GRADE
- +
W +
N Ih-+ OMi
111 M 01 c"
O
m O
It)
p �j O I/)
+ O+ O
O M
n N
I N
1
iN
i
Lu--
N II N i
II W -Q J
O Il 0
111 W-11 W
O O
+ W
M O
} OMi
(00 O
r
Cl!
(O
O OD
r
N
1
JQ
W
W W
H W H W
N
vi
+
+
cn
+
+
+
In
y
In Jn
N 7
Io
II
II
N
II 1>
H W
W
H W
O
CII
W
O
N
O
W 11
II O II
i -N i
W W
II j
Q
fn
In
I. W
H
W Q
J Q J
W W
H
(n
1n
N
On
N
co
-N
0 r
11) O -o O
M p—In MO
V
n O
Oj
p
+ 01 + O
O m i/1 O
O m o m
O�
+
O-�
N W N
O L+
m
In
ONJ
IIn
N
+
+
N-c)In
N i
II W 111
Q
W
II W 11 W
-O
Q W N W
N—O
Q 11 W N i
II W
N
II i
W
N
N 11 i II > O>
W
J Q
W
J
W
Q JQ J
H W H W
J J
In W H W
J
y W Q J
Q
~ J
II
Q
W Q j1 W
J Q J
fn
In fn
In
y W
1n W
W
W N W
200+50 201+00 201+50
soo 1&4*4
WILDLANDS
�
y, Ecological R�toxaaotaiy,
Services
n
I
5605 Chapel H01 Suite 122
>
U
Raldg607
91 NC 27 C 27
Tel: [phone]
LI
Fu: 919.851.9987
, Lir_ No. F-0831
595
590
201+77.27
C - --�
Off(
Q
END CONSTRUCTION I
SF 1A
STA. 201+77.27
CE/ 6�-Z`E CE— _GE CE
ROCK CHECK DAM "�`�� �'l / ��� i I -'-77,,-
•
lci711 u
BEGIN CONSTRUCTIONS10
SF1A—---
STA. 200+00.00/
(
I \
Z I
\ 11 \ ROCK CHECK DAM Da : Augue 31,2011
Job Number 005-02125
/ — / 1 (✓ \ /� / 1 ) !1`J /� / / Pxq-Engineer: NMM
ILI ID. By: JTL
V / ^ / I / / /' Checked By: JWH
SF1/ � Revisions
SEE SHEET 2.2
\33 //// / 7
ci
PLAN AND
PROFILE
0, 2' 4' 6' 8'
(VERTICAL) Sheet
0' 20' 40' 60' 80' pm4
(HORIZONTAL) o

580
575
570 +-
300,00
300+50
301+00
301+50
302+00
302+50
580
575
11 570
303+00
CE 'LE T CE 7_ CE
Q.
\ / >—CE CE-
91X6'd
/ // / // / / / / ELEVATION = 574
C11- �I /S13
Gk
Ca
U-- / / / //// i
it
]NR ENo �/o \Syl 8ELEP � -L l_3�BEGIN CONSTRUCTION — PL30SF 2 — P L 30
STA. 3+00.00 — P
O
O
O
/
07
O
580 -
575
570
400+00 400+50 401+00 401+50
n2-6
uIi v
w a ww
w
o
Job Number
w
m^
17
w
11
w
w w
N w
Checked By:
N w
N w
a w
rn
PROPOSED
BAN FULL
00.34% 1
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING
m_o
GRADE
o o
M
o_svt
w
4 w a
a >_v
-
N w y w
w 4 w
N w N L
��- CECE�
/�
-CE�CE� �
/-----------\
95 6'CMP /
ELEVATION] 574.60'
/
BEGIN CONSTRUC-TrN
/ SF3 I_ r ---
STA. 4+00.001
`CR -2
JI it
- - 575— I ,c
I _
I) \ w1r \ \ I I 1
i \ III cc9, � o \ \ 1 1
I I I \\
\9 -CMP 9'CMP \
\ ELE TION = 575.04' \ \ I 1
I IIII I\FO \ \ \
I\
I IIIIII�I
I \
Lf \\
580
575
570
402+00
Constructed Riffle
Table
SF 3
Structure
Number Type
CR -27 C
CR -28 A
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10'
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
LDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Rd, Suite 122
Ruldgh, NC 27607
Td: 919.851.9986
Fas: 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
•
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
Sheet
dos

580
575
570
565
402+00
o m
o v
Job Number
Structure
Number
Type
CR -28
A
CR -29
A
CR -30
to
CR -31
A
CR -32
B
v
m
N
o
IQI w a W
W
N w F w F w
a Wv>
n N i°+
0 17 11
PROPOSED BANKFULL
N w r w
vi
rn rn
r w r w ¢
rn to
w
Q w v> v
IQI w
m
1 i W w Q
w r w
(-)0.20%
(-)0.59%
00.63%
PROPOSED GRADE
o rn
EXISTING GRADE
+ r +
O O p O
a W a W
m n N
+ C
C W V>
f N W N
n
II
e
i0 N
r
p O
+ O
w N w
W
Q
V i V
W w
Ij tp M
Q r +
N
W H W
N N
Q Q
y w W
V
J
oW
N w
N w Q wQ W V
W r W Q W
N
N W
402+50 403+00 403+50 404+00 404+50 405+00 405+50 406+00 406+50 407+00 407+50 408+00
580
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
575
570
565
408+50 408+65
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10'
(VERTICAL)
DO \ CR -2 \` \ 1\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ C�c , - 0' 25' 50' 75' 100
X ` \ (HORIZONTAL)
L
CID
CE �C5 / -
\ CE CE _ CE �c C,E _ OE- - CE -
` — — — — ——
------------- - - - - --
1 1 LLLI\
m `- - 20 FOOT FORD CROSSING�' 1 FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
- �/ / '� /� TO ELEVATION OF FLOODPLAIN
rx
--
LU
r
r..
i/m
\ \ \ \ I w \
\
-- \
\ \ \ \0 - - - - - -- \
\ \ \\
3'0- - 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 40 30 -30 90 \ \ 33 30 90
S80, \ \
I
00
0)
Cn
Constructed Riffle
Table
SF 3
Job Number
Structure
Number
Type
CR -28
A
CR -29
A
CR -30
D
CR -31
A
CR -32
B
CR -33
A
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fas: 919.851.9987
Fu License No. F-0831
7
Date
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Pxq-Enginccc
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
Sheet
2.6

580
575
570
565
408+65
409+00 409+50 410+00 410+50 411+00 411+50
&E— -- — CE CE CE CE— _—CE — \ CEL CE T CE —
C�
412+00 412+50 413+00 413+50 414+00
SF 3
Structure
Number
Type
CR -34
i
CR -35
A
CR -36
D
411FILL
EXISTING CHANNEL
CR -38
A
TO ELEVATION OF FLOODPLAIN
D
S ,
GE
GQ/
\\
\
CE CE CE
o
V
o
> V >
w w
+e
m m
O o t0 n O V
v ,n +
ah
415*00
tp
a>
Q W
r w
N
N
w y wPROPOSED
v
BANKFULL v> v>
_®r
R-3
�+ �n
+
7$
-
w
W
0.66%
-0.66%--
-
-
0.52%
0.52%
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
0051%
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
o
+
Revisions
ro
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
T
o
v
W
o u^t w
v w v>
o o
'n o uri N m �n VV
N w r w
a
w ¢ w m
'+
r
w r w "'
n
of
v
+
n
N w y w ¢ W
m W
Q W
a>
Jt
w
a
w
N w
r w
N
N
409+00 409+50 410+00 410+50 411+00 411+50
&E— -- — CE CE CE CE— _—CE — \ CEL CE T CE —
C�
412+00 412+50 413+00 413+50 414+00
+ // / ® <00
�
V r\ ® I OR-33Al
Z �\
UI—
3\— 30 30 3O� 30
30 30 30 —575— — — —
-- 30 30
30 30 30
414+50
580
WILDLANDS
575
570
565
415+00 415+25
5605 Chapel H01 Rd, Suite 122
Tddg9 NC 2
T: 919.851.9986986
Fas: 919.851.
Firm U—No.. F-0 F-0831
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10' 6d
(VERTICAL) s�
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
\
"
30 30 3O 30 30
Constructed Riffle
Table
SF 3
Structure
Number
Type
CR -34
i
CR -35
A
CR -36
D
411FILL
EXISTING CHANNEL
CR -38
A
TO ELEVATION OF FLOODPLAIN
D
S ,
GE
GQ/
\\
\
CE CE CE
\\ � ® ®
I to
CR -39
415*00
r
S
lei'P L —— —
® —
---/
v
_®r
R-3
+ // / ® <00
�
V r\ ® I OR-33Al
Z �\
UI—
3\— 30 30 3O� 30
30 30 30 —575— — — —
-- 30 30
30 30 30
414+50
580
WILDLANDS
575
570
565
415+00 415+25
5605 Chapel H01 Rd, Suite 122
Tddg9 NC 2
T: 919.851.9986986
Fas: 919.851.
Firm U—No.. F-0 F-0831
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10' 6d
(VERTICAL) s�
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
\
"
30 30 3O 30 30
Constructed Riffle
Table
SF 3
Structure
Number
Type
CR -34
D
CR -35
A
CR -36
D
CR -37
A
CR -38
A
CR -39
D
S
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
d
Sheet
20 /
b
b
v
7$
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
d
Sheet
20 /

575
570
565
415+25 415+50 416+00 416+50 417+00 417+50 418+00 418+50 419+00 419+50 420+00 420+50 421+00 421+36.84
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Rd, Suite 122
Ruldgh. NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fas: 919.851.9987
Firm Uceuse No. F-0831
UT1
\\ SEE SHE 2.11
S>e*� — — — r CE / /r \ \\ \I 0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 0' ? 1�
FI (VERTICAL)
TO ION 9DPk131N //\ -��\ \Ick \\ \
0' 25' 50' 75' 100' � r�
\ FF (HORIZONTAL)
- - � � C � ♦WSJ♦•♦,
6 In N
11 - -
iUj
d► � `�c, ��• ♦♦�♦mac♦♦�♦.pcc�♦♦L•Ois
,♦. � ����II��!►
.
B
mI _ 4 •♦ i4'n1�C♦O•♦♦♦A
� I MM
♦.♦ s♦ �I r.L_"..1' t� III,
•..
CR -43
C
CR -44
C
CR -45
C
♦♦ ♦ Ov c. •♦cpc ♦c I
r-/
7 \\ \ \
a > v > v >
Q
v
-
--
r
Q>
'QI
¢ w PROPOSED BANKFULLIN
W
v
r 4-A
o
ro
r
a
m ra
'n
� �
it
(-)0.90%v>
Q
W
(-)1.10%
-
w
' -
W
571
1
( 0.83%
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
(-)O.s2%
005-02125
(-)O92%
NMM
Down By:
PROPOSED GRADE
377
Checked By:
JµH
EXISTING GRADE
Rewetons
V >
F W
V W
II W
a w w ^
W v
F
I. n r a
C!_w
56'
v> m
w
o u`Oi
m
w w
w 4
w
y
w
r W v>
a
00 uwi m
rn
a w
N w
w
r W
o�
fO
roa rn
rn�
w
w q
w
N N w
w w
S wv
N
w H W
w
N wN w
561
415+25 415+50 416+00 416+50 417+00 417+50 418+00 418+50 419+00 419+50 420+00 420+50 421+00 421+36.84
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Rd, Suite 122
Ruldgh. NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fas: 919.851.9987
Firm Uceuse No. F-0831
UT1
\\ SEE SHE 2.11
S>e*� — — — r CE / /r \ \\ \I 0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 0' ? 1�
FI (VERTICAL)
TO ION 9DPk131N //\ -��\ \Ick \\ \
0' 25' 50' 75' 100' � r�
\ FF (HORIZONTAL)
1-9
aD
N\ R-4
- - � � C � ♦WSJ♦•♦,
11 - -
iUj
d► � `�c, ��• ♦♦�♦mac♦♦�♦.pcc�♦♦L•Ois
,♦. � ����II��!►
.
B
mI _ 4 •♦ i4'n1�C♦O•♦♦♦A
� I MM
♦.♦ s♦ �I r.L_"..1' t� III,
•..
CR -43
C
CR -44
C
CR -45
C
♦♦ ♦ Ov c. •♦cpc ♦c I
r-/
1-9
aD
N\ R-4
// \ CR--
11 - -
iUj
CR -40
B
\ \
B
CR -42
D
CR -43
C
CR -44
C
CR -45
C
r-/
7 \\ \ \
CR -4 \
I
SO
O 80
\ i /
so
A
T
Constructed Riffle
Table
SF 3
Structure
Number
Type
CR -40
B
CR -41
B
CR -42
D
CR -43
C
CR -44
C
CR -45
C
END CONSTRUCTION
SF 3
STA. 421+36.84
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
Q
Sheet
2.8
b
7
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Protect Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Rewetons
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
b
b
Sheet
2.8

590
585
580
575
500+00
500+50 501+00 501+50 502+00 502+50 503+00 503+50 504+00 504+50 505+00 505+50 506+00 506+50
Constructed Riffle
Table
UT 1
Structure
Number Type
CR -46 B
CR -47 D
J
Ge
� cE�
/ ce
\ / GE
Ge
/— / /I 595 %
e —'"LL cS
/ ------
590 k2w
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
585 I 5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Ruldgh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fas: 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
580
575
507+00
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
/ I
\ _ -- / E__-- I., / /
690-
_--------'— S24 / / Q
JIL. � ,\IL. dIL. dIL. � % � � � � �� _ _ — — — / � � — � — ' — � Si9 / UT 1B_
co GE/---------- — ------ //�/ —_\ // SEESHEr"F2-
ALL ALL 'alL
30
30
.30 C14
S2
O+pO --
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
�-----------------=✓\---=----
UT1� \CR,4
�0
STA. 500+00.00 / �^ ,-� 1+0p
J CR -4
\
S18T
__-� '585-
___—
— — — — — —
//-- — — — —— �\ \\ \�
\ U /
\go \30d -a/30/3 �5 / --- — — ——
U0
719
a
Date:
August 31, 2011
r N n
6 +
�Q•
\�
16
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
m-�
w
J Q
N +
v > > o16
n PROPOSED BANKFULL
W J II11
W
-
r
N
Q
N
-1.00%
co
WQ W
W H W
N
D
`O +
I W N
Q F
N W N
-1.47%
V O
N n
N o
W Q W II
N W N
PROPOSED GRADE
W
W
\
EXISTING GRADE
N
r
r~n W
PROPOSED GRADE
1-)0.66%
+
r0 �
N w
500+50 501+00 501+50 502+00 502+50 503+00 503+50 504+00 504+50 505+00 505+50 506+00 506+50
Constructed Riffle
Table
UT 1
Structure
Number Type
CR -46 B
CR -47 D
J
Ge
� cE�
/ ce
\ / GE
Ge
/— / /I 595 %
e —'"LL cS
/ ------
590 k2w
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
585 I 5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Ruldgh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fas: 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
580
575
507+00
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
/ I
\ _ -- / E__-- I., / /
690-
_--------'— S24 / / Q
JIL. � ,\IL. dIL. dIL. � % � � � � �� _ _ — — — / � � — � — ' — � Si9 / UT 1B_
co GE/---------- — ------ //�/ —_\ // SEESHEr"F2-
ALL ALL 'alL
30
30
.30 C14
S2
O+pO --
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
�-----------------=✓\---=----
UT1� \CR,4
�0
STA. 500+00.00 / �^ ,-� 1+0p
J CR -4
\
S18T
__-� '585-
___—
— — — — — —
//-- — — — —— �\ \\ \�
\ U /
\go \30d -a/30/3 �5 / --- — — ——
U0
719
a
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
Sheet
2.9

1 585
1 580
1 575
570
507+00
507+50 508+00 508+50
I
M
M
o
509+00
UT 1B
SEE SHEET 2.12
\ CF
509+50 510+00 510+50 511+00 511+50 512+00 512+50 513+00 513+50
a / I I \ \ \
UT 1A
SEE SHEET 2.13/
\oxx�
585
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
580
575
570
514+00
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10'
(VERTICAL)
II -P,
CTI
REMOVE EXISTING CULVERT
& STREAM CROSSING/ (`<
\semOj
Ccr 50 FOOT CULVERT CROSSING
CE
-585\ C0 CH
/
0D 0
I I
—
1`�\\- --\ 510 - / - /'/ /_ - - - - -- �0
l / % // _
\\� / J
/
Z \ S26 \ \\ \ \\\ oo
r/
r
25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
Constructed Riffle
Table
UT 1
Structure
Number Type
CR -48 C
PLAN AND
e
PROFILE;
b
a�
Sheet
2910
b �
U0
v
9
Constructed Riffle
Table
UT 1
Structure
Number Type
CR -48 C
PLAN AND
e
PROFILE;
b
a�
Sheet
2910
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Protect Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
TTL
Checked By:
Tµ7;
Rewetons
b
PLAN AND
e
PROFILE;
b
Sheet
2910

580
$75
$70
565
560
$14+00
514+50 515+00 515+50 516+00 516+50 517+00 517+50
CE
CE C
GE
CF\CF
Clk
$18+00
Constructed Riffle
Table
UT 1
Structure
Number
Type
CR -49
A
CR -50
A
CR -51
A
CR -52
A
CR -53
A
CR -54
B
CR -55
C
CR 56
B
CR -57
C
CR -58
A
m a
o a
_
v
�
b
�
w
m a
11
o
n
m
w
iO
^ n
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
w
N W ¢
w
>ww
+ '
m rn
u> > > m
w
M
N W
N w
Q w Q WW
W
>
w
N l0
m
-
- —_ —__
N N Q
M O
Q W
O
S7�
W
(-)0.51%
_ _
>
n
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
(')1.08%
005-02125
Protect Engineer:
--
NMM
v1 w
Q w
ai W
N
ufOi
Checked By:
JµH
Re WI—
__ _
02.17%
_
W
EXISTING
GRADE
�{
k `4
(-)1,41%
- -
N
PROPOSED GRADE
/
)214%
--_
(-)0.95%
_
m
N ^
>
o v m
N-Mp
II
ry m
M
m
Ni.06°0
$71
h
F
-F
Q w- 1 W
r W F W
Q W W
r
N
WW—h>
N
r
m n Q
N
W
N
W
N W W
W>
W
N
W
N
H W N
i -N
$6
N Q
y
W Q W
W N W
561
514+50 515+00 515+50 516+00 516+50 517+00 517+50
CE
CE C
GE
CF\CF
Clk
$18+00
Constructed Riffle
Table
UT 1
Structure
Number
Type
CR -49
A
CR -50
A
CR -51
A
CR -52
A
CR -53
A
CR -54
B
CR -55
C
CR 56
B
CR -57
C
CR -58
A
$18+50
/
/
/
I
I i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N 575=
YV
/--------------\\�\�
C -5
i 00 \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ _ CR -54 X
.30 --\
\ \ \ \ \ \ 3p�\\\\
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10'\S
(VERTICAL) \\ \\ \\ SO
\\ \ \ FILL EXISTINGCHANNEL
SSS \
0' 25' S0' 75' 100' III\ \ \ \ TO ELEVATIONLOODPLAIl� \\ \
(HORIZONTAL) \ \\ \\ \ \
519+00 519+50 520+00 520+50
I /
® / SF 3
SEE SHEET 2.8
I
A /
FA
♦'s�1 TYYp�
yl
0 •I
�0
Gn/
G/
G
Qri)
Gn/
r
CONSTRUCTION
®UT 1
STA. 520+54.38
I r
/ I E
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Rd, Suite 122
9
TelT dgNC 2: 91 9.85.9986
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Licevse N°. F-0831
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
211
Q
�
b
�
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Protect Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Re WI—
�{
k `4
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
211

610 610
EXISTING GRADE
600 600
V '
N N
N W Q
590 ti w 590
580 580
600+00 600+50 601+00 601+50 602+00 602+50 603+00 603+50 604+00 604+50 605+00 605+50 606+00 606+50 607+00
0' 4' 8' 12' 16' 20'
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
Constructed Riffle
Table
UT 1B
Structure
Number Type
CR -59 B
/CE\Ce /
CE / — / I / v
GE \ Ce
Ce / \ CEco
\ / � I J
/
CE Ce I
GE / \ CE \ U� / I I I /
/ CE I /
CE \ CE
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION / CE /604+00
UT 1B
STA. 600+00.00
1
wE CE CE CE
C� / O 1 xOp
U / S36 \ 605+00
602+00
LU
600
// I
I / / S36 / ' o
U
O
CLS, CA -5
�O U I UTh 1 /I I SES SHEgT 2.9 1 / E�JD CONSTRUCTION
�`J I 1 / 1 B
sT�.606+60.20
30 30 30 30 so / I I I I /� /
sos so.zo
NOTE:
LOCATION AND QUANTITIES OF LOGS WILL BE
DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER.
I /
U I I a
9 I /
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
b �
b �
U0
9
11
Date:
I I
Job Number
r /
Protect Engineer:
N m
Down By:
ta0n /
/CE\Ce /
CE / — / I / v
GE \ Ce
Ce / \ CEco
\ / � I J
/
CE Ce I
GE / \ CE \ U� / I I I /
/ CE I /
CE \ CE
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION / CE /604+00
UT 1B
STA. 600+00.00
1
wE CE CE CE
C� / O 1 xOp
U / S36 \ 605+00
602+00
LU
600
// I
I / / S36 / ' o
U
O
CLS, CA -5
�O U I UTh 1 /I I SES SHEgT 2.9 1 / E�JD CONSTRUCTION
�`J I 1 / 1 B
sT�.606+60.20
30 30 30 30 so / I I I I /� /
sos so.zo
NOTE:
LOCATION AND QUANTITIES OF LOGS WILL BE
DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER.
I /
U I I a
9 I /
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
b �
b �
U0
9
11
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Protect Engineer:
N m
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
Sheet
2.12

600
590
580
570 ----
700-00
0' 4' 8' 12' 16' 20'
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
700+50 701+00 701+50
/ S39
V�
/ S40
�s
CE CE CE CE
CE
702+00 702+50 703+00 703+50
Constructed Riffle
Table
UT 1A
Structure
Number Type
CR -60 B
704+00 704+50
I
I �
II I
I I
I I
I I II
I I
UT 1
SEE SHEET 2.11
/ � I
END CONSTRUCTION
/ STA. 705+24.08
I I �
� I I
705+00
600
590
580
—1- 570
705+50
CE ---- CE -_ /CE /_1— CE / \
CE CE CE CE CE CE / / / /
1 1 \ \
VNEXISTING POND
> TO BE DRAINED\I
a
d�
IOq+00 70 I \
1 2+00 703+00 704+00
\
S41 S4 O O
) o \ S43 S44 \ \ \ 1 ')00
� 30 30 30 30 30 30 90 3� 30 30 30 30 30
v 1
>CNI
o,
NOTE: � d \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ 1\
LOCATION AND QUANTITIES OF LOGS WILL BE \\ \\ \ 1\ II 11 00 \\I 11 11
DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER. \ Ut \ \ \ \. I 1 \ III l IIII I I
Ow
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
Q
e$
C
U
0
0
�
LJ
1.9
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
d
Protect Engineer:
N m
\>
JTL
U�
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
UT 1A
d
STA. 700+00.00
/
/ S39
V�
/ S40
�s
CE CE CE CE
CE
702+00 702+50 703+00 703+50
Constructed Riffle
Table
UT 1A
Structure
Number Type
CR -60 B
704+00 704+50
I
I �
II I
I I
I I
I I II
I I
UT 1
SEE SHEET 2.11
/ � I
END CONSTRUCTION
/ STA. 705+24.08
I I �
� I I
705+00
600
590
580
—1- 570
705+50
CE ---- CE -_ /CE /_1— CE / \
CE CE CE CE CE CE / / / /
1 1 \ \
VNEXISTING POND
> TO BE DRAINED\I
a
d�
IOq+00 70 I \
1 2+00 703+00 704+00
\
S41 S4 O O
) o \ S43 S44 \ \ \ 1 ')00
� 30 30 30 30 30 30 90 3� 30 30 30 30 30
v 1
>CNI
o,
NOTE: � d \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ 1\
LOCATION AND QUANTITIES OF LOGS WILL BE \\ \\ \ 1\ II 11 00 \\I 11 11
DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER. \ Ut \ \ \ \. I 1 \ III l IIII I I
Ow
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
Q
e$
C
U
0
0
�
LJ
1.9
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Protect Engineer:
N m
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
Sheet
2.13

545
o0
h
1 540
1 535
530
800+00
800+50 801+00 801+50 802+00 802+50 803+00 803+50 804+00 804+50 805+00 805+50 806+00 806+50
UJ
LU
O
\
I® _ —4) I I
U
1 I IGE \\
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION GE I III 1
SF4 GE I IJP
/ STA. 800+00.00
FILIXISTING CHANNEL
TO ELEVATION OF FLOODPLAIN \
/
r� \
i L L
CR -6 '
545
WILDLANDS
540 I 5605 Chapel H01 Rd, Suite 122
Ruldgh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
F-- 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
535
530
807+00
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10'
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
Constructed Riffle
Table
SF 4
Structure
Number
Type
CR -61
B
CR -62
A
CR -63
A
CR -64
B
CR -65
C
lo
a
4 w
o 11 m PROPOSED
BANKFULL
a
v Ir-' r fO
o m N
il
W Q W
rmn
e
m
mo
w
W N w N w
4 W
W
m j
C
(-)0.27 %
0.49%
4.74/.
(-0.48%
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
U
o
Nm
o N
+
h
o m
Q
N W
F W
N
m 1 m II
Q J W
N W H W
N
ro i
Q W
N W
m
W
H W
m
800+50 801+00 801+50 802+00 802+50 803+00 803+50 804+00 804+50 805+00 805+50 806+00 806+50
UJ
LU
O
\
I® _ —4) I I
U
1 I IGE \\
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION GE I III 1
SF4 GE I IJP
/ STA. 800+00.00
FILIXISTING CHANNEL
TO ELEVATION OF FLOODPLAIN \
/
r� \
i L L
CR -6 '
545
WILDLANDS
540 I 5605 Chapel H01 Rd, Suite 122
Ruldgh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
F-- 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
535
530
807+00
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10'
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
Constructed Riffle
Table
SF 4
Structure
Number
Type
CR -61
B
CR -62
A
CR -63
A
CR -64
B
CR -65
C
6-4
d k
-- -------------...
LLI
30\ 30 30
30 3 30 30
30 30 30
--30 30 30 30 3
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
d
214
b
$
U
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
d
214

546
SF 4
Structure
Number
Type
CR -65
C
CR -66
A
CR -67
C
6�
D
`a
®
7z
_
0
EXISTING GRADE
540
51
IT
v
$
U
fq W y W
PROPOSED BANKFULL
- -
00.69%
b
)0.39%
a 'c
N
PROPOSED
GRADE
+ rn n
H W
Q W
O h
\�
N
N m W
II W
August 31, 2011
N
vt
m>
N
W
t'O W
F W
w m y
m
+ n
ci
N
m
v
W
W
530
r '°
of
h W
m
5:
W
W
rn
$
m
N w
u~i N W
a W W
vN"i
o
w
w H w
W m17
r
N
¢ ¢
w
cm
W
y
W m W
W N W
A
L 1 11
A
525
5:
LDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Rd, Suite 122
Ruldgh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
F., 919.851.9987
Fu License No. F-0831
807+10 807+50 808+00 808+50 809+00 809+50 810+00 810+50 811+00 811+50 812+00 812+50 813+00 813+50 814+00 814+24.361 U I
Constructed Riffle
Table
SF 4
Structure
Number
Type
CR -65
C
CR -66
A
CR -67
C
CR -68
D
CE
CE
\\ CE
I I
\ CE _ CE
_ CE_
CE
// �OE
\ /,---5 4 0` - CE CE
\
\CE
O
END CONSTRUCTION \ l\\\\\ O \
\ \\
CR -6 ® ® > o> \ / / / STA. 814+24 36 �\ CI \\\\\\ \
®
eRy
\ \� �N \ \ \ ® / / / / \ /l •b...y,. Job Number 005-02125
Pxyect Engineer: NMM
Down By: jTL
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10' \ \ \ \ \ \
\ �\
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
\
(HORIZONTAL)
® m FILL EXISTING CHANNEL,
TO ELEVATION OF FLOODPLAIN \
®
SF 4A
® SEE SHEET 2.17
Checked By: JWH
°j / / V� • � _ / / / /• / \ � (��I /(I /(/`� �\ � Revisions
t' Gro ® L
PLAN AND
PROFILE
\\\\\\\\
Sheet
2.115
`a
®
7z
0
v
$
U
b
\�
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
\ \� �N \ \ \ ® / / / / \ /l •b...y,. Job Number 005-02125
Pxyect Engineer: NMM
Down By: jTL
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10' \ \ \ \ \ \
\ �\
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
\
(HORIZONTAL)
® m FILL EXISTING CHANNEL,
TO ELEVATION OF FLOODPLAIN \
®
SF 4A
® SEE SHEET 2.17
Checked By: JWH
°j / / V� • � _ / / / /• / \ � (��I /(I /(/`� �\ � Revisions
t' Gro ® L
PLAN AND
PROFILE
\\\\\\\\
Sheet
2.115

545
SF 4A
Project Engineer:
Down By:
Structure
Number
Type
CR -69
A
CR -70
B
CR -71
A
CR -72
A
CR -73
A
545
ocN
+Q6
°_� a
6 oc
m e
a
o
1.
Fw
11
Fw
aw
Fw
¢w
PROPOSED
o�
��
+�
W
rn W
N w
BANKFULL
¢ w
¢ vi
a
W
a W w
o II
C N
0)1.12%
'- --
N
N W W
Q W
Q W
(-)1.12%
- --
-- -
-
- - -
N W
N W
540
-
540
00.49% 1
(-)0.49%
-
-)0.49%
PROPOSED GRADEF
(')0.65%
a�
a
rnN
n
oil
O1w
w
M—+ro
.v—�v
o
00
W
m W
ai W EXISTING GRADE
o4O
¢ w—Q
oil
w
+ n—+
T
$ fO—
_
'�
o
535
F W
H W
w 1 w
o
n N
uNi 16
rn
o f
535
n
rn
o
+
N
o>
r
rn W rn
W
Q w—Q
W
W
rn>
8—m
N
n
N W
Q W H W
V
�> o
N
N
N W
Q
Q
W
W—
y N
W
530
530
900+00
900+50
901+00
901+50
902+00
902+50
903+00
903+50
904+00
904+50
905+00
dy
C�
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION � � ^ \ / I CE E _ hRO
SF 4A\ \ / CE
\ STA. 900+00.00_ _ — CE 90
Ice
Ce
Ce
CES CE i' f �/ ' C
\ \ \\ \ 900+
Cn
CR -719 \ _
100 -40
\\ ` �O — — — — — — / CR -70 - so
I\
-aO
so
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10'
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
M
Constructed Riffle
Table
SF 4A
Project Engineer:
Down By:
Structure
Number
Type
CR -69
A
CR -70
B
CR -71
A
CR -72
A
CR -73
A
CR -74
B
k2w
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fas: 919.851.9987
Firm Liceese No. F-0831
C
U
0
�
LJ
Date:
Job Number
August 31, 2011
005-02125
Project Engineer:
Down By:
NMM
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
Sheet
216

545
540
535
530
905+00
905+50
906+00
906+50 907+00
1101
5_0
0
cr
o -
o
SF 4
SEE SHEET 2.15
907+50 908+00
Illl�lr��
'�•rr�rp•�•rsr••���i!p•�rni +p•�rnnp•�•��•�4�i 010 � A
iir••ir••r••r°i��'�s�re•�r•••ri� �••r••oi•r•A rr•��
�••r•`•nrc•.••ir• �nrr••p••i••r •••r•+rr•••ri •�
t�
545 1 &4*4
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
540
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
RA gh xc 27607
Tel: [phone]
Type
Fas: 919.851.9987
Firm Uceuse No. F-0831
B
CR -76
C
L
L
A
CR -78
C
CR -79
A
Q
oilT
MII
�'
n N
EXISTING GRADE
w
Nw
otn
Nv
m ui
Nw
m w
w
w
7
-47�1%
N w
w w
-¢ w
PROPOSED
BANKFULL(-)116%
a�
_
N
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
)0.62%
Checked By:
o v
JµH
PROPOSED GRADE
Revisions
m
w—� w
m
11
NC
V
V
t+o N
rn W_w W
Qw
r
M
p
Qw
w
i
m N
O
n
o II
rn W
¢
n
N
m7
w
vriw yw
m
r
w
Nw
Fw
N
905+50
906+00
906+50 907+00
1101
5_0
0
cr
o -
o
SF 4
SEE SHEET 2.15
907+50 908+00
Illl�lr��
'�•rr�rp•�•rsr••���i!p•�rni +p•�rnnp•�•��•�4�i 010 � A
iir••ir••r••r°i��'�s�re•�r•••ri� �••r••oi•r•A rr•��
�••r•`•nrc•.••ir• �nrr••p••i••r •••r•+rr•••ri •�
t�
545 1 &4*4
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
540
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
RA gh xc 27607
Tel: [phone]
Type
Fas: 919.851.9987
Firm Uceuse No. F-0831
B
CR -76
C
L
L
A
535
530
908+50 908+68.04
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10'
(VERTICAL)
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
\ END CONSTRUCTION\
\ O SF 4`A,
\ 1n
STA. 9 8+68.04
v v® A v v ® ®A 535
/ ® ,
i
/// (\ \\ \\
SO
Constructed Riffle
Table
SF 4A
Structure
Number
Type
CR -75
B
CR -76
C
CR -77
A
CR -78
C
CR -79
A
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
b
Sheet
217
Q
Cd]
v
7
a�
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
PLAN AND
PROFILE;
b
Sheet
217

PL
�-p
L PL PL
PL PL PL
PL p
9
f
r
r
v
f
"-p -
L PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL PLS
v
r
v
ld�
3.5
SHEET 3.4/\SHEET
87— RW 2
c
\ \ F \ cF
/3J �� 1•
SHEET 3.3
\�\\ �� `cF\cF/ • /
CE
'cE� CE cE ld
RW 1
a
a
NRW 1
Z�-RW2 ld�1d-ld
'c'-7ld�ld�
V
U
L,
PL _
a PL
v
a r
`ld ld
ld ld
PL
a
a
k2w
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
P
� �
LJ
• • • %
���FYIII
1p
®
Date: August 31, 2011
Job Number 005-02125
Project Engineer: N m
Down By: JTL
Checked By: JµH
Revisions
P L P L
WETLAND
JL E L�L7'�A'V D
°
OV;' ERVIE
b
Sheet
0' 100' 200' 300' 400'
(HORIZONTAL)
u

\>d\ vv lENDLAND S
GINEERING
�d
a WILDLANDS
ENGINEE]RIIn INC.
P C Ecological R.toxaaon
5605 Cha,l Hal
9 Ruad, Suite 122
\ T dgNC 276
Tel
SHEET 3.9 9' 07
9.85' 99 6
Fu: 919.851.9987
d P C Firm Licevse No. F-0831
\ °C
\PC
_ a
®
® ®cE ® ®E cE
u c _
\/
RW 4 cE ® ® ® ®�,,,��,., CE � cE _ CE
ce
® ® ® �w�y ,.,I�,. ® ® C
SHEET 3.10
/ CECECECE-CECECE- Q
61
m
® 0
/ 6- A
RW 4 �' �10
® ® ® ® ® ® ® RW4
a / n
I
I
/ u
Date: August 31, 2011
•b...y,. Job Number 005-02125
Pxq-Engineer: NMM
JVV ---vv Down By: JTL
/ Checked Hy: JµH
"u\ \ Revisions
a b
l d 0' 50' 100' 150' 200' 0 WETLAND
LAND
l d l d l d (HORIZONTAL)
OVERVIEW
ld ld
d I
ld ld b
e--1
Sheet

Ow
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel Hal
Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
0 20 40 60 80 Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Licevse No. F-0831
(HORIZONTAL)
CE
— — -605— �� ` CE / CE CE CE
� ✓_6E- ,--__----- CE CE � CE � CE � CE
\--- - - - - -- - CE CE CE
U ' /
\\\Zz -
4lj
a \\ \ J/ - J �\ _-___—
/ \\ \\ 6'05. 3� ���C \\--- �\ •�\ oo \ � \/ \ //
'70-
\ - - - - -- �� ads -3a
-33
.30
3^ \ l�
V
/ < / -670\
1 1 �
Q
7$
C
P-2
f �
LJ
rgr
Date:
Job Number
a
Project Engineer:
Down By:
N m
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
a
Ow
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel Hal
Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
0 20 40 60 80 Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Licevse No. F-0831
(HORIZONTAL)
CE
— — -605— �� ` CE / CE CE CE
� ✓_6E- ,--__----- CE CE � CE � CE � CE
\--- - - - - -- - CE CE CE
U ' /
\\\Zz -
4lj
a \\ \ J/ - J �\ _-___—
/ \\ \\ 6'05. 3� ���C \\--- �\ •�\ oo \ � \/ \ //
'70-
\ - - - - -- �� ads -3a
-33
.30
3^ \ l�
V
/ < / -670\
1 1 �
Q
7$
C
P-2
f �
LJ
rgr
Date:
Job Number
August 31, 2011
005-02125
Project Engineer:
Down By:
N m
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
il111'lI
r
6
Sheet
3.3

MATCHLINE - MATCH TO SHEET 3.5
1 ✓ \ \ �\ 1 ; — 1 \ \\ \Cts 0' 20' 40' 60' 80'
i
(HORIZONTAL)
"7
Cl
ROCK CHECK DAM '
/
� I �
/ I I
' I
I
I \
ROCK CHECK DAM
/
J /
o
-
F\ C�
/ \ 595.5
� / 1
I \
59 44
.9 � I
\ \ 20 CE
CE / I — — — ' C'
\_-_---\
0 1� ��-- CF -
1
E1 595.6
^ 594.1 1 1111
/ / J
i
' 103+00
30
�30�33�– – –` – \ 11 30`30
—�O --- `
k2w
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
Q
7$
C
P
u
lci0
r .
U
3
I V A
l
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
N m
a
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
\
\\
`tea
30
�30�33�– – –` – \ 11 30`30
—�O --- `
k2w
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
Q
7$
C
P
u
lci0
r .
U
3
I V A
l
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
N m
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
Sheet
6
304

11 iU 1\ Cr
III Il 11 \`--•--\�\\\\ F ��,\ "� � / i / ----
Lu
�—cl&
\\V
I I \ I \ \
I � /
IW
1 II II III II I I \\ \ I \ \\ \ I I\ 11 \
\ I 1 \ \
\ I m
( 1 I \ I I I
q)
I
L- \
��/ �'/ / \ // —///\\•`\ \ m \\ EARTHEN DAM
TO BE REMOVED
/
d)`\
0 `' \
\
\ \ I
\ \ 1
V. \\
MATCHLINE - MATCH TO SHEET 3.4
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
U0
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
N m
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
Pill 11 1 WillI
6
Sheet
0' 20' 40' 60' 80'� I � v
(HORIZONTAL)

ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Rred, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
\ _ --- /
— — — — — —
CE -CE — _ — CE CE CE CE C� CE �' CE /
CE—CE —CE— — --CE —CE CE _ _GF— —CE CE — — —
-- — — —— / // / cjL�---SSS=-----------��
m\ — — I 20 FOOT FORD CROSSING
—
lci
cy
711
I -
w
U -30\
\ ^0 30 �!
-90 `� 3J Date: Aug -3
3 1, 2011
\
-----------
--------- 30 --------
-- — ® Job Number 005-02125
/ \ — s� P Engineer: N m
30 30 30 30 30 39 \ 30 30 30 39 30 30 30 30 / — _ _ — �a
_ D. By: JTL
Chee B
y: JWH
\ \ - - - - - _ Revisions
--—————————— — — — — ——
WETLAND
GRADING
ab
Sheet
0' 20' 40' 60' 80'
(HORIZONTAL) 3.6

WILDLANDS
gEENTGIINTTEE�RII yNTlG
YY
' ILDLA LS
0' 20' 40' 60' 80' ENGINEE]RIING INC.
EcologiS Restoxaaon
(HORIZONTAL)
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
%919.85199886
m '. 919.851.9987
P mLe N.. F-0831
CE CE CE CE,/ CE _ _
... < CE/CECE
\ CE
vo
i--- - - - - --
--
5726\ --
571.61) \\
/ / \ 572.3, /� \ \ - ~\ > > \ \ CE \ \ \
r \ \\ \ \\� CECE
\
r _ T //\\ y✓�� Ca\� \- - _!0iv= -- -- tE " \
570.6571.6
414+00 O \ \\ 1 1 \ \I\\ ;571.4 - - /�/ / r , '7
\ r /572.1
u
570.3' psi �� \�\ �
51-
57%
7.
570.1/
/ 9 571.8 \ \\ 5'0.6
\ 413 572.3 \ CSX \ 571.1_
b
1 \ 571.5 -- ��\ I \
1
\ p 570.2
\ \ 572.0 \ O / \ �\ \ Q
\ 571.0
/ \ �57p6
/ I �
570.7 III I \ \
\\ 571.8
0// \ p \ M
\ I / � \ � 570.9
�.� // \\ \\ 0
\ \ / �� \ \ \ II \
571.9 \ 571.8
+-4 Date: August 31, 2011
•b..0 Job Number 005-02125
Pxyect Engineer: NMM
Down By: JTL
\ \ Checked Hy: JWH
Revisions
` \ 30 30 `30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
WETLAND
GRADING
,d
337

J � `
n
r
I ALL
ALL, ALL
I ` \
U
— h \ --- ----- -------------
1.13
----------- w — __----
o
ALL
Lu
U r /
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
b �
b �
Q
7
r
20
73
-- �. a11.L. a111r. \��\ /// �//moi// // / �✓/ /� c--�
\ \\\\ \ W
/ — —
\\\ / 30
\ \\
\ \ Date: August 31, 2011
Job Number 005-02125
Pxq-Engineer: N m
Down By: JTL
riljl 0+00 ' ///-----_----- Checked By: JWH
Revisions
WETLAND
eb
GRADING
,d
0' 20' 40 60' 80 � I 3.8
(HORIZONTAL)

CE CE
/ CE CE CE WIELGINEERING
G� CE
CE
D LANDS
/ C, CE CE CE CE
® ® ® �.. / ( / CE CE WILDLANDS
G�/ CE CE ENGINEERIING' INC.
CE
\ / \ CE CE Ecological Ratoxaaon
CE— sees
'v ® ® ® ® ® (B ® — — \ \\ \\ ® \ \ 5605 Ct'Hill Rd, Svice 122
Raldgh NC 27607
TA: 919.851.9986
Fu: 9
Firm Lic19.851.9987
evae No. F-0831
X542.3 �
i
541.4 4
i
i
G�� ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®/ ® ® ® —(R—
C11-
—
-- — ———
_ _ p
540.4 \\
--------------
6394, /f— i' 59.4`
fl
5 ° _IIII loll, \ �\ \� U
1 �
r
==540
\\ \ b
i
G0 \ \ \\ : / ®/ \538.4 �/i'—�� •540\ \ 44 m 1
r i M
M
Date: August 31, 2011
/ ///.'' ( \ /' • / \ O •b..0 Job Number 005-02125
y , Pxq-Engineer: NMM
30 30 30 30 30 \C 30 30 VV—Ovv D. By: JTL
-40 \ Checked Ey: JWH
Revisions
_--- - - - - -- -----
so
so WETLAND
-40 GRADING
/ 0' 25' 50' 75' 100' //���� sh-t
,�����_ ____------------ __ __--_---- �� (HORIZONTAL) I�
39

— CE CE / 'CE CE CE CE CE CE CE O� CE CE CE ' CE E-
—540-cla
L
X
� 537.8Lu
Lu
U) 58.5 ® ® ® /® Vj
I 537..5
\ I
536.8 /�
s-\\ )'®y// ® i m
\ \_ 538.2
\\\ /i m ) \\ \\ \ \
' _ �'\ \ ,1537.6
5377.0//
\\ppAg/ / ® /I ® i mI—
�n
2n In
Im
Slo
537.1__ / m
V\ m
10 1.x(7
m
\
//v,
537.1 STABILIZE WITH ROCK OUTLET AND CREATE DIFFUSE \ \
II W \ \ / 537.2 // I` \ ' / FLOW PATTERN PER DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER\\ \ \
Q '/ // / / m / I \ \ \ \
\ \
I \V of \ m I 1 \ \ \ \
0 \ m
170\
j11111 / / m 1
537.2 O 1 \ \ \ \
o
cwi J I II 3C / / I \
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(I I'IJII/ // \3\/ 3� / / /' �\\\ \\ (HOR17ONTAL)
LDLANDS
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh NC 27607
TA: 919.851.9986
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
WETLAND
GRADING
d
Sheet }ISI
3.10
b
u
a�
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
N m
Down By:
JTL
°
Checked By:
Jµm
Rms—
WETLAND
GRADING
d
Sheet }ISI
3.10

PLANTING PLAN GENERAL NOTES
Tenvinury Seeding
Permanent iparian Seeding
Acres
1 30.7
ApW- Speeies
Acres 139
Acres
228
Apia -Species Name Stratum
C. -Name
Density
Buhr Planting
Date
h /acre
2.0
Ely-,
hs/acre
Herb Rye Gain
Ally r
_v. Hed,
All Year
.Ely-
Hcb
Vugiaia wild rye
10
Millet
All Year
iPancum
Switch gross
4
All Year
Panic.. Hcb
All Year
ralum
Hcb
Switchgmss
5
Size
Tag Alder
Rudbeckio
R
0.25' -LO"
All Year
Hetb
Ally
hi -NC
cot
Red,
Black-eyed sus..
I
m
Ally
Panicum
Hed,
Deer mngue
2
0.5"-1.0" Shmb
2-8ft.
clandestinum
Po lar
8ft.
Comus
Silky
Sorghaatmm
L
All Year
nutans
Bede
Indian2
grass
D. wood
Sublatal
20
Tenvinury Seeding
Petra anent Wetland Seedling
Acres
1 30.7
ApW- Speeies
Acres 139
Ap>ta'oled
Species Name Stratum
Co Name
Density
Dade
Buhr Planting
Nov]- Lalium
h /acre
2.0
Ely-,
A r30 mulri Drum
Herb Rye Gain
Ally r
_v. Hed,
Wgiaia wild rye
t0
45
Pag_aa
October 3l amosu
Millet
All Year
Hcb
Switch gross
4
All Year
Panic.. Hcb
Dtongue
eer
4
Steno
clandestinum
Size
Tag Alder
Juncos
R
0.25' -LO"
All Year
Hetb
Soft tush
_
Urladendron
subrotal
m
Tenvinury Seeding
WJ
Acres
1 30.7
ApW- Speeies
StrataCommon
Density
Date Name
Name
Pw/acre)
Buhr Planting
Nov]- Lalium
Acres
2.0
species
A r30 mulri Drum
Herb Rye Gain
140
Min. Stratum
Mayl- Pa__
Bmwntop
45
Indio.
October 3l amosu
Millet
Spacing
Type-
Caliper
Spacing
Ste-
Ibs
NOTE: APPLY MULCH AT 130 BALES/ ACRE AND TEMPORARY SEED ACCORDING
TO THE TABLE ON ALL AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO EROSION INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, STREAM BANKS, ACCESS AREAS, STEEP SLOPES, AREAS
OF INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL, STOCKPILES, AND STAGING AREAS.
PLANTING ZONES:
Zone 1 - Stream Bank Planting Zone
® Zone 2 - Floodplain Planting Zone
W W Zone 3 - Wetland Planting Zone
W W
VEGETATION TABLES
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel Hill
Rmd, Suite 122
Raleigh. NC 27607
Tel [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm '_ No. F-0831
WJ
Planting
Smranary Table
Table
b
Streambank Planting
Buhr Planting
4a®
Acres
2.0
species
Common
Mex
Unit
Min. Stratum
Inay.
#of
Tana
Indio.
#of
Name
Spacing
Type-
Caliper
Spacing
Ste-
Ibs
Spacing
Steno
Iln
Size
Tag Alder
8ft.
R
0.25' -LO"
Canopy
Black
1414
Urladendron
Tubp
8ft.
R
Salixnigra
W01ow
8ft.
L
0.5"-1.0" Shmb
2-8ft.
697
Po lar
8ft.
Comus
Silky
8ft.
L
0.5"-1.0" Shmb
Mft.
697
D. wood
Do wood
Q
Quercus phellos
Salixsencea
Silky Willow
8ft.
L
0.5"-1.0" Shmb
2-8ft.
1428
PlautusSycamore
Oak
Subtohd
2,822 1
0
dd
Z=aJ
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel Hill
Rmd, Suite 122
Raleigh. NC 27607
Tel [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm '_ No. F-0831
WJ
Planting
S
Table
b
Wetla,d Planting
Buhr Planting
4a®
Acres
208
Species
Common
Max
Unit
Min.
Stratum
Indio.
#of
Tafel
Name
S[acillg
Type•
Caliper
Size
Spacing
Steno
Iln
A[nus serrulara
Tag Alder
8ft.
R
0.25' -LO"
Canopy
680.
1414
Urladendron
Tubp
8ft.
R
0.25' -LO"
Canopy
68 ft.
945
.1wif".
Po lar
8ft.
R
0.25' -LO"
Canopy
68 ft.
1414
D. wood
Q
Quercus phellos
Oakes
So.R
R
0.25' -LO"
Canopy
68 ft.
1414
PlautusSycamore
Oak
dd
Z=aJ
ccidenrolis
Sycamore
8ft.
R
0.25'-1.0"
Canopy
6-811.
2829
Berula nigra
River]3i h
SfL
R
0.25' -LO"
Canopy
68 ft.
2122
Carpinus
River Ruch
8ft.
R
0.25' -LO"
Canopy
68 ft.
966
roiini
Ironwood
8ft.
R
0.25'-1.9"
Canopy
6811.
1414
Quero
S -.p
8ft.
R
0.25' -LO"
GoopY
68 ft.
322
Quercus
Chesmu[
8ft.
R
0.25"-L0"
Gnopy
6811.
707
Project Engineer:
michauxii
Oak
8ft.
R
0.25' -LO"
Canopy
680.
1268
Fraxiaus
Geea Ash
8ft.
R
0.22"-1.0"
Canopy
6811.
2122
0
Pennsybaaica
Somhem
Quercus rubra
Red Oak
8ft.R
025' -LO"
Gnopy
6811.707
Subtotal
14,144
0
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel Hill
Rmd, Suite 122
Raleigh. NC 27607
Tel [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm '_ No. F-0831
WJ
PlantingScaunnry
Table
�
b
Wetla,d Planting
4a®
Acres
13.9
species
C�
Max
Unit
Min.
Stratum
Indio.
#of
Total
Name
spacing
Type'
Caliper
Spacing
Stems
Ibs
Size
Alnus serrulora
Tag Alder
8ft.
R
0.25' -LO"
Canopy
68 ft.
945
Comas
Silky
8ft.
R
0.25' -LO"
Shmb
68 ft.
644
D. wood
Q
Quercus phellos
Willow
8ft.
R
0.25' -LO"
Canopy
68 ft.
644
Oak
dd
Z=aJ
PlanJus
Sycamore
8ft.
R
0.25'-1.0"
Canopy
6-8ft.
1288
ccidenralis
Berula nigra
River Ruch
8ft.
R
0.25' -LO"
Canopy
68 ft.
966
Nyssa sylvoof-
Blackgum
8ft.
R
025' -LO"
Canopy
68 ft.
644
Quero
Swoop
8ft.
R
0.25' -LO"
GoopY
68 ft.
322
michauxii
Ch.—
Augaat 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
Frozinus
n /vanica
Goan Ash
8ft.
R
0.25' -LO"
Canopy
680.
1268
Revisions
Subtotal
6,741
0
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel Hill
Rmd, Suite 122
Raleigh. NC 27607
Tel [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm '_ No. F-0831
€M
WJ
�
e
�
b
Sheet
4a®
b
Q
dd
Z=aJ
e�
u
P�®
F�
®
Date:
Augaat 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
€M
FLAN-1INU
NOTES &
e
VEGETATION
TABLES
Sheet
4a®

BEGIN
r
r
i
,605
ZUCTIQN
UT\2
-7
IV IV llv IV 0 IV
l _ 600
71
—
— —
------- — --
— — — -
--- --__
\ — — — — — — — — — --
1d/
END CONSTRUCTION
UT 2
STA. 4+20.92
0' 20' 40' 60' 80'
(HORIZONTAL)
k2w
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
�
�
b
b19
711
e�
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
TTL
Checked By:
Tµ7;
Rewetons

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
/ YYII.IDI.A DS
' ENGINEE]RIING, INC.
Ecological R�toxataoo
I I \ \ 5605 Chapel H01 Rd, Suite 122
— / \ Raldgh, NC 27607
/ Td: 919.851.9986
/ \ \ Fu: 919.851.9987
Fu Licevae No. F-0831
/ ( I
I I \
/ I
v—
V- CIO
_----------' �' �L /
_ I VS-
o b
TH
V- I \\
`w
1/
llb
Inn/ —
BEGIN CONST UCTAON
/SF 1 _ 10 ,— _ �— _ —_ _
STA. 1 +00.00 / — — — — u
- - - - ' -
Date: August 31, 2011
ob Number: 005-02125
P 'ect En' —
xq gut NMM
JT
D. DEy: L
y V
��I/
Checked Ey: Jµ7; Revieiona
�Y — — — — — — — — — — — — — '
\ — —— —
PLANTING
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ eb
Sheet
\ \
0' 20' 40' 60' 80' PmI /'{j�
o \ \ \ \ \ \ (HOR17ONTAL) 4.2

MATCHLINE - MATCH TO SHEET 4.4
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERIIn INC.
EcoingiS Ratoxaao�
\ 5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Ruldgh,NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Fa Licevse No. F-0831
W \
1
r \\
I \
r SF 1A ® f�
L / \ \
A�> / Z l va
/77� � DIY �V — `� � �
— / i \ 9
CD
Cf)
�,, /\I/ \ END CONSTRUCTION
`\� 1
SIF 1
STA. 108+77.56
Z�� _ /
® Date: Aust ug31, 2011
�\ � - 1 I- ` I / •b...y�. Job Number 005-02125
Pxgect Engineer NMM
U Down By: JTL
\ /\\ Checked By JWH
Y, Rcvisi�
PLANTING
r v
Sheet
0' 20' 40' 60' 80' �I
(HORIZONTAL) o
\

WILDLANDS
\\\\ \ \ \\ ENGINEERING
\\YY
II.IDI.A DS
ENGINEE]RIING INC.
Ecoingis Regtoxaaon
5605 chapel ME Rd, scare 122
\ \ \ \ \ > R.ITd 919.85 19986
Fu: 919.851.9987
Fum Licevae No. F-0831
I I 1 I
/
/ I \
/ I
I
rn
INV
7$
IN
\ \
Date: August 31, 2011
1 1 \I/ I ` I `' I \ \ \ •b...y,. Job Number 005-02125
Pmq-EnRl+teec: N m
D. By: JTL
checked Ey: Jµ7;
Revisions
1 �
PLANTING
1 \
\ 1 \
Y \
Sheet
0' 20' 40' 60' 80' �I
MATCHLINE - MATCH TO SHEET 4.3 (HORIZONTAL) 4.4

J
d
07
O
J / \
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
ILDLANDS
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
TA: 919.851.9986
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
PLANTING
Sheet
4.5
�J
b
P�
l�
qq�
�J
7$
dd
�J
e�
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
TTL
Checked By:
Tµ7;
Rewetons
PLANTING
Sheet
4.5

m-- C!1l1T C/ — (`D 11CCI61!_`
I q11
41
680,
0' 25' 50' 75' 100
(HORIZONTAL)
ILDLANDS
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]M
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
e l
b
7
e�
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Rewetons
PLANTING

i
i
i
i
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
�_---4/ joL - (HORIZONTAL)
�7 �� � /OLS',✓
`'' � .�% ` � �� � ��% ��y - �y � J' �' %f J• � J •`' lax°° _ .�, J. n
\Ll
()
Ul
00
CD
U 114-
LU Ji 14,/ /i //� / /f' / \1� \ Ji
14.1�-575-----�
TT.T-)T. A NT)
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122 I
Raldgh NC 27607
TA: 919.851.9986
Fu: 919.851.9987
a..... i—.— ., -
PLANTING
e�
Sheet
4.7
a�
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
N m
Down By:
TTL
Checked By:
Tµ7;
Rewetons
PLANTING
e�
Sheet
4.7

UT 1
SEE SHEET 4.11
ILDLANDS
0' 25' 50' 75' 100' `sees
(HORIZONTAL) 5605 Chapel xm R�.d, scare 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Td: 919.851.9986
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Uceuse No. F-0831
END CONSTRUCTION
SF 3
STA. 421+36.84
I
b
U
v
7�
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
Jµ7;
Revisions
PLANTING
Sheet (�\\[
408

/
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
�
UT 1B
SEE SHEET 2.12
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION��y—
UT 1
STA. 500+00.00—
1
TdT—fid d
1
r
Z
m
W
D
cn
0
0*4
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Td: 919.851.9986
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
U0
9
e
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
N m
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
�{
PLANTING
b
b
Sheet
4.9

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WILDLAyDS
ENGINEE]RIING, INC.
Ecological R�toxatioo
Services
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fas: 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
UT 1A
I\ I J
SEES4ET4.1g/ \� `
UT 1B
SEE SHEET 4.12
J / /
� � r
6d
_ 50 FOOT CULVERT CROSSING / \� \ a b19
to �
71 X11 FSI
co
- v
510
Date: August 31, 2011
r / / / '�7II1I���III' SII' \' /?\\ / / •b...y,. Job Number 005-02125
Pxyect Engineer: NMM
Down By: jTL
Checked By: JWH
Revisions
0.
e�
]P]LANTING
Sheet }ISI
4.10

J J 6—
\ \ \\ \\/ J
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
SF 37 7
7 7 / ISEE SHEET 4.8,
t
/ 7 END CONSTRUCTION
STA. __5``20+53_8``
l
o�
�40.%Ww
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WII.IDI.A DS
ENGINEE]RIING, INC.
Ecological R�toxation
Services
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
PLANTING
Sheet
4}ISI }ISI
o Ji1
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
N m
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
t�
PLANTING
Sheet
4}ISI }ISI
o Ji1

2 WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
W
ENGINEERING, INC.
ol RAgh. NC 27607
F-- 919 851.9987
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
UT 1B
STA. 600+00.00
60
zWILDLANDS_
SEE SHEET 4.9 END CONSTRUCTION Ch��Elya JWH
UT 1B Rcvisi�
STA. 606+60.20
5 PLANTING

d
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
UT 1A
STA. 700+00.00
o,
,
d \
�d
,
d \
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WII.IDI.A DS
ENGINEERIING, INC.
Ecolapical Restoration
I 5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
0' 25' 50' 75' 100' Rxldgh NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fas: 919.851.9987
(HORIZONTAL) Fum Lieeose Ne. F-0831
-e y
7
®
Date: August 31, 2011
� �
Job Number 005-02125
•b...y.�.
y
VV ---vv
Pxq- Engineer: NMM
Down By: JTL
Checked By: JµH
Revisions
t�

BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
SF 4
STA. 800+00.00
i
I
"' I 1 0' 25' 50' 75' 1 oll
\ (HORIZONTAL)
V
\L- Nj, V- V,
\L -V- V- V- �.
\L- V- V-
V, 41 V
V- _� V, V-
,-�
\I-V
V, V, V- _ _V
V- V-
�
V- �- --
� V V- V V- V V, \L- � ^\ V> `moi/ � `- V,
V-
V -
\L -V- V, V- V' �' / /- V-
V- `L
_ - —
� V- `1L
NLI
CD
W` / \\`\
ch
- - \\\yl
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WILDLANDS
ENGINEE]RIING INC.
Ecological R�toratioo
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Ruldgh NC 27607
Td: 919.851.9986
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Uceuse No. F-0831
I
C6]
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
PLANTING
4.14

WILDLANDS
` \ Services
` \ 5605 Chapel H01 Road, Sm.122
\ \ Raleigh,NC 27607
\ \ \ Tel: 91
9.85
919.851.9987
Fiem Lcevae No. F-0831
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
PM\
qll 141, NIX
J-
OD
�)
.1/ .I/ .Ili �` .1/ \I/ \ill/ O
. .
141,
Ici
<.lK \I/ -lo
.I/ \I/ \I/ N .I/ \I/ .I/
4/
\1/ 11/ ql/ //-4"/)
-i/ J/ ljl/ 1 /
// / �//
\!/ \I/ \I/ \1/ .1/ \I/ \1/ \I/
NV,, vL vL
oar: num 31, zou
lob Number 005-02125
NMM
` \\\
ons By: 7T1.
Chee By: JWH
Revisions
SIF 4A
SEE SHEET 4.17 — — ' / / 1 1 /' / I PLANTING
e b
Z — /-14, \i/ /Ij l/ / ' ,I/ 14/ \l/ �l/ \I/
4.15
I
/ I
I
\
AIN
WILDLANDS
` \ Services
` \ 5605 Chapel H01 Road, Sm.122
\ \ Raleigh,NC 27607
\ \ \ Tel: 91
9.85
919.851.9987
Fiem Lcevae No. F-0831
0' 25' 50' 75' 100'
(HORIZONTAL)
PM\
qll 141, NIX
J-
OD
�)
.1/ .I/ .Ili �` .1/ \I/ \ill/ O
. .
141,
Ici
<.lK \I/ -lo
.I/ \I/ \I/ N .I/ \I/ .I/
4/
\1/ 11/ ql/ //-4"/)
-i/ J/ ljl/ 1 /
// / �//
\!/ \I/ \I/ \1/ .1/ \I/ \1/ \I/
NV,, vL vL
oar: num 31, zou
lob Number 005-02125
NMM
` \\\
ons By: 7T1.
Chee By: JWH
Revisions
SIF 4A
SEE SHEET 4.17 — — ' / / 1 1 /' / I PLANTING
e b
Z — /-14, \i/ /Ij l/ / ' ,I/ 14/ \l/ �l/ \I/
4.15

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
WII.IDI.A DS
ENGINEE]RIING, INC.
Ecological R�toxatioo
Services
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
0' 25' 50' 75' 100' Td 91 h.85199986
Fu: 919.851.9987
(HORIZONTAL) Fa Lieeose Na. F-0831
I
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
SF 4A
j STA. 900+00.00 \ /
03
\ \
11 / `�
\ \. ` l/
d vx
-_ — — — I JIB Y ///I I — — � \
1
Date: August 31, 2011
\ \ 7 \ I / / / \ \ \ •b...y®,. Job Number 005-02125
Pmq-Enghteec: N m
Down By: JTL
Checked Ey: JWH
Revisions
-' -
PLANTING
e�
e�
Sheet
4.16

SF 4.15
SEE SHEET
k
/ -< /<
rc
I k `
l< k
�/< l</< l< /<
ILDLANDS
5605 Chapel H01 Brea, Sm.122
RA gh NC 27607
\ / Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
\ Firm Licevse No. F-0831
0' 25' 50' 75' 100
(HORIZONTAL)
WJ
b
l�
iaJ
qq�
�J
7
e�
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
Jµ7;
Revisions

y PLACE HEADER BOULDERS
1
WITH V TO 2' CLEAR SPACE
:v
BETWEEN ROCKS
FLOW
I-O—W
/ — EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
O W
SCODR
` POOL )
A >
--
p =
TOE OF SLOPE (TV
m�U
WILDLANDS
NONWOVEN
B
A'
Plan View
BACKFILL (ON-SITE
1'
NATIVE MATERIAL) 1' HEADER LOG (MIN. 12"DIA.)
NONWOVEN o FOOTER LOG (MIN. 12" DIA.)
FILTER FABRIC
CLASS A
STONE
CLASS B
STONE EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
Section C -C'
6" NATIVE GRAVEL INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE TOP OF BANK (TYP)
LARGE COBBLE p
OR BOULDER 1-
8"
8" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL
PARTS CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
Section B -B'
SWCWre Dime
H (FT) ions
x (F) x
Y(F) x
0(DEGREE) X
S(%) x
TAIL OF RIFFLE
FLOW I_
= SLOPE
t ]Log° J -Hook
6.1 Not to 6cale
— CLASS B STONE
-CLASS A STONE
BACKFILL (ON-SITE
NATIVE MATERIAL)
HEAD OF RIFFLE
OOLW
2 z
r,0
Oaw
w�N
❑Q
LL�U
� a
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATIO1
POINT PER PROFILE
HEADER LOG (MIN. 12" DIA.)
Profile A=A'
GRAVELEXTENDS Profile A -A'
UPSTREAM 5' MIN.
)Constructed Riffle with Dative Gravel - Type A
6.1 Not to Scale
FOOTER LOG (MIN. 12' DIA.)
a a
z a
"NATIVE GRAVEL
8" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL
PARTS CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
-TAIL OF RIFFLE
POOL
5' MIN.
INVERT ELEVATION TOP OF BANK (TYP)
PER PROFILE
B" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL
PARTS CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
Section B -B'
SEE PROFILE
j� FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
g'
HEAD OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE A G
I
FLO—W
LARGE COBBLE
OR BOULDER
Ow
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
BACKFILL (ON-SITE NATIVE
1
Date:
:v
A/I:
1 : •
"NATIVE GRAVEL
8" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL
PARTS CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
-TAIL OF RIFFLE
POOL
5' MIN.
INVERT ELEVATION TOP OF BANK (TYP)
PER PROFILE
B" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL
PARTS CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
Section B -B'
SEE PROFILE
j� FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
g'
HEAD OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE A G
I
FLO—W
LARGE COBBLE
OR BOULDER
Ow
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
BACKFILL (ON-SITE NATIVE
1
Date:
seat
Au 31, lou
lob N—bee:
Png-Eugineec:
MATERIAL OR NO. 57 STONE)JAI
1'I� HEADER LOG
JFL
JWH
n
\ /
��
8" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL
STREAMBED
WILDLANDS
NONWOVEN
FOOTER LOG
ENGINEERING, IN
FILTER FABRIC
Ecological axon
S(%) X
Services
5605 Chapel H01 Road, Sm.122
CLASS A
Raldgh• NC 27607
Td 919.851.9986
STONE
b
�
Fas. 919.851.9987
Fum Lcevae No. F-0831
CLASS B STONE
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
�
STABILIZE VANE
b
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
b
C)
U
WITH ONE BOULDER
ON EACH SIDE
Section A -A'
INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
FLOW
qq�
�J
TOE OF
SLOPE
(TYP)
HEADER LOG
8' NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL
PARTS CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
FOOTER LOG
EXCAVATE POOL
AIL OF RIFFLE
PER PROFILE PmfltP R -R'
O C)0�C
o O 0
B
Plan View
2 �,® Vane
6.1 Not to Scale
5'
HEAD OF
6" NATIVE GRAVEL
A' POOL m
O j Profile A -A'
F w GRAVELEXTENDS
O a w UPSTREAM 5' MIN.
w�N
0
LL�U
a
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
- POINT PER PROFILE
Structure Dimensions
F�
+_4
®
��7
Date:
seat
Au 31, lou
lob N—bee:
Png-Eugineec:
H (FT)
D. By:
Checked By:
JFL
JWH
n
\ /
��
8" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL
X(FT) X
PARTS CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
Section B -B'
Y(FT) X
0 (DEGREE) X
S(%) X
b
�
�
�
b
b
C)
U
€3
qq�
�J
8' NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL
PARTS CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
d
AIL OF RIFFLE
e�
I!QNDS=MIN.
U
PT®
6" NATIVE GRAVEL INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
= TOP OF BANK (TYP)
LARGE COBBLE p
OR BOULDER ~
a
+_4
®
��7
Date:
seat
Au 31, lou
lob N—bee:
Png-Eugineec:
005-02125
N M
D. By:
Checked By:
JFL
JWH
n
\ /
��
8" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL
Revisions
PARTS CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
Section B -B'
b
Chunky Riffle - Type lB
6.1 Not to Scale
DETAILS
e�
ery
b
Sheet
6.1
I f� }ISI
o1

5'
GLIDE
SEE PROFILE y
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
r. ':_.l FOOTER LOG (MIN. 12' DIA.)
ll
PLACE HEADER BOULDERS
WITH V1 2' CLEAR SPACE
RUN BETWEEN ROCKS
BURY INTO BANK
g
O O
B.3' MIN. (TYP)
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
\
POINT PER PROFILE\
FLOW�
\
A
OLIDE RIFFLE \
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
b
FLOW
[Y
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
OE OF SLOPE (TYP)
OE OF SLOPE (TYP)
BURY INTO BANK
5' MIN. (TYP)
U
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
S
Plan View
NOTES
1. STRUCTURES SHOULD VARY IN SIZE
AND TYPE WITHIN EACH RIFFLE.
2. LOGS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BY ROCK
AT ENGINEERS DISCRETION.
N
HEAD OF RIFFLE
A' POOLm0 Z
OWO
Ma=m
JI­�
13a
\ K
`TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATIOI
- POINT PER PROFILE
GRAVEL EXTENDS Profile A -A'
UPSTREAM 5' MIN.
6" NATIVE GRAVEL
_ 8" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL
PARTS CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
� TAIL OF RIFFLE
POOL
5' MIN.
LOG STRUCTURE EXPOSED
UNTIL CENTER OF CHANNEL
INVERT ELEVATION TOP OF BANK (TYP)
PER PROFILE
Section B -B'
Jazz Riffle Structure - Type D
6.V Not to Scale
5, SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
y A
Z
GLIDE
RIFFLE
r. ':_.l FOOTER LOG (MIN. 12' DIA.)
ll
PLACE HEADER BOULDERS
WITH V1 2' CLEAR SPACE
RUN BETWEEN ROCKS
CLASS A
g
O O
EXCAVATE POOL
STONE
PER PROFILE
'
'm F m
FLOW�
t aooLR l
STONE
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
b
[Y
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
OE OF SLOPE (TYP)
B
Plan View
$'
HEAD OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POIN-
PER PROFILE
Structure Dime
H (FT) onx
W (FT) x
x (FT) x
Y(FT) x
0(DEGREE) X
S— x
Plan View
TOP
HEAD OF RIFFLE -
OOL1n
g Z
OWO
Oaw
W
��a
IL L)
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
GRAVEL & FILTER
FABRICEXTENDS
UPSTREAM S MIN. Proffie A -A'
6" NATIVE GRAVEL
_ 8" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL
PARTS CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
r TAIL OF RIFFLE
GRAVEL & FILTER
FABRICEXTENDS
UPSTREAM 5' MIN.
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
vvivvi � ivvi�
EMBED 5'
INTO BANK
(TYP)
Section B -B'
z Constructed Riffle with BOUICICT Sifts - Type ]E
L2V Not to Scale
6" NATIVE GRAVEL
8" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL HEADER LOG (MIN. 12" DIA.)
PARTS CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
TAIL OF RIFFLE
HEAD OF RIFFLE
op
x SLOPE (S)
FOOTER LOG (MIN. 12" DIA.)
CLASS B STONE
GRAVEL EXTENDS CLASS A STONE
UPSTREAM & MIN. BACKFILL (ON-SITE NATIVE
MATERIAL OR NO. 57 STONE)
Profde A -A'
6" NATIVE GRAVEL INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE TOP OF BANK (TYP)
LARGE COBBLE p
OR BOULDER ~
8" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF EQUAL
PARTS CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
Section B -B'
(2)Constructed Riffle to J -Hook - Type C
6.2 Not to Scale
BACKFILL (ON-SITE NATIVE
MATERIAL OR NO. 57 STONE) H 1' HEADER LOG (MIN. 12" DIA.)
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC�
r. ':_.l FOOTER LOG (MIN. 12' DIA.)
ll
CLASS A
STONE
CLASS S
STONE
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
b
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
Section C=C'
ILDLANDS
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Raldgh. NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm Lic_No. F-0831
b
U
7
e�
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Protect Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
b

ROOT WAD INSTALLATION:
1. EXCAVATE A TRENCH A MINIMUM OF TWO
TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE TRUNK AND DEEP
ENOUGH SUCH THAT 9 OF THE ROOTMASS
IS BELOW THE CHANNEL BOTTOM AND THAT
A FOOTER LOG CAN BE PLACED.
2. PLACE ROOT WAD IN TRENCH, BACKFILL,
AND COMPACT.
Plan View
3"-10" BERM
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
INSTALL ROOT WAD SUCH THAT 113 OF THE ROOT WAD J
MASS IS BURIED BELOW THE CHANNEL BOTTOM (TYP) Section A -A'
Root Wad
6.3 Not to Scale
8"-10" BERM
COMPACTED SOIL
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
2'-3' LIVE WHIP MATERIAL
/\
COMPACTED SOIL
SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH
114 POOL MAX POOL
i IC 1:1-1-1 ■ u GY A 5-1-1 I
LOGS OR LARGER BRANCHES
Section A -A'
3 Brush Toe
6.3 Not to Scale
CHANNEL
EO
05
0
z
A
FLOW
ti� ABAND NED /
CHANNNEL_\ /
AS SHOWN N ON PLANS I
Plan View A
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
BRUSH TOE PROTECTION OR -
OTHER BANK PROTECTION
PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
Section A -A'
SELECT MATERIAL
- CHANNEL BACKFILL
ABANDONED
CHANNEL
ASSHOWN
ON PLANS
PROPOSED CHANNEL '9
COMPACTED
SELECT MATERIAL
Plan View B I ABANDONED
=I CHANNEL
III 9,
NOTE:
1. COMPACTED SELECT MATERIAL SHALL BEA SUBSURFACE CLAY MATERIAL. THIS MATERIAL
SHALL BE COMPACTED INTO THE EXISTING CHANNEL AS DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER
TO CREATE AN IMPERVIOUS PLUG AFTER WATER IS TURNED INTO THE NEW CHANNEL.
2 Channel Plug
63 Not to Scale
BANKFULL BENCH
r r
r
HEADER LOG
EMBED LOG _ SILL ELEVATION FOOTER LOG
5' (MIN.) PER PROFILE (TYP)
Section B -B'
h ]Lo Snll
\,t,_3/Not to Scale
k2w
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Ruldgh. NC 27607
Td: 919.851.9986
Fas: 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
b
TOP OF
ELEVATION
NOTES:
b
PER PROFILE
1. OVER -EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL, LAY
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)
� �
b
F
BACKFILL WITH ON-SITE
HEADER LOG
LARGER LOGS AND BRANCHES IN A CRISS-CROSS FASHION,
u
kd
YP)
NATIVE MATERIAL
LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING V-2' OF THE LARGER LOGS.
A
A
STREAMBED
2. LAY SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER LARGER LOGS,
1.5 TIMES
7
NONWOVENi
POOL
PRESS TIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL TO LOCK IN PLACE.
FLOW
tBANKFULL
FILTER FABRICBANKFULL
e�
WIDTH
r
3. LAY LIVE WHIP MATERIAL OVER SOIL COVERING SMALLER
Q
BRANCH MATERIAL AND COVER WITH SOIL.
��,
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
FOOTER LOG
4. LAY EROSION CONTROL MATTING OVER SOIL COVERING LIVE
005-02125
Protect Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
l
Checked By:
WHIP MATERIAL WITH 112 OF LENGTH OF MATTING EXTENDING
Revisions
INTO CHANNEL. PLACE SOIL OVER MATTING TO A HEIGHT OF
6" - 10" ABOVE TOP OF BANK ELEVATION. WRAP EROSION
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
CONTROL MATTING OVER SOIL LAYER AND STAKE IN PLACE
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
ACCORDING TO EROSION CONTROL MATTING DETAIL.
B
Plan View
Profile A -A'
BANKFULL BENCH
r r
r
HEADER LOG
EMBED LOG _ SILL ELEVATION FOOTER LOG
5' (MIN.) PER PROFILE (TYP)
Section B -B'
h ]Lo Snll
\,t,_3/Not to Scale
k2w
ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
5605 Chapel H01 Ruad, Suite 122
Ruldgh. NC 27607
Td: 919.851.9986
Fas: 919.851.9987
Firm License No. F-0831
DETAILS
eb
b
Sheet /Q
6.3
b
� �
b
b C)
€3
u
kd
7
dd
�J
e�
®
Date:
August 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Protect Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JTL
l
Checked By:
JµH
Revisions
b
DETAILS
eb
b
Sheet /Q
6.3

BUFFER REST
1 Ephemeral l ]Pooll
6.4 Not to Scale
3OIL
IS AND BRUSH
TOE OF
Section View
VARIES
PER PLAN
B
6" NORMAL THICKNESS
WELL GRADED MIXTURE
OF CLASS A AND
CLASS B STONE.
C
Sl"VIL3U 1. Sl"VILilll.
X X
SYMB01.
s ]Erosion Control Mattie
(n.4 Not to Scale
VARIES
Y PER PLAN
—A
ww
r tr
�z
=g
O
C ww
A'
Plan View
1.5' TO 2' HIGH EARTH BERM
�THICK"D MIXTURE OF
STONE.
I—LENGTH VARIES
SEE PLAN SHEETS
Section A -A'
B'
6" THICK WELL GRADED MIXTURE OF
CLASS A AND CLASS B STONE
Y
/ SW cture D me
NONWOVEN / =(FT)xsion
FILTER FABRIC Section C -C'
BERM
Y
X
6" THICK WELL GRADEDMIXTURE OF NONWOVEN
CLASS AAND CLASS B STONE. FILTER FABRIC
Section B -B'
Drainage Berm
6.4 Not to Scale
MATTING FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO
MINIMUM 2' BEYOND BANKFULL BENCH
NOTES:
1. MATTING SHALL BE PLACED ON BOTH BANKS
ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE CHANNEL,
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF POINT BARS.
ILDLANDS
5605 Chapel H01 Raad, Smw 122 I
Raldgh NC 27607
Td: 919.851.9986
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm '_ No. F-0831
6" MIN. OVERLAP IN
2"
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION
AT MAT ENDS
ti
STAKE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK
3 M,.
SpgCltVG
Sb
c
� �
b
b C)
f�
u
TOE OF SLOPE
Plan View
Tical StakeStake
7
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING (TYP)
TOP OF BANK
SECURE MATTING IN
6" DEEP TRENCH
STAKE (TYP)
.
TOE OF
Section View
VARIES
PER PLAN
B
6" NORMAL THICKNESS
WELL GRADED MIXTURE
OF CLASS A AND
CLASS B STONE.
C
Sl"VIL3U 1. Sl"VILilll.
X X
SYMB01.
s ]Erosion Control Mattie
(n.4 Not to Scale
VARIES
Y PER PLAN
—A
ww
r tr
�z
=g
O
C ww
A'
Plan View
1.5' TO 2' HIGH EARTH BERM
�THICK"D MIXTURE OF
STONE.
I—LENGTH VARIES
SEE PLAN SHEETS
Section A -A'
B'
6" THICK WELL GRADED MIXTURE OF
CLASS A AND CLASS B STONE
Y
/ SW cture D me
NONWOVEN / =(FT)xsion
FILTER FABRIC Section C -C'
BERM
Y
X
6" THICK WELL GRADEDMIXTURE OF NONWOVEN
CLASS AAND CLASS B STONE. FILTER FABRIC
Section B -B'
Drainage Berm
6.4 Not to Scale
MATTING FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO
MINIMUM 2' BEYOND BANKFULL BENCH
NOTES:
1. MATTING SHALL BE PLACED ON BOTH BANKS
ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE CHANNEL,
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF POINT BARS.
ILDLANDS
5605 Chapel H01 Raad, Smw 122 I
Raldgh NC 27607
Td: 919.851.9986
Fu: 919.851.9987
Firm '_ No. F-0831
6.4
Sb
� �
b
b C)
f�
u
7
e�
®
Date:
Auguat 31, 2011
Job Number
005-02125
Project Engineer:
NMM
Down By:
JT—
Checked By:
)WH
Revisions
/yam
6.4

BUFFER WIDTH
VARIES
DIBBLE BAR
WILD LANDS
ENGINEERING
BANKFULL
5
BLADEIWITHAA
TRIANGULARA
NOTES:
a�
CROSS-SECTION,
AND SHALL BE
RESTORED
121NCHES LONG, 4INCHES WIDE
1. ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFER
WILDLANDS
CHANNEL Ali i
iii
lij AND1INCHTHICKATCENTER.
PLANTING AREA SHALL BE DISKED,
ENGINEERING, INC.
'' — - - — _g
— _ � � � � � /� �
�Y Y��
AS REQUIRED, PRIOR TO PLANTING.
Ecological Restoxat�on
i
2. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROPERLY
Services
�i�✓ �i i�
��i ��
HANDLED PRIOR TOI. NSTALLATION
5605Chspel Hal Rd, Smw 122
i r
ROOTING PRUNING
TO INSURE SURVIVAL
Rala'gh. NC 27607
SPACING PER
ALL ROOTS SHALL BE PRUNED
Ta: 919.851.9986
Fu: 919.851.9987
PLANTING PLAN
TO AN APPORIATE LENGTH TO
Fa License Na. F-0831
Section View
PREVENT J -ROOTING.
O
O
O
O
O O
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR
PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN
SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE
SHOVEL, SEVERAL INCHES
SHOVEL, DOWN TO THE
TO CLOSE THE BOTTOM OF SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND FIRM
INTO THE SOIL TO THE
SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP INTO
IN FRONT OF THE
FULL DEPTH OF THE
THE PLANTING HOLD. THEN UP THE OPENING WITH YOUR
FULL DEPTH OF THE
THE PLANTING HOLE. PULL
SEEDLING AND PUSH THE
BLADE.
PUSH FORWARD TO CLOSE HEEL. BE CAREFUL TO AVOID
BLADE AND PULL BACK ON
THE SEEDLING BACK UP TO
BLADE HALFWAY INTO THE
THE TOP, ELIMINATING AIR DAMAGING THE SEEDLING.
THE HANDLE TO OPEN
THE CORRECT PLANTING
SOIL. TWIST AND PUSH
POCKETS AROUND THE
THE PLANTING HOLE. (DO
DEPTH (THE ROOT COLLAR
THE HANDLE FORWARD TO
ROOT.
NOT ROCK THE SHOVEL
SHOULD BE 1 TO 3 INCHES
CLOSE THE TOP OF THE
BACK AND FORTH AS THIS
BELOW THE SOIL SURFACE).
SLIT TO HOLD THE
CAUSES SOIL IN THE
GENTLY SHAKE THE
SEEDLING IN PLACE.
PLANTING HOLE TO BE
SEEDLING TO ALLOW THE
COMPACTED, INHIBITING
ROOTS TO STRAIGHTEN OUT.
ROOT GROWTH.
DO NOT TWIST OR SPIN THE
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE
ROOTS J -ROOTED.
]Barre
Root Plzntin
6.5
Not to Scale
b
� � b
b
SYMBOL
00000
00000
�
�
Fa
�+
00000
�
kotypl
gd
2A
EROSION CONTROL
e�
$
Maxi
MATTING
(SEE DETAIL)
TRANSPLANTED
SOD AND ROOTMASS
TOP OF BANK
STAPLE
LIVE STAKE (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE
1, TOP OF BANK TRANSPLANTED
SOD AND ROOTMASS
TOP OF BANK
��NNN
TOE OF SLOPE
In
Section View
BASEFLOW ELEVATION
FLOW
gs., CHANNEL BED
0
va~i m
Section View
TOE OF SLOPE
LIVE STAKE (TYP) TOP OF BANK
p
an View
Typical Plain
DIAMETER
w
0 X
NOTES:
L A k A.1.
k A A
~
PREPARE THE BANK WHERE THE SOD MAT WILL BE
TRANSPLANTED BY RAKING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.
1"
ug31,2011
D— Asn
Iob Number 0 0 5-0 2125
Proj-E„gh — N M
Live Stake Detail
A d
y.-0
2. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT SOD MATS WITH A WIDE BUCKET AND AS A"
,'
M UCH ADDITIONAL SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE.
�-d
oD.B L
3. PLACE TRANSPLANT ON THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED.
0
cheetea Ey: ,lwt-t
4. SECURE WITH SOD STAPLES.
Revisions
?q,to 3
5. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT. d
TOE OF SLOPE
Plan View
6. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
7. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT THEY
=
b
TOUCH.
NOTE:
1. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS AS
T y,� �t�7
PLANTING LA TI G
SHOWN ON PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE
ENGINEER.
Typical Staplc
e
DETAILS
DETAILS
e�
Shea
Staking
TIIaCIlS l�l�nted Sod Mats
2]Live
3
6.5 Not to Scale
6.6 Not to Scale
a