20110766 Ver 1_Mitigation Closeout Report_20170526

i:i01i;1►. �.
STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
DMS Project # 94642
USACE ACTION ID # SAW-2010-01918
DWQ 401# 11-0766
CLOSEOUT REPORT: STREAM AND WETLAND
Project Setting & Classifications
Meeting XY Coordinates:
35.93291,-81.20723)
County
Alexander
General Location
Taylorsville
Basin:
Catawba
Physiographic Region:
Northern Inner Piedmont
Ecoregion:
Carolina Slate Belt
USGS Hydro Unit:
03050101120030
NCDWQ Sub -basin:
03-08-32
Wetland Classification
Riparian/Non-Riparian
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Project Performers
Source Agency:
NC DMS
Provider:
Restoration Systems LLC
Designer:
Axiom Environmental Inc.
Monitoring Firm
Axiom Environmental Inc.
Channel Remediation
Land Mechanic Designs
Plant remediation
Carolina Silvics
Approved for transfer to
Stewardship
Yes
Stewards
NCDEQ Stewardship
Proiect Actives and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Project Instituted
07/2010
Permitted
10/2011
Construction and Planting Completed
03/2012
As -built survey
06/2012
Invasive Plant and Beaver Control
Ongoing
Monitoring Year-1
10/2012
Monitoring Year-2
11/2013
Supplemental Planting
Winter 2013/2014
Monitoring Year-3
01/2015
Monitoring Year-4
12/2015
Monitoring Year-5
12/2016
Closeout Submission
04/2017

Watershed Planning Summar
The Herman Dairy Farm stream and wetland restoration project is located in within HUC 03050101120030, the Lower Little
River, including Muddy Fork watershed, which is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the 2009 Upper Catawba
River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan. Currently, this is the only DMS project in this TLW.
Following the publication of the 2009 RBRP, Muddy Fork was identified on the 2010 NC Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) 303d Impaired Waters list as exceeding criteria for benthic bioclassification scores. Muddy Fork drains to the
Lower Little River less than one mile downstream of the project. This portion of the Lower Little River has been listed an
NC 303(d) impaired water since 2004, due to declines in fish and benthic bioclassification scores.
The 2009 RBRP indicates that major aquatic stressors to the Lower Little River may be attributed to degraded or nonexistent
buffers and sediment inputs from unstable streambanks, in -stream sediment mining ("sand dipping") and agricultural
practices. It notes that the Lower Little River, including Muddy Fork watershed contains 41 percent agricultural land cover,
and includes 50 permitted animal operations (the most of any TLW in the upper Catawba). Thirty percent of its riparian
buffers are non -forested and the built-up areas around the town of Taylorsville contribute to an overall watershed
imperviousness of 2.4 percent. Goals established in the 2009 RBRP for the Upper Catawba include: (1) restoration of
nutrient- and sediment -impaired waters (including tributary streams such as the Lower Little River) of the water supply
reservoirs along the Catawba River; (2) protection of riparian buffers and aquatic habitat within headwater reaches; and (3)
implementation of agricultural BMPs within heavily agricultural sub -watersheds of TLWs.
The goals of the Herman Dairy Farm project are consistent with DMS watershed planning goals. The project removes
nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural production through agricultural BMPs which include changes to
fertilizer application practices and the establishment of riparian buffers along Muddy Fork and several headwater tributaries.
It also reduces sediment loads to onsite receiving waters by stabilizing stream banks, and reduces sediment loads to
downstream receiving waters by increasing onsite sediment and floodwater storage through re-establishment of proper
channel planform geometry and adjacent riparian wetlands.
Proiect Settiniz and Background Summary
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site) located
approximately 1.5 miles northwest of Taylorsville, in central Alexander County within 14-digit Cataloging Unit andTargeted
Local Watershed 03050101120030 of the Catawba River Basin. The Site encompasses 31.12 acres of land previously used
for agricultural row crop production and the spray application of sludge from a lagoon associated with a dairy cattle operation.
The Site was identified to assist the Department of Mitigation Services (DMS) in meeting its stream and wetland
restoration goals.
The Site is located on tributaries to Muddy Fork, which has been assigned Stream Index Number 11-69-4, a Best Usage
Classification of C, and is Fully Supporting its intended uses (NCDWQ 2010b). Site streams are listed on the NCDWQ final
2010 Section 303(d) list of impaired streams in the state due to declines in the ecological and biological integrity of benthic
communities and aquatic life (NCDWQ 2010a).
This project is located within a Targeted Local Watershed that has been identified for of stream and buffer restoration
opportunities (NCEEP 2009). Existing Site streams are impaired as indicated by declines in fish and benthic bioclassification
scores resulting from degraded or nonexistent buffers and sediment inputs from unstable streambanks, in -stream sediment
mining, and agricultural practices (NCEEP 2009, NCDWQ 2010a).
Construction and planting of the site were completed in March of 2012, with the first year monitoring data collected seven
months later during October of that year. There were changes in asset credits from the Mitigation Plan to the As -built Report.
This was due to the ecologically driven decision during construction of using an existing valley on UT 2 to support a braided
channel and not building a designed channel and excavated valley in an inappropriate location. Also the non -riparian wetland
credit was increased by .05 credits due to a slightly larger area meeting success criteria. The replanting was tied to this fact as
well, with several areas becoming unsuitable for the originally planted species due to the levels of soil moisture, and thus needed
to be replaced with better suited species.

Overall the stream and wetlands are functioning as designed, and no areas of concern have been observed and reported.
Throughout the monitoring period, UT 1 has received a significant about of fine sediment deposition as the result of upstream
land uses, which include livestock pastures, dairy operations, and cleared riparian bffers. Several beaver dams wer observed
along UT 1 throughout the monitoring period causing this fine sediment to deposit in the stream bed and banks. This aggradation
is noticable in most of the cross sestions on UT (cross sections 1-10), and the dominant streambed substrate in UT now
appears to be sand. Though some banks have built up slightly and the stream bed shows some aggradation, mainly in pools, the
stream is stable, and less beaver activity has been observed in the past year.
Also, all permit conditions have been satisfied and fulfilled as laid out in the attached permits included at the end of
this report.
Goals and Objectives:
The primary goals and objectives of this stream and wetland restoration project focused on improving water
quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring wildlife habitat and will be accomplished by the following.
Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural production including a)
cessation of broadcasting sludge, fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into and
adjacent to Site streams/wetlands and b) restoration of a forested riparian buffer adjacent to streams
and wetlands to treat surface runoff.
2. Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters through a) reduction of
bank erosion, vegetation maintenance, and plowing to Site streams and wetlands and b) restoration
of a forested riparian buffer adjacent to Site streams and wetlands.
3. Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment loads by
restoring stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by natural in -stream habitat and
grade/bank stabilization structures.
4. Promoting floodwater attenuation by a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the abandoned
floodplain, b) restoring secondary, entrenched tributaries thereby reducing floodwater velocities
within smaller catchment basins, c) restoring depressional floodplain wetlands to increase the
floodwater storage capacity within the Site, and d) revegetating Site floodplains to increase frictional
resistance on floodwaters crossing Site floodplains.
S. Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability and the use of in -stream structures.
6. Providing a terrestrial wildlife corridor and refuge in an area extensively developed for agricultural
production.
7. Restoring and reestablishing natural community structure, habitat diversity, and functional
continuity.
8. Enhancing and protecting the Site's full potential of stream and wetland functions and values in perpetuity.

Success Criteria
Measured Parameter
Criteria Met
Saturation or inundation for 7.5 percent of the growing season monitored through
the use of 10 gauges throughout the wetlands.
Yes
Hydrology Success Criteria
Successful classification of the reach as a functioning stream system and channel
variables indicative of a stable stream system. The channel profile will be measured
Stream Success Criteria
on 3000 linear feet of stream and 20 cross -sections (10 pool/10 rifle) on an annual
Yes
basis in order to track changes in channel geometry, profile, or substrate.
A minimum of two bankfull events over the course of the monitoring to demonstrate
connectivity with formerly abandoned floodplain.
Bankfull Success Criteria
Yes
An average density of 320 stems per acre of living, planted stems must be
Vegetation Success Criteria
surviving in the first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 260 living, planted
Yes
stems per acre must be surviving in year 5. 10 veg plots were monitored
throughout the site. March 20-November 9 (235 days) was determinded to
be the growing season for the site (USDA 1995).

Asset Table
Table 1. Project Restoration Components
Herman Dairy Restoration Site
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Ri arianWetland
Nonri arianWetland
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration RestorationE uivalent
4780
0
6.9
1.1
1.2 0.05
Pro'ectsCom onents
Existing Linear
Priority
Restoration/
Restoration
Mitigation
Station Range
Footage/
Approach
Restoration
Restoration
LinearFootage/
Ratio
Comment
Acreage
Equivalent
Acreage
UTl 10+00-31+67.8*
UT1A 10+00-10+85.71
I
Restoration
3997
1:1
Priority I stream restoration through construction of
UT2 10+00-16+69.04, 21+50.67-27+10.09
stable channel at the historic floodplain elevation.
UT3 10+00-17+28.39
4540
UT2 16+69.04-21+50.67
Braided stream restoration by redirecting diffuse flow
UT3 upper 81.10 linear feet
--
Restoration
563
1:1
across riparian wetlands. Linear footage of stream is
based on a straight line valley distance.
Level I stream enhancement by altering profile and
UT1 upper 330.00 linear feet
330
Level I
Enhancement
330
1.5:1
dimension, cessation of current land use practices,
removing invasive species, and planting with native
forest vegetation.
Restoration of riparian wetlands within the floodplain
Riparian Wetlands
0
--
Restoration
6.9
1:1
as the result of stream restoration activities, filling
abandoned channels and ditches, removing spoil
castings, and planting with native forest vegetation.
Enhancement of existing riparian wetlands
Riparian Wetlands
2.2
--
Enhancement
2.2
2:1
characterized by disturbed pasture by planting with
native forest vegetation.
Restoration of nonriparian wetlands by removing spoil
Nonriparian Wetlands
0
--
Restoration
1.2
1:1
castings, filling abandoned ditches to rehydrate hydric
soils along the slope, eliminating land use practices,
and planting with native forest vegetation.
Enhancement of existing nonriparian wetlands
Nonriparian Wetlands
0.1
--
Enhancement
0.1
2:1
characterized by disturbed pasture by planting with
native forest vegetation.
Com onentSummation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acreage)
Nonriparian Wetland (acreage)
Restoration
4560
6.9
1.2
Enhancement Level 1
330
--
--
Enhancement
--
2.2
0.05
Totals
4890
9.1
1.25
Mitigation Units
4780 SMUs
8.0 Riparian WMUs
1.25 Nonriparian WMUs
*Restoration linear footage excludes 145.76 linear feet of stream located within the utility easement and 67.79 linear feet of stream located within a culverted crossing,
which are both excluded from the easement.

rV }:
Legend
C3Easement Boundary (Not Fenced)
^ft— Stream Restoration - 3397 ft
Braided Stream Restoration - 563 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 1)- 330 ft
QIn -stream Structures
NCWAM Wetland Types
Bottomland Hardwood Forest - 2.0 ac
Feet
2014 CGIA leaf -off aerial photography 70 150 300 600 900
Dwn. By: FIGURE
Axiom Environmental HERMAN DAIRY KRJ
�. 218 Snow Avenue STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603 ASSET MAP Apr. 2017 2
' [phone] Alexander County, North Carolina Project:
,.,gym En,noen ", 10-001

Feet 4i. r
0 100 200 400 600
2014 CGIA leaf -off aerial photography t
•Y
a a
r.
Legend
C3Easement Boundary (Not Fenced)
^- Stream Restoration - 3997 ft
Braided Stream Restoration - 563 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 1)- 330 ft
Riparian Wetland Restoration - 6.9 ac
- Riparian Wetland Enhancenment- 2.2 ac
Nonriparian Wetland Restoration - 1.2 ac
Nonriparian Wetland Enhancement - 0.1 ac
O In -stream Structures
Cross -sections
CVS Plots
OGroundwater Gauges
Photo Points
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Stations
Crest Gauge
Invasives Treatment Area
Power Line
Terracell
Fm
Start Profile
Tributary 1
y ... 10.
1 O' >; End Profile
I
9 Tributary 1
a 8 Q
11-01,
dlRs
_ 6
4
Pipe Crossing
1
Dwn. By: FIGURE
^� Axiom Environmental HERMAN DAIRY KRJ/CLF
218 Snow Avenue STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date: /�
Raleigh, NC 27603 ASSET MAP Apr. 2017 2/`1
[phone]
Alexander County, North Carolina Project:
10-001

Legend
.t. _" ; % .. 7 ••.i �.. .I'-� b '--• •� Easement Boundary (Not Fenced)
-:'.'^ Stream Restoration -3997 ft
-'q-.t Braided Stream Restoration -563 ft
r..
'y •� -�: Stream Enhancement( Level 1)-330ft
TF r �• .1-; y'j -�' - =r�. Riparian Wetland Restoration - 6.9 ac
...� .. -r '•.. . ...i�. .;�,+�'.i; ,�:r., , ., :. •s
Riparian WetlandEn ancenment -22ac
- � . :•�. . K Nonriparian Wetland Restoration - 1.2 ac
may,; - :•r „� - C ::.. - _ - - - _ - Nonriparian Wetland Enhancement-0.1 ac
• •�;ya ti! O In -stream Structures
Cross -sections
CVS Plots
1 j
��': ® - :. .; ,�F1 • GmundwaterGauges
- Photo Points
® •Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Stations
- •`. �. _
.:tip! Crest Gauge
Pipe CrossingEnd Profile C3 Invasives Treatment Area
Tributary 2 Power Line
- Terracell
5� ® 16
14
13
11
3 End Profile -
�a Tributary 3
.010
17
Start Profile
-
t .. .0 Tributary 2 a,�. `
'1%, Start Profile
Tributary 3 ,
2014 CGIA leaf -off aerial photography Feet
0 125 250 500 750
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
r. [phone]
Dwn. By:
KRJ/CLF FIGURE
Date:
Apr. 2017 2 R
Project: V
10-001

N � r � iR r r.� � � : •.r
IL
�I{I J V I ` � � ■
JIB--_-_�,- ,� ��❑ i tt
oil
y 4 1 �� � 1�{� f ��d �` ■
f�r� •L J■ n �!r w ■
y
4 '
Legend f,
QHerman Dairy Site
4,
Primary Drainage Area = 1.0 sq. mi. _ '�-
0 Secondary Drainage Area = 0.1 sq. mi. 0 0.050.1 0.2 0.3 0.4�J
Miles
4
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
HERMAN DAIRY
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Dwn. By: WGL
FIGURE
3A
Date:
Jan 2011
Project:
10-016
[phone]
TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE AREA
Alexander County, North Carolina

D2
FcD2
Legend
C3Easement Boundary
•i•
'P''- Site Streams
;,r PfB NRCS Soil Boundaries
FcD2
i
FcD2
FC
Map Symbol Soil Series Description
This series consists of nearly level, somewhat poorly drained
-
CoA Codurus loam soils on floodplains that are frequently flooded. The seasonal
high water table occurs at a depth of 0.5-2.0 feet.
This series consists of well -drained, moderately permeable soils
PfB
DaA Dan River and Comus soils on floodplains with 0-4 percent slopes. The seasonal high water
table occurs at a depth of more than 2.5-5 feet.
This series consists of nearly level, poorly drained soils ur
HaA Hatboro loam floodplain depressions that are frequently flooded. The seasonal
high water table occurs at the surface to a depth of 1 foot.
'
This series consists of well -drained soils on stream terraces with
PfB Pfafftown sandy loam 2-6 percent slopes. The seasonal high water table occurs at a
depth of more than 4 feet.
10
FcC2 �
3
PfB
H
HaA
S
Tributary -
DaA
FcC2
DpB2 FcC2
Feet
F014 CGIA leaf -off aerial photography DpB2 0 150 300 600 900
FcC2 Fct:z
FIGURE
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
HERMAN DAIRY
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Dwn. By:
KRJ
Date:
Raleigh, NC27603
SOILS MAP
Apr.2017
3
[phone]
Alexander County, North Carolina
Project:
10-0011

1101 HAYNES ST, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NC27604
EDRESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
SCALE: 1 inch = 375 feet
DATE: September-2013
N
Herman Dairy Stream &Wetland Mitigaiton Site
Remediation Map -Invasive Species Treatment Areas
PHONE: [phone]
PROJECT: Herman Dairy
FAX: [phone]
Figure indicates areas in need of invasive
species treatment, also indicates ares
where 3. al replanting will take lace.
g p g p
Aerial Imagery USGS Topographical Map
COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 INC FEET
—
This map and all data container within are supplied se is with no warranty. Resmrsdon systems, LLc-preasiy
disclaims reap —runty for damage. or liability from any claims that may a rise out of the ua or I.u:e fmm any claims
that may arise not of the uas or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on
this map is compatible with the uses needs. This map was nut created as survey data, nor should it be naed es such.
It Is the users responsibility to obtain proper survey data, prepared by a licensed surveyor, where required by law.

Herman Dari (tributary 1) Year 5 Profile - Reach 00+00 to 10+00
103.0
101.0
T
99.0
L
L
A
d
108.0
107.0
106.0
.L 105.0
a
m
104.0
O
m 103.0
w
102.0
101.0
l00 0
Terracell
Piped Crossing
Dairy ("tributary 1) Year 5 Profile -Reach 10+00 to 21+08
�
Log Vane
aS.
Log V
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Distance (feet)
Bed As -built 3/21/12 +Yar 1(2012) Bed tYar 2 (2013) Bed-+t-Year 3 (2014) Bed -4*-Year 4 (2015) Bed tYar 5 (2016) Bed —Year 5 (2016) Water Surface

Herman Darry (Tributary 2) Year 5 Profile - Reach 00+00 to 10+00
102.0
101.5
d
a
101.0
M
100.5
a
o
N
a 100.0
0
R
^
V..
d 99.5
O �
o
o
�
U
r 99.0
�
a
o
W
U
98.5
98.0
97.5
97.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (feet)
—aed A,-Luill 3/21/12 +year 1 (2012) Ifed Year 2 (2013) aed —Year 3 (2014) 1" +-1'evr 4 (2U75) uw —3-1'e 5 (2()16) 11ed fear 5 (2016) \\ vler Su face
106.0
105.0
104.0
102.0
w
w 100.0
99.0
98.0
1000
Herman Dairy (Tributary 2) Year 5 Profile - Reach 10+00 to 16+96
Log Vane
Log Vane
Log Sill
Old
a
a
a
o
g
fn
o
y
O
fN�
v
N
Braided Reach U
y
0
U
1100 1200
—Bed As -built 3/21/12 -*--Year 1(2012) Bed -*-Year 2 (2013) Bed
1300
-)(-Year 3 (2014) Bed
1400
-*-Year 4 (2015) Bed
1500
+Year 5 (2016) Bed
1600
—Year 5 (2016) Water Surface
1700

Herman Dariy (Tributary 3) Year 5 Profile - Reach 00+00 to 07+43
102.0
101.0
100.0
ry
99.0
a
d
'e=
98.0
w
Terracell

Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS - 1, Pool)
101
100
99 Aa-Bm]M/3/12
MY-olzol2
MY-022013
98
Mxo3zola
MY-042015
97 MY-052016
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 (XS - 2, Riffle)
102
101
1 100 � Bsnkfue
SKale
. FlaodP. Aree
W
Aa-Built4/3/12
WY l2012
MY-022013
MY-032014
98 50
MY-0a2015
20 30 40 60
Station (feet) mmmll— M-52016

Herman Dairy Tributary 1 (XS - 3, Riffle)
105
104
]03
=
Flood Prone Ares
5
As-5uilt4/3/12
Ar//
MY-012012
02
MY-022013
MY-032014
101
MY-042015
0
10 20 30
40
50 MY_052016 160
Station (feet)
104
102
5
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 (XS - 4, Pool)
B.kfull
- Flood Prone Arcs
As -Built 4/3/12
MY-012012
MY-022013
MY-0320M
MY-042015
MY-052016
u 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (feet)

Herman Dairy Tributary 11 (XS - 6, Pool)
105
104
� BaNcfull
FI,WProae Area
5
MY-012012
WY 22013
MY-032014
MY-042015
101
MY-052016
0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 110
Sdatlon (feet)

107
106
105
104
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS - 7, Riffle)
� eaNcfull
FIoWProne
As-Built4/3/12
MY-012012
MY-022013
MY-032014
Y� MY-042015
MY-052016
20 30 40 � 60
Station (feet)
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 (XS - 8, Pool)
107
106
� Baok6,n
105
- P.dPron¢Area
Ae-Built 4/3/12
104
WY l2012
MY-022013
103
MY-o3zo14
MY.42015
102
000w� MYA52016
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 IMso
Station NO

Herman Dairy Tributary 1 (XS - 9, Pool)
108
107
� a�ruo
F1-dProne Arw
106
a�eom annz
� nav-otzmz
105 MY-022013
MY-032014
� MY-042015
104
nav-os zot6
0 5 10 IS 20 25 30 35
S=on (feet)

99
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 (XS - 11, Riffle)
99
99
99 '
99
98
98
20
114
- MY_042 I,
MY-062016
5 -
98
w 98
98
98
98
0 10
Stohon (feet)

Herman Dairy Tributary 2 (XS -13, Riffle)
100
100
99
99
5
99
�
99
99
0
10
20
! MY-042015
Station Net)
� MY-052016
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS -14, Pool)
104
103
103
103
5
103
Banen,u
Flood Prone Area
103
102
A,-Bui1W3/12
i MY-012012
102
MY-022013
- MY-032014
0 10
MY-042015
20
Station (feet)-MY-052016

Herman Dairy Tributary 2 (XS -16, Pool)
105
105
105
104
104
BaN:full
Flood Prone Area
`V
104
Ae-Built 6/3/1]
104
= MY-012012
MY-022013
MY-032014
104
03
MY-042015
0 10
20
Station (feet)
MY-052016

101
Herman Dairy Tributary 3 (XS - 18, Poop
101
101
100
-�
5
W
100
100
100
100
99
99
0
..kfull
Flood Prone Area
Ae-Builr4/3I12
MY-012012
MY-022013
W 032014
- MY-042015
�� MY-052016
10 20
SYahon U et)

Herman Dairy Tributary 3 ( XS - 19, Pool)
101
101
101
—
100
100
Ra 11
5
100
FlaodProne Area
.^
6g
w
100
Ae-Built4M2
Mv-a1z012
100
MY-022013
99
MY-032014
99
MY-04201s
10 20
0
} My-0s2me
Rahon (feet)
Herman Dairy Tributary 3 (XS - 20, Riffle)
102
101
101
101
101
5
101
w
100
100
22013
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Mv-o41z8ou 20
SYad- (feet)
MY-052016

Stream Morphology Data: Cross sections, Longitudinal Profiles, and Morphology
Note: As per NCDMS guidance, bankfull cross sectional area is calculated using a fixed elevation. Therefore, bankfull maximum depth and low bank
height are measured from the fixed elevation to the bottom of the thalweg. Given the fixed nature of bankfull, both values of bankfull maximum depth
and low bank height fluctuate at the same amount, resulting in a bank height ratio that does not change dramatically from year to year.
Table 11A. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 1 Pool (UT 1)
Cross Section 2 Riffle (UT 1)
Cross Section 3 Riffle (UT 1)
Cross Section 4 Pool (UT 1) MY5
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2
1AY3
4Y4
4Y5 IMYO
MY1
IV1712
M13
MY4
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
4
dY5
Y 0 MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
NlY5
BF Width (ft) 20.9 Foodproi
e Width
19.6
18.1
24.8
20.9
26.7
16.9
17.1
17.4
18.2
17.2
17.5
16.4
17
18.9
14
13
8.9
16.8
18.2
20.2
10.2
14
9.7
(ft
----
----
----
----
----
----
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
----
----
----
----
----
---
BF Cross Sectional Area ( 2)
19.9
18.9
17.4
17.4
14.8
14.2
16.3
16
14.9
14
11
9.3
16.7
17
17.5
10
7.9
8.3
14.4
14.5
13.8
10.5
10.6
10.6
BY Mean Depth (tt
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.8
1.1
t5F max epul it
2.2
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
2.1
2.1
2.3
1.5
1.7
1.8
--
----
----
----
----
----
17.5
18.3
20.3
23.7
26.9
32.9
16.1
17.0
20.4
19.6
21.4
9.5
---- -
- ---- -
- ---- -
- ---- -
-- ---- -
-- ----
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
----
14.8
14.6
14.4
13.7
14.5
14.3
15.2
14.7
13.2
17.9
19.2
28.1
Bank Height Ra
'o ----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter O
21.7
20.4
18.8
25.6
21.6
1 27.3
17.2
17.4
17.8
18.6
17.5
18.1
16.8
17.6
19.5
14.6
13.7
9.6
17.6
19.1
21.2
10.9
14.8
10.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0
9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
1
1
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
1
0.7
1
Substrate
d50 (
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
0.4
0.4
NA
0.1
----
0.2
0.2
1 0.2
0.2
----
----
----
----
---
---
d84 (
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
15
14
1
1
----
10
4
1 1
1
----
----
----
----
----
Parameter
MY-00 (2012)
MY-01 (2012)
MY-02 (2013) Min
MY-03 (2014)
MY-04 (2015)
MY-05 (2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
IV
ax Mad
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min I
lax
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
50
lot
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
Radius of Curvature (ft)
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
tot
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
23
65
36
16
49
28
5
82
33
5
117
36
8
135
49
6
93
35
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.00%
1.50 %
0.64%
.05% 1
05 % 11.57%
0.
4% L
% 0.6
% 0.1
%
1.13%
0.37%
0.01%
1.27%
0.41 %
0.17%
1.21 %
0.56%
Pool Length (ft)
10
54
32
18
62
35
12
63
31
7
49
30
11
56
30
11
51
33
Pool Spacing (ft)
Additonat Reach Parameters
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
Valley Length (ft)
1757
1373
1525
1513
1508
1319
Channel Length (ft)
2,108
1,648
1830
1816
1809
1583
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0053
10.0045
0.0054
0.0051
10.005
0.0046
BF Slope (ft/ft)
------
------
------
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
C-4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C4/5
C4/5

Table 1113. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 5 Riffle (UT 1)
Cross Section 6 Pool (UT 1)
Cross Section 7 Riffle (UT 1)
Cross Section 8 Pool (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft
16.1
16.3
16.7
9.5
11
8.8
20
17.2
19.5
8.3
14.8
8.8
15.5
14.6
16.8
10.4
9.7
9.2
16.1
18.4
18.7
9.6
9.1
10
Floodprone Width (ft
250
250
250
250
250
250
----
----
----
----
----
----
250
250
250
250
250
250
----
----
---
--
---
BF ross Sectional Area
16.6
15.2
7.5
8.9
9.5
20.3
17.7
15
7.8
8
10.5
14
14
14.5
9.3
8
10.6
15.5
16
16
11.7
10.3
13.4
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.5
1.2
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.4
1 1.5
1 1.1
1.4
1 1.6
2.3
2.2
1 2.2
1.5
1 1.5
1.8
1 1.2
1.4
1 1.5
1 1.5
1.4
1 1.6
1.9
1 2.1
2.3
2.1
1.8
2.2
16.0
18.3
12.0
13.6
8.2
----
----
----
----
---
----
17.2
15.2
19.5
11.6
11.8
8.0
----
----
---
--
15.3
15.0
26.3
22.7
28.4
----
----
----
----
----
----
16.1
17.1
14.9
24.0
25.8
Z7.2
--
- ---
----
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
----
----
----
----
----
----
1
1
1
1
1
1
----
----
----
---
--
Welted Perimeter (ft)
16.8
16.9
17.2
10
11.8
9.6
21
18.3
20.5
9.1
15.5
10.2
15.9
15.1
17.3
11.2
10.4
10.4
16.8
19.1
19.6
10.8
10.1
11.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.8
1
1
1
0.7
0.9
0.5
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
1
0.9
0.8
..8
1.1
1
1.2
Substrate
d50(
) ----
----
----
---
---
----
----
----
----
----
---- d84 (
m)
----
----
----
---
4-
----
----
---
-- -
- --
- ---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
--- -
-
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Parameter
MY-00 (2012)
MY-01 (2012)
MY-02 (2013)
-03 (2014) MY
04 (2015)
MY-05 (2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
'lax
led N
in M
ix Mel
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
lax N
ed
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
Radius of Curvature (ft)
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
Meander Wavelength (11)
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
23
65
36
16
49
28
5
82
33
5
117
36
8
135
49
6
93
35
RiffleSlope (ft/ft)
0.00%
.50% 064%
0.
% LO
% 0.5
/o 0.14
o 1.92
0.65°
0.11%
1.13%
0.37%
0.01%
1.27%
.41% 017%
1.
1% 0.5
Pool Length (ft)
10
54
32
18
62
35
12
63
31
7
49
30
11
56
30
11
51
33
Pool Spacing (ft)
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
1341
67
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1757
1373
1525
1513
1508
1319
Channel Length (ft)
2,108
1,648
1830
1816
1809
1583
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
0.0053
0.0045
0.0054
0.0051
0.005
0.0046
BF Slope (ft/ft)
------
------
------
-----
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
C-4/5
C 4/5
C 415
C4/5
C4/5

Table 11C. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Dimension
Cross Section 9 Pool (UT 1)
Cross Section 10 Riffle (UT 1)
Cross Section 11 Riffle (UT2)
0 M1 1 MA 2 MY MY MY5 MY 0
Cross Section 12 Pool (UT2)
JMY1 hlY2 Y3 JAY4 41Y5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
Y4
YS IIYO
Yl
2 N
Y3 M
V4
5 M
BF Width (ft)
18.7
16.2
16.6
17.8
17.5
16.9
16
17
15.5
8.4
8.4
8.5
7.9
5.2
5.8
6.1
6
6.8
5.5
5.8
5.3
5.2
5.4
6.3
Floodprone Width (ft
----
----
----
----
----
----
250
250
250
250
250
250
150
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
15.7
15.4
16
12.8
13
12.4
16
15.6
13.2
8.5
8.3
8.3
2.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.5
2.3
2.1
2
2
2
2.2
BF Mean Depth (ft
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
2
2.3
2.4
2
2.1
2.1
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
Width/DepthRati
----
----
----
----
----
---
16.0
18.5
18.2
8.3
8.5
8.7
27.1
20.8
24.0
28.6
27.7
30.8
----
----
----
----
----
----
EntrenchmentRati
----
----
----
----
----
----
15.6
14.7
16.1
29.8
29.8
29.4
19.0
28.8
25.9
24.6
25.0
22.1
----
----
----
----
----
----
Bank Height Rati
----
----
----
----
----
----
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
----
----
----
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
19.5
17
17.8
19
18.8
18.2
16.5
17.6
15.9
9.1
9.1
9.5
8
5.3
5.9
6.2
6.1
6.9
5.8
6
5.5
5.4
5.6
6.5
Hydraulic Radius
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
1
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
Substrate
d50 (nun)
----
----
----
----
----
9.8
8
0.8
1.2
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
---
d84 (mm)
----
---
21
17
13
20
Parameter
MY-00 (2012)
MY-01(2012)
MY-02 (2013)
MY-03 (2014)
MY-04 (2015)
MY-05 (2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
in 44ax
Ated
Min
Max
M
d Mn
M
x M
Mir
Ma
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
Radius of Curvature (ft)
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
111
51
16
49
28
5
82
33
5
117
36
8
135
49
3
31
15
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.43%
4.80%
1.54%
0.05%
1.05 %
0.57%
.14%
.92 %
P.65%
0.11%
.13 %
.37% 0.01%
27%
.41 % 0.
0% 3.
0% 0.
8%
Pool Length (ft)
26
78
46
18
62
35
12
63
31
7
49
30
11
56
30
5
20
11
Poo1Spacing (ft)
Additonal Reach Parameters
76 176 126
50 134 67
50 134 67
50 134 67
50 134 67
50 134 67
Valley Length (ft)
1757
1373
1525
1513
1508
1279
Channel Length (ft)
2,108
1,648
1830
1816
1809
1535
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0053
0.0045
0.0054
0.0051
0.005
0.0044
BF Slope (ft/ft)
------
------
------
------
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
C-4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C4/5
C4/5

Table 111). Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 13 Riffle (UT 2)
Cross Section 14 Pool (UT 2)
Cross Section 15 Riffle (UT2)
Cross Section 16 Pool (UT2)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
6.9
7
6.3
6.5
6.6
7.8
6.6
6.8
6
5.8
6
5.7
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.1
6.8
7
5.7
7.1
5.6
3.6
5.8
5.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
2.4
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.2
1.6
1.8
2.3
2.4
2.1
1.4
1.6
1.7
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
Width/DepthRatio
19.8
32.7
23.3
24.9
27.2
35.8
----
----
----
----
----
----
21.0
21.6
21.6
42.0
28.9
27.2
----
----
----
----
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
21.7
21.4
23.8
23.1
22.7
19.2
----
----
----
----
----
----
22.1
21.7
21.7
21.1
22.1
21.4
----
----
----
----
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
----
----
----
----
----
----
1
1
1
1
1
1
----
----
----
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.1
7.2
6.5
6.7
6.8
8
6.8
7
6.3
6.1
6.2
5.9
7
7.1
7.1
7.2
7
7.2
6
7.3
6
4.1
6.3
5.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Substrate
---
24.6
26.5
24.6
21.6
----
----
24.2
23.9
22
20.3
----
----
----
----
----
----
40
48
43
38
----
45
49
45
43
----
----
----
----
----
----
Parameter
MY-00 (2012)
MY-01(2012)
MY-02 (2013)
MY-03 (20 14)
MY-04 (2015)
MY-05 (2 6)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
17
34
23
17
34
23
17
34
23
17
34
23
17
34
23
17
34
23
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11
57
17
11
57
17
11
57
17
11
57
17
11
57
17
11
57
17
Meander Wavelength (ft)
34
68
49
34
68
49
34
68
49
34
68
49
34
68
49
34
68
49
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
6
44
14
6
41
11
6
28
12
6
34
12
3
24
12
3
31
15
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.00%
1.25%
0.39%
0
3.39
0.42
0.00%
3.33%
0.42%
0.00%
2.76%
0.39%
0.00%
2.94%
0.51%
0.00%
3.50%
0.58%
Pool Length (ft)
6
32
13
7
21
11
6
21
11
4
20
10
5
37
13
5
20
11
Pool Spacing (ft)
17
46
23
17
46
23
17
46
23
17
46
23
17
46
23
50
134
67
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1413
1522
1298
1316
1314
1279
Channel Length (ft)
1,696
1,827
1557
1579
1577
1535
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.0041
0.0042
0.0043
0.0044
1 0.0044
BF Slope (ft/ft)
------
------
------
------
RosgenClassification
C/E 4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C4/5
C4/5

Table 11E. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 17 Riffle (UT 3)
Cross Section 18 Pool (UT 3)
Cross Section 19 Pool (UT3)
Cross Section 20 Riffle (UT3)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BE Width (ft)
8.5
7.7
7.7
8.5
8
8
6.2
6.2
6.5
6.5
6.4
5.9
6.8
6.5
6.4
6.2
9
7.2
9.5
7.8
7.5
7.2
7.5
7.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.1
2.6
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.8
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.4
3
3
2.9
2.7
2.9
3.4
3.2
2.3
2.6
2.4
2.8
3.1
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1 0.5
1
1.1
1
1
1
1
0.9
1
0.9
1 0.9
0.9
1
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
23.3
22.8
22.0
24.9
23.7
22.9
----
----
----M
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
28.2
26.5
21.6
21.6
20.1
18.4
Entrenchment Ratio
17.6
19.5
19.5
17.6
18.8
18.7
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
15.8
19.2
20.0
20.8
20.0
19.9
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.7
7.8
7.8
8.7
8.2
8.2
6.7
6.6
6.9
6.4
7.2
6.9
6.7
6.5
9.2
7.6
9.7
7.9
7.7
7.3
7.7
7.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
Substrate
---
28.2
27.7
24
20.1
----
----d84
----
----
----
----
----
----
(mm)
----
43
45
48
46
----
----
----
----
----
----
--
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Parameter
MY-00 (2012)
MY-01(2012)
MY-02 (2013)
MY-03 (2014)
MY-04 (2015)
MY-05 (2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
I Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
20
39
26
20
39
26
20
39
26
20
39
26
20
39
26
20
39
26
Radius of Curvature (ft)
13
65
20
13
65
20
13
65
20
13
65
20
13
65
20
13
65
20
Meander Wavelength (ft)
39
78
55
39
78
55
39
78
55
39
78
55
39
78
55
39
78
55
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
5
26
11
5
27
9
4
27
10
5
27
11
5
19
11
5
25
9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.00%
1.59%
0.22%
----
----
----
0.00%1
1.43%
0.28%
0.00%
1.66%
0.26%
0.00%
2.32%
0.54%
#####
1.42%
0.29%
Pool Length (ft)
8
21
13
7
24
13
7
21
13
6
21
14
7
22
13
7
24
14
Pool Spacing (ft)
Additonal Reach Parameters
20 52 26
20 52 26
M
20 52 26
20 52 26
20 52 26
20
52
26
Talley Length (ft)
619
645
616
609
601
596
Channel Length (ft)
743
774
739
731
721
715
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0012
----
0.0015
0.0015
0.0013
0.0018
BE Slope (ft/ft)
------
----
----
----
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C4/5
74/5

Hydrology Data: Verification of Bankfull Events Table
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Bankfull event documented when sediment deposits were
May 11, 2013
May 6, 2013
observed on top of banks after 3.00 inches of rain was
documented* over a two-day period.
Bankfull event documented after wrack was observed on top
July 18, 2013
June 6, 2013
of bank and throughout floodplain after 4.27 inches of rain
was documented* over a two-day period.
Bankfull event likely occurred after 3.61 inches of rain over
November 19, 2014
August 11, 2014
a two-day period that was preceeded by 0.56 inches and
followed by an additional 0.78 inches as documented by an
onsite rain gauge.
July 31, 2015
April 19, 2015
Bankfull event likely occurred after 2.2 inches of rain was
documented over a one day period by an onsite rain gauge.
Bankfull event documented after sediment deposits were
November 23, 2015
November 21, 2015
observed in floodplain of the main tributary and 1.96 inches
of rain was documented over a three day period by an onsite
rain gauge.
August 8, 2016
July 3, 2016
Bankfull event likely occurred after 2.84 inches of rain was
documented over a two day period by an onsite rain gauge.
*A minimum of two bankfull event were required for success with six total being recorded here.

18
16
14
Figure El. Annual Climatic Data vs. 34-year Historic data
Month
30th °/u*
70th OW2012**
2013A
2014
2015A
2016**
Jan
2.77
5.09
5.99
2.67^
2.72
2.78
Feb
2.48
4.65
3.25
2.37^
1.64
4.33
Mar
3.43
5.85
3.6
4.41 **
2.59
0.3
Apr
2.02
4.52
5.21
4.05**
4.93
2.68
May
3.08
5.31
1.22
5.29
3.36**
1.52
3.61
June
2.89
5.74
1.03
9.74
3.71**
4
3.4
July
2.41
5.07
4.38
15.77
2.17**
0.92
4.54
Aug
2.43
4.64
4.68
4.45
8.95**
3.36
1.98
Sept
1.98
5.17
4.33
2.06
3.55**
7.15
0.87
Oct
1.69
4.4
2.05
2.09
3.09**
4.94
1.55
Nov
2.49
4.34
0.49^
3.94
3.54^
7.9
Dec
2.25
4.34
5.01 ^
5.78
1 2.46^
1 7.38
y
12
*Hickory Regional Airport, NC 30-year historic data
t
**Onsite rain gauge
C
^Hickory Airport Station KHKY (Weatherunderground 2015)
-
10
a
$
yV
G
6
I
4 {
,i I IJ
V I IL
1 iL
Ij
4 f J - 1-1 1
Q 3 Q IAA ❑ >�
, A 2012** Lori 2013A i 2014 6.d2015A 6.i 2016** -30th %* �70th %'
2016 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 5 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Hydrology Data: Wetland Gauge Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season* (Percentage)
Gauge
*Growing Season was determined to last 235 days, from March 20th to November 9th.
Year 1 (2012)
Year 2 (2013)
Year 3 (2014)
Year 4 (2015)
Year 5 (2016)
1
Yes/38 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
(16.2 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
2
Yes/101days
Yes/235 days
Yes/39 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
(43 percent)
(100 percent)
(16.6 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
3
Yes/226 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/130 days
Yes/89 days
Yes/235 days
(96.2 percent)
(100 percent)
(55.3 percent)
(37.8 percent)
(100 percent)
4
Yes/226 days
Yes/46 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
(96.2 percent)
(19.6 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
5
Yes/87 days
Yes/179 days
Yes/108 days
Yes/52 days
Yes/70 days*
(37.0 percent)
(76.2 percent)
(46 percent)
(22 percent)
(29.8 percent)
6
Yes/100 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/79 days
Yes/49 days
Yes/177 days
(42.5 percent)
(100 percent)
(33.6 percent)
(20.8 percent)
(75.3 percent)
7
Yes/235 days
Yes/235days
Yes/117 days
Yes/115 days
Yes/162 days
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
(49.8 percent)
(48.9 percent)
(68.9 percent)
8
Yes/178 days
Yes/193 days
Yes/119 days
Yes/81 days
Yes/163 days
(75.7 percent)
(82.1 percent)
(50.6 percent)
(34.4 percent)
(69.4 percent)
9
Yes/29 days
Yes/104 days
Yes/100 days
Yes/49 days
Yes/168 days*
(12.3 percent)
(44.2 percent)
(42.6 percent)
(20.8 percent)
(71.5 percent)
10
Yes/102 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/167 days
Yes/235 days
(43.4 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
(71 percent)
(100 percent)
Ref
Yes/148 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/208 days*
(62.9 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
(88.5 percent)

Vegetation Data:
Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1
Yes
90%
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
No*
5
Yes
6
Yes
7
Yes
8
Yes
9
Yes
10
Yes
*Plot 4 did not meet success criteria based on planted stems alone; however, when including natural recruits of
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and elm (Ulmus sp.), plot 4 exceeds the required stem density.
Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Species
Quantity
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
3600
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
3600
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
2500
Shagbark hickory(Carya ovata)
2900
River birch (Betula nigra)
4000
Silkydogwood (Cornusamomum)
3500
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
3600

Vegetation Data Cont.:
Stems per plot across all years
MY5 2016
MY4 2015
MY3 2014
MY2 2013
MY1 2012
Plot
Planted
Stems
Planted
Stems/ac
Total
Stems
Total
Stems/ac
Planted
Stems
Planted
Stems/ac
Total
Stems
Total
Stems/ac
Planted
Stems
Planted
Stems/ac
Total
Stems
Total
Stems/ac
Planted
Stems
Planted
Stems/ac
Total
Stems
Total
Stems/ac
Planted
Stems
Planted
Stems/ac
Total
Stems
Total
Stems/ac
1
10
405
11
445
10
405
11
445
10
405
10
405
10
405
22
890
10
405
10
405
2
8
324
25
1012
8
324
30
1214
8
324
28
1133
8
324
8
324
8
324
28
1133
3
1 9
364
13
526
9
364
10
405
12
486
12
486
1 14
561
15
601
12
486
12
486
4
6
243
8
324
6
243
8
324
7
283
7
283
7
283
7
283
7
283
7
283
5
14
567
14
567
14
567
14
567
16
648
16
648
16
648
16
648
16
648
16
648
6
12
486
32
1295
13
526
32
1295
14
567
52
2104
14
567
23
931
14
567
52
2104
7
10
405
10
405
10
405
11
445
9
364
11
445
10
405
10
405
9
364
11
445
8
13
526
13
526
13
526
13
526
13
526
14
567
13
526
13
526
13
526
14
567
9
16
648
42
1700
16
648
51
2064
16
648
49
1983
16
648
62
2509
16
648
49
1983
10
11
445
23
931
11
445
12
486
10
405
11
445
12
486
12
486
10
405
11
445

Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Project Code Herman. Project Name: Herman Dairy
Current Plot Data (MY5 2016)
Scientific Name
[Acer
Common Name
Species Type
Herman-P-0001
PnoLS P-all T
Herman-P-0002
Pnol-S P-all IT
Herman-P-0003
PnoLS IP-all T
Herman-P-0004
Pnol-S P-all IT
Herman-P-0005
PnoLS IP-all T
Herman-P-0006
PnoLS IP-all IT
Herman-P-0007
PnoLS P-all IT
Herman-P-0008
PnoLS IP-all T
cer negundo
boxelder
Tree
20
rubrum
red maple
Tree
12
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus
dogwood
Shrub or Tree
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
21
2
2
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
7
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
5
6
6
6
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
6
5
5
5
2
2
2
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
11
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Ulmus
elm
Tree
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
JTree
Unknown
IShrub or Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
101
10
11
8
8
25
91
9
13
6
6
8
14
14
14
121
121
32
10
10
10
13
131
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
6
6
7
4
4
5
31
3
4
3
3
5
7
7
7
5
5
6
4
4
4
5
5
5
404.7
404.7
445.2
323.7
323.7
1012
364.2
364.2
526.1
242.8
242.8
323.7
566.6
566.6
566.6
485.6
485.6
1295
404.7
404.7
404.71
526.1
S26.11
526.1
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P-all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species (cont.)
Project Code Herman. Project Name: Herman Dairy
Current Plot Data (MY5 2016)
1 Annual
Means
I Scientific Name
I Common Name
I Species Type
Herman-P-0009
I Herman-P-0010
I MY5 (2016)
MY4 (2015)
MY3 (2014)
1 MY2 (2013)
MY1 (2012)
MYO (2012) 1
PnoLS
P-all
T
IPnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
IPn�SP-all
T
IPnoLS
I P-all
T
IPnoLS
P-all
T
IPnoLS
I P-all
T
IPnoLS
P-all
T I
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
1 201
1 191
1 391
1 91
1 151
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
9
I 8
I 291
I 331
I 201
I 21I
I 71
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2I
4
16
16
18
16
16
16
16
16
16
18
18
18
19
191
19
41
41
41
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
Cornus
dogwood
Shrub or Tree
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
I 1
I
I 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
9
9
9
2
2
2
34
3$_1
7
35
35
36
34
34
34
34
34
34
33
33
33
32
32
32
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
13
118
13
13
16
14
14
20
15
15
19
17
17
18
25
25
25
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
I
3
3
3
12
121
12
12
121
121
15
15
15
16
161
161
14
141
141
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
18
2
21
21
2
2
241
21
2
31
21
21
361
1
1 46
1
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
61
61
6
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
I
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
21
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
I I
1 1
1
1
1
1I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
I
I 1�
Ulmus
elm
Tree
I1I
Ulmus americana
IAmerican elm
Tree
I
I
I
1
I 21
1
1
1
1
1
1 21
21
2
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
I
I
I
I
I 1
1
11
1
1
11
10
10
10
Stem count
I size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16
16
421
11
111
231
109
109
1911
110
110
1921
115
115
21011
120
120
1881
118
118
1871
145
145
1451
1
1 1
10
10
10
10
1 10
10
0.02
0.02
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1 0.25
0.25
5
5
61
5
5
7
12
12
171
121
12
171
121
121
141
131
13
151
121
121
15
10
101
10
647.5
647.5
1700
445.2
445.2
930.8
441.1
441.1
772.9
445.2
445.2
777
465.4
465.4
849.8
485.E
485.E
760.8
477.5
477.5
756.8
586.8
586.8
586.8
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P-all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

DMS Recommendation and Conclusion
Restoration System has meet and exceeded vegetation and hydrology criteria for the past five years throughout the
easement. Encroachment issues with tenants of the bordering agricultural fields have been addressed and no evidence of
encroachment has occurred since areas were more distinctly marked and replanted. Because these issues have been
resolved we believe the project site should be closed -out with the 4780 SMU, 8.0 Riparian WMU and the 1.25 Non -
riparian WMU assets outlined in the above table approved.
Contingencies
None

hA 1
r.
i

Post Construction Photos

l �
lA" el
"..
F.
t'
..
iL

1. �,>': .r ..-
3 ,. .+r_ h".y n- .. .ri rt• .,
a. _a �t h %V!e�Y3..io-�-0iC:`.Y�i F;�.
�. _., u'wr ;: _�b6q-,i .. v - .. Sr �e

bc

Appendix A: Property Ownership Information & Verification of Protection Mechanism
The site protection instrument for this mitigation project includes the following document(s), available at the specified
County Register of Deeds office, and is linked to the property portfolio at:
http://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Libra ry/Property/Property%20Portfolio/94642 HermanD
airyFarmStreamAndWetland PD 2012.pdf
Project Name II County Grantor Name II Deed Info u Property Rights
Herman DairyFarm Stream and Alexander Herman Dairy Farm, Inc. -Restoration DB 547, P Conservation
Y
Wetland Systems �409 Easement
Long-term stewardship of this property is managed by the NC DEQ Stewardship Program.

Appendix B: Permits & Jurisdictional Determinations
AF
NCDENP.
North Carulina Lrep�irlment of Environment an: Nature; Rrsaurces
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Co een H. 5u'lias See Freeman
Ga,�mor �.i'ecror cretary
october (, 2011
L)WQ# 19-0766
Alexander C:DL,nty
Mr. Randall Turner
Reskomtian 8ystanns.
32%) LVocduck Court
Reidsville, NC: 27M
Subjoc#: Herman Dnhy Stream Restoratic.n
APPROVAL of 401 Water QL,ality CctLfication %v',th Add'.ticrial Cared DnS
Dear dr1', I-urner.
You nave our approval. in accordance w-Lh the general c,:rtiflcaiion and those pPFxditions listed beaCW
to impact 0.414 acre of wet -and and fi,059 linear Feet (If) of unn8rned tributaries tv Muddy Fork Green it prd--r
to cnrr,pleta the restoration project A!exanj+er f,cunty, as doson bed in ypur application received by k'iu GiVision
LB
❑f Water Qud 11y (DVVQi on August ifs. 2011. After reviewing your appl cation. we hava deiel brined tl7ak th.
prnjLGa .s oo,,lered by'Naler Qual',ty General Certification Nurnber 368% wfimh can be viewed on pur web site
at http:Nportal.nr Tre General Cerklfiw1 on allows �iDu t,5 ijL C- Nationvide Permit
Number 27 unoe it is issued to yoL+ by the U.S- Army Cnrps of Engineers Pleas$ note that you should get any
ether federal, st,-#e ar Ioc2I permits before proceeding with. your project, includifig those requlreri by (h.1; not
limited tot 5adim-9ni and Erasion gntmi, Mon -Discharge. and Waief SupplyYgalemhed rwculations
The shove rated Cerkifiratian wilt expire when the ass xiated 404 parmit e5:Di i unless Dtheraiise
.per. fled .Ii t 1eCaeneral prtifiC2tioil. This approval is op.ly valid for the purpose and design th-a: you de8rrib2d
in yadr applicaticm. If ycLi cnange your project, you m,lst nat,fy u5 In wf aing, arm foo may be rx§quired to sefid
us a new application for a new Certification. If the property is sold, t`le r±ew'�Vne1 wLss; Le given a copy v- srm
CGrtiflcatlon and appro-lal tettar; and is thereby responsible for complying wiili all condilions.
In addtion ins I h 9 r9c uiroments of the rertificatian, you musk also Gornply Wit' l the following conditions:
1. The Mooresville Regional Gffice shall be notified in writing once =15vuction at the approw-d Inipact areas
has commenoeff.
2. Tne ran proposes- 4,7 LY6 I. of seam Testoratin'i ('. t0 If braided), A06 If of stream ennancernen', t.2 and 2.2
acres of r;parian wueiland resturatlon a-1ai enhance menL a" 1 2 and 4.1 acres of nun -riparian vied arid
restoration and enharlwame; 11, fespectively.
3 The terra cell shall bemanipulatdd to prcyide a level ar�-a(s) (simulated stepped;. wiViin its run as diocussed
Ili the field.
kql ms4ile R-9.oral9Rce t nu
1,xafion: G'OEo5tCftWAWM; y,ik._aLi,F.1_u,r:vile,NC281 5 ? Ll1C,'sir'C}�fL31r7
ITnrr.' :.,Q4) GO 1399T;m -M: .'.,,xra-ro, SCMLC-- 577-C?J-:7411 �'
Irce'rcn �1;-1:,,pralal.l,aleri.0 ,1�W6bfl.+q J F R }f
M rX-Sj C(,n5VvrPirrr

4. The proposed riprap shall be limited to a plunge pool area of approximately 10 If of stream channel. The
remainder of the channel (stream bank) shall be benched and sloped to assist with velocity reduction as the
flow transitions from the restored channel to the existing channel as discussed in the field.
5. An aquatic survey (macro benthos, crayfish, etc.) shall be taken for each reach of the existing channels
prior to the initiation of the project. A follow up survey shall be conducted following the second year of
construction and annually thereafter upon close out of the project. This information shall be included in the
annual monitoring report.
6. The existing streambed material/substrate shall be excavated, stored, and placed in the newly
constructed stream channel as indicated in the application.
7. Wetland monitoring shall be clarified with the Army Corp of Engineers.
8. Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the NC DWQ.
9. Continuing Compliance. The applicant (Restoration Systems) shall conduct all activities in a manner so as
not to contravene any state water quality standard (including any requirements for compliance with section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of state and federal law. If DWQ
determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or
achieved use) or that state or federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure
compliance, DWQ may reevaluate and modify this certification to include conditions appropriate to assure
compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before
codifying the certification, DWQ shall notify the applicant and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public
notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0503, and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to the applicant in writing, shall be
provided to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any permit issued pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition that conforms to Chapter 1508 of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final
and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of DWQ under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any
questions, please telephone Mr. Alan Johnson in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-663-1699 or Ms. Karen
Higgins in the Central Office in Raleigh 919-807-6360.
Sincerely,
t,
for Coleen H. Su li
Attachments
cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Karen Higgins,Wetlands Unit
Ecosystem Enhancement Program

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID: SAW-2010-01918 County: Alexander USGS Quad: Taylorsville
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Owner/Applicant: Restoration Systems, LLC
Attn: Randy Turner
Address: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604 Telephone No.: [phone]
Authorized Agent: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Attn: Mr. Guy Pearce
Address: 1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Telephone No.: [phone]
Size and location of property (waterbody, road name/number, town, etc.): The project Herman Dairy Stream and
Wetland Restoration) is located east of Three Forks Church Road, NW of Taylorsville, in Alexander County, NC.
Site Coordinates: 35.9316 ON -81.2070 °W Waterway: Muddy Fork River Basin: Catawba
Description of project area and activity: This permit authorizes stream channel relocation, excavation, mechanized
land clearing, the placement of fill material (including the installation of in -stream structures, coir fiber rolls, log
and rock vanes, root wads, brush mattresses, vegetated geolifts, etc.) associated with the construction of Herman
Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Project. Authorized impacts to waters of the U.S. are identified on the
table on page 2 of this authorization.
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Nationwide or Regional General Permit Number(s): 27
SEE ATTACHED NATIONWIDE CONDITIONS AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON PAGE 2 OF THIS FORM
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted application and attached information dated August 17, 2011. Any violation of the attached
conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or
appropriate legal action.
• This verification is valid until the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked. All of the existing NWPs are scheduled to be modified,
reissued, or revoked prior to March 18, 2012. It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the NWPs. We will
issue a public notice when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity
before the date that the relevant nationwide permit is modified or revoked, you will have twelve (12) months from the date of the
modification or revocation of the NWP to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit.
• Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
You should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
• For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
• This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals/permits.
• If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Todd Tugwell at telephone [phone].
Corps Regulatory
Date: January 11, 2012 Expiration Date of Nationwide Permit Verification: March 18, 2012
Page 1 of 3

Summary of Authorized Impacts and Required Mitigation
NWP / GP #
Open Water (ac)
Wetland (ac)
Unim ortant Steam (If)
Important Stream (If)
Temporary
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
27
0
0
0
0.414
0
0
6,059
0
Impact Totals
0
0
0
0.414
1 0
0
6,059
0
Total Loss of Waters of the U.S. (ac) 0.414
Total Loss of Waters of the U.S.
(If) 0
Required Wetland Mitigation (ac) 1 0
Required Stream Mitigation (If) 1 0
Additional Remarks and/or Special Permit Conditions:
The following special conditions apply:
1. This Nationwide Permit verification does not imply approval of the suitability of this property for compensatory
wetland mitigation for any particular project. The use of any portion of this site as compensatory mitigation for a
particular project will be determined during our public interest review and 404 (b) (1) Guidelines analysis during
the permit review process for that project.
2. Vegetative success criteria shall be based on number of living, planted stems per acre, not "characteristic tree
species".
3. Areas of the project that are adjacent to road ways or other corridors that do not support a 50-foot forested
buffer will receive credit adjustments per current non-standard buffer width guidelines at the time of closeout.
4. If groundwater gauges do not meet stated hyproperiod (8%), the USACE must approve appropriate method for
determining whether performance standards have been met (e.g., meeting 75% of reference well data or
conducting a delineation).
5. Stream monitoring and performance standards must comply with the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Copy Furnished:
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
http://regulatory.usacesurvey.com/ to complete the survey online.
Page 2 of 3

Determination of Jurisdiction
A. ❑ Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above
described project area. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. ❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there
is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to
exceed five years from the date of this notification.
C. ❑ There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the
date of this notification.
D. ® The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action.
Please reference the jurisdictional determination issued on January 26, 2011(Action ID: SAW-2010-01918).
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination:
E. Attention USDA Program Participants: This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of
Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are
USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland
determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B and C above): This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described
site. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR
Part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA)
form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete; that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the
NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by . It is not necessary
to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.
Corps Regulatory
Date: January 11, 2012 Expiration Date of Jurisdictional Determination: January 26, 2016
Page 3 of 3

WILMINGTON DISTRICT
POST -CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE FORM
Action ID Number: SAW-2010-01918
Permittee: Restoration Systems, LLC
Date Permit Issued: January 11, 2012
Project Manager: Todd Tugwell
County: Alexander
Attn: Randy Turner
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit,
sign this certification and return it to the address of the Regulatory Field Office indicated below:
® Asheville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
❑ Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
❑ Washington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, NC 27889
❑ Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit you are subject to permit suspension,
modification, or revocation.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in
accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in
accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Date

APPENDIX C
Debit ledger
Mitigation Project
DMS ID
River Basin
Cataloging Unit
Herman Dairy Farm Stream & Wetland
94642
CATAWBA
03050101
Applied Credit Ratios: 1:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1
C
E
E°
E a
C
E .�
C
m
cm_ co
m E
C C
c o
m
C
m o
C C
m
C
m m
N C
,4
m
N
m o
- .�
I`1 C
- E
N
m
-
a�i
$
a10i u
c
d d
i'_
m
o 8
m
0
U
a c
i'_
o m
a o
a�
d
a u
c
-
m
0 0
2 2
u
2 c
:° m
N
N
K
N O
L
c
N
c
y N
`
rq
Q: O
K
Q: U
N
2' L
Ul
2' `1
C N
O N
z K
C
O U
z
C R
O L
Z c
C N
O 2
Z
N V1
10 N
o K
N
m U
o
N O
M L
o c
N N
M d
o
W
W
a
W
a
W
a
U
U
U W
a
U
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
4,560.00
330.00
6.900
1 2.200
1.20
0.10
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
4,560.00
220.00
6.900
1.100
1.20
0.05
NCDOT Pre-DMS Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
DMS Debits (feet and acres):
DWR Permit No
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
NCDOT TIP R-2206B / C - NC 16
2004-1024
2004-31320
Widening
0.12
0.05
NCDOT TIP R-3833B - SR 1101
2008-0999
2008-01982
Widening
1
0.420
NCDOT TIP U-2510A - NC 16
2007-0221
2004-00700-360
Widening
0.74
NCDOT TIP U-2211 B - SR 1001
2011-0844
2006-32042Improvements
1,457.00
SR 2074 - Bridge 107 - Division
2013-00423
10
54.00
NCDOT TIP B-5110 - Bridge 129
2013-01333
on SR 1626
98.00
SR 1316 - Bridge 226 - Division
2013-02044
12
142.00
SR 1309 - Bridge 289 - Division
2013-02218
12
86.00
SR 1861 - Bridge 136 - Division
2013-02050
12
96.00
NCDOT TIP 1-4928 - 1-85 Weigh
2010-00031
Station
165.00
NCDOT TIP B-5150 - Bridge 34
2014-01534
on SR 1404
138.00
SR 1664 - Bridge 149 - Division
2014-01681
12
92.00
NCDOT TIP B-4751 - Bridge 203
2015-1193
2016-00168
on SR 1935
178.00
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
2,054.00
330.001
6.480
2.200
0.337
0.05
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)
12,054.00
220.001
6.480
1.100
0.337
0.025
.—.—+
1
Information from DIMS Debit Ledger dated 05/11/2017