20110766 Ver 1_401 Application_20110811

201 1 0766
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
Natural Resource
Restoration & Conservation
August 16, 2011
AUG rm f-=
1 6 2011
UENR - WATER QUALITY
YY@TtAN AW s> TERWA h
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006 TM X 11
ATTENTION: Tashia McCormick, Regulatory Project Manager'- N c
'
the Implementation of the
SUBJECT: Application for Nationwide 27 Authorization for
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Project in Alexander County p
c

Please find enclosed with this letter the following items:
1) Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Form (5 copies to DWQ);
2) Conservation easement plat (5 copies to DWQ);
3) Detailed Mitigation Plan (5 copies to DWQ), including Jurisdictional Determinations
4) Final Construction Plans (5 copies to DWQ)
5) Restoration Plan Approval Letter from NCEEP (5 copies to DWQ);
6) Letter from SHPO
7) Categorical Exclusion (5 copies to DWQ)
Project Purpose and Description
The purpose of the Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Project (HDSWRP) is to
assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in fulfilling its mitigation
goals in the Catawba River Basin Cataloging Unit 03050101. The site is located within 14-digit
Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03050101120030 approximately 1.5 miles
northwest of Taylorsville in central Alexander County. The site lies within the Northern Inner
Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. The landscape in the vicinity of the site is
dominated by farm fields and forest stands; less than 10% of the land is impervious.
The site encompasses 34.7 acres (31.12 acres of final easement) of agricultural land historically
used for row crop production. This same land is used for the spray-application of sludge from a
nearby cattle waste lagoon associated with a dairy cattle operation. Streams within the site have
been relocated, ditched and straightened. Riparian and non-riparian hydric soils have been
cleared and drained. Due to these historical and on-going actions, the site is an excellent
candidate for stream and wetland restoration/enhancement.
Axiom Environmental (AE) is managing technical soil, drainage and site design evaluations on
behalf of Restoration Systems, LLC (RS). Their efforts have resulted in the completion of the
attached Mitigation Plan (February 2011) and the attached full construction designs (in
collaboration with the Sungate Design Group.
N
O
Pilot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
Tashia McCormick, USACE
August 15, 2011
Page 2
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water
quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring wildlife and aquatic habitat. See the enclosed
Mitigation Plan for considerable detail on how these goals will be accomplished.
The work will result in the restoration of almost 4,800 linear feet and enhancement of almost 500
linear feet of stream channel. Additionally, more than 7 acres of riparian more than 1 acre of
non-riparian wetlands will be restored, while > 2 acres of riparian wetland will be enhanced.
Protected Species
Based on the most recently updated (September 2010) county-by-county database of federally
listed species in North Carolina posted by the USFWS at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html,
only three federally listed species are known for Alexander County. The following table lists the
three species and indicates if suitable habitat exists within the site for each.
Federallv Protected Species for Onslow Co
Habitat
Common Name Scientific Name Status* Present Biological
Within Conclusion
Site
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA No No Effect
Bo turtle Clemm s muhlenber ii T S/A No N/A
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora T No No Effect
*T (Threatened = a taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range"); T S/A (Threatened (S/A) = a species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is
listed for its protection; these species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.)
The closest suitable habitat for the bald eagle is over six miles away. The bog turtle in North
Carolina is not subject to Section 7 or Section 9 protection, because the North Carolina
population is a proxy for protection of the northern population of the bog turtle. Finally, no
suitable habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs within the site.
Cultural Resources
Evaluations of significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National
Register (36 CFR 60) and in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO).
RS submitted a letter to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on July 29, 2010,
requesting a search be conducted of archival records for the site. SHPO responded on August
31, 2010 that no known recorded historical resources occur within the site and they would have
no further comment. This documentation provides confirmation that the project is in compliance

Tashia McCormick, USACE
August 15, 2011
Page 3
with 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.
Your time and consideration in reviewing the enclosed material is greatly appreciated. Your
assistance in expediting your review and approval is respectfully requested so that RS can meet
its construction and planting schedules (construction is schedule to begin in mid-late September
2011). Should you have any questions about the project, please call me at 919-334-9114. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Worth Creech
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
cc: Ian McMillan, NCDWQ (5 copies)
Enclosures

N
v J
1 '
I

i
Herman Dairy Site Location
- -Access from Three Forks Ch. Rd.
t
L
(
•
.
? I 1,
;.
I
?I
1
l
R
" 4
_ Latitude 35931617
-
( « _ Longitude -81.206949 - )
(NAD83/WGS84)
}z
,
4 1

<,
., ^
:
r:
R
,
,
r Z Watt .
nsII4R 91L?no. _ - - .
. G ?_ -_-• - _.

` f i
l Access Site from I II
'O
,
ry
Thr e -
t
Driveway on orkS
7
I
,
Three Forks Rd. t _
y
1
aI8i8

U sl NC 9Q-1 F
_ ? .. .. _ .
i •
, ,.
J

Reference Reach 1 ?' •i /

4' J.
• 7
From the Town of Statesville _
- From Interstate 40 take exit 148 onto NC 64 north -
- Travel - 17 miles on NC 64 north and turn north (right) on _ :., ..
NC 16 (towards Taylorsville) ,
- Travel - 1 mile and turn west (left) on NC 90
- Travel - 1.5 miles and turn right on Three Forks Ch. Road 0 0.375 0.75 1.5
- Travel -2 miles and Site is on right Miles
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603 HERMAN DAIRY
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Dwn. By: WGL
Date:
Dec 2010 FIGURE
[phone] SITE LOCATION Project:
a??=,vironmw[al•Inc• Alexander County, North Carolina
1 10-016
1
1
_J

N ALLEGHANY
ASHE SURRY
Site Location in 14-Digit Hydrologic Unit
03050101120030 a Targeted Local Watershed
DKI
AVERY
WILKES
MITCHELL )
' S
WELL J 2
,.? LEXANDER
f( -
YANCEY
f)

IREDELL
BU
MCD NN
CATAWBA t
` j" A ! c
f'
BUNCOMB
?
LINC
N

ENDE RUTHERFORD

CLEVELAND!
POLK GASTON
} ECKI?iNBURG
Legend
Herman Dairy Site
® Hydrologic Unit 03050101
14 Digit HU 03050101120030
0 5 10 20
Emonolzz= Miles
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Ilk Raleigh, NC 27603 HERMAN DAIRY
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Dwn. By: WGL
Date:
Oct 2010 FIGURE

2
[phone] HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP Project:
^.i fi,i nme rai, int. Alexander County, North Carolina 10-016

201 10768
O?OF W A7?9QG
1 1 > -,
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant information ,x"
15
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: ® Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? T o Yes ® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
? Yes © No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
If. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in-lieu fee program.
? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Herman Dairy Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
2b. County: Alexander
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Taylorsville
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: State of North Carolina
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Deed Book 547, Page No. 0409
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): John Preyer, (Operations Manager)
3d. Street address: 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC, 27604
3f. Telephone no.: 919-755-9490
3g. Fax no., 919-755-9492
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ® Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: M. Randall Turner
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address: 320 Wooduck Court
4e. City, state, zip: Reidsville, NC 27320
4f. Telephone no.: 336-342-7488
4g. Fax no.: N/A
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Grant Lewis
5b. Business name
(if applicable): iom nvironmental, Inc.
5c. Street address: 218 Snow Avenue
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27603
5e. Telephone no.: 919-215-1693
5f. Fax no.: N/A
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 10
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): PIN= 3840 72 0078
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.93162N Longitude: 81.20695W
1c. Property size: 31.12 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project: Muddy Fork then to Lower little River
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Muddy Fork is a C classification
2c. River basin: Catawba
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Site is approximately 34.7 acres, of which 31.12 acres will comprise the conservation easement. All +/- 35 acres are occupied by intensely farmed
fields. Land-use of the vicinity is rural agricultural and residential with wood lots.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 2.3
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 7,296
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Stream/wetland enhancement an restoration will be implemented to achieve the desirable mi " ation un' s in su ort of NCEEP's miti ation oals '
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
See f?fx
The primary ob'ectives of this restoration ro'ect are to remove non-point sources of pollution cessation of spraying sludge effluent onto row crops, a
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? ? Preliminary ? Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ?X No ? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers ? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary 2b.
Type of impact 2c.
Type of wetland 2d.
Forested 2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWO (401, other) 2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 P 0 Fill Headwater Wetland 0 No 0 Corps 0 0.125
W2 P ( Fill Q Headwater Wetland Q No Q Corps O
0.021
W3 P 4 Fill ® Headwater Wetland O No Q Corps 4
0.016
W4 P ® Fill Q Headwater Wetland Q No O Corps ® 0.252
W5 0 O 0 0 O
W6 0 O 0 0 O
2g. Total Wetland Impacts: 0.414
2h. Comments:
Note that wetland impacts result from filling ditches that have removed a lot of hydrology from the wetland areas. Filled wetlands are herbaceous due
to maintenance of ditch zones
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T) 3b.
Type of impact 3c.
Stream name 3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)? 3e.
Type of
jurisdiction 3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet) 3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P 0 Fill 0 UTi PER O Corps 0 8 1829
S2 P 0 Fill O UT2 PER 0 Corps 0 3 1633
S3 P ® Fill ® UT3 INT 0 Corps O 4 1114
S4 P 0 Fill 0 UT4 PER 0 Corps ® 6 1483
S5 Q O Q O
S6 0 O C1 O
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts so59
31. Comments:
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary 4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody
type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 O O O
02 O O O
03 O O O
04 O O O
4f. Total open water Impacts
4g. Comments: N/A
6. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number 5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated
P1 O
P2 O
5f. Total:
5g. Comments: N/A
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? ? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation. then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin? ? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Catawba ? Randleman ? Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Stream name 6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required? 6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet 6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1 O O
B2 O O
B3 O O
B4 O O
B5 O O
B6 O O
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments: N/A
Page 5 of 10
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Site streams and wetlands were extremely impaired due to past practices; therefore any attempt to properly restore these aquatic resources to full
functionality would have to impact the resources so avoidance was not a practicable alternative. Minimization measures were taken in the decisions to
remove only minor amounts of larger woody plants.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
During construction, no double handling of materials will occur in wetlands. Equipment operators will be required to limit the range of their activities to
minimize impacts to land areas beyond the slope stake Limits of project. The overall effort, while impacting stream channels and wetland areas, will
result in increases in functionality of both resources.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? 0 Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete If Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:

3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type: 0
Type: D
Type: 0 Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
N/A
4. Complete If Makin a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: 0
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments: N/A
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
N/A
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
There are no impervious areas within the site and none will be constructed.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? NIA
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? NIA
[] Phase ti
[] NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been []Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
[]Coastal counties
[]HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ?ORW
(check all that apply): []Session Law 2006-246
[]Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ® Yes ? No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the 0 Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State M Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval Yes No
letter.) A federal programmatic categorical exclusion was prepared in accordance with
Comments: guidance from the FHWA. See enclosure.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ?Yes ®No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ®No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in OYes © No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from

N the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
it
ill b
t
fl
f
h
d
i
O
o san
ary sewage w
e genera
e
on s
ow
rom t
te.
ut
e site will be of s ormwater, which will be via non-erosive surface f lows.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009
S. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act O Yes ® No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
List of species provided by USFWS. Evaluation of the site to determine if suitable habitat exists within site and beyond (i.e., for bald eagle)/
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Project is located in a small drainage of the Catawba River Basin in Alexander County.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation 0 Yes ®No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Coordination with NCSHPO.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
M. Randall Turner
c
ID,
m.??
August 17
2011
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applican Agent's Signature ,
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10
Appendix 1
Re: Section 3e
Page 3 of 10
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The primary objectives of this restoration project are to remove non-point sources of pollution by
cessation of spraying sludge effluent onto row crops, application of fertilizers and agricultural chemicals
onto site. All farming operations will cease. Restoration (and enhancement) of site streams and
wetlands will reduce sedimentation within the site and downstream receiving waters. Erosion will
diminish through bank stabilization, reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport
watershed flows and sediment loads through reestablishment of stable dimension, pattern and profile
supported by natural in-stream habitat and grade/bank stabilization structures. Reconnecting bankfull
stream flows to the abandoned floodplain and re-vegetation of floodplains and wetlands to stabilize,
remove particulates and nutrients. Among the equipment to be used will be: tracked hoes, dump
trucks, and dozers.

9
i ?
fit t
Im-0
rr?0?0?EEeEatl:?r?t4liaE °SaSli?#Ti<

g S !T S ? g
a 11 °
?
9.
e e ;
e o o a . . o o .

Hot it,
1e?} 1
C
i £E££
Y £8£££ _

C€ I
Gu
li
z?
H
E"Fs
i? Z W
11 t-oQ
?acc
e o
00
14 ZWzo
J ?
W
I(?? 4 0
sill Z
1 441 r
All,
Its
I o
w
I I

? b !! e

i

k
ll
QiQ
$
4? 4 4?

I
m
1
r °
yy A=
-
'4
mu
?
-
C
g aZ
?
3
o
° e c? nAiea
?? 01
$? mn Gav
r 4?
0
b
z ?
HZ
o
A?
9
?
i
; ? ! ? ?; ? I a ?s • ? p $ Raii a ? aepa?ar?e?aao 0
? e ? r? r? eta ? i
ON,??t??[I
11 fit
t
" \ 1 G ?
Q ?
tam p?? ?® N
? O
IAI
A.
111
ins
MITIGATION PLAN
HERMAN DAIRY
STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Alexander County, North Carolina
Full Delivery Contract No. 003271
Catawba River Basin
Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed
03050101120030
Prepared for:
r ?
?1
f Mm
f4, 1,?1I n
1ent
NCDENR-Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
February 2011
MITIGATION PLAN
HERMAN DAIRY
STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Alexander County, North Carolina
Full Delivery Contract No. 003271
Catawba River Basin
Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed
03050101120030
Prepared for:
AaVAt
PRUGRAM
NCDENR-Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Prepared by:
And
Natun -
Re'storation& Comma 011
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Contact: Worth Creech
919-755-9490 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Grant Lewis
919-215-1693 (phone)
February 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site) is located approximately 1.5 miles
northwest of Taylorsville, in central Alexander County within 14-digit Cataloging Unit and
Targeted Local Watershed 03050101120030 of the Catawba River Basin. The Site encompasses
approximately 32 acres of agricultural land used for 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 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in meeting its
stream and wetland restoration goals.
This document details planned stream and wetland restoration activities. The Site is
encompassed within one parcel owned by the Herman Family. The Site is situated in the
floodplain of Muddy Fork encompassing portions of three unnamed tributaries to Muddy Fork.
The Site has been cleared of native forest vegetation, streams have been relocated, ditched, and
straightened, and groundwater hydrology has been lowered due to entrenchment of Site streams.
Based on preliminary analyses, the Site is best suited for the removal of agricultural practices,
restoration and enhancement of Site streams, restoration of groundwater hydrology to drained
riparian and nonriparian hydric soils by restoring streams to the historic floodplain elevations
and filling ditches, and revegetation with native, forest communities.
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).
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water
quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring wildlife habitat and will be accomplished by
the following.
1. 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)
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) Executive Summary page i
Herman Dian, Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
revegetating Site floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing Site
floodplains.
5. 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.
These goals will be achieved by the following.
• Restoring approximately 4686 linear feet of stream channel through construction of
stable channel at the historic floodplain elevation.
• Restoring approximately 110 linear feet of braided stream channel by redirecting diffuse
flow across riparian wetlands.
• Enhancing (Level I) approximately 468 linear feet of stream channel through cessation of
current land use practices, removing invasive species, and planting with native forest
vegetation.
• Restoring approximately 7.2 acres of riparian wetland by removing spoil castings,
restoring stream inverts to historic elevations to rehydrate stream-side wetlands, filling
ditches and abandoned channels, eliminating land use practices, and planting with native
forest vegetation.
• Enhancing approximately 2.2 acres of riparian wetland by filling ditches/abandoned
channels and supplemental planting.
• Restoring approximately 1.2 acres of nonriparian wetland by removing spoil castings,
filling abandoned ditches to rehydrate slope wetlands, eliminating land use practices, and
planting with native forest vegetation.
• Enhancing approximately 0.1 acres of riparian wetland through supplemental plantings.
• Revegetating floodplains and slopes adjacent to restored streams and wetlands.
• Protecting the Site in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following
documents, which govern NCEEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
• 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).
• NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated
July 28, 2010.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) Executive Summary page ii
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County; North Carolina
This document represents a detailed restoration plan summarizing activities proposed for the
Site. The plan includes 1) descriptions of existing conditions; 2) reference stream, wetland, and
forest studies; 3) restoration plans; and 4) monitoring and success criteria. Upon approval of this
plan by the NCEEP, engineering construction plans will be prepared and activities implemented
as outlined. Proposed restoration activities may be modified during the design stage to address
constraints such as access issues, sediment-erosion control measures, drainage needs (floodway
constraints), or other design considerations.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) Executive Summary page iii
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 DESIGNATION ......................1
1.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND STRUCTURE ............................................................................1
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION .........................................................................4
2.1 DRAINAGE AREA ............................................................................................................... 4
2.2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION/WATER QUALITY ......................................................... 5
2.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS .............................................................................. 5
2.4 HISTORICAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS .......................................................... 6
2.5 PROTECTED SPECIES .......................................................................................................... 7
2.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 9
2.7 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................................. 9
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary .......................................................................... 9
2.7.2 Site Access .............................................................................................................. 9
2.7.3 Utilities ................................................................................................................... 9
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass .................................................................................... 9
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ...........................................10
3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY .......................................................................................10
3.2 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION AND MORPHOLOGY ................................................................11
3.3 CHANNEL EVOLUTION .....................................................................................................1 1
3.4 VALLEY CLASSIFICATION .................................................................................................1 1
3.5 DISCHARGE .....................................................................................................................11
3.6 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................14
3.6.1 Stream Power .....................................................................................................14
3.6.2 Shear Stress .......................................................................................................14
3.6.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results .........................................15
3.7 BANKFULL VERIFICATION ................................................................................................17
3.8 VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................18
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS ...............................................................................................18
4.1 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION ..............................................................................................19
4.2 DISCHARGE .....................................................................................................................19
4.3 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY .................................................................................................19
5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ........................................20
5.1 EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS .............................................................................20
5.2 HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION ..............................................................................20
5.3 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................20
5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification ......................................................................................20
5.3.2 Profile Description ................................................................................................20
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003371) Table of Contents page i
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
5.4 PLANT COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION .........................................................................21
6.0 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM ..........................................................................21
7.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN ......................................................................22
7.1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................22
7.2 STREAM DESIGN ..............................................................................................................23
7.2.1 Designed Channel Classification ...........................................................................23
7.2.2 Target Wetland Communties/Buffer Communities ................................................24
7.3 STREAM RESTORATION .............................................................................................24
7.4 STREAM ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 11) ..........................................................................26
7.5 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS ....................................................................................27
7.6 HEC RAS ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................27
7.7 HYDROLOGICAL MODIFICATIONS (WETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT) ............ 27
7.8 SOIL RESTORATION ..........................................................................................................28
7.9 NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION ..................................................................28
7.9.1 Planting Plan .........................................................................................................28
7.9.2 Nuisance Species Management .............................................................................29
8.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ........................................................................................29
8.1 STREAMS ......................................................................................................................... 30
8.1.1 Stream Success Criteria ......................................................................................... 30
8.1.2 Stream Contingency .............................................................................................. 31
8.2 WETLANDS ...................................................................................................................... 31
8.2.1 Wetland Success Criteria ....................................................................................... 32
8.2.2 Wetland Contingency ............................................................................................ 32
8.3 VEGETATION ................................................................................................................... 32
8.3.1 Vegetation Success Criteria ................................................................................... 32
8.3.2 Vegetation Contingency ........................................................................................ 33
8.4 SCHEDULING AND REPORTING .......................................................................................... 33
9.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................34
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) Table of Contents page ii
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
TABLES
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits .............................
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ....................................
Table 3. Project Contacts Table ..............................................................
Table 4. Project Attribute Table ..............................................................
Table 5. Site Soils ...................................................................................
Table 6. Watershed Land Use .................................................................
Table 7. Federally Protected Species for Alexander County ..................
Table 8. Morphological Stream Characteristics ......................................
Table 9. Stream Power (Q) and Shear Stress (T) Values ........................
Table 10. Reference Reach 1 Bankfull Discharge Analysis ...................
Table 11. Reference Forest Ecosystem ...................................................
Table 12. Planting Plan ...........................................................................
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3A-B. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5A. Reference Site 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 5B. Reference Site 1 Watershed
Figure 5C. Reference Site 1 Existing Conditions
Figure 5D. Reference Reach 1 Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figure 6. Restoration Plan
Figure 7. Typical Structure Details
Figure 8. Proposed NCWAM Wetland Types
Figure 9. Planting Plan
Appendix B. Existing Stream Data
Figure Bl. Existing Stream Cross-section Locations
Existing Stream Data
Appendix C. Flood Frequency Analysis Data
Appendix D. Jurisdicitonal Determination Information
Appendix E. Performance Bond
....................................... 2
....................................... 3
....................................... 3
....................................... 4
....................................... 6
....................................... 6
....................................... 7
................................ 12-17
..................................... 17
..................................... 18
..................................... 22
..................................... 29
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) Table of Contents page iii
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
The Herman Dairy Restoration Site (Site) is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of
Taylorsville, in central Alexander County (Figure 1, Appendix A). The Site is situated northeast
of Three Forks Church Road on the north bank of Muddy Fork.
This document details planned stream and wetland restoration activities at the Site. A 32-acre
conservation easement will be placed on the Site to incorporate all mitigation activities. The Site
contains 10.6 acres of hydric soil, three unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Muddy Fork, associated
floodplains, and upland slopes.
1.1 Directions to Project Site
Directions to the Site from Statesville, North Carolina:
? From Interstate 40 take exit 148 onto NC 64 north, travel - 17 miles
Turn north (right) on NC 16 (towards Taylorsville), travel - 1 mile
? Turn west (left) on NC 90, travel - 1.5 miles
? Turn right on Three Forks Ch. Road, travel -2 miles
? Site is on right
o Site Latitude, Longitude at access from Three Forks Church Road
35.931617°N, 81.206949°W (NAD83/WGS84)
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designation
The Site is located within the Catawba River Basin in 14-digit United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03050101120030 of the South
Atlantic/Gulf Region (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] subbasin number
03-08-32) [Figure 2, Appendix A]). The Site is located on tributaries to Muddy Fork, which has
been assigned Stream Index Number 11-69-4.
1.3 Project Components and Structure
Proposed Site restoration activities include the construction of meandering, E/C-type stream
channel resulting in 4686 linear feet of Priority I stream restoration, 110 linear feet of braided
stream restoration, 468 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level I), 7.2 acres of riparian wetland
restoration, 1.2 acres of nonriparian wetland restoration, 2.2 acres of riparian wetland
enhancement, and 0.1 acres of nonriparian wetland enhancement (Table 1).
Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and
background information are summarized in Tables 2-4.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 1
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
y
L
U
C
0
CQ
^C
C
C,
C
O
G
U
U
a
CC
O
L
O
A
x
H
° c 2
o •
- y c ? -v •- ° •
a ro 3
? s '?
aq ? 3
i
J , _
?
"3 O y ?_ :C U ._. ? ? by ? .. > iC a •?
cQ =
U C y v?
?
U v
= o o'cs c c y c'? y c y o y r°

CQ

a+

oU

c
04 >
-C
6 >
-0
-Z
N

'?
G

R
:•, L ?, O L
a
"? O c y
.? LO G' vi y
$ ° > II. 7 v.
C ^ . U
C p a? , N i ^ M L
-t:; CIE 0 04
CC C C L ca y y 'O cs ? y • O
•L L
O n
^
b G? y N
U U p L c
5 ca ? _
y
k? 0
cd C' . y
CC V .
. .-
%
O C C v? 'y 7 .O .J U .= 'k : G M
y
N
I
I 6
•"'^ C
m CS
c L
? y o y ac Q-.w `° ?s y? " o m N c n ? z

Z C =
? O
? N .
F„ O V- ? p
b = bq U •.. c.
U C
O ,LU. C ?
'. O cOC O=b7 v
L N `

H r. •L _j j R1 L U C CI.? c'a bq c7 cyd
s N
f1. 11 U U
CC a 'J ? C
S ?
U U
?
CO
?
= L
O ..r

bA CC
? a ,-• -- ?
^ N •-- rj 'O ?
?
• h C ? N ? N •7 ?
ate. p C ? ++ ??

a?
ce
5 4

L b C r. O ? '. ^C
a

?' ?

R

C ?'

Qn GM

V L GL

V 0
0
7 O

r 00

Ic N

l\ N

N N

O
7J

y
•?
C> L
Q O

tC
•L
?i r+ ?+
G

? a. .•a U
C C
0

L N C. =
? ?
C C ? .- C
O [? .
? ? E O E ? ? CA
v e i ca
? ? cs
c y ?
o U cs
o y
? :e
R: o p •
= o ?
S ?
t o
w
N N y y S ..+

= o ? ? 'f
a
i o
> u v
O L ` i >
w N L
Cr U
O M Q
cC L
CC
L +O+
d ?
° ?

..

V? bU C L
C 00
7 O N O >
C •?•
•e
v ? .- y

a+ w ? ? ry., C O •

w [?
?

O bA U

c
it
40 u

V V
? J
Q ?
O.
Q
0
0
0
S
O
a
i
n
N
M
O
0
0
O
r
s
0
4

0
U
s
sz
V
3
y

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Herman Dairy Restoration Site

Activity or Deliverable Data
Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-002830) -- March 2010
EEP Contract No. 003271 -- July 23, 2010
Restoration Plan -- January 2011
Construction Plans
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Herman Dairy Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
George Howard and John Preyer
919-755-9490
Designer Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis
919-215-1693
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 3
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Herman Dairy Restoration Site
Project County Alexander County, North Carolina
Physio aphic Region Northern Inner Piedmont
Ecoregion Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin Catawba
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit) 03050101120030
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project 03-08-32
Identify planning area (LWP, RBRP, other)? Yes - Upper Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009
WRC Class (Warm, Cool, Cold) Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated 100
Beaver activity observed during design
base? Yes
Unnamed Tributaries to Mudd Fork
UT 1 UT 2 UT 3
Drainage Area 1.0 0.06 0.04
Stream Order (USGS to o) 2nd 1 st 1 st
Restored Length (feet) 2156 1684 760
Perennial (P) or Intermittent (I) P P I
Watershed Type Rural Rural Rural
Watershed impervious cover <5% <5% <5%
NCDWQ AU/Index number 11-69-4 11-69-4 11-69-4
NCDWQ Classification C C C
303d listed? No No No
Upstream of a 303d listed Yes Yes Yes
Reasons for 303d listed segment aquatic
life/sediment aquatic
life/sediment aquatic
life/sediment
Total acreage of easement 32 32 32
Total existing vegetated acreage of easement 8 8 8
Total planted restoration acreage 31.5 31.5 31.5
Rosgen Classification of preexisting Cd5 Fc5/6 Fc5/6
Rosgen Classification of As-built E/C 4/5 E/C 4/5 E/C 415
Valley type VIII VIII VIII
Valley sloe 0.0066 0.0052 0.0013
Cowardin classification of proposed R3UB1/2 R3UB1/2 R4SB3/4
Trout waters designation NA NA NA
Species of concern, endangered etc. NA NA NA
Dominant Soil Series Codorus/Hatboro Codorus/Hatboro Codorus/Hatboro
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Drainage Area
The Herman Dairy Restoration Site drainage area is 708 acres (1.1 square miles) at the Site
outfall (Figures 3A-313, Appendix A). The Site watershed is characterized by agricultural
production, narrow riparian corridors, and sparse residential development.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 4
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
2.2 Surface Water Classification/Water Quality
The Site is located within the Catawba River Basin in 14-digit USGS Cataloging Unit
03050101120030 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (NCDWQ subbasin number 03-08-32)
(Figure 2, Appendix A). 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). Streams classified as C are suitable for aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with
waters on an organized or frequent basis.
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).
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The Site is located within the Northern Inner Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina. This
ecoregion is characterized by dissected irregular plains, low to high hills, ridges, and isolated
monadnocks; low to moderate gradient streams with mostly cobble, gravel, and sandy substrates
(Griffith 2002). Onsite elevations are moderately steep with a high of 1100 feet on slopes in the
upper extents of the Site and a low of 1080 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at
the Site outfall (Taylorsville, North Carolina USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle).
The Site is located within the Inner Piedmont Geologic Belt and is underlain primarily by
metamorphic bedrock consisting of Mica and Schist. Site soils are primarily alluvium developed
from Mica and Schist, and upstream Metamorphosed Granitic Rock. These soils are acidic in
nature and greater than 5 feet in depth.
Soils that occur within the Site, according to the Web Soil Survey (USDA 2010) are depicted in
Figure 4 (Appendix A) and described in Table 5.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 5
Herman Diaty Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
Table 5. Site Soils
Herman Dairv Restoration Site
Soil Series Hydric
Status Family Description
This series consists of nearly level, somewhat poorly
Codurus
Class B Fluvaquentic drained soils on floodplains that are frequently flooded.
loam Dystrodepts The seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of 0.5-
2.0 feet.
Dan River Oxyaquic This series consists of well-drained, moderately
and Comus Class B/ Dystrudepts/ permeable soils on floodplains with 0-4 percent slopes.
soils Nonhydric Fluventic The seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of more
Dystrude is than 2.5-5 feet.
This series consists of nearly level, poorly drained soils
Hatboro loam Class A Fluvaquentic in floodplain depressions that are frequently flooded.
Endoaquepts The seasonal high water table occurs at the surface to a
depth of 1 foot.
Pfafftown Typic This series consists of well-drained soils on stream
sandy loam Nonhydric Hapludults terraces with 2-6 percent slopes. The seasonal high
water table occurs at a depth of more than 4 feet.
`Class A = hydric soil; Class B = nonhydric soil that may contain inclusions of hydric soils
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The Site watershed is characterized primarily by
agriculture with forest land in riparian corridors and
upper headwater depressions, and low-density
residential development scattered along roadways.
Impervious surfaces account for less than 5 percent of
the watershed land surface (Figure 3A, Appendix A and
Table 6). It is anticipated that land uses will remain
constant for the foreseeable future. There are currently
no pressures from surrounding cities for development.
Table 6. Watershed Land Use
Herman Dairv Restoration Site
Land Use Acres Percentage
Forest 197 28
Pasture 454 64
Residential Development 57 8
Total 708 100
The Site 14-digit Cataloging Unit 03050101120030 is a 37-square mile watershed characterized
by 41 percent agriculture, 47 percent forest, and includes 50 permitted animal operations (the
most of any Targeted Local Watershed in the upper Catawba). Built up areas around
Taylorsville contribute to an overall watershed impervious surface totaling 2.4 percent (NCEEP
2009).
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 6
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
?'''_ Existing Site Land Use
2.5 Protected Species
Species with a Federal classification of Endangered or Threatened are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range," and the term "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).
Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed species in
North Carolina as posted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) at http://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.htmi, three federally protected species are listed for Alexander County.
The following table lists the federally protected species and indicates if potential habitat exists
within the Site for each.
Table 7. Federally Protected Species for Alexander County
Herman Dairv Rectnrntinn Site
Habitat

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Present Biological

Within Site Conclusion
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA No No Effect
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T (S/A) No Not
Applicable
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened No No Effect
cuuwIgcicu - a iaxun If ualiger of exunction inrougnout au or a sigmneant portion of its range' ; 1 hreatened =a taxon "likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened (due to
Similarity of Appearance) = a species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its
protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) BGPA
Adult bald eagles are identified by their large white head, short white tail, and dark-brown to
chocolate- brown body plumage. Immature eagles lack the white head plumage and have brown
to black body plumage. In flight bald eagles can be identified by their flat wing soar. Adults
average about 3 feet from head to tail, weigh approximately 10-12 pounds, and have a wingspan
that can reach up to 7 feet. Fish are the major food source for bald eagles although bald eagles
also consume a variety of birds, mammals, and turtles when fish are not readily available.
Eagle nests are generally found in close proximity to water (within 0.5 mile) where the eagle has
a clear flight path to the water. They generally nest in the largest living tree with an open view
of the surrounding land. Human disturbance may cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable
habitat.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 7
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Potential habitat for the bald eagle does not occur within or adjacent to the Site. The
nearest open water which may serve as habitat for the bald eagle is approximately 6
miles to the south in Lake Hickory. The Site may serve as a fly over corridor for the
bald eagle; however, the proposed project will have no effect on the bald eagle.
Clemmys rnuhlenbergii (Bog turtle) Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3 to 4 inches. This
otherwise darkly-colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of a bright orange or
yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et. al. 1980). The bog turtle has declined
drastically within the northern portion of its range due to over-collection and habitat alteration.
As a result, the USFWS officially proposed in the January 29, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR
4229) to list bog turtle as threatened within the northern portion of its range, and within the
southern portion of its range, which includes North Carolina, the bog turtle is proposed for listing
as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the northern population. The proposed listing
would allow incidental take of bog turtles in the southern population resulting from otherwise
lawful activity. The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually in
association with aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow streams over soft bottoms
(Palmer and Braswell 1995). In North Carolina, bog turtles have a discontinuous distribution in
the Mountains and western Piedmont.
Biological Conclusion: NOT APPLICABLE
Bog turtle is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance with another listed
species and is listed for its protection. Taxa listed as T(S/A) are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Hexastylis nanifZora (Dwarf-flowered heartleaf) Threatened
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a small, spicy-smelling, rhizomatous perennial herb with long-
stalked leaves and flowers. Leaves are heart-shaped, evergreen, leathery, and dark green above
and paler below; the upper leaf surface is often patterned with pale green reticulate mottles. The
leaves grow to about 2.4 inches long and form a dense, spreading rosette. The flowers, which
appear in April and May, are solitary, flask-shaped, fleshy and firm, and have three triangular
lobes. This species differs from related species by having smaller flowers with calyx tubes that
narrow distally rather than broaden (Kral 1983).
Dwarf-flowering heartleaf is found in acidic sandy loam on north-facing wooded slopes of
ravines in the Piedmont of North and South Carolina. This species typically occurs in oak-
hickory-pine forest where hydrologic conditions range from moist to relatively dry, but also may
be present in adjacent pastured woodland. This species typically is found in moist duff at the
bases of trees or mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) (Kral 1983). In North Carolina, dwarf-
flowered heartleaf is known from a few southwestern Piedmont counties (Amoroso and Finnegan
2002).
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 8
Herman Diaty Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
This project is not expected to affect mountain dwarf-flowered heartleaf because typical
habitat is not present within the Site. No north-facing wooded slopes with oak-hickory
forest are located within the project area.
Designated Critical Habitat
No designated critical habitat is documented to occur within Alexander County.
2.6 Cultural Resources
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800)
comments were received for the Site from the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(NCSHPO) in a letter dated August 31, 2010 from Peter Sandbeck. NCSHPO conducted a
"review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, no comment was made on the project as proposed."
2.7 Potential Constraints
The presence of conditions or characteristics that have the potential to hinder restoration
activities within the Site was evaluated. The evaluation focused primarily on the presence of
hazardous materials, utilities and restrictive easements, rare/threatened/endangered species or
critical habitats, and the potential for hydrologic trespass. Existing information regarding
constraints was acquired and reviewed. In addition, any Site conditions that have the potential to
restrict the restoration design and implementation were documented during the field
investigation.
No constraints that may hinder restoration activities have been identified for this Site.
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The property is held by Mr. Ned Herman - Herman Dairy Farms, Inc. A perpetual conservation
easement will be prepared that incorporates the results of this study. The conservation easement
will be depicted on a recordable map, signed by the owner, and recorded in Alexander County.
2.7.2 Site Access
The Site is accessed from Three Forks Church Road through Herman Dairy Farms. An access
easement to the conservation easement will be obtained and recorded in Alexander County.
2.7.3 Utilities
The property is crossed by a utility easement (high tension power lines) in the middle reaches of
UT 1 and the upper headwaters of UT 2. The utility easement will not be included in the
conservation easement. The utility easement crosses in a perpendicular manner and should not
hinder development of the Site. Utilities are not considered a constraint for this project.
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas are in the process of being analyzed to predict
the feasibility of manipulating existing surface drainage patterns without adverse effects to the
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 9
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
Site or adjacent properties. The following presents a summary of hydrologic and hydraulic
analyses along with provisions designed to maximize groundwater recharge and wetland
restoration while reducing potential for impacts to adjacent properties.
The purpose of the analysis is to predict flood extents for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year
storms under existing and proposed conditions after stream and wetland restoration activities
have been implemented. The comparative flood elevations are evaluated by simulating peak
flood flows for Site features using the WMS (Watershed Modeling System, BOSS International)
program and regional regression equations. Once the flows are determined, the river geometry
and cross-sections are digitized from a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) surface (prepared by a
professional surveyor) using the HEC-GeoRAS component of ArcView. The cross-sections are
adjusted as needed based on field-collected data. Once corrections to the geometry are
performed, the data is imported into HEC-RAS.
Watersheds and land use estimations were measured from existing DEM (Digital Elevation
Model) data and an aerial photograph. Field surveyed cross-sections and water surfaces were
obtained along Site features. Valley cross-sections were obtained from both onsite cross-
sections and detailed topographic mapping to 1-foot contour intervals using the available DTM.
Observations of existing hydraulic characteristics will be incorporated into the model and the
computed water surface elevations will be calibrated using engineering judgment.
The HEC-RAS will be completed prior to completion of detailed construction plans for Site
restoration activities. A primary objective of the stream and wetland restoration design is
maintenance of a no-rise in the 100-year floodplain. Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) 3710384000J, effective December 18, 2007,
indicates that Site tributaries (UT1, UT2, & UT3) all flow into Muddy Fork. Site tributaries are
not located within a detailed flood study; however, a Limited Detailed Flood Study has been
performed along Muddy Fork and its floodplain of Muddy Fork. It is assumed that a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) are not expected to be
necessary at this time. However, coordination with FEMA will be conducted, if necessary, prior
to initiating Site construction activities.
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
Streams targeted for restoration include three unnamed tributaries to Muddy Fork, which have
been dredged, straightened, rerouted, or otherwise impacted within the Site. Current Site
conditions have resulted in degraded water quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and
sediment retention, and unstable channel characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that
maintain pools and an increase in erosive forces to channel bed and banks). In addition, the lack
of deep-rooted riparian vegetation and continued clearing and dredging of Site steams have
exacerbated erosion adjacent to Site channels. Site restoration activities will restore riffle-pool
morphology, aid in energy dissipation, increase aquatic habitat, stabilize channel banks, and
greatly reduce sediment loss from channel banks.
3.1 Existing Conditions Survey
Site stream dimension, pattern, and profile were measured to characterize existing channel
conditions. Locations of existing stream reaches and cross-sections are depicted in Figure 4
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 10
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
(Appendix A) and Figure B1 (Appendix B). Stream geometry measurements under existing
conditions are summarized in the Morphological Stream Characteristics Table (Table 8).
3.2 Channel Classification and Morphology
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to classify existing stream conditions
based on a classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). This
classification stratifies streams into comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and
substrate characteristics. Primary components of the classification include degree of
entrenchment, width-depth ratio, sinuosity, channel slope, and stream substrate composition.
Existing Site reaches are classified as unstable C-type (moderately entrenched, high to moderate
width-depth ratio) and F-type (entrenched, high width-depth ratio) streams. Unnamed tributary 1
is also characterized by a D-type (multiple stem) channel due to the excavation of a ditch that
parallels the main stream channel. Each stream type is modified by a number 1 through 6 (e. g.,
E5), denoting a stream type which supports a substrate dominated by 1) bedrock, 2) boulders, 3)
cobble, 4) gravel, 5) sand, or 6) silt/clay. Existing Site reaches are characterized by sand and
silt/clay substrate as the result of channel rerouting and evolution.
3.3 Channel Evolution
Bed and bank erosion typically leads to channel downcutting and evolution from a stable E-type
channel into a G-type (gully) channel. Continued erosion eventually results in lateral extension
of the G-type channel into an F-type (widened gully) channel. The F-type channel will continue
to widen laterally until the channel is wide enough to support a stable C-type or E-type channel
at a lower elevation so that the original floodplain is no longer subject to regular flooding.
3.4 Valley Classification
The Site is located within a valley characterized as Valley Type VIII. This type of valley is
identified by the presence of multiple river terraces positioned laterally along broad valleys with
gentle, down-valley elevation relief. Alluvial terraces and floodplains are the predominant
depositional landforms, which produce a high sediment supply. Typical streams include C- and
E-type streams with slightly entrenched, meandering channels with a riffle-pool sequence.
3.5 Discharge
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation
averaging approximately 42-55 inches per year (USDA 1995). Drainage basin sizes within the
Site range from 0.1-square mile for UT 1 and UT 2 to 1.0-square mile for UT 1 at its confluence
with Muddy Fork.
Discharge estimates for the Site utilize an assumed definition of "bankfull" and the return
interval associated with that bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined
as the channel dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or "dominant" discharge
(Gordon et al. 1992). Based on Piedmont regional curves (Harman et al. 1999), the bankfull
discharge for a 1.1 square mile watershed is expected to average 95.4 cubic feet per second,
which is expected to occur approximately every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 11
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
p
W m
G

O m
C

rn m
m
a ? m q r co m .n N o 0
K
a

d

?
R A C C C C A C C A C '? C A C C? tO C A C A

a

o

° O
-

c

m

°, _

a s
Z5
v n o+ -
C
E
p

s
- -

-

W

°e

m m

? O?

m
r m

c O?
-

H t m
-TJ `-
?
N N

C d

y

c T

W

O?

Oi
6 4
_

??
'O
m m m ?
p
W
N
?G
aG ?

O O
4
O
K
a `
w

m m d - - M

0
-
d
E

?

_
- 0

c
E
p

o

_
d
?
Ol
C
vin
p

D•

N O

- N

m °

?
° `O N

°

m -

-
LL rv a m m
ti o _
a m
N ? m ?n
'm
I K Z° K I K K 2 K Z o
p
W m ?
O
N
o o
n ry o
o
O
a w

N

w
a °

o -
c
E o

F
p

m 0 0
m
? _
i -'o
? o
° ?
n
?
m -
_
c

-
U r ?° a c m 6 o r ?? m
-

N
YI
V
A
U
E m
m
d N
? C
_ O
A `
u_
O1
d
L
I Z
O •A
? O
m ?
m E
Fes- 2

W
U
2
W
R'
W
LL
W
R'

m

W

°
m

N
m

N

N

N 7 7 7 7
W
> >
m
o °
?
rv
N
W C
v¢
Z m d °
o 19 d
a o ?
o "! r ?S cy?
h N o
_ rn r
? d
R' m
A j?
LL' d N

W F
W Q
> 4i
? 6
? m ? m ? m m m c m m m? d A c ? c a'-
c
m?
m c
m

0 0
-
m
m
2
A
$ o
?

A _ ? ? a ? 3 3 x d
~ y ?
> E N m ? O E ' o c ¢ ? ? O? o? c?
? m

a c ? ? a c x ? o
a° v
s° ?

E r
S y
o ?
z °?
a°
O m 8
L 3 m U

? in
F
E
E m o

I
= v
- v
_ ?
- ?
- f = E
E W
_ o
o s
m E
E _
Q
° `
°
°
in o m m w m m m a w a a

w °. o ° o
O
oC
N
O
°
O°
O
N
0
a ° N
o
-° °o °o
c
°o 0 0° °
c ° o
o b N

0 N° V° M O
O
K
a w e e o
o 0 6 6 6 6 6 6
a s °i c c c c°' a
c -a °' o °1 o °i v m
> m °' m °' cm O1 m °i 0 m °' m` °i m O1 m

F
O c
- d d
o
=
- y
a
a
_ a
= o
v a o,
Q

a

°

°

'-
-
a
= o
n
a`
d
_
= o
m c a
?
w w"
c A
- A A

N
2 Z Z Z. `o

W
?O
O
N
O

O

O N

C
W p

a

V
O y N 0 0 0 0 0 °° °o o c
O
a ° " 0 0
m
-a
?_

a °c'
a
a c
o
°?

a O1
o

a m

a o

a °i

v °'
a
?
m
m
o,

°'
m
m
o
.-
m
m
rn
m

O1
> c > y
r
O m

c
d -c° m c.

y a 5

°o w -
? o m
v °w
y a 5

w d
= om

_

.n
Y 6 m
_

x

'-
Z O m v

_ _ -
-'6 o °
-
to
Z o

n
Z O

G

n
^ b

O

m

o

°
O

r
N
p
N V
0 '
N O
<
O O
u? ?D O?pp
0 O O

0 N o
O G O
C O
°
a0
C
a io a .n o 0
0 6 d o c k d o 0 0
°m .. rn .. m .. ? ?
c c .. m
c .. m
a c .. m
a c .. m
a c a
m ? m
? c m
? c m
m c m
m .NC-. c m
? c m
? ? c m c

a
? `w
` d
=
+ L a
>E O
a
C .a °°a c v co.
c c c .a °° -° a
_

Z O N a
t5 N d

Z O N O
° _

-
Z a C
- N d
a
Z O
d
C
C
O
N
V
N
.Y
L
U
E d
m..
N c
_ o
A m
V ?
O ?
N
d
t R'
a
0
ap C
d ?
H 2

W
U
W
W
LL
W

m

o

a

N

m
tp O
o

o O

N
<

m

-
o
o O

0 0
<

0 0

0
O O
rn

G O
y

0

°

y
7 j
D•

3
N
V N
v
o
O ?G
tl N tC
V N
r N
d
0 Y p N
p
p
Q

~ N

?' R
a 0
LL
U >
..
C
.. N
> d
..
..
..
w ` Ot N S O1 Oi -
' m
.? O ? ? ? O

'3

x
_
? vi
n
C

m

y

u

fn ?'? c Vl m S
S .?.
? ? N N. fn y N f1J 3 £ g
? zzN Z ?1
J U N o 3 J ? V° e m d N ? C N N
O ? - - ? c
? g ? c N y y N N o N o y o N o
-
° ? a ? o m m N rv? a m _ ? - a d N o N ? f? N <?
a m ¢ y
3.6 Channel Stability Assessment
3.6.1 Stream Power
Stability of a stream refers to its ability to adjust itself to inflowing water and sediment load.
One form of instability occurs when a stream is unable to transport its sediment load, leading to
aggradation, or deposition of sediment onto the stream bed. Conversely, when the ability of the
stream to transport sediment exceeds the availability of sediments entering a reach, and/or
stability thresholds for materials forming the channel boundary are exceeded, erosion or
degradation occurs.
Stream power is the measure of a stream's capacity to move sediment over time. Stream power
can be used to evaluate the longitudinal profile, channel pattern, bed form, and sediment
transport of streams. Stream power may be measured over a stream reach (total stream power)
or per unit of channel bed area. The total stream power equation is defined as:
Q = PgQs
where Q = total stream power (ft-lb/s-ft), p = density of water (lb/f:3), g = gravitational
acceleration (ft/s2), Q = discharge (0/sec), and s = energy slope (ft/ft). The specific weight of
water (y = 62.4 lb/ft3) is equal to the product of water density and gravitational acceleration, pg.
A general evaluation of power for a particular reach can be calculated using bankfull discharge
and water surface slope for the reach. As slopes become steeper and/or velocities increase,
stream power increases and more energy is available for reworking channel materials.
Straightening and clearing channels increases slope and velocity and thus stream power.
Alterations to the stream channel may conversely decrease stream power. In particular, over-
widening of a channel will dissipate energy of flow over a larger area. This process will
decrease stream power, allowing sediment to fall out of the water column, possibly leading to
aggradation of the stream bed.
The relationship between a channel and its floodplain is also important in determining stream
power. Streams that remain within their banks at high flows tend to have higher stream power
and relatively coarser bed materials. In comparison, streams that flood over their banks onto
adjacent floodplains have lower stream power, transport finer sediments, and are more stable.
Stream power assessments can be useful in evaluating sediment discharge within a stream and
the deposition or erosion of sediments from the stream bed.
3.6.2 Shear Stress
Shear stress, expressed as force per unit area, is a measure of the frictional force that flowing
water exerts on a streambed. Shear stress and sediment entrainment are affected by sediment
supply (size and amount), energy distribution within the channel, and frictional resistance of the
stream bed and bank on water within the channel. These variables ultimately determine the
ability of a stream to efficiently transport bedload and suspended sediment.
For flow that is steady and uniform, the average boundary shear stress exerted by water on the
bed is defined as follows:
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 14
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander Coimty, North Carolina
T=y Rs
where i = shear stress (lb/ft2), y = specific weight of water, R = hydraulic radius (ft), and s = the
energy slope (ft/ft). Shear stress calculated in this way is a spatial average and does not
necessarily provide a good estimate of bed shear at any particular point. Adjustments to account
for local variability and instantaneous values higher than the mean value can be applied based on
channel form and irregularity. For a straight channel, the maximum shear stress can be assumed
from the following equation:
imax = 1.5i
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
imax = 2.65i(Rc /Wbkf)-0.5
where Rc = radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf = bankfull width (ft).
Shear stress represents a difficult variable to predict due to variability of channel slope,
dimension, and pattern. Typically, as valley slope decreases channel depth and sinuosity
increase to maintain adequate shear stress values for bedload transport. Channels that have
higher shear stress values than required for bedload transport will scour bed and bank materials,
resulting in channel degradation. Channels with lower shear stress values than needed for
bedload transport will deposit sediment, resulting in channel aggradation.
The actual amount of work accomplished by a stream per unit of bed area depends on the
available power divided by the resistance offered by the channel sediments, plan form, and
vegetation. The stream power equation can thus be written as follows:
co = PgQs = Cv
where co = stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft2), i = shear stress, and v =
average velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
co = Q/Wbkf
where Wbkf = width of stream at bankfull (ft).
3.6.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results
Channel degradation or aggradation occurs when hydraulic forces exceed or do not approach the
resisting forces in the channel. The amount of degradation or aggradation is a function of
relative magnitude of these forces over time. The interaction of flow within the boundary of
open channels is only imperfectly understood. Adequate analytical expressions describing this
interaction have yet to be developed for conditions in natural channels. Thus, means of
characterizing these processes rely heavily upon empirical formulas.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 0032 71) page 15
Herman Diaty Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander Coamty, North Carolina
Traditional approaches for characterizing stability can be placed in one of two categories: 1)
maximum permissible velocity and 2) tractive force, or stream power and shear stress. The
former is advantageous in that velocity can be measured directly. Shear stress and stream power
cannot be measured directly and must be computed from various flow parameters. However,
stream power and shear stress are generally better measures of fluid force on the channel
boundary than velocity.
Using these equations, stream power and shear stress were estimated for 1) existing dredged and
straightened reaches, 2) the reference reaches, and 3) proposed Site conditions. Important input
values and output results (including stream power, shear stress, and per unit shear power and
shear stress) are presented in Table 9. Average stream velocity and discharge values were
calculated for the existing Site stream reaches, the reference reach, and proposed conditions.
Reference Reach 1 values for stream power and shear stress are similar to proposed values but
are slightly higher. Reference Reach 1 is characterized by a fully forested riparian fringe and is
therefore able to resist stream power and shear stress of these magnitudes. However, the
proposed channels will be devoid of deep-rooted vegetation; therefore, proposed targets for
stream power and shear stress values should be slightly less than predicted for the reference
reach.
Stream power and shear stress values are lower for the existing, dredged and straightened UT1
than for proposed channels. Under existing conditions UT1 acts like a braided channel since
stream flow has been split between two separate ditched channels dug along either side of the
floodplain. Therefore, existing values are expected to be lower due to aggradation of the
channels, which are acting more similar to a multi-channel system. Proposed conditions for UT1
include slightly higher values than existing in order to maintain stream power and shear stress so
that the channel neither aggrades nor degrades; results of the analysis indicate that proposed UT
1 is expected to maintain sediment transport functions of a stable stream system.
Stream power and shear stress values are higher for the existing, dredged and straightened UT2
and UT3 than for proposed channels. Existing reaches are degrading as evidenced by bank
erosion, channel incision, large head-cuts, and bank-height ratios ranging from 1.8 to 12.2.
Degradation has resulted from a combination of water surface slopes that have been steepened,
channel straightening, and dredging. Stream power and shear stress values for the proposed
channels are lower than for existing channels to effectively transport sediment through the Site
without eroding and downcutting, resulting in stable channel characteristics. Results of the
analysis indicate that proposed UT2 is expected to maintain stream power as a function of width
values. Some areas within the UT3 design channel may be expected to form low-slope, braided,
stream/swamp complexes similar to swamps in the area. These stream/swamp complexes would
not be considered unstable; however, footage of stream channel restoration in these reaches will
be recalculated from distance along the thalweg (1.2 sinuosity) to distance along the valley (1.0
sinuosity).
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 16
Herman Diaty Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
Table 9. Stream Power (n) and Shear Stress (ti) Values
Herman lnairv Restoratinn Site

Discharge
ft2/s Water
Surface
Slope
ft/ft
Total
Stream
Power 0
Total Stream
Power/Bankfull
Width QJW

Hydraulic
Radius
Shear
Stress
ti

Velocity
v

v

mas
Existing Conditions
UT1 83.7 0.0062 32.38 1.83 3.73 1.44 1.12 1.61 2.17
UT2 8.2 0.0085 4.35 0.48 11.03 5.85 0.08 0.45 8.78
UT3 11 0.0040 2.75 0.40 7.66 1.91 0.19 0.36 2.87
Reference Reaches
Reference Reach 1 47.2 0.0178 52.43 5.52 0.98 1.08 4.00 4.33 4.33
Proposed Conditions
UT1 83.7 0.0055 28.73 1.71 1.05 0.36 4.14 1.50 2.37
UT2 8.2 0.0043 2.20 0.39 0.35 0.09 3.57 0.34 0.25
UT3 11 0.0011 0.76 0.12 0.40 0.03 3.67 0.10 -0.28
3.7 Bankfull Verification
Discharge estimates for the Site utilize an assumed definition of "bankfull" and the return
interval associated with that bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined
as the channel dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or "dominant" discharge
(Gordon et al. 1992). Current research also estimates the bankfull discharge would be expected
to occur approximately every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).
The Site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic province; therefore, regional curves for the
Piedmont (Harman et al. 1999) were utilized and verified by regional regression equations,
Cowan's roughness equation method, and reference stream data.
Based on available Piedmont regional curves, the bankfull discharge for Reference Reach 1 (0.45
square mile watershed) is approximately 50.0 cubic feet per second (Harman et al. 1999). The
USGS regional regression equation for the Rural Piedmont region indicates that bankfull
discharge for Reference Reach 1 at a 1.3 to 1.5 year return interval for the Blue Ridge/Piedmont
region indicates a bankfull discharge for the reference reach of 50-56 cubic feet per second
(USGS 2006). Blue Ridge/Piedmont regression calculations of bankfull discharge are similar to
estimates based on field indicators and regional curves, as discussed below (plots are included in
Appendix Q. In addition, a stream roughness coefficient (n) was estimated using a version of
Arcement and Schneider's (1989) weighted method for Cowan's (1956) roughness component
values and applied to the following equation (Manning 1891) to obtain a bankfull discharge
estimate.
Qbkf= [1.486/n] * [A*R2/3*S1/2]
where, A equals bankfull area, R equals bankfull hydraulic radius, and S equals average water
surface slope. The Manning's "n" method indicates that bankfull discharge for the reference
reach averages approximately 13.7 cubic feet per second, which is well-below estimates based
on Reference Reach 1 field indicators of bankfull and regional curves, as discussed below.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 17
Herman Diaiy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
Field indicators of bankfull and riffle cross-sections were utilized to obtain an average bankfull
cross-sectional area for Reference Reach 1. The Piedmont regional curves were then utilized to
plot the watershed area and discharge for Reference Reach 1 cross-sectional area. Field
indicators of bankfull approximate an average discharge of 47.2 cubic feet per second, which is
approximately 94 percent of that predicted by the Piedmont regional curves.
Based on the above analysis of methods to determine bankfull discharge, proposed conditions at
the Site will be based on an area 94 percent of the size indicated by Piedmont regional curves
based on bankfull indicators and stream measurements of Reference Reach 1. Table 10
summarizes all methods analyzed for estimating bankfull discharge.
Table 10. Reference Reach 1 Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Herman Dairy Restoration Site

Method Watershed Area
(square miles) Return Interval
0 ears) Discharge
cfs)
Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
(Harmen et al. 1999)
0.45
1.3- 1.5
50.0
Blue Ridge/Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2006)*
0.45
1.3-1.5
50-56
Manning 's "n" using Cowan's Method (1956) NA NA 13.7
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.45 1.3- 1.5 47.2
*North Carolina Flood Frequency Software, Revised 2001, Recompiled 2006
3.8 Vegetation
Distribution and composition of plant communities reflect landscape-level variations in
topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land use practices. The Site is composed of
agriculture land and scrub-shrub.
Agriculture land is currently dominated by corn (Zea mays) planted for harvesting, in addition to
opportunistic herbaceous species, and maintains little vegetative diversity. Scrub-shrub areas
along unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek consist of sparse canopy trees consisting of sycamore
(Plantanus occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), black cherry (Prunus serotina), white
oak (Quercus alba), and black willow (Salix nigra) along stream banks adjacent to UTI. The
remaining scrub-shrub areas are dominated by early successional species such as sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciua), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiora),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS
Two reference reaches were identified for the Site. The first reference stream (Reference Reach
1) is located less than 3 miles southwest of the Site on Spring Creek (Figure 5A, Appendix A).
Reference Reach 1 was the primary stream used to emulate restoration parameters at the Site.
The second reference stream (UT to Catawba River) is located approximately 20 miles southeast
of the Site situated at the top of an alluvial fan where the channel enters the Catawba River
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 18
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
floodplain. Measurements for the UT to Catawba River reference reach were completed in 2000
and only pattern ratios were used for this project. The streams were measured and classified by
stream type (Rosgen 1996).
4.1 Channel Classification
Both reference reaches are characterized as E-type, highly sinuous (1.4) channels with sand and
gravel dominated substrates. E-type streams are characterized as slightly entrenched, riffle-pool
channels exhibiting high sinuosity (1.3 to greater than 1.5). E-type streams typically exhibit a
sequence of riffles and pools associated with a sinuous flow pattern. In North Carolina, E-type
streams often occur in narrow to wide valleys with well-developed alluvial floodplains (Valley
Type VIII). E-type channels are typically considered stable; however, these streams are sensitive
to upstream drainage basin changes and/or channel disturbance, and may rapidly convert to other
stream types.
4.2 Discharge
Based on an analysis of bankfull discharge, proposed conditions at the Site will be based on an
area 94 percent of the size indicated by Piedmont regional curves (see Section 3.7 Bankfull
Verification).
4.3 Channel Morphology
Dimension: Data collected at Reference Reach 1 indicate bankfull cross-sectional areas of 11.8
square feet, which was slightly smaller than predicted by regional curves (12.5 square feet).
However, the stream is within a reasonable deviation from predictions by regional curve
calculations and adequately verify the use of this reference at the Site. Reference Reach 1
exhibits a bankfull width of 9.5, a bankfull depth of 1.3 feet, a width-to-depth ratio of 7.6, and a
bank-height ratio of 1.0 (see Table 8, Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics). Figures
513-5D (Appendix A) provide drainage area, existing conditions, plan view, and cross-sectional
data for Reference Reach 1 and depict the bankfull channel area.
The second reference reach (UT to Catawba River) was not used for dimension purposes. Data
collected at this reach indicate bankfull cross-sectional areas of 10.9 square feet, which was
significantly smaller than predicted by regional curves (29.5 square feet). This discrepancy is
most likely due to the reach's location adjacent to influence from alluvial deposition from the
Catawba River. Two implications of such deposition include 1) elevation of the channel bed
thereby reducing cross-sectional area and 2) more coarse-grained bed materials resulting in a
larger than average hyporheic zone.
Pattern and Profile: In-field measurements of the reference reaches have yielded a sinuosity of
1.4 (thalweg distance/straight-line distance). Onsite valley slopes range from 0.0178 at
Reference Reach 1 to 0.0040 at the UT to Catawba River Reference. Valley slopes exhibited by
reference channels range from slightly higher (0.0013) to slightly lower (0.0066) than the Site,
providing a good range of slopes to compare existing and proposed Site conditions.
Substrate: Reference channels are characterized by substrate dominated by sand and gravel sized
particles.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 19
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration .Site Restoration Svstems, LLC
Alexander Countu North Carolina
5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
5.1 Existing Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands/hydric soils within the Site were delineated in the field following
guidelines set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent
regional supplements, and located using GPS technology with reported submeter accuracy during
October 2010 (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Study area wetlands are considered palustrine
systems, as defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). Existing jurisdictional wetlands are depicted as
black cross-hatching on Figure 4 in Appendix A. A tear sheet confirming the delineation was
received from USACE representative Amanda Jones on January 26, 2011; a copy of the tear
sheet is included in Appendix D.
Wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Open water systems and wetlands receive similar treatment and consideration with respect to
Section 404 review.
5.2 Hydrological Characterization
It should be noted that construction activities will restore groundwater hydrology to
approximately 7.2 acres of drained riparian hydric soils and 1.2 acres of drained nonriparian
hydric soils, in addition to, enhance 2.2 acres of cleared riparian wetlands and enhance 0.1 acre
of cleared nonriparian wetlands. Areas of the Site targeted for riparian wetlands will receive
hydrological inputs from periodic overbank flooding of restored tributaries, groundwater
migration into the wetlands, upland/stormwater runoff, and, to a lesser extent, direct
precipitation. Areas targeted for nonriparian wetlands will receive hydrological inputs from
groundwater seepage, upland/stormwater runoff, and direct precipitation.
5.3 Soil Characterization
5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification
Detailed soil mapping conducted by licensed soil scientists indicate that 10.6 acres of the Site are
currently underlain by hydric soils of the Hatboro Series. Typical hydric soil profiles locations
are depicted on Figure 4 (Appendix A) and are described below. Information pertaining the
jurisdictional determination is included in Appendix D.
5.3.2 Profile Description
Profile 1
0-8 inches: IOYR 4/3 clay loam
8-10 inches: IOYR 5/3 clay loam with
common/fine/distinct mottles 5YR 5/8
10-13+ inches: IOYR 5/2 sandy clay loam with
common/fine /distinct mottles 7.5YR 5/6
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 20
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
Profile 2
0-6 inches IOYR 4/3 clay loam
6-8 inches IOYR 513 clay loam with few/fine/faint
mottles 7.5YR 5/8
8-12+ inches IOYR 6/2 clay loam with
common/fine/distinct mottles 7.5YR 5/8
Profile 3
0-4 inches: IOYR 5/4 clay loam
4-12 inches: IOYR 5/2 clay loam with
many/medium/distinct mottles 7.5YR 5/6
12-14+ inches: IOYR 6/1 clay loam with
common/medium/prominent mottles 7.5YR 5/8
Profile 4
0-4 inches: IOYR 5/4 clay loam
4-10 inches: 2.5Y 5/2 clay loam with
many/fine/prominent mottles 7.5YR 5/6
10-14+ inches: 2.5Y 6/2 clay loam with
many/medium/distinct mottles 7.5YR 5/6
Profile 5
0-6 inches: IOYR 513 clay loam with
many/medium/distinct mottles 7.5YR 5/6
6-12 inches: IOYR 5/2 clay loam with
many/medium/distinct mottles 7.5YR 5/8
12-14+ inches: IOYR 6/2 clay loam with
many/medium/prominent mottles 7.5YR 5/8
few/fine/faint mottles 7.5YR 5/6
5.4 Plant Community Characterization
Areas proposed for wetland restoration and enhancement are primarily vegetated by agricultural
row crops and opportunistic herbaceous species with very little vegetative diversity.
6.0 Reference Forest Ecosystem
A Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) is a forested area on which to model restoration efforts at
the Site in relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically stable climax
communities and should be a representative model of the Site forested ecosystem as it likely
existed prior to human disturbances. Data describing plant community composition and
structure should be collected at the RFEs and subsequently applied as reference data in an
attempt to emulate a natural climax community.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 21
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
The RFE for this project is adjacent to Reference Reach 1 located less than 3 miles southwest of
the Site on Spring Creek. The RFE supports plant community and landform characteristics that
restoration efforts will attempt to emulate. Tree and shrub species identified within the reference
forest and outlined in Table 11 will be used, in addition to other relevant species in appropriate
Schafale and Weakley (1990) community descriptions.
Table 11. Reference Forest Ecosvstem
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Canopy Species Understory Species
American beech (Fagus grandifolia) ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
white oak (Quercus alba) sourwood (Qxydendrimt arboreum)
red oak (Quercus rubra) flowering dogwood (Cornus orida)
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tuli ifera) white pine (Pinus strobus)
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) tulip poplar (Liriodendron tithpifera)
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreton) arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum)
red maple (Ater rubrum) American holly (Ilex opaca)
river birch (Betula nigra) common reenbrier (Smilax rotundi olia)
giant cane (Arztndinaria gigantea)
Christmas fern (Polystichtan acrostichoides)
cinnamon fern (Qsmunda cinnamomea)
7.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
7.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water
quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring wildlife habitat and will be accomplished by
the following.
1. 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.
5. Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability and the use of in-stream
structures.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 22
Herman Diaty Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
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.
These goals will be achieved by the following.
• Restoring approximately 4686 linear feet of stream channel through construction of
stable channel at the historic floodplain elevation.
• Restoring approximately 110 linear feet of braided stream channel by redirecting diffuse
flow across riparian wetlands.
• Enhancing (Level I) approximately 468 linear feet of stream channel through cessation of
current land use practices, removing invasive species, and planting with native forest
vegetation.
• Restoring approximately 7.2 acres of riparian wetland by removing spoil castings,
restoring stream inverts to historic elevations to rehydrate stream-side wetlands, filling
ditches and abandoned channels, eliminating land use practices. and planting with native
forest vegetation.
• Enhancing approximately 2.2 acres of riparian wetland by filling ditches/abandoned
channels and supplemental planting.
• Restoring approximately 1.2 acres of nonriparian wetland by removing spoil castings,
filling abandoned ditches to rehydrate slope wetlands, eliminating land use practices, and
planting with native forest vegetation.
• Enhancing approximately 0.1 acres of riparian wetland through supplemental plantings.
• Revegetating floodplains and slopes adjacent to restored streams and wetlands.
• Protecting the Site in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
7.2 Stream Design
Onsite streams targeted for restoration have endured significant disturbance from land use
activities such as land clearing, livestock grazing, straightening and rerouting of channels, and
other anthropogenic maintenance. Site streams will be restored to emulate historic conditions at
the Site utilizing parameters from a nearby, relatively undisturbed reference stream (Reference
Reach 1) (see Section 4.0 Reference Streams).
7.2.1 Designed Channel Classification
The proposed channel has been designed to emulate parameters of the relatively undisturbed
reference stream (Reference Reach 1) located less than 3 miles southwest of the Site. Reference
Reach 1 is classified as an E 4/5-type channel; Site restoration reaches have been proposed as Ec
4/5-type and braided channels (see Table 8 Morphological Stream Characteristics). Proposed
channels are expected to be characterized by sand and gravel substrate similar to reference
streams, which emulate historic Site conditions.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 23
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
7.2.2 Target Wetland CommuntiesBuffer Communities
Onsite wetland and buffer areas targeted for restoration and enhancement have endured
significant disturbance from land use activities such as land clearing, livestock grazing, and other
anthropogenic maintenance. These areas will be planted with native forest species typical of
wetland and buffer communities in the region such as those found within the reference forest
(see Section 6.0 Reference Forest Ecosystem). Emphasis will focus on developing a diverse
plant assemblage.
7.3 Stream Restoration
Stream restoration efforts are designed to restore a stable, meandering stream on new location
that approximates hydrodynamics, stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to
reference conditions (Figure 6, Appendix A). Geometric attributes for the existing, degraded
channels and the proposed, stable channels are listed in Table of Morphological Stream
Characteristics (Table 8).
Based on preliminary analysis and field investigations, restoration activities will follow stream
guidance as presented in Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the
Coastal Plain - Draft (USACE and NCDWQ 2007). Primary activities designed to restore the
channels include 1) belt-width preparation and grading, 2) channel excavation, 3) installation of
channel plugs, 4) backfilling of the abandoned channel, and 5) vegetative planting.
Belt-width Preparation and Grading
Care will be taken to avoid the removal of existing, deeply rooted vegetation within the belt-
width corridor, which may provide design channel stability. Material excavated during grading
will be stockpiled immediately adjacent to channel segments to be abandoned and backfilled.
These segments will be backfilled after stream diversion is completed.
Spoil material may be placed to stabilize temporary access roads and to minimize compaction of
the underlying floodplain. However, all spoil will be removed from floodplain surfaces upon
completion of construction activities.
After preparation of the corridor, the design channel and updated profile survey will be
developed and the location of each meander wavelength plotted and staked along the profile.
Pool locations and relative frequency configurations may be modified in the field based on local
variations in the floodplain profile.
Channel Excavation
The channels will be constructed within the range of values depicted in the Table of
Morphological Stream Characteristics (Table 8). Bed material will be imported to the Site and
utilized within stream riffles to provide substrate similar to historic conditions at the Site and
nearby reference streams.
The stream banks and local belt-width area of constructed channels will be immediately planted
with shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Deposition of shrub and woody debris into and/or
overhanging the constructed channel is encouraged.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 24
Herman Diaiy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
Particular attention will be directed toward providing vegetative cover and root growth along the
outer bends of each stream meander. Live willow stake revetments, available root mats, and/or
biodegradable, erosion-control matting may be embedded into the break-in-slope to promote
more rapid development of an overhanging bank. Willow stakes will be purchased and/or
collected onsite and inserted through the root/erosion mat into the underlying soil.
Channel Plugs
Impermeable plugs will be installed along abandoned channel segments. The plugs will consist
of low-permeability materials or hardened structures designed to be of sufficient strength to
withstand the erosive energy of surface flow events across the Site. Dense clays may be
imported from off-site or existing material, compacted within the channel, may be suitable for
plug construction. The plug will be of sufficient width and depth to form an imbedded overlap in
the existing banks and channel bed.
Channel Backfilling
After impermeable plugs are installed, the abandoned channel will be backfilled. Backfilling
will be performed primarily by pushing stockpiled materials into the channel. The channel will
be filled using material from off-site and compacted in the vicinity of the backfilled channel.
Vegetation debris (root mats, top soils, shrubs, woody debris, etc.) will be redistributed across
the backfill area upon completion.
Braided Channel Development
Minimal channel excavation is proposed at the upper extents of UT3, which is proposed to be
constructed as a braided, D-type stream in a low-gradient valley, without a defined stream
channel (USACE et al. 2007). It is anticipated that this stream type will develop without
intervention. Use of heavy equipment and disruption of existing vegetation and soils will
therefore be minimized.
In-Stream Structures
Stream restoration under natural stream design techniques normally involves the use of in-stream
structures for bank stabilization, grade control, and habitat improvement. Primary activities
designed to achieve these objectives may include the installation of a limited number of cross-
vanes, log vanes, and two outfall drop structures (Figures 6-7, Appendix A).
Cross-vane Weirs
Cross-vane weirs may be installed in the channel (Figure 7, Appendix A). The purpose of the
vane is to 1) sustain bank stability, 2) direct high velocity flows during bankfull events toward
the center of the channel, 3) maintain average pool depth throughout the reach, 4) preserve water
surface elevations and reconnect the adjacent floodplain to flooding dynamics from the stream,
and 5) modify energy distributions through increases in channel roughness and local energy
slopes during peak flows.
Cross-vane weirs will be constructed of boulders approximately 24 inches in minimum width.
Cross-vane weir construction will be initiated by imbedding footer rocks into the stream bed for
stability to prevent undercutting of the structure. Header rocks will then be placed atop the
footer rocks at the design elevation. Footer and header rocks create an arm that slopes from the
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 25
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
center of the channel upward at approximately 7 to 10 degrees, tying in at the bankfull floodplain
elevation. The cross-vane arms at both banks will be tied into the bank with a sill to eliminate
the possibility of water diverting around the structure. Once the header and footer stones are in
place, filter fabric will be buried into a trench excavated around the upstream side of the vane
arms. The filter fabric is then draped over the header rocks to force water over the vane. The
upstream side of the structure can then be backfilled with suitable material to the elevation of the
header stones.
Lo Vanes
The primary purpose of the log vanes is to direct high velocity flows during bankfull events
towards the center of the channel (Figure 7, Appendix A). Log vanes will be constructed
utilizing large tree trunks harvested from the Site or imported from offsite. The tree stem
harvested for a log cross-vane arm must be long enough to be imbedded into the stream channel
and extend several feet into the floodplain. Logs will create an arm that slopes from the center of
the channel upward at approximately 5 to 7 degrees, tying in at the bankfull floodplain elevation.
Logs will extend from each stream bank at an angle of 20 to 30 degrees. A trench will be dug
into the stream channel that is deep enough for the head of the log to be at or below the channel
invert. The trench is then extended into the floodplain and the log is set into the trench such that
the log arm is below the floodplain elevation. If the log is not of sufficient size to completely
block stream flow (gaps occur between the log and channel bed), then a footer log will be
installed beneath the header log. Support pilings will then be situated at the base of the log and
at the head of the log to hold the log in place. Once these vanes are in place, filter fabric is toed
into a trench on the upstream side of the vane and draped over the structure to force water over
the vane. The upstream side of the structure is then backfilled with suitable material.
Drop Structure
Drop structures are proposed at the outfall of UT1 and UT3 at Muddy Fork to lower Site
hydrology to its preconstruction elevation (Figures 6 and 7, Appendix A). To avoid hydrologic
trespass, the drop structures may be installed approximately 150 feet from the downstream Site
outfalls. The structures should be constructed to resist erosive forces associated with hydraulic
drops proposed at the Site. A TerraCell drop structure, or other similar structure may be
installed. TerraCell is a light weight, flexible mat made of high density polyethylene strips. The
strips are bonded together to form a honeycomb configuration. The honeycomb mat is fixed in
place and filled with gravel or sand. Material in the TerraCell structure may be planted with
grasses and shrubs for additional erosion protection. The TerraCell structure will form a
nickpoint that approximates geologic controls in stream beds.
7.4 Stream Enhancement (Level II)
Stream enhancement (level II) is proposed for the upper reaches of UTl and UTIA (Figure 6,
Appendix A). Stream enhancement will entail the cessation of current land management
practices, removal of spoil material along the stream banks, invasive species control, and
planting riparian buffers with native forest vegetation. Riparian buffers will extend a minimum
of 50 feet from the top of stream banks to facilitate stream recovery and prevent further
degradation of the stream.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 26
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
7.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
Stream stability assessment including calculations of stream power and shear stress to compare
1) existing dredged and straightened reaches, 2) Reference Reach 1, and 3) proposed Site
conditions are discussed in Section 3.6 (Channel Stability Assessment).
7.6 HEC RAS Analysis
The HEC-RAS analysis will be completed prior to completion of detailed construction plans for
Site restoration activities. This analysis is discussed in more detail in Section 2.7.3
(FEMA/Hydrological Trespass).
7.7 Hydrological Modifications (Wetland Restoration and Enhancement)
Alternatives for wetland restoration are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system,
which will provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and
compounds, and will create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat. Portions of the Site
underlain by hydric soils have been impacted by channel incision, vegetative clearing, ditching,
and earth movement associated with agricultural practices. Wetland restoration options should
focus on the removal of fill materials, restoration of vegetative communities, the reestablishment
of soil structure and microtopographic variations, redirecting normal surface hydrology back to
Site floodplains, and filling ditches. These activities will result in the restoration of 7.2 acres of
riparian wetland, enhancement of 2.2 acres of riparian wetland, restoration of 1.2 acres of
nonriparian slope wetland, and enhancement of 0.1 acre of nonriparian wetland (Figure 6,
Appendix A). Restored and enhanced NCWAM wetland types will consist of 2.2 acres of
Bottomland Hardwood Forest, 7.2 acres of Headwater Forest, and 1.3 acres of Seep wetlands as
depitcted on Figure 8 (Appendix A).
Reestablishment of Historic Groundwater Elevations
Hydric soils adjacent to the incised channels appear to have been drained due to lowering of the
groundwater table and a lateral drainage effect from existing stream reaches. Reestablishment of
channel inverts is expected to rehydrate soils adjacent to Site streams. Restoring Site stream
reaches are expected to rehydrate hydric soils, resulting in the restoration of jurisdictional
hydrology to riparian wetlands.
Excavation and Gradinc of Elevated Spoil and Sediment Embankments
Some areas adjacent to existing channels have experienced both natural and unnatural sediment
deposition. Spoil piles were likely cast adjacent to the channel during dredging, straightening,
and rerouting of Site streams, and ditching of the adjacent floodplain. Major flood events may
have deposited additional sediment adjacent to stream banks from onsite eroding banks and
upstream agricultural fields. The removal of these spoil materials represents a critical element of
Site wetland restoration. Spoil piles are relatively small and limited to banks of existing streams
and ditches. The spoil will be removed to the level of the historic floodplain and used to fill in
the abandoned channels/ditches. In the event that additional material is needed to fill abandoned
channels/ditches, small areas may be excavated within the floodplain to a depth no greater than 1
foot below the historic floodplain elevation.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 27
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Site wetland areas targeted for restoration and enhancement have endured significant disturbance
from land use activities such as land clearing, livestock grazing, and other anthropogenic
maintenance. Wetland areas will be revegetated with native vegetation typical of wetland
communities in the region. Emphasis will focus on developing a diverse plant assemblage.
Section 7.9 (Natural Plant Community Restoration) provides detailed information concerning
community species associations.
Reconstructing Stream Corridors
The stream restoration plan involves the reconstruction of Site streams through the floodplain.
Existing channels will be backfilled so that the water table may be restored to historic conditions.
7.8 Soil Restoration
Soil grading will occur during stream restoration activities. Topsoils may be stockpiled during
construction activities and will be spread on the soil surface once critical subgrade has been
established. The replaced topsoil will serve as a viable growing medium for community
restoration to provide nutrients and aid in the survival of planted species.
7.9 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forest and stream-side habitat allows for development and expansion of
characteristic species across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between community types
contribute to diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting
opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.
Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) data, onsite observations, and community descriptions from
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) were
used to develop the primary plant community associations that will be promoted during
community restoration activities.
Stream-side trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid
growth rate, and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull flow and
overbank flood events. Stream-side trees and shrubs will be planted within 15 feet of the
channel throughout the meander belt-width. Shrub elements will be planted along the
reconstructed stream banks, concentrated along outer bends. Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest is targeted for the remainder of the Site (Figure 9, Appendix A). The following planting
plan is the blueprint for community restoration.
7.9.1 Planting Plan
The purpose of a planting plan is to reestablish vegetative community patterns across the
landscape. The plan consists of 1) acquisition of available plant species, 2) implementation of
proposed Site preparation, and 3) planting of selected species.
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources.
Advance notification to nurseries (1 year) will facilitate availability of various noncommercial
elements.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 28
Herman Diaiy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified map areas at a density of
approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Shrub species in the stream-side
assemblage will be planted at a density of 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers. Table 12
depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation association.
Planting will be performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during
the dormant period and set root during the spring season. A total of 27,947 diagnostic tree and
shrub seedlings may be planted during restoration.
Tahle 12_ Planting Plan

Vegetation Association Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest* Stream-side
Assembla a**
TOTAL
Area (acres) 28.3 3.2 31.5
Species # lanted* % of total # lanted** % of total # planted
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda) 1924 10 -- -- 1924
American elm (Ulmus americana) 1924 10 -- -- 1924
Hackberry (Celtis laevigata) 1924 10 -- -- 1924
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 962 5 -- -- 962
Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) 1924 10 -- -- 1924
Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) 2887 15 -- -- 2887
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 1924 10 -- -- 1924
River birch (Benda nigra) 2887 15 -- -- 2887
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) 1924 10 -- -- 1924
Silky dogwood (Corpus amomum) 962 5 1741 20 2703
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) -- -- 3482 40 3482
Black willow (Salix nigra) -- -- 3482 40 3482
TOTAL 19,242 100 8705 100 27,947
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
* * Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
7.9.2 Nuisance Species Management
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), located within all scrub-shrub and riparian areas of the Site,
will be controlled mechanically and/or chemically, as part of this project. No other nuisance
species controls are proposed at this time. Inspections for beaver and other potential nuisance
species will occur throughout the course of the monitoring period. Appropriate actions may be
taken to ameliorate any negative impacts regarding vegetation development and/or water
management on an as-needed basis. The presences of nuisance species will be monitored over
the course of the monitoring period. Appropriate actions will be taken to ameliorate any
negative impacts regarding vegetation development and/or water management on an as-needed
basis.
8.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled.
Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, wetland hydrology, and vegetation. In general,
the restoration success criteria, and required remediation actions, are based on the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al. 2003).
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 29
Herman Diary Stream and Welland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
8.1 Streams
Restored stream reaches are proposed to be monitored for geometric activity for five years.
Annual fall monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections on riffles and pools
and a water surface profile of the channel. The data will be presented in graphic and tabular
format. Data to be presented will include l) cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average
depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width-to-depth ratio, 6) water surface slope, and 7) sinuosity. The
stream will subsequently be classified according to stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen
1996). Significant changes in channel morphology will be tracked and reported by comparing
data in each successive monitoring year.
Changes in the biotic community are anticipated from a shift in habitat opportunities as
tributaries are restored. In-stream, biological monitoring is proposed to track the changes during
the monitoring period. The benthic macro invertebrate community will be sampled using
NCDWQ protocols found in the Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates
(NCDWQ 2006) and Benthic Macro invertebrate Protocols for Compensatory Stream
Restoration Projects (NCDWQ 2001). Biological sampling of benthic macro invertebrates will
be used to collect preconstruction baseline data for comparison with postconstruction restored
conditions.
Benthic macro invertebrate monitoring locations will be established within proposed restoration
reaches and one reference monitoring location upstream of the enhancement reaches within a
relatively stable reach. It is anticipated that postrestoration collections may move slightly from
the prerestoration conditions in order to take advantage of developing habitat niches (i.e. riffles,
vegetative cover, woody debris in channel, overhanging banks) that cannot be predicted prior to
restoration. Benthic macro invertebrate samples will be collected from individual reaches using
the Qual-4 collection method. Sampling techniques of the Qual-4 collection method consist of
kick nets, sweep nets, leaf packs, and visual searches. Preproject biological sampling are
anticipated to occur in June 2011; post restoration monitoring will occur during the same time
frame of each monitoring year.
Identification of collected organisms will be performed by personnel with NCDWQ or by a
NCDWQ certified laboratory. Other data collected will include D50 values/NCDWQ habitat
assessment forms.
8.1.1 Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of the reach as a
functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable stream
system.
The channel configuration will be measured on 3000 linear feet of stream and 20 cross-sections
on an annual basis in order to track changes in channel geometry, profile, or substrate. These
data will be utilized to determine the success in restoring stream channel stability. Specifically,
the width-to-depth ratio and bank-height ratios should be indicative of a stable or moderately
unstable channel with minimal changes in cross-sectional area, channel width, and/or bank
erosion along the monitoring reach. In addition, channel abandonment and/or shoot cutoffs must
not occur and sinuosity values must remain relatively constant. Visual assessment of in-stream
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 30
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure of a structure may be
indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of the channel
around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure.
8.1.2 Stream Contingency
In the event that stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will be
implemented. Stream contingency may include, but may not be limited to 1) structure repair
and/or installation; 2) repair of dimension, pattern, and/or profile variables; and 3) bank
stabilization. The method of contingency is expected to be dependent upon stream variables that
are not in compliance with success criteria. Primary concerns, which may jeopardize stream
success include 1) structure failure, 2) headcut migration through the Site, and/or 3) bank
erosion.
Structure Failure
In the event that structures are compromised the affected structure will be repaired, maintained,
or replaced. Once the structure is repaired or replaced, it must function to stabilize adjacent
stream banks and/or maintain grade control within the channel. Structures which remain intact,
but exhibit flow around, beneath, or through the header/footer will be repaired by excavating a
trench on the upstream side of the structure and reinstalling filter fabric in front of the pilings.
Structures which have been compromised, resulting in shifting or collapse of header/footer, will
be removed and replaced with a structure suitable for Site flows.
Headcut Migration Through the Site
In the event that a headcut occurs within the Site (identified visually or through measurements
[i.e. bank-height ratios exceeding 1.4]), provisions for impeding headcut migration and repairing
damage caused by the headcut will be implemented. Headcut migration may be impeded
through the installation of in-stream grade control structures (rip-rap sill and/or log cross-vane
weir) and/or restoring stream geometry variables until channel stability is achieved. Channel
repairs to stream geometry may include channel backfill with coarse material and stabilizing the
material with erosion control matting, vegetative transplants, and/or willow stakes.
Bank Erosion
In the event that severe bank erosion occurs within the Site, resulting in elevated width-to-depth
ratios, contingency measures to reduce bank erosion and width-to-depth ratio will be
implemented. Bank erosion contingency measures may include the installation of log-vane weirs
and/or other bank stabilization measures. If the resultant bank erosion induces shoot cutoffs or
channel abandonment, a channel may be excavated which will reduce shear stress to stable
values.
8.2 Wetlands
Three groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed within the Site wetland restoration areas
and one additional gauge will be installed in a reference wetland to monitor groundwater
hydrology. Hydrological sampling will continue for five years throughout the growing season at
intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria within each design unit (USEPA
1990).
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 31
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
8.2.1 Wetland Success Criteria
According to the Soil Survey of Alexander County, the growing season for Alexander County as
recorded in Hickory, North Carolina during the period from 1951-1984 is from March 20-
November 9 (USDA 1995). However, for purposes of this project gauge hydrologic success will
be determined using data from February 1-November 9 to more accurately represent the period
of biological activity.
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 8 percent of the
monitored period (February 1-November 9), during average climatic conditions. During years
with atypical climatic conditions, groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may dictate
threshold hydrology success criteria (75 percent of reference). These areas are expected to
support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by vegetation
and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be performed.
8.2.2 Wetland Contingency
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies if
wetland hydrology enhancement is not achieved. Floodplain surface modifications, including
construction of ephemeral pools, represent a likely mechanism to increase the floodplain area in
support of jurisdictional wetlands. Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland
hydrology will be implemented and monitored until Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved.
8.3 Vegetation
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation will monitor plant survival and species
diversity. After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will
be performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and
density. Supplemental planting and additional modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
A photographic record of plant growth should be included in each annual monitoring report.
During the first year, vegetation will receive a cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently,
quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed as outlined in the CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (Lee et al. 2006) in September of the first monitoring year
and annually between June 1 and September 30 for the remainder of the monitoring period until
vegetation success criteria are achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, 10 sample plots (10 meters
by 10 meters) will be randomly placed within the Site; however, best professional judgment may
be necessary to establish vegetative monitoring plots upon completion of construction activities.
In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and
species density.
8.3.1 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports
community elements necessary for forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon the
density and growth of characteristic forest species. Additional success criteria are dependent
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 32
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
upon the density and growth of "Characteristic Tree Species." Characteristic Tree Species
include planted species, species identified through visual inventory of an approved reference
(relatively undisturbed) forest community, and species outlined in Schafale and Weakley (1990).
An average density of 320 stems per acre of Characteristic Tree Species must be surviving in the
first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 Characteristic Tree Species per acre must be
surviving in year 4, 260 Characteristic Tree Species per acre in year 5, and 210 Characteristic
Tree Species per acre in year 7.
No single volunteer species (most notably red maple, loblolly pine, and sweet gum) will
comprise more than 20 percent of the total composition at years 3, 5, or 7. If this occurs,
remedial procedures/protocols outlined in the contingency plan will be implemented. During
years 3, 5, and 7, no single volunteer species, comprising over 20 percent of the total
composition, may be more than twice the height of the planted trees. If this occurs, remedial
procedures outlined in the contingency plan will be implemented.
If, within the first 3 years, any species exhibits greater than 50 percent mortality, the species will
either be replanted or an acceptable replacement species will be planted in its place as specified
in the contingency plan.
8.3.2 Vegetation Contingency
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from
combined plots over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting may be performed with
tree species approved by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be performed as
needed until achievement of vegetation success criteria.
8.4 Scheduling and Reporting
The first year monitoring report will be submitted at the end of December after Site
implementation. Monitoring will continue for five years for streams and wetlands, and seven
year for vegetation or until agreed upon success criteria are achieved, with a report submitted by
the end of December for each monitoring year (years 1-5 and year 7).
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 33
Herman Diaty Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
9.0 REFERENCES
Acrement, Jr., G.J. and V.R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness
Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. U.S. Geological Survey Water
Supply Paper 2339, 38 pp.
Amoroso, J.L. and J. T. Finnegan. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh. 111 pp.
Cowan, W.L. 1956. Estimating Hydraulic Roughness Coefficients. Agricultural Engineering,
37, 473-475.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an Introduction
for Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Griffith, G.E. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston Virginia. U.S.
Geological Society (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, R.
Everhart. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. N.C. State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular
Plants of the South. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Region, Atlanta, GA. Technical Publication R8-TP 2. 1305 pp.
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0. (online). Available:
http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm.
Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 298 pp.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 34
Herman Diaty Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
Manning, R. 1891. On the Flow of Water in Open Channels and Pipes. Transactions of the
Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland. 20, 161-20.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles
of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
264 pp.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. Benthic Macro invertebrate
Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory Mitigation. 401/Wetlands Unit, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Standard Operating Procedures for
Benthic Macro invertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit, Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2010a. Final North Carolina Water
Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (NC 2010 Integrated Report Category 4
and 5, 303(d) List Approved Auguts 31, 2010) (online). Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document-library/get_file?uuid=8ffobb29-62c2-4b33-810c-
2eee5afa75e9&groupId=38364 [December 8, 2010]. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2010b. North Carolina Water Bodies
Report (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/03-08-32.pdf [December 8,
2010]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Upper Catawba River Basin
Restoration Priorities 2009 (online). Available:
http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/Upper_Catawba_RBRP_2009.pdf [December 8,
2010]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team (NCWFAT). 2008. N.C. Wetland
Assessment Method (NCWAM) User Manual. North Carolina Wetland Functional
Assessment Team, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 pp.
Rosgen D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 35
Herman Diaiy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Ccarolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). 2007. Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the
Coastal Plain-Draft. Available:
http://www.nceep.net/business/landowner/Guidance-Stream_Restoration_with_Emphasis
-on-Coastal_Plains.pdf [September 28, 2009].
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1995. Soil Survey of Alexander County,
North Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2010. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [February 25, 2010].
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type
Classification (MiST). USEPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and
Hardwood Research Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974. State of North
Carolina.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of
Floods in Rural Basins of North Carolina - Recompiled. USGS Water-Resources
Investigations Report 01-4207. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Weakley, Alan S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas
(online). Available: http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/WeakleysFiora.pdf [February 1,
2008]. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) page 36
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3A-B. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5A. Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Figure 5B. Reference Site 1 Watershed
Figure 5C. Reference Site 1 Existing Conditions
Figure 5D. Reference Reach 1 Dimension. Pattern, and Profile
Figure 6. Restoration Plan
Figure 7. Typical Structure Details
Figure 8. NCWAM Wetland Types
Figure 9. Planting Plan
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) Appendices
Herman Diaiy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina

-
I A Axiom Environmental HERMAN DAIRY Dwn. By: WGL FIGURE
218 Snow Avenue Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603 STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Dec 2010
[phone] SITE LOCATION Project:
m?. ??. Alexander County, North Carolina 10-016

N ALLEGHANY
r ASHE SURRY
Site Location in 14-Digit Hydrologic Unit
03050101120030 a Targeted Local Watershed
DKI

WILKES
MITCHELL

CALDWELL
ALEXANEER
YANCEY

IREDELL

BURKE
MCDOWELL
CATA',VBA
BUNCOMB
LINCC! i`d
ENDE RUTHERFORD
CLEVELAND
POLK GASTON
MECKLENBURG
Legend
Herman Dairy Site
Hydrologic Unit 03050101
® 14 Digit HU 03050101120030
0 5 10 20
Miles

1 -
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Ral
A eigh, NC 27603
HERMAN DAIRY
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Dwn. By:WGL

Date:
Oct 201 FIGURE

2
[phone] HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP Project:
aRbm?,„?m. m. Alexander County, North Carolina 10-016

Legend
Q Herman Dairy Site
® Primary Drainage Area = 1.0 sq. mi. r z
Secondary Drainage Area = 0.1 sq. mi. J1
0 0.05 0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4
-? Miles
Dwn. By:WGL FIGURE
44 33 1 !Axiom Environmental HERMAN DAIRY
l 218 Snow Avenue STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date:
{ Raleigh, NC 27603 Jan 2011 ^
[phone] TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE AREA project:
"' Alexander County, North Carolina 10-016

WGL FIGURE
Axiom Environmental HERMAN DAIRY Dwn. By:
218 Snow Avenue STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603 Jan 2011
-- [phone] TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE AREA Project: 3B
?Ea?. Alexander County, North Carolina 10-016
L 11
0 150 300 600 900 1,200
Feet
Legend
Final Easement = 32.5 ac
+^# Perrenial Streams = 3680 ft
Intermittent Streams = 1113 ft
Muddy Fork
Ditches
f-- Power Line
; 1k,
® Jurisdictional Wetland = 2.3 ac
»
I
Hydric Soils = 10.6 ac (within easement;
?M Soil Boundary
Iff Notes:
1.0 - Perrennial stream footage does not include Muddy Fork.
2.0 - Soil profiles are depicted in Section 5.3.2 (Profile Descriptions)
Soil Profile 2
Y
YYY???666 k ; Ast"t
Soil Pr
J®r_r
' -'
?" 1 r LJ T 2 t, ? F
! ?.. _
Hydric
Symbol Status Soil Name Soil Taxonomy
CoA Class B Codorus Loam, 0-2% Slopes FluvaquenticDystrudepts
Class B and Oxyaquic Dystrudepts and
DaA Dan River and Comus Soils 0-4% Slopes
4!
Nonhydric Fluventic Dystrudepts .
HaA Class A Hatboro Loam, 0-2% Slopes Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts
PfB Nonhydric Pfafftown Sandv Loam. 2-6% Slooe Tvoic Hanludults
Dwn. By:WGL FIGURE
Axiom Environmental HERMAN DAIRY
216 Snow Avenue STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603 Jan 2011
A(919) 215-1693 EXISTING CONDITIONS Project: 4
prom; ??. Alexander County, North Carolina 10-016

WGL FIGURE
Axiom Environmental HERMAN DAIRY Dwn. By:
218 Snow Avenue STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date:
Raleigh, NC z?so3 Jan 2011 n
A(919) 215-1693 REFERENCE SITE VICINITY MAP Project: 5A
Axiom Gam.- 1, Inc. Alexander County, North Carolina 10-016

-
Axiom Environmental HERMAN DAIRY Dwn. By: WGL FIGURE
218 Snow Avenue STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603 Jan 2011 G
A(919) 215-1693 REFERENCE SITE 1 - WATERSHED Project: 5 B
??«m. . Alexander County, North Carolina 10-016

- --- wGL FIGURE
Axiom Environmental HERMAN DAIRY Dwn. By:
218 A Snow Avenue STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date: Raleigh, NC 27603 Jan 2011 ??j
[phone] REFERENCE SITE 1 - EXISTING CONDITIONS Project: 5C
Axlan ?nwronmrygal, In C. Alexander County, North Carolina 10-016
>, o
_? C (B c LU 'Q^
(B(n 0 U V/
LD a) a
U) 2
0 L ca c
_ o ca U o d o
cu _0 C
a Ecm 0 C C o
L
?
Q I G W O Q O
.E
_ Z Q Z N o 0
Q >
q Z
n e y
c
o `
0
^ ,? II y C C
II O p ` C
n O 6 W `
LU 11
11 0 co
?.1='r 11 a ct
?N<O?p)m0 OT
fh V^ a m? r >. ^^ O II m r N cV ~c6 ^ N r O OJ O
^O II prNN~ II II II X`= II II II E II II II L c 0 Q10
.?I d'?I KYY II II II Y >Y C CUQF- `l Y co U C i 1,.10
p C COQI- N d Nd E N N?dZ.. Y d Q? N 0000
(0? C N N?tL Z.?_, ¢o3omm?l,_wu? d E N 'C'
d .N [p??0
00 -,r
V N p,T 0 N O
I a) ?; O O O O
O
? O 11 0 C) O
y I
y N- N o
0 C O
o > Co CL 0)
-_1 a (n In (n (n ?o (n
I if
0
0
t-t
- --?
m m m m M
OHIO I.
^th ? V
^ ? NOCOrv m of °'
? v cn
OI 'nM??O 11 r 9 0 3
?cO "oil ^ d n - O
o'+'a,.? u a 11 o o z
n II dII n3 m?II
J J???p'??tr rn a
O
In
N
O
O
N
O
lt)
O
O
O
O
O O L O
N r '-
h N
^ II II
I w x
?Y co
d
Q ?o
O
O
0
N
O
N
O
O
O
N
O
O O O O 6mi m ? ? ?
>, o
C Z
_? (0
0 U ? C ?
L- M
o - a Co N o
w` W E a, C O N
° o N {= X O o
z _ N Z E O
r y Z
q Z
N D 1
.L" L N
U
O U N
CO ` t0 U ? N O
c0 O V N N II
V ?
11 `- II N N II C
II f? II ? N
^ it c o E
> S N C 0 U
0 'UO O E 0 C
? (` J tp U y L
C N
CL co v N L X W_
c =
U o o E W m m 2 Y a
N N t0 U C C N N co / cl
? ? Q C N N ? ? LO N o -'m
N N C
W > > N f0 ? L mom - ?tt?
E E E E m
y m m m a Q `c `c t0 ? Ew?nw / min inw
w / co ( 2 2 Z Z F? O
II I Itl ? F. ',.
1
i
?C
of
y
v ?m v
-5
JN?m °80 .$ Q
-yw a?o°
All) . . ....
(RS? r
?Ua
U9_
`
New = .. 4
_Z5
$o
7WNW
b ?
HNW
Et
JUI?
y O
- ? Of
s_ :3 c LLJ Of c o (6 (n O '5 U
0 C: U
= LU w
w W a ??ow o
u ..9
a) z a
Q C, m z?
m=
0 SL
z .-
n c i
I. ?= 1
I _ 1
I - 1
I I 11 i
- I I 1
- I I I 1 z
Ir^? I
/ I I ? 1
// I I 1
Hill
I 1
- 41 it
3 vj
Cp _
? m ?? aF pl _
??' S zy \\ I -
/ I U
?o
°m
J 1 oz ` < 5
/ O r m° ?------ -- --
/
- / g? ? J? aW al
10
U ^s
w?
I l z.? z ?--
I I ?a
\ I z a m a
1 I
? 1 ys

N
Legend
H
rm
n D
ir
Sit
e
a
a
y
e
., Iu r.a sy,.s ,' gyp. Streams
v
?TMi -.f?r? x Braided Stream
Power Line
Terracell
NCWAM Wetland Types
- Bottomland Hardwood Forest =2.2 acre
Headwater Forest = 7.2 acres
s Seep = 1.3 acres

C
h
Ss ` s
I ? ' r
II Il
J? I
{ ? IJ
l

t f
J? J# R F4?-. W?
t

e'3 '.Z S ?'.y'V" ;.} '?'• .?lllf? S

...? mow" T

_ a
r ,
x

i
E
? rlM
4y m 3 9
.. - 7 '?J7'

Feet
0 130 260 520 780 1,040

Dwn. By: CLF FIGURE
Axiom Environmental HERMAN DAIRY
218 Snow Avenue STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603 Jan 2011
8
[phone] PROPOSED NCWAM WETLAND TYPES P
roject:
AxiOrtI FjINfOlII110I113?. C. Alexander County, North Carolina 10-016

Dwn. By: CLF FIGURE
Axiom Environmental HERMAN DAIRY
A218 Snow Avenue Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603 STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Jan 2011 n
[phone] PLANTING PLAN Project: 9
?. ?? Alexander County, North Carolina 10-016
Appendix B
Existing Stream Data
Figure B 1. Existing Stream Cross-section Locations
Existing Stream Data
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) Appendices
Herman Diaiy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
o
N C m w r
z i -`J C C M
U N 0
_ W c 0 L CIO
(n co
w I cu ? U P cn U o
0
o a E (Op t' O U) 0
O J "' m
'- m o
< z x O U
Z
Q z
>
90 -
- Rz
U
M C
11 O ?
U
E E
CU L (n lA
0
w cn U
? I
J I
O
c
Qo
N N u O
?n X X ?t ?, X
00
N N
T- U) CY)
F- X / X X U)
X
X
Z
0
r
o ¢
O ?
E
s
3
(U) uoyenal3
w
F=
r
E
N 3
s
V) N O
(A) uogenal3
`o
a
v
E
`o
o

m a ? m
w w a v _
i0
? O ? Q? O N
N ? r n
? ° N
E
? E c

m w
?- Q
r ^
w ?
? E
d
E
„ c
u
? O a ? 3 c
l ? A ? m a
N
v N
c U
v N

u ?
D O
a y
a C
m
°r C
m C

o?
o a -
o
E F
? o b ? p c

O
'O
.
? v m
v c m ?,
O
N
N m
C
y L
? Z ? V y ? m A
?E m d t r o u s m y v
y o wa'ri ?n
? m
L o ci o °o ° p o d ° o o

o o m o>
?r?
? N o
o u?
A
O ry E

? u a E c
m

v m

? ?. ,r m ?- m

N E
E q
v
u

o
m N m ? 'T n a '
O '
m v m
D r
m
' :
2
a o o v _>. ° n > 1 2 3i
m
l c
a
m
H
V
a
il
o
?
L?
m
?
o
.
u
°'
m
c
o x > a v, LL ;` V u E

, c
rv cONrmiO y
La
o oa oo°
od E
° oo
o .
a r ;;
H d U_ ?
dE
O
c
i I I i
I
d
N
X
F
t
o`
K
d
d'
F
Q
3
(y) uouenal3
N
X
t
H
LG
J
d
O
t
o
M 3
0
v
c
3
c
0

N N O O
N ? N N
m ?Nai
i

U U
O «
A

?
N

U d
j
-
E E
c
L
6 n ? 3 _? w A ? ? o
ry ? '
U C « m ? ?
12 _
0
N -
.V
?
g
O
Q
G
?
p
? U
U
O
?
O
O
q ?
? C
?'
Y

O
O
? O
O
O
0 Q O O y
V O
N O NIO O O O O 0 0 WO O

W-11-13
a
K
z
5
r`
I

o ?
<a
z
J
K
o E
n ?
br'
3
e
r r (4)uogena. n
w
E
`o
M N N
u) O Ol
O
O N mI0000 O D O II IO O
. m
of o-?
X
Z
G

s'
0
v
K
E
f'
5
c
d
E
J
5
c
`o
t l0

o E Y ?
O V U

m N

y N

y j

o

u t

v
G
m
,
?

.?
> y J

N C O
? N
J
O O p ? 0 ? O ¢ o
?
Y
O
O
Q1 O tp D O O D D O D O O j O
m w w °m r 1Dr n n n
(y) uogena(g
N
t
0
? n (u)uo!lena? r r

m a
m
m `o
F N a a ?

V n to ? N
O N
d
o ?oo°rN
w o E
? E c

m
?
Q
r
v E
N
E
E
,? c
v
n ? 3 ? ? ? m o
o y N r o E O -? Q t w

c
a E
o -- a
L ? ? m y
o o
L v w e
o
o N a C - '
2 2
o J
a t
x
z
H
t

z
c
0
s
3
I ? .
o a r s io o u
o
... . x 3a 9 ? > v ? LV, ? ii ? t u E °1
O
O Q f? r U

e O
o o
o o o p O q
od
° O

y

0 0
o
a n ? r>?ov? ), o
oo
oo r
v
0
(y) uo4ena13 ?
0
c
HIHIT
I
e
X
H
yt
J

a - 1
E _
3
c
c
0
v
c 11 llo
(u) uoi{enR13
N V O
r 0 F
?O O M NR Iv IO O O o O o o IMO go
d j
a
C U
^ O N
L N
p� a

Appendix C
Flood Frequency Analysis Data
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003371) Appendices
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
N Z,
d
?
O E
C_
r
W O L Q
N
.2 LO
O 11?
N N y O
ea
JT
O c ?
ea m
v? _
? d M
2 ?
m
u E
? O
C
N
cj O
jx *P
m
16-
0
N
w
cc

! I

I i t I i I ; ?

?
Y
1 H R
}

w r? lD Ln CT m N r•1
(puo:)as aad papiqm) agjeg3sia
(D
0)
?

-

2

OR

--;?

(D

LO

N

M
(D IT C14 C14 LO CY)
N N M In f-
O
R
? N
M
-
tl?
N
0

N
0
U)
0
0
0
C d T ? ?- N LO
7
r
N
c
O
a7
E
m
Q
I.L
a)
7
m
C
O
d
Q'
()
6
a
L
a?
C
N
d
R
C
M
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
ri
1-1
a)
m
u
H
U
E
L
04
J
ti
m
d
c
c
v
Appendix D
Jurisdicitonal Determination Info
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) Appendices
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
in(Omliation li,r further con?ideraticm by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SFCTION lI - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERIMIT
RLASO'?5 I:O1' APPEAL OR 013JLC HONS. (Describe Maur yea r>ns fur aphealin?,the decisi?r? car your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
-
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review- of the administrative record. the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However. you may provide additional information to clarifN
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION
It'v ou have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
Tasha McCormick, Project Manager Jason Steele
USAGE, Asheville Regulatory Field Office Administrative Appeals Review Officer
151 Patton Ave 60 Forsyth Street. SW (Room 9M10)
R%M 208 Atlanta. GA 30303-8801
Asheville. NC 28806 404-562-5137
828-271-7980
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature rf aphcil-nt or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this
form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Tasha McCormick, Project Manager,
Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801.
10-014
Action Id. 2010-01918
Property Owner:
Address:
Telephone No.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
County: Alexander U.S.G.S. Quad: Tavlorsville
NOTIFICATION OF.IURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Tavlorsville NC 28681 Raleigh, NC 27607
828-312-5310 919-306-2027
Property description:
Size (acres) 50 acres +-
Nearest Waterway Mudd% Fork
Nearest Town Tavlorsville
River Basin Catawba
Coordinates Approximately 35.9316 1'7,N, -81.2069490 W
Location description The site is located off of Three Forks Church Road (SR 1313), Tavlorsville. Alexander Countv,
NC The site contains unnamed tributaries to Muddv Fork and adiacent wetlands.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be waters on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act 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.
X There are waters and wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the waters on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
The waters have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory
Official identified below on Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination
may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
-Nction Id. 2010-01918
This delineation/detetmination has been conducted to identify the limits of COE's 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.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US andi'or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Tasha McCormick at 828-271-7980.
C. Basis For Determination
The site contains wetlands as determined by the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and contains stream channels
located on the property that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks. The stream channels on the property are unnamed
tributaries to Muddy Fork which flows into the Little River which ultimately flows into the Catawba River. The Catawba joins
the Santee-Cooper River in South Carolina before entering the Atlantic Ocean. Is a Section 10 water at the Mountain Island
Lake Dam on Lake Wylie in Mecklenburg County.
D. Remarks
Site visit conducted on No-,ember 18, 2010 by Amanda Jones.
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement with that approved
jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 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:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Program
Attn: Tasha McCormick, Project Manager
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville. North Carolina 28801
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 tinder 3-33 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 March 27, 2011.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence."
l
Corps Regulatory Official: Tasha McCormick.
1A
Issue Date: January 26, 2011
Expiration Date: January 26. 2016
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 httn:r'7regulatorv.usacesurvev.comr' to
complete the survey online.
NOT11"ICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
RFQI. IES'T FOR APPEAL
Applicant: tied Merman i l-ile Number 2010-01918 Date: Januar% 26. X01 1
Attached is: _ See Section below _
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of A
ermission)
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission). B _
I PERMIT DENIAL - - -_ -?? C
X : APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
I'l:l i-1\II\ \K`? Jl"RISDICTION:A[. DETERMINATION E
SFCTI(')N I - I_lie followin?a identities vour reuhts and options re?oarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information stay be bound at httD://www.usace.arnlv.inilljnet'funetions/cw/cecwofreg or
3 3I
P
art
.
Corps regulations at 33 C FR
V INI I I \I, 111MI-1-FRI.D Pi:R\11 F: N'ou mac accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that thi:
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evacuate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: if you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form
and sending the forni to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II ofthis form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the firm to the division engineer. This form must be received by
4
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
20 Enterprise Street, Suite 7, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 919-306-2027
December 13, 2010
Ms. Amanda Jones
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
RE: Section 404 Jurisdictional Area Delineation 10-016
Herman Dairy Farm (Ned Herman Property)
Alexander County, NC
Dear Ms. Jones,
Axiom Environmental would like to request written verification of jurisdictional areas located on
several parcels of land in central Alexander County, North Carolina. The area of interest consists of
Property Numbers 0008217, 0064946, and 0066298 owned by Herman Diary Farm (c/o Ned
Herman) (Site) of Taylorsville, North Carolina. During the previous site visit, held on November
18, we agreed up a wetland boundary that was subsequently delineated. Flags were placed along the
wetland boundary and the positions were surveyed. All jurisdictional areas were delineated in
accordance with the methodology established by the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (Technical Report Y-8-1) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination
Form Instructional Guidebook.
This package includes USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets, USACE Routine Wetland
Determination Forms, and NCWAM Assessment Forms. Also included are figures showing the
location of the Site, Natural Resources Conservation Service mapped hydric soils, topography of the
Site, jurisdictional features, and LIDAR.
If you would like to schedule an additional site visit, need any additional information regarding
Herman Dairy Farm, or have any comments please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Best,
Matthew D. Thomas
Enc.
Cc: Worth Creech, Restoration Systems, LLC.

Axiom Environmental HERMAN DAIRY Dwn. By: WGL FIGURE
20 Enterprise St. #7 Date:
Raleigh, NC 27607 STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE Feb 2010
[phone] SITE LOCATION Project:
L _, A- I I Alexander County, North Carolina 09-002
r
'%•
If
1t k
14
13
13
i L -----tet � ti,'rl ti / ��---.��__, r� �,! ■■ y}} �;,i_ `�,��f•f � 1
t P� J 1d 11
1 i f
1 I � •
■ b rf��� r O
\\` 1 • � V /,•�--..ter � 7
} N f A-.
It I
i ��P i�� fl/+� -�� y d r %1 �, � �`�,..� ,�,. rj-C,y� • I *�` "~ j �iI
jJ j k '�---fir. ti ` r �„--�+` Li j � `^' � j 1 '''�•�; } �t,`i`,
,
� I
e � � �`��r, � •
Background imagery source: �1 ~�. Legendf
Taylorsville and Ellendale, NC 7.5- ` V (` r r •
minute topographic quadrangles provided f" Current Property Boundary
by the United States Geological Survey.7 77 77-
�� ✓ n,� t - p Younry
t.
Proposed Conservation Easement
0 445 890 1,780 2,670 3,560 NCDOT Road
Feet
-1
Prepared for: Project: Title: Drawn by: MDT
HERMAN DAIRY FARM TOPOGRAPHIC Date: OCT 2010 FIGURE
MAP Scale: 1:12000
Alexander County, NC Project No.: 10-016
:[.urn Emrn unm.+n�;,l, Irr..

1 tgy a?
; + t
NN Y
. -e rt Y _
?- '".
r +C ?- . wan 's` M 747.
ajry
?z
44
.? LEGEND
az, - Proposed Conservation Easement
.100 Foot Contour
Background imagery source:
Concord SE and Midland, NC 7.5-
minute topographic quadrangles provided 20 Foot Contour
by the United States Geological Survey.
4 Foot Contour
Feet 2 Foot Contour
0 187.5 375 750 1,125 1 500x
Prepared for: Project: Tide: Drawn by: MDT
HERMAN DAIRY FARM CONTOUR Date: OCT 2010 FIGURE
MAP Scale: 1:4000
Alexander County, NC 4
A.- el?rt>IR,???ai, Irc. Project No.: 10-016
AC05
I W, I "PROW TIOI TAD03
T 0
7A 0Al 4
2 TAD05
TACOI @2B@TuM%�7
TH07 TAD08
TH05TI08 @12mg-MMEN
THO TAD11
IFTH04 T112 TAD12 TA41 TA43TA44TA45
TH03
TA51
TH01 T113 TA39 g"T 14 TA50
TA37 - �&
T116 TA27TA28TA35 47TA52
TA53
TI 17 TA36
QUI TA26 TA54TA2q----TA14
Droviaea

r s a p
A ' :?

-
- r, LLJ
0

y 3 't ,.
ati.
N
O 1
1,
'r.
a
J U
2
_ LL O

'
_ ,?
of _
n c

o c c
2 o
o
H 03y a
a0
-

.r
r +A _
<y
+? t
3
T 3
ti` r
15
44
is .t ! 2
.
t
W
}# s
g J x, }. ° kt _a v
r 4p-
IN,
14*
-Qu
err xr.
71
M
J '.
a
. r+''°r. ' T,+ ,C+? _ '?•.?" ; yi at _. ..'-?1? 1-? Y"` . ?? Yr`"` y' ?y
Background imagery source %
Concord SE and Midland, NC 7.5-
minute topographic quadrangles provided A ? LEGEND
by the United States Geological Survey.
LIDAR image provided by nconemap.com.r2 ,-
Current Property Boundary
Feet , Proposed Conservation Easement
0 2,500 5,000 10,000 15 000 20 000
Prepared for: Project Title: Drawn by: MDT
A HERMAN DAIRY FARM LIDAR MAP Date: OCT 201o FIGURE
Alexander County, NC Scale: 1:60000 7
Amm 'M Project No.: 10-016
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # UT1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Restoration Systems 2. Evaluator's name: Axiom - M. Thomas
3. Date of evaluation: 9/28/10 4. Time of evaluation: 12 pm
5. Name of stream: UT to Muddy Fork 6. River basin: Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area: 670 ac 8. Stream order: 2nd
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100' 10. County: Alexander
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.9315, -81.2067 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): on
14. Proposed channel work (if any): stream restoration
15. Recent weather conditions: avg temps, below avg ppt
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 50°F
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 2 ac
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 10% Residential
30% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 8'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Su
% Commercial % Industrial
15% Cleared / Logged % Other (
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):.
Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%',
Frequent meander Very sinuous
rvey? YES NO
45% Agricultural
4'
Steep (>10%)
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): 37 Comments

Evaluator's Signature Date 11/19/10
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0: strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
2 Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0: no alteration = max oints 0 - 6 0 - 5 0 - 5 3
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 1
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
,.a 5 Groundwater discharge

U
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4 3
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain

no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points) 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 1
a 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access

(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0: large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0, natural meander = max oints 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA 0-4 0-5 2

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
y+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
13 Presence of major bank failures

-?
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints 0-5 0-5 0-5 1

14 Root depth and density on banks
H no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
Q 17 Habitat complexity

little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
x no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
19 Substrate embeddedness *

(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max NA 0-4 0-4 2
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
21 Presence of amphibians

O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use

no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 37
{ These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
FUSACE AID#
DWQ#,
Site # UT2
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Restoration Systems 2. Evaluator's name: Axiom Environmental/M. Thomas
3. Date of evaluation: 11/19/10 4. Time of evaluation: 4 pm
5. Name of stream: UT2 6. River basin: Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area:- 40 ac 8. Stream order: 1 st
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100' 10. County: Alexander
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.935436, -81.206600 12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Stream restoration
15. Recent weather conditions: below average ppt, average temps
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, 50°F
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 5% Residential % Commercial % Industrial 40% Agricultural
30% Forested 25% Cleared / Logged % Other
22. Bankfull width: 3' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 40 Comments:

Evaluator's Signature Date 11/19/10
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

#
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
2 Evidence of past human alteration

(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
,.? 5 Groundwater discharge

U
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
..
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-2 3
a 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access

dee I entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0, large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2 1
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 0
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
fine, homogenous = 0, large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

y+
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
E,. no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints

1 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

E-
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0. well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 1
Q 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
d 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 4
x no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
C 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 40
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Herman Dairy Farm Date: 09/23/10
Applicant/Owner: Restoration Systems County: Alexander
Investigator: Axiom - M. Thomas State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? Yes No Community ID: Headwater Wetland, Seep
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes No Transect ID: Upland
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID: TG05 up
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Platanus occidentalis C FACW+ 9.
2. Liquidambar styraciflua C FAC+ 10.
3. Ligustrum sinense Sh FAC 11.
4. Rosa multiflora Sh UPL 12.
5. Phytolacca americana Sh FACU+ 13.
6. Solidago sp. H -- 14.
7. Smilax rotundifolia Sh FAC 15.
8. Lonicera japonica V FAC- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 71%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_ Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: -- (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: > 12 (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: > 12 (in.)
Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
I Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Codous loam
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
Drainage Class: MWD and SWPD
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 A I OYR 4/2 Clay loam
3- 11 B I OYR 5/2 Clay loam
7.5 YR 5/6 Many/Faint
12- 13+ C I OYR 6/1 Clay loam
7.5YR 5/6 Many/Faint
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No
Remarks:
.1 11
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Projecusft A'^en a1ry Fwrwt CVCounty:`:.,41.tlvr#e f r 40(e" SampfingDaW 1f;Sf.1jV
State: WC Sampling Point:
Applicant/Owner, R e s jr, . ov4
lnvestigator(s)a 994, - -110.4 S Section. Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): -Tf.f'-e to Local relief (concave. convex. none): tom, riivye Slope (%)*. Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat; 35. 191414- Long. - RJ 0 0 T l Damn: 4 9
Soil Map Unit Name: C -,d 4r-t% S i'r#t rA NWI classrficatiow. . "RPn
Are climatic t hydrologic conditions on the site typical for th s time of year's Yes No ji/ (If no, explain In Remarks.) /
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology _yi significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances* present? Yes 1/ No
Are Vegetation . Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (It needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes CVO Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks 0i <7i hMAS 04 A rf.K inn ve +1 44 i??-l'P41 c, r 4 m» :S t e S v"?" E'?n ?F,`v-r'?
t ? .c f'd ? ?r?r at ??li ?y ?*nc,±?+#.
HYDROLOGY
Wedand Hydrology Indicators: SewnM Indicators (minimum of two r iredl
Prhttwy indicators trr+inimum of nne in renuiredi check all tat aoalvl i "Surface Soil Cracks (Wi
_ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (814) - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
_ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _, Drainage Patfems (Bit?)
_ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _, Moss Trim Litres (816)
Water Marks (8i) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Recent trvn Reduction in Tilled Soils (CO) ,_ Crayfish Burrows (CA)
_ Drift Deposits (88) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) .-. Stunted or Stressed Plants (01)
_ iron Deposits (65) - geomorphic Position (D2)
- Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard (03)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (89) - Microtopographic Relief (134)
w Aquatic Fauna (B13) _. FAC-Neutral Test (135)
Field observations: f
Surface Water Present? Yes No + Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No %7Depth (inches): ??_
Saturation Present? Yes . No Depth (inches): 1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(Includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). ifavailabic
Remarks
US Army Carps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: T?- 5
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
- % Cover Soeci"7 Status Number of Dominant Species
-
t, i ' OaNy t`Cr
N14 r& IS V es That Are OBt.. FACw, or FAC:
(A)
2 w 4-4#,r ` a A Yes
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

4.
Percent of DominantSpecies
7
Th
FACW
f 1
t A
FAC
08L
a
, or
.
re
(A/B)
.
6..
7. Prevalence Index worksheet:
8 Total % Cover of. Multiply bv:
Total Cover 481. species x 1 =
SaolinoiShwb Stratum (Plot size: ) FACW species x2=
1, 1`..)c IAO K h s 4e n 5 e old Y,.c ? FAC species x3=
2. a 1'a Wa 4i44,ri%, FACU species x4=
3 "} rr CC rsters cr A t1 YeS Not UPL species x5=
.41 AX refit n car ad , 0 C Column Totals: (A) t8}
5.
ti Prevalence Index = B/A =
7 Hydrophyfie Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1- Rapd Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
9 _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
10. _ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'

10
Total Cover _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporiing
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (toot size: )

11
i;
ye_5 , Problematic Hydrophyttc Vegetation' (Explain)
2.

3. 'Indicators of hydre soil and welland hydrology must

4 be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
. Definitions of Four Vegetation Sbift

6. Tree -Woody plants. excluding vines. 31n, (TA cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DO14), regardless of
7.. height.
8.

9 Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants. excluding vines, less
. than 3 In. D8H and greater than 3.26 it (1 m) tali.
Tfl.
11 Herb - AN herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall,
12,
l
Woody Vine Stratum 'Plot size: _ Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.26 it in
height.

2.
3.
4
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
t3. Present? Yes NO

= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastem Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators,)
Depth Matjr
r (mgD %
(Incbjj) Coll
Color#mcist) % Tyne Texture Remarks
o

r7 " , C=Concantrarion, D=De etion RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains_ _ location: PL-Pore Uning, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:. Indicators for Problematic Hydrk Soils':
_ Hisidsol (At) _ Dark Surface (S7) - 2 ern Muck (A10) (ULRA 147)
A, Hisk Epipedon X) _ Polyvatue Below Surface (S6) (MLRA 147,148) ,_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (SS) (MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Solis (Fig)
- Stratified Layers (A5)
_.. 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Matrix (F3)
_Y Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1136, 147)
-sled Parent Material (TF2)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) - Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_, Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR N, _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR Pt,
MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136)
_, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) _e Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122) ? ndicstors of f rydrophyfie vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (SS) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (Fig) (MLRA 148) weftnd hydrology nv at be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (56) 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
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Herman Dairy Farm Date: 09/23/10
Applicant/Owner: Restoration Systems County: Alexander
Investigator: Axiom - M. Thomas State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? Yes No Community ID: Headwater Wetland, Seep
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes No Transect ID: Wetland
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID: TG05 wet
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liquidambar styraciflua C FAC+ 9.
2. Acer rubrum C FAC 10.
3. Nyssa sylvatica SC, Sh FAC 11.
4. Lonicera japonica V FAC- 12.
5. Ligustrum sinense Sh FAC 13.
6. Microstegium vimineum H FAC+ 14.
7. Impatiens capensis H FACW 15.
8. Lobelia cardinalis H FACW+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_ Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 4 (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 3 (in.)
Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
X Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
X FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
I Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Codous loam
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
Drainage Class: MWD and SWPD
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A I OYR 4/2 Clay loam
5-8 B I OYR 5/2 Clay loam
7.5 YR 5/6 Few/Faint
8 - 14+ C IOYR 6/1 Sandy clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
IL-
I
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
ProjaWSge; 1' llr*t & n D,a, r y Nn" City/County: +° V?i? ar: t° / arms Sampling Dale1 `1„ 3,1 ;
:
AppkanttOwner: (Z-s4w. r)r t' y e^ls 0_I_LC State: Sampling Pant: *Tfjes
Investigator(s). fPS pa- ll`l, Section, Township. Range.
l andfarm (hilbaripr! torratta, em.)- T! lel'*I f Local relief (concave, convex, none), Cd%l < +e w Slope (%y _
Subregiort (LRR or MLRA): Lot: 3 tr Low 11 Oaitrm. ? i
J
SoitMap l!NtName: odegirms Iltam NWl classifiication:_ j0pol
Are ci mate t hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X(if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil . or Hydrology _ X_ significantly disturbW? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes II 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
I lydric moil Present? Yes No a Wetland? Yes kr No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
PO,''B eats, tt,t VA f jo tj h 0i jL#.A di , h{ u f; c a S It ifCy'Prr„* Jl'r ea?1
t IPt r?r La?3t't? 1
HYDROLOGY
Wetland hydrology indicators. Secorutarv indicators (minimum of Egggkpm
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is recuired- ehe& all that ariciv1 Surface Soil cracks (91511
_ face Water (Al) _ Tate Aquatic Plants (B14) _
Sparsely Vegetated Con cave.Surface (B8)
-
Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Suffide Odor (Cl) . /
/Drainage Patterns (Btf!)
_L01- Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (0) _ Moss Trim Unes (818)
- Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced from (C4) -(Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (08)
_ Ord Deposits (83)' _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ! Other (Explain In Remarks) _ unted or Stressed Plants (DI)
.- Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2),
Inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (87) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stahted Leaves- (69) Microtopographic Belief (D4)
J Aquatic Fauna (813) : PAC-Neutrat Test (W)
Field Obserodonsi
Surface Wafer Present? Yes No Depth (Inches).
Water Table Present? Yes / No Depth (Inches) -
Satutation Present? Yes 7 No Depth (inches)' Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes !r No
(Includes capillary fr. e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), if available`:
Remarks: _
US Army Corps of Encineers Easter Mountains and Piedmont- interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling point:
r
30 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
) % Cover Species? . Stalus Number of Dominant Species
1 L;. •i ?ia,? 6. v t`Al ; ?t * 303 Yer PAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A)
2 ?r f ` rxwt t yes EA C T
t
l N
b
f D
a
er o
o
um
ominant tt
3• Species Across All Strata; (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are-QBL, FACK or FAG: (AIS)
6.
7. Prevalence Index worksheet:
8 Total % Cover of_ Multiply by:

otino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
1 61 ires*,. SW'l VA 4 rA S Ye-i' rA6 FAC species x3=
2 FACU species x4=
3, UPL species x5=
4, Column Totals: (A) (8)
5.
6 Prevalence Index = BJA =
Hydrophytie Vegetation indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytie Vegetation
g. - 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is s3,0'
10.
_
=Total Cover 4 - Morphological Adaplabons' (Provide supporting
Herb Stratum
(Plot size: .> - data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 * ,
1114 A yam, W - Problematic Hyydrophytic Vegetation` (Explain)
2?ty ?3 ;• It n 1 Lr 3
`

3 i_ l l e b r J ` indicators of hydric soil and wettand hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4' Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5,
6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (D8H), regardless of
? height
8
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.2E ft (I m) tall.
t0.
i i Herb - Ail herbaceous (non-woody) slants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 318 It tall.
12,
60 _ Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3,28 ft in
Woody \11ne Stratum (Plot size: 3 O V } height.
T
2
3
4
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6 Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate suet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL Samolino Point: T
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the :absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Rejox Features
(inches) COW (moist) "fo dolor (mast) _% _ Tyne Texture Remarks
GL

'Type. C=Concentration, D=De letion. RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains, kocabon. PL-Pore Lin ft, M=Matrix.
Hydrae Soli Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
- Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
e HisticEpipedon (A2) _ Potyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) , Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
- Stack Histic (A3) _. Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) - Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Fioodplain Soils (F19)
- Stratified Layers (As) i Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136,147)
- 2 cm Muck (Alp) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (72)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ! Very Shattmv Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
- Sandy MuckyA+tineral (S1) (LRR:N. _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148) MLRA 136)
- Sandy Gieyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) i"Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodptain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Maft (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed).
Type:

Depth (inches); /
Hydric Soil Present? Yes y No
Remarks,
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:North Carolina County/parish/borough: Alexander City: Taylorsville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.931617° ], Long. -81.206949° .
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Muddy Fork
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There mire # "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 4350 linear feet: 2 - 8 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands:.01 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: ?? ..
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis PT1*1
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (WN) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section I1I.1):
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section 111.1):
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: stream scores high on USACE Stream Assessment Workshet and higher on NCDWQ Stream
Worksheet.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: low scores on the USACE Stream Assesment Worksheet and NCDWQ Stream Form.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 4350 linear feet 2 -8 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
[] Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area:.01 acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
[I Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Figure 6.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
Z U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Taylorsville and Ellendale, NC 7.5 minute topo quads.
ER USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Data Mart.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): September 28, 2010.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify): UT 1 and UT 2 on Figure 6.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:North Carolina County/parish/borough: Alexander City: Taylorsville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.931617° , Long. -81.206949° .
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Muddy Fork
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required)
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There ,? "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 2693 linear feet: 4 - 8 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 1.47 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on. I' 401shed by _, ; _i
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section Ill below.
For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION [it: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section 111.13 below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbodya is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below.
Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 735 acres
Drainage area: 735 acres
Average annual rainfall: 50.69 inches
Average annual snowfall: 10.0 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 10 (or more) tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 25-30 river miles from TNW.
Identify flow route to TNW-: M
Muddy Fork to Little River to Catawba River.
Tributary stream order, if known: 4a' .
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
z Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: stream has been previously channelized.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 4 feet
Average depth: 4 feet
Average side slopes: 3:1 .
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
® Cobbles ® Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition stability [e.g.. highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: highly eroding.
Presence of run/riffle?pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate a% erage slope): 2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for:
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 6-10
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is:
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition ?
® water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by: 13
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
me lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: water color is turbid.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: sediment.
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OH WM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: rick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: low scores on the USACE Stream Assesment Worksheet and NCDWQ Stream Form.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 2693 linear feet 4 -8 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates forjurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 1.47 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE[ WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
"See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CfVA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Figure 6.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Taylorsville and Ellendale, NC 7.5 minute topo quads.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Data Mart.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
U FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): September 28, 2010.
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
® Other information (please specify): UT3 & UT4 on Figure 6.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 3.0
Rating Calculator Version 3.0
Wetland Site Name Herman Dairy Farm Date 9/28/10
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization M. Thomas/Axiom

Presence of stressor affecting assessment area (Y/N) YES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
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 HIGH
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) YES
Particulate Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) YES
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition HIGH
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) YES
Habitat Conditon HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH
Soil Sample #1
0- 8" brown l OYR 4/3 CL
811- 10" brown 10YR 5/3 CL
yellowish red 5YR 518 (common/fine/distinct)
10" - 13"+ grayish brown l OYR 5/2 SCL
strong brown 7.5YR 5/6 (common/Fine/distinct)
0-6"
6" - 8"
8" - 12"+
Soil Profile #2
brown
brown
strong brown
light brownish gray
strong brown
l OYR 4/3 CL
10YR 5/3 CL
7.5YR 5/8 (few/fine/faint)
I OYR 6/2 CL
7.5YR 5/8 (common/fine/distinct)
+?: Fi :?N1R, .

Soil Profile #3
0-4"
4" - 12"
12" - 14"+
yellowish brown 10YR 5/4 CL
grayish brown 10YR 5/2 CL
strong brown 7.5YR 5/6 (many/medium/distinct)
gray
IOYR 6/1 CL
strong brown 7.5YR 5/8 (common/medium/prominent)
0-4"
4" - 10"
10" - 14"+
Soil Profile #4
yellowish brown l OYR 5/4 CL
grayish brown 2.5Y 5/2 CL
light olive brown 7.5YR 5/6 (many/fine/prominent)
light brownish gray 2.5Y 6/2 CL
strong brown 7.5YR 5/6 (many/medium/distinct)
0-6"
6" - 12"
12" - 14"+
Soil Profile #5
brown 10YR 5/3 CL
strong brown 7.5 YR 5/6 (many/medium/distinct)
grayish brown 10YR 5/2 CL
strong brown 7.5YR 5/8 (many/medium/distinct)
light brownish gray l OYR 6/2 CL
strong brown 7.5YR 5/8 (many/medium/distinct)
strong brown 7.5YR 5/6 (few/fine/faint)
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL ID: y 5 bU 2 I
STREET ADDRESS:
17C. 94
TELEPHONE: a (? - 5 5 ( 0
Please print:
Property Owner: /4 l?
Please sign: 1
?YL
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
Matthew Thomas of Axiom Environmental Inc
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Appendix E
Performance Bond
Mitigation Plan (Contract No. 003271) Appendices
Herman Diary Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alexander County, North Carolina
A0%5
NORTH AMERICAN
SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Performance Bond
Bond No. 2145360
North American Specialty Insurance Company
1200 Arlington Heights Road, Suite 400, Itasca, IL 60143-2625
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, Restoration Systems, LLC, as Principal, and North American
Specialty Insurance Company, licensed to do business in the State of, NC as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Obligee), in the penal sum of Nine Hundred
Thirteen Thousand. Twentv Eight Dollars and 001100 Dollars ($913,028.00), lawful money of the United States of
America, for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be made, the Principal and Surety do bind themselves, their
heirs, executors, administrators, and successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that whereas the above bounden Principal has entered into certain
written Contract with the above named Obligee, effective the 26th day of June, 2010, for Herman Dairy Farm Stream
and Wetland Restoration Site - Option 1 in the Catawba River Basin Cataloging Unit 03050101, Contract #003271
and more fully described in said Contract, a copy of which is attached, which Agreement is made a part hereof and
incorporated herein by reference, except that nothing said therein shall alter, enlarge, expand or otherwise modify the
term of the bond as set out below.
NOW, THEREFORE, if Principal, its executors, administrators, successors and assigns shall promptly and faithfully
perform the Contract, according to the terms, stipulations or conditions thereof, then this obligation shall become null and
void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect subject to the following:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Contract, this bond will commence on the date of the submittal of Task 3 (submittal
of Mitigation Plan) and will terminate the earlier of two years from the submittal of the Restoration Plan or receipt of written
notification from EEP that the requirements of Task 6 (The Baseline Monitoring Report) have been met.
Sealed with our seals and dated this 20th day of June, 2011.
6ww-
Oin
Agreed and acknowledged this _ day of , 2011
By:
Restorat' Sys ms,
mcipal
North Amer'c S It Ins ar ompany
Ken eth J. Pee s, Attorney-in act
Obligee
NAS SURETY GROUP
NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT North American Specialty Insurance Company, a corporation duly organized and existing under
laws of the State of New Hampshire, and having its principal office in the City of Manchester, New Hampshire, and Washington Intemational
Insurance Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Hampshire and having its principal office in the City of
Schaumburg, Illinois, each does hereby make, constitute and appoint:
KENNETH J. PEEPLES, SOUTHGATE JONES, III, JAMES P. CARTER, II, BOBBI D. PENDLETON,
PHOEBE C. HONEYCUTT, KITARA A. SMITH, NEIL B. BILLER and HEATHER KENNEDY
JOINTLY OR SEVERALLY
Its true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver, for and on its behalf and as its act and deed, bonds or other writings
obligatory in the nature of a bond on behalf of each of said Companies, as surety, on contracts of suretyship as are or may be required or permitted by
law, regulation, contract or otherwise, provided that no bond or undertaking or contract or suretyship executed under this authority shall exceed the
amount of: FIFTY MILLION (x50,000,000.00) DOLLARS
This Power of Attorney is granted and is signed by facsimile under and by the authority of the following Resolutions adopted by the Boards of
Directors of both North American Specialty Insurance Company and Washington International Insurance Company at meetings duly called and held
on the 20 of March, 2000:
"RESOLVED, that any two of the Presidents, any Managing Director, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Assistant Vice President,
the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary be, and each or any of them hereby is authorized to execute a Power of Attorney qualifying the attorney named
in the given Power of Attorney to execute on behalf of the Company bonds, undertakings and all contracts of surety, and that each or any of them
hereby is authorized to attest to the execution of any such Power of Attorney and to attach therein the seal of the Company; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the signature of such officers and the seal of the Company may be affixed to any such Power of Attorney or to any
certificate relating thereto by facsimile, and any such Power of Attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signatures or facsimile seal shall be
binding upon the Company when so affixed and in the future with regard to any bond, undertaking or contract of surety to which it is attached."
?V1\VVtI?ALIiYfrrr?4?i
00
Q GPP
%
R aowamaoµw
'
O
6
j Goo
at By
' ?cV g
(IONAI
= V .'
SEAL -to = Steven P. Anderson. President & Chief Esecuilve officer of Washington Imermtional Insurance Company
=0;Y, 1973 W: n Z & Senior Vice President or North America
S
i
l
y I
C x?t SEAL R •?l
? n
n
pec
a
l
nsurance
ompany 6
:j
By N ........,.
* TT'"'
David DI. La man. Senior Vice President of Washington International Insurance Company
& Vice President of North American Specialty Insurance Company
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, North American Specialty Insurance Company and Washington Inter ational Insura
1241
official seals to be hereunto aff
d
d
h nce Company have caused their
10
ixe
, an
t
ese presents to be signed by their authorized officers this
day of .
October , 20
North American Specialty Insurance Company
Washington International Insurance Company
State of Illinois
County of Cook ss:
On this 12th day of October 20 10 , before me, a Notary Public personally appeared Steven P. Anderson , President and CEO of
Washington International Insurance Company and Senior Vice President of North American Specialty Insurance Company and David M. Layman ,
Senior Vice President of Washington International Insurance Company and Vice President of North American Specialty Insurance Company,
personally known to me, who being by me duly sworn, acknowledged that they signed the above Power of Attorney as officers of and
acknowledged said insinfinent to be the voluntary act and deed of their resnective comnanies.
"OFFICfAL SFAL"
NNA D. SRLENS
Notary Public, State of Owis
My commission Fapins t11t06 l l
Donna D. Sklens, Notary Public
1, James A. Carpenter the duly elected Assistant Secretary of North American Specialty Insurance Company and Washington
International Insurance Company, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Power of Attorney given by said North
American Specialty Insurance Company and Washington International Insurance Company, which is still in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seals of the Companies this 20 day of _ June 2011

James A. Carpenter, Vice President & Assuiam Secretary of Washington International insurance Company &
`torah Akan Specially Insurance Company
ji-I os stem .
_J a] C
PROGRAM
June 24, 2011
Mr. Worth Creech
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Mitigation Plan
Alexander County, Catawba River Basin 030501001120030
FDP Contact # 003271
Dear Mr. Creech,
On February 2, 2011, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) received the Herman Dairy
Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Mitigation Plan from Restoration Systems, LLC (RS). The
report indicates plans to restore 4796 linear feet (If) and enhance 468 if of stream as well as
restore 7.2 acres of riparian and 1.2 acres of non-riparian wetland. In addition, 2.2 acres of
riparian and 1.3 acres of non-riparian wetland will be enhanced. The anticipated total mitigation
units are 5108 stream mitigation units, 8.3 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMUs), and 1.3
non-riparian WMUs. On June 21, 2011, RS submitted a revised Mitigation Plan for Herman
Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site for review. EEP has no further comment at this time.
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) has completed its review of the restoration plan
and has no additional comments at this time. Please proceed with acquiring all necessary permits
and/or certifications and complete the implementation of the earthwork portion of the mitigation
project (Task 4). A copy of this letter should be included with your 401/404 permit applications.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at (919) 715-
1656 or email at [e-mail].
Sig cerely,
Guy C. Pearce
EEP Full Delivery Program Supervisor
cc: files
YAW,
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / vrww.nceep.net
Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation)
as the environmental document.
rroject rname: Herman Dairy Farm Stream and Wetland Restoration
Site
-County Name: Alexander
EEP Number: Contract # 003271
Pro'ect sponsor: Restoratinn ?vetZMQ i i r
1
anager:
The site is located within the 14-digit Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed
03050101120030 approximately 1.5 miles northwest of Taylorsville, in Alexander County. The site
encompasses approximately 34.7 acres of agricultural land used for row crop production along
with a dairy cattle operation. A total of 4,785 Stream Mitigation Units (SMU's), a minimum of 4
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU's), and 0.91 Nonriparian WMU's are being offered.
6

anager
Version 1.4, 8/18/05