20200775 Ver 2_MiddendorfSprings_100151_MP_2023_20240621

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
MIDDENDORF SPRINGS MITIGATION SITE
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DMS Project No.100151
DWR Project No. 2020-0775v1
NCDEQ Contract No. 8012-01
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2021-01973
Yadkin River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03040201
RFP#:16-008012 (Issued 07/16/2019)
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
December 2023

I
�1
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
September 11, 2023
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site /
Anson County
USACE ID: SAW-2021-01973
NCDMS Project # 100151
NCDWR # 20200775 v.1
Paul Wiesner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Dear Mr. Wiesner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) during the 30-day comment period for the Middendorf Springs Draft Mitigation Plan,
which closed on March 19, 2023. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns
have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this
correspondence. However, please note that issues identified as described in the attached
comment memo, must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the
document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit,
you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
USACE Mitigation Office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project.
Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit
authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily
addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does
not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you

are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may
require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions
regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation
Rule, please contact Steve Kichefski at [e-mail], or (828) 933-
8032.
Sincerely,
Steve Kichefski
Mitigation Specialist
for Todd Tugwell, Mitigation Branch Chief USACE
Regulatory Division
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List

MITIGATION PLAN
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, NC
DMS Project No.100151
DWR Project No. 2020-0775v1
NCDEQ Contract No. 8012-01
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2021-01973
Yadkin River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03040201
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
r11
FREESE
¢NICHOLS
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
531 N Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010
These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.
Contributing Staff:
Bryan Dick, PhD, PE, PH Lead Technical Professional/Lead Quality Assurance
Ian Jewell, JD Project Manager/Mitigation Plan Development
Emily Brown, PE, ENV SP, CFM Stream Design/Construction Documents
Lydia Ward, PE, ENV SP Stream Design/Construction Documents
Jason Steele, PhD, PWS Wetland Design/Mitigation Plan Development
S. Connor Kee, PG Mitigation Plan Development/Monitoring
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 ii December 2023

531 N. Liberty St. + Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 + 336-790-6744 + FAX [phone]
December 13, 2023 www.freese.com
Steve Kichesfski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: DMS Project ID # 100151 / Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan
IRT Comments
Dear Mr. Kichefski:
Freese and Nichols, Inc. appreciates the Interagency Review Team's (IRT) thorough review of the project. We
have addressed all comments provided by the IRT on May 24, 2023 for the Middendorf Springs Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan. As requested in that letter, we are providing our proposed
response to the comments prior to proceeding with the Final Mitigation Plan. Our responses are in blue
below:
Comments received (Black Text) and Responses (Blue Text)
David McHenry, NCDWR:
I've reviewed the plan and don't have any comments to offer. Thanks for the opportunity.
Thank you for reviewing the document.
Olivia Munzer, NCDWR:
1. Page 58, Section 7.5. It appears a word at the beginning of the sentence on line 10 is missing - probably
"Table 15".
Thank you. The text has been updated.
2. On Sheet DT-8 Planting Plan, they have hard fescue on the list —this is a non- native species, and it
likely will outcompete the native species. It should be replaced with a native species. Also, the Woody Planting
list on this page is difficult to read.
We appreciate you pointing out this that species was accidentally included on the list. We would not
suggest fescue on a restoration project. Hard fescue has been removed from the list.
Mac Haupt, NCDWR:

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments l
July 17, 2023
Page 2 of 10
1. DWR appreciates the review (and extensive comments) from Kelly Phillips of DMS.
2. DWR would like to emphasize the comment on the DMS review of Sheet C-2. DWR has concerns over
the extensive use of Angled Log Sills on some of these streams with the slopes present.
We appreciate the comment. We are not concerned with the use of angled log sills as noted in the plans
because we have had great success with this structure when it is being implemented by an experienced and
qualified contractor and with experienced construction oversight. We have included experienced and
qualified contractors as potential construction partners. Additionally, we will have qualified staff at the site,
particularly during the initial in -stream construction of the logs, to ensure that the contractor understands
our detail and design goals and that these structures are structurally sound upon construction with respect
to detailed drop distance and installation of filter fabric to prevent undermining of the structure (as noted
in comment #12).
Based on our experience with log sills, instability of the angled log sills typically occurs because the step drop
is too great or there is insufficient filter fabric or filter stone behind the logs. We have added clarity to the
detail to indicate that the step drop is to be 6" with an allowable tolerance up to 8".
One other issue with the extensive use of angled log sills (or any log structures) that was not mentioned in
the comments is the potential for decay of the logs due to wetting and drying of the logs. Streams in the
Slate Belt region are known to become dry in the summer. Thus, in the Slate Belt region there is concern that
the wetting and drying of the logs would lead to a faster rate of decay than when the logs would be
consistently wet. However, we are not concerned about this issue on the project for several reasons. As
explained in the response to the next comment, the groundwater hydrology of the site is not typical of the
Slate Belt due to the presence of the Middendorf formation at the ridgeline above the project streams,
providing a more continuous supply of groundwater and baseflow from the numerous springs present across
the site, which will help keep the log sills consistently wet . In addition, we have also proposed constructed
riffles along with the logs sills which will provide long-term stability to the channel even if the log sills begin
to decay over time.
3. Table 4 (and Section 3.3.1): DWR has concerns over the flow (because of the small drainage areas and
slate belt geology) for the following tributaries; 1 B, 1C and trib 5.
FNI designers have extensive experience with stream restoration design in the Slate Belt and great familiarity
with the hydrology and geology of this region. Our lead designers have successfully implemented several Full
Delivery projects in this physiographic region with full release of credits. As noted in the mitigation plan, the
geology of the site is unique and not typical Slate Belt geology. While streams located in the Slate Belt are
known to dry up in the summer, the presence of the Middendorf Formation (marine sands and clays) at the
ridge above the stream origins appears to act as a mini aquifer that creates springs across the site where it
contacts the slate belt mudstone unit below. This supplies a much more continuous source of baseflow to
the streams than we've seen in other small drainage -area Slate belt systems. We have documented the
project streams continuing to have baseflow well into "abnormally dry' and drought periods. Based on this,
we are confident that the stream will meet the minimum 30 days of consecutive flow that is required for the
site. Our mitigation plan includes proposals to monitor baseflow using pressure transducers or game
cameras on particularly small reaches where the transducers would be less effective.
4. Section 3.3.2.2- Hydric Soils Investigation- DWR was appreciative of the fact there was a Hydric Soil
report by a Licensed Soil Scientist; however, the hydric soils report in Appendix E has several

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments l
July 17, 2023
Page 3 of 10
shortcomings. As was stated in the report, "Due to time constraints, the hydric soil investigation was
not a complete review of the entire area...". The review lacked covering the entire project area, lacked
geolocating the borings on a map, and should have included many more borings given the wetlands
that were evidently present.
The licensed soil scientist was tasked with studying and documenting the hydric soils within the proposed
easement, not the entire property parcel. The statement is made to note that the entire property parcel
(outside of the proposed easement) was not studied. The licensed soil scientist did investigate and cover
the entire easement area including the areas of proposed wetland restoration areas.
5. Section 7.2.1- Stream Restoration Approach- DWR cautions raising a small drainage area stream in the
slate belt region. DWR believes that there will be continuous flow issues on most of the streams in this
project.
Please see our response to DWR Comment #3.
6. Table 12- Shows that the D50 proposed metric is to be 101.6 mm, or about 4 inches. Seeing the typical
for the constructed rifle, of which there will be many on this stream, DWR noted the use of Class A rip
rap in the typical. DWR believes that this will result in a considerable "hardening" of the stream
channel. DWR does not support the extensive use of class A rip rap in these stream channels.
The note to use "Class A" rip rap on the typical was only to communicate the standard size range needed for
the proposed bed material in the constructed riffle and not on how the stone should look. The size was
determined from calculations of the bed material size needed to create an immobile bed appropriate for a
threshold channel, as discussed in the mitigation plan. We agree that the appearance of typical Class A rip
rap would not be appropriate for the site, and therefore plan to source stone for the constructed riffle areas
from a local slate quarry. FNI staff have used this same quarry and its rock for another DMS full delivery
project. This material has the textural features, shape and appearance typical slate belt stream bed material
and therefore will look more appropriate for these stream channels.
DWR appreciates the design firm utilizing the wetland performance criteria of 12% hydroperiod during
the growing season.
Comment noted.
8. Section 9.5- DWR will require three additional gauges be placed in existing wetlands to ensure that the
constructed stream channel does not significantly reduce the wetland hydroperiod. The specific areas
will be mentioned in the review of the Design sheets.
The comment has been noted, and appropriate gauges and number of gauges will be installed in order to
document project success. The mitigation plan has been updated accordingly to note this.
9. Figure 7. It would have helpful if the drainage area acreage would have been listed on the map.
Figure 7 has been revised to include the drainage area acreage.
Figure 11- Proposed Mitigation Plan -there are several areas of concern on this map. First of all, DWR urges the
designer to capture all areas that connect to the easement that may affect either the stream or wetlands.
Examples of these areas which will likely affect the streams include the headwaters of tributaries 1C, 1 B, and 4.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments l
July 17, 2023
Page 4 of 10
In addition, there are several areas (proposed wetlands A and B, and existing wetlands, WF, WH, and WA)
where the easement line is directly on either proposed wetlands or existing wetlands. In the past the IRT has
encountered problems where wetlands just outside the easement line were ditched by the landowners and of
course these ditches affected the wetlands within the easement. Also, tributaries 5 and 6 both are shown to run
down valley from where they initially had their confluence with the stream. Figure 14 is offered for evidence for
tributary 5's path, however, DWR did not note any support for tributary 6's path.
The reviewer has detailed several items in this one comment, and our response will attempt to
systematically address each of the comments that were raised.
The reviewer has asked that FNI capture areas that connect to the easement that may affect either the
stream or wetlands. After further review of this comment, we have elected to expand the conservation
easement to capture additional wetland areas at the head of Tributaries 113 and 1C as well as in other
locations noted in the reviewer's comment. The wooded wetland areas upstream of the current
conservation easement boundary on Tributary 113 and 1C will be included in the new easement area.
Additionally, several areas where the proposed conservation easement skirted close to an existing wetland
boundary have been moved out somewhat to provide additional distance from the existing wetlands to the
proposed easement boundary (e.g., Wetlands WP, WD and WN). We have attached a figure to this response
letter depicting the approximate areas of expansions of the easement. However, we are not concerned about
ditching from the landowners affecting either existing or proposed wetlands because the proposed
conservation easement will block the landowner from being able to outlet the ditch anywhere on the
property. If the landowner were to install ditches adjacent to wetlands in the easement, such an effort
would be futile as the ditches would be parallel to the area and, to make a ditch, there would have to be a
place where the ditch can outlet. There would not be anywhere to 'outlet' the ditches because FNI has
already included all potential outlets of a ditch into the conservation easement.
In regard to extending the conservation easement further up Tributary 4 to its origin, this is not a practicable
option as the mitigation credits needed in this contract have already been supplied based on the proposed
restoration areas and conservation easements shown in the mitigation plan. With Tributary 4, a logical,
upper limit breakpoint was established at the point where there was already an existing culvert (to be
removed). As noted above, we don't believe Tributary 4 will be at risk of undercutting or being affected
upstream of the easement because drainage cannot be ditched deeper nor modified. Our rationale is that a
new drainage feature would have to connect into the restored channel. Given the constraints on the site,
we don't believe that such an action is a reasonable threat. However, we will update the mitigation plan with
additional detail of these potential risks and uncertainties.
We will provide additional documentation on the proposed pathway/alignment of Tributary 6 similar to
what was submitted for Tributary 5.
10. Figure 12- Monitoring Plan- DWR believes there should be flow gauges in the upper third of the reach
on each of the reaches proposed for restoration or enhancement work. Tributary 1 B does not show a
flow gauge.
Comment noted. We will add this to the mitigation plan.
11. Design sheet- C2-there is a lot of slope in this section with a lot of log sills. In the past, log sills have
shown to be prone to leak or lose the ability to hold grade. Careful oversight will be needed in the

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments l
July 17, 2023
Page 5 of 10
construction of so many log sills. Moreover, DWR requires a gauge in the existing wetland placed
stream right approximately near station 4+50.
See response to DWR Comment #2 where we attempt to address all of DWR's concerns about the angled
log sills. Oversight of the log sill construction will be performed by experienced and qualified personnel.
Comment noted with respect to the additional gauge and this will be added to the mitigation plan.
12. Design sheet- C5 - DWR requires a wetland gauge stream right near station 2+50. This section shows a
lot of constructed riffles. DWR would like to emphasize their concern of placing rip rap in the stream
channel. DWR suggests the designer look for a source of rock on site that more resembles native rock
on site both in type and in size for the stream. In addition, DWR noted that there does not appear to be
any bank treatments for the meander bends. How does the designer intend to maintain the stability of
the stream in these areas (Design sheet C6)?
Comment noted with respect to the gauge and this will be added to the mitigation plan.
See response to DWR Comment #6 regarding rock selection for the constructed riffle section.
With respect to the meander bend question, we ask that the commenter consider the size of the stream
channel that is proposed. Based on our calculations, shear stress on the outside bend is not high. The site's
drainages are small channels, and the installation of a bank stabilization treatment like toe wood or similar
treatment would be very large considering the channel size and overwhelm the small channel, potentially
affecting the pool size and function and creating instability issues rather than helping with stability. However,
to address concerns over the stability of the meander bends we will increase the planting density on the
banks.
13. Design sheet U-same comment as #12 regarding slope and log sills.
See response to DWR Comment #2 where we attempt to address all of DWR's concerns about angled log
sills.
14. Design sheet C9- in the longitudinal plot there were no lines.
We checked Sheet C-9 in the PDF version and the longitudinal plot lines are showing up correctly. It is
possible that if you were reviewing a hardcopy that the lines may have printed out too faint to see. We will
double check the plot hardcopy and adjust as necessary to make sure the lines are showing up.
15. Design sheet C16- DWR requires a gauge stream right at approximately station 4+50.
Comment noted and we will add a stream gauge to the mitigation plan at that location.
16. Design sheet DT3 — DWR requests the on -site construction supervisor emphasize the specs of the log
sill rollers with the construction company and specifically emphasize placement, footer logs and the
minimum amount of length the log embedded into the bank.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments M0,0114; ,
July 17, 2023
Page 6 of 10
See response to DWR Comment #2 where we attempt to address all of DWR's concerns about angled log
sills. We will emphasize the requested items with the construction contractor.
17. Design sheet DT4- DWR requests the designer look for rock on site which will be more suitable for the
stream rather than using NCDOT Class A rip rap.
See response to DWR Comment #6.
Casey Haywood, USACE:
Pg 10 Section 3.3.1.1 - Is the condition of UT1A Upper and Lower the same? Recommend discussing
the characteristics of existing conditions separately for these sections. UT1A Upper appears stable in
the photo provided in the photolog. It would be helpful if the photos in Appendix L were moved to the
narrative to help add context.
The conditions of the two reaches of UT1A are not the same. UT1A Upper is more stable than UT1A lower.
Although it is still incised it does possess more stable banks and mature trees on its bank which provide
stability and are limiting the degree of bank erosion. We will break out the discussion to describe these
reaches separately. We will move the photos to the narrative to help add context to the discussion.
2. Pg 17 Section 4.1.5- Section stated that improvements to biological activity will be noted during visual
assessments. Unless macrobenthic sampling will occur and/or visual observation data of biological
activity will be collected, recommend removing this statement.
We have removed this statement about visual assessments of biological activity.
3. Pg 19 Section 5.5- Stream relocation is estimated to impact existing wetlands within the easement.
Section 5.5 and 7.2.6 mention how permanent wetland impacts will be offset by stream restoration
activities and planting of existing (but unimpacted) wetlands. Is this quantified somewhere for a
comparison against wetland loss? Though it is anticipated that the total wetland acreage, and quality,
will likely increase as a result of stream restoration, the Corps must still ensure that there is no net loss
of wetlands as a result of ecological restoration. If you do not plan to install gauges on all wetlands
within the easement and monitor hydrology, please plan to reverify the extent of jurisdiction at the end
of the monitoring period to document that wetland acreage was not lost.
While we did include a table of estimated acreage of temporary and permanent wetland impacts, we did
not include a direct comparison of wetland loss versus wetland gain in the mitigation plan but we will add
this. We will add language regarding re -verification of jurisdictional status at the end of the monitoring
period. In addition, as part of the ePCN submittal, an impact table will be submitted.
a. Please be sure to include temporary and permanent impacts to both streams and wetlands
when submitting the ePCN along with an impact map. Additionally, any work being done outside the
easement boundaries, where you propose to tie into existing channels/ditches and upgrade or install
culverts, need to be included in the ePCN impacts. For instance, the 48" culvert crossing on UT6
(Figure 11) located just outside the easement is tied to the project and will need to be included on the
impact table unless a separate NWP14 will be requested. Any crossing impacts you believe qualify as
agricultural exemptions should be clearly reported with location, impact length, culvert size, etc. so the
proper determination can be made.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments M0,0114; ,
July 17, 2023
Page 7 of 10
Comment noted, and the appropriate documentation for required permits will be submitted.
b. Please see the attached Permitting Tips for Mitigation Sites PDF for reference and update the
Mitigation Plan as needed.
Thank you for including this in your comments. We have reviewed and will update the mitigation plan as
needed based on this document.
4. Pg 25 Section 7.2.1- While much of the work on the PI Restoration reaches are similar, this would be a
good opportunity to discuss the stream design implementation for each individual reach such as the
road relocation and culvert installation at the top of UT4 and UT6.
We will add more detail regarding the stream design implementation for each individual reach in this
section per your comment.
5. Pg 27 Section 7.2.3- Appreciate the inclusion of Figure 14 to justify the location of tributary 5. Please
include similar documentation for tributary 6.
A similar figure has been developed to justify the location of Tributary 6 and added to the mitigation plan.
6. Pg 28 Section 7.2.7- A treatment marsh is proposed at the top of UT4. It is understood that this was
discussed with the IRT; however, if this area is currently jurisdictional it is not appropriate to place a
BMP in a jurisdictional feature. It appears that this area is called out on the JD maps and Figure 9 as a
perennial stream. Please confirm. Would there be an option for a BMP or marsh treatment area above
UT2?
FNI agrees with the comment regarding the treatment marsh at the top of UT4. This has been removed.
With respect to UT2, a spring -fed wetland already exists at the top of this feature. Therefore, no BMP or
marsh treatment is needed.
Pg 32 Section 7.5- The selection of plant species is based on species present in the forest adjacent to
the site, please add a brief description of the vegetative community used for reference.
This has been added to the mitigation plan.
8. Pg 32 Table 15- The percentage for Sycamore seems high. It would be preferable to reduce the percent
of Sycamore.
We have reduced the percentage of sycamore by 5% in the planting table and have adjusted the other
species accordingly.
9. Section 7- Was any information gathered from a wetland reference site to help develop project target
conditions?
No data were specifically gathered from a wetland reference site. A review of existing wetlands at the site
informed our decision making with respect to the project's target conditions for the restored wetlands.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments l
July 17, 2023
Page 8 of 10
10. Pg. 33 Section 7.6- What is the potential for hydrologic trespass onto adjacent fields? While there have
been discussions with the landowner, there is no way of ensuring that the LO will not construct new
ditches immediately adjacent to your project that would result in drainage of wetlands restored on your
site. With no guarantee that the adjacent parcel will not be transferred to a different landowner in the
future, this potential site constraint should be discussed in the text.
We appreciate the commenter's concern for the long-term protection of these areas. Please see our
response to DWR Comment #9 regarding the potential for impact to the restored wetlands by adjacent
ditching. We will include more discussion regarding this potential site constraint in the text.
11. Pg. 33 Section 7.6- It was noted in Section 3.1.1 that cattle are located on adjacent parcels upstream of
Tributary 1. Do the cattle have access to the wooded buffer on Tributary 1A outside the easement or
are they fenced out? If so, add a discussion of potential issues that could arise on the Site from the
cattle access upstream. Noted that the Site does not propose any fencing.
There are no longer cattle being grazed on this adjacent property. The adjacent property has been sold,
and poultry houses have been constructed on the land. We have revised the mitigation plan to reflect this
change in land use.
12. Pg 38 Section 8.3- Please note that volunteer species must be present for at least two growing seasons
before counting toward meeting performance standards for monitoring year five and seven.
Comment noted. We have revised the mitigation plan to reflect this.
13. Pg 38 Section 9.0- Is that the "weather station" shown on Figure 12 the on -site rain gauge? There was
no mention of a rain gauge in this section.
Yes, the weather station includes a rain gauge. We will revise the mitigation plan to note that the weather
station also includes a rain gauge.
14. Pg 39 Section 9.4- Indicates cross sections will be installed on all Restoration and Enhancement I
reaches however, there is no cross section shown on the El reach on Figure 12.
An appropriate number of cross -sections will be added to enhancement reach on Figure 12.
15. Figure 5: Please include the proposed easement boundary.
The figure has been revised to include the proposed easement boundary.
16. Figure 7: Please show drainage area acreages on the map.
The figure has been revised to include drainage area acreages on the map.
17. Figure 9- Please indicate the location of the perimeter ditch to be filled (as shown on the map in
Appendix A).
The figure has been revised to include.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments l
July 17, 2023
Page 9 of 10
18. Figure 11-
a. It's unclear in the figure, text and design sheets where culverts will be replaced, in particular for
the road relocation above Tributaries 4 & 6. These crossings were discussed during the IRT
meeting. Please call out these locations on the figure and discuss in further detail in the narrative.
Does the road go through the top of the CE on Tributary 6? The line for the proposed reroute
appears to stop at the easement line but the note suggests it will be located above the easement.
Design sheets should also be updated accordingly.
The road will not go through the Conservation Easement on Tributary 6 but will be routed to the north
upstream of the conservation easement. We will update the figures, mitigation plan narrative and design
sheets accordingly to reflect this and describe the culvert placement in more detail, per your comment.
Update the ledger to read "Parent tracts" as opposed to "Project Site Tracts" for consistency.
What is the difference between what is labeled as the Project Site Tracts vs the Site —Boundary?
Both attributes are pink.
Ledger and figure have been revised.
C. Was there an option to include the crossing above Trib 1A Lower as an internal crossing? Internal
crossing are typically preferred so they are protected and managed in perpetuity as part of the CE.
The landowner would prefer to have this area separate from the conservation easement, so it has not been
included as an internal crossing. Please note that that there are no proposed credits for Trib1A Upper,
which we have included to provide connectivity and protection of Trib1A Lower.
19. Figure 12-
a. Please include the culvert/crossing photo point locations on this figure.
Figure has been revised.
Please include and label existing wetlands on this figure.
Figure has been revised.
C. Please install a flow gauge on Trib 1 B. Additionally, please ensure flow gauges are located in the
upper third of all reaches. To help supplement flow data it would be beneficial to also install game
cameras.
Comment noted for location of flow gauge, location in upper third and suggestion for game cameras. We
will revise the mitigation plan to reflect these additions.
20. Appendix F- Uniform Act document- FNI indicated that a notification was sent to the property owner
and a copy of the notification was located in the Appendix. Please include the document as indicated.
Document has been included in the mitigation plan.
21. Design Sheets-

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments l
July 17, 2023
Page 10 of 10
a. C13 and C16- Were there culverts being installed for the road relocation above Trib 4 and 6? Please
include culvert type and dimensions in callout. Also, please callout all easement breaks (internal
and external) on the profile views. And please include a typical culvert crossing detail.
Yes, there are culverts being installed for the road relocation above Tribs 4 and 6 and we will add the
requested information to the callout. We will also callout easement breaks on the profile views and
provide a typical culvert crossing detail.
Noticed a design sheet for Wetland A, C, D was not included. Is this because work is limited in this
area to mainly only removing drain tiles?
Yes, that is correct. Because the work in the proposed wetlands is minimal, it is depicted on the larger
scale sheets.
22. General Comment: Since this project is adjacent to active agricultural lands, signage will be important
to help establish boundaries for the landowner. We recommend using horse -tape or some other visual
barrier for the first few years of monitoring. To confirm, does the easement boundary line on Trib 1A
Upper follow the centerline of the stream or does it follow the lines of the parent parcel? It will be
important to install signage more frequently along this area due to the sinuous easement line. If the CE
does not overlap the parent parcel, and if possible, recommend installing signage in a straighter line
somewhere between the parent parcel and CE to avoid potential future encroachments.
The easement boundary line on Trib1A Upper roughly follows the lines of the parent parcel, which is also
approximately the centerline of the stream. We will install signage more frequently per your
recommendation.
Please let us know if additional information is needed for the IRT's further review. Feel free to call me at
[phone] with any questions.
Sincerely,
Ian Je ell
Associate/Project Manager

531 N. Liberty St. + Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 + 336-790-6744 + FAX [phone]
February 21, 2023
Kelly Phillips
Project Manager
NCDEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
www.freese.com
Re: DMS Project ID # 100151 / Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan
NC DMS Comments
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Freese and Nichols, Inc. appreciates the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) reviewers' time and
thorough review of the project. We have addressed all comments received by DMS provided by the
Memorandum of Record on October 26, 2022 for the Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Site Draft Mitigation Plan. Our responses are in blue below:
Comments received (Black Text) and Responses (Blue Text)
General:
• Please paginate PDF to be 1-263. Draft report is 1-55 for report, followed by 1-164 for
figures and appendix, then 1-28 for plan set, and finally 150-165 for additional
appendix.
This has been revised.
• As requested by the Todd Tugwell in an email dated June 8, 2021, please include a
discussion of the site, including a description of the unauthorized activities carried out
on the site and actions taken as part of the mitigation work to resolve those concerns.
Please include this email correspondence in Appendix A.
This information has been added to Section 1.0.
Title Page:
• Please add DWR Project number 2020-0775v1
This has been added.

• Remove DMS contract number. The NCDEQ number listed is sufficient.
This has been removed.
Page ii:
• Remove DMS contract number.
This has been removed.
• Revise Yadkin River Watershed to Basin and HUC to Cataloging Unit to be consistent
with cover page.
This has been revised.
Page iv:
• Please revise sections 7.1.1.1, 7.1.1.2 and 7.1.1.3 to 7.1.1, 7.1.2 and 7.1.3.
This has been revised.
Page vi:
• Please review and revise Figure names to match what Figures are titled in report for
consistency. For example, Land Use Map and Land Use Land Cover Map, Soils Map and
NCRCS Soil Survey Map, Proposed Restoration Plan and Proposed Mitigation Plan,
Monitoring Map and Monitoring Plan, and HUC Overview and Hydrologic Location.
This has been revised.
1.0 Introduction:
• Report states that the Site is not located within a targeted local watershed and proceeds to
discuss targeted resource areas in same sentence. Recommend revising to state that the site
is not located within a TLW or TRA or revise sentence for clarity.
This has been revised.
• Recommend revising sentence that states wetlands will be restored and re-established for
5.567 to wetlands will be rehabilitated and re-established.
This has been revised.
Tables I and 2: Please keep the credits and quantities tables formatted per the template.
The credits and quantities tables have been reformatted per the template.
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection (Second Paragraph): While the land use information
provided by FNI may be relevant, DMS suggests FNI speak directly with DMS watershed planners
to ensure FNI assumptions about the model are accurate.

We removed the language describing the similarity to nearby TRAs and the assumptions about
how those TRAs were selected. This was taken from the full delivery proposal and was used to
justify selection of the site even though outside a TRA.
3.1.1 Drainage Area and Land Cover: `Primary land use within the drainage areas consists of
row crop. Cattle pasture (Tributary 1) with wooded areas located along banks of South ForkJones
Creek, adjacent to Tributary I (upper) and along Tributaries IB and IC", please restructure
sentences) for improved clarity.
This has been revised for clarity.
Table 4: Summary of Project Attributes: Recommend including Stream Thermal Regime Warm
in the Project Watershed Summary Information section.
This has been revised per recommendation.
Table 5: Mapped Soil Series: BaC is listed on table but does not appear in project area onFigure
5. This may be accidently mislabeled and should be BaB. Please review and revise as necessary.
It was mislabeled and has been revised.
3.2.4 Land Use:
Section states that site has not been used for livestock and no livestock are present. Section
3.1.1 indicates that a primary land use is cattle pasture (Tributary 1) in the drainage
areas. Please revise and/or clarify so sections are consistent.
Section 3.1.1 has been revised to clarify this. Cattle pastures are present on an adjacent property
upstream of Tributary 1, but are not present on the project site or parent tract.
Text at the top of document page 9 does not read correctly and repeats with previous page.
Please revise.
The repeated text has been removed.
3.3.1 Reach Summary Information:
• NCDWR Stream Identification Forms were not included in Appendix D with the draft
submittal. Please include with revised submittal.
NCDWR Stream Identification Forms have been included with the revised submittal.
• Please qualify all references to `relatively high ' and `high ' BHRs.
This has been revised. The actual bank height ratios have been provided rather than a qualitative
statement.
Sentence "This has resulted in severe bank erosion along the channel due to lack of natural
bedform as the channel attempts to regain stable geometry. " "This " what? And the

statement indicates the severe incision has resulted in erosion due to lack of bedform;
please revise the sentence to accurately describe the process. Generally, isn't the lack of
bedform due to incision rather than the incision due to lack of bedform?
This sentence has been revised for clarity. It now says that incision has led to bank erosion and lack
of bedform as the channel attempts to regain stable geometry.
3.3.1.2 Tributary IB: Please describe why enhancement has been selected over restoration.
A sentence has been added describing why enhancement was selected over restoration on
Tributary 113.
3.3.1.2 Tributary 2:
• Gulledge Road is referenced in this section. Please label this road on figures.
Gulledge Road is now labeled on figures where applicable.
• Multiple vehicular crossings are referenced in this section. Please include these locations
on Figure 9 Existing Conditions Map.
These are now included on Figure 9 Existing Conditions.
3.3.1.3 Tributary 3: Description of Tributary is unclear and does not seem to match Figure 9.
Section states intermittent flow begins on Trib 3 at a headcut 470' upstream of the Site
easement area. Figures appear to show intermittent area within easement. Please revise
as necessary.
This sentence has been revised to provide clarity and correct this error. Tributary 3 begins at a
headcut inside the proposed easement.
3.3.1.4 Tributary 4: Section states that Tributary 4 is an intermittent tributary of Tributary 3.
Figure 9 shows Tributary 4 as perennial. Revise as necessary.
This has been corrected.
3.3.1.5 and C' 14: Please justify the alignment of Tributary 5 with lidar and or survey data to
support the proposed stream location.
A new figure has been created to justify the alignment of Tributary 5 with both Lidar contours and
Survey data.
3.3.14 Tributary 4: Please include Tanner Hill Road on Figures.
We've added Gulledge Rd to the figures. "Tanner Hill Road" is an incorrect road name that has
appeared on some online maps such as Google Maps.

3.3.16 Tributary 6: Section states that the perennial channel originates at the most upstream
wetland area. Figure 9 shows two additional wetlands upstream of where Tributary 4 is perennial.
Please revise as necessary.
This sentence has been revised to remove the words "most upstream".
3.3.2.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Information: Please add a short discussion regarding the
approved USACE PJD that was completed on July 27, 2 02 2, and is included in Appendix D.
A short description of the approved USACE PJD was added to this section.
Table 6: Recommend formatting to fit on I page as opposed to 3.
This has been revised to include the table on one page as opposed to three.
4.2 Potential Constraints: The intent of the statement `the valley widths at the site will allowfor
pattern and dimensions to restore stable functioning streams and wetlands' is not clear as valley
width does not limit stream stability. Suggest adding a caveat to this statement excepting Trib IA
upper which is constrained by parcel boundary and easement.
This sentence was removed and revised with a statement about Trib 1A being constrained by the
parent tract boundary.
4.1.4 Physiochemical:
• In general goals absent measurement should be avoided, please reduce physiochemical
discussion to parameters being measured during monitoring.
This has been revised per the suggestions in the other comments below.
• Recommend revising the second sentence to use the word export instead ofproduction
This has been revised.
• Recommend striking the 4`h sentence
This has been removed.
• In relation to the sentence: "These benefits develop slowly... " Reductions in bankerosion
and increasing floodplain storage should be readily assessed as part of the mitigation
monitoring. Nutrient cycling can be a longer -term process, especially when the source is
row crop agriculture, where a groundwater reservoir of nitrate may be a long-term source.
Please remove discussion of these metrics or add methods for measurement and reporting
to the monitoring plan.
Discussion of reduction in nutrient as a metric has been removed from this section.

• Consider language inhere that indicates forms of nitrogen and phosphorous will LIKELY
be reduced by reductions in bank erosion and establishment of a riparian buffer.
Language to this effect has been added to this section.
4.2 Potential Constraints: Recommend referring to Stream I as Tributary I to be consistent with
report text, figures, and tables.
This has been revised.
5.5 4011404:
• Text formatting error in this section.
This has been fixed.
• Verify that all impacts to jurisdictional wetlands have been minimized to the maximum
extent possible when considering access routes.
All impacts to jurisdictional wetlands have been minimized to the maximum extent possible with
access routes.
• Please clarify if the wetland expansion of 0.22 acres noted in this section is included
in the plan as submitted.
The wetland expansion of 0.22 acres is included in the plan. Wetland A was expanded by this
amount.
Table 10 — Project Goals and Objectives:
• First goal Recommend indicating that groundwater levels will be raised to support
riparian and hyporheic functions instead of `Improve ".
Revised per recommendation.
Project objectives should have corresponding performance standard and monitoring
parameters. The goals/objectives listed currently in the draft could be reduced and more
concise. Please organize these to be more concise with the performance standards
presented in Table 18.
Both Table 10 and Table 18 have been revised to be more concise by reducing the number of
goals/objectives or combining some redundant goals/objectives into one.
• Examine the second goal indicating transport equilibrium: The sediment transport analysis
in Section 7.4 indicates the drainages are not compatible with using sediment transport
equilibrium because they are supply limited and will be constructed as threshold channels.
Please revise this goal to comport with the transport analysis.
The language describing sediment transport equilibrium has been removed.
• Recommend not mentioning aquatic communities in third goal if it will not be measured.
Recommend leaving it improvement of substrates, bedform diversity and habitat diversity.
The language regarding aquatic communities has been removed.

7.1 Reference Streams:
• Remove references to Wildlands Engineering, Baker and Restoration System sites in
reference stream sections.
These references have been removed.
• Drainage areas on the reference streams was much larger than streams onsite. Please
indicate if there are any concerns.
Our primary concern was with finding headwater streams in a similar physiographic setting (i.e. slate
piedmont, slate belt specifically) with similar slopes. The Middendorf site is somewhat unique in that
streams with such small drainage areas have perennial flow, thanks to the abundance of headwater
springs across the site. We felt that the references we found represent these boundary conditions of
headwater, piedmont perennial systems on relatively steep slopes (then transitioning to flatter
slopes) fairly well and are not concerned with scaling the geomorphology of these systems down to
the project site.
7.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach:
• Remove reference to EII There is no EII proposed for this site.
Reference to Ell has been removed.
• The information provided in the mitigation plan states several tributaries with gradients
greater than 2%. Please specifically address the proposed `C' type streams in tributaries
with these steeper gradients. Is the overall approach to construct `Cb " streams and fortify
the steeper reaches with more substantial grade control (log rollers)? Additionally, given
the tributaries are currently dominated by gravel (as stated in the plan), will the material
added to construct riffles be the larger size fraction of the current sediment size
distribution?
Yes you are correct. The plan is to construct Cb streams on the steeper slope areas and fortify the
steepest reaches with log rollers. We've added some sentences describing this to Section 7.2.1.
7.23 Meander Pattern: Was low point of the valley considered in the proposed alignment
decision? Please add additional discussion to this section. Please reference any lidar, field surveys
used to develop and support the proposed alignment.
Yes it was considered and was a critical part of the design, particularly for Tributary 5 and 6, which are
aligned to flow the low point of the valley. We have developed a figure to show the topographic low
points of Tributary 5 in response to the question above. Please refer to Figure 14 for evaluation of low
points in this area.

7.24 and 7.2.5: Sections repeat same language regarding riffles and log rollers. Please revise.
This has been revised.
7.25 In -Stream Structures data: Only two structures are proposed for this design.
Were additional structures considered to add variability and/or habitat diversity?
Given the relatively small size of these channels, other types of in -channel structures with multiple
arms such as cross -vanes and j-hook vanes would not be practical as they would overwhelm the
channel and likely create more stability problems rather than help stability. As such, we've focused
on log sills and log rollers as the most practical means of achieving grade control, assist with
maintenance of pools and creating energy dissipation where needed on the steepest slopes but
still fit within the small size of the channels.
7.26 Wetland Restoration Approach:
• Section discusses Enhancement areas, but there is no Enhancement proposed as
mitigation for the site. As a result, and to reduce confusion with reviewers, DMS
recommends removing the sentence "Enhancement areas aim to improve vegetation in
already jurisdictional wetland areas. " This information is stated at the end of the
paragraph and states that no credit is being requested for this activity. All jurisdictional
areas where planting will be conducted must be identified and mapped but should not
be referred to as Enhancement in this context. Please add figures showing the wetland
planting locations and any JD areas impacted during construction.
References to enhancement have been removed from this section. Figure 15 has been added to
show the JD impact areas (both temporary and permanent) as well as where wetland planting will
occur.
• Please be advised that the pocket wetland being proposed within the conservation
easement will need to be constructed in a manner that does not require maintenance.
The pocket wetland detail shown on DT-9 will require routine maintenance that will not
be allowed to occur within the conservation easement.
We have revised the pocket wetland (now called "treatment marsh") to remove the pipe outlet
and replace it with a log sill weir outlet that will not require maintenance. The log sill will be
placed in in -situ soil adjacent to the embankment. Other elements of the pocket wetland that
were more similar to a BMP have been removed so as to keep the wetland as simple as possible
while still providing the intended pre-treatment of flow from upstream.
7.2.6 Wetland Restoration Approach - Clarification: The approach as proposed is somewhat
unclear:
• Wetland B Re-establishment is proposed via stream restoration of Tributary 2; however,
a jurisdictional wetland persists on stream right of this tributary in an area that appears
to have upslope drainage and drainage tiles. There is no indication of spoil, berms,
drainage tiles in the non jurisdictional area in this location that is proposed for re-
establishment; there is an unidentified structure on plan sheet C-8 that appears to
connect the stream to the proposed restoration zone. Please specify what is intended in
this location.
Photos of drainage tiles have been added to the photo log and an approximation of drainage tile

Cow Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to IRT Comments
January 26, 2023
Page 9 of 18
FREESE
WIN
locations has been added to the Existing Conditions figure. There are several ditch outlets along the
perimeter of Wetland B that have several drainage tiles (corrugated plastic pipe) with flowing water.
These drainage tiles extend up into the Wetland B cell. The location of drainage tiles shown in the
Existing Conditions figure is an approximation based on field evidence of the location of the ends of the
tiles and the direction in which they come out of the wetland, and discussions with the landowner
regarding where they were installed. Silt and sediment has accumulated over top of the cliches in
which the tiles were buried and they can no longer be seen from the surface. As such, we have
included a reconstruction of their approximate locations on the figures.
• Wetland A is located in the floodplain of South Jones Creek, which is not to be subject
to restoration or enhancement. The re-establishment in this area is proposed through
removal of ditches and drainage tile; however, the locations of both features on the map
appear to be on the perimeter of the re-establishment. The persistence of jurisdictional
wetlands in this location raises the question of functionality of ditch and tiles.
As with Wetland B, Wetland A has several ditch outlet points where two to four drain tiles are visibly
coming out of the ground, into the ditch and flowing out to South Fork Jones Creek. Photos of these
have been added to the photo log and an approximation of their location has been added to the
Existing Conditions Figure. As with Wetland B, the landowner has indicated that the tiles extend into
and throughout the proposed Wetland A. The parts of Wetland A that are currently jurisdictional are
relict oxbow meanders of South Fork Jones Creek. They are deeper than the surrounding non -
jurisdictional areas proposed for re-establishment, thus are further below the groundwater surface and
currently classify as jurisdictional while the surrounding areas do not.
• Please describe the mechanism for re -hydration of Wetland Area A since this area may
be less influenced by the drainage the and ditch modifications.
To restore wetland hydrology in Wetland Area A, the drainage tiles will be disrupted throughout the
wetland, ditches will be plugged and restoration of Tributary 1 will increase the groundwater surface
elevation.
7.2.6 Wetland Restoration Approach: Recommend moving discussion regarding standing
water to 7.2.7 Soil Restoration Approach to reduce repetitiveness. Topic is discussed in both
sections.
This has been revised.
7.2.7 Soil Restoration Approach: Section mentions compaction from livestock. Recommend
revising since livestock do not appear to have ever been on this site.
This has been revised.
Table 12 — Morphological Parameters:
• Reaches IA, IB, 2, 3 indicate conversion from G to C, but exhibit decreases in the WID
ratio. Please respond or clarify.
Due to incision of existing channels, existing bankfull features were either difficult to discern or

FREESE
Cow Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to IRT Comments WM E
January 26, 2023
Page 10 of 18
entirely absent at surveyed cross -sections. Bankfull parameters of existing channels were thus
calculated based on assumed/approximated bankfull elevations and should be taken as an
approximation of actual bankfull characteristics. Thus, in this case the comparison of changes from
existing to proposed would not provide an accurate assessment of the adequacy of the proposed
channel to maintain bankfull discharge and stability relative to existing condition, as it would in
channels where existing bankfull indicators are more evident. A footnote has been added to Table 12
to clarify this.
• Reaches 3 and 5 simultaneously exhibit decreases in area and slope. How is the design
discharge maintained? Please include explanation in the narrative.
See response above. An explanation of this has been added as a footnote to Table 12.
Table 12 and Table 13 — Morphological Parameters: Recommend reducing size to fit on one
page.
This has been revised to fit on one page.
7.3 Design Discharge Analysis: There are two page 32 in the report. Please review and
revise report and table of contents if necessary.
This repeated page issue has been fixed.
7.4.1 Sediment Competence Analysis: 7th sentence "The results also show.. " Believe
the authors are describing excess competence, not capacity? Please revise or clarify as
appropriate.
Yes this should have said "competence". This has been revised.
7.5 Vegetation and Planting Plan: Section states that planting will occur between Nov. 15 and
March 15 per IRT monitoring guidance. Then continues to state that if construction is completed
after March 15, but before May 31 the site will be planted. The IRT will need to be notified and
agree to any planting beyond March 15. Failure to receive IRT approval to plant beyond March
15 may result in delayingMYl until the following year. DMS recommends removing the May31
statement.
This has been revised per the recommendation.
7.5.1 Invasive Species Treatment: Recommend adding discussion regarding what areas of the
site will be a one-time treatment versus throughout the monitoring period in this section.
Information regarding the areas that will be one-time treatment has been added to this section.
Table 16—PZantingPlan (WoodySpecies): PlantingPlanzones donot match sheetDT--8. Please

FREESE
Cow Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to IRT Comments VM VICNIOLS
January 26, 2023
Page 11 of 18
revise so the naming convention is consistent (ex: Streamside (Zone]) vs Zone I Live Stakes or
Piedmont Bottomland Forest vs Riparian Wetlands).
This has been revised.
7.6 Project Risks and Uncertainties:
• Revise "Stream I " to "Tributary L4
This has been revised.
• Please discuss crossing in more detail. Will the culvert be replaced and installed and
sized appropriately to allow wildlife passage?
Discussion has been added to this section regarding this crossing. This crossing is currently a
60" RCP and it will remain in place.
• Will the site remain in row crops? Ifso, how will encroachments due to equipment turning
be prevented? Is there any fencing proposed for the site? There are many tight corners
and angles to the conservation easement that will not be conducive to equipment turning.
Please add a discussion regarding how encroachments will be prevented.
The site will remain in row crops. The easement corners have been checked and selected to
ensure equipment can turn/navigate and have been discussed with landowner. He is also
aware that encroachments will not be permitted. No fencing is proposed for the site, however
corner posts and line posts consistent with NCDMS guidelines will be placed throughout the
easement area. Additional discussion about this has been added Section 7.6.
• What is the potential for hydrologic trespass onto the adjacent fields near Wetland A
and Wetland B? The increased hydrology resulting from plugging ditches and removing
drain tiles will not stop at the conservation easement line. There is no guarantee the
landowner will not construct new ditches and install new drain tiles adjacent to the
wetlands. Please address this possibility as a project risk and indicate if there are any
areas posing a risk for hydrologic trespass.
Risk of hydrologic trespass is low. There is no chance of the landowner digging a new ditch
because the proposed easement will completely surround all outlet points for a ditch
(tributaries and South Fork Jones Creek), and thus even if a ditch was dug there would be
nowhere for it to drain without cutting through the easement which would be a violation of
easement conditions. We have had extensive discussions with the landowner regarding the
proposed removal of drain tiles and ditches in the wetlands, and they have stated they are fine
with this as in their view it is already a very saturated and unproductive planting area across
the valley flat.
8.0 Performance Standards: Typo: add Table before 18.
This has been revised.

Cow Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to IRT Comments
January 26, 2023
Page 12 of 18
WINFREESE
NICHOLS
Table 18 — Project Performance Standards:
• For Conservation Easement performance standards the monitoring approach should be
"Visual Assessment". The conservation easement should be walked in its entirety at
a
minimum of annually to identify encroachments, deficiencies, and necessary repairs
and/or updates.
This has been revised.
• Please update objectives in Table 18 to match revisions to Table 10.
Table has been revised to match revisions in Table 10.
• Project boundary integrity must be maintained. Suggest inclusion of required annual
visual inspection of easement boundary as monitoring approach to address `Establish a
minimum 50 ft buffer along stream channels' objective.
This has been revised per suggestion.
8.1.2 Surface Flow: Did the authors mean to say stream gage instead of flow gage? Aren't the
transducers going to measure both overbank and continuous baseflow simultaneously where
required?
This has been revised to say "stream gage". The language regarding use of pressure transducers
has also been added to the bankfull event section to clarify that those devices will be used for both
bankfull and surface flow monitoring.
8.1.4 Digital Image Evaluations: Please note that detrimental bank erosion, aggradation,
structural integrity, and vegetative concerns must also be noted on the required Visual
Assessment tables and spatial extent depicted on the CCPVeach monitoring year.
This language has been added to the text.
8.2.1 Wetland Hydrology:
• Recommend removing section heading 8.2.1 Wetland Hydrology and provide this
information under 8.2 Wetland Restoration Success Criteria like other success criteria
sections.
This has been revised per recommendation.
• Please provide source for NRCS WETS data using 20 degrees F as temperature index.

FREESE
Cow Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to IRT Comments WM E
January 26, 2023
Page 13 of 18
The standard indexes are 32, 28 and 24.
The 20 degrees F was a typo and has been changed to 28 degrees F.
9.1 As -built survey: Section indicates a survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water
surface, bankfull and top of bank. Please be advised that there are many more asbuilt survey
requirements. Please review the DMS required templates and guidelines as referenced in
section 2.9 of RFP#16-008012.
This section has been updated to reference the current templates and guidance documents,
specifically the As -Built Requirements (October, 2020) document.
9.2 Visual Monitoring: Please include photos of culverts and crossings in annual fixed photo
points.
Culverts and crossings have been added to the list of fixed photo points in this section.
9.5 Wetland Hydrology:
• Section indicates that 12 gauges will be installed, but only 11 are described. Seven in
re- established and four in rehabilitated areas. Also, section states some gauges will be
installed in jurisdictional wetlands for reference, but this is not included in the total
gauge count. Table 19 shows 11 gauges total. Please revise.
That has been revised to 11 gages. No gages will be installed in jurisdictional wetlands and that
language has been removed.
9.7 Schedule and Reporting:
• DMS always recommends using the most current monitoring templates, tables, and
applications for reporting. All templates can be found on the DMS website.
Language in this section has been revised to say that the most current DMS template on the DMS
website will be followed, rather than indicating a specific template.
• Note that Closeout Reports are no longer required.
Reference to closeout reports has been removed.
Table 19: Recommend dividing vegetation plots into Fixed and Random similar to Riffle and
Pool cross sections above.
This has been corrected in the text and figures.
Table 19: Please include number of reference photo points.

FREESE
Cow Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to IRT Comments VM VICYOLS
January 26, 2023
Page 14 of 18
This has been revised with a number of reference photo points.
FIGURES
Figure 3 Landowner Map: The easement appears to be outside the extent of the parent tracts.
Are the boundaries for the parent tracts the stream centerline?
The easement is contained entirely in the parent tracts. It appears to be outside the parent tract on
the Landowner Map because the parcel layer from Anson County that is used on the figure is only an
approximation whereas the easement boundary has been surveyed in by a Professional Land Surveyor.
All proposed easement boundaries tie into the parent tract boundaries. We can attached the draft plat
if that will help clarify this but currently it is not part of the document. On Trib 1 upper and South Fork
Jones Creek the boundaries of the parent tract are the same as the stream centerline.
Figure 4 Land UsevLand Cover Map: Please include the easement boundary in this figure.
This has been revised.
Figure 5 NRCS Soil Survey Map: Please remove the hydric soils line work features from this
figure.
This has been revised.
Figure 9 Existing Conditions Map:
• Please include jurisdictional wetlands and label, label roads, include proposed CE,
cross section locations, and DWR stream form locations.
These items have been added to the Existing Conditions Map.
• Please include greater detail on the number and location of ditches and drain tiles
relative to the wetland features (i.e., inset).
These items have been added to the Existing Conditions Map. The location of drainage tiles shown is an
approximation based on field evidence of the location of the ends of the tiles and discussions with the
landowner regarding where they were installed. Silt and sediment has accumulated over top of the
cliches in which the tiles (corrugated plastic pipe) were buried and they can no longer be seen through
the proposed wetland areas. As such, we have included a reconstruction of their approximate
locations on the figures.
Figure 11 Proposed Mitigation Plan: Please include road names and jurisdictional wetlands.
These items have been added to Figure 11.
Figure 12 Monitoring Plan:

FREESE
Cow Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to IRT Comments WM VICYOLS
January 26, 2023
Page 15 of 18
• Note on figure suggests locations can change for monitoring devices. Please note that
the IRT expects installed monitoring devices to be as close as possible to proposed
locations.
This note has been removed. Monitoring devices will be Installed as close as possible to the
proposed location.
• Recommend showing locations of random plots. IRT would appreciate the opportunity
to comment and request for a certain area of interest to be monitored.
Random plots are now shown on the figure.
• Recommend turning off Zone 2 Planting hatch to make map more legible.
This has been revised.
APPENDICES
Avvend& A IRT Meeting Minutes: Correspondence indicates IC would be credited using a
ratio of 1.5. The quantities and credits table indicates a ratio of 1. Please respond or revise as
appropriate.
The proposed approach has been changed to restoration, based on further site assessment and
design analysis. A paragraph has been added to Section 7.2.1 (Stream Restoration Approach)
detailing the reasons for this change.
Avvend& G Plan Sheets:
Symbols Page: Please include symbols page.
A symbol page has been added.
Plan Sheets General:
• Please add the wetland ID labels for credited areas to each plan sheet.
The Wetland ID labels for credited areas have been added.
• Recommend adding specifications for each type of stone backfill to be used during
construction.
Stone backfill and specification has been called out on each detail.
• Add detail for the plug between Wetland B and Trib 2.

Cow Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to IRT Comments
January 26, 2023
Page 16 of 18
WINFREESE
NICHOLS
Channel plug detail is intended to be used for ditch plugs as well. The title and callouts on this
detail has been revised to reference its use both in wetland ditches and as channel plugs.
Sheet C' 1: Recommend indexing overview map with sheet number for individual pages.
Overview map has been revised with sheet numbers.
Sheet C' 2:
• Why was the top of the jurisdictional wetland not captured in the conservation
easement at the upstream end of T2?
The PJD was requested only for the proposed conservation easement limits and thus
jurisdictionally determined wetlands shown in this location are limited to the bounds of the
conservation easement limits. This has been revised.
C-2 Tributary I C: Angled Log Sill Roller structures are shown as the only in -stream
structures for most of the reach which exceeds 2% slope. The profile does not match the
sequence suggested by SheetDT-3 using the Sill Rollers which would produce a sill (step)
with a pool immediately downstream. The displayed profile is more consistent with a
riffle/pool sequence. Please review the plan sheet and proposed structures for consistency
and applicability and add specification indicating maximum drop across an individual sill.
Please evaluate this at all locations where this structure is proposed.
The angled log sill roller is intended to be constructed on what is shown as the riffle on the
proposed profile, where indicated on the plans. We have attempted to modify the riffle parts of
the profile to show the steps but because the riffles are so short in many cases, the plans become
very difficult to read and we feel it is best to leave them as shown and have the Contractor
reference the detail for how these areas are to be constructed.
Sheet C' 3: Same comment as above. Why was the wetland not fully captured within the CE?
See response above.
Sheet C-3: Tributary IB is shown to be 590 ; but Table 2 shows Tributary IB as 500.119. Digital
files show Tributary IBbeginning further downstream and for a length of 500.119 ". Please
review and revise as necessary.
An older profile was shown by mistake on this sheet and has been revised to match the length
of 500.119. The length shown in the digital files and Table 2 as well as the alignment shown on
the plansheet are correct in terms of length.
Sheet C' 5: Please include culvert/crossing information on this page. Please also include a
detail for the proposed crossing/culvert.
Culvert/crossing information has been added. This is a 60" RCP. This culvert is not proposed to

FREESE
Cow Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to IRT Comments WM E
January 26, 2023
Page 17 of 18
be replaced and thus no crossing detail is included.
DT-3 Angled Log Sill Roller: Add specification for the maximum drop between headers. Also,
NYSDOT 620.08 is currently specified as the structure bedding material. Please refine the
description.
The maximum drop specification has been added into the notes for this detail.
Planting Planview P-1: Hatching makes sheet difficult to review. Recommend using multiple
sheets or revise hatching to improve legibility.
Hatching has been revised to improve legibility.
Avvend& H Invasive Species Control Plan: Please include discussion regarding intended
treatment plan regarding intentions to treat certain areas one growing season vs. full invasive
treatment as shown on maps used during IRT correspondence. Please include these treatment
zones on figures.
Discussion has been added to the Invasive Species Control Plan. These areas have also been
added to Figure 11 "Proposed Mitigation Plan".
Avvendix I Maintenance Plan: Please include Beaver control.
Discussion of beaver control has been added to the maintenance plan.
Digital Data Review:
Recta Discrepancies Between Table 2 and Provided Shape Files:
o Wetland A: 4.790 vs 5.276
o Wetland B:. 460 vs . 613
o Wetland C: .170 vs 191
o Wetland]): . 310 vs. 314
o Trib IA Lower: 1950.858 vs 1975.858
o Trib 5: 1489.440 vs 1460.073
The shapefile lengths/areas are correct and the values in Table 2 have been revised to
match these.
• Please submit a complete file with existing wetlands to include all wetlands identified in
the approved USACE JD.
A shapefile with existing wetlands has been compiled and sent with this submittal.
• Submit a revised Wetland Asset file with wetland segments as they appear in the Project
quantities and credit table. Wetland A D should appear as separate segments and the
acreage for each segment must match the assets as presented in the report. Verify that
all wetlands reported as assets are located within the boundary of the conservation
easement. It appears that wetland A extends beyond the northern boundary.

Cow Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to IRT Comments
January 26, 2023
Page 18 of 18
FREESE
WIN
A revised wetland asset file has been produced with each wetland asset broken out into
its own distinct segment. The boundaries of wetland A have been snapped to the
conservation easement boundary.
• Please submit a revised centerline file attributed to include non -credited reaches. The
attribute table in the digital file must match the project segments and linear feet as
reported in the Project Quantities and Credits table. Tributary S deviates by 30 linear
feet and Tributary ]A's segmentation deviates between the two data sources.
This has been revised to include non -credited reaches.
Please let us know if additional information is need for the Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review. We look
forward to a successful project together.
Sincerely,
Ian Jdw6ll
to/Project Manager

Table of Contents
1.0
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1
2.0
WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION......................................................................3
2.1 SITE SELECTION............................................................................................................ 3
3.0
BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS...................................................................................4
3.1 WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION..................................................................... 4
3.1.1 Drainage Area and Land Cover.................................................................................
4
3.1.2 Surface Water Classification.....................................................................................
5
3.2 LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS.................................................................................... 6
3.2.1 Physiography and Topography.................................................................................
6
3.2.2 Geology and Soils.....................................................................................................
6
3.2.3 Existing Vegetation...................................................................................................
7
3.2.4 Land use — Historic, Current, and Future..................................................................
7
3.3 PROJECT RESOURCES................................................................................................... 8
3.3.1 Reach Summary Information....................................................................................
8
3.3.1.1 Tributary 1 (1A, 113 and 1C).................................................................
8
3.3.1.2 Tributary 2.........................................................................................
10
3.3.1.3 Tributary 3.........................................................................................
11
3.3.1.4 Tributary 4.........................................................................................
14
3.3.1.5 Tributary 5.........................................................................................
14
3.3.1.6 Tributary 6.........................................................................................
15
3.3.2 Site Wetland Summary...........................................................................................
17
3.3.2.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Information...................................................
17
3.3.2.2 Hydric Soils Investigation...................................................................
17
3.3.2.3 Existing Hydrology.............................................................................18
4.0
FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL..........................................................................................22
4.1 ANTICIPATED FUNCTIONAL BENEFITS AND IMPROVEMENTS ...................................
22
4.1.1 Hydrology...............................................................................................................
22
4.1.2 Hydraulic.................................................................................................................23
4.1.3 Geomorphology......................................................................................................23
4.1.4 Physiochemical.......................................................................................................23
4.1.5 Biology....................................................................................................................24
4.2 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS.........................................................................................
24
5.0
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................24
5.1 FEMA FLOODPLAIN....................................................................................................
24
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND DOCUMENTATION ...........................................
25
5.3 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES................................................................
25
5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................
26
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 iii December 2023

5.5
401/404......................................................................................................................26
6.0 MITIGATION
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...................................................................29
7.0 DESIGN
APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN.............................................................30
7.1
REFERENCE STREAMS................................................................................................
31
7.1.1 Spencer Creek Reach 3...........................................................................................
31
7.1.2 UT to Rocky Creek..................................................................................................
31
7.1.3 UT to Crane Creek..................................................................................................
31
7.2
DESIGN PARAMETERS................................................................................................
32
7.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach................................................................................32
7.2.2 Typical Design Sections..........................................................................................
38
7.2.3 Meander Pattern....................................................................................................38
7.2.4 Longitudinal Profiles...............................................................................................38
7.2.5 In -Stream Structures..............................................................................................
38
7.2.6 Wetland Restoration Approach..............................................................................
38
7.2.7 Soil Restoration Approach......................................................................................
40
7.3
DESIGN DISCHARGE ANALYSIS...................................................................................
40
7.4
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS.............................................................................
41
7.4.1 Sediment Competence Analysis.............................................................................41
7.4.2 Sediment Capacity Analysis....................................................................................
42
7.5
VEGETATION AND PLANTING PLAN...........................................................................
43
7.5.1 Invasive Species Management...............................................................................
44
7.6
PROJECT RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES........................................................................
44
8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................................46
8.1 STREAM RESTORATION SUCCESS CRITERIA............................................................... 48
8.1.1 Bankfull Events....................................................................................................... 48
8.1.2 Surface Flow........................................................................................................... 48
8.1.3 Cross Sections.........................................................................................................48
8.1.4 Digital Image Evaluations....................................................................................... 49
8.2 WETLAND RESTORATION SUCCESS CRITERIA............................................................ 49
8.3 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA............................................................................... 49
9.0 MONITORING PLAN..............................................................................................................50
9.1
AS -BUILT SURVEY.......................................................................................................
50
9.2
VISUAL MONITORING................................................................................................
50
9.3
STREAM HYDROLOGY................................................................................................
50
9.4
CROSS SECTIONS........................................................................................................
51
9.5
WETLAND HYDROLOGY.............................................................................................
51
9.6
VEGETATION MONITORING.......................................................................................
51
9.7
SCHEDULE AND REPORTING......................................................................................
52
10.0 ADAPTIVE
MANAGEMENT PLAN..........................................................................................54
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 iv December 2023

11.0 LONGTERM MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................................................................55
12.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS...............................................................................................55
13.0 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................56
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 1
Tributary 1C
Photo 2
Tributary 113
Photo 3
Tributary 1A Upper
Photo 4
Tributary 1A Lower
Photo 5
Tributary 2
Photo 6
Tributary 3 — Top Section
Photo 7
Tributary 3 — Middle Section
Photo 8
Tributary 3 — Lower Section
Photo 9
Tributary 4
Photo 10
Tributary 5
Photo 11
Tributary 6 — Top Section
Photo 12
Tributary 6 — Middle Section
Photo 13
Tributary 6 — Lower Section
Photo 14
Existing Drainage Tiles Coming into South Fork Jones Creek adjacent to Wetland A
Photo 15
Existing Drainage Tiles Coming into South Fork Jones Creek adjacent to Wetland A
Photo 16
Existing Drainage Tiles Coming into South Fork Jones Creek adjacent to Wetland A
Photo 17
Existing Drainage Tiles Coming into South Fork Jones Creek adjacent to Wetland B
Photo 18
Iron -Oxidizing Bacteria at Outlet of Drain Title adjacent to Wetland B
FIGURES
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
USGS Map
Figure 3
Landowner Map
Figure 4
Land Use Map
Figure 5
NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 6
Historical Aerials Map
Figure 7
FEMA Map
Figure 8
LIDAR Map
Figure 9
Existing Conditions Map
Figure 10
National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 11
Proposed Mitigation Plan
Figure 12
Proposed Monitoring Plan
Figure 13
Hydrologic Location
Figure 14
Tributary 5 Contour Analysis
Figure 15
Existing Wetlands Impact Map
Figure 16
Tributary 6 Lidar Analysis
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 v December 2023

TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Project Credits............................................................................................................ 1
Table 2. Project Components and Mitigation Credits................................................................................... 2
Table 3. Project Parcel and Landowner Information.................................................................................... 3
Table 4. Summary of Project Attributes........................................................................................................ 4
Table 5. Mapped Soil Series within the Project Area.................................................................................... 7
Table 6. Summary of Existing Wetlands......................................................................................................
21
Table 7. Regulatory Considerations............................................................................................................
24
Table 8. Federally Protected Species in Anson County, NC........................................................................
25
Table 9. Project Impacts to Site Wetlands..................................................................................................
27
Table 10. Project Impacts to Site Streams..................................................................................................
29
Table 11. Project Goals and Objectives......................................................................................................
30
Table 12. Summary of Morphological Parameters for Reference Reach Sites ...........................................
32
Table 13. Summary of Site Morphological Parameters for Project Reaches ..............................................
37
Table 14. Summary of Bankfull Discharge Predictive Analysis from Regional Curve .................................
41
Table 15. Sediment Size Distribution and Shear Stress Comparison at Bankfull Stage ..............................
42
Table 16. Site Woody Species Planting Plan with Species Type and Distribution ......................................
43
Table 17. Project Risks, Uncertainties, and Potential Actions....................................................................
45
Table 18. Project Performance Standards..................................................................................................47
Table 19. Site Monitoring Components......................................................................................................
52
Table20. Monitoring Schedule...................................................................................................................
53
APPENDICES
Appendix A
IRT Meeting Minutes
Appendix B
Site Protection Instrument
Appendix C
Geomorphological Site Data
Appendix D
Jurisdictional Determination Information
Appendix E
Hydric Soils Investigation
Appendix F
Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion
Appendix G
Design Data and Plan Sheets
Appendix H
Invasive Species Control Plan
Appendix I
Maintenance Plan
Appendix J
Credit Release Schedule
Appendix K
Financial Assurance
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 vi December 2023

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") is located approximately 10
miles south of Wadesboro and 5 miles east of Lowrys, North Carolina. The Site is accessed from Gulledge
Road (SR 1120) and Site centroid coordinates are 34.855,-80.1075 (Figure 1). The Site lies within the
Yadkin River Basin, United States Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03040201, and 14-
digit HUC 03040201020030. Unnamed tributaries to South Fork Jones Creek originate within the project
limits and will be restored and enhanced as part of this project. South Fork Jones Creek is approximately
15 river miles in length and drains to Jones Creek approximately 13 river miles from its confluence with
the Pee Dee River. The Site is not located within a targeted local watershed or targeted resource area.
Further details regarding site characteristics and targeted resource areas are included in Sections 2 and
3, and the stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized in Table 4.
Table 1. Summary of Project Credits
Restoration Level
Restoration
-Warm
I"
Stream
Cool Cold
Riparian
Wetland
Non-
Riparian
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh
Re-establishment
RehabilitationEnhancement
-_
Enhancement
--_
I
--_
Enhancement 11
--_
Preservation
--_
13,295.996
The streams and wetlands throughout the Site are in various stages of impairment related to existing and
historical land uses, including historical timber management and current agricultural uses. Between 2013
and 2016, tree harvesting was completed across the site to convert the property from timber production
to row crops.
Shown in Table 1, the project proposes to restore 12,962.583 linear feet (LF) and enhance 500.119 LF of
intermittent and perennial streams to provide 13,295.996 stream mitigation units (SMU) and 5.73 acres
of wetlands will be rehabilitated and re-established for 5.570 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMU).
The Site will be protected in perpetuity by a 74.36 acre easement. Further details regarding determination
of credits are included in Table 4.
A site review was held on June 8, 2020 with the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), the
Interagency Review Team (IRT), and Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) in attendance. Member agencies from
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 1 December 2023

the IRT in attendance included the USACE, NCWRC and NCDEQ. At this visit it was noted by the USACE
that the site appeared to have undergone activities for which no authorization was granted under Sections
404/401 of the Clean Water Act. Specifically, the USACE noted unauthorized modification/filling of
streams and wetlands. After a series of meetings conducted in the Spring of 2021, the USACE, DMS FNI
and landowner agreed to handle restoration/mitigation of any unauthorized impacts though the project
activities. Specifically, the landowner agreed to place a minimum 50' riparian buffer along the entire
length of South Fork Jones Creek within their property into conservation easement and to expand the
width of the originally proposed conservation easement in several locations to include side -hill seeps and
other wetland areas. On June 8, 2021, the USACE agreed to move forward with an approved approach
that would include these areas in the mitigation plan. It should be noted that these additional features
will not be used to produce mitigation credits but will serve as mitigation for unauthorized impacts cited
by the USACE on the project site.
The minutes from the IRT site visit, USACE correspondence and the approved project modification
proposal can be found in Appendix A.
Table 2. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
• Original
Project Mitigation As- Original Original Mitigation
Segment Plan Built Mitigation Restoration Ratio Credits Comments
Stream
Tributary 1A-U
1,057.707
Warm
N/A
0
0.000
Tributary 1A-L
1,950.858
Warm
R
1
1950.858
Tributary 1B
500.119
Warm
El
1.5
333.413
Tributary 1C
698.479
Warm
R
1
698.479
Tributary 2
2,525.745
Warm
R
1
2525.745
Tributary 3
2,451.109
Warm
R
1
2451.109
Tributary 4
971.458
Warm
R
1
971.458
Tributary 5
1,489.440
Warm
R
1
1489.440
Tributary 6
2,875.494
Warm
R
1
2875.494
Total:
13295.996
Wetland
Wetland Area A
4.790
R
REE
1
4.790
Wetland Area B
0.460
R
REE
1
0.460
Wetland Area C
0.170
R
RH
1.5
0.113
Wetland Area D
0.310
R
RH
1.5
0.207
Total:
5.570
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 2 December 2023

2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
South Fork Jones Creek and its tributaries are not discussed in the Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Plan
(RBRP) or in any NCDMS Local Watershed Plans (LWPs) and is not located in any targeted resource areas
(TRAs); however, the project area is surrounded by catchments associated with habitat and hydrology
TRAs which display similar land use and impairment. The Site is similar to these other catchments in that
it is almost entirely covered by row crop operations, has extensive channelization of streams, and has
drain tiles present in hydric soil areas. The site drains to South Fork Jones Creek, which is listed in the
Yadkin Basin wide Water Quality plans as being impacted by habitat degradation.
2.1 SITE SELECTION
Currently, the streams on the Site lack riparian buffers, have severe bank erosion, sediment deposition,
and show severe channel incision. The project will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in
the RBRP by stabilizing eroding stream banks, re-establishing floodplain connections, reducing sediment
and nutrient loads, restoring wetland hydrology and vegetation, and restoring forested buffers on the
stream channels. Project -specific goals for the Site are addressed further in Section 6.
The Site addresses goals outlined for the 03040201 watershed in the 2009 Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP.
The project builds upon existing restoration efforts in the watershed, including the Jones Creek Mitigation
Site, located approximately 2.5 miles downstream of the Site. Establishing a conservation easement will
protect natural resources, and implementation of stream restoration and enhancement and wetland
restoration will address erosion, sedimentation, and habitat degradation issues caused by current
agricultural land use. The Site will further improve the water quality and functional uplift of the South
Jones Creek watershed and will have a positive impact on the water quality of downstream watersheds
that were identified as TRAs in the 2009 RBRP.
The land required for the construction, management and stewardship of the Site includes portions of
three tax parcels in Anson County with the ownership shown in Table 3 and Figure 3. A copy of the land
protection instrument is included in Appendix B.
Table 3. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
RTB Associates, LLC and DEB, LLC
646000760123
1A-U, 1B, 1C
RTB Associates, LLC and DEB, LLC
646000745113
1A-U, 1A-L, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Wetland Area -A, Wetland Area-B
RTB Associates, LLC and DEB, LLC
647000042754
6
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 3 December 2023

3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following sections describe the existing conditions of the Site, the watershed, and watershed
processes, including disturbance and response. A summary of the watershed information is presented in
Table 4 and an overview of the Site's hydrologic location is shown in Figure 13.
3.1 WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
3.1.1 Drainage Area and Land Cover
The Site consists of eight unnamed tributaries that flow north to south which drain to South Fork Jones
Creek and approximately 20 acres of drained and row -cropped hydric soils in the floodplain of South Fork
Jones Creek. The drainage areas for each tributary are shown in Figure 7. Primary land use within the
tributary drainage areas consists of row crop and poultry houses. The poultry houses are located on
adjacent parcels upstream of Tributary 1. The project site and parent tract are entirely in row crop with
some areas of woods. Wooded areas within the site are located along the riparian areas of South Fork
Jones Creek, Tributary 1 (Upper) and along Tributaries 113 and 1C. Impervious surface accounts for less
than one percent of the drainage area.
Table 4 provides a summary of project attributes. Historic and current land use included timber
production and row -cropping. There are no signs of impending land use changes or development pressure
that would impact the project throughout the watershed.
Table 4. Summary of Project Attributes
Project Name
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
County
Anson
Project Area (acres)
74.36
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
34.855,-80.1075
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
3040201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03040201020030
DWR Sub -basin
Lower Pee -Dee
Project Drainage Area
272 acres (0.42 sq. mi.)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
0.24%
Stream Thermal Regime
Warm
Land Use Classification
Cropland and Pasture
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 4 December 2023

Table 4. Summary of Project Attributes (Continued)
Pre -project
length (feet)
2,855
500.119
686 2,180 2,185
926.15
973.31
2343
Post -project
(feet)
3,005.858
500.119
698.479 2525.745 2451.109
971.458
1489.440
2875.494
Valley
confinement
(Confined,
Unconfined
moderately
confined, or
unconfined)
Drainage area
(acres)
93 acres
20 acres
12 acres
25 acres
29 acres
33 acres
16 acres
44 acres
Perennial,
Intermittent,
PER
INT
INT
PER
INT
INT
PER
PER
Ephemeral
NCDWR
Water Quality
C
Classification
Dominant
Stream
G4
G4
G4
G4 G4 G4
G4
G4
Classification
(existing)
Dominant
Stream
C4b/C4
C4b
C4b
C4b/C4 C4b C4b/C4
C4b/C4
C4b/C4
Classification
(proposed)
Pre -Project Size of Wetland
(acres)
0
0
0.170 0.310
Post -Project Size of Wetland
(acres)
4.7900
0.460
0.170 0.310
Wetland Type (non -riparian,
riparian)
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Chewacla
Chewacla
Chewacla Chewacla
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric Hydric
3.1.2 Surface Water Classification
The portion of South Fork Jones Creek that includes the Site tributaries have been classified as Class C
waters by the NC Department of Water Resources (NCDWR). Waters classified as Class C are protected
for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 5 December 2023

propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Secondary recreation
includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities
take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner (NCDEQ, 2020).
3.2 LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS
3.2.1 Physiography and Topography
The Site is in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province. The Piedmont is
characterized by gently rolling, well-rounded hills with low ridges, with elevations ranging from 300 to
1,500 feet above sea level. The Site topography, as indicated on the Morven West USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle is a moderately sloped valley with the downstream topography transitioning to lower gradient
sloping floodplain topography of South Fork Jones Creek. The overall slope is moderate, averaging two to
five percent across the Site.
3.2.2 Geology and Soils
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site lies at the intersection of two distinct geologic formations: the
Middendorf Formation (Km), which is characterized by Cretaceous -aged fluvial sands, kaolinite clays,
sandstone and mudstone formations most often associated with the Carolina Sandhills region, as well as
a Proterozoic -Cambrian Metamudstone and meta-argillite (Zmd) formation associated with the volcanic
"Slate Belt" region. On the project site, the Middendorf formation is mapped on the ridgeline and upper
portions of the long slope towards South Fork Jones Creek, while the Slate Belt formation is mapped on
the lower slope, valley bottom, and floodplain area. The presence of rounded, gravel -sized sandstone
alluvium far up the slope and high above South Fork Jones Creek suggests that the site may consist of a
series of relict terraces above the Creek, through which new headwater valleys have cut. The interface
between the younger Middendorf formation, which is overlain by sandy, well -drained sandy loams, and
the older Slate Belt formations appears to consistently produce a number of springs across the landscape
at a similar elevation. These springs are evident from the numerous headwater wetlands and headcuts
from which groundwater flows strongly even 4 to 5 days after a modest rain event. These springs appear
to produce streams with indications of perennial flow at relatively small drainage areas (12 acres to 93
acres) in contrast to other areas of the Slate Belt. The other major geomorphic feature of the site is the
valley of South Fork Jones Creek, which consists of the alluvial Chewacla soil.
The site is mapped by the USDA Web Soil Survey for Anson County. Site soils are described in Table 5 and
shown in Figure 5. The mapped soils consist largely of Badin channery silt loam on the upper valley slopes
and Chewacla loam as the site transitions into the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain. Bedrock was not
observed in the channels during the existing conditions assessment work. The depth to bedrock where
most of the restoration will occur (MrB, ChA and NgC) characteristically ranges from 40 to 60 inches. Since
the restoration reaches will be raised to the valley bottom, bedrock is not anticipated to be a factor in
restoration implementation.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 6 December 2023

Table 5. Mapped Soil Series within the Project Area
AeB
Ailey loamy sand, 2 to
8 percent slopes
0.50%
Yes
Well drained
B
BaB
Badin channery silt
loam
21.60%
No
Well drained
C
ChA
Chewacla loam
39.90%
No
Somewhat Poorly
Drained
B/D
EmB
Emporia loamy sand
6.90%
No
Well drained
C
MrB
McQueen loam
5.60%
No
Well drained
C
N C
g
Nanford gravelly fine
sandy loam
12.20%
No
Well drained
B
NsB
Nanford-Emporia
complex
13.20%
No
Well drained
B
3.2.3 Existing Vegetation
Vegetation around the unbuffered stream reaches is dominated by herbaceous vegetation with no
developed shrub or tree layers. The riparian areas are disturbed due to the regular land management
associated with row crop farming practices. Broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), sawtooth blackberry
(Rubus argutus), wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia) and Carex species were observed in sparse quantities
as the row crops were planted to the edge of the streams throughout the Site. Invasive species observed
included Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Non -crop
vegetation has historically been controlled by mechanical and chemical methods, limiting the
establishment of woody species throughout much of the site. Areas on the site that exhibit hydric soils
and hydrophytic vegetation were dominated by herbaceous species, including woolgrass (Scirpus
cyperinus), multiple Carex species., and broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia). Black willow (Salix nigra) and
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) saplings were observed at the downslope extents of these areas. No
canopy tree species were observed at the Site.
3.2.4 Land use — Historic, Current, and Future
Historical aerial imagery indicates that the Site was used extensively for timber production, with
conversion to row crop farming occurring recently (ca. 2016). Current agricultural practices have degraded
the riparian areas and contributed to the degradation of the stream channels. The site has not been used
for livestock pasture historically, and no livestock are currently present. Outside of the Site, the area will
likely remain in agricultural use and timber production.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 7 December 2023

3.3 PROJECT RESOURCES
3.3.1 Reach Summary Information
The Site is composed of a single easement area with eight tributaries that drain to South Fork Jones Creek.
A summary of existing channel characteristics is presented in
Table 4. Detailed morphological data are included in Appendix C. Streams were classified as intermittent
(113, 1C and 4) and perennial (1A, 2, 3, 5, 6) using the NCDWR Stream Identification Form, version 4.11
(Appendix D). Existing stream classifications were determined using the Rosgen stream classification
system (Rosgen, 1994).
3.3.1.1 Tributary 1 (1A, 1B and 1C)
Tributary 1 (consisting of Tributaries 1A, 1B and 1C) is the westernmost of the Site tributaries. Tributary
1A is a perennial gravel bed stream that originates in a wooded area on the adjacent property and forms
the property boundary for approximately 1,500 feet before both banks are contained by the Site
easement boundary. The stream flows approximately 1,800 feet before its confluence with South Fork
Jones Creek at the southern part of the easement boundary. Tributary 1A is the largest tributary on the
Site, with a width of 8 feet and a depth of 2 to 3 feet. The channel slope is approximately 1.6%. The stream
has an average bank height ratio of 1.9, indicating that the channel is incised. The incision has resulted in
severe bank erosion along the channel and lack of natural bedform as the channel attempts to regain
stable geometry. As seen in Photo 1, the upper portion of Tributary 1A exhibits greater bank stability due
to the presence of mature trees along the bank; however, the stream still exhibits a high degree of incision
that is reflected by the average bank height ratio for the stream. The lower portion of Tributary 1A, where
the stream transitions into the area under intensive agricultural management, has virtually no woody
vegetation along its banks, which has resulted in accelerated bank erosion and higher incision compared
to the upper portion of the tributary. Tributary 1A Lower is shown in Photo 2. Tributaries 1B and 1C
originate on the westward facing slope leading down toward the valley of Tributary 1A. Tributaries 1B and
1C have slightly more vegetated buffers than the other streams on the Site. The buffers are dominated by
sapling pioneer species such as loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
Headwater wetlands are present on both reaches, indicating the presence of a high-water table that
contributes to the perennial flow of the streams.
Tributary 1B is proposed for Enhancement Level I as it has a naturally confined valley which does not allow
for restoration of pattern, the existing profile is not as severely incised as Tributary 1C and the upper -most
portions of the channel (approx. 120') are already relatively stable. Thus, the primary impairments that
will be addressed will be the existing headcuts and reshaping to a stable channel -form. Photo 3 displays
Tributary 1B and its described characteristics. Tributary 1C, on the other hand, is more severely incised
and has a wider natural valley than Tributary 113, allowing for re-establishment of a stable pattern and
raising of the stream grade to connect to its relict floodplain. Thus, restoration is most appropriate for
Tributary 1C, shown in Photo 4.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 8 December 2023

Photo 1. Tributary 1A Upper. Note
density of woody vegetation along
stream banks and vertical
degradation.
Direction of View: South
Photo 2. Tributary 1A Lower. Note
increased erosion along banks
compared to Tributary 1A Upper along
with relative lack of woody vegetation
due to management for row crop
agriculture.
Direction of View: Southeast
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 9 December 2023

Photo 3. Tributary 113. Note headcut
where vertical instability is first
observed. Channel width is indicative
of lateral instability.
Direction of View: Southwest
Photo 4. Tributary 1C. Note vertical
degradation with bare banks that are
susceptible to future lateral migration.
Direction of View: Southwest
3.3.1.2 Tributary 2
Tributary 2 originates within a natural crenulation on the downslope headed away from Gulledge Road. A
wetland has developed within this crenulation, indicating the presence of a spring and/or high-water table
intercepting the ground surface that feeds the natural channel. Above this point, there are no indications
of natural channel features, but below this spring a natural channel has formed at a headcut with strong
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 10 December 2023

geomorphic and hydrologic features. The channel slope is approximately 2.5% with a width of 4 feet and
a depth of 2 to 3 feet. The stream has a bank height ratio of 6.5, indicating severe incision. This has resulted
in severe bank erosion along the channel due to lack of natural bedform as the channel attempts to regain
stable geometry. The channel appears to be actively incising based upon several observed headcuts and
prominent bed scour. Multiple vehicular crossings, pesticide and fertilizer application, and no vegetated
buffer beyond row crops have further contributed to the channel instability, as seen below in Photo 5.
Photo 5. Tributary 2. Note incision
due to bed scour and lack of woody
riparian vegetation.
Direction of View: South
3.3.1.3 Tributary 3
Tributary 3 is a small, gravel substrate stream that originates at a headcut on the south side of an existing
farm road which is also the start of the conservation easement. It flows approximately 470 feet prior to
entering a small, spring -fed wetland. Perennial flow begins at the downstream edge of this existing
wetland. Overarching channel conditions include downcutting of the streams, incision and severe bed and
bank erosion. Further impacts from vehicular crossings and row crop management have contributed to
the instability of the channel. Pockets of sparse vegetation are present along the channel including black
willow and tall goldenrod (Solidago altissima) present in several headwater wetland areas. Photos 6
through 8 compare the sections of Tributary 3.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 11 December 2023

Photo 6. Tributary 3 —Top section
above confluence of Tributary 3 and 4.
Note lack of riparian woody vegetation.
Direction of View: Southeast
t
A�kY i
?ate 3��v Y
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 12 December 2023

Photo 7. Tributary 3 — Middle section.
Note increased incision compared to
upper section of Tributary 3.
Direction of View: Northwest
Photo 8. Tributary 3 — Lower section.
Note lateral channel migration
compared to upper and middle
sections.
Direction of View: Northwest
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 13 December 2023

3.3.1.4 Tributary 4
Tributary 4 is a perennial tributary of Tributary 3 and begins near Gulledge Road as an ephemeral channel.
The stream intercepts the water table approximately 460 feet upstream of its confluence with Tributary
3. The stream enters the Site easement after it crosses under an existing farm road. The stream is
channelized and has moderate to severe bank erosion with lack of natural bedform. The average width is
3 feet, with a depth of 2 feet. The riparian area is dominated by row crops with little observed natural
cover, pictured in Photo 9. The stream flows through a well-defined valley that concentrates overland
flow and interaction with the water table.
Photo 9. Tributary 4. Note lack of
bedform and riparian woody
vegetation along crop edge.
Direction of View: Southeast
of
4
3.3.1.5 Tributary 5
Tributary 5 is a perennial stream that originates at a headcut between Tributaries 4 and 6. The stream is
located in a broad, shallow valley that does not have evident channel features until the appearance of a
headcut at the start of Tributary 5 (Photo 10). No headwater wetlands are present at the origin of the
reach. An abundance of large gravel alluvium in the soil and channel banks, even at the headcut stream
origin, suggests that this stream runs over a relict terrace of South Fork Jones Creek. The channel is
approximately 5 feet wide with a depth of 3 to 4 feet. Average bed slope is approximately 2%. The valley
is very broad and shallow, evidence that the stream was unconfined prior to channelization. Active erosion
was observed throughout the reach, driven primarily by the high depth ratio and channelization. No native
vegetation or woody stems were identified along the stream.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 14 December 2023

Photo 10. Tributary 5. Note headcut
that precedes the downstream
incision and the lack of riparian
vegetation.
Direction of View: North
3.3.1.6 Tributary 6
Tributary 6 is the easternmost channel of the Site, originating from a series of headwater wetlands, shown
in Photo 11. The perennial channel originates at an upstream wetland area and has been channelized to
a depth of 3 to 4 feet with an average width of 4 feet. The average bed slope is approximately 2.0% and
moderate to severe erosion was observed along the entire length of the stream. The valley is broad and
unconfined and is located on a relict terrace of South Fork Jones Creek. Existing riparian vegetation exists
along the left bank of the stream and is comprised primarily of black willow. Invasive species, including
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), were identified in the existing riparian vegetation. This
vegetation and erosion can be seen in Photos 12 and 13.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 15 December 2023

Photo 11. Tributary 6 — Origin of
stream at spring seep.
Direction of View: East
Photo 12. Tributary 6 — Middle
section, note incision and lack of
riparian woody vegetation along crop
edge.
Direction of View: Southeast
Photo 13. Tributary 6 — Lower section,
note increased incision compared to
upper sections of reach.
Direction of View: Southeast
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 16 December 2023

3.3.2 Site Wetland Summary
3.3.2.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Information
Waters of the US (WOTUS), including wetlands, were delineated pursuant to the USACE 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual, the USACE 2012 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont, Version 2.0 and subsequent regulatory guidance. Field work
was conducted by Acer Environmental, LLC on October 27 and 30, 2019, with additional areas investigated
by Freese and Nichols, Inc. on May 11 and 17, 2020. Wetland features were classified as Headwater Forest
and Riverine Swamp Forest using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Manual (NCWAM) classification
key and best professional judgement. The wetlands occur on side slopes and floodplains that drain to on -
site stream channels. Surface saturation and surface water were the dominant wetland hydrology
indicator, and soils exhibited low chroma matrix and redoximorphic hydric soil indicators. Hydrophytic
vegetation was observed in some areas; however, due to the manipulation of the Site for agricultural
purposes, the vegetation is considered significantly disturbed. Hydrophytic vegetation observed in
undisturbed areas included sweetgum, black willow, elderberry (Sambucus nigra), privet (Ligustrum
sinense), soft rush (Juncus effusus), shallow sedge (Carex lurida), swamp goldenrod (Solidago patula), and
multiple Polygonum species. These vegetation communities were assumed to be applicable to the
disturbed wetland areas as described in Chapter 5 of the 2012 Regional Supplement. A summary of
existing wetland characteristics is presented in Table 6.
A preliminary jurisdictional determination was conducted by the USACE and completed on July 27, 2022.
The findings of the PJD generally agreed with the delineation efforts for both wetlands and streams on
the site with a couple of exceptions:
• Approximately 0.5 acres of Wetland A were determined to be jurisdictional. The jurisdictional
portions are now broken out as Wetlands C and D and these are proposed for rehabilitation rather
than re-establishment.
• The jurisdictional origin of Tributary 3 was determined to be approximately 25' downstream of
where it was originally proposed. The starting point of the stream restoration was moved
downstream accordingly.
WOTUS forms and mapping, including the approved USACE PJD completed on July 27, 2022, are included
in Appendix D.
3.3.2.2 Hydric Soils Investigation
The proposed riparian wetland reestablishment area consists of hydric soils along South Fork Jones Creek.
A detailed hydric soil investigation was completed by a NC licensed soil scientist on October 27 and 30,
2019 (Appendix E). A series of 13 soil borings were performed to describe and determine the areal extent
of hydric soils within the site. Soils were characterized and classified using the Field Indicators of Hydric
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 17 December 2023

Soils in the United States, Version 8.2 (USDA 2018). Hydric indicators were found within 12 inches of the
soil surface in the proposed riparian wetland areas of the site. The F3-Depleted Matrix indicator was
observed in all soil boring locations.
3.3.2.3 Existing Hydrology
The riparian wetland reestablishment area is located adjacent to the stream channels, and topographically
within the valley of the streams. While underlain by hydric soils, these areas lack the hydrology and
hydrophytic vegetation necessary to classify as jurisdictional wetlands. As shown in Photos 14 through
18, the site hydrology has been manipulated by installation of drainage tiles, and the current use of the
site for row crop agriculture has removed native vegetation. The cultivated surfaces of the agricultural
areas and adjacent ditched streams quickly remove surface water to prevent accumulation, limit
infiltration, and reduce the groundwater elevation to below the upper foot of the surface soils. These
drainage modifications limit both surface and subsurface storage.
Photo 14. Existing drainage tiles coming
into South Fork Jones Creek adjacent to
Wetland A.
Direction of View: North
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 18 December 2023

Photo 15. Existing drainage tiles coming
into South Fork Jones Creek adjacent to
Wetland A.
Direction of View: North
Photo 16. Existing drainage tiles
coming into South Fork Jones Creek
adjacent to Wetland A.
Direction of View: Northeast
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 19 December 2023

Photo 17. Existing drainage tiles and
ditch coming into South Fork Jones
Creek adjacent to Wetland B.
Direction of View: North
Photo 18. Iron -oxidizing bacteria at outlet
of drain tile adjacent to Wetland B.
Direction of View: North
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 20 December 2023

c
Ca
+J
v
to
c
x
w
O
E
E
to
v
r
pauieaa
o
eiaodw3
z
O
IIaM
a
pauieaa
uipeg
O
o
Ham
pauieaa
O
O
uipeg
z
o
IIaM
fN
pauieaa
O
paOJueN
z
o
Ham
W
p auiea
Oo
paOJueN
z
°O
IIaMa
LL
—
Ln
O
O
N
W
pauieaa
O
O
paOJueN
z
ai
ai
>
o
IIaM
O
°
°
pauieaa
O
o
U
O
paOJueN
z
°
on
o
Ham
O
3
pauieaa
o
elaemagD
AjjOOd
v
T
x
O
}
°
;eymaw os
O
c�
pauieaa
O
`o
paOJueN
z
o
LL
IIaM
O_
m
pauieaa
o
o
LnpaOJueN
Ham
c
v
m
pauieap
O
uaanbaW
°
z
E
Ham
>_
pauieaa
m
c'!
elaemagD
AjjOOd
}
O
O
c
leqMaUlOs
pauiea0
eiaodw3
z
o
°
IIaM
00
pauieaa
o
eiaodw3
z
O
IIaM
pauieaa
N
elaemagD
AjjOOd
v
O
>
;eymaw os
a
pauieaa
O
uipeg
on
o
Hamz
O
0
v
pauieaa
N
elaemagD
AjjOOd
v
LT
.'
O
}
—
m
;eymaw os
°
°
v
W
�
v
elaemagD
AjjOOd
ti
>
Oo
;eymaw os
°
U
pauieaa
0
fN
bA
O
^o
paOJueN
Ham
o
3
T
�
c
x
pauieaa
o
paOJueN
z
o
IIaM
pauieaa
Ln
O
v
paOJueN
z
o
0
IIaM
m
v
pauieaa
3
paOJueN
O
z
O
IIaM
ai
.� v
`O
— v
o
o Q
Q
z w o
v .°
—
o
O
z
O
N
v
O C
T i O
H O C
O
�+
(a
U
_
O
to
U
•i
T
4�
C
O N U
O OJ
>
-6
bA
-6
O
+-' OJ O
v
N
N 00 O_ O_ > O_ >
U O
O N
O O
'O O
OO T
OJ O N v U
In
Z U
In
U
Ln Ln
Ln 2
CC O OJ E > OJ
c rn
ra N
a O
O N
O cu
m
ao E
+ N
U
_ N
c
ii
:Ll
Ln
c
0
Ln
.rz O
O
� O
I�Lz
Ln-61
�v
Qj
Qa
.S_ Z
L C)

4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
The potential for stream functional uplift is qualitatively described in this section using terminology from
the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Framework) (Harman and Jones, 2016). The Framework
describes a hierarchy of five stream functions, each of which supports the functions above it on the
pyramid and sometimes reinforces those below it. The five functions in order from bottom to top are
hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology, physiochemical, and biology. The Framework is not proposed to
determine the success of the Site since the Site has a focus on total ecosystem restoration, and the
mitigation design will improve stream and wetland function while providing numerous ecological and
environmental benefits to the broader Yadkin Pee -Dee River basin. These benefits, which are described
in more detail below, will include increased hydrological function, improvements to water quality, and
improved wetland habitat.
A functional based approach broadens the reach -scale goals of a restoration project by contextualizing
the functional lift at the watershed scale. Utilizing an ecosystem restoration approach will provide
localized ecological and water quality benefits that could, in combination with other restoration projects
within the watershed, have beneficial impacts to the Yadkin River Basin. The restoration approach at the
reach scale at this Site will benefit the hydraulic and geomorphology functions of the system and could
also benefit higher level functions (i.e., physiochemical and biological functions) over time and in
conjunction with other restoration projects in the watershed. Site goals and objectives, as based upon the
anticipated functional benefits and improvements, are detailed in Section 6.
4.1 ANTICIPATED FUNCTIONAL BENEFITS AND IMPROVEMENTS
4.1.1 Hydrology
The Stream Functions Pyramid Framework defines hydrology as the transport of water from the
watershed to the channel. The Site will locally address several historic hydrologic disturbances, including
stream downcutting and deforestation. Even though trees will be planted within the conservation
easement, this will not significantly improve the watershed hydrology; therefore, there are no significant
opportunities for this project to improve the hydrologic function at a watershed level.
The removal of agricultural drain tiles will restore natural surface and subsurface hydrologic flow patterns.
This will lead to improvements in the hydrologic function of the project. Soil investigation shows that
much of the landscape within the Site exhibits hydric characteristics indicating that a shallow seasonal
water table was present historically. Based on the landscape position of the wetland restoration areas of
the Site and the surrounding landscape, improvement of hydrologic function will be realized in various
degrees across the landscape. The restoration areas will improve surface water storage and retention and
will also work in conjunction with landscape position to improve subsurface water storage and retention.
The rehabilitation of the headwater forest systems will aid in the maintenance of water table levels by
increasing infiltration and groundwater recharge in higher positions within the landscape.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 22 December 2023

The improved hydrologic function and water storage of Site wetlands will also improve water quality by
reducing sediment from adjacent agricultural fields, improving runoff filtration, and increasing nutrient
cycling. The improved hydrologic function and water quality will lead to direct and indirect aquatic and
terrestrial habitat.
4.1.2 Hydraulic
Hydraulic function within the Framework is defined as the transport of water in the channel and on the
floodplain. The greatest potential uplift at the Site will be achieved through increasing floodplain
connectivity along all the streams. Streams on the Site do not have functioning floodplain connectivity
(Average Site Bank Height Ratio = 4.5) and medium to large headcuts are present throughout the Site.
Areas where the floodplain connectivity is not -functioning, or functioning -at -risk will be improved to
functioning by reducing the bank height ratio and increasing the entrenchment ratios. Reaches in which
stable flow dynamics are non-functioning or functioning -at -risk will be improved by constructing a new
stable channel with adequate energy dissipation and grade control.
4.1.3 Geomorphology
The Framework defines geomorphology as the transport of wood and sediment to create bedforms and
maintain dynamic equilibrium. Site streams are currently classified as non-functioning for sediment
transport due to non-functioning buffers, limited floodplain access, high bank height ratios, and low
entrenchment ratios. Sediment transport will be reduced through construction of floodplain benches in
Streams 1B stream enhancement areas, construction of channels with stable dimension, plan and profile
in Streams 1A, 1C, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and establishment of functioning riparian buffers along all streams.
Channel stability and bedform will be improved in restoration reaches by installing structures to establish
pools and increase bedform diversity. Transport and storage of woody debris will be improved by
increasing channel roughness with structures and plantings. Riparian buffers will be established at 50-foot
widths to restore riparian vegetation to functional levels and provide terrestrial habitat. All of these
functional parameters are interconnected and will result in a long-term functional geomorphic uplift.
4.1.4 Physiochemical
Physiochemical function is defined by the Framework as temperature and oxygen regulation and
processing of organic matter and nutrients. The Site will support the overarching goal of decreasing
sediment export in agricultural areas. The Site will decrease sediment export and will likely reduce forms
of nitrogen and phosphorus by establishing a riparian buffer and reducing bank erosion. A riparian buffer
will eventually provide shading, resulting in reduced water temperatures. Water will flow over in -stream
structures, providing aeration. The streams will be reconnected to floodplains and floodplain wetlands,
reducing stream erosion, increasing floodplain storage, and improving nutrient cycling. Visual
observations of the riparian buffer will be documented, and these observations are expected to
demonstrate that the Site is trending toward improved function.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 23 December 2023

4.1.5 Biology
The highest category of the Functional Framework is biology, which is defined as the biodiversity and life
histories of aquatic and terrestrial life, specifically animals. As with physiochemical stream function, it is
difficult to quantify biological uplift with measurable results in the timeframe of the project.
4.2 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS
There are no significant hydrologic or infrastructure constraints for the proposed ecological uplift at the
Site. No overhead or buried utility lines are present. Only one easement break is proposed (Tributary 1)
across an existing culvert to facilitate landowner usage of the property. Any culvert maintenance will be
the responsibility of FNI through completion of monitoring. At the completion of monitoring and project
closeout, the culverts will be the responsibility of the landowner(s).
No General Aviation, Commercial or Private airports are located within five miles of the Site. There are no
other known site constraints that will affect the functional uplift of the project. The property boundary
functions as a constraint on Tributary 1A Upper as only one side of the channel is within the parent tract
boundary. Therefore, tributary 1A Upper is a non-credit reach and not eligible for enhancement or
restoration. The degree to which the physiochemical and biological functions can improve on the Site is
limited by the watershed conditions beyond the conservation easement.
5.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
A summary of regulatory considerations for the Site is presented in Table 7. These considerations
are expanded upon in Sections 5.1 to 5.5.
Table 7. Regulatory Considerations
-J -J I Lk...
�.
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
No
Appendix D
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
No
Appendix D
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix F
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix F
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
5.1 FEMA FLOODPLAIN
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, the Site does not lie within a
100-year floodplain (one percent annual chance of flooding) and is not within a regulatory floodway
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 24 December 2023

(Figure 7). No hydrologic trespass is anticipated to adjacent properties upstream or downstream of the
project.
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND DOCUMENTATION
To ensure that a project meets "Categorical Exclusion" criteria, the Federal Highways Administration
(FHWA) and NCDMS have developed a Categorical Exclusion (CE) checklist that is included as part of the
environmental screening process. The CE documentation and CE approval Form for the Site are included
in Appendix F and was approved by FHWA and DMS on October 14, 2021.
5.3 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under
provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of December 4,
2019, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists four federally protected species for Anson
County, which include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
(Table 8). A presence -absence survey conducted on September 28, 2020 indicated that the Site does not
provide potential habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower. No target species were identified during the survey.
Corresponding documentation and USFWS concurrence with the presence -absence survey are included
in Appendix F.
Table 8. Federally Protected Species in Anson County, NC
Species Name and Federal
Habjitat �
JR.
I Potential
Biological
Status
Bald Eagle
Mature forest in proximity to large bodies of
HabitatatSite
Conclusion
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
open water for foraging. Large dominant
trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically
No
No effect
Bald and Golden Eagle
within 1.0 mile of open water.
Protection Act
Red -cockaded woodpecker
Open, mature stands of southern pines,
(Picoides borealis)
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)
aged 60 years or older, which are contiguous
No
No effect
Endangered
with pine stands at least 30 years of age to
provide foraging habitat.
The general habitat requirements for the
Carolina heelsplitter
Carolina heelsplitter are shaded areas in
(Lasmigona decorate)
large rivers to small streams, often burrowed
into clay banks between the root systems of
No
No effect
Endangered
trees, or in runs along steep banks with
moderate current.
Schweinitz's sunflower
Roadside rights -of -way, maintained power
(Helianthus schweinitzii)
lines and other utility rights -of -way, edges of
thickets and old pastures, clearings and
No
No effect*
Endangered
edges of upland
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 25 December 2023

*See the approved Categorical Exclusion document in Appendix F for species habitat assessment information.
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records on April 20, 2020 indicates no
known species occurrence within a one -mile radius of the Site. Letters were sent to the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on April 24, 2020 and August 5, 2021 requesting review and
comment of possible issues with respect to fish and wildlife resources on the site. A response was received
on August 25, 2021 in which the NCWRC indicated that there are no concerns for any listed aquatic species
in the vicinity of the Site. Documentation is included in Appendix F.
5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service database on March 30,
2020 revealed no National Register listings within a one -mile radius of the Site. A letter was submitted to
the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on April 24, 2020. SHPO responded on June
11, 2020 and stated that they were aware "of no historic resources which would be affected by the
project". Cultural resources met the Categorical Exclusion criteria for FHWA and NCDMS projects, and
documentation is included in Appendix F.
5.5 401/404
There will be 0.22 acres of permanent impacts to existing wetlands onsite due to channel realignment, as
well as 2.54 acres of temporary impacts resulting from access and grading during project construction.
The latter impacts are considered temporary in nature since the areas will be returned to pre -construction
contours and planted to allow for afforestation. There will be 79.83 linear feet of permanent impacts and
88.11 linear feet of temporary impacts to existing streams due to culvert installation on UT-4 and UT-6.
Table 9 details temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands at the Site, and Table 10 details impacts to
site streams for the removal and relocation of stream crossings on UT-4 and UT-6. A Pre -Construction
Notification (PCN), including these data, will be submitted to the IRT with the Final Mitigation Plan.
Permanent impacts will be mitigated on -site through the expansion of the Wetland A re-establishment
area by 0.22 acres and is included in project plans.
Project implementation will restore 5.25 acres and rehabilitate 0.32 acres, which will offset permanent
wetland losses associated with the channel re -alignments. Therefore, the project will provide a net gain
of wetlands even with impacts to wetlands due to channel realignment, providing a total of 5.35 WMU.
Areas of channel fill will include surface roughening that will result in areas up to 6-inches deep that may
support wetland parameters. A re -verification of existing wetlands at the site will be conducted at the end
of the project monitoring period to ensure that existing wetland area was retained or increased as a result
of the project.
The project will provide 13,295.996 SMU, and the culvert installations on UT-4 and UT-6 will have
permanent stream losses of 79.83 feet. These losses will be offset by the total SMUs of 13,295.966, leaving
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 26 December 2023

a net SMU of 13,216.166 linear feet. A verification of stream length will be conducted during the as -built
survey.
Table 9. Project Impacts to Site Wetlands
. -
We ID
Irnpia;cAtt�
Type
Area
(Sq Ft)
- F_
Stream
1-01
Wetland
Wetland B
Permanent
UT-1C
427.7
0.01
Channel
C-19
Grading
Construction
T-01
Wetland
Wetland B
Temporary
UT-1C
2447.64
0.06
C-19
Access
Construction
T-02
Wetland
Wetland B
Temporary
UT-1C
4053.18
0.09
C-19
Access
Stream
1-02
Wetland
Wetland A
Permanent
UT-1C
1022.03
0.02
Channel
C-19
Grading
Construction
T-03
Wetland
Wetland A
Temporary
UT-1C
5631.91
0.13
C-19
Access
Construction
T-04
Wetland
Wetland A
Temporary
UT-1C
13000.49
0.30
C-19
Access
Construction
T-05
Wetland
Wetland C
Temporary
UT-113
368.98
0.01
C-19
Access
Construction
T-06
Wetland
Wetland D
Temporary
UT-113
258.37
0.01
C-19
Access
Stream
1-04
Wetland
Wetland C
Permanent
UT-113
545.18
0.013
Channel
C-19
Grading
Construction
T-07
Wetland
Wetland C
Temporary
UT-113
689.7
0.02
C-19
Access
Stream
1-05
Wetland
Wetland E
Permanent
UT-1
2695.5
0.06
Channel
C-21
Grading
Construction
T-08
Wetland
Wetland E
Temporary
UT-1
12348.27
0.28
C-21
Access
Construction
T-09
Wetland
Wetland E
Temporary
UT-1
10120.29
0.23
C-21
Access
ConstructionC-21
T-10
Wetland
Wetland E
Temporary
UT-1
1673.89
0.04
Access
Construction
T-11
Wetland
Wetland E
Temporary
UT-1
3638.72
0.08
C-21
Access
Construction
T-12
Wetland
Wetland E
Temporary
UT-1
160.54
0.004
C-21
Access
Construction
T-13
Wetland
Wetland E
Temporary
UT-1
99.14
0.002
C-21
Access
Stream
1-06
Wetland
Wetland E
Permanent
UT-1
115.51
0.003
Channel
C-21
Grading
Stream
1-07
Wetland
Wetland E
Permanent
UT-1
430.16
0.01
Channel
C-21
Grading
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 27 December 2023

Impact
Feature
Feature I D
Impact
Tributary
Type of
impact
Area
Type
Type
(AreaME
Sq Ft
Activity
Sheet
Stream
1-08
Wetland
Wetland E
Permanent
UT-1
183.01
0.004
Channel
C-21
Grading
Stream
Wetland
2-01
Wetland
Permanent
UT-2
666.14
0.02
Channel
C-22
M
Grading
Wetland
Construction
T-14
Wetland
Temporary
UT-2
1376.79
0.03
C 22
M
Access
Wetland
Construction
T-15
Wetland
Temporary
UT-2
2014.21
0.05
C 22
M
Access
Stream
3-01
Wetland
Wetland K
Permanent
UT-3
8.77
0.0002
Channel
C-24
Grading
Construction
T-16
Wetland
Wetland K
Temporary
UT-3
50.07
0.0011
C-24
Access
Stream
Wetland
3-02
Wetland
Permanent
UT-3
155.69
0.004
Channel
C-24
W
Grading
Wetland
Construction
T-17
Wetland
Temporary
UT-3
727.28
0.017
C-24
W
Access
Stream
3-03
Wetland
Wetland I
Permanent
UT-3
824.07
0.019
Channel
C-24
Grading
Construction
T-18
Wetland
Wetland I
Temporary
UT-3
3657.9
0.084
C-24
Access
Construction
T-19
Wetland
Wetland I
Temporary
UT-3
4829.92
0.111
C-24
Access
Stream
4-01
Wetland
Wetland S
Permanent
UT-4
88.77
0.002
Channel
C-25
Grading
Construction
T-20
Wetland
Wetland S
Temporary
UT-4
547.81
0.013
C-25
Access
Stream
Wetland
5-01
Wetland
Permanent
UT-5
42.17
0.001
Channel
C-27
G
Grading
Wetland
Construction
T-21
Wetland
Temporary
UT-5
214.84
0.005
C 27
G
Access
Stream
Wetland
6-01
Wetland
Permanent
UT-6
1578.38
0.04
Channel
C-28
H
Grading
Stream
Wetland
6-02
Wetland
Permanent
UT-6
896.85
0.02
Channel
C-28
H
Grading
Wetland
Construction
T-22
Wetland
Temporary
UT-6
14156.12
0.32
C 28
H
Access
Wetland
Well
Construction
T-23
Wetland
Temporary
UT-6
19271.69
0.44
C 28
Access
Wetland
Construction
T-24
Wetland
Temporary
UT-6
4908.95
0.11
C 28
H
Access
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 28 December 2023

Impact
Feature
Feature I D
Impact
Tributary
Type of
impact
Area
Type
Type
(AreaM=
Sq Ft
Activity
Sheet
Stream
Wetland
6-03
Wetland
Permanent
UT-6
46.05
0.001
Channel
C-28
U
Grading
WetlandAccess
Construction
T-25
Wetland
Temporary
UT-6
458.02
0.011
C 28
Stream
6-04
Wetland
Wetland T
Permanent
UT-6
11.6
0.0003
Channel
C-28
Grading
Construction
T-26
Wetland
Wetland T
Temporary
UT-6
794.37
0.0182
C 28
Access
Construction
T-27
Wetland
Wetland J
Temporary
UT-3
3290.37
0.0755
C-24
Access
.o
11 i
1 i
Permanent
JIM
1
Table 10. Project Impacts to Site Streams
1-03
UT-6
Temporary
28.06
112.95
0.003
Culvert Removal,
Stream Channel Grading
C 28
4-02
UT-4
Permanent
36.38
143.63
0.0033
Culvert Installation
C-25
T-28
UT-4
Temporary
29.75
117.27
0.0027
Culvert Installation
C-25
6-05
UT-6
Permanent
43.45
182.12
0.0042
Culvert Installation
C-28
T-29
UT-6
Temporary
30.3
125.71
0.0029
Culvert Installation
C-28
6.0 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The project will improve stream and wetland functions as described in Section 4 through stream
enhancement and restoration, wetland rehabilitation and restoration, and conversion of agricultural
fields into riparian buffers within the Yadkin Pee -Dee River basin. Specific, attainable goals and objectives
will be realized by the project, and these are verifiable through measurement and/or visual assessment.
The project will be monitored after construction to evaluate performance as described in Section 8. The
project goals and objectives are described in Table 11.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 29 December 2023

Table 11. Project Goals and Objectives
Goals..
Provide a network of streams with
Construct stream channels that
natural, stable forms that support
will maintain proper dimension,
Severely incised and downcut
proper stream functions
pattern, and profile and that meet
stream channels leading to lack of
jurisdictional status
Raise groundwater levels to
Construct streams with proper
bedform diversity and lack of
floodplain access.
support recovery of native
bankfull to floodplain
riparian vegetation and hyporheic
relationships
functions.
High sediment loads from
Reduce sediment inputs from
Construct streams that provide
streambank and bed erosion as
eroding stream banks to reduce
naturally stable dimensions and
well as hillslope processes from
fine sediment loads and
stabilize constructed banks with
row crop operations both within
percentage of fines in the bed-
appropriate bioengineering
the project site and upstream.
material load
techniques.
Improve substrate quality to
Construct stable riffles and pools
facilitate hyporheic flow and
that provide an improved diversity
restore bedform diversity to
of bedform and bed material
Lack of large woody debris and
provide a diversity of aquatic
class, and a reduction in fines
aquatic habitat diversity in
habitat
relative to existing conditions
channels.
Construct in -stream habitat
Introduce native woody materials
features from native material to
to provide habitat
provide a diversity of habitats
Reduce pollutant inputs to the
Establish a forested riparian
project streams (sediment,
buffer along all restored stream
nitrogen, phosphorus) to restore a
channels and South Fork Jones
balance to proper nutrient cycles
Creek.
Improve riparian vegetation
Lack of riparian buffer, leading to
community to provide
lack of riparian habitat,
temperature regulation of the
Plant native overstory tree species
streambank instability and lack of
streams, provide a future source
and understory species in the
filter for runoff of non -point
of organic inputs, and aid in long-
riparian zone.
source pollutants such as
term channel bank stability
fertilizers and pesticides into
Restore riparian wetland
stream
Restore areas of former riparian
hydrology by re -grading
wetlands so that the hydrology
topography to eliminating ditches
and soils will support wetland
and other wetland drainage
vegetative communities and
features
Plant native wetland tree and
wildlife
shrub species
7.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
The design approach for the Site was developed to meet the goals and objectives described in Section 6,
which were developed to maximize the functional uplift described in Section 4. The design approach for
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 30 December 2023

the Site involves the restoration of eight unnamed tributaries to South Fork Jones Creek and the
rehabilitation of Site wetlands A and B. Target stream types were determined using physical parameters
of the Site as well as reference reaches from other sites. An analogue design approach is used whereby
the geometry of stable reference conditions is scaled and applied to Site streams to establish appropriate
pattern and profile. Channels were sized based upon design discharge analysis and regional curve
comparison. Channel sizing was verified and modified based upon sediment transport capacity and
competency. These design approaches have been used on many Piedmont restoration projects and are
appropriate for the goals and objectives for the Site.
7.1 REFERENCE STREAMS
Reference streams provide geomorphic patterns of a stable system, which can be used to design stable
channels of similar stream type in similar landscape and watershed settings by taking a scalable approach.
The Site reference reaches described in the sections below were selected due to their similarity to the
Site, including valley type, physiography, bed material, and morphology. Geomorphological parameters
for selected reference reaches are detailed in Appendix C and summarized in Table 11.
7.1.1 Spencer Creek Reach 3
Spencer Creek Reach 3 is located in central Montgomery County within the Uwharrie National Forest. The
site was classified as an E4 stream type with a drainage area of 0.37 square miles. This reach flows through
a mature forest and has an average valley slope of 2.7% and an average channel slope of 2.1%. The
reference reach is similar to the project reaches in that it is located in the Slate Belt physiographic region,
has a similar range of slopes as the project reaches and represents a stable stream system with a relatively
small drainage area. The morphological parameters reported for the riffle cross section include width to
depth ratios that range from 7.9 to 9.3 and entrenchment ratios that range from 1.7 to 4.3.
7.1.2 UT to Rocky Creek
The UT to Rocky Creek reference site is also located in central Montgomery County within the Uwharrie
National Forest. The drainage area is 1.10 square miles and the land use within the drainage area is a
semi -mature forest. Similar to Spencer Creek Reach 3, the stream is representative of a stable, relatively
steep stream system within the Slate Belt physiographic region. The UT to Rocky Creek Reference site was
classified as an E4b stream type with a low sinuosity (1.1). The channel has a width to depth ratio of 9.1
and an entrenchment ratio of 6. The reach has a valley slope of 2.6% while the channel slope is 2.4%. The
bed material D50 for the reach is 22.6 mm. Due to the low sinuosity, no pattern data was collected.
7.1.3 UT to Crane Creek
The UT to Cane Creek reference is located in northeastern Rutherford County. The drainage area is 0.29
square miles and the land use within the drainage area is a semi -mature forest. Although outside the Slate
Belt region, this reference reach is representative of a stable, piedmont headwater stream system, as it
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 31 December 2023

possesses similar slopes and drainage area to the project reaches. The UT to Cane Creek reference site
was classified as a C4/E4 stream type with a sinuosity of 1.4. The channel has a width to depth ratio ranging
from 12.3 to 14.4 and an entrenchment ratio of greater than 2.5. The reach has a valley slope of 2.6%
while the channel slope is 1.5%.
Table 12. Summary of Morphological Parameters for Reference Reach Sites
Ir
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
237
672
186
Rosgen Stream Classification
E4
E4b
C4
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.8
12.2
11.9
Bankfull Depth (ft)
0.9
1.3
0.9
Bankfull Area (ft z)
7.7
16.3
10.6
Bankfull Velocity (ft/s)
5.3
5.5
3.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
35
85
40
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.019
0.024
0.015
Sinuosity
1.3
1.1
1.4
Width/Depth Ratio
8.6
9.1
13.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.4
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
6.0
2.5
D16 (mm)
1.867
<0.063
0.6
D35 (mm)
8.85
2.4
12.2
D50 (mm)
11.0
22.6
27.8
D84 (mm)
1 64.0
1 120.0
1 74.5
D95 (mm)
1 128.0
1 256.0
1 128.0
7.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS
7.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach
The Site includes Priority I and Enhancement Level I restoration. Stream restoration will incorporate the
design of stable channel planform, with parameters based on data taken from reference sites, published
empirical relationships, and NC and regional curve data. The valley shape and valley width relative to the
stream width, as well as the valley slopes at the Site indicate that some level of sinuosity was once present
in these systems and that these were not just confined, straight steep channels as would be typical in
some areas of the Piedmont. Relict meanders and low points within the valleys indicate where the streams
were once flowing across their floodplains. By restoring planform, the other variables of dimension and
profile will also be restored. All stream channels will be designed with stable dimensions, based off
analysis of sediment transport capacity and competency, considering the potentially high sediment loads
delivered from row crop activities. Cross section parameters, such as area, depth and width, were
designed based on the design discharge, the ability to transport sediment, the need for stable bank slopes,
as well as following dimensional ratios derived from reference conditions. Conceptual plan views are
provided in Figure 11. Complete morphological tables for existing, reference, and proposed conditions
are included in Appendix C.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 32 December 2023

The Site has been broken into the following restoration approaches:
Enhancement Level I: For Tributary 113, which is relatively short and located in a steep and confined valley,
Enhancement Level I will be used to establish grade control and create pools. A bankfull bench will be
constructed to provide stable dimension based upon sediment transport requirements. Small in -stream
structures, such as log sills, will be installed to provide grade control, establish pools and increase bedform
diversity. Streambanks will be graded to provide stable slope and a 50-foot riparian buffer will be planted
with native woody and herbaceous species.
Priority I Restoration: The remaining reaches (1A-lower, 1C, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) at the site will undergo
Priority I restoration, which includes establishing a new, sinuous channel based on stable reference reach
condition. The channel bed elevation will be raised to reconnect streambanks to floodplain, and natural
bedform with riffle -pool sequence and deep pool habitat will be established to provide diversity of aquatic
habitat. A 50-foot riparian buffer will be planted with native woody and herbaceous species. In -channel
structures will be installed where necessary to maintain grade and establish bedform.
All of the noted restoration tributaries are designed as a "CV, or a portion of the channel is designed to
this stream type. These reaches or portions of the reach flow down steeper slopes to the north of South
Fork Jones Creek. In a few locations, several of the proposed streams flow over relatively steep parts of
the hillside above South Fork Jones Creek and will have average slopes greater than 2.5%. In these
locations, log roller structures are proposed to dissipate energy and provide channel stability.
The lower portion of Tributaries 1A, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have their slope flattens as they flow across the floodplain
of South Fork Jones Creek. In these instances, the stream reaches are designed to C classification.
A detailed description of the restoration approach to each project reach is provided below:
Tributary 1A-Lower: For the lower reach of Tributary 1A, Priority 1 Restoration will begin at an existing
60" RCP, which will remain in place, and end at this reaches' confluence with South Fork Jones Creek. A
new, sinuous channel based on stable reference reach parameters will be established. The channel bed
elevation will be raised to reconnect the streambanks to its relict floodplain, and natural bedform with
riffle -pool sequence and deep pool habitat will be established to provide diversity of aquatic habitat. A
minimum 50-foot riparian buffer off both restored streambanks will be planted with native woody and
herbaceous species. In -channel structures will be installed where necessary to maintain grade and
establish bedform. For the first approximately 1,600 feet of its length, this reach has a steeper gradient
as the channel flows down the hillslope portion of the site towards the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain.
The belt width and overall sinuosity through this steeper portion of the channel will be relatively low as is
typical of steeper headwater systems. Once Tributary 1 reaches the South Fork Jones floodplain, the
average channel slope decreases, and the proposed channel has been designed with a greater belt width
and sinuosity than upstream. The proposed channel slope will steepen in the final approximately 150 feet
as the restored reach joins with South Fork Jones Creek. A "log sill roller" structure, which is comprised of
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 33 December 2023

a series of alternately angled log sills will be used to provide grade control and stabilize the bed at this
location.
Tributary 1B: Tributary 113 is relatively short and located in a steep and confined valley. As such, this reach
will be restored with an Enhancement Level I approach. A bankfull bench will be constructed to provide
stable dimensions based upon sediment transport requirements. Small in -stream structures, such as log
sills, will be installed to provide grade control, establish pools and increase bedform diversity.
Streambanks will be graded to provide stable slope and a minimum 50-foot riparian buffer on both banks
will be planted with native woody and herbaceous species.
Tributary 1C: In the original proposal for the site, and, as stated in the Post -Contract IRT Site Visit meeting
minutes (see Appendix A), it was noted that Tributary 1C would also be proposed for Enhancement Level
I. This was based on initial assessments of the confined valley and severe incision creating an inability to
restore planform and raise the bed profile, which would be required for a Priority I restoration. During
further site evaluation and analysis of more detailed topographic data during mitigation plan
development, it was determined that there is adequate space within the valley to both re -align the
channel as well as raise the channel bed to provide the greatest functional uplift. Thus, the proposed
approach for Tributary 1C is now Priority 1 Restoration beginning at the uppermost headcut of the existing
stream. This will include a new, sinuous channel construction with the channel bed raised to reconnect
the streambanks to the floodplain, and a minimum 50-foot wide buffer off the restored streambanks will
be planted with native and herbaceous species.
Tributary 2: Priority 1 Restoration of Tributary 2 will begin at the headwaters of this channel, which starts
at an existing wetland. For the first approximately 2,100 feet of its length, this reach has a steeper gradient
as the channel flows down the hillslope portion of the site towards the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain.
The belt width and overall sinuosity through this steeper portion of the channel will be relatively low as is
typical of steeper headwater systems. A similar design approach will be implemented as with other
Priority 1 reaches, including establishment of stable dimension, pattern and profile, raising the channel
bed to provide reconnection to the relict floodplain, and planting of a minimum 50-foot-wide buffer off
both streambanks with native woody and herbaceous species. Once Tributary 2 reaches the South Fork
Jones floodplain, the average channel slope decreases, and the proposed channel has been designed with
a greater belt width and sinuosity than upstream. In this area, the restored channel will meander around
proposed Wetland B, which will be re-established. The proposed channel slope will steepen in the final
100 feet as the restored reach joins with South Fork Jones Creek. A "log sill roller" structure, which is
comprised of a series of alternately angled log sills will be used to provide grade control and stabilize the
bed at this location.
Tributary 3: Priority 1 restoration of Tributary 3 will begin below existing wetland WK, intercept Tributary
4 approximately 530 feet downstream, and end at its confluence with South Fork Jones Creek. For the
first approximately 2,200 feet of its length, this reach has a steeper gradient as the channel flows down
the hillslope portion of the site towards the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain. The belt width and overall
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 34 December 2023

sinuosity through this steeper portion of the channel will be relatively low as is typical of steeper
headwater systems. A similar design approach will be implemented as with other Priority 1 reaches,
including establishment of stable dimension, pattern and profile, raising the channel bed to provide
reconnection to the relict floodplain, and planting of a minimum 50-foot-wide buffer off both streambanks
with native woody and herbaceous species. Once Tributary 3 reaches the South Fork Jones floodplain, the
average channel slope decreases, and the proposed channel has been designed with a greater belt width
and sinuosity than upstream. A "log sill roller" structure will be used to provide grade control and stabilize
the bed in the final approximately 150 feet of the streams alignment as it ties into the incised channel of
South Fork Jones Creek.
Tributary 4: Tributary 4 begins immediately downstream of an existing farm road and culvert. The existing
culvert will be removed and the road will be relocated upstream of the conservation easement. The
relocated culvert will be comprised of a 30" HDPE pipe. Tributary 4 will end at its confluence with
Tributary 3. Priority 1 restoration will incorporate the same design methods as the other restoration
reaches on the site, including establishment of stable dimension, pattern and profile, raising the channel
bed to provide reconnection to the relict floodplain, and planting of a minimum 50-foot-wide buffer off
both streambanks with native woody and herbaceous species. Since this reach does not flow into the
South Fork Jones Creek floodplain, it will retain the characteristics of a steeper headwater channel for its
entire restored length, with a relatively low belt width and sinuosity.
Tributary 5: For Tributary 5, Priority 1 restoration will begin at an existing headcut between Tributaries 4
and 6 and end at the channel's confluence with South Fork Jones Creek. For the first approximately 1,000
feet of its length, this reach has a steeper gradient as the channel flows down the hillslope portion of the
site towards the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain. The belt width and overall sinuosity through this
steeper portion of the channel will be relatively low as is typical of steeper headwater systems. Once
Tributary 5 reaches the South Fork Jones floodplain, the average channel slope decreases, and the
proposed channel has been designed with a greater belt width and sinuosity than upstream. The restored
alignment of Tributary 5 will divert from the existing channelized stream, which does not follow the
natural low points and relict valley in the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain. Contour mapping provided
in Figure 14 details justification for this proposed alignment. Priority 1 restoration will incorporate the
same design methods as the other restoration reaches on the site, including establishment of stable
dimension, pattern and profile, raising the channel bed to provide reconnection to the relict floodplain,
and planting of a minimum 50-foot-wide buffer off both streambanks with native woody and herbaceous
species. A "log sill roller" structure will be used to provide grade control and stabilize the bed in the final
approximately 150 feet of the streams alignment as it ties into the incised channel of South Fork Jones
Creek.
Tributary 6: Tributary 6 will begin downstream of the terminus of a rerouted farm road, which will be
constructed with a 30" HDPE pipe culvert immediately upstream of the conservation easement, and the
stream will end at its confluence with South Fork Jones Creek. The existing soil road crossing, located
approximately halfway down the existing channel, will be removed. For the first approximately 2,200 feet
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 35 December 2023

of its length, this reach has a steeper gradient as the channel flows down the hillslope portion of the site
towards the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain. The belt width and overall sinuosity through this steeper
portion of the channel will be relatively low as is typical of steeper headwater systems. Once Tributary 5
reaches the South Fork Jones floodplain, the average channel slope decreases, and the proposed channel
has been designed with a greater belt width and sinuosity than upstream. As with Tributary 5, Tributary 6
will be redirected away from its current course to follow the natural low ground and relict valley within
the South Fork Jones floodplain (see Figure 16 for LiDAR mapping and detail regarding the historic valley
and low point of this channel). Priority 1 restoration will incorporate the same design methods as the
other restoration reaches on the site, including establishment of stable dimension, pattern and profile,
raising the channel bed to provide reconnection to the relict floodplain, and planting of a minimum 50-
foot-wide buffer off both streambanks with native woody and herbaceous species. A "log sill roller"
structure will be used to provide grade control and stabilize the bed in the final approximately 100 feet of
the streams alignment as it ties into the incised channel of South Fork Jones Creek.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 36 December 2023

�t
U
Ln
oq
M
Ln
N
m
N
00
lD
. _ ...
Z
-i
00
c-I
-
N
O
-1
�
�
00
n
Ln
'
00
'
Ln
U
O
N
N
lD
N
W
Ln
Lf1
I�
M
m
lD
lD
M
O
00
lD
M
O
O
00
4
ri
p
N
Ln
M
O
u
U
Ln
lD
-I
01
N
00
�D
. _ ...
Ktc-I
c-I
M
c-I
c-I
N
U
O
00
ri
o0
n
O-
�
�D
00
�
c-I
N
N
N
m
m
Ln
LnN
Ln
Kt
zt
Uf
N
O
O
00
Ln
M
O00
M
Kt
O
N
ri
N
ri
O
Ln
O
U
Ln
Ln
M
lD
m
N
00
�D
._ ...
Kt
O
M
c-I
c-I
N
UO
r-I
00
ri
o0
n
Ln
00
Ln
M
N
M
m
n
M
N
N
Ln
M
00
00
O
rM-I
lD
Ln
O
N
O
01
N
-i
O
O
N
O
Ln
00
Ln
00
r-I
m
N
00
�D
. _ ...
r-I
r-I
00
c-I
N
O
N
U
O
ri
O
ri
o0
h
Ln
O
Ln
01
�
O
N
nj
N
cI
Ln
l�D
0O
Kt
N
M
O
to
N
O
to
DD
00
O
Lf1
O
ri
N
N
O
I-�
Ln
U
Ln
00
NO
m
m
N
00
lD
. _ ...
O
00
.--I
N
O
N
U
O
r1
00
n
Ln
Ln
N
nj
00
-Zt
01
cI
I,
lD
Kt
N
I,
01
-Zt
r-I
Ln
Ln
lD
Ln
01
Kt
M
M
O
.--I
ri
N
C,
O
r1
C,
Ln
Zt
N
lD
m
m
ON
Ln
00
NO
m
N
00
lD
._ ...
Kt
O
o0
r1
N
O
N
U
O
r-I
00
n
LnLn
O
N
m
m
.-I
M
M
N
m
M
I,
r-I
M
M
n
m
Ln
m
00
-Zt
Ln
O
O
lD
lD
lD
N
lD
M
N
O
N
-i
M
N
-i
O
O
M
N
L-n
O
Ln
Kt
Kt
.-I
m
N
00
lD
._ ...
Kt
O
00
.--I
N
.
N
U
p
00
r1
o0
h
LnLn
i
O
Iq
N
I
N
N
C)`�
`�
n
.�-I
N
-4
Kzt
C7
N
O
O
ri
ri
O
O
O
U
N
Ln
N
N
M
N
00
Iq
Kzt
M•-I
•-I
N
•--I
N
O
N
O
.--I
h
Ln
0
Ln
M
U
�
01
N
n
Ln
N
I?
C�
C7
O
4
O
O
O
n
O
M
O
Uf
q
� i
N
N
. i
�
00
OM
rl
rl
+O
O
.--.
N
uo
.2
+�
E
Itf
�
f
Y
��
0
C
U
Q
L o
Q
M
o
0)
N
_
M
_
_
_
V)
�
M
_w
u
-0 UOL .--.
v
73
Ln
N
=
E
E
E
E
E
N
uD
o
t
Y
._
C (6 L
V1 Ln
C
C
C
C V1
(6
D
-O_
O
+�
lD
Ln
O
�
Ln
U
n7
m
m
m
m
C
>
m
w
El
M
Ln
00
m
U M r°
0_ U
U
in
>
0
0
0
0
0
v
u
t
U
c
0
c
O
E
X
O
Q
Q
r6
v
v
O
t
0
r6
v
v
w
Y
aj aj
E
O
aj
rl
rn
m Ln
,._ H
I�LLn
'1
O
Qj
Qj
a a
Ln
C)

7.2.2 Typical Design Sections
Typical cross sections for riffles and pools are shown on the design plans sheets in Appendix G. The cross-
section dimensions were developed for each design reach by using the parameters detailed in Section
7.2.1.
7.2.3 Meander Pattern
The design plans showing the proposed channel alignments are included in Appendix G. The meander
pattern was derived directly from the analog reference reach and was altered in some locations to provide
variability and to account for variations in valley pattern, and to make the channel more constructible.
The morphological parameters included in Appendix C were applied to areas that deviated from the
analog reference reach. After additional site analysis and survey, the alignment of Tributary 5 has been
modified from what was originally proposed to closer follow the actual valley low point along the
floodplain of South Fork Jones Creek. Upon further inspection, it was found that there is a subtle ridge
between the base of the hillside down which the tributary flows and the banks of South Fork Jones Creek,
which has created a natural valley that roughly parallels South Fork Jones Creek. Figure 14 depicts
contours derived from QL2 LiDAR and site topographic survey to show the presence of this natural valley
along Tributary 5. Similarly, analysis of QL2 LiDAR and site topographic survey show a natural valley low
point along the proposed channel location for Tributary 6. The natural flow path follows along concave
contours and areas where significant ground saturation are observed in available aerial imagery.
7.2.4 Longitudinal Profiles
The design profiles are presented in Appendix G. These profiles extend throughout the project area for
each stream channel realignment. Bed slopes were determined for each restoration reach based on the
existing valley slope and the proposed sinuosity of the reach. In -stream structures will be used in the
design to control grade and provide habitat diversity and stability.
7.2.5 In -Stream Structures
Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional stability and improve aquatic
habitat. Bed material will be added to all riffles to construct constructed riffles, while in steeper riffle
locations (>2.5% slopes), log "roller" structures will be installed to provide more resistance to increased
shear stress. Typical details for proposed in -stream structures are in Appendix G.
7.2.6 Wetland Restoration Approach
The Site offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity that will restore highly manipulated floodplain
forested wetland communities. Wetland restoration via reestablishment aims to reestablish wetland
hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation to currently non -wetland areas that exhibit hydric soil indicators,
while rehabilitation aims to improve vegetation and floodplain connectivity in severely degraded
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 38 December 2023

jurisdictional wetland areas. The Site will provide 5.5670 riparian WMUs through a combination of
wetland reestablishment and rehabilitation. The proposed WMUs will also offset unavoidable permanent
wetland impacts due to stream restoration activities. Planting of woody vegetation will occur in areas
where existing riparian wetlands are present. These areas will not generate mitigation credit but will be
protected within the conservation easement. Project impact mapping depicts areas of existing
jurisdictional wetlands and streams that will be impacted by proposed project restoration activities, as
well as wetland areas that will be replanted after construction. The project will restore 5.25 acres and
rehabilitate 0.32 acres, which will offset the 0.22 acres of permanent wetland losses associated with the
channel re -alignments. The project will provide 13,295.996 SMU, which will offset the 79.83 feet of stream
losses associated with the culvert installations on UT-4 and UT-6, therefore the project will have a net gain
of stream length.
Wetland reestablishment with a credit ratio of 1:1 is proposed for two areas of the Site. The area referred
to as Wetland A is located along the southwestern border of the site and is situated within the floodplain
of South Jones Creek. Wetland B is located along Tributary 2 and is located in the floodplain of both
Tributary 2 and South Jones Creek. The areas contain hydric soils but lack sufficient wetland hydrology
and a lowered water table due to an altered landscape and drainage modifications, including ditched
streams and drainage tiles. The hydrologic restoration of these areas will be directly related to stream
restoration activities and removal of the drainage tile system. Removal of the drainage tiles will raise local
groundwater elevations and allow for frequent flooding. Restoration of Tributary 2 will provide an
appropriately sized channel within the existing floodplain and filling the incised, abandoned channels,
which will further raise local groundwater levels and increase surface inputs from more frequent flooding.
Hydrology can be restored to these historic wetlands, connecting them to the surrounding hydrologic
landscape, and their riparian functions can be reestablished by enabling stream and groundwater
interaction. The reestablished wetland areas will be planted with bare root hardwood trees and shrubs
representative of Piedmont Bottomland Forest communities. The reestablishment areas will be rough
graded to increase runoff retention in small shallow areas.
Wetland rehabilitation with a credit ratio of 1.5:1 is proposed for Wetland C and D, which are located
within the proposed Wetland A reestablishment area. The rehabilitation approach is intended to provide
uplift to vegetative function and functions related to floodplain connectivity. These wetland areas have
been disconnected from their historic riparian wetland system and area within active row crop agricultural
areas that are consistently impacted by plowing, seeding, and herbicide applications. The wetlands are
still jurisdictional and there is a seasonally high-water table. Rehabilitation of these areas is directly tied
to the reestablishment of Wetland A and recreating the historic riparian wetland system along South Jones
Creek. Rehabilitation aims to re-establish the Riverine Swamp Forest community that historically existed.
This will involve planting appropriate bare root hardwood tree and shrub species representative of
Piedmont Bottomland Forest communities.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 39 December 2023

7.2.7 Soil Restoration Approach
Soil grading will occur during stream restoration activities. Topsoil will be stockpiled during construction
and spread on the soil surface once a subgrade has been established. Surface roughening will create
microtopography and shallow depressional areas within floodplain, re-establishing more natural
conditions and establishing habitat diversity.
Standing water is not anticipated to occur in the reestablishment and rehabilitation areas. No depressions
greater than 6 inches will be graded within the wetland cells, which will reduce areas of ponded water
and increase survivability of planted woody species. As mentioned above, grading efforts will be focused
primarily on roughening the terrain to provided water retention in small shallow areas.
7.3 DESIGN DISCHARGE ANALYSIS
Multiple methods were used to determine bankfull discharge estimates for the design reaches, including
the analysis of bankfull indicators, reference reaches, and regional curves. The use of various methods
allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a single model or data source. Design bankfull
flows were determined for comparison using the following methods:
• NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman, 1999)
• USGS Non -Urban Virginia Piedmont Regional Curve (Lotspeich, 2009)
• Stream Channel Geomorphology Relationships for North Carolina Piedmont Reference Reaches
(Lowther, 2008)
• SC DNR Stream Geomorphology Data Collection and Analysis — Ecoregion 45 (Environmental,
2020)
• Discharge determination using on -site bankfull indicators (only visible on Tributary 1A).
Bankfull indicators were identified on Tributary 1A and were used to back calculate the existing bankfull
discharge using the Manning's Equation. The existing discharge was then compared with the regional
curves listed above to provide multiple lines of evidence in selection of the design bankfull discharge. The
USGS Non -Urban Virginia Piedmont Regional Curve produced the most comparable bankfull discharge to
the calculated discharge for Tributary 1A, falling within the 95-percent prediction interval. Thus, this
regression equation was chosen for use with the design discharge calculations of the remaining
tributaries. The design discharges for each reach were then calculated based on this regression equation.
Results from each discharge estimate are included in Table 14.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 40 December 2023

Table 14. Summary of Bankfull Discharge Predictive Analysis from Regional Curve
g
'
SC Ecoregion
USGS Non -Urban
USGS Non -Urban
NC
NC Rural
RLDrainage
Area
Z
45 Regional
Virginia Piedmont
Virginia Piedmont
Reference
Piedmont
mi)
Reach Curve
Regional
Curve
Regional Curve'
Regional Curvet
Curve
'Regression equation developed using the USGS slope -area computation program (SAC)
'Regression equation determined by relating the bankfull stage at the gage location to the stage -discharge rating.
7.4 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
To better understand the existing sediment transport conditions on the site, eight pebble counts and one
subpavement sample were collected and analyzed across the site. The data is provided in Appendix C and
summarized in Table 15 below.
A sediment transport analysis was conducted at the Site to ensure that the restoration designs possess
stable channel forms that can transport the sediment delivered from their watersheds without aggrading
or degrading over time. On -site streams were visually inspected to qualitatively assess aggradation and
degradation within the channels. Incised channels and actively eroding banks provide evidence of active
degradation, multiple headcuts, and suggest an excess sediment transport competence and capacity
relative to the sediment load delivered from upstream. The relatively steep average bed slopes (1.5% to
4%) and narrow, steep valleys of the tributaries suggests that the channels are colluvial, rather than
alluvial, in nature and therefore likely follow a threshold channel regime. In threshold channel systems,
the sediment loads are relatively low relative to the energy produced by the channel, thus channel stability
is informed more by sediment transport competence and the resistance of the boundary to the shear
stresses produced by the channel, than it is by sediment transport capacity, as would be more influential
in alluvial stream systems. Thus, the focus of the sediment transport analysis was to verify that the design
channels will be stable over time and can transport sediment from the watershed.
7.4.1 Sediment Competence Analysis
Competence analyses were conducted for each restoration reach by comparing shear stress associated
with the design bankfull discharge, proposed channel dimension and proposed channel slopes with the
size distribution of the existing bed load. The analyses used standard equations based on methodology
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 41 December 2023

using the Shields curve and Andrews equation (Rosgen, 2001). The analyses were used to verify that the
design will have sufficient competence to move the size of bed load supplied to the stream. Initial
competence was based on the size of material naturally found in the stream to mimic potential bedload.
The results were used to inform further design of the reach. As shown in Table 15, the proposed channel
has sufficient competence to move the size of materials within the sediment load. The results also show
excess competence relative to the size of sediment particles required to be moved, indicating that channel
armoring will be required to prevent channel degradation. This is a typical feature of steep, headwater
colluvial channels, where the channel stability is provided by natural bed armoring rather than a balance
of channel shape to sediment load. It is likely that the Tributaries on the site once possessed a natural
armor layer derived from large cobble and boulder materials that was lost when the streams became
incised. This is common on many steeper headwater systems in the Slate Belt region, including the
reference reaches such as Spencer Creek. To offset the excess competence produced by the channel, bed
armoring will be introduced to all riffles using stone material sized to resist movement from the shear
stresses produced by the proposed channel. In addition, the steepest portions of the channel will have log
roller structures to prevent degradation and downcutting.
Table 15. Sediment Size Distribution and Shear Stress Comparison at Bankfull Stage
=I&
Pebble Count
Existing Shear
Stress (lb/sf)
1.03
I Measured
D�
12.29
Measured
�,
22.27
Proposed
0.53
Largest
94.83
Pebble Count
0.47
3.33
27.97
0.38
74.53
Subpavement
0.47
8.24
30.09
0.38
74.51
Pebble Count
0.29
0.42
4.00
0.75
122.52
Pebble Count
1.42
0.40
4.00
0.69
116.32
Pebble Count
0.56
0.95
13.65
0.65
110.58
Pebble Count
0.88
16.47
40.27
0.50
90.82
Pebble Count
0.44
0.97
29.31
0.60
105.03
Pebble Count
0.65
12.15
38.00
0.51
92.37
Pebble Count
0.47
5.7
18.93
0.50
91.13
7.4.2 Sediment Capacity Analysis
Observations of channel sediment on the site indicate a lack of depositional features throughout the
existing channels, with only some very small point bar formation on Tributary 1A at its most downstream
end. In addition, based on the relatively steep proposed channel slopes coupled with the very small
drainage areas which produce limited sediment load, the channels are expected to be "supply -limited"
systems, and therefore can be assumed to have excess capacity to move their sediment load at the design
discharge. The defining criteria for the channel dimension, therefore, is that it must accommodate the
design discharge and resist the shear stress on the boundary of the channel (i.e., threshold channel
design). For this reason, a sediment capacity analysis was not conducted for this project.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 42 December 2023

7.5 VEGETATION AND PLANTING PLAN
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration of the Site. The
selection of plant species is based on species present in the forest adjacent to the Site, and typical native
species for Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest (Typic Subtype) and Piedmont Bottomland Forest
(Schafale, 2012). Existing mature riparian forest adjacent to the site were dominated by sweetgum,
loblolly pine, boxelder (Acer negundo), sycamore, water oak (Quercus nigra), and willow oak (Q. phellos).
Sporadic areas of sugarberry and spicebush were also noted. Much of the understory was dominated by
privet, which prevented an accurate assessment of native shrub and understory tree populations.
Understory species were included from the typical native species of the appropriate riparian forest type.
The target community will be used for the planting areas within the Site, shown in Appendix H. The native
species selected for establishment at the Site will be early successional species that represent a range of
growth rates and varying tolerances to shade and moisture. These range of characteristics were selected
to ensure that the appropriate vegetation cover develops over the Site. Stream banks will be planted with
live stakes and the channel toe will be planted with multiple herbaceous species. Permanent herbaceous
seed will be spread on the streambanks, floodplain and disturbed areas within the Site easement. Table
16 depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation association. Planting
will be conducted between November 15 and March 15 per IRT monitoring guidance.
Table 16. Site Woody Species Planting Plan with Species Type and Distribution
Iff
Piedmontpff
.
VegetationAssociation
:. . .
Forest
..Total
Stream Forest
66—
Area (acres)
6.37
46.80
5.90
59.07
Common
#
% of
% of
% of
Scientific Name
# Planted
# Planted
# Planted
Name
Planted
Total
Total
Total
Acer negundo
Boxelder
452
12%
--
--
--
--
452
Alnus serrulata
Hazel alder
--
--
--
--
7953
20%
7,953
Asiminia triloba
Pawpaw
--
--
2768
10%
--
--
2,768
Betula nigra
River birch
565
15%
4152
15%
--
--
4,717
Carpinus caroliniana
American
--
--
2768
10%
--
--
2,768
hornbeam
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
--
--
2768
10%
--
--
2,768
Cephalanthus
Buttonbush
--
--
--
--
7953
°
20%
7,953
occidentalis
Corpus amomum
Silky dogwood
377
10%
--
--
7953
20%
8,330
Common
Diospyros virginiana
--
--
2768
10%
--
--
2,768
Persimmon
Fagus grandifolia
American
--
--
2768
10%
--
--
2,768
beech
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
377
10%
--
--
--
--
377
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
--
--
1384
5%
--
--
1,384
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 43 December 2023

Piedmont.
VegetationL
. .
Bottomland
Forest
HeadwaterTotal
Stream Forest
Platanus occidentalis
American
565
15%
4152
15%
-- --
4,717
sycamore
Quercus nigra
Water oak
--
--
2768
10%
--
--
2,768
Cherr ark
Quercus pagoda
490
13%
--
--
--
--
490
ok
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
452
12%
--
--
--
--
452
Salix sericea
Silky willow
--
--
--
--
7953
20%
7,953
Sambucus nigra
Elderberry
--
--
--
--
7953
20%
7,953
Ulmus americana
American elm
490
13%
--
--
--
--
490
Viburnum prunifolium
Blackhaw
--
--
1384
5%
--
--
1,384
*Planted at a density of 538 stems/acre ** Planted at a density of 4,840 stems/acre
7.5.1 Invasive Species Management
Invasive species within the easement area will be treated at the time of construction. The extent of
invasive species coverage will be monitored, mapped, and controlled as necessary throughout the
required monitoring period. An exception to this is the areas within the easement along South Fork Jones
Creek that are outside the riparian zones of the restored tributaries and riparian wetlands. As these areas
are being put into conservation easement to mitigate for unauthorized activities on the site, and not to
produce mitigation credits, these areas will have invasives clearing and treatment during one growing
season and not in following monitoring years. A copy of the map depicting one-time invasives treatment
areas versus treatment throughout the monitoring period is contained in Appendix A. An invasive species
vegetation treatment plan for the Site is included in Appendix H.
7.6 PROJECT RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES
Although a formal risk assessment has not been conducted as a part of this project, the assessment and
design process are structured to identify areas of concern and potential risk to the project success or
liabilities that may develop in association with the project, as discussed in Table 17. This project is low
risk. The land use surrounding the project is currently in agricultural row crop production, so there is no
potential for accidental livestock access. There are no significant hydrologic or infrastructure constraints
for the proposed ecological uplift at the Site. No overhead or buried utility lines are present. An easement
break is proposed on Tributary 1A at the location of an existing 60" RCP culvert, which will remain in place.
Any culvert maintenance will be the responsibility of FNI through completion of monitoring. At the
completion of monitoring and project closeout, the culverts will be the responsibility of the landowner(s).
The road and associated culverts will be relocated outside of the easement for Tributary 4 and 6.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 44 December 2023

No General Aviation, Commercial or Private airports are located within five miles of the Site. There are no
other known site constraints that will affect the functional uplift of the project. The valley widths at the
Site will allow for the development of pattern and dimensions to restore stable functioning streams and
wetlands. Any potential changes in the watershed would alter hydrology, but reconnecting the channels
to their floodplain, creating functioning riparian area, and restoring wetland function will help alleviate
any increased flow regime.
It is anticipated that the site will remain in row crops in the foreseeable future. Corner posts and boundary
markers consistent with current DMS guidelines will be placed along the perimeter of the conservation
easement to provide visual barrier for row crop operations. The easement boundary will be checked
visually through the monitoring period to ensure there are no encroachments into the easement. If any
encroachments are detected, corrective actions including re -planting and boundary marker re -installation
will be conducted and discussions will be had with the landowner reminding them of easement terms and
conditions and legal duty to not disturb vegetation.
Table 17. Project Risks, Uncertainties, and Potential Actions
The isolated nature of the site will
minimize this risk. Easement boundaries
Potential encroachment of the
will be clearly marked to prevent
conservation easement, which may
encroachment. The landowner has been
Easement Encroachment
include trespass, incidental mowing,
made aware of the importance of
equipment traffic, cattle, and timber
encroachment prevention and
harvesting.
accountability. Any encroachments that
occur will be remedied to address any
damage and provide any corrections
required by the IRT.
Herbaceous competition during the first
Herbaceous and woody vegetation
two years will be managed by mechanical
competition from invasive and
mowing and chemical herbicides. All
Invasive and Nuisance Species
nuisance species in the surrounding
herbicide application will be performed by
a certified applicator in accordance with
area.
NC Department of Agriculture rules and
regulations.
Site vegetation includes obligate woody
Extreme climate conditions may
species that are adapted to periods of
occur during the monitoring period,
long-term inundation. Supplemental
Droughts and Floods
including long-term inundation due
planting or replanting will be conducted if
to landscape position and soil
necessary. Additional actions may include
characteristics.
removal of downstream obstructions
(e.g., beaver dams, soil deposition) within
the project easement.
The project is designed with a Priority 1
Hydrologic Trespass
Potential hydrologic trespass on
restoration approach, and all adjacent
adjoining landowners.
wetland cells will be graded to move
water toward Tributary 1. There is no
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 45 December 2023

Risk/Uncertainty Description Action
concern about ditching along the
conservation easement by current or
future landowners in a way that would
affect either the existing or proposed
wetlands and streams. The proposed
conservation easement will block the
landowner from being able to outlet the
ditch anywhere on the property. If the
landowner were to install ditches adjacent
to wetlands in the easement, such an
effort would be futile as the ditches would
be parallel to the area and, to make a
ditch, there would have to be a place
where the ditch can outlet. There would
not be anywhere to 'outlet' the ditches
because all potential outlets would be
blocked by the conservation easement.
8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The stream and wetland performance standards will conform to the performance criteria outlined in the
NCDMS Mitigation Plan Template (ver. 06/2017), and US Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
Public Notice: Notification of Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Conducted for Wilmington District (October 24, 2016). The restoration and enhancement components are
assigned specific performance standards for geomorphology, hydrology, and vegetation. Performance
criteria is proposed to be evaluated throughout the seven-year monitoring period. Table 18 provides a list
of the performance standards associated with each project objective along with the associated monitoring
approach. Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the
finished project. Performance standards will be evaluated throughout the seven-year post construction
monitoring and are detailed in Table 18. Monitoring information can be found in Section 9.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 46 December 2023

Table 18. Project Performance Standards.
•.- so d LT1:L_
. I . . . a FT
a I k to I d I a RXil ..
Riffle section W/D ratios should remain
within the range of the appropriate stream
type.
BHR should not exceed 1.2. BHR should not
Survey of select cross sections,
Construct stream channels
change more than 10% in any given
longitudinal profiles and visual
that will maintain proper
monitoring interval. Changes that do occur
assessment.
dimension, pattern and
should indicate a trend toward stability.
profile and that meet
Continuous stage recorders for
jurisdictional status
Entrenchment Ratios should be >_ 2.2 for C/E
base flow on tributaries and/or
channels and >_ 1.4 for B channels
use of trail cameras
Document continuous surface flow in
tributaries for at least 30 consecutive days in
each year.
Construct streams with
Four bankfull events or greater, in separate
Continuous stage recorders
proper bankfull to
years, will be documented during the
and/or use of trail cameras as
floodplain relationship
monitoring period.
well as debris lines.
Construct streams that
provide naturally stable
Channel banks should generally remain
dimensions and stabilize
stable. Where bank migration does occur, it
Visual assessment and bank pin
constructed banks with
should not exceed 20% of the bankfull width
monitoring as necessary
appropriate bioengineering
for the duration of monitoring
techniques.
Construct stable riffles and
pools that provide an
improved diversity of
Profile should maintain a diversity of depths
Survey of select cross sections,
bedform and bed material
expressed in riffle/pool forms.
longitudinal profiles and visual
class, and a reduction in
assessment.
fines relative to existing
conditions
Construct in -stream
Visual assessment and annual
habitat features from
In -stream habitat structures should remain
survey of structure elevations and
native material to provide
intact and functional.
configurations.
a diversity of habitats
Establish a forested
riparian buffer along all
Record conservation easement prior to
Required annual visual inspection
restored stream channels
implementation
of easement boundary.
and South Fork Jones
Creek.
Minimum of 320 stems/ac present at MY-3.
Plant native overstory tree
Minimum of 260 stems/ac present at MY-5.
species and understory
Vegetation plots
species in the riparian zone
Minimum of 210 stems/ac present at MY-7.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 47 December 2023

Planted trees reach an average height of 7 ft
by Year 5 and 10 ft by Year 7
Restore riparian wetland
hydrology by re -grading
Groundwater elevation within 12 inches of
topography to eliminating
the ground surface for 12% (31 days) of the
Groundwater monitoring gages
ditches and other wetland
growing season
drainage features
Minimum of 320 stems/ac present at MY-3.
Plant native wetland tree
Minimum of 260 stems/ac present at MY-5.
and shrub species habitat
for lower trophic level
Minimum of 210 stems/ac present at MY-7.
Vegetation plots
organisms.
Planted trees reach an average height of 7 ft
by Year 5 and 10 ft by Year 7
8.1 STREAM RESTORATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
8.1.1 Bankfull Events
Four bankfull events must be documented over the 7-year monitoring period, and the bankfull events
must occur in separate years. Otherwise, stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull events have
been documented in separate years. This will be accomplished through the use of auto -logging pressure
transducers at a stream gage.
8.1.2 Surface Flow
Stream reaches generating credit will be monitored to document surface flow. This will be accomplished
through direct observation and the use of auto -logging pressure transducers at a stream gage/game
cameras. Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow each year.
8.1.3 Cross Sections
There will be little change in as -built cross sections. If changes do occur, they will be evaluated to
determine if they are trending toward a less stable condition or are minor changes that represent an
increase in stability. Cross sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and
all monitored cross sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the
design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less
than 2.2 within restored riffle cross sections for C/E channels and no less than 1.4 for B channels.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 48 December 2023

8.1.4 Digital Image Evaluations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate bank erosion, channel evolution (aggradation or
degradation), riparian vegetation success, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal
images should not indicate the formation of bars within the channel or excessive increase in channel
depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over
time. A time series of images should indicate maturation of riparian vegetation. Detrimental bank erosion,
aggradation, structural integrity, and vegetative concerns must also be noted on the required Visual
Assessment tables and spatial extent depicted on the CCPV each monitoring year.
8.2 WETLAND RESTORATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has a current WETS table (1991-2020) for Anson
County upon which to determine average growing season. The closest comparable data station was
determined to be WETS station: Wadesboro, NC. The station determined the growing season to be 262
days long, extending from March 8 to November 25, and is based upon the minimum temperature greater
than 28 degrees Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years (accessed from AgACIS).
Based upon field observations at the Site, NRCS soil mapping units show a good correlation to actual site
conditions in the proposed wetland areas of the site. Mitigation guidance for soils in the Piedmont
suggests a hydroperiod for Chewacla soil series of 10 to 12 percent of the growing season. Therefore, the
hydrology success criterion for the Site is to restore the water table so that it will remain continuously
within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12 percent of the growing season (approximately 31 days)
at each groundwater gage location throughout the monitoring period.
8.3 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Specific and measurable success criteria for planting density within the wetlands and riparian buffers on
the Site will follow IRT Guidance. Vegetative success will be the survival of at least 320 planted trees per
acre at the end of Year 3, 260 planted trees at an average of seven feet in height at the end of Year 5, and
the final vegetative success criteria of 210 trees per acre with an average height of ten feet at the end of
Year 7. Height requirements may be omitted for designated understory and shrub species if deemed
advantageous. Volunteer trees, present at least two growing seasons and listed on the approved planting
list, will be counted, identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, and may be
counted toward the success criteria of the total planted stems for year five and seven. Any single species
can only account for up to 50 percent of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot. Any
stems in excess of 50 percent will be shown in the monitoring table but will not be used to demonstrate
success.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 49 December 2023

9.0 MONITORING PLAN
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are met,
and project goals and objectives are achieved. Annual monitoring data will be reported using the DMS
Annual Monitoring Reporting Template (June 2017). The monitoring report shall provide project data
chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, ease population of DMS
databases for analysis and research purposes and assist in close-out decision making. Table 19 details Site
monitoring components. Locations of vegetation plots, groundwater gages, and continuous stage
recorders are included in Figure 12. The monitoring schedule is included in Table 20.
9.1 AS -BUILT SURVEY
Using the DMS Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data and Content Requirements guidance document
(October 2020), a baseline monitoring document and as -built record drawings of the project will be
developed within 60 days of the planting completion and monitoring installation on the restored site. The
survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, top of bank and other features
required by the NCDMS As -Built Requirements document (October, 2020) to compare to future
geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual monitoring reports unless requested
by USACE.
9.2 VISUAL MONITORING
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year (MY)
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species, and
easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete stream walk and
structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to record each
monitoring event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Fixed image locations will exist
at each cross section, vegetation plot, stage recorder, flow gage, groundwater, culverts and crossings.
Results of visual monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem
areas and digital images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or
degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of channel structures.
Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive
increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation
of the banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
9.3 STREAM HYDROLOGY
Continuous stage recorders, which utilize auto -logging pressure transducers that are capable of
documenting height, frequency, and duration of bankfull events, will be installed on all perennial
restoration reaches. For credit generating intermittent streams, monitoring flow gages will be installed to
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 50 December 2023

track the frequency and duration of stream flow events. Additionally, a weather station with a rain gage
will be installed on -site to measure precipitation events.
9.4 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent cross sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in pools
and half in riffle on all Restoration and Enhancement I reaches. Morphological data will be measured and
recorded for all cross -sections; however, only riffle cross sections will include bank height ratio and
entrenchment ratio calculations. A total of 27 cross sections are proposed across the Project. These cross
sections will be monitored in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
9.5 WETLAND HYDROLOGY
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydrologic conditions in the Site's wetland areas. This
will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gages installed in representative
locations across the restoration areas as well as some already jurisdictional wetland areas for reference
conditions. These groundwater gages will be installed in accordance with USACE guidelines and
subsequent NCIRT guidance. The gages will be downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be
calculated during the growing season. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology
indicators will also be recorded during quarterly site visits. A total of fourteen groundwater gages are
proposed across the Site; seven in re-established wetlands, four in rehabilitated jurisdictional wetlands,
serving as hydrologic references, and three in existing wetlands to ensure that the constructed stream
channel does not adversely impact wetland hydroperiod.
At the end project monitoring, the extent of jurisdiction for existing wetlands will be re -verified and
compared to pre -restoration conditions to ensure that no wetland area was lost as a result of restoration
activities.
9.6 VEGETATION MONITORING
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.0247 acres in size and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be 56 plots within the planted area (59.07 acres). Plots will be a
mixture of fixed and random plots, with 30 fixed plots and 26 random plots. Planted area indicates all area
in the easement that will be planted with trees. Other areas lacking tree density throughout the Site will
be planted with supplemental trees. These areas will be monitored each monitoring year with random
plots to document both existing and planted trees to demonstrate both density and diversity. The
following data will be recorded for all trees in the fixed plots: species, height, planting date (or volunteer),
and grid location. For random plots, species and height will be recorded for all woody stems. The location
(GPS coordinates and orientation) of the random plots will be identified in the annual monitoring reports.
Vegetation will be planted, and plots established at least 180 days prior to the initiation of the first year
of monitoring. Monitoring will occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between July 1st and leaf drop. Invasive and
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 51 December 2023

noxious species will be monitored so that none become dominant or alter the desired community
structure of the Site. If necessary, a species -specific treatment plan will be developed.
9.7 SCHEDULE AND REPORTING
A baseline monitoring report with as -built drawings will be submitted within 60 days of planting
completion. The report will include all information required by DMS mitigation plan guidelines, including
elevations, photographs and sampling lot locations, gage locations, and a list of the species planted and
associated densities. Baseline vegetation monitoring will include species, height, date of planting, and grid
location of each stem. The baseline report will follow the most current DMS As -Built Baseline Monitoring
Report Template found on the DMS website, USACE guidelines, and the October 2017 Mitigation Credit
Calculation Memo.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the success of
the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until final success criteria
are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each monitoring year and submitted to DMS by
December 1. These reports will be based on the DMS Annual Monitoring Template (June 2017). While
monitoring reports will be completed annually, not all monitoring reports will include the same
information. All monitoring reports will include at least a brief narrative of site developments, a
representative photo log, and a Current Condition Plan View (CCPV). Further monitoring measurements
are detailed in the following sections.
Table 19. Site Monitoring Components
Parameterr
��lL�h...
..
Quantity
ME
Dimension
Riffle Cross
Sections
14
Year 1, 2, 3, 5 and
7
1
Pool Cross Sections
13
Pattern
Pattern
All restored channels
Year 0
2
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
All restored channels
Year 0
Continuous Stage
Surface Water Hydrology
Recorder and/or
7 surface water gages
Semi -Annual
Trail Camera
3
Groundwater Hydrology
Groundwater
Gages
14 gages
Semi -Annual
Vegetation
g
Fixed Plots
30
Year 1, 2, 3, 5 and
7
4
Random Plots
26
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 52 December 2023

Notes:
1. Cross -sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points
measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected
during as -built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations indicate lack of stability and profile survey
is warranted in additional years.
3. Continuous stage recorders will be inspected quarterly to semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be
documented with a photo when possible. Transducers will be set to record stage once every hour.
4. Both mobile and permanent vegetation plots will be utilized to evaluate the vegetation performance for the
open areas planted. 2% of the open planted acreage will be monitored with permanent plots and mobile plots.
Permanent vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation
monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted stems and species using a circular or 100m2
square/rectangular plot. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed.
5. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
6. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
7. Reference photos include: upstream and downstream photos at every cross-section, one photo at every surface
water and groundwater gage, upstream and downstream photo at each easement break, and photos from all
cardinal directions at each vegetation plot.
Table 20. Monitoring Schedule
Streams
X
X
X
X
X
Wetlands
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vegetation
X
X
X
X
X
Visual
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Assessment
Report
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Submittal
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 53 December 2023

10.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Adaptive management at the Site will include an Adaptive Management Remedial Action Plan (AMRAP),
which will provide detailed steps to address how potential problems identified during project
development will be resolved to ensure project success through the achievement of ecological
performance standards. Routine maintenance should be expected, particularly in the first two years post -
construction and may include the measures detailed in Appendix I. If the Site fails to achieve the defined
performance standards, an AMRAP will be developed in coordination with NC DMS and the IRT. Remedial
action required will be designed to achieve the success criteria previously specified and will include the
identification and causes of the failure, actions to remedy the failure, schedule to implement the actions,
and monitoring criteria. Most minor issues will be identified during annual post -construction monitoring
and site inspections. Minor issues that requiring small scale corrective actions include supplemental
planting and management of invasive species.
Anticipated project maintenance at the Site includes herbaceous vegetation control and addressing any
areas that do not meet native woody species density due to seedling mortality during the first two years
of establishment. Maintenance of groundwater gages and continuous stage recorders is anticipated
during the post -construction monitoring period. The easement boundary will be marked by signage and
will be monitored until project closeout. Identification of problems with project infrastructure during post -
construction monitoring and site inspections will help address minor issues and help to prevent gaps in
monitoring data.
Major issues discovered requiring large scale corrective measures include, but are not limited to, re-
grading of the Site, repair, or reinstallation of stream structures, replanting more than 20% of the site to
improve species composition or diversity, or the addition of additional stabilization structures. The
AMRAP will follow Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.
Should issues arise during site monitoring and inspections that may affect project success and
performance standards, NC DMS and the IRT will be notified of the need for an AMRAP. Once the plan has
been prepared, the following actions will occur:
• USACE will be notified as required by NWP 27 general conditions
• NCDWR will be notified of Section 401 conditions, as necessary
• Performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements will be
modified as required by USACE
• Obtain any additional required permits
• Submit the AMRAP for IRT review and approval
• Implement the AMRAP
• Provide NC DMS/IRT an as -built of remedial actions
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 54 December 2023

11.0 LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program (or 3rd party if approved). This party shall
serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic
inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld.
Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is
established. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the non -
reverting, interest- bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the
Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A-232(d)(3). Interest
gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship
administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The Stewardship Program will periodically install
signage as needed to identify warranted boundary markings.
12.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
The mitigation credits presented in Table 1 and Table 2 are projections based upon site soils, topography,
stream characteristics, and existing and proposed hydrologic conditions and designs. Upon completion of
the as -built survey, the project components and credits data will be revised, if necessary, with
explanations of how and why any adjustments occurred. As -built stream linear footage will be based on
surveyed stream center lines for credit calculations. Stream Restoration is requested at a ratio of 1:1,
Stream Enhancement I is requested at a ratio of 1.5:1. Wetland Reestablishment is requested at a ratio of
1:1 and Wetland Rehabilitation is requested at a ratio of 1.5:1. No credits are being sought for
Enhancement 11, as the buffer area will not meet the 50-foot requirement on the right bank, and no credits
are being sought for the enhancement of existing wetland areas. All proposed buffers meet, and in most
cases exceed, the minimum 50-foot requirement for Piedmont streams. Appendix J contains a credit
release schedule and financial assurance documentation is provided in Appendix K.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 55 December 2023

13.0 REFERENCES
Fischenich, C., 2001. Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials.
Harman, W. A., and C. J. Jones. "Functional Lift Quantification Tool for Stream Restoration Projects in
North Carolina: Data Collection and Analysis Manual. Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh,
NC." Functional Life Quantification Tool for Stream Restoration Projects in North Carolina Data
Collection and Analysis Manual Page i (2016): 4. Harman, W. A., and C. J. Jones. "Functional Lift
Quantification Tool for Stream Restoration Projects in North Carolina: Data Collection and Analysis
Manual. Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh, NC." Functional Life Quantification Tool for Stream
Restoration Projects in North Carolina Data Collection and Analysis Manual Page i (2016): 4.
Harman, William A., Gregory D. Jennings, Jan M. Patterson, Dan R. Clinton, Louise O. Slate, Angela G.
Jessup, J. Richard Everhart, and Rachel E. Smith. "Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for
North Carolina streams." AWRA Wildland Hydrology Proceedings (1999): 401-408.
Lotspeich, R. Russell. Regional curves of bankfull channel geometry for non -urban streams in the Piedmont
physiographic province, Virginia. U. S. Geological Survey, 2009.
Lowther, Brian Christopher. "Stream Channel Geomorphology Relationships for North Carolina Piedmont
Reference Reaches." (2008).
Matthews, E.R., Peet, R.K. and Weakley, A.S., 2011. Classification and description of alluvial plant
communities of the Piedmont region, North Carolina, USA. Applied Vegetation Science, 14(4),
pp.485-505.
NCDEQ(North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality). NC Surface Water Classifications. Accessed
March 30, 2020. https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications
Rosgen, David L. "A practical method of computing streambank erosion rate." In Proceedings of the
Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, vol. 1. 2001.
Rosgen, David L. "A classification of natural rivers." Catena 22, no. 3 (1994): 169-199.
Schafale, Michael P. Guide to the natural communities of North Carolina: fourth approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2012.
Wakeley, J. S., R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. "Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland
delineation manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain region. Version 2.0." ERDC/EL TR-10-20 (2010).
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project No. 100151 56 December 2023

�, �� J• ��_ sso Fork _ J -
{—_ones
1
Gulledge
^� Road �^ �I /�✓ °`;. -1;
Cc
USJ
(.
BM
32
10
110
L
1
� 1 Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
NCDMS Project #: 100151
Legend
N
Parent Tract FREESE cfl r' AICHOLS
.• r a
Proposed Easement
�-�� 0 5001,000 2,000 Feet

O
d)
I-
O
c/f OLU Q?
0
a_ o O
U I I
O 1O
�
O w
a Z U
mJa
w
�U 4
N u,
Q) o
_ Ln
u w
`� t _0 u
y ` w' � O O
CL d
O
a--
N
U
Q •S
V
Z
M O
++
N 1
R✓-
L- O
to
N
a1 U
z
J C
/H
O :
m
`� O
Ln
i/� U
m L
J Q O
M L
IA
o�
LL
WO
WV
�z
` - -• • rly M
M
Ln w
cif t =
N
U 0
w
Q O m
m
J l0
"s U l0
O
w O N
'
Q l.0 a)
4�r-` Q O N
o cn
�l _:KFf H a
� O w
azu
LU
U =
a
Y

1 �
h
fir;-
r-:,
W.Z
as
��E
LO
N
O
O
O
O
ZOO
N
O
N LL
O
O
ri
O
r-I
n
N
CJ
Z
N �
L �
� N
U
�
J O
o
Q �
f�
L
Z *'
�
c
M
L
o
�
z 0
G1 m Z
o
(A bA rl
=) •:c2 tk
tin
=
G � U
a - o .v
(� U p
3
3
�
V)
"<
WJ
�0
L-oc U
LL� z
W=
v
WV
am,�Y
Z0
ONV

I5oil Types Within Parcel Boupdary eB
AeB
AeB Ailey loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent a NsB
BaB Badin channery silt loam, 2to 8 percent CeC2 a EmB
ChA Chewada loam, 0to 2percent AeC
EmB Emporia loamy sand, 2to 6 percent CeB2 BaC Va
MrB McQueen loam, Ito 6percent
NsB
NgC Nanford gravelly fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent
Ns8 Nanford- Emporia complex, 2to 8 percent NgC
Ta
GeB2 Ud
gC NsB NsB AeB IR NgC o
TAB
eB
BgD
AeB
EmB
AeB
ToA
MrB
1NsB
AeB
NsB 1 9
o
NsB
NsB EmB CmA ChA
,
NgC
CmA
EmB
NgC
B
NsB
BaC
�—
BgD
EmB
MrB MrB
gC
I
NgC Em C
E
AB
AeB
GoE
BaC
BaB
BgD
EmB AeC
BaC
AeB
EmC EmB
LgC
PnB
B
BaC
s
W
NgC
Ae CaB
AeC
j(� EmB
n EmB
Figure 5
Legend
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
NRCS Soil Survey Map
Parent Tract
CaB
NCDMS Project #:100151
Proposed Easement
B PnBIrma.z..ICHOLS
F R E ESE
N
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
PnB

RIN
O i +
M
,-4
O
N
91
ID
0
o Ki
Z `o �T,
0
0
CL
ri
O
r-I
n
m
1
•!I
N
z
G
M
�
L
11
.i
Q:
p
m
w
Z
(�
N
J C
L(
O
Q
is
4.1
O
Z
M �_
•i
hA
o
U
Ln
O
O
N
L
C
0
Ln
2
o
-0
Q
�J
O
o
U
W=
z
-0
WV
LL
L 4G
O

L2 o
o uO LL
o
0
1
-
v
c- y y y
O
C 2
N afa w w w w w
a
J
Q r-I
rl
O > E
u
a
Qi U N
d
J i
`
N cn %
0
O Ln
Z
41
C
7
_ U
c
0
L C
Q 0
W
0,
O `� � J
0 Q WO
m_ _
Z=
V
co �' �,�
2
liz
s
�
CA )
LL
L
1 �
s Pill

an �
Zab rus County
A'
Stanly County Montgomery County
Moor my
° a
b
a
jj' f n e
l e
7
°
Union County R mon ,A
Anson Coun � °
1
4 �
p r o
s v e Q
o , �
tr
030402010202 ti s
1 Q
6 J Q
O°
Middendorf Springs tland County,
Wetland & Stream Restoration . °
Site Location
Ile
5 g Y6 p' p o
C t 4 ➢ ( moo. da V
hesterfield County
La aster County a r'-
a . ��y'.Q ` .C�• r ..
.� G Marlb©rib
as a . • a, , d"
• yr 'Po� ° ➢ � �° 4 -
Legend o,a
Figure 13 Hydrologic Location
Project Site -° , Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
Targeted Local Watershed NCDMS Project #: 100151
a
Da Non -Targeted Local Watershed oli' un FREESE N
Lakes ff
�°NICHOLS
Project Local Watershed 0 2 4 8 Miles

C?)
co
as
a
�
M
Z�
o
a�
`, �•
`
o o
N
,
a
,���
'fir �n
p
LL
O
�
2
CO
O
f1
C� 4
0 `J
Ln
r
o
cu o^�q
O
ra
\
cu 0
3
F�
Ln
O
ago
o
Y :
cu
a
;
°
P
p E
p-
O +� p N
U
o
.
N
J
a,
M �
O Nco
e
0
O
�
.N
U
Z
N p
LL
��
v /((��V
Q '0
of
-0 (n
O
J i
�
= >
c
C
aO•+ O
�
cm
�
o
i
tto
Z
J 1
0 �
>.
Elevation
O
t9�
Q
!�
O
U
O
Q
OU
°
� •O
�
o
.L
0
W�
Ln
m
V v m
m cN) m
0
N
o
��
Q
a
�"° N
C
Ln
��
a
'o- o
o
'i -0
Q
WD
o
N
��,
>o
W=
CU �
>o
_
�1111111111M
N
cu
0
T C
G
LONV
CN
4-0
CN
N
Q'
4
e��^^
OFF/
L
'
co
N
O
Q
O
Q
o
LO
N O
N
8
_
N L p
++
a
U
�X
��
..d
��Q�
O
s ._ >
O•
e.
\V\
o
w Q Ln
O-
C7 5
�-% C
OU
V
p
2 2
O
i L
�O `. �u
o
J "= U
Q• °
` w
70-
OJT_ri
7
OD
O
�
2
Z
CEO
°
fl
g
o40
O
Ii
o 40 O
N
O
o
z e
?�

�f

Appendix A
IRT Meeting Minutes

PROJECT:
Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
NAME OF MEETING:
Post -Contract IRT Site Visit
RECORDED BY:
Ian Jewell, Bryan Dick
DATE:
June 8, 2020
LOCATION:
Middendorf Springs Site, Anson
County, NC
ATTENDEES:
Todd Tugwell (USACE)
Erin Davis (NCDEQ-DWR)
Travis Wilson (NCWRC)
Olivia Munzer (NCWRC)
Pau Wiesner (NCDEQ- DMS)
Matthew Reid (NCDEQ-DMS)
Kelly Phillips (NCDEQ- DMS)
Bryan Dick (FNI)
Ian Jewell (FNI)
The following reflects our understanding of the items discussed during the subject meeting.
1 1
1.
DMS started with introductions and overarching description of site.
FNI provided detailed overview of site, including description of underlying geology. Noted
that the site sits at the intersection of sandhills Middendorf formation and slate belt meta-
argillite formation, which is hypothesized to be the cause of numerous springs and seeps on
2.
site and presence of perennial flow in relatively small headwater streams. Option B in
proposal is selected Option, which represents 13,000 stream mitigation units and 5 riparian
wetland mitigation units. Described current impairment and impacts to streams and water
quality.
3.
DMS opened up discussion to general questions before site tour began.
NCDWR asked why one option listed restoration for all streams while another option listed
enhancement for all streams. If enhancement is possible why restore? FNI indicated that the
restoration approach to the streams was considered the best approach for full ecological
4'
uplift of the site, due to current level of degradation. Enhancement option was provided
because it was uncertain whether IRT would agree with full need for restoration, so the
option was given to provide flexibility in viewpoints. However, FNI believes based on its best
scientific judgement and analysis of current conditions, that restoration on all reaches (with
exception of Tributary 1B and 1C) is necessary.
Question was asked by DWR as to why only one side of Tributary 1A(upper) was being
proposed for protection in the Conservation Easement. Bryan responded because landowner
5.
only owns one side of the stream and because FNI wanted to provide connectivity between
the restored reach of Tributary 1A(lower) and Tributary 1B and 1C. No credit is being
proposed for the connecting reach on which only one side is available.
USACE and NCDWR stated there was confusion in proposal about what the proposed
wetland saturation/hydrope riod threshold would be for the project. In one place the
6.
proposal indicated 5% but the established threshold in the 2016 "Wilmington District Stream
and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update" is 10%to 12%for Chewacla soils. FNI
indicated that they intent is to follow the 2016 guidelines for the threshold, so the 5% is
incorrect.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Post Contract IRT Site Visit
June 8, 2020
Page 2 of 3
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
Question was asked by DWR about the width and number of proposed crossings. They would
like to only see one crossing and indicated that it must be less than the proposed 80'. They
7.
would like to see it get down to 30' to 40' in width. Bryan (FNI) explain that the crossing was
made this wide due to past experience with farmers not being able to get large combine
headers through a crossing without impact to conservation easement. However, FNI will
discuss with landowners about reducing the width down to 40' to 60'.
USACE indicated that they need to further investigate potential discharges of dredged
and/or fill materials into Waters of the US, including wetlands and streams. Such discharges
8.
may be an unauthorized activity under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Information related to the site investigation has been forwarded to Scott Jones with the
Asheville USACE office. They asked for contact information for the landowner. FNI will
provide this.
9.
DWR indicated that they would like to see a buffer on South Fork Jones Creek if possible.
10.
For the sake of time, it was agreed that tour of the site would look at representative reaches
and wetland areas rather than all streams on the site.
Tour began at upstream end of Tributary 6. Based on review, USACE agreed that restoration
approach could be justified here based on level of impairment. USACE asked about the
11.
transition from upstream where the tributary begins to the start of proposed restoration,
and how the transition to a raised streambed would occur. FNI indicated that a flatter slope
would be designed in the channel from the start of restoration until the Priority I elevation
was achieved, which would require a short stretch of Priority II.
DWR indicated that wood structures would be preferred. Bryan explained that wood sills
12.
would be the primary form of structure used for grade control and to create dynamic
bedform in the channel.
Tour continued to downstream end of Tributary 6. USACE noted that the flattening of the
slope at the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain might create a challenge for maintaining a
defined steam channel for the restored tributaries and may result in reduction of stream
credits where the stream transitions into a wetland system. The relatively small watersheds
and low slope within the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain may be problematic regarding
sediment accumulation in the lower reach. It may be acceptable to maintain streams during
13.
the first few monitoring two monitoring years but should not be maintained after this time
to allow for evidence of wetland conversion prior to project closeout. DWR asked if similar
systems/reference systems could be examined across South Fork Jones Creek or elsewhere.
Bryan indicated that there are likely similar systems nearby both in North and South Carolina
and FNI will examine these during design for reference conditions. In addition, the ditches
observed at the lower end of Tributary 6 and associated drain tiles may be a potentially
unauthorized activity under Section 404 of the CWA.
Tour continued upstream along Tributaries 5 and 4 and stopped at upstream end of
Tributary 4b. Question was asked by DWR and NCWRC about why restoration started
downstream of road when defined channel continues upstream of road. FNI explained that
the channel upstream was dry when investigated in the fall of 2019 while the baseflow
14.
indicators seemed to start immediately below the road. USACE indicated a jurisdictional
determination will be important to establish the origin point of jurisdictional status for all
tributaries and help define appropriate starting point for restoration. USACE was concerned
about impacts on restored channel if upstream channel left unprotected. DWR indicated
that a wetland or marsh treatment could be used to help treat and filter nutrients prior to
entering conservation easement and should be considered.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Post Contract IRT Site Visit
June 8, 2020
Page 3 of 3
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
15.
Tour continued to upstream end of Tributary 1 and followed downstream to proposed
wetland restoration area.
16.
Question was asked by USACE and DWR about widening the buffers due to numerous seeps
and side springs adjacent to the stream. They would like to see buffer widened if possible.
At proposed wetland restoration area, USACE indicated that they would like to see a buffer
17.
of the wetland, rather than wetland being the edge of the easement. Also should connect
easement of wetland area to stream easement, rather than it being disconnected.
USACE indicated that jurisdictional determination of wetlands on site will be needed to
establish rehabilitation versus reestablishment approach to the wetland restoration. If
18.
significant impact is shown to wetland from tiling and draining and re-establishment is
proposed, then will need gage data and establishment of water budget to show restoration
of hydrology.
DWR indicated that with rehabilitation, will need to see description of existing function and
proposed function. Pre -construction function will need to be established with gage data. Any
19.
areas proposed for possible alternative wetland restoration areas would also need
establishment of function through gages as well, so should install gages wherever we want
to have option to propose wetland restoration.
Todd with USACE indicated that he thought wetland restoration area would be majority 1:1
20.
credit ratio however any wetland areas upstream of Tributaries 4 and 5 would be a lower
credit ratio. USACE felt downstream wetland areas have a lot of potential for uplift.
Tour continued to Tributaries 1B and 1C, which are upstream of Tributary 1A. After viewing
these streams, USACE and DWR were concerned that Enhancement Level I wasn't fully
justified for these reaches but indicated that FNI would need to provide good
21.
documentation and justification of proposed approach. USACE indicated that at tie-in point
of Tributary 1B with Tributary 1A, 1B should not run parallel with 1A since this approach has
created problems in the past. Both USACE and DWR indicated that minimal sinuosity would
appropriate for these reaches.
WRC asked where material to fill abandoned channels would come from. FNI indicated that
22.
material would be found on -site, primarily from areas lateral to the channel and from
excavation of new channels. FNI will examine the fill and determine if it suitable for this use.
DWR and WRC encourage monitoring of streamflow on site. USACE will require
23.
documentation of streamflow by gages or camera. WRC suggested using game cameras as a
visual monitoring device for presence of baseflow. FNI indicated they had a couple of these
at the site and would likely add more.

PROJECT:
Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
NAME OF MEETING:
Middendorf Springs USACE/DMS/ Freese and Nichols Discussion of
Project Next Steps following USACE Investigation
RECORDED BY:
Ian Jewell, Bryan Dick
DATE:
February 26, 2021
LOCATION:
Virtual Meeting
ATTENDEES:
Todd Tugwell (USACE) Scott Jones(USACE)
Kim Browning (USACE)
Paul Wiesner (NCDEQ- DMS)
Kelly Phillips (NCDEQ- DMS)
Ian Jewell (FNI)
Casey Haywood (USACE)
Matthew Reid (NCDEQ-DMS)
Bryan Dick (FNI)
The following reflects our understanding of the items discussed during the subject meeting.
1 1
Todd (USACE) began with update on results of their investigation:
o USACE had meeting on site with the landowners.
o USACE identified several unauthorized activities on the property:
• Wetlands:
o Landowners worked with NRCS, had worked with Forester.
o It is not clear to USACE what NRCS had reviewed on site.
o The Landowner's standpoint is they thought they had done what they
needed to do with the wetlands on site.
• Streams:
o From USACE's review, the correspondence between landowners and
NRCS didn't deal with streams as much as it did with wetlands.
1.
o USACE stated that if you straighten or ditch stream channels that
requires a permit.
o USACE didn't see anything in permit that gave landowner's permission
to do what they did in the streams.
o USACE reviewed all the tributaries and had the following findings:
■ It was less clear that Tributaries 2, 3, 4 and 5 would have been
jurisdictional prior to work on property.
■ Looking at it from the standpoint of unauthorized activity:
USACE wants to limit their remedial actions to tributaries that
they can say were subject to their jurisdiction at the time of the
activities.
Todd stated that the way to move the project forward and to resolve a potential violation is
to make remedial actions part of the mitigation project. Otherwise, it would be a lot more
2.
complicated to try to get the landowners to resolve it working with the USACE.
o USACE's solution: adjust credit ratios to account for the impact that occurred.
o FNI will need to go back and have conversation with landowner. Todd said that it is
important that landowner knows they have to make some compromises.

Middendorf Springs USACE/DMS/ Freese and Nichols Discussion of Project Next Steps following USACE
Investigation
February 26, 2021
Page 2 of 3
o USACE wants to make this a viable project.
USACE discussed potential adjustments for mitigation plan:
Streams:
o Reduced Credit Ratio on Tributary 1A lower and Tributary 6
o Tributaries 2, 3, 4 and 5 could still be considered to be viable as mitigation streams
at the ratios that were originally proposed.
Wetlands:
o Todd stated that it is a little less clear that, because of past correspondence with
NRCS, there is a violation with the wetlands, so it is hard to make an enforcement
case.
o It is possible to extend the buffer along South Fork Jones Creek to accommodate the
additional wetland areas, this would be sufficient to address any clearing concerns
3'
within that area.
o Within the buffer along the bottom- the buffer can come off the property line
(centerline of South Fork Jones Creek) and be extended 50' off the bank and include
the wetland areas on the project and connect the tributaries.
o The buffer along South Fork Jones Creek should start west of Proposed Wetland 1
and continue along floodplain to Tributary 6. This would tie it in and make it a single
complete buffer that would tie into South Fork Jones Creek.
o USACE feels like there has to be an accounting for the clearing activity and that the
reduced ratio addresses this.
o USACE won't dictate a reduced ratio. They want FNI to discuss this with landowners
and come back with a proposal for what reduction they would have.
o Todd stated that while the simplest approach to the streams is a credit reduction on
Tributaries 1A lower and 6, there could also be a proposal that talks about widening
4.
buffer on the streams instead of a reduced credit ratio.
o He stated that there needs to be meaningful change in ratio that accounts for
change in function i.e., functional loss from landowner's activity versus uplift from
the restoration.
Paul (NCDMS) asked whether it would be possible to use the "buffer method" to expand
buffer to get additional credit on site, so that is a way to equal the credit adjustment as well.
Todd said he was fine with this:
o Can use the buffer tool to resolve the difference in credit ratio.
5'
o However, if you proposed wider buffers, they would consider this regardless of the
tool calculation results.
o USACE said they like the idea of making wider buffer on Tributary 1A and on South
Fork Jones Creek.
o They believe there's a lot of value to protecting floodplain regardless of whether
they are wetland, as well as protecting the extra wetland down there, so they would
consider this is part of the package.
Scott (USACE) said he wanted to re-emphasize what Todd said: based on what they looked at
6.
on site, there is a really great opportunity to grow wetlands along the floodplain and create
uplift in those wetlands.

Middendorf Springs USACE/DMS/ Freese and Nichols Discussion of Project Next Steps following USACE
Investigation
February 26, 2021
Page 3 of 3
1 1
Bryan (FNI) said he believes landowners will be amenable to a widened buffer on Tributary
7.
1A lower, because of steep sandy soils on west bank and also with widened buffer on
floodplain and widened valley flat of South Fork Jones Creek.
Todd said one thing he will mention as part of the overall proposal is that having some type
of BMP, such as a constructed wetland BMP, that starts at the top of these tributaries would
8.
also give a big benefit.
o This would act as a sediment sink to help treat some of the agricultural runoff and
herbicides etc.
9'
Paul mentioned that Kim said they (USACE) have a new buffer tool, as a heads up that FNI
can use that tool.
Paul said that, from a contract standpoint they can't re -negotiate the contracted cost per
credit. FNI can come up with a adjusted contract value based on reduced total credits but
10.
can't propose a reduced cost per stream and wetland credit.
Paul also stated that if FNI can't live with the adjustments, then they would have to kill the
contract and put it back out to RFP.
11.
Paul said that the next step is for FNI to talk to the landowners, see where they stand,
generate a proposal and then have a follow-up discussion.
Todd said that DMS/FNI can email proposal to them for review, or they can have another
12.
call.
13.
FNI will put a proposal together, send it over to Paul and his team first, then they will work
on setting up a follow-up meeting with Corps.
14.
Todd clarified that the IRT will not be involved in this proposal review since this is a violation
resolution.
Todd also stated that when we get to the mitigation plan development stage, FNI/DMS will
15.
need to spell out in the mitigation plan that there is a history to this site that involves past
activities, and this needs to be taken into account and explained in the document.

531 N. Liberty St., + Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 + 336-790-6744 + FAX [phone]
TO: Todd Tugwell; Scott Jones (USACE)
www.freese.com
CC: Paul Wiesner, Matthew Reid, Kelly Phillips (NCDEQ- Division of Mitigation
Services)
FROM: Bryan Dick, PhD, PE, PH; Ian Jewell (Freese & Nichols, Inc.)
SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
in response to Unauthorized Activities
DATE: 4/23/2021
PROJECT: Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration (DMS Project # 100151)
The purpose of this brief memorandum is to outline proposed revisions to the Middendorf Springs Stream
and Wetland Restoration site concept originally presented in a proposal to NC Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS) on November 4, 2019 and reviewed by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) at a site
meeting on June 8, 2020. In an investigation conducted by the USACE following the IRT site meeting, the
USACE believes that unauthorized activities by the landowner had occurred in relation to the stream
channels on the site. At a meeting between USACE, NCDMS and FNI on February 26, 2021, the USACE
requested that FNI meet with the landowners to discuss potential modifications to the concept that would
provide increased uplift of the site to compensate for the drop in uplift from alleged unauthorized
activities. Specifically, the USACE stated that a reduced credit ratio could be proposed on Tributaries 1A
Lower and Tributary 6 or, alternatively, a combination of widened buffers, buffering along South Fork
Jones Creek as well as other improvements to the site could be used to provide the ecological uplift
needed to offset impacts to ecological function as a result of alleged unauthorized activities by the
landowners.
After having met with the landowners and evaluating potential for uplift from various activities, FNI
proposes the following modifications to the proposed restoration based on landowner concessions.
These modifications can also be seen on Exhibit 1, attached. It should be noted that the concessions made
below are not an admission of liability or agreement by the landowners with the findings of the USACE
that impacts were not authorized. Rather, the landowners agree that making substantial concessions as
outlined below is in the greatest interest of all parties:
1. A minimum 50' wide buffer will be established along the entire length of South Fork Jones Creek
through the landowner's property for a distance of approximately 8,500 feet, ending in the east
at NC Highway 742. This will be included in the proposed conservation easement.
• The buffer will extend from the top of bank of South Fork Jones Creek, to be confirmed
by site survey (approximate location shown on Exhibit 1).
• This buffer will provide protection of one side of this large stream as well as create a
wildlife corridor through the property connected with the other easement areas.
• This will also protect large swaths of hydric soils along the floodplain which will be planted
along with the other wetland restoration areas originally proposed.
• A perimeter ditch that runs alongside the edge of the property will be plugged to restore
hydrology to this area.

PiNIFREESE
Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration- Proposed Modifications 11111
April 14, 2021
Page 2 of 6
• Since additional areas of buffer along South Fork Jones Creek are protected as part of this
corrective action and not considered as credit -generating, we would propose these areas
follow the normal visual and qualitative monitoring protocols of a typical restoration in
response to a Notice of Violation (NOV), rather than the full monitoring protocols outlined
in the 2016 Mitigation Guidelines from the Wilmington District.
• Similarly, we propose to treat the non-credit portions of the South Fork Jones Creek buffer
with one round of invasive treatment and management of hardwoods. These areas would
be delineated from the credit -generating portions of the buffer in the mitigation plan.
2. A buffer will also be established around the proposed wetland cell to the west of Tributary 1, in
order to provide increased protection of the large area of hydric soils present in that area and
provide greater uplift overall to the riparian wetland restoration cell.
3. Portions of the conservation easement of Tributary 1A- Lower will be widened above what was
originally proposed to protect several large seeps and hillside areas. Specifically, the western side
of Tributary 1 will be widened to approximately 110 feet from proposed top of bank of the
restored stream while the eastern side will be widened by approximately 68 feet (from originally
proposed 55 feet) to encompass a large seep (labeled "Seep 1" on attached Exhibit 1).
4. Portions of Tributary 3 will also be widened to encompass a large Seep ("Seep 2" on Exhibit 1)
which will provide enhanced protection of the seep habitats present on the site. These areas will
be planted with appropriate wetland vegetation to provide functional uplift of these areas.
5. Upstream of Tributary 4, a wetland stormwater control measure (SCM) will be constructed to help
filter nutrients and sediment prior to entering the restoration reach. This SCM will be located
inside the easement. This device was discussed at both he IRT site visit on June 8 and at the
February 26 meeting. In addition, the existing crossing at the head of Tributary 4 will be replaced
with an improved culvert crossing and the crossing will be moved upstream of the easement.
6. A large seep ("Seep 3") will be protected within the easement of Tributary 5. It should be noted
that, on Exhibit 1, Tributary 5 is show in a different route than originally proposed. This is because
further site analysis has revealed that the low point of the valley of Tributary 5 runs east rather
than south, thus running the restored channel along this alignment will create increased uplift for
the floodplain area of South Fork Jones Creek and the restored Tributary 5, while also allowing
protection of Seep 3.
7. Tributary 6 will have some areas of widened buffer to protect small seeps and springs. In addition,
the originally proposed crossing, which was located mid -way down the proposed alignment, will
be eliminated and moved instead to upstream of the easement. In this way, there will be no
breaks in the easement. The proposed alignment of Tributary 6 has also been modified slightly
at the bottom to run along the low point of the valley, which was determined through further
analysis since the IRT site meeting.
A summary of these proposed modifications is included in Table 1 along with an approximate
quantification of the potential uplift from these changes. In addition, the original mitigation credit table
as originally proposed for "Option B" is included in Table 2 for reference and a revised mitigation credit is
shown in Table 3. The modifications to the proposed concept of the site, as listed above, presents a large
amount of concession from the landowners to provide uplift the site as an offset to any unauthorized
activity. In total, the landowners will be offering approximately 20 acres of additional easement to provide
uplift to the site. The items outlined above were specifically discussed during the February 26 meeting as
an alternative to a reduced credit ratio on Tributaries 1A lower and Tributary 6. Specifically, the protection
of large swaths of the floodplain of South Fork Jones Creek will provide protection of areas of hydric soils
and will provide a continuous wildlife corridor throughout the site. In addition, widening of buffers on
the site to protect seeps and springs will help with overall uplift. We believe this proposal provides a level

PiNIFREESE
Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration- Proposed Modifications Id
April 14, 2021
Page 3 of 6
of uplift that more than compensates for any decrease in function on the site due to unauthorized
activities and will provide a greatly enhanced project overall.

cu
CU
Ca
V1
fB
cu
*
O
N
L
�
p 7
0
co
J
CaL
Ca
N
O
LL
N
C
O
>,
O
Ca
O
rl
4J
U
O
N
`n
_
Q
v
7
C
4�
7
(
t
U
�
*
w
O
E
to
vi
=
N
L
N
LJ
O
'X
N
.O
4J
V1
>
O
O
�
O
O
U
41
t
O
L
O
f0
to
L
.�
O
p
},�
to
Q
�
(0
C
7
O
O
f0
4J
4-
C
—
O
rn
I�
C
Q
U
`00
f0
vi
N
O
4J
t
N
E
n
4O
O
O
XO
^
p
`~
E
m
—
W
c
•L
Q
L
4•
m
cuC
pLn
O
U
N
m
-0
4.
u
L
Q
L
-0
C
LJ
p
N U
vi
t
N
c0
t
O
�
N
vi
Q
pp
>' O
4,
(�
C
vi
N m
L
4 J
C
,}
i5
C
O
4J
7
vi
-0
X
+�
O
+'
L
O
O
L
O
O
^
U O
m
U
p
N
L
O
L
C
O
U
�
-,
U
O
O
O
co
CL
N
c
U
L
N 4-
vi U
-i
C
�
4-
N
Q
.E
�_
m
-0
-0
O
O
tvD
O
a�j
4.
O
p
O
C
'O
O
O co
p
co
c
co 4-
Wo
o
>,
co
cu
u
m
v
> �
U
X
O
Ucu
C
Q
—
(A
co .�
U
N
N
,O
O
pN
O
o
CL
i
to �
L-0
N
N
N
f0
-0
Q
� C
C
O
U
Q
l0
N
f0
N
C 7
�
i`
>-
�
r'I
L
•L
O ,
m >
+J
+J
^
N
vi
O
O
U
4'
Q L
4 cr
cu
N
O
aJ
O
o
o
N
Q
m
U
+J
r�
CU
l0
4-
cu
O L
W
N O
U
O Q
O
L
O
cum
O
cum
O
vi
}
U
O LJ
L O
Q L
Q
O
0 L
7
1
N
O
4J
�_
O
4J
C
O N
O
4J O
C U
Q Q
Q
O
+,
^
N—
4.
4,
O
O +�
m
O
N
O
O
N fB
fB
N
V1 _
cu
V1
fcu
L
U
cu
N
N
.�
U C
L
+J
>_
> C
NCU
U
U
C
CaCB
C
i
f0
L
�
f0
U
7
aj
Q
v
+J
7 'O
+J
+J
+'
N
`�
C
'�
U
'>
f0
+J 7
u .�
O
O
>CU
C
M
d'
W U
t Q
O
1
m
U
W
m
O
W
d' f0
d .�
O
cu
cu
L
cu
cu
O L
cu CU
Q
V1 L
ucu
Q
O
Ln
L V1
i
_
J
1
4 J
7
(AO
N
Qi
a•
Qcu
L
cu
r-I
rn
L
f
4J O
to c
L
L
m
O
(A
=
E
O m
O
m
to
c
=
H
H
4�
O
aj 4�
Q
O
O
(A
Q
(B
= =
O
vi to
O
O
L
L
S
to
O
L
O
O
LU
Q
� �
mcu
N
L
N v
N
O
O
C
f
f0 L
L
— U
7
C
O
C
O
cu N
Q
L
L
aj
cu
cu
O
O
CU
c
cu w O
cu O
Q
Q
O
� 1
O
O
O
O
cuO
O
cu O
LL
N
C
C
O
4'
•
cu
cuO
4L
N
+�
>
7>
72
C
p
_

m
§
CL
Ispi
2
k
a
E
/
e
�
�
k
u
2
_
o
§
/
f
/
/
m
%
\
/
/
o
�
e
@
m
2
m
@
@
�
»
e
/
3 /
\�
\
ƒ\
e\\
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
/
/
0
>
f
\
\
/
/
CU
"
to
t
cu
to
§
k
:
\
/
/
3
,
E
cu
—
—
—
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
t
t
§
\
L
4
®
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2
2
/
y
2
\
X
\
\
\
\
\
.
_
.
_
x
um
)
)
f
3
f
n
y
2
2
2
/
/
/
/
/
2
/
2
/
®
ƒ
2 R
u\
2
u
u
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
y
_
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
7
7
7
ƒ
u
3
3
3
d
�
k.0
\
f
0)
\\@
e��
m
@
@
�
\
E
E
7
_
cu
\
/
§
k
/
CL
D
2CL
\\
CIA
m
@
m
/
/
O
3
3
3
3
3
L
<
\3
M
3
\
\
e
\
/
/
--
--
--
--
�
3
$
$
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
7
@
E
E
5
t
3
k
G
_
�
7a
_
g
4-1
E
2
/
$
g
u
/
f
/
�
$
j
f
/
\
/
#
$
Qn
u
5
d
k/
CL 7
u
u
� CU
\
/ /
/ uo

OJ
l0
M
N
O
O
MO
c I
U)
U)
n
c�-I
r-I
01
c I
O
N
rn
M
�
N
N
�
c-I
v
=3 v
m
c
fB J
L
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
4-1
+' Q
�O
O
O
D
4J
Lto
u
O
O
Zto
m
cc
G
C
f
O
_
_
co
>
>
>
O
O
C
l
Ju
C
J
J
C
C
C
C
C
C
O
E
C
N
E
4n
m
C Q
O
a
O
a
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
In
+J
Q
N D
N
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ln
-
O
E
O
E
E
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N 3
N
N
LnLnLn(A(A�
°
�
°
OLn
U
N
vv
N
N
N
N
N
N
^
N
4�
fu
v
v
C
W
W
W
Ln
l0
O
-i
l0
mrl
CIA00
Ln
O
M
O
mk.0
Ln
Ln
M
Ln
m
-i
-i
m
c-I
ci
CIA
Ln
CIA
N
-i
N
L
E
Ln
00
C
N
L
N
c-I
N
Q
�
-0
-0+J
a
CL D
m
CIA
Ln
l0
2
m
0
>`
>`
L
L
L
L
L
a
u
a
u
L
L
�_
a
a
L
O D
E c
m O

O
W
� T C
c d E
o a
Y o
oa m
E
m
r °
L C o
oso
maOo
N o
J
rnw
c O
C
o a T E
y E
0
m
c O .°
W
U m
N m
m >
O
N O N
L
O
owdv
7 c
F_—
E
C E
3
"
w N w
Tip
a E m
1 -p N
'm
W Ol N
a Ew o
f
..
o E o V
m o
R c L'O
U N N Y
R 0 O. N
aim
C
E y
E
O
N Z
�vNa
rn
C a LS
m a c c
0 3 R
V U O
0 ti N
c w
°
a
d
W m
o E Z E
N
Y L 0
m m
x 2
LU Q
O m
LL w
G!
O O N
U W`o
R R
QY c
w Q
z
N LL
p T N > O
c o rn
]. C 7 O. R - C {A
° `°yY �WJ
Q o Oa c oc« IALL R ~ O
O x
�o $�Em Lv�cW
Fa 7 CO
C >0 C «v4i�O'"WV
O m V COL E �
-
.00
i° d 0 W y N O
i m W N ry CO A C C N
i o Y• R L c N
U N 0-
0 °. R° m T C
m a
m ' ° 4
m N N s 3 ma am
�Q rn O m
m C1 N H J IL o_ m = O
41
_ o m
acim�U cp ac �
O R • - x m c m
W R O N N
0. W V
• IL p a
d
J m m E
E m
LU U m N
a
n
> O R N o
c0 W a
c O R
a u�aw i
E
c
m
z
w
3a
N j C
O. v W •
w r
co
c
N
C N
L N
W
a
rya
c
a„ a
m ° a
-
cna3
C
llr
N ` N
Gl CL
c�E
..
N r C O Q
m R W
O Y
LUd N Y y
a �
LL o E m
a_ a O _
L
R +L' CO O
W
O
v v eny Y
y Q 'qp c J
N � yy op
E m `� v o c d ni o ry N w� Z
m W y v
w Q a m w O>
o m d
.-I I 'Y L
N m R
m a a co«m
«p
z
yk
c
0
N
N
R
J
Q
C R
Gl �
N
o
U
W
v
LL
�v R
OI
E
N T p
O N
E = o
'x
y y 0
LU LU
R R LL
w ac
c E o
W Q
O
C
` \
G !
N
N
R
N
J
c R
.m. i
x Q
1�.
W
.°. N
LL
m �
LU LU

Ian Jewell
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 4:39 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA); Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Reid, Matthew; Phillips, Kelly D; Bryan Dick; Ian Jewell; Andrew Burleson
Subject: RE: Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151: Proposed Revisions to the Middendorf Springs
Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (6-4-2021)
Attachments: Middendorf Springs -Proposed Project Mod if ications_Exhibit 1-Rev 6-4-21.pdf
This is an email from an EXTERNAL source. DO NOT click links or open attachments without positive sender verification
of purpose. Never enter USERNAME, PASSWORD or sensitive information on linked pages from this email.
Paul,
Scott and I have looked over the amended map/proposal (attached for reference) submitted by Freese & Nichols and
agree with the proposed changes. Based on this, you may continue with development of the mitigation plan for the site.
Please note that as discussed during our last call, the mitigation plan must still go through review by the NC Interagency
Review Team, who may have further questions or recommendations, so it is possible that additional changes may be
required as part of this review to ensure that the proposal meets the minimum acceptable standards for a site to be
suitable to provide compensatory mitigation for impacts authorized by Corps of Engineers permit authorizations.
Additionally, implementation of the mitigation plan (once reviewed and approved by the NCIRT) will satisfactorily
resolve the concerns associated with the unauthorized work within wetlands and waters conducted by the property
owners, Aaron and Andrew Burleson, who are copied on this email for their awareness. Please note that if NCDMS
chooses not to pursue the mitigation site, we will coordinate any further corrective actions necessary to resolve the
unauthorized work directly with the Burlesons.
When preparing the mitigation plan, please be sure to include a discussion of the history of the site, including a
description of the unauthorized activities carried out on the site and actions taken as part of the mitigation work to
resolve those concerns. This is important to document resolution of those unauthorized actions, and also to inform the
NCIRT of the situation during their review of the mitigation plan. A copy of this email should also be included with the
agency corresponded normally included with the mitigation plan.
Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Todd Tugwell
Mitigation Project Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
[phone]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at:
https:Hnamll.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fregulatory.ops.usace.army.mil%2Fcustomer-
service-

survey%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7CIan.Jewell%40freese.com%7C1f7602ea527e449def1d08d92a bd7590%7C191657ea
bcff43859d04659ef9cee515%7C0%7C0%7C637587815537815220%7CU n known%7CTW FpbGZsb3d8eyJ W Ijo i M C4wLjAw
MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi161k1haWwiLCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=LzwlbydTtGIEJQArhmDAUPFB2611jFdPT
jEFb%2BDA314%3D&amp;reserved=0 Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
-----Original Message -----
From: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2021 2:01 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Bryan Dick
<[e-mail]>; Ian Jewell <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151: Proposed Revisions to the Middendorf Springs Stream
and Wetland Restoration Site (6-4-2021)
Good afternoon,
Please find attached the amended map/ proposal from Freese and Nichols, Inc based on our 5/24/2021 Web Ex meeting.
Here is a summary of the changes:
Buffer of South Fork Jones Creek now includes 50' from the tree line at all locations.
o Added a table showing the additional acres of easement added compared with the original proposal, by location
o Corrected the easement boundary at the upper end of the reaches to include the "arc" at the upstream end of the
buffer, as per the original proposal, and also revised to include the existing wetland on the west side of Tributary 2
o Added callouts indicating where we would propose reduced invasive treatment versus where we would manage
invasives during the full life of the monitoring period.
Please let us know if you have any questions, comments or concerns.
I can set up a brief meeting this week to discuss if that would be helpful.
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail]
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 8:03 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Kim Browning <[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151: Proposed Revisions to the Middendorf
Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (4-26-2021)
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spa m.<mailto:report. [e-mail]>
Paul, sorry for the delay on this. Scott and I spoke and think we need to have a call with the provider to discuss the
proposal. I've included Scott on this email chain. I am out of the office the rest of the week, but am free Monday,
Thursday, or Friday next week if that would work with everyone.
Thanks,
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 2:31 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151: Proposed Revisions to the Middendorf
Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (4-26-2021)
Todd, Casey and Kim;
Any update on Middendorf Springs? I know you all are in the field this week w/ credit release site visits.
Please let me know when you are back in the office. I can set up a meeting if that would be helpful.
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail]
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 12:54 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Kim Browning <[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Ian Jewell <[e-mail]>; Bryan Dick
<[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151: Proposed Revisions to the Middendorf
Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (4-26-2021)
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spa m.<mailto:report. [e-mail]>
Paul, sorry I have not gotten back to you yet on this. We are discussing this and will get back to you soon with a
response or possible meeting times.
Thanks,
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 5:01 PM
To: Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA) <[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Ian Jewell <[e-mail]>; Bryan Dick
<[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151: Proposed Revisions to the Middendorf Springs Stream
and Wetland Restoration Site (4-26-2021)
Good afternoon Casey, Kim, Scott and Todd;
As discussed at our 2/26/2021 meeting, please find Freese and Nichols' revised credit proposal for the Middendorf
Springs project site in Anson County.
Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
We would like to set up an on-line meeting to discuss next steps for moving the project forward. If you all can provide a
couple dates and times for a follow-up meeting, I will work with our team to set it up via WebEx.

Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
From: Wiesner, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 4:46 PM
To: Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; Kim Browning
<[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Ian Jewell <[e-mail]>; Bryan Dick
<[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Subject: DMS/ USACE/ FNI Site Visit Meeting Minutes (2-26-2021): Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151
Good afternoon Casey, Kim, Scott and Todd;

Thank you for meeting us via Web -Ex on Friday 2/26/2021. Please find the meeting minutes attached.
Please let us know if you have any additions, questions, comments or concerns.
As noted in the minutes, we will set up another meeting once FNI has had time to discuss options with the landowner
and develop a proposal.
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Appendix 6
Site Protection Instrument

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
ANSON COUNTY
SPO File Number: DMS
Project Number: 100151
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this day of , 2022, by RTB Associates, LLC and DEB, LLC.,
("Grantors"), whose mailing address is 28838 Kendall's Church Rd., Richfield, NC 28137, to
the State of North Carolina, ("Grantee"), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina,
Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1321. The designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or
neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et seq., the State of
North Carolina has established the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the protection
and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and
recreational opportunities; and
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 1 of 11

WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract Freese and Nichols, Inc. and
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to provide stream,
wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number 8012-01.
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding,
(MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU recognized that the
Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory mitigation for authorized
impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring, enhancing and preserving
the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) is to provide for compensatory mitigation by
effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing
and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
entered into an agreement to continue the In -Lieu Fee operations of the North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources' Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem Enhancement
Program) with an effective date of 28 July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces the previously
effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument;
and
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 2of11

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being in
Gulledge Township, Anson County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being more
particularly described as those certain parcels of land containing approximately 463.26 acres
and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 13 at Page 322,
Deed Book 1037 at Page 206 and Deed Book 1026 at Page 1263 of the Anson County
Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the areas
of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and purposes
hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights. The
Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of an unnamed
tributary of Sandpit Branch.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement and Right of Access together with an access easement to and from the Conservation
Easement Area described below.
The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:
Easement Areas A and B containing a total of 73.08 acres as shown on the plats of survey
entitled "Conservation Easement Survey for the State of North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services, Middendorf Springs" SPO File No. , DMS Site No. 100151,
Current Owners: RTB Associates, LLC and DEB, LLC," dated August, 2022 by Mark Parris,
PLS Number L-4529 and recorded in the Anson County, North Carolina Register of Deeds at
Plat Book Pages
See attached "Exhibit A", Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
"Conservation Easement Area"
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic
habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Conservation
Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of
the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these
purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
L DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 3of11

II. ACCESS EASEMENT
Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto Grantee, its employees, agents, successors and
assigns, a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over and upon the Property at
all reasonable times and at such location as practically necessary to access the Conservation
Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein ("Access Easement"). This grant of easement shall
not vest any rights in the public and shall not be construed as a public dedication of the Access
Easement. Grantor covenants, represents and warrants that it is the sole owner of and is seized of
the Property in fee simple and has the right to grant and convey this Access Easement.
III. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area by
the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any
rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. Any
rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived
from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the
Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational uses,
including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation Easement
Area for the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey plat.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to engage
in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such purposes including
organized educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the
property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 4of11

D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded survey
plat and as related to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or vegetation
that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or natural habitat,
all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and commercial
uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement.
All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat.
L Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except interpretive
signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Conservation Easement
Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement,
signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Conservation
Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, abandoned
vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock,
peat, minerals, or other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering or
tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage
of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may temporarily be
withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the Property.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 5of11

M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ("fee") that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non-transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.
IV. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees, agents,
successors and assigns, shall have a perpetual Right of Access over and upon the Conservation
Easement Area to undertake or engage in any activities necessary to construct, maintain, manage,
enhance, repair, restore, protect, monitor and inspect the stream, wetland and any other riparian
resources in the Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein or any long-term
management plan for the Conservation Easement Area developed pursuant to this Conservation
Easement.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and manmade
materials as needed to direct in -stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted to
place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe the
project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project boundaries
and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock within conservations easements damages the investment
and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which would cause
financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are required to restrict
livestock access to the Conservation Easement area. Repeated failure to do so may result in the
State (Grantee) repairing or installing livestock exclusion devices (fences) within the conservation
area for the purpose of restricting livestock access. In such cases, the landowner (Grantor) must
provide access to the State (Grantee) to make repairs.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 6 of 11

E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
V. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features
in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized activity or
use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall,
except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the Grantor shall have
ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach. If the
breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this
Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover
damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and
authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Conservation
Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b)
to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any
appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate
right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief,
if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from
this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would be
irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided
hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to
Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the right,
with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at reasonable
times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the terms,
conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall
be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the
Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's
control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent
action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 7of11

E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
VL NHSCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property are
the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the obligation to
comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to the exercise of
the Reserved Rights.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom the
Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made. Grantor
further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any interest in
the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable laws,
and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the Property shall
notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing sixty (60) days
prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any request to void or
modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification requests shall be
addressed to:
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 8of11

Division of Mitigation Services Program Manager
NC State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
and
General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in gross
and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event
it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a
qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code,
and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be
such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation
purposes described in this document.
VIL QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment
of the Conservation Easement Area,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of the Property in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 9of11

IN TESTIMONY, WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
(SEAL)
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
do hereby certify that , Grantor, personally appeared before me this
day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of , 20_.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 10 of 20

Exhibit A
Easement Area A
Beginning at a 5/8"
rebar with aluminum easement cap number 27;
thence N 66°46'42"
E a distance of 67.34' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 46°42'58"
E a distance of 53.15' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 37°39'04"
E a distance of 134.12' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 68°52'40"
E a distance of 86.09' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 88° 12'41"
E a distance of 912.72' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 88°53'05"
E a distance of 238.90' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 87°50'06"
E a distance of 589.96' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 76° 18'25"
E a distance of 103.69' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 07°44'54"
E a distance of 162.18' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 49° 15'47"
W a distance of 123.87' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 21°38'59"
W a distance of 169.30' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 18°37'56"
W a distance of 187.43' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 18°56'41"
W a distance of 294.59' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 28°05'18"
W a distance of 365.88' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap number
43;
said point lies
N 72°16'50" E a distance of 700.13' from a Granite Monument;
thence N 64° 12' 13"
E a distance of 194.66' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 40° 12'54"
E a distance of 68.40' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 24°52'33"
E a distance of 252.86' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 40°33'24"
E a distance of 163.01' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 04°29'20"
E a distance of 204.31' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 10°49'06"
E a distance of 148.23' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 17°25'02"
E a distance of 226.88' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 53° 14'48"
E a distance of 142.17' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 65°22'43"
E a distance of 304.79' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 48°22'57"
E a distance of 69.21' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 43°07'19"
E a distance of 109.07' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 89° 16'30"
E a distance of 65.35' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 21°47'30"
E a distance of 55.91' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 20°03'20"
W a distance of 139.22' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 08°35'17"
W a distance of 141.57' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 59°26'17"
E a distance of 229.43' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 11' 19'27"
E a distance of 145.02' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 18° 18' 10"
E a distance of 168.09' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 07° 10' 12"
W a distance of 249.46' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 06°29'42"
W a distance of 280.98' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 12°37'53"
W a distance of 294.16' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 36'29'11"
W a distance of 578.38' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 51°06'04"
E a distance of 130.57' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 11 of 20

thence S 41°40'35" E a distance of 135.71' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 37°23' 10" E a distance of 426.90' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 25°49' 10" E a distance of 101.60' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 13°34'07" E a distance of 366.80' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 02°57'01" E a distance of 233.68' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 05° 16'29" E a distance of 129.35' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 04° 16'31" E a distance of 167.05' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 18°53'45" W a distance of 181.16' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 05°30'55" W a distance of 102.24' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 08'56' 11" E a distance of 87.03' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 48°53'10" E a distance of 80.94' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 65° 10'08" E a distance of 122.95' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 57° 14'52" E a distance of 132.29' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 79°46'14" E a distance of 207.08' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 85°45'42" E a distance of 733.92' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 64°30'17" E a distance of 137.33' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 50°31'23" W a distance of 309.06' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 49°54'25" W a distance of 190.86' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 32°32'05" W a distance of 239.80' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 41°06'31" W a distance of 254.44' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 20°52'46" W a distance of 319.72' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 20°25'06" W a distance of 268.24' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 35°25'43" W a distance of 215.00' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 55°29'42" W a distance of 154.83' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 71°12'47" W a distance of 176.31' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 48°45'27" W a distance of 92.21' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 11'56'54" W a distance of 284.18' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 17°08'38" E a distance of 79.26' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 72°52'35" E a distance of 93.16' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 10°59'20" E a distance of 117.44' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 12°32'55" E a distance of 203.45' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 61° 11'41" E a distance of 90.20' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 89°05'04" E a distance of 135.69' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 04°03'55" W a distance of 335.20' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 19° 18'55" W a distance of 247.64' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 69°34'49" E a distance of 120.91' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 22°43'16" E a distance of 254.43' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 06°33'43" E a distance of 294.22' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 18°54'17" E a distance of 67.02' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 27°28'13" E a distance of 193.29' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 13°37'46" E a distance of 167.82' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 24°27'47" E a distance of 287.05' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 19°06'46" E a distance of 116.63' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 07°34'36" E a distance of 137.76' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 38°36'04" E a distance of 599.20' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 50°29'42" E a distance of 379.80' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 51°20'58" E a distance of 105.30' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 12 of 20

thence N 53°36'35"
E a distance of 50.19' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 83°26'41"
E a distance of 216.46' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 65°06'18"
E a distance of 199.28' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 70°33'10"
E a distance of 157.55' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 36°59'26"
E a distance of 105.58' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 03°07'35"
E a distance of 138.62' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 84°28'53"
W a distance of 111.19' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 86°01'15"
W a distance of 143.31' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 89°02'33"
W a distance of 349.40' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 75° 10'35"
W a distance of 166.27' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 61°21'53"
W a distance of 216.90' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 15°21'23"
W a distance of 93.80' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 06°05'39"
E a distance of 240.90' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 19'01'37"
E a distance of 64.47' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 80°44'24"
E a distance of 111.23' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 03°24'22"
W a distance of 162.51' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 06°48' 13"
E a distance of 129.19' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 66° 19'40"
E a distance of 197.22' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 86°08'36"
E a distance of 277.79' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 85°38'18"
E a distance of 190.35' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 84°31'45"
E a distance of 186.13' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 31°23'13"
E a distance of 98.09' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 62°22'10"
W a distance of 311.39' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 51°10'24"
W a distance of 209.08' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 62°07'12"
W a distance of 288.43' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 40°44'42"
W a distance of 139.72' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 17° 18'07"
W a distance of 84.39' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 29°02'51"
W a distance of 89.95' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 35' 11'45"
W a distance of 106.44' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 45°17'15"
W a distance of 115.27' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 39°54'42"
W a distance of 234.92' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 39°52'05"
W a distance of 206.80' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 24°26'51"
W a distance of 222.14' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 21°35'51"
W a distance of 195.30' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 34°47'55"
W a distance of 119.36' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 50' 13'29"
E a distance of 104.31' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap number
149;
said point lies
S 6°26'08" W a distance
of 568.85' from a 3/4" bent OTP;
thence S 47°42'53"
E a distance of 124.26' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 33° 14'09"
E a distance of 139.78' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 22° 19'08"
E a distance of 225.63' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 29°25'28"
E a distance of 125.85' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 39° 10'34"
E a distance of 184.00' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 39°44'56"
E a distance of 174.39' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 42°32'44"
E a distance of 248.84' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 33°39'41"
E a distance of 132.15' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 13 of 20

thence S 52°37'11" E a distance of 636.33' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 67°33'25" E a distance of 103.75' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 76°22'54" E a distance of 91.38' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 49°08'31" E a distance of 214.42' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 79°26'07" E a distance of 244.34' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 49°49'45" E a distance of 249.08' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 36°02'35" E a distance of 111.74' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 60°09'31" E a distance of 182.44' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 78° 16'30" E a distance of 115.82' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 30°52'44" W a distance of 187.13' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 42°24'55" E a distance of 104.57' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 85° 14'08" E a distance of 151.99' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 89°02'45" E a distance of 549.75' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 79°25'06" E a distance of 117.08' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap number
172 at the right of way for NC 742;
thence S 06°09'10" W a distance of 64.80' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 79° 19'49" W a distance of 106.47' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 87°54'32" W a distance of 114.23' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 59°25'07" W a distance of 55.39' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 74'01'58" W a distance of 48.43' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 66°50'32" W a distance of 51.91' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 79°06'58" W a distance of 93.03' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 72°35'21" W a distance of 64.88' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 71°18'55" W a distance of 89.19' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 62°40'55" W a distance of 56.43' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 66°08'47" W a distance of 74.21' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 82°41'30" W a distance of 51.51' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 71°14'17" W a distance of 43.09' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 00°22'08" E a distance of 33.38' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 51°19'01" E a distance of 61.01' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 31°12'38" E a distance of 61.16' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 38°19'37" E a distance of 88.57' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 37°41'59" W a distance of 29.68' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 78°43'36" W a distance of 67.93' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 75°31'35" W a distance of 113.69' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 44°36'04" W a distance of 71.69' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 53°55'53" W a distance of 63.69' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 72°39'57" W a distance of 43.80' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 71°36'26" W a distance of 39.16' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 44°23'44" W a distance of 50.14' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 65°55'41" W a distance of 32.17' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 30°40'57" W a distance of 20.40' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 26°04'29" E a distance of 51.62' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 36°59'31" W a distance of 38.17' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 48°21'42" W a distance of 30.16' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 45' 16'39" W a distance of 74.61' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 82°46'34" W a distance of 36.26' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 14 of 20

thence S 71°16'45" W a distance of 31.61'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 06'01'48" E a distance of 22.53'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 08° 14'04" E a distance of 26.84'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 12°46'31" W a distance of 32.86'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 25°34'53" E a distance of 27.82'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 30°08'12" E a distance of 17.12'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 15° 17'55" W a distance of 31.18'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 49°56'09" W a distance of 69.26'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 04°24'14" E a distance of 39.73'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 3 P38'43" W a distance of 24.84'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 75'10'11" W a distance of 72.99'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 49°39'55" W a distance of 37.69'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 64°33'25" W a distance of 43.05'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 70°40'01" W a distance of 41.8 F
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 55°25'55" W a distance of 55.72'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 86°49'05" W a distance of 36.77'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 52°26'18" W a distance of 53.10'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 55' 11'53" W a distance of 41.27'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 72°49'57" W a distance of 39.98'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 58' 18'21" W a distance of 24.53'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 15°02'03" W a distance of 37.99'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 54° 12'52" E a distance of 14.68'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 87°40'31" E a distance of 18.02'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 88° 10' 19" E a distance of 26.74'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 16°03'23" E a distance of 39.44'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 37°00'17" W a distance of 32.39'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 63°08'58" W a distance of 27.56'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 44°08'44" W a distance of 22.90'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 08°49'40" E a distance of 28.52'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 17°37'48" E a distance of 45.56'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 06°20'51" E a distance of 40.36'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 30° 12'40" W a distance of 47.12'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 13°46'25" W a distance of 37.50'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 05°06'48" E a distance of 55.48'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 07°29'39" E a distance of 38.43'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 39°23'52" W a distance of 29.35'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 44°53'18" W a distance of 64.55'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 64°07'08" W a distance of 94.94'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 6P31'46" W a distance of 71.60'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 58° 19'54" W a distance of 57.73'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 78°07'14" W a distance of 46.23'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 84°45'58" W a distance of 65.68'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 61°27'50" W a distance of 45.32'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 04°26'16" W a distance of 43.88'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 41°10'52" W a distance of 21.78'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 70°34'46" W a distance of 53.71'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 88°42'34" W a distance of 96.49'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 15 of 20

thence N 76°57'05" W a distance of 83.72'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 53°44'16" W a distance of 48.64'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 57°08'41" W a distance of 50.27'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 10° 12'05" W a distance of 45.32'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 44°19'12" W a distance of 35.03'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 19°36'02" W a distance of 37.84'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 03°04'26" E a distance of 60.22' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 74°31'46" W a distance of 26.13'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 60°22'53" W a distance of 46.1 F
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 23°35'24" W a distance of 43.34'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 83°46'54" W a distance of 36.12'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 59°56'24" W a distance of 24.28'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 53°57'31" W a distance of 50.92'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 67°33'24" W a distance of 55.67'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 73°43'10" W a distance of 74.41'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 73°59'39" W a distance of 109.33'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 74°40'16" W a distance of 130.02'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 78°02'31" W a distance of 157.26'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 77°08'17" W a distance of 58.10'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 85°22'50" W a distance of 66.17'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 87°54'38" W a distance of 91.53'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 76' 11'28" W a distance of 57.69'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 76°34'58" W a distance of 75.97'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 76' 11'56" W a distance of 122.40'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 88°37'24" W a distance of 78.41'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 87° 14'58" W a distance of 37.72'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 84° 13'05" W a distance of 27.12'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 81°06'02" W a distance of 90.84'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 82°20'32" W a distance of 48.76'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 87'01'13" W a distance of 34.76'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 72°03'12" W a distance of 37.99'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 80°47'35" W a distance of 77.41'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 77°41'59" W a distance of 58.59'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 86'01'08" W a distance of 62.48'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 75°23'51" W a distance of 70.08'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 70°04'17" W a distance of 32.68'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 22° 12'55" W a distance of 20.93'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 40°40'14" W a distance of 41.12'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 58°55'05" W a distance of 28.84'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 64°04'44" W a distance of 23.88'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 79°03'40" W a distance of 75.74'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 54°48'31" W a distance of 55.1 F
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 62°46'26" W a distance of 26.16'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 79°36'32" W a distance of 65.73'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 70°48'43" W a distance of 41.31'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 86°41'53" W a distance of 56.84'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 86°50'49" W a distance of 60.54'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 16 of 20

thence N 63°45'08" W a distance of 65.89'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 85' 11'35" W a distance of 45.02'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 2730'31" W a distance of 24.38'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 37°03'24" W a distance of 60.63'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 18°03'08" W a distance of 39.62'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 73°29'21" W a distance of 28.63'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 69°37'19" W a distance of 34.71'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 07°05'16" E a distance of 36.78'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 35°21'18" E a distance of 29.37'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 50° 10'29" W a distance of 28.29'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 74°04'55" W a distance of 34.98'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 88°28'32" W a distance of 24.02'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 26°49'30" W a distance of 35.78'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 20°38'14" W a distance of 42.13'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 43°08'49" W a distance of 41.98'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 70° 10'07" W a distance of 28.60'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 42°26'10" W a distance of 29.42'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 13° 17'36" E a distance of 53.77' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 33°33'02" E a distance of 71.44' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 32°26'28" W a distance of 34.47'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 43°41'44" W a distance of 43.18'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 20°37'31" W a distance of 27.44'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 53°28'33" W a distance of 22.15'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 77°30'33" W a distance of 33.76'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 82°56'12" W a distance of 68.35'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 56°22'24" W a distance of 34.86'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 60°59'10" W a distance of 21.93'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 44° 13'53" W a distance of 29.15'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 37°43'59" E a distance of 24.98' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 34°23'01" E a distance of 36.85' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 12° 18'28" W a distance of 24.06'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 68°36'18" W a distance of 29.25'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 11'49'24" W a distance of 14.1 F
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 24°09'36" W a distance of 52.34'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 80°07'14" W a distance of 42.33'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 28°36'33" W a distance of 23.91'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 22°29'33" W a distance of 28.64'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 17°46'05" E a distance of 20.24'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 41°21'21" E a distance of 35.07'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 1715'41" W a distance of 21.74'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 50°56'31" W a distance of 21.86'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 57°27'17" W a distance of 19.42'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 61°56'00" W a distance of 35.58'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 87°46'13" W a distance of 65.88'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 41°53'03" W a distance of 35.70'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 41°04'23" W a distance of 49.27'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 58°47'54" W a distance of 58.28'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 17 of 20

thence S 56°21'35" W a distance of 78.12'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 64°53'20" W a distance of 34.54'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 80°50'19" W a distance of 59.33'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 64°49'31" W a distance of 34.83'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 83°28'30" W a distance of 61.59'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 38°22'29" W a distance of 49.35'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 60'01'34" W a distance of 65.50'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 66°00'24" W a distance of 104.37' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 47°04'19" W a distance of 27.21'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 23°14'21" E a distance of 30.23'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 13°46'14" W a distance of 27.89'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 61°24'55" W a distance of 23.21'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 87°08'12" W a distance of 25.14'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 71°42'51" W a distance of 47.79'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 61°39'05" W a distance of 77.64'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 74°54'36" W a distance of 64.26'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence S 71°13'41" W a distance of 48.88'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence S 83°23'15" W a distance of 44.32'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 74' 11' 10" W a distance of 78.86'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 65°43'51" W a distance of 78.48'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 67° 13'40" W a distance of 97.01'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence S 85°50'33" W a distance of 45.91'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence S 87° 17'S2" W a distance of 133.02'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 57°57'07" W a distance of 116.44' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 51°16'08" W a distance of 38.87'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 39°22'49" E a distance of 39.50' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 29°38'01" W a distance of 34.29'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 61°30'29" W a distance of 78.03'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 60°53'01" W a distance of 84.80'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 82°03'23" W a distance of 45.76'
to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 06°13'13" E a distance of 21.97'
to a metal T-Post;
thence N 06°13'13" E a distance of 102.76'
to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap number 27;
which is the point of beginning,
having an area of 67.74 acres
Easement Area B
Beginning at a 5/8"
rebar with aluminum easement cap number 1;
thence N 28' 11'25"
E a distance of 156.36' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 28°39'26"
E a distance of 155.20' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap
thence N 01° 16'05"
W a distance of 70.26' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 22° 15'22"
E a distance of 57.22' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
said point lies
S 06°39'01" E a distance of 937.37' from a 1/2" OTP;
thence N 86°39'36"
E a distance of 77.63' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 37°46' 19"
E a distance of 72.26' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 07°44'47"
W a distance of 127.17' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 29°46'52"
W a distance of 184.22' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 18 of 20

thence S 18'25'10"
W a distance of 82.81'
to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 08°50'41"
E a distance of 118.89'
to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 13° 17'35"
E a distance of 148.40'
to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 19°31' 14"
E a distance of 190.90'
to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 29°42'42"
E a distance of 317.31'
to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 42°07'29"
E a distance of 195.75'
to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 58°40'06"
E a distance of 71.06' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 01°36'19"
E a distance of 56.16' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 34°49'41"
W a distance of 145.28'
to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 29°58'31"
W a distance of 369.50' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 04°31'10"
W a distance of 58.82'
to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 14°24'25"
E a distance of 59.84' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 17°53'27"
E a distance of 196.78'
to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 20°59'59"
E a distance of 91.63' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 11'33'00"
E a distance of 109.33'
to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap number 25;
said point lies
N 66°50'47" E a distance of 814.81' from a
granite monument;
thence with the center line of the creek the
following;
N 26°37'36" W a distance
of 46.59' to a point in the creek;
thence S 81°13'27"
W a distance of 39.50'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 61°24'46"
W a distance of 20.34'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 74°34'14"
W a distance of 12.08'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 03°06'29"
W a distance of 35.74'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 58°43'40"
W a distance of 24.92'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 43°09'00"
W a distance of 21.73'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 01°46'54"
W a distance of 17.18'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 19°48'56"
E a distance of 34.20'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 41°19'39"
W a distance of 51.63'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 18°38'42"
W a distance of 16.31'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 75°08'57"
W a distance of 18.12'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 18°47'12"
W a distance of 21.59'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 42°04'02"
E a distance of 10.16'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 00°59'37"
W a distance of 82.76'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 3 P31'41"
W a distance of 28.63'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 80°59'38"
W a distance of 20.09'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 17°35'45"
E a distance of 42.04'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 00°46'14"
E a distance of 18.44'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 49°53'58"
W a distance of 37.01'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 72°47'54"
W a distance of 11.67'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 02°00'42"
E a distance of 9.91' to a point in the creek;
thence N 67° 19'40"
W a distance of 33.58'
to a point in the creek;
thence S 71°39'45"
W a distance of 16.56'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 57°06'51"
W a distance of 48.46'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 59°08'00"
E a distance of 18.82'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 09°42'05"
E a distance of 21.82'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 75° 16'21"
E a distance of 27.42'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 31°04'14"
E a distance of 21.25'
to a point in the creek;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 19 of 20

thence N 63°33'52"
E a distance of 9.70' to a point in the creek;
thence N 00° 13'20"
E a distance of 28.12'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 42°04'16"
W a distance of 9.04' to a point in the creek;
thence N 63°56'23"
W a distance of 35.79'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 00°08'56"
E a distance of 11.17'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 36°28'50"
W a distance of 21.89'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 01°47'08"
W a distance of 13.41'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 47°41'33"
E a distance of 23.69'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 14°08'14"
E a distance of 15.29'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 00° 13'46"
E a distance of 15.98'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 43'40'15"
W a distance of 11.31'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 82°39'51"
W a distance of 18.10'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 16°39'30"
W a distance of 31.53'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 09°25'39"
W a distance of 20.07'
to a point in the creek;
thence N 49°37'00"
W a distance of 19.50'
to a point in the creek;
thence S 79° 19'57"
W a distance of 34.00'
to a point in the creek;
thence leaving the creek; N 35°55'45" W a
distance of 60.50' to a metal T-Post;
thence N 15'01'15"
W a distance of 273.94' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
which is the point of beginning,
having an area of 5.34
acres
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 20 of 20

Appendix C
Geomorphological Site Data

ai
^
?
w 7
m w^
m
M
m
m o
7 N O
M o o
i
E
�
x
E
Q
�
V
2
R
O
y x
Y C
O
O O
N x
A S
A m
A O
O
m
l7
w
� 3
c c
s a
o E seo
_
o o
a m
'- s •v
c
c c
0 0
A v
c
m
m m°°
3 W m
c
o
m
1p in
in w
m
N m
a a
M m
^� ca
y m
m
m m
m m
m m
m a
m m
vi vi
m m
vi
m
w
m m
'IT
0
N

O
cu
aa
m
M
m M
o m
N
0
M ci
in
n in
m in
m m
O
E
x
ax
m
o
y x
Y C
o
E o
mx
m
m
z
o
N s
m
mm
m
`o `o
E
a m
•« •�
Y
Y Y
0 0%
C
N\«
O d Y
C
mm
m
O O
LL LL
3 W m
a
m
n
tp
m
O m
m
m m'
O m
a m
N
N m
N
m m
m I�
m a
O
M M
m
ill n
O m
w
tp m
m N
N
rl
N N
N Il
tp O
q
rq cn
m 01
N 7
W M
m,
M
O il1
o M
M
O 01
,'^„ a
M
01 01
a a
M M
01
a ,a„
M
01 01
a s
M M
01 01
a s
M m
01 m
a s
m m
m O
a
M M
O O
M M
N N
M M
C
O_
1p N
I� 7
1p 01
m tp
m 01
il1 7
� I�
� ill
O
ill
n �
N I�
n 01
M
�„� tp
� M
N il1
m il1
I�
01 il1
01 O
n N
m tp
N I�
rp O
y�
I� 01
N N
N N
ill O
N ill
m 7
O n
7 01
il1 ill
n
� m
tp
O O
01 ill
tp I�
m
m N
n m
01 ill
7 I�
m m
01 m
01
N O
N m
a m
rl il1
ill 7
tp N

V)
0
0
m
"
m
x
z
a
o
x x
E
"—
s 0
N x
A S
A m
A O
E m
�'
o o
m°
s eo
a
Y
Y
o o
c
x
v
O
m
m m
o o
LL
m m 1a1 uoi�ena13m m
mlm mlm mlm mlm ml� mlm mlm ml`^ mlm mlm mlm m
N OIN �IN alul 1pll� �I W WIm OIN NIN aIN NIN NIM N

CO
co
m
0
m
c ^!
o
CO
co
m m
�n ry
e
60
m m
n m
.-+ o
O
0
v x
o
-
l7
yra`3
'
=
3
w v
`o `o
r a
o
_
a v
r •v
m
m m
O O
LL
�I COry ml ^' mlm mlm mlm mlm
bA
Y ti r
X o
bA
N
H
O
C
N
o
o m
i
m m m m (u) uoi;ena13 m m m m

m
n
m
ri
4o o
o 0
ry
0
E o
v
l7 a�i
-O
E
v v
`o
r a
o 5
_`o
a o
r •v
x
x Y
o
o 0
C
x v
0 L Y
m
m m
0 0
LL LL��
3 W m
O
n a
m
n
ry m
o
r
y
W
N o
io
ca ca
m m
N 7
vi vi
co co
m m
W '^
7 7
co m
m
W Vol
li ro
w
m m
C o
IN IN
m m
W o
m a
ro ro
m m
m
`o
0.
�o
o a
�
1 n
o
ry o
io n
6 o
ry
�n
o
m m m(u) uoi;ena13m m m

2
0
ax
o
y x
«
o
JZ
v
3
`o `o
_
a v
r •v
x
x Y
o
o o
C
v
0 L Y
m
m m
0 0
LL LL�
3 W m
m m m m(u)oil
uena13
. m m m
Nlo �nlm �I Nlry Nlry mlm ml� 'I
, m I cic cl voi v`Dil� oIn rolro

rmn
m
ri ni
vi
m vi
m
o 0
0 .-i �
O
E
E
�
i'n
m
x
m
'-
_
o
m
s
z
"'
�'
m°
s °°
o o
a
'm
c
c c
o o
A v
c
m
m m°°
3 W m
cu
0
0
m
m
cu
0
cu
a
m m m m (u) uoi�ena13 m m m m
o o
N n
o o
O1 m
m
m^
a N
N
ca
W m
ca
m m
^6
m
6 i
m m
'^ vi
m
vi vi
m m
j 1p
m
^ ca
m
ca ca
m m
o
m m
w
.-i N
m il1
� CO
°1 °1
o N
rl
ei N
m ill
I� N

cu
C°
vq Lq m
in
m
a vi
in m
m
ri o
n o
E
E
a
o
a
Q
— _
—
£
w
o
wo
o
w
"a
m
m ,,
s"
a
s
s
O o
x w
m
m m
0 0
LL LL��
3 w m
c
m
> I:
,^n r�
o vi
vi
a m?
vi vi
a
I�
m o
r� co
O
m
I N
Io 7
ilml
N
m 0
CO N
a+ O
N
N 7
rl�M
I n
n W
O rl1
O n
c6 N
N t�vl
7 e-I
VI
7 i11
In
W 6O
r
N V

ai
0
mX
�v
°0 3
o
a -J
� m
w 9
0
c ~
cu
2
o
N�
m
N m
0
CO
o w
N�
m
o a
o m
rl O
o
o
N N ei
0
Z
E
x
i'n
m
x
a0i o
m x
m s
m m
m o
m°
s °°
'm
c
c c
O O
c
m
m m°°
m o
3 W m
C N
0 o
ill ..
m N
m
.� ca
ill
a n
. 7
M n
m N
n a
N 7 m
m N a
m
M
W M
M o
M M
M M
o n
M N
M M
N N
M M
m
N
M M
in
N N
M m
m N N
N m m
m m m
N
O m
V1
N m N
M O
O
a+ O
lm0
W O
7 W
0w1 tm0
m
N N
7 M
0�1
o M
m
cm n tip
.i 7
ill t0
I� CO
m O
O N
M il1 I�

m
vi
�o
m
a
ro n
o ry
CO ro
vi c
m
ro m�
o o o
m m
�n
ai .-+
0
E
E
�
v'�
v
x
v
3
`o `o
_
a v
r •v
x Y
o o
C
v
o L Y
m
m m
0 0
LL LL��
3 W m
Nlo viDilm �I, "Nrv'Im Im Ala o
v
��
m
00
o -
m
c
v
72
a
ii
m m m m (u) uoi;ena13 m m m m

s
v
0
0
m
m
�
ry ry
N C
N
N n
m N
n m
N
0 0
N m
m N
0
E
VI
0
3
`o `o
_
a v
r •v
m
m m
O O
LL
o m o m o m
jo
v mlm mlm mlm 'I m 'I m mlm ^'Im ^'Im
nd
roN�o 1 11 d
1� '111 "I
Io
N-i c

c
0
E
'K
E
�
x
o 0
v a
y i
m m
0
z
3
`O `O
_
a v
r •v
m
m m
O O
LL LL��
\ -E
3 W m

ni
rNn
n N
ri m
rri a
m a
CO vmi
m o
N m N
w ri m
O
E
E
1'n
a
m
x
O
N x
S
O S
`
c f0
m
O O
wm
N
o o
'm
c
c c
O 0
A v
c
m
m m°°
3 W m
c
j N
y m
v a
N N
m m
I+i N
N M
m
N N
m m
N N
M N
m
N a
N N
m m
a s
N N
m m
O
V N
10 �
O1 I�
n 10
2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
o
m m m (u) u°i;ena13 m m m

cu
0
m
m�
a�
w�
n
m
m
ry ro
ry
ry a
m
n
�n m
o
�o �n co
cwo o
0
E
E
a
,K
o
a
o
xx
3
`o `o
_
a v
r •v
�e
�e Y
O O
C
� N
0 L Y
m
m m
O 0
LL LL��
\ a,
3 W m
I1prIrolmi ,m aI olo �Im'

IIIIIIIl111911
III�IIIIIIBI�
IIIl0�.0��,0.m
I■IIIIII■
IIIIamCaCo��laa�C
Illllllh�
Illilllllllll,IIIIII
I■
UNIONISMI
I■
�O�OII11111119111�911119��0�9■

11
o�Cm�I�0lmme�:IIIIIIIIIBI■
�I�ao■omami■i
�����0���
■a�m�i
iva■I
I�
�����I�
I
111
oiCimeCmlmn�■IIIIIIIIIBI■
modem
o�■I
Iloilo
i
�����I�
1111111lIIIII!
mIIIIIIIIBI■

Appendix D
Jurisdictional Determination Information

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2021-01973 County: Anson U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-Morven West
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERNIINATION
Requestor: Freese & Nichols, Inc.
Attn: Jason Steele
Address: 531 N. Liberty Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Size (acres) —72 Nearest Town Wadesboro
Nearest Waterway South Fork Jones Creek River Basin Lower Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040201 Coordinates 34.854514,-80.105156
Location description: The project area is located between Gulledge Road, and South Fork Jones Creek, approximately 0.7 mile
west of NC Highway 742, near Wadesboro, Anson County, North Carolina.
The Approved Jurisdictional Determination Review Area is shown as the purple outlined "AJD Review Area" on the attached
map entitled "Exhibit 4 WOTUS Features."
The Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Review Area is shown as the pink outlined "PJD Review Area" on the attached
maps entitled "Exhibit 2 WOTUS Features", "Exhibit 3 WOTUS Features", and "Exhibit 4 WOTUS Features."
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33
USC § 403). The waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be
sufficiently accurate and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown within the above -described PJD
Review Area on the enclosed delineation map. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the
permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts,
compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a
preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as
if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the
Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an
approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However,
since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an
effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which is not
sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters, including
wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters, including wedandson the above -described project area/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.

SAW-2021-01973
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the
Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated _. 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, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on _. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may
be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
® There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present within the above -described AJD Review Area which are
subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the
law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed rive years from the date
of this notification
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact David E. Bailey at [phone] X 30 or
David.E.Bailev2(&usace.armv.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: See the preliminary and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination forms, dated 07/27/2022.
D. Remarks:
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed
you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Mr. Philip A. Shannin
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Floor M9
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8803
AND
PHILIP.A. SHANNINgUSACE.ARMY.MIL

SAW-2021-01973
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official: Date: 2022.07.27 17:19:07-04'00'
Date of JD: 07/27/2022
Expiration Date of Approved JD: 7/27/2027
Expiration Date of Preliminary JD: Not applicable
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
https://re ug l�ry.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/.
Electronic Copies Furnished:
Chad Turlington, NCDWR
Tim Baumgartner, NCDMS

Data Point
AID Review Area
a PJD Review Area
Potential Wetland
Potential Stream
••-•• Non -jurisdictional Ditch
n
NOTES:
1. THE WETLANDS AND STREAMS DEPICTED ON THIS MAP WERE
DELINEATED PURUSANT TO THE USACE WETLAND DELINEATION
MANUAL (1987 MANUAL) AND THE USACE REGIONAL
SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1987 MANUAL (EASTERN MOUNTAINS AND
PIEDMONT REGION, V 2.0). FIELD WORK WAS CONDUCTED BY
ACER ENVIRONMENTAL ON 11 AND 17 MAY 2020.
2. WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS WERE COLLECTED WITH
SUB -METER ACCURACY DIFFERENTIAL GPS.
3. FEATURES REVISED BASED UPON USACE FIELD REVIEW ON 24
FEB 2022.
Exhibit 1 WOTUS Features N
ed �AFI Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, NC
N§r r10FREESE 531 N. Liberty St?NICHOL.S Winston-Salem, NC 27101 °Nil
Feet
` Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS 3200 Feet 0 437.5 875

Wetland B
Wetland D
PSS
PSS
12,736.90 Sq Ft
7,174.30 Sq Ft
0.29 Act
'�'"`
dp4 up
0.17 Acre
•.�w
dp3 wet
Wetland A
PSS
Wetland C
19,321.56 Sq Ft
dp2 �p
PSS
0.44 Acre
dp1 wet
2,104.14 Sq Ft
0.05 Acre
dp6 wet
d P p
_
Wetland Q
dp8 p7 up
PEM
NOTES:
120.28 Sq Ft
1. THE WETLANDS AND STREAMS DEPICTED ON THIS MAP WERE
0.003 Acre
DELINEATED PURUSANT TO THE USACE WETLAND DELINEATION
MANUAL (1987 MANUAL) AND THE USACE REGIONAL
Stream B
\
SUPPLEMENTTO THE 1987 MANUAL (EASTERN MOUNTAINS AND
Perennial
PIEDMONT REGION, V 2.0). FIELD WORK WAS CONDUCTED BY
636.6 Lin Ft
ACER ENVIRONMENTAL ON 11 AND 17 MAY 2020.
2. WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS WERE COLLECTED WITH°
SUB -METER ACCURACY DIFFERENTIAL GPS.
3. FEATURES REVISED BASED UPON USACE FIELD REVIEW ON 24
FEB 2022.
Wetland E
PEM
(�
31,436.95 Sq Ft
Stream A
dp10 wet�`dpg
up 0.72 Acre
Perennial
2,864.1 Lin Ft
Wetland P
PEM
1,616.63 Sq Ft
0.04 Acre
etland N Wetland O
PEM PEM
8,322.20 Sq Ft 13,690.64 Sq Ft
Stream L
0.19 Acre 0.31 Acre
Perennial
_
25.3 Lin Ft
Data Point \�
AID Review Area
PID Review Area
Stream E
Potential Wetland
Multiple Segments
Potential Stream South Fork Jones Creek
1,594.50 Lin Ft
Exhibit 2 WOTUS Features N
led Rd CAFIE Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
'14Anson County, NC
h F ee NICHOLS wi N. Liberty St
Winston-Salem NC 27101 Mi
Feet
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS 3200 Feet 0 275 550

Data Point NOTES:
C3 AJD Review Area 1. THE WETLANDS AND STREAMS DEPICTED ON THIS MAP WERE
(O PJD Review Area Wetland S DELINEATED PURUSANTTO THE USACE WETLAND DELINEATION
LNonjurisdictional
tial Wetland PEM 4 MANUAL (1987 MANUAL) AND THE USACE REGIONAL
tial Stream SUPPLEMENTTO THE 1987 MANUAL (EASTERN MOUNTAINS AND
636.37 Sq FtPIEDMONT REGION, V 2.0). FIELD WORK WAS CONDUCTED BY
Ditch 0.01 Acre ACER ENVIRONMENTAL ON 11 AND 17 MAY 2020.
2. WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS WERE COLLECTED WITH
Stream K SUB -METER ACCURACY DIFFERENTIAL GPS.
Perennial Wetland R 3. FEATURES REVISED BASED UPON USACE FIELD REVIEW ON 24
14.9 Lin Ft PEM FEB 2022.
247.97 Sq Ft
0.005 Acre ,
Wetland W
PEM
\ 884.03 Sq Ft Wetland H
0.02 Acre PEM ""
40,858.05 Sq Ft
0.94 Acre
Wetland Q
PEM
120 Sq Ft
0.003 Acre
Stream D
Perennial
2,102.5 Lin Ft
Wetland M
PEM
4,062.17 Sq Ft
0.09 Acre
Stream A
Perennial
2,864.1 Lin Ft
Wetland K
PEM
6,985.77 Sq Ft
0.16 Acre
Wetland J
PEM
3,292.98 Sq Ft
0.08 Acre
Stream I
Perennial
450.8 Lin Ft
Wetland F
PEM
48,407.82 Sq Ft
1.11 Acre
Stream M
Perennial
99.0 Lin Ft
Stream H
Perennial
2,765.0 Lin Ft
Stream (-
Perennial
1,000.3 Lin Ft
Wetland I
PEM
9,231.45 Sq Ft
0.21 Acre
Multiple Segments
South Fork Jones Creek
1,594.50 Lin Ft
Wetland U
PEM
504.13 Sq Ft
0.01 Acre
Exhibit 3 WOTUS Features N
CAFIESO' Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, NC
h � � 1� �ICHOLS Winston-Salem,
t Liberty St o 033 0.06
Winston-Salem NC 27101 M;
Feet
` Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS 3200 Feet 0 187.5 375

Wetland L
PEM
5,786.09 Sq Ft
0.13 Acre
Wetland V
PEM
1,829.85 Sq Ft
0.04 Acre
Wetland H
PEM
40,858.05 Sq Ft
0.94 Acre
Stream F
Perennial
1,000.3 Lin Ft
Wetland I
PEM
9,231.45 Sq Ft
0.21 Acre
NOTES:
1. THE WETLANDS AND STREAMS DEPICTED ON THIS MAP WERE
DELINEATED PURUSANT TO THE USACE WETLAND DELINEATION
MANUAL (1987 MANUAL) AND THE USACE REGIONAL
SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1987 MANUAL (EASTERN MOUNTAINS AND
PIEDMONT REGION, V 2.0). FIELD WORK WAS CONDUCTED BY
ACER ENVIRONMENTAL ON 11 AND 17 MAY 2020.
2. WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS WERE COLLECTED WITH
SUB -METER ACCURACY DIFFERENTIAL GPS.
3. FEATURES REVISED BASED UPON USACE FIELD REVIEW ON 24
FEB 2022.
Perennial
2,381.51-in Ft
Wetland U
PEM
504.13 Sq Ft
0.01 Acre
04
Non -jurisdictional Ditch \
Constructed in Uplands
356.8 Lin Ft
Wetland G
PEM
8959.27 Sq Ft
0.21 Acre
PEM
804.77 Sq Ft
0.02 Acre
/ Stream E
Multiple Segments
South Fork Jones Creek
1,594.50 Lin Ft
G
Data Point
Stream M CMAJD Review Area
ID PJD Review Area
Perennial `
Stream Q potential Wetland
99.0 Lin Ft Multiple Segments —potential Stream
South Fork Jones Creek ... Non -jurisdictional Ditch
1,594.50 Lin Ft
Exhibit 4 WOTUS Features N
li,tl; c 1{tl CAFIE Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, NC
�l7 rMORRICHOLS
531 N. Liberty Stlud z 0 0.03 0.06
Winston-Salem NC 27101 Mi
Feet
` Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS 3200 Feet 0 187.5 375

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Freese &Nichols. Inc. (Attn: Jason Steelel File Number: SAW-2021-01973
Date: 07/27/2022
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑X
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
❑X
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.miUMissions/CivilWorks/ReaulatoryProgramandPenuits.asi)
OZI& Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

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 information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
MR. PHILIP A. SHANNIN
Attn: David E. Bailey
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REVIEW OFFICER
Raleigh Regulatory Office
CESAD-PDS-O
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 FORSYTH STREET SOUTHWEST, FLOOR M9
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8803
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
PHONE: [phone]; FAX [phone]
EMAIL: PHILIP.A.SHANNIN(aUSACE.ARMY.MIL
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 opportum to participate in all site invest] ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: David E. Bailey, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina
28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Philip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

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 L• BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): July 27, 2022
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Middendorf Springs, SAW-2021-01973
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The AJD Review Area is shown on the map entitled "Exhibit
4 WOTUS Features" as the purple outlined "AJD Review Area."
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Anson County City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.85725°N, Long.-80.10923' W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 581426.3 3857574.59
Name of nearest waterbody: South Fork Jones Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Pee Dee River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Lower Pee Dee, 03040201
® 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): 3/l/2022
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There _ "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RIIA) 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): 1
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
❑ Relatively permanent waters2 (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: linear feet, wide, and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: -
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
® Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: The feature labeled as "Non -jurisdictional Ditch Constructed in Uplands" meets the criteria in the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and appropriate Regional Supplement (though it does not have
consistent OHWM indicators). However, based on my site visit, QL2 LiDAR, and aerial photography, this feature
was constructed entirely in uplands. This information indicates that this feature was constructed as a ditch through
upland soils between 2015 and 2022. There are no potentially jurisdictional features above the "Non -jurisdictional
Ditch" that drain into it. Further, the areas immediately alongside the feature did not display any indicators of
wetland vegetation, wetland hydrology, or hydric soils. Federal Register pg. 41217, Vol. 51, No. 219,11/13/1986,
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 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).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

-2-
states that "Non -tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land" are generally not considered to be
waters of the US; as such, the "Non -jurisdictional Ditch Constructed in Uplands" is not considered a water of the
US.
SECTION III: 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 I LAA and Section IILD.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IILAA and 2
and Section IILD.1.; otherwise, see Section IILB 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 I LD.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section IILD.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 waterbody4 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 HLB.1 for
the tributary, Section I LB.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section I LB.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section I LC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through Pick Lig tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.

-3-
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that aply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
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:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry:
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: -. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: -. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM' (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.' Explain:
❑ 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
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'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.
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM 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.

-4-
(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: -. Explain:
Surface flow is:
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 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from:
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the - 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 an
�
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:
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? (Y/N) Size (in acres)

-5-
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERDIINATION
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 now
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:
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 IILD:
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 IILD:
D. DETERDIINATIONS 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, wide, 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 IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs1 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):
'See Footnote # 3.

-6-
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ 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 III.B and rationale in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 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.
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.
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):'"
❑ 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:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ 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).
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
m 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.

-7-
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
® Other. (explain, if not covered above): The feature labeled as "Non -jurisdictional Ditch Constructed in Uplands" meets the
criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and appropriate Regional Supplement (though it
does not have consistent OHWM indicators). However, based on my site visit, QL2 LiDAR, and aerial photography, this
feature was constructed entirely in uplands. This information indicates that this feature was constructed as a ditch
through upland soils between 2015 and 2022. There are no potentially jurisdictional features above the "Non -
jurisdictional Ditch" that drain into it. Further, the areas immediately alongside the feature did not display any indicators
of wetland vegetation, wetland hydrology, or hydric soils. Federal Register pg. 41217, Vol. 51, No. 219,11/13/1986, states
that "Non -tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land" are generally not considered to be waters of the
US; as such, the "Non -jurisdictional Ditch Constructed in Uplands" is not considered a water of the US.
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, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
® Wetlands: 0.05 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, wide.
❑ 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: Aerial, soils, and topo maps (F&N)
® 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: 1:24K; Morven West
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Anson Co. Soil Survey
❑ 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): 2015 and 2021 NCCGIA
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter -
El Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
® Other information (please specify): QL2 LiDAR (NC SDD website)
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 7/27/2022
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Jason Steele, 531 N. Liberty St, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: SAW-2021-01973 (Middendorf Springs / NCDMS)
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Anson City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 34.855 Long.:-80.1075
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: South Fork Jones Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination.
■❑ Field Determination. Date(s): 3/1/2022
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non -wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
See
Attache
Table

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION.
Site Number
Latitude (decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic
resource in review
area (acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e.,
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic
authority to which
the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e.,
Section 404 or
Section 10/404
Stream A
34.8597
-80.113
2864 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream B
34.8584
-80.112
637 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream D
34.857
-80.1091
2103 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream E segments
34.8518
-80.115
1595 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream F
34.855
-80.1034
1000 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream G
34.8589
-80.105
2382 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream H
34.8586
-80.1067
2765 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream 1
34.8568
-80.107
451 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream K
34.857
-80.109
15 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream L
34.8518
-80.1113
25 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream M
34.8521
-80.1084
99 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Wetland A
34.8585
-80.1135
0.4436 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland B
34.8597
-80.1131
0.2924 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland C
34.858
-80.1122
0.0483 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland D
34.8585
-80.1119
0.1647 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland E
34.855
-80.1116
0.7217 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland F
34.8525
-80.1083
1.1113 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland G
34.8536
-80.1002
0.2057 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland H
34.8573
-80.104
0.938 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland 1
34.8542
-80.1048
0.2119 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland J
34.8565
-80.1065
0.0756 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland K
34.8569
-80.1074
0.1604 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland L
34.8588
-80.105
0.1328 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland M
34.854
-80.1077
0.9327 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland N
34.852
-80.1138
0.191 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland O
34.852
-80.1133
0.3143 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland P
34.8526
-80.1097
0.0371 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland Q
34.857
-80.1092
0.0028 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland R
34.8575
-80.1065
0.0057 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland S
34.8581
-80.1066
0.0146 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland T
34.8556
-80.1021
0.0185 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland U
34.8564
-80.1029
0.0116 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland V
34.8584
-80.1048
0.042 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland W
34.8561
-80.106
0.0203 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time frame, the
district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Page 2 of 4

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre -
construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
■❑ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:Aerial, soils, and topo maps (F&N)
0 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
■❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
■❑
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1-24,000 Morven West Quad
■❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Anson Co. Soil Survey
■❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
■❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
El
■❑
100-year Floodplain Elevation is:
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ■❑ Aerial (Name & Date): Most recent available, State of NC (accessed 2021)
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
■❑ Other information (please specify): QL2 LiDAR (NC SDD website)
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Date: 2022.07.27
16:30:48-04'00'
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

Stream A
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: `Q Project/Site: Mt' e^ j Latitude:
Evaluator: /� Mj County: Longitude:
[CorTotal Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
if t 19 or perennial if 2 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 111.
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
CL 2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
B. H►►droloov [Subtotal = q 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biolociv (Subtotal = X l
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0)
1
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DW4 Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: I $ ! Project/Site:
Evaluator: C M County.
Total Points: I Stream Deter
Stream is at least intermittent
if 2 Igor perennial if 2 30' f Ephernera01
M(QdUndor�_' I Latitude
Longitut
on?). I Other `
rintal e.g. Quad
Stream B
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 1_t�) , _
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Sirrmrg
1
2
C 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
c 0
1 2
1_) 2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
�0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3 _
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0 _�_10.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 14.s- )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 ��
1
3
14. Leaf litter
'- 1.5
1
i 0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
C.�
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
f
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'Perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: r� r Project/Site:
Evaluator: C'j i; jb County:
Total Points: Stream Deter
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral
i
if 2 19 or perennial if 2 30'
P.I1 t�l F Latitude:
Longitude:
one) f Other
nnial e.g. Quad Name:
Stream C
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_I _'L _)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
__S�
1a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
_-1_
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1 j
2
�`"�3'
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
Z7)
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
V 1-3)
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
B. Headcuts
`-6
_--1,
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5J
1
i
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdroloav lSuhtntal = 7 1
f12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
21
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 j
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 �
0.5
1
1.5
16.Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5_.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C_ Bioloov (Subtotal = !ia 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
_
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
C 3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
C __Q_
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
-roll
1
2
3
22. Fish
23. Crayfish
0-
0)
0.5
1
1
1.5
0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1 _
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other =
.perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Stream D
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 1 C),; $
ProjectIsitenMr`dd ► d� F
Latitude:
Evaluator: / G.� `e �M D
County: Q
Longitude_
Other
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
if a19orperennial ifa30'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A- Geamrnhalaav (Suhtotal = �0115�1
1a* Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Suhtotal = 1
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strol
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
C 2�
3
0
0
1
2
�
0
3
0
1
2
.a_
1�
2
-3
0.5
1
1.5
0 r
0.5
1
1.5
,No = 0
Yes = 3
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
LLLL
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = X ) -
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
_
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
�r 0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5)
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5�
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

TreeurAgv
f� s4aff Stream J
IN u 1J W q btream lnentitication r orm v ersion 4.11 -
Date: 0 Gj
[
ProjectlSite: `
Latitude:
Evaluator: �Ilt
County: DR.
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (cir
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitter erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if a 19 or perennial if a 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I (o S )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
s+ ^
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
_ 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool se uence
0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
�_
2
3
17. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
0
0
1
1
2
�� 22
3
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1 1��
Yes = 3
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
"artificial ditches are not rated; see dissions in manual
B_ Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 2 c�js1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
11
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
_
Q
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
(-0
1
I 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = 1..5 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
2
1
1
0
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
3
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
22. Fish
23. Crayfish
1
0.5
2
1
3
1.5
0
�`. 0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
A
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5))
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
I

r,
Stream I
Tic I ps I/T,+g y
Ty FA-T)r_crr-
Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
• S i
Absent
Weak
Moderate Stag
10. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2
Z 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
I 2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
��
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
Q
1�
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
0 0.5
No = 0
1 11,5s
1 1.5
Yes = 3
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
B. Hydrology Subtotal )
12. Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = Tn 1
0
�� 2
3
0
1
1
2
3
1.5
0.5
0
0
0.
1
1.5
0
LU
1
1.5
N o = 0
LYes=3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3,
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3�
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
23. Crayfish
j
0
0.5
1
1
1.5
C
0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
I
C2.)0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
_Other =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
J

Stream G
NC DWO Ntream ldentttiicatton k'orm Version 4.11
Date: Ip la ' Project/Site: Mi�ddad f
I
Evaluator: 1 C County: hs v-
Total Points: Stream Determination (cir_le =r
Stream is at leastintennittent 3y� Ephemeral Intermittent7-Grenr
if t 19 orperennial if Z 30 l
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 14. �_ 1 _
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
a artificial ditches are not rated; see dissions in manual
I T
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 1
Latitude:
Longitude:
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
Absent
Weak
Moderate
SBEgng
0
�
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1 CD
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.53
0
0.5
1
tNo=0
Yes
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
C 1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
_ . .5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
_
0
A;;i
1
! 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
Cw=w
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Y
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = �ff 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
C� 0�
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
C OD
1
2
3
22. Fish
__0
C_w
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Stream H
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: / C/a
Project/Site: M I`RdQ (d n
Latitude:
Evaluator: ! C�- �( °f
County: An'w^11
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (ciphHwuQ
Ephemeral Intermittent erenniia
Other
Quad Name:
if 2: 19 or erennial if z 30'
e.g.
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_N' S _)
' Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2_
(13
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
riople-pool sequence
0
1
6:1D
_
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
_�
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3L-)
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
C V
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
C 20
3
S. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
(No = 0
Yes = 3
arrmciai ouches are nor rarea; see aiscussions in manuai
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = R )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
�3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
i 0.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biolodv (Subtotal = X )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
1 1
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.D
0.5
1'
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1,��
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Appendix E
Hydric Soils Investigation

ACE
BURLESON MITIGATION SITE
Hydric Soil Investigation
Envisunmanral, [.E('.
Executive Summary
The Burleson Mitigation Site is located near the Town of Morven, Anson County, North
Carolina. A site investigation was undertaken to determine the presence/absence of
hydric soils within one area of this property, located along Jones Creek. The investigation
was conducted by NC Licensed Soil Scientist, Jan Gay (#1158) on 27 and 30 October 2019.
Thirteen areas of hydric soil were identified, totaling approximately 17 acres. It is highly
likely that additional hydric soil areas are present within this area.
Introduction
The Burleson Mitigation Site is located within a currently fallow agricultural field near the Town of
Morven, Anson County, North Carolina. A portion of this site is being considered as a riparian wetland
mitigation area. One area of this property, totaling approximately 200 acres, was targeted for the hydric
soil investigation. This report outlines key personnel, methodology, and results.
The investigation area is located within a currently fallow agricultural field, with a rolling landscape. The
hydric soil investigation focused on the lower lying areas, either along Jones Creek or the unnamed
tributaries within the site that flow into Jones Creek.
Due to time constraints, the hydric soil investigation effort was not a complete review of the entire area,
but a focused evaluation in areas with a high probability of containing hydric soils. It is very likely that
other areas of hydric soil are present within the review area.
Key Personnel
Mr. Jan Gay, NC Licensed Soil Scientist #1158, conducted the hydric soil delineation. Mr. Gay has been a
Licensed Soil Scientist for more than 22 years, as well as a professional ecologist. Mr. Gay has conducted
jurisdictional wetland delineations for more than 24 years, across 7 states.
Methods
The field investigation centered on identification of soil characteristics following criteria set forth by the
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States Version
8.2 (USDA 2018). Soil characteristics evaluated include horizon depth, soil texture, moist soil color
(determined using a Munsell color chart), and identification of any other soil features (mottles, depletions,
Mn concentrations, etc.).
The field investigation was conducted using a hand auger to evaluate the soil profile across the study area.
The investigation area was subjected to a pedestrian survey, with a hand auger evaluation conducted in
areas deemed likely to contain hydric soils. The hand auger evaluation was conducted to a depth of 3
feet, or until a hydric soil indicator was identified. After a hydric soil had been identified in the field, a

series of soil borings were conducted on a closer spacing, to establish a boundary for a hydric soil unit. A
transect of soil borings was conducted, beginning within the hydric soil unit, and continued until a non-
hydric soil was encountered. Flagging tape was hung at this boundary and location data was collected,
using a hand help Garmin GPSMAP 64st, which is a non -survey grade unit. The gps data was used to
approximate hydric soil unit boundaries.
Prior to initiation of the field effort, available resources were reviewed, including available MRCS online
soil mapping and USGS topographic mapping. Seven soil mapping units are shown as present within the
study areas, Ailey loamy sand, 2-8% slopes; Badin channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes; Chewacla loam, 0-2%
slopes, frequently flooded; Emporia loamy sand, 2-8% slopes; McQueen loam, 1-6% slopes; Nanford-
Emporia complex, 2-8% slopes; and Nanford gravelly fine sandly loam, 8-15% slopes. .
Results
Thirteen areas of hydric soil were delineated. The hydric soil areas were typically linear in shape,
associated with stream channels in the area. The investigation indicated that several of the linear stream
features originating within the property have hydric soil pockets at or near the channel origins.
Hydric Soil Site 1 is approximately 10.5 acres in areal extent. This site is located in the floodplain area of
Jones Creek and appears to have been part of the historical channel.
Hydric Soil Site 2 is approximately 0.4 acre in areal extent. This site is located adjacent to a small unnamed
tributary to Jones Creek and appears to be part of the floodplain.
Hydric Soil Site 3 is approximately 0.2 acre in areal extent. This site is located south of Site 2 and
encompasses both sides of the unnamed tributary.
Hydric Soil Site 4 is approximately 2.8 acres in areal extent. This site near the confluence of a small stream
channel and Jones Creek.
Hydric Soil Site 5 is approximately 1.5 acres in areal extent. This site is located in the floodplain area of
Jones Creek and did not have an apparent connection to any of the stream channels within the property.
Hydric Soil Site 6 is approximately 0.2 acre in areal extent. This site is located near the boundary of the
review area, within the floodplain of Jones Creek.
Hydric Soil Site 7 is >0.1 acre in areal extent. This site is adjacent to a small unnamed tributary to Jones
Creek.
Hydric Soil Site 8 is approximately 0.3 acre in areal extent. This site is adjacent to a small unnamed
tributary to Jones Creek.
Hydric Soil Site 9 is approximately 0.3 acre in areal extent. This site appears to be a wet area associated
with an unnamed tributary to Jones Creek.
Hydric Soil Site 10 is approximately 0.1 acre in areal extent. This site is located at the origin of an unnamed
tributary to Jones Creek and may have been a headwater area.
Hydric Soil Site 11 is approximately 0.1 acre in areal extent. This site is located in the floodplain area of
Jones Creek and appears to have a connection to an unnamed tributary.

Hydric Soil Site 12 is >0.1 acre in areal extent. This site is located near the origin of an unnamed tributary
to Jones Creek and may have been part of a headwater area or wet floodplain.
Hydric Soil Site 13 is approximately 0.5 acre in areal extent. This site is located along an unnamed tributary
to Jones Creek.
As previously noted, it is highly likely that additional areas of hydric soil are present within the
investigation site.
On 27 and 30 October 2019, 1 conducted the soil evaluation
within the Burleson Mitigation Site and delineated the hydric
soil boundaries as shown in this report.
-3

Figure 1. Young's Mill Mitigation Site Hydric Soil Areas.
Figure 2. Young's Mill Mitigation Site Soil Map.

Soil Boring
Unit
Hydric Soil Indicator: Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)
Color
Texture
Notes
0-10
2.5V 5/1
1 Silty Clay Loam
5% 10VR 5/6 concentrations
10-14
2.5V 5/2
Silty Clay Loam
5%10VR 4/4 concentrations
Soil Boring
Unit
Hydric Soil Indicator: Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)
Color
Texture
Notes
0-14
10VR 5/2
1 Silty Clay Loam
10%7.5VR 5/4 concentrations, free water at 14"
Soil Boring
Unit
Hydric Soil Indicator: Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)
Color
Texture
Notes
0-5
2.5V 5/2
Silty Clay Loam
5%10VR 4/4 concentrations
5-14
10VR 5/1
Silty Clay Loam
5%10VR 5/4 concentrations
Soil Boring Unit 1 Hydric Soil Indicator: Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)
Color
Texture
Notes
0-14
Soil Boring
Unit
Hydric Soil Indicator: Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)
IColor
ITexture
Notes
0-16
2.5V 5/1
Silty Clay Loam
5% 10VR 5/4 concentrations
Soil Boring
Unit
Hydric Soil Indicator: Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)
Color
Texture
Notes
0-14
10VR 5/2
Silty Clay Loam
5%10VR 5/4 concentrations
1
Soil Boring
Unit
Hydric Soil Indicator: Depleted Matrix
De th inches
Color
Texture
Notes
0-3
10VR 5/2
Silty Clay Loam
5%10VR 5/6 concentrations
3-14
10VR 5/1
1 Silty Clay Loam
Soil Boring
Unit
Hydric Soil Indicator: None met
Possible Buried/Impacted Depleted Matix
Depth (inches)
Color
Texture
Notes
0-3
10VR 5/2
Silty Clay Loam
5%10VR 5/6 concentrations
3-14
10VR 5/1
Silty Clay Loam
Soil Boring
Unit
Hydric Soil Indicator: Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)
Color
Texture
Notes
0-12
12.5Y 5/2
1 Silty Clay Loam
5% 10VR 5/6 concentrations
wearea associated with channel
Soil Boring
Unit 10
Hydric Soil Indicator: Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)
Color
Texture
Notes
0-14
12.5Y 5/2
1 Silty Clay Loam
5%10VR 5/4 concentrations. Appears to be a headwater area
Soil Boring
Unit 11
Hydric Soil Indicator: Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)
Color
Texture
Notes
0-3
10VR 5/2
Silt CCLoam
5%10VR 5/4 concentrations
3-14
10VR 5/1
Silty Clay Loam
10% 10VR 5/6 concentrations
Soil Boring
Unit 12
Hydric Soil Indicator: Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)
Color
Texture
Notes
0-14
2.5V 5/1
Silty Clay Loam
5%10VR 4/4 concentrations
Soil Boring
Unit 13
Hydric Soil Indicator: Depleted Matrix
De th inches
Color
Texture
Notes
0-12
10VR 5/2
Silty Clay Loam
10%10VR 5/6 concentrations
5% 10VR 5/4 concentrations

Appendix F
Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Division of Mitigation Services Projects
Version 2
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the environmental
document.
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
County Name: Anson Count
DMS Number: 100151
Project Sponsor: Freese and Nichols Inc.
Project Contact Name: Ian Jewell
Project Contact Address: 531 N. Liberty St, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail]
DMS Project Mana er: Kelly Phillips
Project Description
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is a stream and wetland mitigation project located approximately 10 miles south of
Wadesboro and 5 miles east of Lowrys in Anson County, NC. The project includes 6 unnamed tributaries to South Fork Jones
Creek for a total of more than 14,000 linear feet of stream and associated wetlands. The site has historically been managed for
timber and is currently managed for row crop agriculture. The project will provide stream and wetaldn mitigation units to the
Division of Mitigation Services in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin (03040201).
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
10/13/2021
Date DMS Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
10-14-21
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA

Part 2: All
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Manaciement Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Does the project involve ground -disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
X❑ N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
X❑ N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
❑X N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
❑X Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
❑X No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
X❑ No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
X❑ N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
X❑ N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
X❑ No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
X❑ N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
X❑ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
X❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
X❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
X❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
X❑ Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A

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

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

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
SUMMARY

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a
Federal "Superfund" to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous -waste sites as well as accidents,
spills, or other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment.
Since the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is a full -delivery project, a Government Environmental
Records Report was ordered for the site through Envirosite Corporation on March 23, 2021. Neither the
target property, nor adjacent properties, were listed in any of the Federal, State, or Tribal environmental
databases searched by Envirosite. The assessment revealed no evidence of any recognized environmental
conditions (RECs) connected to the target property. The Report is included in the Appendix.
National Historic Preservation Action (Section 106)
National Historic Preservation Action (Section 106) declares a national policy of historic preservation to
protect, rehabilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in
American architecture, history, archaeology and culture, and Section 106 mandates that federal agencies
take into account the effect of an undertaking on a property that is included in, or is eligible for inclusion
in, the National Register of Historic Places.
Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) requested a review and comment from the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) with respect to architectural and archaeological resources related to Middendorf Springs
Mitigation Site on April 24, 2020. SHPO responded on June 11,2020 and stated they were aware of "no
historic resources which would be affected by the project" and would have no further comment. Section
106 correspondence is included in the Appendix.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (Uniform Act)
These acts, known collectively as the Uniform Act, provide for uniform and equitable treatment of persons
displaced from their homes, businesses, non-profit associations, or farms by Federal and Federally -
assisted programs, and establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is a full -delivery project that includes land acquisition. Notification of
the fair market value of the project property and the lack of condemnation authority by FNI was
provided to the property owners. A copy of the notification is included in the Appendix.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7 requires federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary of the
Interior or of Commerce, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species.
The Anson County listed endangered species includes Red -cockaded woodpecker, Carolina heelsplitter,
and Schweinitz's sunflower. The project area does not include any in -stream work, and no habitat for red -
cockaded woodpecker is present within the project area. Therefore, due to lack of habitat for the listed
species at the site, the project has been determined by FNI to have "no effect" on listed species.

FNI requested review and comment from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on April 24, 2020 for
the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site and its potential impacts on threatened and endangered species.
USFWS responded on May 13, 2020 stating that suitable summer roosting habitat may be present for the
federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and the agency encouraged
"...conduct any associated tree clearing activities outside of the pup season (June 1 to July 31) and/or
active season (April 1 to October 31) to reduce the chance of impacting identified maternity roosts." In
addition, occurrences of Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) were identified in the vicinity of
the project area. A targeted survey was requested during the optimal survey window of late August —
October. A habitat assessment and survey for Schweinitz's sunflower was conducted by FNI
environmental scientists on September 28, 2020, and results were submitted to USFWS on January 18,
2021. USFWS responded with concurrence on the negative species survey documentation on January 22,
2021: "Based on the information provided, we have no concerns for any other federally protected species
and we require no further action at this time." All documents submitted to USFWS are included in the
Appendix.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
The FPPA requires that, before taking or approving any Federal action that would result in the conversion
of farmland, the agency must examine the effects of the action using the criteria set forth in the FPPA,
and, if there are adverse effects, must consider alternatives to lessen them.
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Stie includes the conversion of prime farmland. As such, Form AD-
1006 has been completed and submitted to the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The
completed form and correspondence documenting its submittal are included in the Appendix.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The FWCA requires consultation with the USFWS and appropriate state wildlife agencies on projects that
impounded, diverted, deepened or otherwise modify waterbodies. The Middendorf Springs Mitigation
project includes stream restoration. FNI requested comment on the project from both the UFSWS and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) on April 24, 2020. NCWRC responded on May 18,
2020 with comments about the possible presence of rare and aquatic species in the project area: "NCWRC
does not have any known records of federal or state -listed rare, threatened, or endangered species near
the site." All correspondence with USFWS and WRC are included in the Appendix.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or
export any migratory bird. The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs is covered by the
MBTA, so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute a taking.
FNI requested comment on the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site from the USFWS regarding migratory
birds on April 14, 2021. The USFWS responded on May 13, 2020 and recommended that, "To avoid
impacts to migratory birds, we recommend conducting a visual inspection of any migratory bird nesting
habitat within the project area during the migratory bird nesting season of March through September and
avoiding impacting the nests during the migratory bird nesting season. If birds are discovered nesting near
the project area during years prior to the proposed construction date, we recommend that you and the
NCDOT, in consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service, develop measures to discourage birds from

establishing nests within the project area by means that will not result in theta ke of birds or eggs; or avoid
construction activities during the nesting period." All correspondence with USFWS is included in the
Appendix.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
APPENDIX

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
CERCLA DOCUMENTATION

ENVIROSITE
Corporation
Government Records
Report 12021
Order Number: 52637
Report Generated: 03/23/2021
Project Name: Middendorf Springs
Project Number: Middendorf
Middendorf Springs
Gulledge Rd
Wadesboro, NC 28170
2 Corporate Drive
Suite 450
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 866-211-2028
www.envirositecorp.com

Table of Contents 2021
Section
Page
Executive Summary
1
Executive Summary by Distance
2
Executive Summary by Database
3
Property Proximity Map
7
AreaMap------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
MapFindings Summary-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
UnmappableSummary-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15
Environmental Records Searched
16
Geological Landscape Section
34
Geological Landscape Section Soil Map
37
Geological Landscape Section Summary
38
GeologicalFindings Map------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100
Geological Landscape Section Map Findings
101
Geological Landscape Section Map Findings Radon
106
Geological Landscape Records Searched
107
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
All information contained in this report are based on data available from various public, government and other sources and are based upon
the best data available from those sources. The information available in this report may be available from other sources and is not exclusive
or the exclusive property of Envirosite Corporation.
NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY
OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY USER AND Envirosite assumes no liability for faulty or inaccurate
information. The Reports may utilize a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Envirosite. Envirosite cannot, and does not
assure, warrant, guarantee or assume any liability for the correctness, comprehensiveness, timeliness or completeness of any of such
information, nor is the information in any Report to be construed as legal advice with respect to environmental risks associated with any
property. Envirosite shall not be liable to anyone for any claims, causes of action, suits, damages, losses, costs and expenses (including,
without limitation, attorneys' fees and costs) arising out of or caused by this report regardless of the acts, errors or omissions, or negligence
of Envirosite. Any damages shall be limited to the purchase price of the report.
Purchaser of the report accepts the report 'As Is". The report is intended only to provide information only and should not be considered as
providing any legal advice, prediction, forecast, or fact as to the environmental risk for any specific property. Reports are proprietary to
Envirosite, and contain copyrighted material and trademarks of Envirosite. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their
respective owners. All rights of Envirosite as to the Reports are reserved.

Executive Summary
2021
Envirosite Corporation has conducted a search of all reasonably ascertainable records in accordance with EPA's
AAI (40 CFR Part 312) requirements and the ASTM E-1527-13 Environmental Site Assessments standard.
SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION:
ADDRESS:
Middendorf Springs
Gulledge Rd
Wadesboro, NC 28170
COORDINATES:
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Transverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
ELEVATION:
Elevation:
34.855547 - 34°51'20"
-80.108185 --80°6'29.5"
Zone 17N
581523.51
3857386.54
369.944 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Subject Property Map: 34080-G1 Morven West, NC
Most Recent Revision: 2016
Page 1 of 109

Ln
ce
i
0
z

Executive Summary by Database 2021
SUBJECT PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS:
The subject property was not listed in any of the databases searched by Envirosite Corporation.
SEARCH RESULTS:
No unmappable sites reported.
DATABASE(S) WITH NO MAPPED SITES:
FEDERAL RCRA NON-CORRACTS TSD FACILITIES LIST
ARCHIVED RCRA TSDF
Archived Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: Treatment Storage
and Disposal Facilities
RCRA_TSDF
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: Treatment Storage and
Disposal Facilities
FEDERAL CERCLIS LIST
CERCLIS NFRAP
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
No Further Remedial Action Planned
CERCLIS-HIST
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
FEDERAL FACILITY
Federal Facility sites
SEMS 8R ACTIVE SITES
Sites on SEMS Active Site Inventory
SEMS_8R_ARCHIVED SITES
Sites on SEMS Archived Site Inventory
FEDERAL RCRA CORRACTS FACILITIES LIST
CORRACTS Hazardous Waste Corrective Action
HIST CORRACTS 2 Historical Hazardous Waste Corrective Action
FEDERAL DELISTED NPL SITE LIST
DELISTED NPL Delisted National Priority List
DELISTED PROPOSED NPL Delisted proposed National Priority List
SEMS DELETED NPL Sites Deleted from National Priorities List
FEDERAL LANDFILL AND/OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LISTS
EPA LF MOP EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Project Database
FEDERAL ERNS LIST
ERNS
Emergency Response Notification System
FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS /
ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIES
FED E C
Engineering Controls
FED I C
Institutional Controls
RCRA IC -EC
RCRA sites with Institutional and Engineering Controls
FEDERAL RCRA GENERATORS LIST
HIST RCRA_CESQG
Historical Resource Conservation and Recovery Act -Conditionally Exempt
Small Quantity Generators
HIST RCRA_LQG
Historical Resource Conservation and Recovery Act_ Large Quantity
Generators
HIST RCRA NONGEN
Historical Resource Conservation and Recovery Act _Non Generators
HIST RCRA_SQG
Historical Resource Conservation and Recovery Act -Small Quantity
Generators
RCRA LQG
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act_ Large Quantity Generators
RCRA NONGEN
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Non Generators
RCRA SQG
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Small Quantity Generators
RCRA_VSQG
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act_Very Small Quantity Generator
FEDERAL NPL SITE LIST
NPL
National Priority List
NPL EPA R1 GIS
GIS for EPA Region 1 NPL
NPL EPA R3 GIS
GIS for EPA Region 3 NPL
Page 3 of 109

Executive Summary by Database
2021
FEDERAL NPL SITE LIST (cont.)
NPL EPA R6 GIS
NPL EPA R8 GIS
NPL EPA R9 GIS
PART NPL
PROPOSED NPL
SEMS FINAL NPL
SEMS PROPOSED NPL
GIS for EPA Region 6 NPL
GIS for EPA Region 8 NPL
GIS for EPA Region 9 NPL
Part National Priority List
Proposed National Priority List
Sites included on the Final National Priorities List
Sites Proposed to be Added to the National Priorities List
STATE- AND TRIBAL - EQUIVALENT CERCLIS
ARCHIVED HSDS - NC Archived Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites
ARCHIVED HSDS AREAS - NC Areas of Archived Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites
FRB SUPERFUND - NC FRB Superfund - NC
SHWS - NC State Hazardous Waste Sites
STATE AND TRIBAL REGISTERED STORAGE TANK LISTS
FEMA UST
FEMA Underground Storage Tanks
INDIAN UST R1
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 1
INDIAN UST R10
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 10
INDIAN UST R2
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 2
INDIAN UST R4
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 4
INDIAN UST R5
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 5
INDIAN UST R6
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 6
INDIAN UST R7
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 7
INDIAN UST R8
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 8
INDIAN UST R9
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 9
AST - NC
Aboveground Storage Tanks
UST - NC
Underground Storage Tanks
UST 2 - NC
UST Facilities
STATE AND TRIBAL BROWNFIELD SITES
TRIBAL BROWNFIELDS Tribal Brownfields
BROWNFIELDS - NC Brownfield
STATE RCRA GENERATORS LIST
HWG - NC State Hazardous Waste Generators
STATE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIES
I C - NC Institutional Controls
STATE AND TRIBAL LEAKING STORAGE TANK LISTS
INDIAN LUST R1
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 1
INDIAN LUST R10
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 10
INDIAN LUST R2
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 2
INDIAN LUST R4
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 4
INDIAN LUST R5
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 5
INDIAN LUST R6
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 6
INDIAN LUST R7
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 7
INDIAN LUST R8
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 8
INDIAN LUST R9
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 9
LAST - NC
Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
LUST - NC
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
LUST TRUST - NC
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Trust
STATE AND TRIBAL LANDFILL AND/OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LISTS
PRLF - NC Pre -Regulatory Landfill Sites
SWF/LF - NC Solid Waste Facilities Landfills
LOCAL BROWNFIELD LISTS
BROWN FIELDS -ACRES EPA ACRES Brownfields
FED BROWNFIELDS Federal Brownfields
Page 4 of 109

Executive Summary by Database
2021
LOCAL LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE / CONTAMINATED SITES
FED CDL DOJ Clandestine Drug Labs
US HIST CDL Historical Clandestine Drug Labs
INACTIVE HWS - NC Inacitve Hazardous Waste Sites
LOCAL LISTS OF LANDFILL / SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
HIST INDIAN ODI R8
Historical Open Dump Inventory
INDIAN ODI R8
Open Dump Inventory
ODI
Open Dump Inventory
TRIBAL ODI
Indian Open Dump Inventory Sites
SWRCY - NC
Recycling Facilities
SWRCY 2 - NC
Material Recovery Facilities
SWTIRE - NC
Solid Waste Tire
RECORDS OF EMERGENCY RELEASE REPORTS
HMIRS (DOT) Hazardous Materials Information Reporting Systems
LOCAL LAND RECORDS
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS
AFS
Air Facility Systems
ALT FUELING
Alternative Fueling Stations
AST PBS
ASTs at Bulk Petroleum Terminals
BRS
Biennial Reporting Systems
CDC HAZDAT
Hazardous Substance Release and Health Effects Information
COAL ASH DOE
Coal Ash: Department of Energy
COAL ASH EPA
Coal Ash: Environmental Protection Agency
COAL GAS
Coal Gas Plants
CONSENT (DECREES)
Superfund Consent Decree
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS_2020
Wastes - Hazardous Waste - Corrective Action
DEBRIS EPA LF
EPA Disaster Debris Landfill Sites
DEBRIS EPA SWRCY
EPA Disaster Debris Recovery Sites
DOD
Department of Defense
DOT OPS
Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety
ECHO
EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online
ENOI
Electronic Notice of Intent
EPA FUELS
EPA Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance List
EPA OSC
EPA On -Site Coordinator
EPA WATCH
EPA Watch List
FA HWF
Financial Assurance for Hazardous Waste Facilities
FEDLAND
Federal Lands
FRS
Facility Index Systems
FTTS
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System
FTTS INSP
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System: Inspections
FUDS
Formerly Used Defense Sites
HIST AFS
Historical Air Facility Systems
HIST AFS 2
Historical Air Facility Systems
HIST DOD
Department of Defense historical sites
HIST LEAD SMELTER
Historical Lead Smelter Sites
HIST MILTS
Historical Material Licensing Tracking Systems
HIST PCB TRANS
Historical Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Facilities
HIST PCS ENF
Historical Enforced Permit Compliance Facilities
HIST PCS FACILITY
Historical Permit Compliance Facilities
HIST SSTS
Historical Section 7 Tracking Systems
HWC DOCKET
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
ICIS
Integrated Compliance Information System
INACTIVE PCS
Inactive Permit Compliance Facilities
INDIAN RESERVATION
Indian Reservations
LUCIS
Land Use Control Information Systems
Page 5 of 109

Executive Summary by Database
2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
LUCIS 2
MINES
MINES USGS
MILTS
NPL AOC
NPL LIENS
OSHA
PADS
PCB TRANSFORMER
PCS ENF
PCS FACILITY
RAATS
RADINFO
RMP
ROD
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
SEMS_SMELTER
SSTS
STORM WATER
TOSCA-PLANT
TRIS
UMTRA
VAPOR
BROWNFIELDS AEC - NC
COAL ASH - NC
DAYCARE - NC
DRYCLEANERS - NC
DRYCLEANERS 2 - NC
DRYCLEANERS CLEANUP - NC
HIST COAL ASH - NC
IMD - NC
MGP - NC
NFA - NC
NPDES - NC
OLI - NC
UIC - NC
Land Use Control Information Systems 2
Mines
Mines list from USGS
Material Licensing Tracking Systems
Areas related to NPL remediation sites
National Priority List Liens
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
PCB Activity Database Systems
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Waste
Enforced Permit Compliance Facilities
Permit Compliance Facilities
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking Systems
Radiation Information Systems
Risk Management Plans
Record of Decision
SCRD Drycleaners
Sites on SEMS Potential Smelter Activity
Section 7 Tracking Systems
Storm Water Permits
Toxic Substance Control Act: Plants
Toxic Release Inventory Systems
Uranium Mill Tailing Sites
EPA Vapor Intrusion
Brownfields with Areas of Environmental Concern
Coal Ash sites
Daycare Facility
Drycleaners
Drycleaners
Drycleaners Cleanup
Historical Coal Ash sites
Incident Management Database
Manufactured Gas Plant Sites
No Further Action Sites
State Wastewater and NPDES Permits
Old Landfill Inventory
Underground Injection Controls
Page 6 of 109

Property Proximity Map
2021
SUBJECT NAME: Middendorf Springs
ADDRESS: Gulledge Rd, Wadesboro, INC, 28170
LAT/LONG: 34.855547 /-80.108185
.11 dell;
e-)
+ Subject Property
4 CDC HAZDAT (No Data)
Federal Lands (No Data)
Historical DOD (No Data)
• Equal/Higher Elevation
7 Department of Defense (No Data)
k FEMA FloodZone 100 (No Data)
A. Indian Reservation (No Data)
PREPARED FOR: Freese and Nichols, Inc.
ORDER #: 52637
REPORT DATE: March 23, 2021
o Lower Elevation
T DFIRM Floodzone 100
FEMA FloodZone 500 (No Data)
R, National Priority List (No Data)
f
Mile(O
Brownfields Areas (No Data)
T DFIRM Floodzone 500 (No Data)
Fm Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites (No
Data)
NWI
Page 7 of 109

Area Map 2021
SUBJECT NAME: Middendorf Springs PREPARED FOR: Freese and Nichols, Inc.
ADDRESS: Gulledge Rd, Wadesboro, NC, 28170 ORDER #: 52637
LAT/LONG: 34.855547 /-80.108185 REPORT DATE: March 23, 2021
Vill
r _ 1
fi�77
t'
001
K
A • �� _ �= _
� f� I.I �1 `�� ' � �I III\ \ ` / � /� / � ��� � �� \1 \ ��'►'• �:��� `�' ` '-�/ � �� II
_ - �:' - .•�' r� , � A � '�.-� ,ram � � � ��- " I � � i
L.
.79
i �� ✓ 1� �//�✓�, C �� ��, "�/
I .�
cam_
Subject Property
• Equal/Higher Elevation
o Lower Elevation
Brownfields Areas (No Data)
CDC HAZDAT (No Data)
Department of Defense (No Data)
DFIRM Floodzone 100
DFIRM Floodzone 500 (No Data)
Federal Lands (No Data)
x FEMA Floodzone 100 (No Data)
FEMA FlooclZone 500 (No Data)
6i Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites (No
Historical DOD (No Data)
i Indian Reservation (No Data)
F9, National Priority List (No Data)
Data)
NWI
Page 8 of 109

Map Findings Summary
2021
SEARCH
SUBJECT DISTANCE
DATABASE PROPERTY MILES
FEDERAL RCRA NON-CORRACTS TSD FACILITIES LIST
< 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1
TOTAL
MAPPED
ARCHIVED RCRA TSDF
0.500
0
0
0
0
RCRA TSDF
0.500
0
0
0
0
FEDERAL CERCLIS LIST
CERCLIS NFRAP
0.500
0
0
0
0
CERCLIS-HIST
0.500
0
0
0
--
0
FEDERAL FACILITY
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
SEMS 8R ACTIVE SITES
0.500
0
0
0
--
0
SEMS 8R ARCHIVED SITES
0.500
0
0
0
0
FEDERAL RCRA CORRACTS FACILITIES LIST
CORRACTS
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
HIST CORRACTS 2
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
FEDERAL DELISTED NPL SITE LIST
DELISTED NPL
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
DELISTED PROPOSED NPL
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
SEMS DELETED NPL
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
FEDERAL LANDFILL AND/OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LISTS
EPA LF MOP 0.500 0 0 0 0
FEDERAL ERNS LIST
ERNS SP 0 0
FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIES
FED E C
0.500
0
0
0
0
FED I C
0.500
0
0
0
0
RCRA IC EC
0.250
0
0
--
0
FEDERAL RCRA GENERATORS LIST
HIST RCRA CESQG
0.250
0
0
0
HIST RCRA LQG
0.250
0
0
0
HIST RCRA NONGEN
0.250
0
0
0
HIST RCRA SQG
0.250
0
0
0
RCRA LQG
0.250
0
0
0
RCRA NONGEN
0.250
0
0
0
RCRA SQG
0.250
0
0
0
RCRA VSQG
0.250
0
0
0
Page 9 of 109

Map Findings Summary
2021
DATABASE
FEDERAL NPL SITE LIST
SEARCH
SUBJECT DISTANCE
PROPERTY MILES <1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2-1 >1
TOTAL
MAPPED
NPL
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
NPL EPA Rl GIS
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
NPL EPA R3 GIS
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
NPL EPA R6 GIS
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
NPL EPA R8 GIS
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
NPL EPA R9 GIS
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
PART NPL
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
PROPOSED NPL
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
SEMS FINAL NPL
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
SEMS PROPOSED NPL
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
STATE- AND TRIBAL - EQUIVALENT CERCLIS
ARCHIVED HSDS - NC
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
ARCHIVED HSDS AREAS - NC
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
FRB SUPERFUND - NC
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
SHWS - NC
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
STATE AND TRIBAL REGISTERED STORAGE TANK LISTS
FEMA UST
0.250
0
0
0
INDIAN UST R1
0.250
0
0
0
INDIAN UST R10
0.250
0
0
0
INDIAN UST R2
0.250
0
0
0
INDIAN UST R4
0.250
0
0
0
INDIAN UST R5
0.250
0
0
0
INDIAN UST R6
0.250
0
0
0
INDIAN UST R7
0.250
0
0
0
INDIAN UST R8
0.250
0
0
0
INDIAN UST R9
0.250
0
0
0
AST - NC
0.250
0
0
0
UST - NC
0.250
0
0
0
UST 2 - NC
0.250
0
0
0
STATE AND TRIBAL BROWNFIELD SITES
TRIBAL BROWNFIELDS
0.500
0
0
0
0
BROWNFIELDS - NC
0.500
0
0
0
0
STATE RCRA GENERATORS LIST
HWG - NC 0.250 0 0 0
Page 10 of 109

Map Findings Summary
2021
DATABASE
SEARCH
SUBJECT DISTANCE
PROPERTY MILES <1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 >1
TOTAL
MAPPED
STATE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIES
IC - NC 0.500 0 0 0 0
STATE AND TRIBAL LEAKING STORAGE TANK LISTS
INDIAN LUST R1
0.500
0
0
0
0
INDIAN LUST R10
0.500
0
0
0
0
INDIAN LUST R2
0.500
0
0
0
0
INDIAN LUST R4
0.500
0
0
0
0
INDIAN LUST R5
0.500
0
0
0
0
INDIAN LUST R6
0.500
0
0
0
0
INDIAN LUST R7
0.500
0
0
0
0
INDIAN LUST R8
0.500
0
0
0
0
INDIAN LUST R9
0.500
0
0
0
0
LAST - NC
0.500
0
0
0
0
LUST - NC
0.500
0
0
0
0
LUST TRUST - NC
0.500
0
0
0
0
STATE AND TRIBAL LANDFILL AND/OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LISTS
PRLF - NC
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
SWF/LF - NC
0.500
0
0
0
--
0
LOCAL BROWNFIELD LISTS
BROWNFIELDS-ACRES
0.500
0
0
0
0
FED BROWNFIELDS
0.500
0
0
0
0
LOCAL LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE / CONTAMINATED SITES
FED CDL
SP
0
0
US HIST CDL
SP
0
--
--
--
0
INACTIVE HWS - NC
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
LOCAL LISTS OF LANDFILL / SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
HIST INDIAN ODI R8
0.500
0
0
0
0
INDIAN ODI R8
0.500
0
0
0
0
ODI
0.500
0
0
0
0
TRIBAL ODI
0.500
0
0
0
0
SWRCY - NC
0.500
0
0
0
0
SWRCY 2- NC
0.500
0
0
0
0
SWTIRE - NC
0.500
0
0
0
0
Page 11 of 109

Map Findings Summary
2021
DATABASE
SEARCH
SUBJECT DISTANCE
PROPERTY MILES <1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 >1
TOTAL
MAPPED
RECORDS OF EMERGENCY RELEASE REPORTS
HMIRS (DOT) SP 0 0
LOCAL LAND RECORDS
LIENS 2 SP 0 0
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS
AFS
SP
0
--
0
ALT FUELING
0.250
0
0
0
AST PBS
0.250
0
0
0
BRS
SP
0
--
--
--
0
CDC HAZDAT
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
COAL ASH DOE
0.500
0
0
0
--
0
COAL ASH EPA
0.500
0
0
0
--
0
COAL GAS
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
CONSENT (DECREES)
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 2020
0.500
0
0
0
--
0
DEBRIS EPA LF
0.500
0
0
0
0
DEBRIS EPA SWRCY
0.500
0
0
0
--
0
DOD
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
DOT OPS
SP
0
--
--
--
0
ECHO
SP
0
0
ENOI
SP
0
0
EPA FUELS
SP
0
0
EPA OSC
0.125
0
0
EPA WATCH
SP
0
0
FA HWF
SP
0
0
FEDLAND
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
FRS
SP
0
--
--
--
0
FTTS
SP
0
0
FTTS INSP
SP
0
--
--
--
0
FUDS
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
HIST AFS
SP
0
--
--
--
0
HIST AFS 2
SP
0
--
--
--
0
HIST DOD
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
HIST LEAD SMELTER
SP
0
--
--
--
0
HIST MLTS
SP
0
0
HIST PCB TRANS
SP
0
0
Page 12 of 109

Map Findings Summary
2021
DATABASE
SEARCH
SUBJECT DISTANCE
PROPERTY MILES <1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 >1
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
TOTAL
MAPPED
HIST PCS ENF
SP
0
0
HIST PCS FACILITY
SP
0
0
HIST SSTS
SP
0
0
HWC DOCKET
SP
0
0
ICIS
SP
0
0
INACTIVE PCS
SP
0
0
INDIAN RESERVATION
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
LUCIS
0.500
0
0
0
--
0
LUCIS 2
0.500
0
0
0
0
MINES
0.250
0
0
--
0
MINES USGS
0.250
0
0
0
MLTS
SP
0
--
--
--
0
NPL AOC
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
NPL LIENS
SP
0
--
--
--
0
OSHA
SP
0
0
PADS
SP
0
0
PCB TRANSFORMER
SP
0
0
PCS ENF
SP
0
0
PCS FACILITY
SP
0
0
RAATS
SP
0
0
RADINFO
SP
0
--
--
0
RMP
0.500
0
0
0
--
0
ROD
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
0.250
0
0
--
--
0
SEMS SMELTER
SP
0
--
0
SSTS
SP
0
0
STORMWATER
SP
0
0
TOSCA-PLANT
SP
0
0
TRIS
SP
0
--
--
0
UMTRA
0.500
0
0
0
0
VAPOR
0.500
0
0
0
0
BROWNFIELDS AEC - NC
0.500
0
0
0
0
COAL ASH - NC
0.500
0
0
0
0
DAYCARE - NC
SP
0
--
--
0
DRYCLEANERS - NC
0.250
0
0
0
DRYCLEANERS 2 - NC
0.250
0
0
0
Page 13 of 109

Map Findings Summary
2021
DATABASE
SEARCH
SUBJECT DISTANCE
PROPERTY MILES <1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 >1
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
TOTAL
MAPPED
DRYCLEANERS CLEANUP - NC
0.500
0
0
0
0
HIST COAL ASH - NC
0.500
0
0
0
0
IMD - NC
0.500
0
0
0
--
0
MGP - NC
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
NFA - NC
0.500
0
0
0
--
0
NPDES - NC
SP
0
--
--
0
OLI - NC
0.500
0
0
0
0
UIC - NC
SP
0
--
--
0
Page 14 of 109

9
.0

Environmental Records Searched 2021
FEDERAL RCRA NON-CORRACTS TSD FACILITIES LIST
ARCHIVED RCRA TSDF: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste transportation storage disposal and
treatment facilities
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 215-814-2469
Planned Next Contact: 04/13/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
RCRA_TSDF: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste transportation storage disposal and treatment facilities
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 215-814-2469
Planned Next Contact: 04/13/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
FEDERAL CERCLIS LIST
CERCLIS NFRAP: The CERCLIS sites with No Further Remedial Action Planned from the CERCLIS program database. The
Environmental Protection Agency decommissioned the CERCLIS data in 2014. The last update was November 12, 2013.
Agency Version Date: 10/25/2013 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 800-424-9346
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
CERCLIS-HIST: The CERCLIS program database contains information on the assessment and remediation of federal hazardous
waste sites. The Environmental Protection Agency decommissioned the CERCLIS data in 2014. The last update was November
12, 2013.
Agency Version Date: 10/29/2013 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 800-424-9346
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
FEDERAL FACILITY: Sites where Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO) arranged cleanup for Base Closure and
Property Transfer at Federal Facilities
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 703-603-8712
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
SEMS 8R_ACTIVE SITES: The Active Site Inventory Report displays site and location information at active SEMS sites. An active
site is one at which site assessment, removal, remedial, enforcement, cost recovery, or oversight activities are being planned or
conducted. NPL sites include latitude and longitude information. For non-NPL sites, a brief site status is provided.
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 703-603-8867
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
SEMS 8R ARCHIVED SITES: The Archived Site Inventory displays site and location information at sites archived from SEMS. An
archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no further remedial action is
planned under the Superfund program at this time.
Agency Version Date: 10/28/2020 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 703-603-8867
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
Page 16 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
FEDERAL RCRA CORRACTS FACILITIES LIST
CORRACTS: List of facilities where Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program used to investigate and
remediate hazardous releases
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 202-566-1667
Planned Next Contact: 04/13/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
HIST CORRACTS 2: List of facilities where Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program used to
investigate and remediate hazardous releases that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2018
Agency Update Frequency: Annually
Planned Next Contact: 06/08/2021
FEDERAL DELISTED NPL SITE LIST
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 202-566-1667
Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
DELISTED NPL: National Priority List of sites that were delisted and no longer require action
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 703-603-8867
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
DELISTED PROPOSED NPL: Sites that have been delisted from the proposed National Priority List
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 703-603-8867
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
SEMS_DELETED NPL: All Deleted National Priority
List Sties
Agency Version Date: 10/28/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 703-603-8867
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
FEDERAL LANDFILL AND/OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LISTS
EPA LF MOP: Sites in the EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program
Agency Version Date: 01/11/2021 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 703-603-8867
Planned Next Contact: 04/09/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/11/2021
FEDERAL ERNS LIST
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System records of reported spills
Agency Version Date: 02/04/2021 Agency: National Response Center United States Coast Guard
Agency Update Frequency: Annually Agency Contact: N/R
Planned Next Contact: 05/03/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/04/2021
FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIES
FED E C: Federal listing of remediation sites with engineering controls
Agency Version Date: 03/11/2021 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: 800-424-9346
Planned Next Contact: 06/07/2021 Most Recent Contact: 03/11/2021
Page 17 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIES (cont.)
FED I C: Federal listing of remediation sites with institutional controls
Agency Version Date: 03/11/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 06/07/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 800-424-9346
Most Recent Contact: 03/11/2021
RCRA IC_EC: Sites with institutional or engineering controls related to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Agency Version Date: 02/19/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/18/2021
FEDERAL RCRA GENERATORS LIST
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 215-814-2469
Most Recent Contact: 02/19/2021
HIST RCRA CESQG: List of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act licensed conditionally exempt small quantity generators
that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2018
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Annually
Agency Contact: 215-814-2469
Planned Next Contact: 06/08/2021
Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
HIST RCRA_LQG: List of Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act licensed large quantity generators that are no longer in current
agency list
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2018
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Annually
Agency Contact: 215-814-2469
Planned Next Contact: 06/08/2021
Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
HIST RCRA_NONGEN: List of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act licensed non -generators that are no longer in current
agency list
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2018
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Annually
Agency Contact: 215-814-2469
Planned Next Contact: 06/08/2021
Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
HIST RCRA _SQG: List of Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act licensed small quantity generators that are no longer in
current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2018
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Annually
Agency Contact: 215-814-2469
Planned Next Contact: 06/08/2021
Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
RCRA_LQG: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act listing of licensed large quantity generators
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 215-814-2469
Planned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
RCRA_NONGEN: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act listing of licensed non -generators
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 215-814-2469
Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
RCRA_SQG: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act listing of licensed small quantity generators
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 215-814-2469
Planned Next Contact: 04/13/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
Page 18 of 109

Environmental Records Searched 2021
FEDERAL RCRA GENERATORS LIST (cont.)
RCRA_VSQG: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act listing of licensed very small quantity generators.
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: 215-814-2469
Planned Next Contact: 04/13/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
FEDERAL NPL SITE LIST
NPL: List of priority contaminated sites among identified releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances pollutants or
contaminants nationally
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 703-603-8867
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
NPL EPA R1 GIS: Geospatial data for the Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 National Priority List subject to
environmental regulation
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 202-566-2132
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
NPL EPA R3 GIS: Geospatial data for the Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 National Priority List subject to
environmental regulation
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 202-566-2132
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
NPL EPA R6 GIS: Geospatial data for the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 National Priority List subject to
environmental regulation
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 202-566-2132
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
NPL EPA R8 GIS: Geospatial data for the Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 National Priority List subject to
environmental regulation
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 202-566-2132
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
NPL EPA R9 GIS: Geospatial data for the Environmental
Protection Agency Region 9 National Priority List subject to
environmental regulation
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 202-566-2132
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
PART NPL: Sites that are a part of an National Priority List site referred to as the parent site
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 703-603-8867
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
Page 19 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
FEDERAL NPL SITE LIST (cont.)
PROPOSED NPL: Sites that have been proposed for the National Priority List
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
SEMS_FINAL NPL: All Included National Priority List Sites
Agency Version Date: 10/28/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 703-603-8867
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 703-603-8867
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
SEMS_PROPOSED NPL: All Proposed National Priority List Sites
Agency Version Date: 10/28/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
STATE- AND TRIBAL - EQUIVALENT CERCLIS
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 703-603-8867
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
ARCHIVED HSDS - NC: The Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites that were listed on both the National Priority List and the State
Priority List as of June 21, 1995. Updated 1998 and 2004.
Agency Version Date: 12/13/2018
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysis
Agency Update Frequency: No Longer Maintained
Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 05/24/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/25/2021
ARCHIVED HSDS AREAS - NC: Areas of Archived Hazardous
Substance Disposal Sites
Agency Version Date: 12/13/2018
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysis
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 05/24/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/25/2021
FRB SUPERFUND - NC: The NC DENR Federal Remediation Branch list of Superfund and CERCLA sites.
Agency Version Date: 12/21/2020
Agency: Department of Environmental Quality
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 06/15/2021
Most Recent Contact: 03/19/2021
SHWS - NC: Hazardous Substances Cleanup Fund list
of sites
Agency Version Date: 02/11/2021
Agency: Department of Environmental Quality
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/11/2021
STATE AND TRIBAL REGISTERED STORAGE TANK LISTS
FEMA UST: FEMA underground storage tank listing
Agency Version Date: 06/21/2019
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/16/2021
Agency: FEMA
Agency Contact: 202-212-5283
Most Recent Contact: 01/19/2021
INDIAN UST R1: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 1
Agency Version Date: 02/03/2021 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 05/03/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/03/2021
Page 20 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
STATE AND TRIBAL REGISTERED STORAGE TANK LISTS (cont.)
INDIAN UST R10: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 10
Agency Version Date: 12/02/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 05/27/2021
Most Recent Contact: 03/01/2021
INDIAN UST R2: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 2
Agency Version Date: 12/07/2016
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 05/05/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
INDIAN UST R4: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 4
Agency Version Date: 04/14/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4
Agency Update Frequency: Semi Annually
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 05/27/2021
Most Recent Contact: 03/01/2021
INDIAN UST R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 5
Agency Version Date: 11/19/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/14/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Most Recent Contact: 02/15/2021
INDIAN UST R6: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 6
Agency Version Date: 12/18/2020 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6
Agency Update Frequency: Semi Annually Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 06/11/2021 Most Recent Contact: 03/17/2021
INDIAN UST R7: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 7
Agency Version Date: 11/19/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/14/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Most Recent Contact: 02/15/2021
INDIAN UST R8: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 8
Agency Version Date: 02/01/2021 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 04/29/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/01/2021
INDIAN UST R9: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 9
Agency Version Date: 02/01/2021 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 04/29/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/01/2021
AST - NC: Oil terminal facility Locations
Agency Version Date: 02/05/2021 Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 05/04/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
UST - NC: Registered Underground Storage Tanks
Agency Version Date: 01/08/2021 Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 04/06/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/08/2021
Page 21 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
STATE AND TRIBAL REGISTERED STORAGE TANK LISTS (cont.)
UST 2 - NC: UST Facility Operating Permits
Agency Version Date: 01/26/2021 Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 04/23/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/26/2021
STATE AND TRIBAL BROWNFIELD SITES
TRIBAL BROWNFIELDS: Tribal brownfield remediation site listing
Agency Version Date: 02/10/2017
Agency Update Frequency: No Longer Maintained
Planned Next Contact: 04/02/2021
BROWNFIELDS - NC: Brownfield Projects Inventory
Agency Version Date: 02/11/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
STATE RCRA GENERATORS LIST
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/11/2021
HWG - NC: Hazardous Waste sites that are regulated by the hazardous waste portions of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
Agency Version Date: 01/05/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/01/2021
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysis
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
STATE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIES
I C - NC: Sites with land Use Restrictions Monitoring
Agency Version Date: 02/11/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
STATE AND TRIBAL LEAKING STORAGE TANK LISTS
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/11/2021
INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 1
Agency Version Date: 02/02/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 04/30/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/02/2021
INDIAN LUST R10: Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 10
Agency Version Date: 04/14/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 05/27/2021
Most Recent Contact: 03/01/2021
INDIAN LUST R2: Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 2
Agency Version Date: 12/07/2016
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 05/05/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
Page 22 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
STATE AND TRIBAL LEAKING STORAGE TANK LISTS (cont.)
INDIAN LUST R4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 4
Agency Version Date: 12/02/2020 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4
Agency Update Frequency: Semi Annually Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 05/27/2021 Most Recent Contact: 03/01/2021
INDIAN LUST R5: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 5
Agency Version Date: 11/19/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/14/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Most Recent Contact: 02/15/2021
INDIAN LUST R6: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 6
Agency Version Date: 11/23/2020 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 05/18/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/19/2021
INDIAN LUST R7: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 7
Agency Version Date: 04/15/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/14/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Most Recent Contact: 02/15/2021
INDIAN LUST R8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 8
Agency Version Date: 11/23/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 05/18/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/19/2021
INDIAN LUST R9: Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 9
Agency Version Date: 02/01/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 04/29/2021
Most Recent Contact: 02/01/2021
LAST - NC: Aboveground Storage Tanks with reported leaks
Agency Version Date: 12/15/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 06/09/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
LUST - NC: Underground Storage Tanks with reported leaks
Agency Version Date: 12/15/2020 Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 06/09/2021 Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
LUST TRUST - NC: State Trust Fund Database
Agency Version Date: 01/07/2021 Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 04/05/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/07/2021
Page 23 of 109

Environmental Records Searched 2021
STATE AND TRIBAL LANDFILL AND/OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LISTS
PRLF - NC: List of non -permitted landfills that have been closed since 1/1/1983.
Agency Version Date: 01/29/2021 Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysis
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 04/27/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/29/2021
SWF/LF - NC: Landfill sites
Agency Version Date: 02/10/2021 Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 05/10/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/10/2021
LOCAL BROWNFIELD LISTS
BROWNFIELDS-ACRES: EPA Brownfields Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System.
Agency Version Date: 12/28/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 03/26/2021
FED BROWNFIELDS: Federal brownfield remediation sites
Agency Version Date: 02/05/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Semi Annually
Planned Next Contact: 05/05/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Most Recent Contact: 12/28/2020
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
LOCAL LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE / CONTAMINATED SITES
FED CDL: The U.S. Department of Justice listing of clandestine drug lab locations
Agency Version Date: 01/28/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 04/26/2021
Agency: U.S. Department of Justice
Agency Contact: 202-307-7610
Most Recent Contact: 01/28/2021
US HIST CDL: The U.S. Department of Justice historical listing of clandestine drug lab locations
Agency Version Date: 08/05/2019
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 05/31/2021
Agency: U.S. Department of Justice
Agency Contact: 202-307-7610
Most Recent Contact: 03/03/2021
INACTIVE HWS - NC: Listing of inactive hazardous sites where a hazardous substance release has been identified
Agency Version Date: 01/07/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/05/2021
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysis
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/07/2021
LOCAL LISTS OF LANDFILL / SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
HIST INDIAN ODI R8: List of Region 8 Indian land open dump inventory sites maintained within the STARS program that is no
longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 11/12/2018
Agency Update Frequency: Annually
Planned Next Contact: 04/29/2021
Agency: Indian Health Service
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Most Recent Contact: 02/01/2021
INDIAN ODI R8: Region 8 Indian land open dump inventory sites maintained within the STARS program
Agency Version Date: 02/12/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: Indian Health Service
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
Page 24 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
LOCAL LISTS OF LANDFILL / SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES (cont.)
ODI: Open dump inventory sites
Agency Version Date: 10/03/2017
Agency Update Frequency: No Update
Planned Next Contact: 05/24/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Most Recent Contact: 02/25/2021
TRIBAL ODI: Indian land open dump inventory for all regions
Agency Version Date: 12/18/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 06/04/2021
SWRCY - NC: Listing of recycling facilities
Agency Version Date: 11/13/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
SWRCY 2 - NC: Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs)
Agency Version Date: 02/04/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 05/03/2021
SWTIRE - NC: Solid Waste Permitted Facility List
Agency Version Date: 02/11/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
RECORDS OF EMERGENCY RELEASE REPORTS
Agency: Indian Health Service
Agency Contact: 301-443-3593
Most Recent Contact: 03/10/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Contact: 919.707.8236
Most Recent Contact: 02/10/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Contact: 919.707.8236
Most Recent Contact: 02/04/2021
Agency: Department of Environmental Quality
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/11/2021
HMIRS (DOT): Hazardous Material spills reported by the Department of Transportation
Agency Version Date: 01/05/2021 Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 04/02/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
LOCAL LAND RECORDS
LIENS 2: Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act sites with liens
Agency Version Date: 05/11/2017
Agency Update Frequency: No Longer Maintained
Planned Next Contact: 04/02/2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS
AFS: Air Facility Systems Quarterly Extract
Agency Version Date: 02/16/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 05/14/2021
ALT FUELING: Alternative Fueling Stations by fuel type.
Agency Version Date: 01/14/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 04/12/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 800-424-9346
Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/16/2021
Agency: U.S. Department of Energy
Agency Contact: N/R
Most Recent Contact: 01/14/2021
Page 25 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
AST PBS: Bulk petroleum terminals with a total bulk storage capacity of 50,000 barrels or more.
Agency Version Date: 12/11/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 06/04/2021
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Agency Contact: 202-853-5361
Most Recent Contact: 03/09/2021
BRS: Reporting of hazardous waste generation and management from large quantity generators
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Biennial
Planned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
CDC HAZDAT: The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's Hazardous Substance Release/Health Effects Database.
Agency Version Date: 08/21/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Agency Contact: 770-488-6399
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
COAL ASH DOE: List of existing and planned generators with 1 megawatt or greater of combined capacity that are utilizing coal
ash impoundments.
Agency Version Date: 01/08/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/07/2021
Agency: Department of Energy
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/08/2021
COAL ASH EPA: Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
Agency Version Date: 02/18/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/17/2021
COAL GAS: Manufactured Gas Plant locations
Agency Version Date: 01/22/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 04/20/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/18/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Most Recent Contact: 01/22/2021
CONSENT (DECREES): Legal decisions regarding responsibility for Superfund locations
Agency Version Date: 11/13/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/10/2021
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 2020: In 2009 the EPA created the 2020 Corrective Action Baseline list of contaminated or potentially
contaminated sites with a cleanup goal to complete 95% by the year 2020. The names on the list indicate the facility owners
who may or may not have caused the contamination.
Agency Version Date: 12/21/2018 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: No Longer Maintained Agency Contact: N/R
Planned Next Contact: 05/04/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
DEBRIS EPA LF: EPA list of designated landfill facilities for the safe disposal of disaster debris.
Agency Version Date: 01/26/2021 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Planned Next Contact: 04/27/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/26/2021
Page 26 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
DEBRIS EPA SWRCY: EPA list of facilities for the safe recovery, recycling, and disposal of disaster debris.
Agency Version Date: 01/26/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 04/27/2021
DOD: Department of Defense sites
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
DOT OPS: Incident Data Report
Agency Version Date: 11/30/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/26/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Most Recent Contact: 01/26/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/26/2021
ECHO: ECHO is EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online website to search for facilities in your community to assess
their compliance with environmental regulations related to CAA, CWA, RCRA, & SDWA.
Agency Version Date: 01/07/2021 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 202-566-1667
Planned Next Contact: 04/05/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/07/2021
EN01: The Electronic Notice of Intent (eN01) database contains construction sites and industrial facilities that submit permit
requests to EPA for Construction General Permits (CGP) and Multi -Sector General Permits (MSGP).
Agency Version Date: 09/25/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 06/15/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 03/19/2021
EPA FUELS: List of companies and facilities registered to participate in EPA Fuel Programs under Title 40 CFR Part 80.
Agency Version Date: 11/23/2020 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 05/18/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/19/2021
EPA OSC: Listing of oil spills and hazardous substance release sites requiring EPA On -Site Coordinators.
Agency Version Date: 10/09/2020 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 04/02/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
EPA WATCH: The EPA Watch List was used to facilitate dialogue between EPA, state and local environmental agencies on
enforcement matters relating to facilities with alleged violations identified as either significant or high priority. EPA maintained
the lists from 2011 - 2013.
Agency Version Date: 02/09/2018 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: No Longer Maintained Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 04/02/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
FA HWF: Hazardous Waste Facilities with Financial Assurance
Agency Version Date: 01/20/2021 Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 04/19/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/20/2021
Page 27 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
FEDLAND: Federal land locations
Agency Version Date: 01/06/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/07/2021
FRS: Facility Registry Systems
Agency Version Date: 11/27/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/24/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/09/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/23/2021
FTTS: Tracking of administrative and enforcement activities related to FIFRA/TSCA
Agency Version Date: 04/16/2013
Agency Update Frequency: No Longer Maintained
Planned Next Contact: 04/20/2021
FTTS INSP: Tracking of inspections related to FIFRA/TSCA
Agency Version Date: 05/08/2017
Agency Update Frequency: No Longer Maintained
Planned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
FUDS: Defense sites that require cleanup
Agency Version Date: 11/23/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/19/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/22/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
Agency: US Army Corps of Engineering
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/19/2021
HIST AFS: List of Air Facility Systems Quarterly Extract that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 06/14/2019
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 04/01/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
HIST AFS 2: List of Air Facility Systems Quarterly Extract that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 11/26/2018
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 05/04/2021
HIST DOD: Department of Defense historical sites
Agency Version Date: 08/17/2018
Agency Update Frequency: No Longer Maintained
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
HIST LEAD —SMELTER: List of former lead smelter sites that is no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 12/12/2018
Agency Update Frequency: Annually
Planned Next Contact: 04/19/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/21/2021
HIST MLTS: List of sites in possession/use of radioactive materials regulated by NRC that is no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 07/13/2016
Agency Update Frequency: Annually
Planned Next Contact: 04/29/2021
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/01/2021
Page 28 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
HIST PCB TRANS: List of PCB Disposal Facilities that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 01/18/2018
Agency Update Frequency: No Update
Planned Next Contact: 05/17/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/18/2021
HIST PCS ENF: List of permitted facilities to discharge wastewater (Federal equivalent to NPDES) that are no longer in current
agency list.
Agency Version Date: 12/08/2018
Agency Update Frequency: Annually
Planned Next Contact: 06/04/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 03/09/2021
HIST PCS FACILITY: List of Permitted facilities to discharge wastewater (Federal equivalent to NPDES) that are no longer in
current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 12/18/2018
Agency Update Frequency: Annually
Planned Next Contact: 06/03/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 03/09/2021
HIST SSTS: List of tracking of facilities who produce pesticides and their quantity that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 02/13/2019
Agency Update Frequency: Annually
Planned Next Contact: 05/21/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/23/2021
HWC DOCKET: Listing of Federal facilities which are managing or have managed hazardous waste; or have had a release of
hazardous waste.
Agency Version Date: 02/16/2021 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 05/17/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/16/2021
ICIS: Comprised of all Federal Administrative and Judicial enforcement information [intended to replace PCS] by tracking
enforcement and compliance information (also contains what used to be known as FFTS)
Agency Version Date: 01/12/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/12/2021
INACTIVE PCS: Inactive Permitted facilities to discharge wastewater
Agency Version Date: 01/12/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
INDIAN RESERVATION: Indian Reservation sites
Agency Version Date: 10/26/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/19/2021
LUCIS: Land Use Control Information Systems
Agency Version Date: 07/24/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 04/06/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/12/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/21/2021
Agency: Department of the Navy: BRAC PMO
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/08/2021
Page 29 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
LUCIS 2: Land Use Control Information Systems
Agency Version Date: 01/17/2018
Agency Update Frequency: No Longer Maintained
Planned Next Contact: 05/18/2021
MINES: Mines Master Index Files
Agency Version Date: 01/11/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
Agency: Department of the Navy: BRAC PMO
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/19/2021
Agency: Department of Labor
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/11/2021
MINES USGS: Listing of all active mines and mineral plants in 2003
Agency Version Date: 02/02/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: USGS Mineral Resources Program
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
MLTS: Sites in possession/use of radioactive materials regulated by NRC
Agency Version Date: 05/19/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/04/2021
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
NPL AOC: Areas of Concern related to NPL remediation sites
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
NPL LIENS: National Priority List of sites with Liens
Agency Version Date: 10/28/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: N/R
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 703-603-8867
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
OSHA: OSHA's listing of inspections violations and fatality information
Agency Version Date: 10/16/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/08/2021
Agency: Occupational Safety & Health Administration
Agency Contact: 800-321-6742
Most Recent Contact: 01/11/2021
PADS: Listing of generators transporters commercial store/ brokers and disposers of PCB
Agency Version Date: 02/12/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
PCB TRANSFORMER: Disposal and Storage of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Waste
Agency Version Date: 11/27/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 05/24/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/24/2021
PCS ENF: Permitted facilities to discharge wastewater (Federal equivalent to NPDES)
Agency Version Date: 01/12/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/12/2021
Page 30 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
PCS FACILITY: Permitted facilities to discharge wastewater (Federal equivalent to NPDES)
Agency Version Date: 01/12/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/12/2021
RAATS: Listing of major violators with enforcement actions issued under RCRA. Includes administrative and civil actions filed by
the EPA. This dataset is no longer maintained.
Agency Version Date: 09/23/2019
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/04/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
RADINFO: EPA regulated facilities with radiation and radioactive materials
Agency Version Date: 08/01/2019
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/23/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/26/2021
RMP: Facilities producing/handling/ process/ distribute/ store specific chemicals report plans required by the Clean Air Act
Agency Version Date: 03/17/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Monthly
Planned Next Contact: 04/16/2021
ROD: Permanent remedy at an NPL site
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/19/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
SCRD DRYCLEANERS: State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners
Agency Version Date: 12/18/2020
Agency Update Frequency: No Update
Planned Next Contact: 06/14/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 03/16/2021
SEMS SMELTER: This report includes sites that have smelting -related, or potentially smelting -related, indicators in the SEMS
database. The report includes information on the site location as well as contaminants of concern.
Agency Version Date: 10/28/2020 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: 703-603-8867
Planned Next Contact: 05/11/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
SSTS: Tracking of facilities who produce pesticides and their quantity
Agency Version Date: 12/25/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Annually
Planned Next Contact: 06/18/2021
STORMWATER: Permitted storm water sites
Agency Version Date: 01/12/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 03/23/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/12/2021
Page 31 of 109

Environmental Records Searched
2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
TOSCA-PLANT: Plants controlled by the Toxic Substance Control Act
Agency Version Date: 12/28/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 03/26/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 12/28/2020
TRIS: Information regarding toxic chemicals that are being used/manufactured/ treated/ transported/released into the
environment
Agency Version Date: 10/14/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
UMTRA: Uranium Recovery Sites
Agency Version Date: 01/14/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/12/2021
VAPOR: EPA Vapor Intrusion Database
Agency Version Date: 12/21/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 06/15/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/11/2021
Agency: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/14/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency Contact: 855-246-3642
Most Recent Contact: 03/19/2021
BROWNFIELDS AEC - NC: Brownfield projects with Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) boundaries.
Agency Version Date: 11/16/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
COAL ASH - NC: Coal Ash Disposal Sites
Agency Version Date: 01/15/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
DAYCARE - NC: Daycare facility sites
Agency Version Date: 11/10/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 05/05/2021
DRYCLEANERS - NC: Drycleaner Sites
Agency Version Date: 12/18/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 06/14/2021
DRYCLEANERS 2 - NC: Listing of dry cleaning facilities.
Agency Version Date: 02/22/2021
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly
Planned Next Contact: 05/19/2021
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysis
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/11/2021
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysis
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
Agency: Division of Child Development and Early Education
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 03/16/2021
Agency: North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Agency Contact: N/R
Most Recent Contact: 02/22/2021
DRYCLEANERS CLEANUP - NC: Listing dry cleaning facilities under remediation.
Agency Version Date: 11/25/2020 Agency: North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: N/R
Planned Next Contact: 05/19/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/22/2021
Page 32 of 109

Environmental Records Searched 2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
HIST COAL ASH - NC: List of Coal Ash Disposal Sites that is no longer in current agency list
Agency Version Date: 06/05/2017 Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysis
Agency Update Frequency: Annually Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 06/04/2021 Most Recent Contact: 03/08/2021
IMD - NC: List of sites from the Incident Management Database for Regional Underground Storage Tanks (RUST) and the
Aboveground Incident Management Database
Agency Version Date: 12/15/2020
Agency Update Frequency: Varies
Planned Next Contact: 06/09/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Contact: [phone]
Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
MGP - NC: Locations of all Manufactured Gas Plants involved in the MGP Assessment and Remediation Program
Agency Version Date: 01/15/2021 Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysis
Agency Update Frequency: No Update Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 04/13/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
NFA - NC: No further action cleanup sites listing
Agency Version Date: 02/11/2021 Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Update Frequency: Quarterly Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 05/10/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/11/2021
NPDES - NC: Active General permits: NPDES and wastewater facility Location listing
Agency Version Date: 02/04/2021 Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 05/03/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/04/2021
OLI - NC: Old Landfill inventory location information
Agency Version Date: 02/10/2021 Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 05/10/2021 Most Recent Contact: 02/10/2021
UIC - NC: Underground Injection Wells Database List
Agency Version Date: 01/19/2021 Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Agency Update Frequency: Varies Agency Contact: [phone]
Planned Next Contact: 04/16/2021 Most Recent Contact: 01/19/2021
Page 33 of 109

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
SECTION 106 CORRESPONDENCE

531 North Liberty Street • Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 • 336-790-6744
April 24, 2020
Renee Gledhill -Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Via email: Environmental. Review(@ncdcr.2ov
Subject: Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
www.freese.com
Freese and Nichols, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that may emerge with
respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site. A
project review narrative, Site Map, Topographic Map, Aerial Photograph and results from the NC Historic
Preservation Office database are attached.
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel and wetland impacts in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin. This project will include stream
restoration to unnamed tributaries of South Fork Jones Creek and restoration and rehabilitation of
degraded riparian wetlands located adjacent to the unnamed tributaries. The site has been disturbed due
to agricultural row crop use. Historically the site has been in agricultural production (crops and timber)
for the last 70 years. Furthermore, no archaeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys for restoration purposes.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any
historic properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concernting the project.
Sincerely,
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
L
Jason Steele, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures:
1) Project Review Package

STAB a
+ Quµ
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
June 11, 2020
Jason Steele
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
531 North Liberty Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Tason.Steele&freese. com
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Middendorf Springs mitigation, Tanner Hill Road, Wadesboro, Anson County, ER 20-1048
Dear Mr. Steele:
Thank you for your email of April 24, 2020, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.review ,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
L,wRamona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
UNIFORM ACT DOCUMENTATION

531 N. Liberty St. + Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 + 336-790-6744 + FAX [phone]
July 26, 2021
DEB, LLC
28838 Kendalls Ch Rd
Richfield, NC 28137
Dear Mr. Burleson:
www.freese.com
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Freese and Nichols, Inc., in offering to purchase an
easement on your property in Anson County, North Carolina, does not have the power to acquire it by
eminent domain. Also, Freese and Nichol's offer to purchase an easement on your property is based on
what we believe to be its fair market value.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 919-418-8430.
Sincerely,
Ian J ell
Project Manager

531 N. Liberty St. + Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 + 336-790-6744 + FAX [phone]
July 26, 2021
RTB Associates, LLC
28838 Kendalls Ch Rd
Richfield, NC 28137
Dear Mr. Burleson:
www.freese.com
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Freese and Nichols, Inc., in offering to purchase an
easement on your property in Anson County, North Carolina, does not have the power to acquire it by
eminent domain. Also, Freese and Nichol's offer to purchase an easement on your property is based on
what we believe to be its fair market value.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 919-418-8430.
Sincerely,
J
Ian J ell
Project Manager

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
USFWS CORRESPONDENCE

531 North Liberty Street + Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
April 20, 2020
Claire Ellwanger
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zilicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Via email: claire [e-mail]
Re: Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site, Anson County, North Carolina
Ref: USFWS Consultation Code 04EN1000-2020-SLI-0542
Dear Ms. Ellwanger,
www.freese.com
Freese and Nichols, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to threatened, endangered and candidate species, migratory birds, or other trust resources with
a potential stream and wetland restoration project on the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site located in
Anson County, NC. A USGS Topographic Map and Overview Map showing the approximate project are
enclosed. The site is depicted on the attached project location map (Figure 1), quadrangle map (Figure 2)
and aerial photograph (Figure 3).
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream and wetland mitigation in
the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin. The project includes the restoration and enhancement of unnamed
tributaries of South Fork Jones Creek and the restoration and rehabilitation of riparian wetlands.
Currently, the streams throughout the site are extensively impacted by row crop agriculture, lack of
riparian and streambank vegetation, active erosion, nutrient loading from fertilization practices, upland
erosion and sedimentation, incision, and altered groundwater hydrology. The major goals of the proposed
project are to provide ecological and water quality enhancement to the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin while
creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level. This will be accomplished by restoring native
riparian vegetation, creating stable stream dimension, pattern and profile, improving in -stream habitat,
and protecting the site in perpetuity through establishing a conservation easement.
The enclosed project review package provides the information about the species, critical habitat, and bald
eagles considered in our review, and the species conclusions table included in the package identifies our
determinations for the resources that may be affected by the project. All applicable erosion and sediment
control and stormwater regulations will be adhered to for the entirety of the project.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days, we will assume that you concur with the Species Conclusion
Table, do not have any comments regarding any associated laws, and that you do not have any

information relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Jason Steele, PWS
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosures:
1) Figures
a. Figure 1— Project Location
b. Figure 2 —Topographic Map
c. Figure 3 —Aerial Photograph
2) USFWS IPaC Official Species List
3) NC Natural Heritage Program Project Review Species List
4) USFWS IPaC Species Conclusion Table
5) Site Photographs

QPP��gNT OF Tye/ FISH & WILDLIFE
SERVICE
29 United States Department of the Interior
o
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
.'CH 3,Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street Suite #B
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
May 13, 2020
Jason Steele
Senior Environmental Scientist
531 North Liberty Street
Winston Salem, NC 27101
Subject: 20-276 Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site; Anson Co
Dear Jason Steele,
This responds to your email received by our office on April 24th, 2020, concerning the subject
project. We have reviewed the information presented and submit the following comments and
recommendations in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. §§661-667e); the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.); the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§703-712); and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
§4321 et seq.).
Project Summary
Freese and Nichols on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration proposes a stream and
wetland restoration project on the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site in Anson County, NC.
The project includes restoring native riparian vegetation, developing a stable stream profile and
improving in -stream habitat for ecological and water quality enhancement to the Yadkin Pee -Dee
River Basin. The surrounding area is dominated by agricultural land with aquatic resources
(forested wetlands, streams and ponds) occur throughout the site. Your letter did not provide a
detailed project description nor site plans.
We offer the following recommendations in the interest of protecting federally threatened and
endangered species, migratory birds, as well as other fish, wildlife, and natural resources.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
In accordance with section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act and 50 CFR Part 402.01,
before any federal authorization/permits or funding can be issued for this project, it is the
responsibility of the appropriate federal regulatory/permitting and/or funding agency(ies) to
determine whether the project may affect any federally endangered or threatened species (listed
species) or designated critical habitat. A species list for counties in North Carolina can be found
online here: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html. If it is determined
that this project may affect any listed species or designated critical habitat, you must initiate
section 7 consultation with this office. Please note that federal species of concern are not legally

protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened.
Suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the project area for the federally threatened
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionahs). However, the final 4(d) rule (effective as of
February 16, 2016), exempts incidental take of northern long-eared bat associated with activities
that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from
a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup season (June 1 — July 31). Based on the
information provided, the project would occur at a location where any incidental take that may
result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule. Although not required, we
encourage you to conduct any associated tree clearing activities outside the pup season
(June 1 to July 31) and/or active season (April 1 to October 31) to reduce the chance of
impacting unidentified maternity roosts.
Service records show known occurrences of the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) in the vicinity of the project area. This species is known to occur in
clearings, forest edges, roadsides, utility rights of way, old pastures, and woodland openings.
The information provided indicates that suitable habitat for this species may occur within the
project impact area. To ensure that this plant is not inadvertently lost, targeted surveys should be
conducted by a qualified botanist where the proposed work would alter its suitable habitats.
Surveys are not required where suitable habitats for this species do not occur. The survey
window for this species is late August — October. We request that the Applicant provide our
office with survey results and/or an evaluation to complete our review and inform a prudent
effect determination.
Mi rg atory Birds
The MBTA (16 §U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the intentional taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when
specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. To avoid impacts to migratory birds,
we recommend conducting a visual inspection of any migratory bird nesting habitat within the
project area during the migratory bird nesting season of March through September and avoiding
impacting the nests during the migratory bird nesting season. If birds are discovered nesting near
the project area during years prior to the proposed construction date, we recommend that you and
the NCDOT, in consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service, develop measures to discourage
birds from establishing nests within the project area by means that will not result in the take of
birds or eggs; or avoid construction activities during the nesting period.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Construction activities near streams, rivers, and lakes have the potential to cause water pollution
and stream degradation if measures to control site runoff are not properly installed and
maintained. In order to effectively reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts, best management
practices specific to the extent and type of construction should be designed and installed during
land -disturbing activities and should be maintained until the project is complete and appropriate
stormwater conveyances and vegetation are reestablished on the site.

A complete design manual, which provides extensive details and procedures for developing
site -specific plans to control erosion and sediment and is consistent with the requirements of the
North Carolina Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act and Administrative Rules, is available
at:
http: //portal. ncdenr. org/web/lr/publications
For maximum benefits to water quality and bank stabilization, riparian areas should be forested;
however, if the areas are maintained in grass, they should not be mowed. We recommend
planting disturbed areas with native riparian species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can
provide information on potential sources of plant material upon request.
Stream Buffers
Natural, forested riparian buffers are critical to the health of aquatic ecosystems. They
accomplish the following:
1. catch and filter runoff, thereby helping to prevent nonpoint-source pollutants from
reaching streams;
2. enhance the in -stream processing of both point- and nonpoint-source pollutants;
3. act as "sponges" by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods) and by
allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which maintains stream
flows during dry periods);
4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and creating
logjams;
5. stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology;
6. provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved organic
carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web; and
7. maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.
Forested riparian buffers (a minimum 50 feet wide along intermittent streams and 100 feet wide
along perennial streams [or the full extent of the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater])
should be created and/or maintained along all aquatic areas. Within the watersheds of streams
supporting endangered aquatic species, we recommend undisturbed, forested buffers that are
naturally vegetated with trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation and extend a minimum of
200 feet from the banks of all perennial streams and a minimum of 100 feet from the banks of all
intermittent streams, or the full extent of the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater.)
Impervious surfaces, ditches, pipes, roads, utility lines (sewer, water, gas, transmission, etc.), and
other infrastructures that require maintained, cleared rights -of -way and/or compromise the
functions and values of the forested buffers should not occur within these riparian areas.
If you have questions about these comments please contact Ms. Claire Ellwanger of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 42235. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference our Log Number 20-276.
Sincerely,

-- original signed
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

Jason Steele
From: Quast, Karla L <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 15:38
To: Jason Steele
Cc: Youngman, Holland J
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: 20-276 Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site; Anson Co
Attachments: Middendorf Mitigation Site Sunflower Survey.pdf
This is an email from an EXTERNAL source. DO NOT click links or open attachments without positive sender verification of
purpose. Never enter USERNAME, PASSWORD or sensitive information on linked pages from this email.
Hello Jason,
Thank you for providing the survey results to our office. Claire Ellwanger has found a new position
with Forest Services however, Ms. Holland Youngman is now our new DOT biologist and cc'd on this
email.
Service records show known occurrences of the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) in the vicinity of the project and suitable habitat occurs onsite. Targeted
surveys for this species was conducted, September 28, 2020 during the respective optimal survey
window. No evidence for this plant was detected at that time.
Based on the information provided, we have no concerns for any other federally protected species
and we require no further action at this time. Please be aware that obligations under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
Please feel free to reach out with any quesions.
Thank you,
Ka�La, Q VWOt
Administrative Assistant
Asheville Field Office
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
160 Zillicoa St. Suite B
Asheville, NC 28801
karlaguast(a)fws.gov
South Atlantic/Gulf Region
office 828/258-3939, ext. 42232
cell 828/230-7836
From: Jason Steele <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 20214:14 PM

To: Quast, Karla L <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ellwanger, Claire F <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 20-276 Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site; Anson Co
This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or
responding.
Hi Karla,
Please find the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helionthus schweinitzii) habitat assessment and survey for Middendorf Springs
Mitigation Site, Anson County, attached for your review. If you require hard copies, or have any questions, please let me
know.
Best Regards,
Jason Steele, PhD, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
531 N. Liberty St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
[phone] (mobile)
www.freese.com
From: Quast, Karla L <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 3:29 PM
To: Jason Steele <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ellwanger, Claire F <[e-mail]>
Subject: 20-276 Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site; Anson Co
External Email. Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments.
Hello Mr. Steele,
Please find the attached document regarding Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site. Feel free to reach
out with any questions you may have.
Ka�La, Q VWOt
Administrative Assistant
Asheville Field Office
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, South Atlantic/Gulf Region
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801

karlaguast(cDfws.gov
office 828/258-3939, ext. 42232
This electronic mail message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message,
together with any attachment, may contain the sender's organization's confidential and privileged information. The
recipient is hereby notified to treat the information as confidential and privileged and to not disclose or use the
information except as authorized by sender's organization. Any unauthorized review, printing, retention, copying,
disclosure, distribution, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this message in error,
please immediately contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of the material from any computer. Thank
you for your cooperation.
91

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Categorical
Exclusion
FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT
DOCUMENTATION

531 North Liberty Street • Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 • 336-790-6744
April 24, 2020
Milton Cortes
Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd, Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Via email: milton.cortesknc.usda.gov
Subject: Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Cortes,
www.freese.com
Freese and Nichols, Inc. requests review and a completed AD-1006 form for a NC Department of Mitigation
Services stream and wetland restoration project (Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site) located in Anson
County, NC. A zipped shapefile of the project boundary is attached for your review.
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel and wetland impacts in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin. This project will include stream
restoration to unnamed tributaries of South Fork Jones Creek and restoration and rehabilitation of
degraded riparian wetlands located adjacent to the unnamed tributaries. The site has been disturbed due
to agricultural row crop use. Historically the site has been in agricultural production (crops and timber)
for the last 70 years.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concernting the project.
Sincerely,
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Jason Steele, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures:
1) Project Boundary shapefile (.shp)

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 04/24/2020
Name of Project Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Land conversion for mitigation
County and State Anson County, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received By
NRCS 04/24/2020
Pe i on Cor,�pleting F
M11 fortes NRCS
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)
YES NO
�
Acres Irrigated
none
Average Farm Size
195 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 82.7 % 284,274 acres
Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 57.6 pro 168,075 acres
Name of Land Evaluation System Used
Anson Co., NC LESA
Name of State or Local Site Assessment System
N/A
Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
June 11, 2020 by eMail
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
I Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
44.8
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0.0
C. Total Acres In Site
44.8
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
29.40
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
15.40
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0267
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
16.7
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted Scale of 0 to 100 Points
87
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria
Criteria are ex lained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor ro ect use form NRCS-CPA-106
Maximum
Points
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
1. Area In Non -urban Use
(15)
15
2. Perimeter In Non -urban Use
(10)
10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
(20)
20
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government
(20)
0
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area
(15)
15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
(15)
10
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
(10)
10
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland
(10)
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
(5)
5
10. On -Farm Investments
(20)
0
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
(10)
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
(10)
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
85
0
0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
87
0
0
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment)
160
85
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
172
0
0
0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES❑ NO ❑
Reason For Selection:
Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (03-02)

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion
FISH & WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT
NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
CORRESPONDENCE

531 North Liberty Street • Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 • 336-790-6744
April 24, 2020
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Coordionator
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Rogers Lake Depot
1718NCHwy 56W
Creedmor, NC 27522
Via email: olivia.munzer(@ncwildlife.or2
Subject: Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Munzer,
www.freese.com
Freese and Nichols, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that may emerge with
respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site. A Site Map,
Topographic Map and Aerial Photograph showing the approximate project area are enclosed.
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel and wetland impacts in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin. This project will include stream
restoration to unnamed tributaries of South Fork Jones Creek and restoration and rehabilitation of
degraded riparian wetlands located adjacent to the unnamed tributaries. The site has been disturbed due
to agricultural row crop use. Historically the site has been in agricultural production (crops and timber)
for the last 70 years.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concernting the project.
Sincerely,
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Jason Steele, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures:
1) Figure 1— Vicinity Map
2) Figure 2 —Topographic Map
3) Figure 3 —Aerial Photograph

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
18 May 2020
Mr. Jason Steele
Freese & Nichols, Inc.
531 North Liberty Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
SUBJECT: Environmental Review of the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site in Anson County,
North Carolina.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your request to
review and comment on any possible concerns regarding the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site.
Comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is located south of State Road 1120 and west of NC 742 in
Wadesboro, Anson County, North Carolina. The site has been used for agriculture and timber purposes
for the last 70 years. The proposed project would restore and/or rehabilitate unnamed tributaries and
associated riparian wetlands of the South Fork Jones Creek in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.
NCWRC does not have any known records of federal or state -listed rare, threatened, or endangered
species near the site. However, the lack of records from the site does not imply or confirm the absence of
federal or state rare, threatened, or endangered species.
Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Based upon the information provided to NCWRC, it is
unlikely that stream and wetland mitigation will adversely affect any federal or state -listed species.
However, we offer the following preliminary recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife resources:
1. We recommend riparian buffers are as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner
needs. NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams to
maximize the benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland
runoff, and wildlife habitat.
2. We recommend minimizing or avoiding green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) in the planting list
due to the presence of the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) in North Carolina. Please see
the following link for a recommended list of riparian tree, herbaceous, and grass species for NC
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
18 May 2020
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County
stream restoration site in the Piedmont (h!!ps://www.bae.ncsu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/07/piedmontriparian _species.pdf) .
3. Due to the decline in bat populations, we recommend leaving snags and mature trees, or if
necessary, remove tees outside the maternity roosting season for bats (May 15 — August 15).
The use of biodegradable and wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose -weave netting
that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal
twines. Silt fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it
impedes the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have
detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of
eggs, and clogging of gills.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Any additional comments regarding the project will
be made after the site visit. If I can be of additional assistance, please call [phone] or email
olivia.munzerkncwildlife .org.
Sincerely,
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
FIGURES

Project Area
0 1.5 3
Miles
HE
VICINITY MAP
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
FIGURE 1
FREESE 531 N. Liberty St.
0 Winston-Salem, NC 27101
WMINNICHOLS
Anson County, NC
336-790-6744

Legend
Project Area
�� �" ,� - � - -ice. .__ a, •.
fff, _
Y } pi `;'r.� - i�^� �rle 54 i1
B�a
a 45
-For
rr. � r - Ov.
•o-�� — ^ _ /
J L ad �J r o
4
�ww�`_
r 0 2,000 4,000 :`�
Feet N� -1:24,OOo Quadrangie. Morven West
:K
N PROJECT LOCATION
AND TOPOGRAPHY
FIGURE 2
FREESE 531 N. Liberty St.�'
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
0N�CN�LS Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Anson County, NC
336-790-6744

'�.J Ai. :-�-.k.,��b5 .: -,��pY �t F�. Si 14�-= nr�'U _- ._e :.•. , fW�" .-- •
Legend
-.3hy;,,} ,'fir •9.j.Y�: i.- ,~�i ��: 1� `' -.'4.: V.
,;r...•'
r LJ Protect Area r.; s' .ua
,41
ko
i*
Q .
f
I
4 `
0 1,000
2,000_
•
Feet
u
_�;;.`•'
N AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
FIGURE 3
FREESE 531 N. Liberty St.aWinston-Salem, NC 27101
Anson County, NCrm,'MCHOLS
336-790-6744

Appendix G
Design Data and Plan Sheets

F—
J
CY W
J C�
Z LLJ
LU
2 z
O
O-
F—
_ Q
z 0
W H
LL 2
OLL
F-p
O
2-
F— U)
W
z
G G
x
Ld
CD
Z <
F
W
:Lj
Cl)
c
Z 0
J M
a }' o
Z N
O �0
(~j z
�� ° o
L z
Cl) Q Q
Cl) O 0
O
U CD
�O
a
a
o
oo
lo
ol
o
J
aw
Z❑
<z
a�0
Z�
aZ
EQ
m
a w
o
U E
r o Z
m Z m Q Q
T�roo a0Q
r_Mw aW
au) Ro
0U) Y
W W Lu
= Z LU
�OU
O
U)
}
< rn
m
F
}
� o
.0
m
}
a
m
I o
a
~ M
m
F
a �
F
7 N N
m
}
a 0)
W
m O
� O
}
a m
W
F
U
a
>
L
z O
U
<
U
<
U
<
U
_
Z
O
O
O)
V
of
p
a
O
Oi
O
O
U
O
N
N
O
of
V
O
O
O
}
O
O
O
O
W
N
O
O
S W
Of
N
OZ a
W
p Y
W
Z:
F
Z:
F
Z:
F
Z:
F
Z:
F
Z:
F
Z:
F
Z:
F
p y^.
W
F
Z
F
Z
a
W
a
W
J
m
m
°�
Q
Q
F Q
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
F Q
W
W
Of
K
~
Z
LL,��
LU
�
�
a
a
Qw
in
W
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
FS
m
m
O
O
S
w
O
O
O
O
O
W
CO
a
p
F
p
F
a
CO
z
O
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
d 0
a
a
D
a
O
p
W
F¢
z
w
a
a p
W
O
w
O
w
O
w
O
w
O
w
O
w
O
w
O
w
y z
w z
w
w
W
w
>
p
O
w
a
F
0
F
0
F
a
a w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w,
O
w
w
w
w
m
a
m
s
F
co
a'
a
z
O
a
K
a
Z
U'
LL
K
a'
W
K
m
K
O
K
N
}
K
m
>-
K
V
}
K
LL�
}
K
O
}
O K
LL
K
a
K
m
S
w
S
w
01
p
U
W
U
p
a'
a m
�
}
}
K
K
K
K
K
W LL
Z p
0
0
U
p
W
a
p
O
}
O
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
p m
a
a
p
p
F
p
>
Q
F
F
m
m
m
m
m
Y
F
F
a
a
O
F
W
F
p
a
m
m
K
K
K
K
a
a
O
W
W
ww
p
m
>-
K
a'
a'
F
F
F
F
F
LL
Z
Z
>
>w
>
F
a
_
Q
Q
Z
Z
LL
m
p
O
Q
a_
Q
a_
a
af
a
Of
a
F
co
a
a
a
—a,
s
K
co,O O
M N N
0 0 0
O of o
00 0
0 I I 0l o
v v
co co
N N
v v
co co
t,
O I I OI co
Lo
co co
0) 0) -o
0 0
O0 0
I OI O
J
W
LU
Z
J
W
LU
;
LU
Z
Z
J
Z
O
I--
J
I--LL
H J
S
Q
U)w
j
wa
~
Q
O
�
0
U
LU
Q
Q
Q
0
Q
Z O
LU
LU
W
S
Lu
w
w

we ro,ai.ano
aa, slia9n'N[s
SIOUNAS
aMPnoeuv,=2-�
a�==��Pe,aa4==4,
N
-_
�
SION3IN��
Nt/ld N011t/�JIlIW 13t/214
nouanaisHoaoe ioH
3533�Id
31lS NOliVE)lilA
SEJNNdS J2JOGNKGIA
53JIAN35 NOIlV9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN
s..ec�w ,=euory
z
d
Z
O
H
V'
H
h
i
s
ie
9
G G
¢
A
C
C
�^^P'SIOeINAS 2-9\,xwMe,a\:NSVN'�weuulij
14�a151M�Z'b2:lay atlJtl

NIP M31—AD3115T3 s rp, laayssiy,
MM-qa,
we w,aeano - aa, ��ix9n'm[s IIAU d
SION3IN�� N did N011t/E)IlI W 13 d214 c� o
nouanaisHoa eoe ioH,�. 3533Nd 311S NOUVE)WA SEJNNdS 32104NKGIA
53JIA835 NOIlV9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN
s..ec�w ,=, euory z
Q
d
zo O
u� Q
V'
o =
3gilt
y w g H a
YM

3113021d (INt/ Nt/ld ,M,.=PpM��°� eleas mjpa yayzsly]
va� MMx.-ua M a'MH3 41 4184a 4e yaul aI.uo IsM eg =
� ' y° 4N3 Ol 00+0 ViS - JT A2 vin91211
iar MIM
we ro� ai.a rvo ds Auagn 1v =85 IIAo N
S-10HTDUZ31 aioMdld NOUVE)WA 1JVW] u o
14011anaisH03 aoe ioH3533md 311S NOUVE)WA SDN121dS 32104NKGIA
53JIA835 NOI1V9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN a.00r... uw M acre ox
®a Wo
8W5 -
' 8' o_G
o
Cz
of o91,
' 01
A
o
<�°��
�I i .OA`��
w���
\I 11 / L111,11 III 111
y l 1 \ \ \1
\
y
o
i. — o
�� � � ��1 I �; A•`,_a .. c /I I n�,' � _ �, �l '�IV��IV`�`��`� � `��`V`II�I�II
Ali, � ;A � � I'I
A`I
Y�'II I/
>R��E
o�
i
/I
d
/
o
I/
3
I
/
I
o
o
I
I
I
I
/
/
I
I
1I:
I
$�a
/

3113O21d 4NV NVId �°� eleas mjpa yayzsl4l
va�MMx.-uaM = a414184a 4z ya41a4o 1.�1.p =
° , -a y° 4N3 0100+0 ViS - 9T A21vine1211
TDUZDN iar MIM
we ro� ai.a no ags.Wagn x =[s IIAU M
lHi-Nn Mdld NOIlt/EJIlI W 1JVW] lNdc� o
4011anaisH03 aoe ioH3533md 31lS NOIlt/EJIlIW SDN121dS 321OGNKGIA
53JIA835 NOI1V9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN a.00r... uw M acre ox
So Sg o_C
o
0 o Cz
o,�31
ofo
s
$tlnE
--------------
I
I'
III
Lj

3113O21d(INt/Nt/ldeleasmjpaI.y]
va�MMx.-uaM awrxa 414184a 4e yaul auo IsM eg =
'" -a y° 4N3 0100+0 t/1S - VT A21vinein
TDUZDN Iar MIM
we ro. Hi agS.Wagn N =ES IIAU 7
�<"°'� ^�°`: °°'�; SION3INo�� N did N011t/E)IlI W 13 d214 lNdc� o
4011anaisH03 aoe ioH3533md 31lS NOUVE)WA SDNI2JdS J2JOGNKGIA
53JI�N35 NOI1V9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 DIMa.00r... uw M acre ox
I Ili /Ijiil��i�
oil
\ w E E E F � I 3 I I I I i 1 Illi I i Ji 1111111u111�1311111�1111� i I
A A �
V ��ow// ��/iilll�ln �illlllii�l�l��llllllllllli l
I
h l r /I I / / IV �l /\'V� 11 I
I JII II II I I l I ' I J I
I l I I
„IrI, / I I l l IIIIII;IIIi;;I�I/;11�IIjl
';I,;Illlllll,lhlllll/11
//',IIII'„I�IIIJ/;III
.jl�'llllili�iili�;�!;illl;�ii
ul� I h� J I`I.I II'lll II'llll; �I (mll;.Il; i
��Sa
',III IIlII'',',IIIIII�I�I;I��;;I�
z w000
I I I 1
�llllll'IIIijlI I, I I�
/5jF
)el
I o
/ %I /op%/i/ii/ `3 _� ���"'II IIl11�IJ��I�I lilll/Il/lll�l 11 I�lll
I y s/l// a ll
;�l/� I IIIj Ij
II II
/Mj^ /i//�//j llllj JI I�Illll i I I I l
/
<-�',11',A���I�\�
°s511111�A
w
��
AI I
a
o/
1 31
O
1 Ai
3 N
D
8'b
oo°a3
VS
�
z
,
,
/
I
I
I
2
/
I
�s
,

aa��xmx.-uaaM
3113021d (INV NVId
,�,.=Ppm�sd°�
awrx3
eleas mjpa yayzsl4l
414184a 4e yaul auo lsM eg =
we ro. ai.a no
� ' y°
DIN I.B MIM
ags•Wagn N =Es
OO+TZ ViS 0100+OT ViS - T A21vino1211
IIAU
-"°'�
c�
o
Mdld NOUVE)WA 1JVW]
nouanaisHoaoe ioH��
3533�Id
31lS NOUVE)WA SDN121dS 32104NKGIA
53JIA835 NOIlV9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN
n.sa v++upu3pawxpm.u�eq yvex _ _
Z
Q
-
laoN c w - W g -
z
d
Z
O
So 8'
oG
0 0
00?0
d153N� /I
F- /Sb
-
\-\-
V
��350- �
--
/
i ✓I�/�/i����
1
360-�
I \ \ I� I I A �\ \ \ II�III� �//�ii
v
I c IIII
I I 1 �jl
V A 11 III �� l'//* i/---___-
u4
��
�v�v�\v\�iv
oo`J" /p �f,;f1I z,
1111 i/� LL I I
`�a111vI';,1,1l''nlfl'%l,'/j�,—'
w I\ //A/;II l l / i
1111i`lll�
I f I I l I � I I 1• \'lll� Im111 IIII (IIIII/II/I/I / � i- � \� \�
-
\
FIlI, II;�;IIIvIvII1111111���'II'��� V
I����
1 1
_l l �lol'Iy
F� � s` I • . A�IIIIgI� I , 111,111 I,I Iv
� I I ��� , I III v �
�I
I�01,1I
111111 , I,; lI/lI IIII II 1, ----
\
` \I 11 �� T �\ •`�. IIIII � I \' \\ \\ � � `-
\ 1 I \ l / I � l l I m I III \� �
1
�
11p1'•
IFII Ali
---
I
Hdk��
/ %o
��IL .�'„wQvvv,a vICI, ;,
I.�v-
2.
- - - - - _ p w w 8 ` \ \ I / w F \ 1 I
\
III,
�al
\.� -G `\ � � m�1 I 111j�1111� III tlo
z I
.\ I
zz l I. i�l
>
w353soodsl°
1
z o
Exap:wepa..x w xwu=n=,aa.su.,
nWLo-YW3LL9dd'J\9u mua\mS�N suw4alli
(way sxnl zzwz qax zr°�d

31UMId 4NV NVId EM,.=PpM��°� eleas mjpa yayzsl4l
va� MMx.-ua M a'MH3 41 4184a 4e yaul auo lsM eg =
°'� ' y° 4N3 0100+TZ ViS - T A21vine1211
TDUZDN Iar4—M
we ro. ai.a rvo agsWagn N =Ef 11AU lD
lNd
nouanaisro� aoe ior3533�Id 311S NOUVE)I11W SDN121dS 32104NKGIA
53JIAN35 NOI1V9111W 1!01N3 W18Vd30 JN a.00r... uw M acre ox
—
\ JAI
—
Nl
113Q
l
1

aa��xmx.-aM
31UMId (INV NVId
,�,.=P
w�sda�
awrx3
eleas mjpa yayzsl4l
414184a 4e yaul auo �sM eg =
we ro. ai.a no
-"°'�
� -'ua4d
i I.sL-M
ags.Wagn N =Es
00+TT t/1S Ol00+0 t/1S - Z A21vinein
IIAU
n
c�
o
-_
Mdld NOUVE)WA 1JVW]
nouanaisrtoaoe ION
31lS NOUVE)WA SDNI2JdS J2JOGNKGIA
53JIAN35 NOIlV91111/4 j01N3 W1NVd30 JN
n.sa v++upu3pawxpm.u�eq yvex _ _
Z
Q
—
H1b�N - w - w g —
c .+
Z
d
0
SNO S>
O_C
0 o Cz
00
OO
;,
il,
IpllPY
I
�llvi I
z--
�
I _
o
zI
Y
° oo
,
I i �1 v V��ull 1 1, 11vri U I�
I
Vo
151 \ I 1
11
1
�sc' <
/ II
lf
� I �/
+ 1 o 1 "A
�N Al01z
a%
Exap:wepa..x r+ xwu=n=,aa.su.,
nWLo-YW3LL9dd'J\9u mua\mS�N suw4al�i
Iway sxnl zzwz qax zra�d

aa��xmx.-uaaM
31UMId (INV NVId
,�,.=Ppm�sd°�
awrx3
eleas mjpa yayzsl4l
414184a 4e yaul auo lsM eg =
we ro. ai.a no
� ' y°
= I.s MIM
ags.Wagn N =Es
00+ZZ ViS 0100+TT ViS - Z A21vino1211
IIAU
00
-_
°
NVId NOliVE)I11 W 1JVW]
n011anaisHo3 aoe ioH��
3533�Id
31lS NOliVE)I11W SDNI2JdS 321OGNKGIA
53JIA835 NOIlV9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN
n.sa v++upu3pawxpm.u�eq yvex _ _
Z
Q
c Wo _ W5 —
Z
S0 S>z
Q
oC
0 0
0 0?0
f
o
ee
.
0
1 ..._......
...........
,/
I ��\
_
rne__ ,
z
—
1
— I \---- — ---
1
iz
— �___ -
\
1� 11\
_------_
Y i
00+11 H133Nn
LM
HJ1HW
Exap:wepaa.x w xwu=n=,aa.su.,
nWLo-YW3LL9dd'J\9u mua\mS�N suw4alli
Iway sxnl zzwz qax zr°�d

3113021d 4Nt/ Nt/ld
:'g�aulzl4p
g, m
lzazymjpz
ML( a ' 4N3 Ol OO+ZZ t/1S - Z A21vine1211
_
.�°�"Im
in,aaais.W.gn N=ES 11 Al 01
S'JOR3INo�� Nt/ld N011t/�JIlIW 13t/214 °
N0113UISN03 80J iON5H1 3S33Nd 31lS NOUVE)I11W SDNI2JdS J2JOGNKGIA
53JIAN35 NOI1V9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN °°°°r°.. aim u arm °x
2

3113O21d 4NV NVId EMp zP�� �a� eP Mrp. ya4-141
va]•MMx.-uaM 3YMH3 ul 1✓184a we I=111.11 eg =
—0.0 4^ 00+TT t/1S Ol 00+0 t/1S - £ A21vine1211
- TDUZ N' lannys+lM O m
we ro. ai.a no ] w 4fI N LEG 11A D
S-lowi ma NVId NOIlt/EJIlIW 1JVW]
nouanaisHo� aoe ioH3533�Id 31lS NOIlt/EJIlIW SDN121dS 321OGN3441W
53JIA835 NOI1V9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN o.00r... uw M Sire ox
toh - oo -
Sg —z
o
oC
0 o Cz
of o10
i�—
I
I
I
I
1/
l
o
,
i
,
,
1
,
,
I
,
,
kd
A�Q
II
/
3
I
,
I
/
J

aa��xmx.-uaaM
3113O21d 4NV NVId
amp zP�x�sd°�
awrx3
eleas mjpa yayzsl4l
414184a 4. yaul auo �sM eg =
-
we ro. ai.o rvo
�I.sL
i -M
�
xi[Ly1 Ayagx NSES
00+ZZ ViS 0100+TT ViS - £ A21vino1211
11A0
-"°'�
c�
o
Mdld NOIlt/EJIlIW 1JVW]
n011anaisHo3 aoe ioH���
3533�Id
31lS NOIlt/EJIlIW SDN121dS 321OGNKGIA
53JIA835 NOIlV9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN
n.sa v++upu3pawxpm.u�eq yvex _ _
Z
Q
-
�a Wo _ W5 -
bry
d
Z
So 8'
oC
Q
0 0
ooF
of o
\
1
325 0
O%�
325.,
Ai
I I
1
i
�l �l
_
13n
zo
14
------- ----, —
V'—
_f—��
I _ I
I II
i I
` a I
lz
�
I
\-O,
\\ 31 i \•\1�1 I J 'I I i L/",mac _
___--- _
i
Exap:wepa..x r+ xwu�n��a.su.,
nW[o-YW3LL9dd'J\9u mua\mS�N suw4al�i
Iway sxnl zzwz qax zr°�d

3113021d (INV NVId EMp iP���°� eleas mjpa yayzsl4l
va� MMx.-ua M a'MH3 41 4184a 4e yaul auo lsM eg i
°'� ' y° 4N3 O100+ZZ t/1S - £ A21vine1211
oi[L�
- i Iag4—M N we ro. ai.o rvo y1 Avaq�N LEG 11AID
S-lowi ma Mdld NOIiVE)IlIW 1JVW] c� o
nouanaisHo� aoe ioH3533�Id 311S NOIiVE)IlIW SDN121dS 32104NKGIA
53JIAN35 NOI1V9111W j01N3 W18Vd30 JN a.00r... uw M acre ox
3
o
o
o�
I
i
I
I
a
�
1,
1
1
I
o

31UMId 4NV NVId EMp iP���°� eleas mjpa yayzsl4l
1 .MMv.-ua M a'MH3 41 4184a 4e yaul auo lsM eg i
°'� ' y° 4N3O100+Ot/1S-t7avinei1
- i Iag MIM M we ro. ai.o no oi[L�yl Avagtf N LEG IIAID
S-lowi ma Mdld NOIiVE)IlIW 1JVW] V o
4011OUiSHo3 aoe ION 3S33mml 311S NOIiVE)IlIW SDN121dS 32104NKGIA
53JIAN35 NOI1V9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN a.00r... uw M acre ox
HpN So Z- Z
Ot
o
0 o CZ
o
O1
Oo
`
V� -�,,
o o
l�//�,�w
/
8.
< o,--
o
�Iv`/
`I�
Iz
I� �\ _380• �\ � 1 / a
� 1 I
o
1
I
'
1
i
/
I
,
i
I
3
r
1
1
,
I
I
1
-
I
!
1!
i
i
I
a��
1
I
C

31UMId 4NV NVId amp P���°� eleas mjpa yayzsl4l
va� MMx.-ua M a'MH3 41 4184a 4e yaul auo lsM eg =
y° 00+TT t/1S Ol00+0 t/1S - S A21vinein
aIaS4ay m
we ro.ai.ono q Au 4fINTEGSES IIAU
570N�INo�� N did N011t/�JIlI W 13 d214 6o
NouanaisNo� aoe ioN3533�Id 31lS NOliVE)IlIW SDNI2JdS J2JOGNKGIA
53 JIAN35 NOI1V9111W]01NINIM30 JN a.00r... uw is acre ox
i/
I
I
1
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
I
1
1
I
I;
I
/
I
-
I
1
I
3
I,
f
o
I
I
�LL
i

3113021d (INt/ Nt/ld eleas m jpa yayzsly]
m'�MMx.-unM a'M�a ul a184a wer aI.uo'sMeg =
�i—MIM
4N3 0100+TT t/1S - S A21vinein
we ro. ai.o rvo oi[LDy1 AyagON LEG IIAID
mommoo Mdld NOUVE)WA 1JVW] V o
n011OUISHO3 aoe ION W33mml 31lS NOUVE)WA SDNI2JdS J2JOGNKGIA
53JIAN35 NOI1V9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN a.00r... uw M acre ox
v�1,vd;vwyv;��gvv';I,��Ib�'�
wA'vw
i �u' •_ v .V\v�Avvw"v'��ov\\�bvvvil'1 lip
Jll
NO
/ `v - c I \� vl�ovo�vvIvlu vdlvv l l
\ `)Alol
_ p
cz
IJ
ol
I
r,
\ _
z �
s=�
i
kdTi
LL
\i
o
1
,I
3
1
I
I
191
2

3113021d (INV NVId amp zP���a� eleas mjpa yayzsl4.
va�MMx.-uaM a'M�a 414184. 4e yaul auo sM eg =
-d 00+8 t/1S Ol OO+O t/1S - 9 A21vine in
oi[LD 1—m
we ro. ai.o rvo a. .- Avaq�N T., 11AID
i-"°'SION3INo�� Nt/ld N011t/E)IlIW 13t/214 °
n011anaisHo3 aoe ioH3533md 31lS NOIlt/EJIlIW SDN121dS 32104N3441W
53JIAN35 NOI1V9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN a.00r... uw is acre ox
lyoN w w g "' o
SO S? GZO
ouN of N =o
o�o
so
ol
o
3
l
I
I
i
i
1
a
ow�
r��
,
�
2

3113021d 4NV NVId amp zP���°� eleas mjpa yayzsl4.
va� MMx.-ua M a'M�a 41 4184. 4e yaul auo'sM eg =
y° 00+9T t/1S Ol 00+8 t/1S - 9 A21vine1211
we ro. ai.o rvo oi[L�—. AvaqnNiES IAU
570N3INo�� N did N011t/�JIlI W 13 d214 6o
NouanaisNoaoe ioN3533�Id 31lS NOUVE)WA SDN121dS 32104NKGIA
S3 JIAHS NOI1V9111W]01NINIM30 JN a..or... uw is acre ox
r\
w
Il H�1HW

aa�mxx.-uaaM
31UMId 4NV NVId
amp zP�x��°�
awrx3
eleas mjpa yayzsl4l
414184a 4e yaul auo lsM eg =
we ro.ai.ono
��"
� ' y°
Txuz x• Ia-MIM
�wp�NSES
00+ZZ t/1S 0100+9T t/1S - 9 A21vinoin
IIAU
oo
�'�
`i
_
"���°'
i�`"°
SION3INo��
Nt/ld N011t/OJIlIW 13t/214
14011OUIS1403 aoe ION
31lS NOUVE)WA SDN121dS 321OGNKGIA
53JIAN35 NOIlV9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN
nzsa v++upu3pawxpmau�eq yvex
Z
Q
oG
°9
zz
U

3113021d 4NV NVId amp zP�x��°� eleas mjpa yayzsl4l
aa�mxx.-uaaM awrxa 414184a 4e yaul auo'sM eg =
� ' y° 4N3 0100+ZZ t/1S - 9 A21vine1211
- TDUZ N' IaB4 Mim m
we ro.ai.ono �wq�x T., IIAU _
i�`"°'" �� SION3INo�� Nt/ld N011t/�JIlIW 13t/214 °
4011OUiSH3 a ooe ioH�3533�Id 31lS NOIlt/EJIlIW SDN121dS 32104NKGIA
53JIAN35 NOI1V9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN a.00r... uw M acre ox
nzsa v++upuapawxpmau�eq yvex
zz
2� S'o S g Z
O
o
0 o CZ
O1
OO
Y -��, /
I
< u II
�Iv
l
--------------
��
/
I
II
I
I
1
1
3
o
/I
o
I`1
Q
d
z
0
Q
S2
2

.
STIvIG qNm&
-
mom /�>#1
�/
SNO m±m 2�ONo
- Z
Boa
FL
n
1ISNoUvl m±m 2»&S2o NIG om
(
\
((( E
_
otom
{}
-
}((
01
\
: \
\
:
3
\)
(
})
.-
�\
.-
/\}
`}
(°}
/\
//}
/j}
\
\
5
5
P
k
\
\
»
»
= z
/
:
_
\
\O
, ©
#
#
(:>
©
\
Q
6}d
.01.
§
}
\ -
\}
_
§
/
\:r
�
F
\
,
\
+
-
\
co
-
( )
} }
\)
)
(
.
}
)§
//
.
\\
>- 0
�
m-�
_
}
mow(
/- 2-
6�
/-
\
�\\\\\:
}
^^
}\\\\}
\
;
; __
__
\}
}}
}j( (
\

_
gIVIIG qIm&
_,_: -
\
g�
- Z
Boa
N2dNoIvlm±m 2VHO
IISNoIvlm±msmNea 2oNIGom
Nd
(
\
�}
§
\ ^�
_:
\ �
/{ )
o
`El
}}j
til
o
=N.o}:<
\\oo
\
o
o
o
'o
\\\j
]\\}
\
\\ ®
�
o
o
o
o°
^
c d
\�
of _
}!
:
)\
Z.
-
o
:
§
o
ol
{
( (
_

t
b 0
IOTIIIN
SllV134
..
............
av:wuaimrvo -
a E N
1IN7
M
S7OH31MA��
Nt/ld N011t/9111W 13t/b4
N0I13fI81SN00380frv'lONstlod
asaail�
311 N UV I11W Nlbd 3b GN3441W
S O J SJ S O
5371AN 3S NOI1V0111 W lO IN] W1N Vd30 7N
a�"4"a"a3iva
0
77
s�e��w Sri ry
z
3
z
O
a
o
o
o
/ - oo
/%
L
o
o
`>
1
-
01
p-
o
wo
m
LL
3 a
1 I
1 I
I
oo
w3
o
o
~ 8 a-
0
0
Fff x
�
❑
Y
> U'
❑
WN
r
Z
k
w
�
z
��
v
wU
O O
K
N O
aw
'�❑;w
z
__
Q_�
¢
2
ono
UYr
z
O
ZE
> &w 06
a� w=
K Z
0 as
0
III_ UO
ttm
ns Pv^es w zoz/12L'. p=nE5��e1
P HSarW 1N3 Wltl3 6-1a\ame\MS\tN aweu o2
al 4 a15Wl sZ''IaL 010tl

_ giIv 2n ana s
~% _, ° =,2,,:
_,_, 111131
1-1w� g�
Z IIAID
S-1OHNNg eNoUvlm±m 2VHO
�� a IISNOU mmm 2vaa 20 NIG om
(
\
§
! Z )
! »
! /
! }
! % :
-
! \ \ _
� \
+ �
RI
\\
� 7 j
_ \
� a
� �\ �
!)\
\( ~
=p _
\ ` IF
02 �H «
-
::::
\ \
-
G
, ay.
\
�\ JT(
: .

_
gIVl]G qIm&
-
_,_:
gIVi
ud
��a
�ISNo�\I//sm\\gwa/aN�
om
m_ AzwmVdR1DN
§
\
§
-
- ; ;
-
\ d\
"
a
-
2
ol
\ \
W.
)
- / 2
§
�():
/ !
.,
j
:..,. r:..,
|
�o
\�dAll,
}
> )
)
\
}
\
_;Z � � /
§E
•E-
{ :
:
- § 7 E
2
}
= t
_
� � !
j \ \
}
\ \
\
:
g
`
} \ \\
l \:(:
`
»
%
\
\ \
}\\ }}\ \} \
\
\�{
�� ^-
\
©
\|
(D
ƒ\
--
�o. -ol

.
iiIv mind QNNVH a
-
\
gIVI
_,_: -
eNoIvlm±m
2VHO
- Z
S'Joagm
NA
1ISNoIv1
m±m 2vaa @o NIG om
}
(
\
§
�
\
-
%
;-�z yCL
- :</
\
)
.\cl ) 0
:D
> <
:N
6 2
$
of
/�of
(
CL
.
x
\
j
2
o
�_
ƒ
,
<
_
3
\/
_
2
\�
\
/
\
,
<
u)
<
\
/
<
� �
E
e:§
u)
/
3
e
0
;
3
®
K°u)
(!\
i
C) <ea§
�)/
,
0
)§(
\
)ee
-
_
_
\)
2
}/-
3
e
F=y
§/(
Z <
}
a
g
<
3 )
u) \
\
;« o
<
S < \
CL
)
3
y
-
\
_ cl
( )) (
E)
:
§ 5 K/
\/0 \) wz
!
j§# g -
b
of z - \ /
g,
- \G j%
0"f
`
\
\(���) �)
of°\
(/
-
§
of
)e)(\3 )/
\}\
w
//
oy®-3\
<
_
!
:-
±±)//0 _»
;
/u);/22§)!
,
w
(\(/)\§/\
}
\
w , , e
:
§
\
+
/
§

..... ....... .
NOIIOO81SNOO NOd
SIIVIIG ID3fOdd
N 906L(9 o4a SIIt/134
toTaDN,w aS- -E IIAID
DIN€MA NVId NOIIVE)IIIA ldVH(I
lead IIIS NOIIVE)IlIW SEJNIbdS dHOGNIGGIA
�11
z
3
a
-
z
0
01
�o
a
D _
o
- o
0 0 ��w ryas
alp
ns P�^esw p=nE5��e1
P HSarW 1N3 Wltl3 al6'9W5,N
......)"'t, 'aawL —v

a°.'°°'',°°'"'°9 I
6L;9Ef_a
N
oti¢��'°4� NEE
NVId 9NI1NVId
11AO
00
m
_
�•
S7OH31MA
0
NVId NOUVE)I11W ldVHG
N0119(181SNO3 am IQN
3533�Id
31IS NOUVE)I11W S9NIadS dHOGNIGGIA
5371AN3S NOIlVOI lIW j01N3W1NVd307N
77
s�e_�w
Sri ry
z
3
a
z
O
a
Tz- Tt-14
Y1, 2�
z o m I
�zp
Jgs
m? es
3
w
Q �
K z h
o
cg
W
Q
a
N
J
F
yy
N
w Z
o3
9
5
W�
F
i
F
E
x
s
n
g
S
3
m 3
E
5
3
g
3
E
3
LL
LL
W
E
E
K
e
3
'E a
6
�
_
E
d�$ems
s$tEe
Y
HO n
n
n
n
n
e
3
¢gA
¢_Ng�^=
y£y�EYg_
g159E
Em=
2=%
.�
:5ZO
�v``
oAe�
Vi
a
r8w�-
'@E
�5'Eppe92egK'�„Q3��'s3$
$g3
E
5
8E
Ba
am.§c
geese
0�U11
1 a
„E
$ o _
E
8
s
33
i
5
E G➢„ '� � a S� e E E= E a
E
E
E
e A
r
AI- I w zoz/12L'. p=nE5��e1
......
1N3 Wltl3al 6-1a\ame\MS\,N --lid--lid ...... sZ'o2'IaL 010tl
AI- I w zoz/12L'. p=nE5��e1
......
1N3 Wltl3al 6-1a\ame\MS\,N --lid--lid ...... sZ'o2'IaL 010tl

-P-9NI—dI-d 'al^-�s�m�pe':aayssl4:
s�a9e$l"a M31ANVId OJNI1NVld
-IMN I
�� NVId NOUVE)WA 1JVW]
N0113ANiSNOD NOJ ION31lS NOUVE)WA SEJNNdS 32104NKGIA
53JIA835 NOIlV9111W j01N3 W1NVd30 JN
s.ec�w ,�euoN Z
Q
d
_ Z
O
Q
o �
e \
J y V
i
g
mE 5
gg o����8
io..
84 :m g3 "5
rdg 5<
� as
F m
' y' •�R"�i�i.�j"pMA�3'
� ✓W �! �'iJ;.�, is
P 4 : ✓e s v
/ / 3 /,' 9 s
VV
aRnn
a
$a
� E
4 4"6 4aw o
1
l to
1 � _
I
fv�ai sMl sz'oz:iaa c

Appendix H
Invasive Species Control Plan

Invasive Species Plan
Invasive species identified at the Site prior to construction included Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) along the stream corridors. During construction, the
existing vegetation will be controlled using mechanical methods.
During the monitoring period, the Site will be reviewed annually to locate and quantify any residual
invasive species vegetation. If invasive species are identified at the Site during the monitoring period, their
location and extent will be shown on the current condition plan view (CCPV). A corresponding discussion
will be included in the annual monitoring report outlining the proposed management plan. Invasive
species vegetation will be managed and reviewed on an annual basis to minimize its long term impact on
the planted native species. Any vegetation control requiring chemical control (i.e., herbicide application)
will be performed in accordance with the NC Department of Agriculture rules and regulations.
Parts of the conservation easement areas along South Fork Jones Creek that lie outside the riparian zones
of the restored tributaries and riparian wetlands will have invasives clearing and treatment during one
growing season and not in following monitoring years. These areas are being put into conservation
easement to mitigate for unauthorized activities on the site, and not to produce mitigation credits. They
are depicted on "Proposed Mitigation Plan" figure in the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Plan.
Invasive species will be managed and controlled using a combination of chemical and mechanical control
methods to ensure that these species comprise less than 1% of the total easement acreage. Management
and control will continue throughout the project until this control is achieved.

Appendix I
Maintenance Plan

Maintenance Plan
The Site shall be visited semi-annually, and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a
minimum of once a year throughout the post -construction period until performance standards are met.
These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction
and may include the following measures:
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking
of in -stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting,
and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation
along the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows
intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank
failures and head -cutting. Stream maintenance activities will be
documented and reported in annual monitoring reports. Stream
maintenance will continue through the monitoring period.
Wetland
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental installations of target vegetation within the wetland.
Areas where storm water and floodplain flows intercept the wetland
may also require maintenance to prevent scour that adversely and
persistently threatens wetland habitat or function.
Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the
targeted plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair
activities may include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and
fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be treated by mechanical
and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation requiring herbicide
application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. Vegetation maintenance
activities will be documented and reported in annual monitoring reports.
Vegetation maintenance will continue through the monitoring period.
Beavers
Beaver and associated dams are to be removed as they colonize and
until the project is closed.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be
marked with signs identifying the property as a mitigation site and will
include the name of the long-term steward and a contact number.
Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree -
blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or
destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as -needed basis.
Easement monitoring and staking/signage maintenance will continue in
perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Farm Road Crossing
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
conservation easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of
way, or corridor agreements. Crossings in easement breaks are the
responsibility of the landowner to maintain.

Appendix J
Credit Release Schedule

Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District
Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA
authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the
Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently
to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards
have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may
be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the
specified performance standards. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described
as follows:
Table D1. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
0
Initial allocation — see requirements below
Release
30%
Release
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
40%
standards are being met.
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
50%
standards are being met.
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
60%
standards are being met.
4*
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
5%
65%
standards are being met.
(75%)**
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
75%
standards are being met.
(85%)**
6*
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
5%
80%
standards are being met.
(90%)**
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
90%
standards are being met and the project has received closeout
(100%)**
approval.
* Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these
monitoring years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
** 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Table D2. Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
0
Initial allocation — see requirements below
Release
30%
Release
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
10%
40%
being met.
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
50%
are being met.
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
10%
60%
being met.

Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
Release
10%
Release
70%
being met.
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
10%
80%
being met. Provided that all performance standards are met, the IRT
may allow the DMS to discontinue hydrologic monitoring after the fifth
year, but vegetation monitoring must continue for an additional two
years after the fifth year for a total of seven years.
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
10%
90%
being met.
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
100%
are being met and the project has received closeout approval.
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan, can be released by DMS
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan.
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property.
3) Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; per the DMS Instrument, construction means that a
mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built report has been
produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project closeout, if appropriate but
not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
4) Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA permit
issuance is not required.
Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects a reserve
of 10% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after four bankfull events have occurred, in
separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event
that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, DMS
will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement
of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring
report.

Appendix K
Financial Assurance

Financial Assurances
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Services' In -Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality has provided the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy
mitigation requirements assumed by DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all
mitigation projects implemented by the program.

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Deed Book: 013,037 Page: 322,206 County: Anson
Parcel ID Number(s): 646000745113, 647000042754, 646000760123
Street Address: Near Gulledge Rd
Morven, NC
Property Owner(please print): RTB ASSOCIATES, LLC
Property Owner (please print): DEB LLC
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize Freese &
Nichols, Inc. to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland
and/or riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s). I agree to
allow regulatory agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, to visit the property as part of
these environmental reviews.
Property Owner(s) Address (if different than above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: [phone]
28838 Kendall Church Rd
Richfield, NC 28137-9676
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
g'_ a-�-�L( -
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)
Authorized Signature)
(Date)