20181228 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_2018_20190717

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
Mockingbird Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101
DMS Project #: 100021
Contract #: 7185
USACE Action ID #: SAW -2017-01505
DWR Project #: 20171040
RFP #: 16-006993
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
For Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1052
fires
November 2018
"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. "

Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
November 6, 2018
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Mockingbird Site Mitigation Plan; SAW -2017-01505;
NCDMS Project # 100021
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
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 Mockingbird Site Mitigation Plan, which closed on October 5, 2018.
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, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached comment memo, which 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 proj ect 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 appropriate USACE field 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 call me at
919-554-4884.
Sincerely,
Todd Tugwell
Mitigation Project Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Paul Wiesner — NCDMS
Harry Tsomides — NCDMS

M E M O R A N D U M
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
TO: NCIRT and NCDMS
FROM: Cara Conder - RES
DATE: November 12, 2018
fires
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
RE: Response to Mockingbird Site NCIRT Comments during 30 -day Mitigation Plan
Review
DMS Project ID No. 100021, Contract #7185, USACE Action ID #SAW -2017-01505
Mac Haupt, NCDWR:
DWR noted DMS's comment in their letter to you regarding reach NMS. Your response
(memo, August 30, 2018) indicated that HCI will displace the jurisdictional length, however,
HCI appears to cross over NM5 and not completely displace it. In addition, in Appendix G,
your Table shows reach NM5 as intermittent as per the DWR stream form (23.5).
The majority of NM5 will be displaced by the restoration of HCI due to plugging NM5 at the
confluence of the existing location of HCI and filling in that abandoned channel_ NM5 is an
intermittent channel and `ephemeral' in the design reach sections on page 30 has been changed
to intermittent.
DWR needs to see consistency in the labeling of reaches. On Figure 8c reach HC2-C is labeled
in one location and on Figure I Ob is labeled in another location. This is confusing when reading
the existing channel morphology summaries and not knowing which reach is being described.
For example, what I was looking for was a description that included existing wetlands in reach
HC2-B and HC2-C, but did not see any mention of existing wetlands. Initially I was focusing
on reach HC2-B, and that when I became confused with the labeling.
Figure 8c (existing conditions) has been updated to better show which reach is being labeled.
Also, wetland acreage has been added to the appropriate reaches in the existing conditions
section (Reaches HC2-A, HC2-13, TP2 and TP3).
Section 6.2- Design Approach- in reading the paragraph for reach HC2-B there was mention
of existing wetlands, however, no mention on increasing the function of these adjacent
wetlands. However, wetlands were mentioned in Table 11 (reference Hydrology and
"maintaining a stable water table in riparian wetlands"). The increase in wetland function was
stated in Section 6.4 in the last paragraph.
Section 6.2 has been revised to better address increasing the function of the adjacent wetlands,
specifically the paragraph before the design reach descriptions and Reach HC2-13.

4. Section 7 Performance Standards- DWR would like to stress that the flow metric stated in the
Surface Flow paragraph should only be referring to intermittent channels (NMI, NM4, TP2,
and TP3).
Understood that the surface flow section only applies to intermittent reaches and we have those
reaches listed (NMI, NM4, TP2, and TP3).
5. DWR would like to see a groundwater gauge placed in the adjacent wetlands on stream right
at or near station 24+75.
This groundwater gauge has been added to the monitoring plan on the design sheet, the
monitoring plan figure, and the language has also been added to Reach HC2-B in Section 6.2.
6. DWR believes there is a significant opportunity to enhance/create/restore wetlands in the
channel backfill portions of reaches HC2-B and HCI.
RES agrees and has updated Section 6.2 for design reach descriptions for HCI and HC2-B.
7. DWR notes that the typical for channel backfill referred to on Design sheet MB5 is actually on
sheet D2 and not sheet D3.
Callout has been adjusted on sheets MB4 and MB5 to reflect correct detail sheet. Callout has
also been added to other applicable sheets where backfill/abandonment occurs.
8. DWR likes the format of the RES Design Sheets.
Thanks!
9. DWR also likes the proposal to install a couple of detention basins at the top of a couple of
reaches. However, DWR would like to see less rock in these detention bases. DWR requests
that RES go back and look at some other designs that would incorporate less rock, perhaps
some vegetation on the edges or other more natural approaches that would be designed to be
subject to vegetative succession.
Dry sediment basin detail has been replaced with sediment trap detail to incorporate less rock
and add more vegetation.
10. It appears that the detention basin planned for reach TP3 may be in a jurisdictional wetland.
RES may either want to redesign this basin or consider not incorporating a basin at this location.
Dry Detention Basin has been replaced with Sediment Trap in order to avoid adding rock to a
jurisdictional wetland.
11. Design Sheets MB 12 and MB13- there are two linear features on these sheets that appear to be
streams or stream -like. On sheet MB 13, the feature appears to be NMS, if this is the case then
the design for HCI simply crosses NM5 and does not actually displace the reach. On sheet
MB12, another feature is running parallel to the existing channel, and the design channel does
somewhat "displace" the parallel feature. Therefore, from a permitting standpoint, it looks as
though NM5 will largely be filled and the other feature will largely be incorporated into the
new design channel.
This is correct, and Section 6.2 has been revised, specially Reach NMS. The other feature is
actually just a low spot and the blue hatching on the plans has been removed for this feature.

Kimberly Browning, USACE:
1. Table 11, Functional Benefits and ImprovementsHighly Functioning (HF) is not a
recognized category in the Stream Functional Pyramid Framework.
a. Please include the data collection sheets associated with determining the existing and
projected functional levels if this data is going to be used to justify functional uplift. The
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Forms included in Appendix H can be used to
document existing conditions.
All references to Highly Functioning have been removed – we have made this change in
other mitigation plans as well. Also, the functional pyramid is not being used to justify
uplift and the following sentence has been added to Section 4: Neither the Stream Functions
Pyramid nor the Quantification Tool are proposed to determine success of the mitigation
site.
2. Section 7.1—The Entrenchment Ratio (ER) must be above 2.2 for all measured riffle cross-
sections on a given reach (for C and E streams), not 1.4. Please correct this in Table 17, as well.
Section 7.1 and Table 17 have been revised to say that for C/E channels entrenchment ratio
shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches, and for B channels the entrenchment ratio
shall be no less than 1.4 within restored reaches.
3. Figure 8C—The wetland maps indicate there are potential jurisdictional wetlands at the top of
reach TP3 where a BMP is planned. BMPs will need to be placed outside of jurisdictional
waters. Additionally, since the dry detention basin areas are located within the stream buffers,
the mitigation plan should include a performance standard for the marsh areas tied to vegetation
success.
The BMP on Reach TP3 has been revised to a sediment trap which incorporates woody debris
and live stakes and should not impact the potential wetland areas. This is not a permanent
structure that is being placed in the jurisdictional wetland and is all wood. Also, the treatment
on TP3 is enhancement II, so this will not increase or affect the wetland hydrology on Wetland
A. Wetland A is mostly outside the easement area (026 acres in easement vs. 0.83 acres in
total for WA). Since the dry detention basin has been revised to the sediment trap and the
treatment is enhancement II, there are not any additional performance standards for this "marsh
area". All planted areas will be monitored for success and we have moved the vegetation plot
upstream on TP3 to be in/near the wetland area.
4. Please include a monitoring map which includes the location of veg plots, flow gauges, photo
locations, and crest gauges, similar to sheet M1.
Figure I I has been added.
5. Even though there are no wetland credits being sought, it is recommended that wetland gauges
be installed and monitored in order to demonstrate no functional loss and/or acreage loss of
wetlands with this project.
Only Reach HC2-B is being restored through a jurisdictional wetland. Reaches TP3, TP2, and
HC2-A are enhancement II with a treatment of riparian buffer planting, invasive species
treatment, and cattle exclusion. Per DWR's comment, a wetland gauge is being added to Reach
HC2-B near station 24+75 on the right floodplain.

M E M O R A N D U M
fires
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
FROM: Cara Conder - RES
DATE: August 30, 2018
RE: Response to Mockingbird Site Draft Mitigation Plan Comments
DMS Project ID No. 100021, Contract #7185
Cover Page/General/Formatting
The project was contracted and now being tracked as "Mockingbird Site". Please title the
document and refer to the project accordingly, rather than "Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site".
Mitigation Plan updated to reflect this language.
Please confirm that RES has followed the DMS mitigation plan guidance or have explained where
and why any of the guidelines may not have been followed.
Confirming that RES has followed the June 2017 DMS mitigation plan guidance.
Please add tabs for sections, appendices, etc. for the distribution hard copies. Spiral bound is
preferred over 3 -ring binder.
Tabs have been added to the hard copies. Noted about the spiral bound and we'll provide this if
possible, but size of these plans has limited us to 3 -ring binders (CE document was very large).
Executive Summary
Paragraph 3 — Please elaborate that the DMS Hauser Creek site closed out in 2017, and is now in
NCDEQ Stewardship.
This has been added to executive summary and Section 3.3
Please indicate that a contracting meeting was held on 9/29/2017 among RES, DMS and IRT, and
the meeting minutes can be found in Appendix B.
Added to paragraph I
It would be good to note, while referencing Figure 1 (Vicinity Map), the total linear feet along
Hauser Creek from the top part of Reach HC2 down to the lower end of the DMS Hauser Creek
project, and the percentage therein protected by conservation easement with the three combined
projects (Mockingbird, Scout, and Hauser).
We have added the following information to Section I and the Executive Summary: the total linear
feet protected by all three projects on Hauser Creek is 10, 407 LF and this is 60% of Hauser Creek

proper in an easement. About 80% of Hauser Creek starting at Reach HC2 to the end of the DMS
Hauser Creek project is in an easement.
Section 2.0 Watershed Approach
You have listed bulleted goals from the 2009 RBRP; however the 2017 guidance indicates to
"Describe connections to DMS River Basin Restoration Priorities, DMS Watershed Plans and/or
other watershed evaluations. The goals of the project should be linked to the Compensation
Planning Framework (CPF) at the highest resolution plan available and should advance the
improvement of identified issues." Please describe specifically how the project will help address
planning -identified stressors and watershed concerns.
Section 2 does list specific goals from the RBRP and Sections 2.1 and 5 discuss how the project
will address those goals specifically. This section has been revised to contain more information
about how the stressors will be addressed.
Provide a project watershed map with watershed planning priority boundaries (e.g., Local
Watershed Plan, Targeted Local Watershed, Targeted Resource Area, Regional Watershed Plan)
as applicable, and easement boundaries.
This figure has been edited to better show the planning boundaries.
Site selection / landowner information (2.1) — Please indicate in the mitigation plan and
conservation easement that landowners will be responsible for fence maintenance and repairs to
exclude livestock from the conservation easement; this was discussed at the IRT meeting.
This language has been added.
In Table 2, only six of the seven parcels are listed (5853144949 is not shown); please add.
Added
Section 3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
3.1 Drainage Area and Land Use - How did you observe excess nutrient inputs? Please explain.
This section of the paragraph has been removed per the comment about Section 3.5 Reach
Summary. This type of information is better suited for Section 3.5 and is already in that section.
Excess nutrient language has been removed since there were no measurements taken to quantify
excess .
3.2 Landscape Characteristics - Please include a citation for this paragraph. If phrases were taken
directly from a source document, please add quotation marks and citation.
Citation has been added to the References and this paragraph (Griffith et. al 2002).
3.2 Landscape Characteristics - While existing geomorphology, geology, vegetation etc. are
adequately described, please describe in more detail per the 2017 guidance how landscape
character will influence the project site. For example: How does the hydrologic regime relate to
stream condition and function, e.g., discharge and flow frequency? How does the landscape
position relate to sources of wetland hydrology? Use maps and/or tables with captions as
appropriate to illustrate the major points [link is provided to examples].
Section 3.2 has been revised
2

3.2 Geology - Please provide further discussion on the geology section; if you are not able to
interpret how geology influences the landscape, controls grain -size distribution, or affects the
project in any way, please remove this section.
This section has been revised and combined with the Soils section.
3.2 Geology - Indicate if bedrock is visible at the site and if it is a controlling factor on the site
streams. If design considerations are expected due to bedrock, please add discussion.
Note there is minimal bedrock within upper half of project along the EII reaches and is not
affecting design. No bedrock was observed in the restoration reaches.
Section 3.3 is titled land use as well as this one. Please avoid repetition if at all possible.
Section 3.1 has been changed to `Drainage Area and Land Cover' and Section 3.3 remains `Land
Use Historic, Current, and Future. '
3.3 Land Use - Include a statement identifying any site improvements such as BMPs and buffer
that are expected to provide future uplift and minimize impacts from ongoing agricultural uses
outside the conservation easement.
The language has been added and was also in Section 5.
3.4 Constraints - Please address culvert and crossing maintenance responsibilities, both pre- and
post -close out.
This language has been added: All crossing and culvert maintenance will be the responsibility of
RES through completion of monitoring. Once the Project has completed monitoring and the
Project is closed out, the crossings and culverts will be the responsibility of the landowner(s).
3.5 Reach Summary - Paragraph beginning with "In general" contains the same information as
stated in section 3.1. Please avoid repetition.
The repetitive information from Section 3.1 has been removed.
Section 3.5 - Channel Classification paragraph adds no value to the mitigation plan. Please
remove or provide relevant information, table or map.
A summary table has been added to show each reach's hydrology status, stream determination
score, and existing length.
Section 3.5 - Discharge: It is indicated, "Estimating flows are difficult due to... [etc.]"; Do you
mean bank full flows? Why is this general info under reach summary section?
This section was removed from the report.
Page 17, Bankfull verification: Why is RES having so much trouble estimating discharge and
determining a design discharge? Please clarify.
Bankfull indicators (point bars, benches, etc.) are generally absent along reaches that are heavily
impacted from agricultural activities; and therefore, it is difficult to identify bankfull using only
these indicators. To avoid confusion, this section was removed from the report.
3

Section 6.0 Mitigation Work Plan
Table 16 indicates HC2-13 as 595 LF of Restoration Reach at 1:1; however the IRT meeting
minutes (9/29/2017) indicate this was an Ell -justified reach at 2.5:1, and the technical proposal
and Task I deliverable (ERTR) indicate and describe an E2 approach. Please clarify and discuss
in the narrative how the approach evolved from E2 to R, or please revert back to E2. The existing
conditions (page 14) describes this reach: "Reach HC2-B is a gravel/cobble stream that flows in
a northerly direction between Reaches HC2 A and HC2-C. The channel is slightly incised in some
areas and exhibits irregular banks due to cattle access and hoof shear. The riparian buffer is in
fair condition with much of the buffer being intact and wooded, -however, there are areas of
invasive species (privet). The buffer is also comprised of several wetland patches. "
Reach HC2-B in the mitigation plan was Reach HC2-C in the proposal and ERTR. In the proposal
this reach was proposed as Enhancement I, however DWR suggested restoration might be more
appropriate based on the level of impairment. Post data collection and detailed survey, the Reach
HC2-B was found to be better suited for restoration. Just an FYI, Reach HC2-A in the mitigation
plan was Reach HC2-B in the proposal and this treatment is still Enhancement H.
Also, we had the incorrect existing conditions description for Reach HC2-B (due to the mix-up of
reach label changes) and this has been updated to the actual existing conditions for what is Reach
HC2-B in the mitigation plan. "Reach HC2-B is a sand/gravel/cobble stream that flows in a
northerly direction between Reaches HC2 A and HC2-C. The channel is incised, has irregular
banks due to cattle access and exhibits little bedform diversity. Livestock have direct access to the
channel, and the resulting hoof shear has severely degraded the channel banks. The riparian buffer
is in poor condition being comprised of an active pasture with some mature trees located along
the top of banks. "
Plan -generated SMUs on the project total 6,427 while the technical proposal listed 6,047 SMU.
Please explain and justify in the plan narrative the additional 380 SMU to the project, versus the
technical proposal and contracting stage.
The design reach lengths and treatments are justified in the mitigation plan already; however,
there is no discussion of contracted SMUs.
The additional SMUs come from a couple design changes and actual surveyed linear footage of
the channels. Reach HC2-B was enhancement I in the proposal, but is now restoration and this is
296 more SMUs than in the proposal. Reach NM2 (a restoration reach) is 91 more linear feet post
detailed survey. Reaches HC2-A and HC2-C are more linear feet than in the proposal as well.
Reach HC2-C was originally part of HC2-D in the proposal and this section has changed to
enhancement I due to this section of the channel being incised and degraded; this is roughly 87
more SMUs than in the proposal.
Also, some reaches did "lose" length from the proposal, notably NMI, NM4, and TPI; however,
the proposed easement was not decreased. The treatment on these reaches is EII. The decrease in
reach length is due to detailed survey and the restoration alignment does impact a portion of these
reaches. Also, it appears Reach TPI in the proposal might have had an incorrect length. Reach
TPI stops at the fence line, NMI stops at the farm path, and NM4 stops near the crossing (same
as the proposal). The landowner is not interested in additional easement, but we will continue
discussions with them.
4

Summary table of notable changes:
6.1 Reference Stream - Include photos and any surveyed cross-sections in the appendix.
This has been added to Appendix B.
6.3 Vegetation and Planting Plan - Please indicate that vegetation planting/replanting will be
conducted between November 15 and March 15, per 10/24/2016 USACE / NCIRT monitoring
guidance.
This has been added: It is anticipated that the vegetation planting/replanting will be conducted
between November 15 and March 15, per the October 2016 USA CEINCIRT monitoring guidance.
If the Project completes construction after March 15, but before May 31, the site will be planted
immediately following construction so that there is 180 days prior to the initiation of the firstyear
of monitoring.
Section 7.0 Performance Standards
Please state that performance standards reflect the 10/24/2016 USACE / NCIRT monitoring
guidance, or indicate where they do not.
This has been updated to reflect the October 2016 guidance is being followed.
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
Proposal
Plan
Proposal
Plan
Proposal
Plan
Proposal
Plan
Reach
Plan
Mitigation
Plan
Length
Plan
SMU
Plan
Mitigation
Mitigation
Reach
Reach
Enhancement II
Enha IIement
Length
Length
SMU
SMU
Type
Type
HC2-A
HC2-A
Enhancement II
Enhancement
868
2018
347
807
HC2-B
TPI
Enhancement II
Enhancement
857
157
343
63
HC2-C
HC2-B
Enhancement I
Restoration
449
595
299
595
Enhancement
962
672
385
269
HC2-D
HC2-C
Enhancement I
119
155
79
103
HC2-D
HC2-D
Preservation
Preservation
462
407
46
41
NM2
NM2
Restoration
Restoration
1277
1368
1277
1368
Total
1 4032
4543
1 2391
2914
6.1 Reference Stream - Include photos and any surveyed cross-sections in the appendix.
This has been added to Appendix B.
6.3 Vegetation and Planting Plan - Please indicate that vegetation planting/replanting will be
conducted between November 15 and March 15, per 10/24/2016 USACE / NCIRT monitoring
guidance.
This has been added: It is anticipated that the vegetation planting/replanting will be conducted
between November 15 and March 15, per the October 2016 USA CEINCIRT monitoring guidance.
If the Project completes construction after March 15, but before May 31, the site will be planted
immediately following construction so that there is 180 days prior to the initiation of the firstyear
of monitoring.
Section 7.0 Performance Standards
Please state that performance standards reflect the 10/24/2016 USACE / NCIRT monitoring
guidance, or indicate where they do not.
This has been updated to reflect the October 2016 guidance is being followed.
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
Proposal
Plan
Proposal
Plan
Proposal
Plan
Proposal
Plan
Reach
Reach
Mitigation
Mitigation
Length
Length
SMU
SMU
Type
Type
NMI
NM1
Enhancement II
Enha IIement
383
229
153
92
NM4
NM4
Enhancement II
Enha IIement
314
286
126
114
TPl
TPI
Enhancement II
Enhancement
265
157
106
63
Total
962
672
385
269
6.1 Reference Stream - Include photos and any surveyed cross-sections in the appendix.
This has been added to Appendix B.
6.3 Vegetation and Planting Plan - Please indicate that vegetation planting/replanting will be
conducted between November 15 and March 15, per 10/24/2016 USACE / NCIRT monitoring
guidance.
This has been added: It is anticipated that the vegetation planting/replanting will be conducted
between November 15 and March 15, per the October 2016 USA CEINCIRT monitoring guidance.
If the Project completes construction after March 15, but before May 31, the site will be planted
immediately following construction so that there is 180 days prior to the initiation of the firstyear
of monitoring.
Section 7.0 Performance Standards
Please state that performance standards reflect the 10/24/2016 USACE / NCIRT monitoring
guidance, or indicate where they do not.
This has been updated to reflect the October 2016 guidance is being followed.

Section 8.0 Monitoring Plan
Please state that monitoring will follow the 10/24/2016 USACE / NCIRT monitoring guidance, or
indicate where they will not.
This has been updated to reflect the October 2016 guidance is being followed.
Tables
Table 1 — List SMUs to nearest tenths
Done
Table 8 — NM5 is listed as a reach however it does not appear on any proj ect maps. Please clarify.
Realignment of Reach HCl will displace the jurisdictional length of NMS in its entirety. A small
portion of ephemeral channel will be protected within the easement, but will receive no credit.
This is noted under Section 6.2.
Table 16 — Format should follow most recent guidance, see example attached to this email;
comments / notes column should address any crossings, utility cutouts etc. and other relevant
items; all three parts of the guidance example should be part of Table 16.
Table updated to reflect format.
Appendix B
DMS has concerns over the proposed channel geometries which propose construction of a low
width/depth ratio channel. The proposed geometries appear consistent with the reference analogs
but the reference data are compiled from short reach lengths where the streambanks likely benefit
from substantial root reinforcement that cannot be established in the short term. Were the
constructed channel geometries of the nearby mitigation site reviewed during your design and was
the channel response to the applied geometries and construction methods considered? Please
review these factors and provide discussion supporting the final design proposal.
The proposed width/depth ratios range between 9 and 11, which is on the higher side for E -type
channels and where the higher W/D ratios are associated with the larger channels. The mitigation
site located downstream of Mockingbird used a design W/D ratio of 13, and the associated
reference reach had a W/D ratio of 12; neither of which are significantly higher than ratios used
for Mockingbird.
Plan Sheets
Add riffle and pool facets to the profiles.
Profiles along restoration reaches revised per comment.
MB 11 — Include label for NM2_
Sheet MBII reaches revised per comment.
D7 - Consider extending the filter fabric partially onto the header log to minimize potential for
piping through gaps between the logs
Detail revised per comment.

Mockingbird Mitigation Plan ii November 2018
Project #100021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Mockingbird Site (the "Project") is located in Davie County, North Carolina, approximately eight
miles west of Clemmons and five miles northwest of Bermuda Run. Water quality stressors currently
affecting the Project include livestock production, agricultural production, and lack of riparian buffer. The
Project presents 8,998 linear feet of stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation generating 6,427
Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) along Hauser Creek and eight unnamed tributaries. A contracting
meeting was held on 9/29/17 among RES, DMS, and IRT, and the meeting minutes can be found in
Appendix B.
The Project is located in the Yadkin River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03040101, Target Local
Watershed (TLW) 03040101160010, and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) subbasin 03-07-02.
The current State classification for Hauser Creek is Water Supply IV (WS -IV). WS -IV waters are sources
of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a WS -I, II or III classification
is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses (NCDWQ 2011).
Consisting of agricultural fields, cattle pastures and wooded areas, the Project's total easement area is
27.46 acres within the overall drainage area of 1,540 acres. The Project has two separate portions along
Hauser Creek and in between those portions is the Scout Mitigation Bank. While each site could be
developed independently of the other, the combined easements will result in greater continuity of protected
corridors along the main stem of Hauser Creek. The downstream end of the Project connects to the DMS
Hauser Creek Mitigation Site, which closed out in 2017 and is now in NCDEQ stewardship. All easements
combined total approximately 49.33 acres and 14,605 linear feet of stream that will be protected in
perpetuity. Approximately 10,400 LF of Hauser Creek is protected by these three projects and this is 60%
of Hauser Creek's total length (Figure 1).
Goals for the Project include an increase to hydrological function and restoration to ecological function
within the existing stream and riparian corridor, and to protect these features in perpetuity. These will be
accomplished by returning the existing streams to stable conditions by constructing an E/C type stream
with appropriate dimensions and pattern, reconnecting the channel to the floodplain, and bank stabilization
throughout. In -stream structures will be installed for vertical stability and to improve habitat, where
necessary. Buffer improvements will filter runoff from the surrounding pasture lands, thereby reducing
nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. Livestock exclusion fence will be installed along the easement
boundary or livestock will be removed. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas will also provide
wildlife corridors throughout the Project area. Benefits to be accrued from these activities include
improved water quality and terrestrial and aquatic habitat.
The stream design approach for the Project is to combine the analog method of natural channel design
with analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain.
The analog method involves the use of a reference reach, or "template" stream, adjacent to, nearby, or
previously in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are
replicated to create the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and
boundary conditions are similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). Hydraulic
geometry is developed using analytical methods to identify the design discharge.
After completion of all construction and planting activities, the Project will be monitored on a regular basis
throughout the seven-year post -construction monitoring period, or until performance standards are met.
The Project will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. 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.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan iii November 2018
Project #100021

Table of Contents
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................I
1.1 Project Components................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Outcomes....................................................................................................................1
2 WATERSHED APPROACH...............................................................................................................2
2.1 Site Selection...........................................................................................................................2
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS....................................................................................4
3.1 Watershed Summary Information...........................................................................................4
DrainageArea and Land Cover...........................................................................................................4
SurfaceWater Classification...............................................................................................................4
3.2 Landscape Characteristics.......................................................................................................4
Physiographyand Topography............................................................................................................4
Geologyand Soils................................................................................................................................5
ExistingVegetation.............................................................................................................................6
3.3 Land Use — Historic, Current, and Future...............................................................................6
3.4 Regulatory Considerations......................................................................................................7
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass.........................................7
Environmental Screening and Documentation....................................................................................7
Threatened and Endangered Species...................................................................................................7
CulturalResources...............................................................................................................................8
3.5 Reach Summary Information..................................................................................................8
ChannelClassification.........................................................................................................................9
ExistingChannel Morphology...........................................................................................................10
ChannelStability Assessment............................................................................................................12
3.6 Existing Wetlands.................................................................................................................14
3.7 Site Photographs...................................................................................................................16
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL.............................................................................................19
4.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements.............................................................20
Hydrology..........................................................................................................................................20
Hydraulic...........................................................................................................................................20
Geomorphology.................................................................................................................................20
Physiochemical..................................................................................................................................21
Biology..........................................................................................................................................21
4.2 Potential Constraints.............................................................................................................21
5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.................................................................23
Best Management Practices (BMPs).................................................................................................23
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN...........................................................................................................26
6.1 Reference Stream..................................................................................................................26
Reference Watershed Characterization..............................................................................................26
ReferenceDischarge..........................................................................................................................26
Reference Channel Morphology........................................................................................................27
Reference Channel Stability Assessment..........................................................................................27
Reference Riparian Vegetation..........................................................................................................27
6.2 Design Parameters.................................................................................................................28
StreamRestoration Approach............................................................................................................28
DataAnalysis.....................................................................................................................................33
6.3 Vegetation and Planting Plan................................................................................................36
PlantCommunity Restoration............................................................................................................36
On -Site Invasive Species Management.............................................................................................37
SoilRestoration.................................................................................................................................37
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan iv November 2018
Project #100021

List of Tables
Table 1. Mockingbird Project Components Summary................................................................................ 1
6.4 Mitigation Summary.............................................................................................................37
3
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information.....................................................................................
6.5 Determination of Credits.......................................................................................................38
Table4. Mapped Soil Series.......................................................................................................................
7
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.....................................................................................................41
6
Table6. Regulatory Considerations............................................................................................................
7.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria.....................................................................................41
Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics.............................................................................
9
BankfullEvents.................................................................................................................................41
9
Table 9. Channel Stability Assessment Results........................................................................................
CrossSections....................................................................................................................................41
Table 10. Wetland Summary Information................................................................................................
15
DigitalImage Stations.......................................................................................................................41
25
Table 12. Peak Flow Comparison.............................................................................................................
SurfaceFlow......................................................................................................................................41
Table 13. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses..........................................................
35
7.2 Vegetation Success Criteria..................................................................................................41
35
8
MONITORING PLAN......................................................................................................................42
Table 16. Mockingbird Site (IIID -100021) -Mitigation Components.......................................................
39
$.1 As -Built Survey.....................................................................................................................42
44
$.2 Visual Monitoring.................................................................................................................42
8.3 Hydrology Events.................................................................................................................42
$.4 Cross Sections.......................................................................................................................42
$.5 Vegetation Monitoring..........................................................................................................43
$.6 Scheduling/Reporting............................................................................................................43
9
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN..............................................................................................45
10
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN...........................................................................................46
11
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................47
List of Tables
Table 1. Mockingbird Project Components Summary................................................................................ 1
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information..................................................................................
3
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information.....................................................................................
4
Table4. Mapped Soil Series.......................................................................................................................
5
Table 5. Mockingbird Vegetation Plot Summary .......................................................................................
6
Table6. Regulatory Considerations............................................................................................................
8
Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics.............................................................................
9
Table 8. Summary of Stream Parameters....................................................................................................
9
Table 9. Channel Stability Assessment Results........................................................................................
13
Table 10. Wetland Summary Information................................................................................................
15
Table 11. Functional Benefits and Improvements....................................................................................
25
Table 12. Peak Flow Comparison.............................................................................................................
34
Table 13. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses..........................................................
35
Table 14. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Velocities...............................................................
35
Table15. Proposed Plant List...................................................................................................................
37
Table 16. Mockingbird Site (IIID -100021) -Mitigation Components.......................................................
39
Table 17. Monitoring Requirements.........................................................................................................
44
List of Charts
Chart 1. Stream Functions Framework................................................................................................ 19
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan v November 2018
Project #100021

List of Figures
Figure 1 —
Vicinity Map
Figure 2 —
USGS Map
Figure 3 —
Landowner Map
Figure 4 —
Land -use Map
Figure 5 —
Soils Map
Figure 6 —
Historical Aerials Map
Figure 7 —
FEMA Map
Figure 8a
— Existing Conditions Map
Figure 8b
— Existing Conditions Map North
Figure 8c
— Existing Conditions Map South
Figure 9 —
National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 10
— Conceptual Overview
Figure l Ob —Conceptual Plan Map North
Figure l Oc
— Conceptual Plan Map South
Figure 11
— Monitoring Map
Appendices
Appendix A
— Plan Sheets
Appendix B
— Data Analysis and Supplementary Information
Appendix C
— Site Protection Instrument
Appendix D
— Credit Release Schedule
Appendix E
— Financial Assurance
Appendix F —
Maintenance Plan
Appendix G
— DWR Stream Identification Forms
Appendix H
— USACE District Assessment Forms
Appendix I —
Wetland JD Forms and Maps
Appendix J —
Invasive Species Plan
Appendix K
— Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion
Appendix L
— DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan vi November 2018
Project #100021

I PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1,1 Project Components
The Mockingbird Site ("Project") is located within a rural watershed in Davie County, North Carolina
approximately eight miles west of Clemmons and five miles northwest of Bermuda Run. The Project lies
within the Yadkin River Basin, North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-
07-02 and United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14 -digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03040101160010
(Figure 1). The Project proposes to restore 4,849 linear feet (LF), enhance 3,742 LF, preserve 407 LF, and
provide water quality benefit for 1,540 acres of drainage area. The Project is in the Southern Outer Piedmont
Level IV ecoregion.
The Project area is comprised of two sections (north and south) involving Hauser Creek and nine unnamed
tributaries, totaling 8,812 existing LF, which eventually drain into the Yadkin River. The southern easement
area is separated from the northern area by over 4,500 feet of Hauser Creek. Over 2,500 feet of this easement
break is the Scout Mitigation Bank, which connects to the upstream end of the northern Mockingbird
easement area. The downstream end of the Project connects to the DMS Hauser Creek Mitigation Site. All
easements combined total approximately 49 acres and 14,605 LF of stream that will be protected in
perpetuity. Approximately 10,407 LF of Hauser Creek is protected by these three projects combined, which
accounts for about 60% of Hauser Creek. The stream mitigation components are summarized in Table 1
and Figures 10, 10a, and 10b. The northern easement is accessible from Spillman Road where Hauser
Creek passes under the road at the downstream end of the Project. The southern easement is accessible
through pasture land further south along Spillman Road, across from Triple H Trail. Coordinates for the
Project areas are as follow: northern portion (36.038433, -80.516410); southern portion (36.028029, -
80.502333).
1,2 Project Outcomes
The streams proposed for restoration have been significantly impacted by livestock production, agricultural
practices, and a lack of riparian buffer. Proposed improvements to the Project will meet the river basin
needs expressed in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) as well as
ecological improvements to riparian corridor within the easement.
Through stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation, the Project presents 8,998 LF of proposed
stream, generating 6,427 Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) (Table 1). This mitigation plan is
consistent with the September 29, 2017 Post Contract IRT Meeting Minutes and IRT response emails
(Appendix B).
Table 1. Mockingbird Project Components Summary
Mitigation Approach
Linear Feet
Ratio
Warm SMU
Restoration
4,849
1
4,849
Enhancement I
155
1.5
103.3
Enhancement II
3,587
2.5
1,434.8
Preservation
407
10
40.7
Total 8,998 6,427.8
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 1 November 2018
Project #100021

2 WATERSHED APPROACH
The Project was selected based on its potential to support the objectives and goals of the DMS 2009 Upper
Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP. The Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP identified several restoration needs for the
entire Yadkin River Basin, as well as for HUC 03040101. Thirteen counties are included in the Upper
Yadkin River Basin, including the towns of Wilkesboro, Elkin, Yadkinville, and Winston-Salem. As of the
2000 census, approximately 660,000 people live in this area. The Project watershed was identified as a
Target Local Watershed (TLW) (HUC 03040101160010, Turner and Hauser Creeks TLW), a watershed
that exhibits both the need and opportunity for stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration.
Approximately 39% of this TLW is agricultural lands and over 90% of the watershed is classified as water
supply watershed (WSW) designated waters. More specifically, goals outlined in the 2009 RBRP for the
watershed include:
1. Restoration of water quality and aquatic habitat in impaired stream segments;
2. Protection of high -resource value waters, including HQW, OR W, and WSW designated waters and
those containing large numbers of rare and endangered species (NHEOs);
3. Continuation of existing watershed restoration andprotection initiatives andprojects, including
efforts funded by Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTV), DWQ's 319 Program, NC EEP,
Ag Cost Share Program (A CSP) and Community Conservation Assistance Program (CLAP);
4. Collaborative efforts with local resource agencies, land trusts and willing landowners to implement
new stream, riparian buffer and wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation projects
within TLWs;
S. Improved management of stormwater runoff (including the implementation of stormwater BMP
projects), especially in urban and suburban areas contributing to downstream degradation of
stream habitat and impairment of water quality; and
6. Implementation of agricultural BMPs in order to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal
coliform to streams from active farming operations.
Approximately 240 miles of streams in this HUC are affected by habitat degradation, with primary stressors
being erodible soils; sediment and erosion from road construction and agriculture; and stormwater flow off
impervious surfaces (NCEEP, 2009). Nonexistent or degraded riparian buffers are a significant contributing
factor to water quality impairment and habitat degradation in this watershed and the Project will help
address these identified stressors as described in Section 2.1.
2,1 Site Selection
Currently the Project area has an absence of riparian buffers, bank erosion, sediment deposition, channel
incision, cattle access the streams, and the historic land use has led to channelization. The Project will
directly and indirectly address stressors identified in the RBRP by stabilizing eroding stream banks,
reconnecting incised streams to their floodplains, installing BMPs to treat areas of concentrated agricultural
inputs, and restoring forested buffers on the stream channels. These actions will reduce nutrient and
sediment inputs to the Project streams, provide stream stability, improve instream habitat, and improve
overall hydrology. Project -specific goals and objectives will be addressed further in Section 5. A project
watershed map with the Project's drainage areas is shown on Figure 2 and watershed planning priority
boundaries are shown on Figure 1.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 2 November 2018
Project #100021

The Project will address four of the six goals outlined in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP. By
establishing a conservation easement, WSW designated waters will be protected in perpetuity (RBRP Goal
2). Continuation of the project and easement area on Hauser Creek will provide additional protection to
Hauser Creek and protect additional WSW waters (RBRP Goal 3). Collaborative efforts have been made
with local and willing landowners to implement new stream and enhancement projects within the Turner
and Hauser Creeks TLW (03040101160010) (RBRP Goal 4), thereby addressing erosion, sedimentation,
and habitat degradation issues due to current agricultural land -use. The Project will include the use of
agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform
to streams from active farming operations (RBRP Goal 6). Establishing riparian buffers, instream
structures, and increasing bedform diversity will help address RBRP Goal 1, but achievement will not be
quantified.
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes portions of
seven parcels in Davie County with the following ownership in Table 2 & Figure 3. Once finalized, a copy
of the land protection instruments will be included in Appendix C. The DMS Conservation Easement
model template will be utilized to draft the site protection instruments. The landowners will be responsible
for any fence maintenance and repairs to exclude livestock from the conservation easement, and the
conservation easement document will include the applicable language.
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 3 November 2018
Project #100021
PIN
Owner of Record
Or
Stream Reach
Tax Parcel ID#
5852594790
Teresa S. Phifer
5853514536
TPI, TP2, & TP3
(Davie County)
The Wilson W. and Katherine S.
5853416631
Sparks Living Trust, Dated
HC2-A, HC2-B, HC2-C, &
December 03, 2015
(Davie County)
HC2-D
The Sparks Family Trust, Dated
5853164843
JS1
July 26, 2005
5853173894
(Davie County)
Michael A. Miller and Nancy S.
58531539345853144949
HCI, NMI, NM2, NM3, NM4, &
Miller
(Davie County)
NM5
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 3 November 2018
Project #100021

3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3,1 Watershed Summary Information
Drainage Area and Land Cover
The Project area is comprised of Hauser Creek and nine unnamed tributaries that flow south to north, and
eventually drain into the Yadkin River. The total drainage area for the Project is 1,540 acres (2.41 square
miles). Primary land use within the rural watershed consists of approximately 46% forest, 42% agricultural
land, and 9% residential. Impervious surface covers two percent of the total watershed (Table 3 & Figure
4). Historic and current land -use within the immediate Project area have allowed cattle direct access to the
streams. These activities have negatively impacted both water quality and streambank stability along the
Project streams and their tributaries.
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information
Level IV Ecoregion
45b -Southern Outer Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03040101160010
DWR Sub -basin
03-07-02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
1,540
Percent Impervious Area
2%
Surface Water Classification
Hauser Creek has been classified as a Class C waterway and a Water Supply -IV classification (WS -IV)
(NCDWQ 2011).
Class C waters are protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption,
aquatic life including 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 (NCDWQ 2011).
Waters classified as WSW are water supply watersheds and these classifications protect the water supplies.
Water Supply IV (WS -IV) provide water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where
a WS -I, II, or III classification is not feasible and are generally located in moderately to highly developed
watersheds or protected areas.
3,2 Landscape Characteristics
Physiography and Topography
The Project is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont Level IV ecoregion, which is characterized by lower
elevations, less relief, and less precipitation than the Southern Inner Piedmont (Griffith et al. 2002).
Elevations within the Piedmont physiographic region range from 300 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level;
while elevations through the project watershed range from 704 to 854 feet. The valley along the primary
project reach transitions from a moderately confined valley with a slope of 1.5% to 2% to a broad, alluvial
floodplain with a 0.4% slope at the downstream end.
The primary project reach is typical of a Piedmont stream characterized by a moderate bedload and low
sediment supply, largely attributed to wooded buffers and few agricultural impacts. The channel substrate
is dominated by gravel and cobble with periodic boulder/bedrock outcrops and maintains a coarse bed
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 4 November 2018
Project #100021

within the upper half of the project. As the channel transitions to a broader alluvial floodplain within the
bottom of the project, bed materials become finer (mix of sand and gravel) and the sediment supply becomes
moderate to high as livestock access and agricultural practices become more significant within riparian
areas.
Geology and Soils
According to geology data from the North Carolina Geologic Survey, published in 1985, the Project is in
the Charlotte and Milton belts. The underlying geology of the Site is mapped as the Permian period (300
million to 250 million years in age) and metamorphosed mafic rock. The rock type is described as intrusive
rocks, such as metagabbro, metadiorate, and mafic plutonic -volcanic complexes.
The existing soil information from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) shows the property
is located within the Gaston-Mocksville-Mecklenburg soil association. This association is made of gently
sloping to steep, well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a clayey or loamy subsoil with a
low or moderate shrink -swell potential. They formed in material weathered from mafic and intermediate
crystalline rocks on uplands. They are found on broad to narrow ridges and side slopes in the northeastern,
central, and southwestern parts of the county.
The Davie County Soil Survey shows several mapping units across the Project. Map units include seven
soil series. The soil series found on the Project are described below and summarized in Table 4.
Project soils are mapped by the NRCS within the easement as Banister fine sandy loam, Codorus loam,
Davie sandy loam, Mocksville sandy loam, Oak level clay loam, Rasalo fine sandy loam and Tomlin clay
loam (Figure 5). Codorus loam makes up about 64% of the easement, Banister fine sandy loam makes up
about 18%, Rasalo fine sandy loam occurs in 6%, Oak level clay loam occurs in 4%, Tomlin clay loam
occurs in 6.6%, Davie sandy loam occurs in 0.6%, Mocksville sandy loam occurs in 0.8% of the easement.
Table 4. Mapped Soil Series
Map
Unit
Map Unit Name
Percent
Drainage
Hydrologic
Landscape
Symbol
Hydric
Class
Soil Group
Setting
BaB
Banister fine sandy
2/0 °
Moderately
C
Flats on stream
loam, 0-6% slopes
well
terraces
CoA
Codorus loam, 0-2%
5/0 °
Somewhat
B/D
Floodplains
slopes
poor
DkB
Davie sandy loam, 1-
3%
Moderately
C/D
Ridges
6% slopes
well
MsC
Mocksville sandy
0%
Well
B
Hillslopes on
loam, 8-15% slopes
ridges
OkB2
Oak level clay loam,
0%
Well
C
Interfluves
2-8% slopes
RaB
Rasalo fine sandy
0%
Well
C
Interfluves
loam, 2-8% slopes
RaC
Rasalo fine sandy
0%
Well
C
Hillslopes on
loam, 8-15% slopes
ridges
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 5 November 2018
Project #100021

Map
Unit
Map Unit Name
Percent
Drainage
Hydrologic
Landscape
Symbol
Hydric
Class
Soil Group
Setting
ToC2
Tomlin clay loam, 8-
0% o
Well
B
Hillslopes on
15% slopes
ridges
Existing Vegetation
Vegetation around the unbuffered reaches of Hauser Creek and its tributaries are primarily composed of
herbaceous vegetation and scattered trees. In general, these riparian zones are disturbed due to regular land
management activities. On April 3, 2018 three 100 -meter squared plots were surveyed along the floodplain
of Hauser Creek to categorize the existing vegetation communities. Forested riparian areas along the
majority of Hauser creek and its tributaries have been intermittently cattle -grazed and lack a well-developed
understory and shrub strata, while short reaches of enhancement and preservation represent more natural
community assemblages. For this reason, representative plots were surveyed along reach HC 1, HC2-A and
HC2-D (Appendix B). Within each vegetation plot, all trees greater than or equal to five inches (12.7
centimeters) diameter at breast height (DBH) were identified, measured, and used to calculate both basal
area and stems per acre. Trees greater than or equal to 54 inches (137 centimeters) in height were used to
quantify tree species diversity. Canopy species data was calculated to quantify the existing natural
community (Schafale, 2012) (Table 5). Shrub species and herbaceous species were also identified, and the
percent cover was estimated.
Table 5. Mockingbird Vegetation Plot Summary
Basal Area
Plot (m2/ha) Avg. DBH (cm) Trees per Acre Total Tree Species Natural Community
1 0 0 0 0 Pasture
23.6 21.9 202.4 10 Piedmont Alluvial Forest
76.2 38.9 283.3 8 Disturbed Piedmont Headwater
Stream Forest
AVG 33.3 20.3 161.9 6
Dominant canopy species across the site included honey locust (Gleditisia triacanthos), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), black walnut (Juglans nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), boxelder (Acer
negundo), white oak (Quercus alba), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and sugarberry (Celtis laevigate). Sub -
canopy species included eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), winged elm (Ulmus alata), flowering
dogwood (Cornus florida), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), and
sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus). Invasive species were also found within the vegetation survey plots
and in the vicinity of the site, including: Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
3.3 Land Use — Historic, Current, and Future
Historic aerial imagery indicates that the Project and adjacent Scout Mitigation Bank has been used
extensively for agricultural purposes, and that the location of the streams has not changed in over 50 years
(Figure 6). The agricultural footprint shows minimal change over this time. The area remains in an
agricultural community with some neighboring forested property. Several watershed characteristics, such
as groundwater, vegetation, surface drainage, and potentially soil parameters have been modified. Soil
structure and surface texture have been altered from intensive agricultural operations.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 6 November 2018
Project #100021

The Project and adjacent Scout Mitigation Bank is currently still in agricultural use, and is being used as
pasture for cattle. Livestock have full access to the project reaches, and these reaches remain heavily
impacted. The tributaries to Hauser Creek now have sparse canopy cover, but livestock impact to the
understory remains. Outside the Project area is also still in agricultural use and remains partially forested.
The downstream end of the Project connects to the DMS Hauser Creek Mitigation Site, north of Spillman
Road. The DMS Hauser Creek Mitigation Site closed out in 2017 and is now in NCDEQ stewardship.
The future land use for the Project and adjacent Scout Mitigation Bank will include 40.68 acres of
conservation easement, that will be protected in perpetuity. The combined conservation easements,
including the Hauser Creek Mitigation Site, encompass 49.79 acres and 14,605 linear feet of high
functioning streams, a minimum 50 -foot riparian buffer, and will exclude livestock with fencing or
livestock removal. A combination of agricultural BMPs will be used on site; riparian buffer planting, bank
stabilization, stream restoration, livestock exclusions, and livestock watering facilities. This combination
of BMPs will ultimately lead to the functional uplift of the site by minimizing sedimentation, nutrient input,
and fecal coliform input from ongoing livestock and agricultural production outside of the conservation
easement. Additionally, installation of two sediment traps will regulate upstream runoff coming into TP2
and TP3.
3.4 Regulatory Considerations
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass
The Project includes a mapped FEMA 100 -year floodplain (1% annual chance of flooding) present on seven
of the proposed reaches (HCI, JS1, NMI, NM2, NM3, NM4, & NM5) (Figure 7). The design and
permitting of the mitigation work will include coordination with the Davie County Floodplain
Administrator and permitting a FEMA No -Rise Certification or CLOMR/LOMR. Hydraulic modeling will
be required to determine that restoration activities will have no effect on 100 -year flood elevations
downstream. No hydrologic trespass will be permitted to adjacent properties upstream or downstream of
the Project.
Environmental Screening and Documentation
To ensure that a project meets the "Categorical Exclusion" criteria, the Federal Highways Administration
(FHWA) and DMS have developed a categorical exclusion (CE) checklist that is included as part of each
mitigation project's Environmental Resources Technical Report (ERTR). The approved CE Form for the
Mockingbird Project is included in Appendix K and was approved by DMS and FHWA in December 2017.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under provisions
of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS database (2017) lists
two endangered species that may occur in proximity to the Project: Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) and
Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Species and species habitat listed in the USFWS database
were inspected during the field investigation to determine whether they occur at the Project. No individual
species or habitats were identified on site. Potential impacts to species and species habitat off site,
downstream, and within the vicinity of the Project were also considered. A letter was sent to the USFWS
on October 20, 2017 requesting review and comment of possible issues with respect to threatened and
endangered species on the Project. USFWS responded on November 20, 2017 and stated that besides the
Northern long-eared bat (NLEB), there is no record of other federally protected species in the project
vicinity. Incidental take of the NLEB is exempt, but the USFWS encourages to avoid tree cutting from May
15 — August 15 if possible. Documentation of this correspondence is included in Appendix K.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 7 November 2018
Project #100021

To comply with the NLEB 4(d) streamlined rule for federal agencies, the required consultation form was
submitted by the FHWA to the USFWS as part of the CE process for DMS projects. Federally protected
species met the Categorical Exclusion Criteria for FHWA and DMS projects and documentation is included
in Appendix K.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires consultation with state fish and wildlife agencies when
"waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be
impounded, diverted ... or otherwise controlled or modified." A letter was sent to the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on October 20, 2017 requesting review and comment of
possible issues with respect to fish and wildlife resources on the Project. A response was received on
December 01, 2017 and NCWRC indicated that there are no records for any listed aquatic species in the
vicinity of this Project. Documentation is included in Appendix K.
Cultural Resources
A letter was sent to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), on October 20, 2017. The letter described the Project and requested a review and comment of
potential cultural resources occurring within the vicinity of the Project. SHPO responded on November 3,
2017 stating that there will be no effect on historic resources. Documentation of this correspondence is
found in Appendix K. Cultural Resources met the Categorical Exclusion Criteria for FHWA and DMS
projects and documentation is included in Appendix K.
Table 6. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
No
Appendix K
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
No
Appendix K
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix K
National Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix K
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
CAMA
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
No
Appendix L
Magnuson Stevens Act - Essential
Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
3.5 Reach Summary Information
The Project area is comprised of two sections (north and south) along Hauser Creek and nine unnamed
tributaries. The easement areas are separated by 4,500 feet of Hauser Creek; however, over 2,500 feet of
that separation is the proposed Scout Mitigation Bank, which connects to the upstream end of the north
Mockingbird easement area. There are eight easement breaks on the Project along reaches HCl, HC2-B,
HC2-C/D, NM2, and above reaches HC2-A, NM3, NM4, and TP2. The Project is split into 13 reaches
based on proposed treatment type (Figure 10, Figure 10a, and Figure 10b). Results of the preliminary data
collections are presented in Table 7.
In general, all or portions of the Project reaches, except Reach HC2-D, do not function to their full potential.
Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation due to impacts from agriculture, livestock
production, and lack of riparian buffer. Being heavily eroded and incised, some of the streams do not access
their floodplains as frequently as they naturally would have prior to agricultural operations. In many cases,
the riparian buffer is in poor condition where much of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs and
row crops are present up to the edge of the existing channel. Habitat along the much of the restoration
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 8 November 2018
Project #100021

reaches is poor in that there is little woody debris or overhanging vegetation for fish cover or protection for
other aquatic species. Reach HC2-D is functioning at a moderate level. While the channel has been impacted
by heavy sediment and nutrient loads, the riparian buffer is in good condition and livestock have been
historically excluded from the reach. Morphological parameters are located in Appendix B.
Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach
Drainage
Area (ac)
ABKF'
(ft2)
Width
(ft)
Mean
Depth (ft)
Width:Depth
Ratio
Sinuosity
Slope (ft/ft)
HCI
1,319
40
20
2
10.1
1.11
0.0028
HC2-A
55
6
11.7
0.5
22.9
1.16
0.0170
HC2-13
151
4.5
10
0.5
22.2
1.15
0.0092
HC2-C
194
15.7
17
0.9
18.4
1.17
0.0139
HC2-D
207
12.1
12.2
1
12.2
1.48
0.0102
JS1
221
2.2
4.7
1
4.5
0.99
0.0065
NMI
20
16.9
10.6
1.6
6.6
1.00
0.0128
NM2
330
17.8
10
1.8
5.6
1.12
0.0076
NM3
74
3.9
6.7
0.6
11.4
1.04
0.0250
NM4
27
2.7
4.8
0.6
8.5
1.10
0.0289
NM5
24
11.7
12.6
0.9
8.5
1.03
0.0256
TPI
45
3.6
9.3
0.4
24.1
1.27
0.0167
TP2
20
3
6.1
0.5
12.2
1.04
0.0357
TP3
20
3.1
8
0.4
21
1.11
0.0257
'ABKF= cross-sectional area (measured at approximate bankfull stage as estimated using existing
conditions data and NC Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present)
Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as intermittent and perennial streams using the NCDWR Stream
Identification Form version 4.11 and are E-, B-, C-, and F -stream types as classified using the Rosgen
stream classification system (Rosgen, 1994). Table 8 summarizes these stream parameters and the stream
determination scores can be found in Appendix G. Stream determinations have been verified by the
USACE.
Table 8. Summary of Stream Parameters
Reach
Hydrology Status
Stream Determination Score
Reach Length (LF)
Rosgen
Stream
Classification
HCI
Perennial
41
2,135
E5
HC2-A
Perennial
33
2,018
133c
HC2-13
Perennial
33
568
F3/C3
HC2-C &
HC2-D
Perennial
33
563
C3
JS1
Perennial
34.5
465
E5
NMI
Intermittent
25.25
229
E4
NM2
Perennial
33.5
1,219
E4
NM3
Perennial
31
197
C4
NM4
Intermittent
19.25
286
E6b
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 9 November 2018
Project #100021

Reach
Hydrology Status
Stream Determination Score
Reach Length (LF)
Rosgen
Stream
Classification
NM5
Intermittent
23.25
101
E6b
TPI
Perennial
36
157
133c
TP2
Intermittent
22.75
450
C6b
TP3
Intermittent
22
525
B6
Existing Channel Morphology
Reach HC1(Hauser Creek)
Reach HC 1, along Hauser Creek proper, is a sand/gravel channel with a moderate sediment load that flows
in a northerly direction. The reach is contiguous to the DMS Hauser Creek Project that begins just
downstream of Spillman Road. This incised channel has been historically straightened, has a slope of less
than one percent, and flows through a broad alluvial valley. The buffers are impacted with active pastures
within the eastern riparian areas and agricultural fields to the west.
Reach NMI
Reach NMI is a headwater system that flows in a westerly direction into the upper third of Reach HC 1.
The majority of the riparian buffer is forested; however, while the reach is stable, the downstream section
is oversized and has been historically ditched.
Reach NM2
Reach NM2 is an incised gravel and cobble bed stream that flows northeast through an agricultural crossing
before meeting at a confluence with HC 1. There is a low to moderate sediment load and a channel slope of
less than one percent. The valley transitions from a width of approximately 50 feet just upstream of the
project boundary to a broader alluvial valley that ties into the western floodplain of HC 1.
Reach NM3
Reach NM3 is an incised sand/gravel bed stream with a relatively low sediment load and a channel slope
of one percent to two percent. The channel is relatively stable and has historically been channelized and
ditched. The channel flows in an easterly direction through an active agricultural field down to Reach HC 1.
Reach NM4
Reach NM4 is a headwater system that flows in an easterly direction into the downstream end of Reach
HC 1. The downstream section of the channel has been historically ditched and is oversized. The buffers are
comprised of pasture grasses with some woody vegetation along the banks at the confluence with HC 1.
Reach NM5
Reach NM5 is a headwater system that flows in a westerly direction into the downstream end of Reach
HC 1. The channel has been historically ditched and no longer has proper bedform or structure. The buffers
are compromised by livestock access and vegetation is sparse. Moving upstream from the confluence, the
channel becomes decreasingly defined until is it lost altogether towards the edge of the pasture and upland
tree line.
Reach JS1
Reach JS is an incised sand/gravel/cobble bed stream with a moderate sediment load and a channel slope
of less than one percent. The channel exhibits irregular banks and moderate erosion as the reach is actively
impacted by cattle. The channel flows to the west, through a pasture with no riparian buffer, down to the
confluence with the DMS Hauser Creek Project.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 10 November 2018
Project #100021

Reach HC2 (Hauser Creek)
Reach HC2-A at the upstream end is a slightly oversized and stable, cobble bed stream that flows in a
northerly direction. The bed profile appears stable and is controlled by root grade controls, boulder outcrops
and cobble riffles. The channel appears to be managing its low sediment load and the banks exhibit little to
no erosion. The riparian buffer is fully intact along the right bank; while widths vary from 15 to 30 feet
along the left. An active cattle pasture is adjacent to the channel along the west side, and cattle have access
to the channel throughout the reach. Further down the reach after the proposed easement break, it is
gravel/cobble stream. The channel is slightly incised in some areas and exhibits irregular banks due to cattle
access and hoof shear. The riparian buffer is in fair condition with much of the buffer being intact and
wooded; however, there are areas of invasive species (privet). Jurisdictional wetlands are in the floodplain
of this reach; WC is approximately 0. 13 acres in size (upstream end and right bank), WE is approximately
0.36 acres in size with 0.26 acres in the proposed easement (downstream and right bank), WF is
approximately 0.05 acres in size (downstream and left bank), and WG is approximately 0.23 acres in size
(downstream and right bank).
Reach HC2-13 is a sand/gravel/cobble stream that flows in a northerly direction between Reaches HC2-A
and HC2-C. The channel is incised, has irregular banks due to cattle access and exhibits little bedform
diversity. Livestock have direct access to the channel, and the resulting hoof shear has severely degraded
the channel banks. The riparian buffer is in poor condition being comprised of an active pasture with some
mature trees located along the top of banks. Jurisdictional wetlands are located in the floodplain on the right
bank; WH is approximately 0.75 acres in size with 0.59 acres being in the proposed easement.
Reach HC2-C is a sand/gravel/cobble stream that flows in a northerly direction between Reaches HC2-13
and HC2-D. The channel is incised, has irregular banks due to cattle access and exhibits little bedform
diversity. Livestock have direct access to the channel, and the resulting hoof shear has severely degraded
the channel banks. The riparian buffer is in poor condition being comprised of an active pasture with some
mature trees located along the top of banks.
Reach HC2-D is a slightly incised, gravel/cobble bed stream that flows in a northerly direction. The bed
profile appears stable and is controlled by cobble riffles. The channel appears to be managing its moderate
sediment load and the banks are generally stable with some areas of localized erosion and cut banks along
some meander bends. The riparian buffer is in good condition and comprised of mature forest with few
invasive species present.
Reach TPI
Reach TPI is a slightly oversized gravel/cobble bed stream with a low sediment load and channel slopes
ranging from one to three percent. The channel appears to be managing its low sediment load and the banks
exhibit little to no erosion. The riparian buffer is fully intact throughout and comprised of hardwoods and
little understory. Cattle have direct access to the channel and buffers throughout the reach.
Reach TP2
Reach TP2 is a channelized ditch that flows to the west into the upstream end of Reach HC2-13. The channel
is oversized, and incision increases as the channel approaches the confluence with reach HC2-13. The
riparian buffer is in poor condition and is primarily comprised of pasture grasses. Livestock have direct
access to the channel and associated buffers. Jurisdictional wetlands are in the floodplain of the left bank;
WB is approximately 0.08 acres in size.
Reach TP3
Reach TP3, a historically ditched channel, flows southwest through an active pasture and into the
downstream end of Reach HC2-C. Channel incision increases as the channel approaches the confluence
with reach HC2-C. The channel exhibits localized areas of minor erosion and the streambed is comprised
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 11 November 2018
Project #100021

of gravel and sand. The riparian buffer is in poor condition due to cattle access and is a mix of pasture
grasses and some hardwoods, and shrubby vegetation along the top of banks. The reach originates in
Wetland WA (0.83 acres with 0.26 acres in easement), which extends beyond the easement boundary and
is also heavily impacted by cattle access.
Channel Stability Assessment
A modified version of the channel stability assessment method (CSA) provided in "Assessing Stream
Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions" by Johnson (2006) was used to assess channel
stability for the Project's existing channels. This method may be rapidly applied on a variety of stream
types in different physiographic regions having a range of bed and bank materials.
The original channel assessment method was designed to evaluate 13 stability indicators in the field. These
parameters are: watershed characteristics (frequency of watershed disturbances such as agricultural
activities, urbanization, etc.), flow habit, channel pattern, entrenchment/channel confinement, bed material,
bar development, presence of obstructions/debris jams, bank soil texture and coherence, average bank
angle, bank vegetation/protection, bank cutting, mass wasting/bank failure, and upstream distance to bridge.
See Appendix B for a detailed description of the stability indicators. As this method was initially developed
to assess stability at bridges, a few minor adjustments were made to remove indicators that contradict
stability characteristics of natural channels in favor of providing hydraulic efficiency at bridges. First, the
"channel pattern" indicator was altered such that naturally meandering channels scored low as opposed to
straightened/engineered channels that are favorable for stability near bridges. Secondly, the last indicator,
"upstream distance to bridge", was removed from the assessment as bridges are not a focus of channel
stability for this project. The 12 indicators were then scored in the field, and a rating of excellent, good,
fair, or poor was assigned to each project reach based on the total score.
The channel assessment results (scores and ratings) for the Project are provided in Table 9. Seven of the
fourteen project stream reaches received "Fair" ratings, while five reaches received "Good" ratings. Reach
HC2-A received an "Excellent" rating, and Reach HC 1 received a "Poor" rating. Most Project streams were
observed to have relatively high bank angles and many were found to be actively eroding. All of the
channels have been impacted by farming practices or livestock production, and most are slightly
entrenched. These characteristics are reflected in the higher channel assessment scores for average bank
angle and bank vegetation/protection. Most reaches also scored poorly for watershed characteristics since
the surrounding land use is dominated by agriculture activities.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 12 November 2018
Project #100021

Table 9. Channel Stability Assessment Results
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 13 November 2018
Project #100021
UT to Grassy
UT to Hauser
HCl
NMI
NM2
NM3
NM4
NM5
JS1
HC2-A
HC2-B
HC2-C
HC2-D
TPI
TP2
TP3
Creek (Reference
Creek (Reference
Reach)
Reach)
1
Watershed characteristics
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
5
2
Flow habit
8
5
8
7
3
4
6
3
4
6
6
4
4
4
2
4
3
Channel pattern
9
9
8
6
5
9
3
3
4
6
2
2
6
6
2
1
4
Entrenchment/channel
10
6
11
12
3
3
7
1
3
3
7
3
4
3
2
2
confinement
5
Bed material
12
10
11
10
9
10
6
1
2
5
6
2
11
9
3
6
6
Bar development
10
2
2
3
3
2
4
2
7
6
3
3
10
8
5
2
7
Obstructions/debris jams
7
6
4
5
6
9
2
1
5
3
3
3
9
2
2
3
8
Bank soil texture and
8
5
9
7
5
7
5
5
5
7
6
6
9
6
3
5
coherence
9
Average bank angle
10
7
10
11
4
3
10
2
6
6
8
4
6
5
5
2
10
Bank vegetation/protection
9
8
10
11
10
9
12
5
6
4
1
2
11
9
2
1
11
Bank cutting
11
5
9
9
6
6
11
2
4
4
8
4
5
6
2
1
12
Mass wasting/bank failure
9
4
8
9
7
9
9
1
4
5
8
2
8
8
2
1
Upstream distance to
13
bridge
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Score
111
75
98
98
69
79
83
34
55
63
66
43
91
74
37
33
Rating*
Poor
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Fair
Excellent
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Excellent
* Excellent
(0 < Score r—
36), Good
(36 <
Score r—
72), Fair (72 <
Score r— 108), Poor (108 < Score r— 144)
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 13 November 2018
Project #100021

3.6 Existing Wetlands
A survey of existing wetlands was performed on October 3, 2017. Wetland boundaries were delineated
using current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Soils were characterized and classified using the Field Indicators
of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0 (USDA-NRCS 2010). Within the boundaries of the
proposed Project, seven jurisdictional wetlands are present. Wetland A (WA) forms above the origin of
Reach TP3, continuing outside of the easement boundary. Wetland B (WB) is a small riparian wetland on
the left bank of Reach TP2. Wetland C (WC) occurs at the top of HC2-A and continues partially outside of
the easement. Wetland E (WE) occurs along the right bank floodplain of HC2-A and extends into the
surrounding pasture outside of the easement boundary. Wetland F (WF) is a small oxbow -type wetland that
occurs on the bank of HC2-C, opposite of WE. Wetland G (WG) occurs on the right bank of HC2-C,
upstream of WE. Wetland H (WH) is a large wetland near the confluence of HC2-13 and TP3, extending
beyond the easement boundary (Figure 8 & Table 10). Livestock have full access to all on-site wetlands.
Vegetation within the wetland areas is made up of black willow (Salix nigra), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), winged elm (Ulmus alata), red cedar, blackberry, multiflora rose, common rush (Juncus
effusus), broom sedge (Carex scoparia), tearthumb (Persicaria sagittata), dogfennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria pensylvanica), and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea).
Outside of the easement and wetland areas, cattle are actively managed for, and fescue is the predominant
forage.
A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) request was sent to the USACE on October 27, 2017 and
a final PJD was received on March 26, 2018. Wetland forms are included in Appendix I.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) does not depict any
additional wetland areas within the Project (Figure 9).
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 14 November 2018
Project #100021

Table 10. Wetland Summary Information
Wetland Summary Information
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Parameters
WA
WB
WC
WE
Size of Wetland
0.83
0.08
0.13
0.36
(acres)
Wetland Type
PFO
Upland
PFO
PFO
Mapped Soil Series
Codorus loam
Codorus loam
Banister fine sandy loam
Codorus loam
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly
Somewhat poorly
Moderately well
Somewhat poorly
Soil Hydric Status
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Source of
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
NSA
Surface Hydrology
Surface Hydrology
Surface Hydrology
Hydrology
Hydrologic
Incised channel
Lack of vegetation
Ditching
Incised channel
Impairment
Native vegetation
Forest
Pasture
Forest
Forest/Pasture
community
Percent composition
of exotic invasive
<5%
<1%
40%
10%
vegetation
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Parameters
NAT
WG
WH
Size of Wetland
0.05
0.23
0.75
(acres)
Wetland Type
PFO
PFO
PFO
Mapped Soil Series
Codorus loam
Codorus loam
Codorus loam
Drainage Class
Somewhat pooly
Somewhat pooly
Somewhat pooly
Soil Hydric Status
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source of
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Hydrology
Surface Hydrology
Surface Hydrology
Surface Hydrology
Hydrologic
Lack of vegetation/Incised
Incised Channel
Incised Channel
Impairment
channel
Native vegetation
Forest
Forest
Pasture
community
Percent composition
of exotic invasive
30%
20%
<5%
vegetation
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 15 November 2018
Project #100021

i
Reach JS looking upstream from driveway
04/03/2018
Looking downstream at confluence of HCI and
NM4, towards culvert under Spillman Rd.
04/03/2018
Looking upstream on Reach NM4
04/03/2018
Top of Reach NM5
04/03/2018
Looking downstream at bottom of Reach NM2
04/03/2018
Culvert on Reach NM2
04/03/2018
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 16 November 2018
Project #100021

Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 17 November 2018
Project #100021
Al
Looking upstream on Reach NMI
Looking upstream on Reach HCI above NMI
04/03/2018
confluence
04/03/2018
s ;r. �•.
r.3
L
Looking downstream from culvert on NM3
Preservation Reach HC2-D
04/03/2018
04/03/2018
h i
On TP3, looking downstream at HC2-C
Reach TP3 origin/Wetland A
confluence
04/03/2018
04/03/2018
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 17 November 2018
Project #100021

I.. ,
�I f` ��� ^�`'.�..:=r+;.rte _::: •.IBM
Ly tAWL t,
i5 j
`
,�� , �.
". �� � .:� '. of

4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
The Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Harman et. al. 2012) uses stream functions to describe project
objectives, existing condition assessments and monitoring, performance metrics, and design criteria. The
Framework separates stream functions into five categories, ordered into a hierarchy, which communicate
the interrelations among functions and illustrate the dependence of higher level functions (biology,
physiochemical and geomorpholgy) on lower level functions (hydrology and hydraulics). Functions that
affect the greatest number of other functions are illustrated at the base of the Pyramid, while functions that
have the least effect on other functions are illustrated at the top. The Pyramid is illustrated below Chart 1.
Stream Functions Pyramid
A Guide for Assessing & Restoring Stream Functions » :lifavifYv
Chart 1. Stream Functions Framework
•eate diverse Gad
through sediments
wdarmar4slleawm ehanmrpm FN StreamMethanies
Fischenich (2006) found that the most critical functions include those that address hydrodynamic processes,
sediment transport processes, stream stability and riparian buffer restoration. By addressing these
fundamental functions and processes, a restored stream and riparian system are capable of supporting more
dependent functions that typically require time to establish, such as diverse biological communities,
chemical and nutrient processes, diverse habitats and improved water and soil quality. The objectives of
this Project will address the most critical functional objectives that will allow for a more restored stream
and riparian over time.
While traditional mitigation approaches have generally relied on surrogate measures of success (i.e. linear
feet of restoration) for determining SMU credit yields, a function -based approach provides a more objective
and flexible approach to quantify the expected ecological benefits of a mitigation design. Additionally, a
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 19 November 2018
Project #100021

functional based approach broadens the reach -scale goals of a restoration project by contextualizing the
functional uplift to the watershed scale. The proposed Project will provide numerous ecological and water
quality benefits within the Yadkin River Basin by applying an ecosystem restoration approach. The
restoration approach at the reach scale of this Project will have the greatest effect on the hydraulic and
geomorphology function of the system but will benefit the upper-level functions (physiochemical and
biology) over time and in combination with other Projects within the watershed. Anticipated functional
benefits and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function -Based Framework are outlined
in Table 10. Neither the Stream Functions Pyramid nor the Quantification Tool are proposed to determine
success of the mitigation site.
4.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
Hydrology
According to the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework, hydrology is defined as the transport of water
from the watershed to the channel. Therefore, the Project intends to make significant improvements to the
already functioning hydrology. Much of the improvement will come from altering land use within these
reaches' small catchment areas. By converting land use for a significant percentage of the catchment area
from pasture to riparian forest, curve numbers will decrease and reach runoff will improve. Additionally,
installation of two sediment traps will regulate upstream runoff coming into TP2 and TP3.
Hydraulic
The hydraulic function of the Pyramid is defined as transport of water in the channel, on the floodplain, and
through sediments. Perhaps the greatest potential uplift at the Project will be achieved through establishing
healthy floodplain connectivity. Reaches in the Project do not have functioning floodplain connectivity or
stable flow dynamics. Reaches where floodplain connectivity is not -functioning or functioning -at -risk will
be improved to functioning by reducing bank height ratios and increasing entrenchment ratios. Reaches in
which stable flow dynamics are not -functioning or functioning -at -risk will be improved to functioning by
constructing a new channel that is geometrically stable based on the Project's hydrology inputs.
Additionally, instream structures will be installed to address the energy and erosive power of the water so
that a stable base flow is achieved post -project.
Geomorphology
Geomorphology, as defined within the Pyramid Framework, is the transport of wood and sediment to create
bed forms and dynamic equilibrium. Sediment transport will be improved in reaches that currently function -
at -risk or not -functioning by designing channels on restoration reaches that are sinuous and sized so that
water velocities are maintained in a stable manor that allows for sediment to move efficiently through the
system. Large Woody Debris Transport and Storage will be improved through the addition of woody debris
to the system by installing in -stream structures on restoration reaches such as log vanes, root wads, log
weirs, and log toes. Some of these woody structures will also deliver functional uplift by providing aquatic
habitat. The restoration reaches are also designed to accumulate woody debris by having defined shallow
riffles where cobble catches and holds woody debris and leaf packs. In reaches proposed for restoration,
lateral stability is not functioning. To achieve functioning lateral stability, sinuous channels will be
constructed with grade -control structures, graded banks, and live -stake planted banks that will significantly
reduce erosion rates compared to existing conditions. Existing riparian vegetation is either functioning -at -
risk or not -functioning in Project reaches. Therefore, riparian buffers will be planted out to a minimum of
50 feet to improve the riparian vegetation to functioning levels, while also providing terrestrial habitat. Bed
form diversity will be improved in restoration reaches by designing natural riffle -pool sequences in
constructed channels based on reference reach conditions. This bed form diversity will also further improve
aquatic habitat. All of these functional parameters are interconnected and ultimately depend on each other
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 20 November 2018
Project #100021

in order to function properly. Therefore, by focusing improvements to these parameters, the restored
channels will achieve dynamic equilibrium and provide maximum geomorphic functional uplift.
Physiochemical
The Pyramid Framework defines the physicochemical category as temperature and oxygen regulation and
the processing of organic matter and nutrients. Although this project would support the overarching goal in
the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Priorities to promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas,
it is difficult to measure nutrient and sediment reduction at this project level because they can be affected
by so many variables. However, several restoration actions are known to help reduce nutrients and sediment
even though they may not be measurable at the project level. These activities include filtering of runoff
through buffer areas, the conversion of active farm fields to forested buffers, and improved denitrification
and nutrient uptake through buffer zones. Additional benefits may also come from functional uplift of the
lower level stream functions (hydraulics and geomorphology), which will reduce sediment and nutrients in
the system through bank stabilization and reforesting. Temperature regulation will also be improved
through the restoration of canopy tree species to the stream buffer areas. Oxygen regulation will occur
through two actions: first, the temperature of the water directly impacts the amount of gas held by the water.
Therefore, through planting the buffer to shade the channel the temperature is decreased dissolved oxygen
is increased. Second, the log structures placed in the stream create mixing zones where oxygen dissolves
much faster than the standard exchange rate of oxygen to dissolved oxygen. The processing of organic
matter will be improved once healthy riffles are shallow enough to catch twigs and branches that then retain
leaves. Many of these physiochemical benefits occur slowly over time and are dependent on multiple
variables within the stream ecosystem. Therefore, it is not practical or feasible to directly measure these
parameters within the monitoring time -frame of this project. With that said, it is logical to use existing
riparian buffer and visual performance standards to demonstrate the positive correlation between
geomorphic parameters and physicochemical parameters. For example, as riparian buffer trees grow, as
represented in annual monitoring reports, it is anticipated that canopy cover is actively shading the stream
channel and reducing water temperature. This is not a substitute for direct physicochemical monitoring, but
it is a useful tool to help project the long-term benefits of the Project in terms of its functional uplift.
Biology
The highest category of the Pyramid is biology and is defined as the biodiversity and life histories of aquatic
and terrestrial life, specifically referring to animals. As mentioned for the physiochemical stream function,
it will be difficult to measure the functional uplift of the biological functions at this site within the
monitoring period of the project. However, since the life histories of many species likely to benefit from
stream and wetland restoration are depending on all the lower -level functions, the functional uplift from the
hydraulic and geomorphic levels would have a positive effect to the biology over time and in combination
with other projects within the watershed is anticipated. Again, there is no substitute for direct biological
monitoring, but it is important to understand the hierarchy of the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework in
order to help project long-term benefits of the Project though only categories two and three (hydraulics and
geomorphology) will be directly measured during the seven-year monitoring period.
4,2 Potential Constraints
The Project restoration reaches will primarily be Priority I restoration, but the upper portion of reach NM2
will be Priority II due to elevation constraints coupled with low valley slope. The Priority II restoration will
comply with IRT and DMS design guidelines regarding bench width, soil stockpiling, and valley planform.
The downstream end of the Hauser Creek restoration must tie-in with the existing DOT culvert elevation
and downstream legacy project. The downstream end of reach JS restoration must tie-in with the existing
culvert which passes under a residential driveway. An existing barn on the right bank of the top of JS 1 will
also be removed during construction. No overhead or underground easements conflict with the proposed
Project. No General Aviation or Commercial airports are located within five miles of the proposed Project.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 21 November 2018
Project #100021

The Project is located within five miles of two privately owned and operated airstrips. One privately owned
public use air transport facility (Sugar Valley Airport) is located approximately four miles south of the
Project. Construction access is not constrained throughout the Project area. While existing mature trees are
generally not threatened, a tree survey has been conducted to design the mitigation measures and access to
minimize impacts to significant specimen trees.
Several existing stream crossings and fords will be either maintained or enhanced within proposed easement
breaks. There are four planned crossings within the Project. These crossings will occur at easement breaks,
and will allow landowners to continue current land -use and access as needed. One existing 40 -foot culvert
crossing will be maintained in the north easement portion and one 40 -foot double culvert crossing will be
constructed at the upstream end of reach HCI at the boundary with the Scout Mitigation Site. Two existing
fords to be upgraded occur at the juncture of reaches HC2-B and HC2-C and on HC2-A. Both crossings on
the southern easement portion will be 30 -foot crossings. All crossing and culvert maintenance will be the
responsibility of RES through completion of monitoring. Once the Project has completed monitoring and
the Project is closed out, the crossings and culverts will be the responsibility of the landowner(s).
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 22 November 2018
Project #100021

5 NUTIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project's maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions
Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Project. These goals
clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major
watershed stressors in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River RBRP. The Project will address outlined
RBRP Goals 2, 3, 4, and 6 (listed in Section 2).
The Project goals are:
• Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non-erosive manner in a stable channel;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbanks flows and
connection to the active floodplain;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation;
• Indirectly support the goals of the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP to improve water quality
and to reduce sediment and nutrient loads; and
• Protect Water Supply Watersheds (WSW).
The Project objectives to address the goals are:
• Design and reconstruct stream channels sized to convey bankfull flows that will maintain a stable
dimension, profile, and planform based on modeling watershed conditions, and reference reach
conditions;
• Permanently exclude livestock from stream channels and their associated buffers;
• Add in -stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced streams;
• Install habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of varying
depths to restored and enhanced streams;
• Reduce bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios to reference reach conditions;
• Increase forested riparian buffers to at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel along the Project
reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community;
• Implement two sediment traps in order to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform to
streams from surrounding farming operations;
• Treat exotic invasive species; and
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project.
Anticipated functional uplift, benefits, and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function
Based Framework are outlined in Table 11.
Limitations to achieving these watershed goals arise by remaining constrained to our project boundaries.
While we are restoring habitat and streams to stable and effective conditions that achieve our goals within
the project parcels, we are unable to influence the effect of poor riparian buffers and livestock impact in
other areas within the watershed. However, through this Project's connectivity with other projects in the
watershed and responsible stewardship of current restoration projects, overall watershed functionality and
health will improve to meet the RBRP goals.
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
A suite of agricultural BMPs will be utilized for the Project to reduce direct effluent inputs, pollutant
contamination, and sediment loading. The combination of the following agricultural BMPs: riparian buffer
planting, bank stabilization, stream restoration, livestock exclusion, and livestock watering facilities will
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 23 November 2018
Project #100021

ultimately lead to the functional uplift of the site, while still allowing livestock production to persist through
the installation of alternative water sources or relocation.
The riparian buffer will be restored along all project reaches, except the preservation reaches. Restored
riparian buffers are established adjacent to and up -gradient from watercourses of water bodies to improve
water quality. The main advantages of the restored riparian buffer will be to provide water quality treatment,
erosion control, and water temperature benefits. Moreover, there will be significant reductions in
sedimentation, nutrient input, and fecal coliform input.
Approximately 3,200 linear feet of livestock exclusion fencing will be installed along one easement
boundary and other easement areas with current livestock will have the livestock removed permanently.
Therefore, livestock will no longer have stream access and the conservation easement will permanently
exclude them. To account for eliminating livestock water access, the landowner will be provided an
alternate water source. A total of three watering facilities will be installed to provide high quality drinking
water to livestock.
Two sediment traps will be installed on TP2 and TP3. The structures will be installed within the
conservation easement so that the structure is protected. Failure or maintenance of the structure is not
anticipated as this structure will be installed in a low -gradient area, and the area proposed to diffuse flow
will be well vegetated and matted.
Stormwater management issues resulting from future development of adjacent properties will be governed
by the applicable state and local ordinances and regulations. It is recommended that any future stormwater
entering the Project maintain pre -development peak flow. Any future stormwater diverted into the project
should be done in a manner as to prevent erosion, adverse conditions, or degradation of the project in any
way.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 24 November 2018
Project #100021

Table 11. Functional Benefits and Improvements
Level
Function
Goal
Functional Parameter
Existing Rating/Projected Rating
Objective
Measurement Method
(Reach)
Channel -Forming Discharge
Convert land -use of streams and their
Percent Project drainage area
to transport water from the watershed to
Catchment Hydrology
headwaters from pasture to riparian
converted to riparian forest
1
Hydrolozy°
Transport of water from the watershed to the
the channel in anon -erosive manner and
Relationship Precipitation/Runoff
Reach Runoff
F/F
forest
forest
measurement)
maintain a stable water table in riparian
(All Reaches)
channel
wetlands
Flow Duration
Install two sediment traps to regulate
Visually monitor integrity of runoff
Baseflow Alteration
upstream runoff and coming into the
Flood Frequency
reach. (TP2 & TP3)
attenuation structure
NF/F'
Cross sections
Flood Bank Connectivity
(HCl, NM2, NM3, NM4, TP2)
2
Hydraulic
Transport of water in the channel, on the
to transport water in a stable non-erosive
Flow Dynamics
FAR/F
Improve flood bank connectivity by
reducing bank height ratios and increase
Crest gauges
manner
(NMI, HC2-B, HC2-C, TP3)
floodplain, and through the sediments
F/,
entrenchment ratios
Bank Height Ratio
Groundwater/Surface water exchange
(HC2-A, HC2-D, TP 1)
Entrenchment Ratio
Sediment Transport
As -built stream profile
Large Woody Debris Transport &Storage
NF/F'
Reduce erosion rates and channel
Lateral Stability
(HC 1, NM2, NM3, NM4, TP2)
stability to reference reach conditions
Cross sections
Geomorphology
Transport of wood and sediment to create diverse
to create a diverse bedform
Channel Evolution
FAR/F'
Improve bedfonn diversity (pool
Visual monitoring
bedforms and dynamic equilibrium
to achieve dynamic equilibrium
Channel Sinuosity
(NMI, HC2-B, HC2-C, TP3)
spacing, percent riffles, etc.)
Bedform Diversity
F/F
Stream walks
Bed Material
(HC2-A, HC2-D, TP 1)
Increase buffer width to 50 feet
Riparian Buffer
Vegetation plots
NF/F'
Improve stream temperature regulation
Vegetation plots
to achieve appropriate levels for water
Water Temperature
(HCl, NM2, NM3, NM4, TP2)
through introduction of canopy
(indirect measurement)
Physiochemical °
temperature, dissolved oxygen
Nutrient load
Temperature and oxygen regulation; processing of
concentration, and other important
Organic Carbon
(NMI, HC2-B-BHC2-CTP3)
Decrease nutrient loading through
Established fencing and/or
organic matter and nutrients
nutrients including but not limited to
Bacteria
, ,
F
filtration of planted riparian buffer, and
perpetual conservation easement
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Water Quality
(HC2-A, HC2-D, TP 1)
removing livestock from the riparian
(indirect measurement)
areas
Microbial Communities
Macrophyte Communities
NF/F
(HC 1, NM2, NM3, NM4, TP2)
Improve aquatic habitat through the
Biology *
to achieve functionality in levels 1-4 to
FAR/F
installation of habitat features,
Vegetation plots
Biodiversity and life histories of aquatic life
support the life histories of aquatic and
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities
(NMI, HC2-B, HC2-C, TP3)
construction of pools at varying depths,
(indirect measurement)
histories and riparian life
riparian plants and animals
F/F
and planting the riparian buffer
Fish Communities
(HC2-A, HC2-D, TP 1)
Landscape Connectivity
Not Measured (NM); Not Functioning (NF); Functioning -at -risk (FAR); Functioning (F)
° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 25 November 2018
Project #100021

b NUTIGATION WORK PLAN
63 Reference Stream
The restoration portions of the Project are currently characterized by agricultural and livestock practices.
Physical parameters of the Project were used, as well as other reference materials, to determine the target
stream type. The "Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina" was also used to narrow
the potential community types that would have existed at the Project (Schafale, 2012). An iterative process
was used to develop the final information for the Project design.
Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the Physiographic Region and ecoregion,
• Similar watershed size,
• Similar land use on site and in the watershed,
• Similar soil types on site and in the watershed,
• Ideal, undisturbed habitat — several types of woody debris present,
• Similar topography,
• Similar slope,
• Pattern common among Piedmont streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.
Obtaining property owner information and owner authorization for access was another factor in locating
suitable reference sites for the Project. There was no predetermined amount of reference sites needed as
long as the site was suitable and met the parameters. Many streams in this watershed are impacted by cattle
and agricultural practices, having a minimal riparian buffer, making it difficult to find an ideal reference
for the Project site. Two reference streams were used for this Project. The reference reach used for Reach
HCI is located north of the Mockingbird Site, across Spillman road, and connects to Hauser Creek. The
other reference is part of an unnamed tributary (UT) to Grassy Creek in Union County, NC. This stream
site is ideal in both geomorphology and size for the smaller reaches of Hauser Creek and its unnamed, first -
order tributaries.
Reference Watershed Characterization
The first reference stream is an unnamed tributary to Hauser Creek that flows west to east and connects to
Hauser Creek below the Hauser Creek Mitigation Site. The portion of this reference reach that was surveyed
and analyzed is approximately 185 feet long. The drainage area for the reach is 0.11 square miles (70.4
acres). The second reference reach, UT to Grassy Creek, is located within the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin
in Union County. This reach is 320 feet in length, with a drainage area of 0.67 square miles (427 acres).
The land use in both watersheds is characterized by mostly agricultural, with mixed pines and hardwoods,
and a small amount of residential.
Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge for the reference site.
Existing drainage area, land use, slope, roughness, and cross-sectional area were all factors considered when
performing the calculations. Using a combination of Piedmont Regional Curves, in-house spreadsheet tools,
and a project specific regional flood frequency analysis; the existing discharge for UT to Grassy Creek was
calculated to be approximately 50 cubic feet per second (ft3/s). The existing bankfull discharge for the
reference portion of UT to Hauser Creek was calculated to be approximately 7.6 cubic feet per second
(ft3/s). See Section 6.2 for a more detailed description of the hydrologic analyses performed for this project.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 26 November 2018
Project #100021

Reference Channel Morphology
In comparison to the restoration reaches, both UT to Grassy Creek and the UT to Hauser Creek reaches are
smaller than the designed restoration reaches when comparing pattern, dimension and profile, which is the
reason for using a scaling factor for the design. The scaling factor is based on the difference in bankfull
area of the reference channel. The designed reach would then have the necessary dimensions of either a
smaller or larger stream corresponding to differences in drainage area. For UT to Hauser Creek, the reach
was typically 5.2 feet wide and 0.6 feet deep. The cross sectional area was typically around 3.0 square feet
with a width to depth ratio around 8.9. The UT to Grassy Creek was typically 13.6 feet wide and 1.4 feet
deep. The cross sectional area was typically around 18.1 square feet with a width to depth ratio around 9.8
Reference Channel Stability Assessment
Both reference reaches UT to Grassy Creek and UT to Hauser Creek are stable and show no evidence of
incision or erosion in the portion that was surveyed and analyzed. The streams appear to maintain slope and
have sufficient amounts of vegetation to secure the banks. Riparian buffer widths exceed 50 feet on each
side. The reference reaches received a "Good" rating as the channels each demonstrate a stable meandering
pattern and a well -vegetated riparian buffer.
Reference Riparian Vegetation
The UT to Grassy Creek reference reach riparian community is characteristic of a Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest -Piedmont Subtype. This community is approximately 20 to 25 years old, as evidenced by the
representative DBH measurements and historical aerial photography. Tree communities were categorized
in 10 transects spanning both left and right banks of the channel. Dominant canopy species present include
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), white oak (Quercus alba), water oak
(Quercus nigra), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), sweetgum, eastern redcedar, southern magnolia
(Magnolia grandiflora), American holly (Ilex opaca), tulip -poplar, and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris).
Percent coverage over the channel ranges from 70 to 90 percent with average DBH ranging from four to 12
inches.
The UT to Hauser Creek reference reach riparian community is characteristic of a Piedmont Alluvial Forest.
Basal areas for the plots were 12.5 M2 /hectare (ha) and 49.6M2 /ha and stems per acre was 81 for both plots.
Dominant canopy species across the reference reach included sweetgum, tulip -poplar, American beech
(Fagus grandifolia), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), eastern redcedar, green ash, red maple, and boxelder.
Sub -canopy species included musclewood, sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum), and sawtooth blackberry.
Invasive species were also found within the vegetation survey plots and in the vicinity of the reach,
including: multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Japanese honeysuckle. Non-native species included
Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), common chickweed (Stellaria media), buttercup, wooly
mullein (Verbascum thapsus), and onion grass (Allium vineale).
It is anticipated that a local seed source for high dispersal species is present upstream at the Project and will
disperse across much of the Project area. These species are often found in early successional communities
and quickly fill disturbance gaps. Because many of these high dispersal species often become aggressive in
these sites, they are not included in the Restoration Planting List (Section 6.3). Hardwood species typical
of the target community were observed in adjacent and nearby communities, and were judged to be more
appropriate for this site.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 27 November 2018
Project #100021

6.2 Design Parameters
Stream Restoration Approach
Stream restoration efforts along the tributaries of the Project will be accomplished through analyses of
geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach applies a combination of
analytical and reference reach based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both
ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed treatment activities may range from minor bank
grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For reaches requiring full
restoration, natural design concepts have been applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses
and modeling. The objective of this approach is to design a geomorphically stable channel that provides
habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape.
The Project will include Priority I Restoration, Priority II Restoration, Enhancement Levels I and II, and
Preservation. Stream restoration will incorporate the design of a single -thread meandering channel, with
parameters based on data taken from reference sites, published empirical relationships, regional curves
developed from existing project streams, and NC Regional Curves. Analytical design techniques will also
be a crucial element of the project and will be used to determine the design discharge and to verify the
design as a whole. Conceptual plan views are provided in Figure 10.
Current stream conditions along the proposed restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation as a result of
impacts from livestock and channelization performed to promote agricultural activities. Additionally, the
riparian buffer is in poor condition throughout most of the Project area, where much of it is devoid of trees
or shrubs, and active pasture is present up to the edge of the existing channel.
The Project design approach began with a thorough study of existing conditions, including the on-site
streams, valleys, and watershed. Design parameters, including active channel, habitat and floodplain
features were developed from analyses performed on the reference site data. Analytical design techniques
were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.
Engineering analysis will be performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the
reference reach based design. A combination of methods will be used to estimate bankfull flows, and flows
corresponding to other significant storm events. A HEC -RAS model will then be used to simulate water
surface elevations of flows generated by the hydrologic analysis. The development of the HEC model is an
important component to the design; therefore, model input parameters are field verified when possible.
Through this hydrologic analysis, the design discharge (typically referenced as bankfull or dominant
discharge) will be determined. The subsequent design will be based on this calculated discharge. As part of
the design process, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply will be performed by characterizing watershed
conditions. A combination of windshield surveys, existing land use data, and historical aerial photography,
followed up by ground truthing, will be analyzed to assess existing and past watershed conditions and to
determine if any changes occurred that would significantly impact sediment supply. Design parameters
developed through the analyses of reference reach data, watershed characterizations, and hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling will be confirmed using the Stable Channel Design function and/or the Sediment
Transport Analysis components within HEC -RAS in conjunction with shear stress and velocity analyses.
Geomorphic and habitat studies will be performed concurrently with the engineering analyses. While
stream design will be verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable
habitat features will be derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both in -stream
and riparian habitat features will be designed. In -stream structures will be used throughout the project to
act as grade control and for bank stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the stream's energy. Bank
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 28 November 2018
Project #100021

stability may further be enhanced through the installation of brush mattresses, live stakes and cuttings
bundles.
Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled with material excavated from onsite to the
elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent to the new channel, installing channel plugs where necessary.
Due to the Priority II approach on some reaches, excess cut material is expected. RES has performed a
preliminary quantity estimate and has developed an onsite disposal plan that will satisfy landowner
requirements. The floodplain will be planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will
provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks will be stabilized using a
combination of grading, erosion control matting, bare -root plantings, native material revetment techniques
(i.e., bioengineering), structure placement, and sod transplants where possible. The stream and adjacent
riparian areas will be protected by a minimum 50 -foot conservation easement which will be fenced to
exclude livestock as needed. In conjunction with the stream restoration, adjacent wetland hydrology will
be enhanced through raising the channel bed. No wetland mitigation credits will be generated from the
enhancement of these wetland areas; however, the enhancement and protection of these currently degraded
wetlands will store excess water during flood events, prevent erosion of stream banks, and reduce in -stream
sedimentation and nutrients.
The Project has been broken into the following design reaches:
Reach HC1— Reach HC 1 begins at the upstream end of the northern portion of the project and at the
downstream limits of the proposed Scout Mitigation Bank. A 40 -foot easement break is proposed
between the two projects that will coincide with a culvert crossing and include 24 LF of 48 -inch double
barrel RCP. The reach totals 2,083 LF of Priority I Restoration to address historic channelization and
livestock impacts. Priority I Restoration provides higher functional uplift and less risk of failure when
connected to the restoration on upstream Reach HC3. The left bank is crop land while the right bank is
active pasture, contributing to significant disturbance on both banks. Restoration activities will include
constructing a new channel within the natural valley with appropriate dimensions and pattern, adding
channel plugs where necessary and backfilling the abandoned channel. Backfilling the abandoned
stream channel presents an opportunity to create wetlands in the ephemeral pool areas. In -stream
structures such as log sills, brush toes, rock cross vanes, and rock/wood constructed riffles will be
installed for channel stability and to improve habitat. A minimum 50 -foot buffer is proposed along each
side of the channel. Buffer activities will improve riparian areas that will filter runoff from adjacent
pastures, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel.
Reach NMI — Historically channelized reach NMI begins at the ephemeral/intermittent break on the
right bank near the top of HC 1 and flows west to a confluence with HC 1. Active pasture surrounds this
reach. The reach totals 229 linear feet of Enhancement II, and enhancement activities will include buffer
plantings and the treatment of invasive species. This reach treatment ends at the farm path.
Reach NM2 — Reach NM2 begins on the west side of Reach HC 1 and flows east to the confluence with
HCI near it's midpoint. The reach totals 637 linear feet of Priority I Restoration and 731 Priority II
Restoration. Due to elevation and slope constraints, Priority II Restoration will be utilized at the top of
the reach, blending into Priority I as it nears the HCI floodplain. Active crop land surrounds this reach
as well as limited cattle exposure. A 40 -foot easement break is proposed for a culvert crossing where
an existing 72 -inch CMP will be removed and replaced with 24 LF of a double barrel 48 -inch RCP.
Restoration activities will include constructing a new channel within the natural valley with appropriate
dimensions and pattern, adding channel plugs where necessary and backfilling the abandoned channel.
In -stream structures such as log sills, brush toes, log cross vanes, and rock/wood constructed riffles will
be installed for channel stability and to improve habitat. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be maintained
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 29 November 2018
Project #100021

along on each side of the channel. Buffer activities will improve riparian areas that will filter runoff
from adjacent fields, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel.
Reach NM3 — Reach NM3 begins at a culvert on the west side of Reach HC 1, near the downstream
end of the Project, and flows east to a confluence with HCl. The reach totals 280 LF of Priority I
Restoration to address historic channelization and excess deposition due to agricultural practices. The
incised reach is surrounded by active fields of row crops and lacks a protective buffer. Restoration
activities will include constructing a new channel with appropriate dimensions and pattern, adding
channel plugs where necessary and backfilling the abandoned channel. In -stream structures such as log
sills, brush toes, rock cross vanes, and constructed riffles will be installed for channel stability and to
improve habitat. A minimum of 50 feet of buffer on each side of the channel is proposed. Buffer
activities will improve riparian areas that will filter runoff from adjacent fields, reducing nutrient and
sediment loads to the channel.
Reach NM4 — NM4 is a headwater reach that forms from the hills on the east side of HC 1 near the
downstream portion of the Project. Active pasture surrounds this reach. This reach totals 253 LF of
Enhancement II. Treatment includes removing an existing crossing at a 15 -inch RCP, establishing a
minimum 50 -foot riparian buffer, and instream structures such as rock cross vane and log sills to
provide channel stability.
Reach NM5 — NM5 is a headwater reach that forms within the eastern floodplain of Reach HC 1, just
upstream of Reach NM4, and flows west to a confluence with HC 1. Realignment of Reach HCI will
displace the majority of NM5 due to plugging this channel at its confluence with the existing HC 1 and
filling in that abandoned channel. A small portion of intermittent channel will be protected within the
easement, but will receive no credit. Active pasture surrounds this reach.
Reach JS1 — Reach JS1 begins in an active pasture, north of Spillman Road, and flows east into the
existing DMS Hauser Creek Mitigation Site that exists downstream from the Project. This incised reach
totals 523 LF of Priority I Restoration to address historic channelization, livestock impacts and erosion.
Restoration activities will include removing an existing ford, constructing a new channel within the
natural valley, backfilling the abandoned channel, and reconnecting to the floodplain for frequent
inundation. In -stream structures such as log sills, brush toes, log cross vanes, rock cross vanes, and
constructed riffles will be installed for channel stability and to improve habitat. A minimum of 50 feet
of buffer on each side of the channel is proposed. Buffer activities will improve riparian areas that will
filter runoff from adjacent pastures, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. The
channel will tie back into the existing location in order to connect to the 72 -inch CMP under the
landowner's gravel driveway.
Reach HC2-A — Reach HC2-A begins at the upstream end of the Project (the southern portion of the
project), and flows north to Reach HC2-B. The reach totals 2,018 linear feet of Enhancement II.
Agricultural fields and bottomland hardwood forests are located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement
activities will include the re-establishment of a riparian buffer along the channel (buffers will extend a
minimum of 50 feet from the top of each bank) and invasive species treatment as needed. Buffer
improvements will filter runoff from adjacent pastures, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads
to the channel. Additional habitat improvements will be gained through livestock exclusion. A 31 -foot
easement break is proposed to maintain an existing ford crossing within the bottom third of this reach.
Reach HC2-B — Reach HC2-B begins immediately downstream of Reach HC2-A and flows north to
Reach HC2-C. The reach totals 595 LF of Priority I Restoration to address historic channelization and
cattle exposure. The incised reach is surround by active pasture and the downstream portion is
surrounded by disturbed bottomland hardwood forests and riparian wetlands. Restoration activities will
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 30 November 2018
Project #100021

include constructing a new channel within the natural valley with appropriate dimensions and pattern,
adding channel plugs where necessary and backfilling the abandoned channel. In -stream structures such
as log sills, brush toes, cross vanes, rock A -vanes, and constructed riffles will be installed for channel
stability and to improve habitat. A minimum of 50 feet of buffer on each side of the channel is proposed.
Buffer activities will improve riparian areas that will filter runoff from adjacent pastures, thereby
reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. Reach TP3 ties into HC2-B prior to a proposed
35 -foot easement break and ford crossing, before transitioning into Reach HC2-C. Also, the reach will
be built through part of a jurisdictional wetland that is currently on the right bank floodplain and
degraded from cattle access and pasture -use. While this project is not claiming any wetland credit, the
raised channel bed should enhance the wetlands' hydrology by reconnecting the floodplain wetlands to
the stream. Also, backfilling the abandoned stream channel presents an opportunity to create additional
wetlands in the ephemeral pool areas. A gauge will be installed on the right floodplain to monitor the
wetland hydrology and will be reported in the yearly monitoring reports.
Reach HC2-C — This incised, degraded reach begins at the downstream end of HC2-B and flows north
from a ford crossing to the upstream end of HC2-D. Although cattle have been historically excluded
from this reach, upstream pasture activity and travel across the existing ford have resulted in bed and
bank erosion and sedimentation. The reach totals 155 LF of Enhancement I, and enhancement activities
will include laying back and/or benching the left bank and installing coir matting and live stakes to
provide channel stabilization. Bottomland hardwoods are located adjacent to the reach.
Reach HC2-D — Reach begins immediately downstream of Reach HC2-C and flows north to the
downstream boundary of the southern portion of the easement. The reach totals 407 linear feet of
preservation with minimum 50 -foot buffers. Bottomland hardwoods surround this reach.
Reach TPI — Reach TPI begins on the east side of Reach HC2-A in headwater Piedmont forest, and
flows west to a confluence with Reach HC 1-A. Lightly disturbed forest surrounds this reach. The reach
totals 146 LF of Enhancement II, where cattle exclusion and supplemental planting of the riparian
buffer is proposed. This reach treatment ends at the fence line.
Reach TP2 - This channelized reach begins on the east side of Reach HC2-A, just downstream of the
confluence of TPI with HC2-A, and flows southwest to a confluence with Hauser Creek. The reach
totals 471 LF of Enhancement II. The reach is surrounded by active pasture and a small wetland occurs
near the stream origin. Enhancement activities include reestablishing the riparian buffer with native
vegetation and cattle exclusion. A sediment trap will be installed upstream of ephemeral/intermittent
stream break to provide sediment and nutrient control from upland agricultural practices.
Reach TP3 — This mildly incised, historically channelized reach begins to the east of Reach HC2-B
and flows southwest to a confluence with HC2-B upstream of a proposed easement break. The reach
totals 470 linear feet of Enhancement IL The reach is surrounding by active pasture and forms out of a
headwater wetland. A sediment trap (made from woody debris and livestakes) is proposed at the upper
end of the reach to provide sediment and nutrient control from upland agricultural practices.
Design Methods
There are three primary methods that have demonstrated success in stream restoration: analog, empirical,
and analytical. All three methods have advantages and limitations, and it is often best to utilize more than
one method to address site-specific conditions or to verify the applicability of design elements. This is
particularly true in developed watersheds where existing conditions do not always reflect current inputs and
events, and sediment and hydrologic inputs may remain unstable for some time. Combinations of analytical
and analog methods were used to develop the stream designs for the Project.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 31 November 2018
Project #100021

Analytical Approach
Analytical design is based on principles and processes considered universal to all streams, and can entail
many traditional engineering techniques. The analytical approach utilizes continuity, roughness equations,
hydrologic and hydraulic models, and sediment transport functions to derive equilibrium conditions. Since
the project is located within a rural watershed, restoration designs are based on hydrologic and hydraulic
analyses, including rainfall -runoff models to determine design discharges coupled with reference reach
techniques.
Analog Approach
The analog method of natural channel design involves the use of a "template" or reference stream located
near the design reach, and is particularly useful when watershed and boundary conditions are similar
between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). In an analog approach, the planform pattern,
cross sectional shape, longitudinal profile, and frequency and locations of woody debris along the analog
reaches are mimicked when developing the design parameters for the subject stream.
Empirical Approach
Empirical design is based on regional mathematical relationships among measured channel variables. The
flood frequency analysis and regional curve evaluation described above are examples of empirical design
methods to select a range of channel forming discharges for a given watershed area.
Typical Design Sections
Typical cross sections for riffles and pools are shown on the design plan sheets in Appendix A. The cross-
section dimensions were developed for the four design reaches by using an in-house spreadsheet described
in Section 6.2 of this report. The cross sections were altered slightly to facilitate constructability; however,
the cross sectional area, width to depth ratio, and side slopes were preserved. Typical pool sections include
pools located on straight reaches and pools on meander bends.
Meander Pattern
The design plans showing the proposed channel alignment are provided in Appendix A. The meander
pattern was derived directly from the analog reach and was altered in some locations to provide variability
in pattern, to avoid on site constraints, to follow the valley pattern, and to make the channel more
constructible. The morphologic parameters summarized in the Appendix B were applied wherever these
deviations occurred.
Longitudinal Profiles
The design profiles are presented in Appendix A. These profiles extend throughout the entire project for
the proposed channel alignment. The profiles were designed using the analog reach bed features that were
sized with the scaling factors. The bed slopes and bankfull energy gradients were determined for each
design reach based on the existing valley slope and the sinuosity of the design reach. Log structures will be
utilized in the design to control grade, divert flows, and provide additional habitat diversity and stability.
In -Stream Structures
Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional stability and improve aquatic
habitat. Native materials and vegetation will be used for revetments and grade control structures where
applicable. Additionally, rock structures will be utilized intermittently along the restoration reaches to
provide increased stability and habitat. Typical rock structures that will protect the channel bed and/or banks
will include riffle grade controls and cross -vanes.
Woody debris will be placed throughout the channel at locations and at a frequency that is similar to those
observed in the analog reaches. Woody habitat features installed will include dead brush, root wads, brush
toes, and log vanes. To provide additional bank stability, sod mats harvested onsite will be installed along
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 32 November 2018
Project #100021

stream banks during construction if and when feasible. Sod mats will only be harvested and used if
comprised of appropriate vegetation. The use of sod mats that include aggressive turf grasses will be
avoided. Sod mats are natural sections of vegetation taken from the banks when they were cut during
construction, and are about nine inches thick. Before installation, proposed banks are graded lower than
specified to accommodate the thickness of the mat. The mats are placed on top of the bank to act as a natural
stabilizer of native species, and they grow much faster than the combination of coir fiber matting and
seeding. Other bank stability measures include the installation of live stakes, log sills, brush toes, log vanes,
and log toes. Typical details for proposed in -stream structures and revetments are in Appendix A.
Data Analysis
Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to determine and
validate the design bankfull discharge and channel geometry required to provide regular floodplain
inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a single
model. Peak flows (Table 12) and corresponding channel cross sectional areas were determined for
comparison to design parameters using the following methods:
• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• AutoCAD's Hydraflow Hydrographs,
• NC and VA Regional Curves for the Rural Piedmont, and
• USGS regional regression equations for rural conditions in the Blue Ridge -Piedmont.
Regional Flood Frequence
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby
USGS gauges with drainage areas less than 6,400 acres (10 mit) which passed the Dalrymple homogeneity
test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations. Regional flood
frequency equations were developed for the 1.1-, 1.5-, and 2 -year peak discharges based on the gauge data.
Discharges were then computed for the design reach. These discharges were compared to those predicted
by the discharge regional curve and USGS regional regression 2 -year discharge equations.
Regional Curve Regression Equations
The North Carolina Piedmont regional curves by Harman et al. (1999) and Doll et al. (2002) and the
Virginia Rural Piedmont regional curves by Lotspeich (2009) for discharge were used to predict the
bankfull discharge for the Project. The NC regional curves predicted flows that are similar to those predicted
by the 1.1 -year flood frequency, while the VA curves are much lower, closer to the flows predicted by the
Hydraflow Hydrographs. The regional curve equations for NC discharges by Doll et al. (2002):
(1) Qb� 89.04*(DA)0.73 (Harman et al., 1999)
(2) Qb� 91.62*(DA)0.71 (Doll et al., 2002)
(3) Qb� 43.895*(DA)o.9472 (Lotspeich, 2009)
Where Qbxffbankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mi2).
USGS Regional Regression Equations
USGS regression equations estimate the magnitude and frequency of flood -peak discharges. The regression
equations were developed from gauge data in different physiographic regions of the Southeastern United
States. For this analysis, there was only concern for the 2 -year return interval. The equation for the rural
Piedmont/Foothills (Hydrologic Region 1) (4) is:
(4) Q2=158*(DA)0.649 (Weaver et al., 2009)
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 33
Project #100021
November 2018

Table 12. Peak Flow Comparison
Reach
Drainage
Area(Ac)
( )
FFQ
Qi.i
FFQ
Qis
NC Regional
Curve Q (1)
NC Regional
Curve Q (2)
VA Regional
Curve Q (3)
Regional
Regression
Eqns. Q2 (4)
Design/
Calculated
Q
HCl
1,324
125
204
154
151
87
253
145
HC2-B
194
43
68
39
37
14
73
43
Jsl
220
47
73
43
41
16
79
40
NM2
330
58
92
57
55
23
103
50
NM3
74
26
39
20
18
6
39
11
Design Discharge
Based upon the hydrologic analyses described above, design discharges were selected that typically fall
between model results for the 1.1 -year and 1.5 -year flood frequency analysis for each reach but closer to
the 1.1 -year. The design discharge values are similar to the Hydraflow Hyrdograph outputs for the 1- and
2 -year storms at a 6 -hour duration. The design flows are all slightly higher than the Rational Method
calculated flows. The selected flows, in cubic feet per second (cfs), for the restoration reaches are 145 for
HCI, 43 for HC2-B, 40 for JS1, 50 for NM2 and 11 for reach NM3. These discharges will provide frequent
inundation of the adjacent floodplain.
Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a stable
gravel bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically, sediment transport is assessed
to determine a stream's ability to move a specific grain size at specified flows. Various sediment transport
equations are applied when estimating entrainment for sand and gravel bed streams found in the Piedmont.
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) report, Stability Thresholds for Stream Restoration Materials
(Fischenich, 2001), was used to obtain permissible shear stresses and velocities. Data found in this
document was obtained from multiple sources using different testing conditions. The following methods
and published documents were utilized during the sediment transport analysis:
• Permissible Shear Stress Approach, and
• Permissible Velocity Approach.
Shear Stress Approach
Shear stress is a commonly used tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear stresses are
a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size, and gradation), cohesiveness of
bank materials, vegetative cover, and incoming sediment load. The shear stress approach compares
calculated shear stresses to those found in the literature. Shear stress is the force exerted on a boundary
during the resistance of motion as calculated using the following formula:
(1) i = yRS
T = shear stress (lbIW)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft')
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 34 November 2018
Project #100021

Table 13. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Proposed Shear Critical Shear Permissible Shear Stress'
Reach Stress at Bankfull Stress (lbs/ft) Sand/Silt/Clay Coarse Gravel Vegetation
Stage Obs/It) Obs/It) Obs/It) Obs/It)
HCl 0.38 >0.54 0.03 to 0.26 0.33 to 0.67 0.7 to 1.7
HC2-13 0.38
>0.54
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.7 to 1.7
JS 1 0.30
>0.54
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.7 to 1.7
NM2 0.24
>0.54
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.7 to 1.7
NM3 0.55
>0.54
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.7 to 1.7
1(Fischenich, 2001
Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Project design reaches fall between
the critical shear stress (shear stress required to initiate motion) and the allowable limits. Therefore, the
proposed channel should remain stable.
Velocity Approach
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank materials.
A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method to aid in the
verification of channel stability. Table 14 compares the proposed velocities calculated using Manning's
equation with the permissible velocities.
Table 14. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Velocities
Manning's "n" Design Velocity Permissible Velocity'
Reach value Otis) Bed Material (ft/sec)
HCI 0.05
2.7
Coarse gravel to cobble
2.5-7.5
HC2-13 0.05
2.4-2.9
Coarse gravel to cobble
2.5-7.5
JS1 0.05
1.3-2.5
Sand to coarse gravel
1.75-6.0
NM2 0.05
1.8-2.1
Sand to coarse gravel
1.75-6.0
NM3 0.05 1.9-2.1 Coarse gravel to cobble 2.5-7.5
1(Fischenich, 2001)
Sediment Supply
In addition to the stability assessment, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply was performed by
characterizing watershed conditions. A combination of field reconnaissance and windshield surveys,
existing land use data, and historical aerial photography were analyzed to assess existing and past watershed
conditions to determine if any changes occurred that would significantly impact sediment supply. As
discussed in Section 3.3, the land use throughout the site has changed little since 1960. Much of the Project
area has been used primarily for agricultural purposes over the past 60 years. Most of the existing stream
channels are unforested. Land use has remained relatively constant within this rural watershed, and
significant land disturbing activities are not anticipated for the future.
There are several areas of instability and erosion along the channels, which appear to be a result of historic
cattle activity and agricultural activities occurring up to and along channel banks and not from watershed
activities. It is anticipated that sediment supply from agricultural land adjacent to the project will decrease
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 35 November 2018
Project #100021

as buffers are enhanced and widened, and flow from existing agricultural ditches will be diffused before
entering the proposed channel.
Since observed areas of degradation can be attributed to farming practices adjacent to the channel and
watershed activities, a threshold channel design approach was used. This approach assumes minimal
movement (vertical or lateral migration) of the channel boundary during design flow conditions, and that
the channel is not sensitive to sediment supply. Additionally, grade controls have been integrated
throughout the design to provide vertical stability in the event scour should occur.
63 Vegetation and Planting Plan
Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration Project. The selection of
plant species is based on what was observed at the reference reach, species present in the forest surrounding
the restoration Project, and what is typically native to the area. Several sources of information were used to
determine the most appropriate species for the restoration project. While two reference streams were used
during design, only UT to Hauser Creek is used as a vegetation community reference due to close proximity
to the Project.
A Piedmont Alluvial Forest will be the target community along Hauser Creek, JS 1, NMI, NM2, NM3, and
NM4. A Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest will be the target community along HC2-A, TPI, TP2, and
TP3. The target community will be used for the planting areas within the Project, shown in Appendix A.
The plant species list has been developed and can be found in Table 15. Although there is one planting
zone, certain targeted species will be planted in the appropriate target community location (Table 16).
Species with high dispersal rates are not included because of local occurrence, adjacent seed sources, and
the high potential for natural regeneration. The high dispersal species include red maple and sweetgum.
The restoration of plant communities along the Project will provide stabilization and diversity. For rapid
stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) and black
willow (Salix nigra) were chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because of their rapid growth
patterns and high success rates. Willows grow at a faster rate than the species planted around them, and
they stabilize the stream banks. Willows will also be quicker to contribute organic matter to the channel.
When the other species are bigger, the black willows will slowly stop growing or die out because the other
species would outgrow them and create shade that the willows do not tolerate. The live stake species will
be planted along the outside of the meander bends three feet from the top of bank, creating a three-foot
section along the top of bank. The live stakes will be spaced one per linear foot with alternate spacing
vertically.
It is anticipated that the vegetation planting/replanting will be conducted between November 15 and March
15, per the October 2016 USACE/NCIRT monitoring guidance. If the Project completes construction after
March 15, but before May 31, the site will be planted immediately following construction so that there is
180 days prior to the initiation of the first year of monitoring.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 36 November 2018
Project #100021

Table 15. Proposed Plant List
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Species
Common Name
Spacing
(ft)
Unit Type
% of Total
Species
Composition
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
9X6
Bare Root
15
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
9X6
Bare Root
15
Betula nigra
River birch
9X6
Bare Root
15
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
9X6
Bare Root
15
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
9X6
Bare Root
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
9X6
Bare Root
10
Liriodendron tulipifera
Yellow Poplar
9X6
Bare Root
10
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
9X6
Bare Root
5
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
9X6
Bare Root
5
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Species Common Name % of Total Species Composition
Salix nigra Black willow 60
Cornus ammomum Silky dogwood 40
On -Site Invasive Species Management
Treatment for invasive species will be required within all grading limits associated with stream restoration.
Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant phenology and
the location of the species being treated. All treatment will be conducted as to maximize its effectiveness
and reduce chances of detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods will include
mechanical (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical (foliar spray, cut stump, and hack
and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds will be removed from the Project and properly
disposed. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a certified ground pesticide applicator with a North
Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) license and adhere to all legal
and safety requirements according to herbicide labels, and NC and Federal laws. Management records will
be kept on the plant species treated, type of treatment employed, type of herbicide used, application
technique, and herbicide concentration and quantities used. These records will be included in all reporting
documents.
Soil Restoration
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before the
topsoil is placed back over the Project. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be stockpiled
and placed over the Project during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil
conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the
Project.
b.¢ Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the restoration designs described in this
document. The combination of the analog and analytical design methods was determined to be appropriate
for this Project because the watershed is rural, the causes of disturbance are known and have been abated,
and there are minimal infrastructure constraints. The original design parameters were developed from the
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 37 November 2018
Project #100021

measured analog/reference reach data and applied to the subject stream. The parameters were then analyzed
and adjusted through an iterative process using analytical tools and numerical simulations of fluvial
processes. The designs presented in this report provide for the restoration of natural Piedmont
cobble/gravel-bed channel features and stream bed diversity to improve benthic habitat. The proposed
design will allow flows that exceed the design bankfull stage to spread out over the floodplain.
A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the restoration channel.
However, many segments will be left partially filled to provide habitat diversity and flood storage. Native
woody material will be installed throughout the restored reach to reduce bank stress, provide grade control,
and increase habitat diversity.
Forested riparian buffers of at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the Project
reaches. An appropriate riparian plant community (Piedmont Alluvial Forest along HCI, HC2-B/C, JS1,
NMI, NM2, NM3, NM4; Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest along HC2-A left bank, TP2, TP3) will be
established to include a diverse mix of species. The plant species list has been developed and can be found
in Table 15. Although there is one planting zone, certain targeted species will be planted in the appropriate
target community location. Replanting of native species will occur where the existing buffer is impacted
during construction. Replanting of native species will occur where the existing buffer is impacted during
construction.
Due to the nature of the project, complete avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is not possible.
Proposed stream impacts, including stream relocation and culverts, will be replaced on site. Wetland
impacts associated with restoration and enhancement efforts will only temporarily impact wetlands and will
provide an overall increase in wetland function with the addition of native trees and shrubs along the stream
banks, and restored hydrology. All stream impacts will be accounted for in the Pre -Construction
Notification (PCN) form.
6.5 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 16 are projections based upon site design (Figure 10, Figure 10a,
and Figure 10b). Upon completion of site construction, the project components and credits data will only
be revised to be consistent with the as -built condition if there is a large discrepancy and with an approved
mitigation plan addendum. This will be approved by the USACE.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 38 November 2018
Project #100021

Table 16. Mockingbird Site (ID -100021) - Mitigation Components
Project
Wetland
Mitigation
Approach
As -
Component
Position and
Existing
Plan
Built
Restoration
Priority
Mitigation
Mitigation
reach ID
H droT e
Footage
Stationing
Footage
Footage
Level
Level
Ratio X:1
Credits
Notes/Comments
Riparian and supplemental planting,
livestock exclusion, invasives treatment
HC2-A
1,345
0+74 to 14+19
1,345
TBD
Ell
2.5
538.0
(Stream crossing: STA 14+19 to STA
14+50
Riparian and supplemental planting,
HC2-A
673
14+50 to 21+23
673
TBD
Ell
2.5
269.2
livestock exclusion, invasives treatment
Channel restoration, riparian planting,
livestock exclusion
HC2-B
568
21+23 to 27+18
595
TBD
R
PI
1
595.0
(Stream crossing: STA 27+18 to STA
27+53
Bank grading and stabilzation,
HC2-C
155
27+53 to 29+08
155
TBD
EI
PHI
1.5
103.3
supplemental planting, conservation
easement
HC2-D
408
29+08 to 33+15
407
TBD
P
10
40.7
Conservation Easement
Channel restoration, riparian planting,
HCl
2,135
27+79 to 48+62
2,083
TBD
R
PI
1
2,083.0
livestock exclusion
TPI
157
1+19 to 2+65
146
TBD
Ell
2.5
58.4
Riparian planting, livestock exclusion
TP2
450
0+0 to 4+71
471
TBD
Ell
2.5
188.4
Riparian planting, livestock exclusion
TP3
525
1+18 to 5+88
470
TBD
Ell
2.5
188.0
Riparian planting, livestock exclusion
NMI
229
1+44 to 3+73
229
TBD
Ell
2.5
91.6
Riparian planting, livestock exclusion
Channel restoration, riparian planting,
NM2
889
0+59 to 10+56
997
TBD
R
PITH
1
997.0
livestock exclusion
(Stream crossing: STA 10+56 to STA
10+96
Channel restoration, riparian planting,
NM2
330
10+96 to 14+67
371
TBD
R
PI
1
371.0
livestock exclusion
NM3
197
1+36 to 4+16
280
TBD
R
PI
1
280.0
Channel restoration, riparian planting
NM4
286
0+82 to 3+35
253
TBD
Ell
2.5
101.2
Riparian planting, livestock exclusion
Channel restoration, riparian planting,
JS1
465
0+47 to 5+70
523
TBD
R
PI
1
523.0
livestock exclusion
No Wetland Mitigation
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 39 November 2018
Project #100021

Table 16 Continued. Mockingbird Site (ID -100021) - Mitigation Components
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level
Stream
(linear
feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres
Non -riparian Wetland
acres
Stream
6,427.8
Riverine
Non-Riverine
NR Wetland
Restoration
4,849
Enhancement
Enhancement
155
Enhancement II
3,587
Creation
Preservation
407
High Quality Pres
Overall Assets
Summary
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 40 November 2018
Project #100021
Overall
Asset Category
Credits
Stream
6,427.8
RP Wetland
NA
NR Wetland
NA
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 40 November 2018
Project #100021

7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Project will follow the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update and subsequent agency guidance. Specific success criteria components
are presented below.
7.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Bankfull Events
Channel stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events documented in the
seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream
monitoring will continue until four bankfull events have been documented in separate years. Crest gauges
will be installed on the bottom of Reach HCI and Reach NM2.
Cross Sections
There should be little change in as -built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -cutting or
erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified
using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. For C/E channels, bank height ratio
shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches. For B
channels, bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 1.4 within
restored reaches. Channel stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events
documented in the seven-year monitoring period.
Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should
not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth.
Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A
series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Surface Flow
Stream restoration reaches will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This will
be accomplished through direct observation and the use of hydraulic pressure transducers with data loggers.
Intermittent reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow. Flow gauges will be
installed on Reaches NMI, NM4, TP2 and TP3.
'1.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project will
follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the survival of at
least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, five-year old trees at seven feet in height
at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an average
height of ten feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species, and included
in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of total planted stems.
Moreover, 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.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 41 November 2018
Project #100021

8 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the DMS Monitoring Report Template dated June 2017 and
NC IRT monitoring template. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will
facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, research purposes, and assist in decision making
regarding project close-out. Monitoring reports will be prepared annually and submitted to DMS.
Monitoring of the Project will adhere to metrics and performance standards established by the USACE's
April 2003 Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the NC IRT's October 2016 Wilmington
District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Table 17 outlines the links between project
goals, objectives, and treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and performance standards within
the context of functional uplift based on the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework. Figure 11 is a
monitoring map with locations for vegetation plots, flow gauges, crest gauges, and wetland gauges.
$3 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank to
compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual monitoring
reports unless requested by USACE. Stream channel stationing will be marked with stakes placed near the
top of bank every 200 feet.
$,2 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year by
qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species, and
easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete streamwalk and
structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to record each monitoring
event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual monitoring will be presented
in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital images. Photographs will be
used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian
vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures.
8.3 Hydrology Events
Crest gauges will be installed to document the occurrence of bankfull events. In accordance with the
guidelines that a minimum of one gauge will be installed on each tributary that is greater than 1,000 feet a
crest gauge will be installed on HCI (Appendix A). Reaches with Priority 1 Restoration (designed to
reconnect the stream to its floodplain), gauges will be capable of tracking the frequency and duration of
overbank events. Where restoration or enhancement activities are proposed for intermittent streams, flow
monitoring gauges should be installed to track the frequency and duration of stream flow events.
8A 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. All cross-section measurements will include
bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio. Cross sections will be monitored in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. There
should be little change in as -built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated to
determine if they represent movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -cutting or erosion),
or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative changes,
deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 42 November 2018
Project #100021

$.5 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum of two percent
of the planted area. There will be 15 plots within the planted area (18.6 acres) (Appendix A). Plots will be
a mixture of fixed and random plots. Planted area indicates all area in the easement that will be planted with
trees. Existing wooded areas are not included in the planted area. 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 noxious species will be monitored so
that none become dominant or alter the desired community structure of the Project. If necessary, RES will
develop a species-specific treatment plan.
8.6 Scheduling/Reporting
A baseline monitoring report and as -built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be
developed within 60 days of the planting completion on the Project. The report will include all information
required by DMS mitigation plan guidelines, including elevations, photographs and sampling plot locations,
gauge locations, and a description of initial species composition by community type. The report will also
include a list of the species planted and the associated densities. Baseline vegetation monitoring will include
species, height, date of planting, and grid location of each stem. The baseline report will follow DMS As -
Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template June 2017, USACE guidelines, and the October 2017
Mitigation Credit Calculation Memo.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the success
of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final success
criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to DMS. The
monitoring reports will include all information, and be in the format required by USACE.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 43 November 2018
Project #100021

Table 17. Monitoring Requirements
Level
Goal
Treatment
Outcome
Monitoring Metric
Performance Standard
Convert land -use of
Project reaches from
NA
NA
To transport
pasture to riparian
Improve the
water from the
forest
transport of water
watershed to
from the watershed
Visually monitor
the channel in a
Install two sediment
traps to regulate
to the Project
integrity of runoff
Identify and document instability
non-erosive
floodplain runoff
reaches in a non-
attenuation structure:
and/or flaws to the structure
manner
coming into the reach
erosive way
Performed semiannually
TP2 & TP3
(indirect measurement)
Reduce bank height
Improve flood
Crest gauges and/or
Four bankfull events occurring in
To transport
ratios and increase
bank connectivity
p ressure transducers:
separate ears
At least 30 days of continuous flow
2
water in a
entrenchment ratios
by
by reducing bank
height
Inspected semiannually
each year
stable non-
reconstructing
ratios and
Cross sections: Surveyed
Entrenchment ratio shall be no less than
?.
channels to mimic
increase
erosive manner
reference reach
entrenchment
in
2.2 within restored reaches
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2
conditions
ratios
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
As -built stream profile
NA
Reduce erosion
Cross sections: Surveyed
Entrenchment ratio shall be no less than
Establish a riparian
rates and channel
buffer to reduce
stability to
in
1.4 for B channels and no less than
To create a
erosion and sediment
reference reach
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
2.2 for C/E channels restored reaches
diverse
bedform
transport into project
conditions
Visual monitoring
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2
3 c
streams. Establish
stable banks with
Improve bedform
Identify and document significant
fY g
Q
To achieve
livestakes, erosion
diversity (pool
Visual monitoring:
stream problem areas; i.e.
p
m
dynamic
control matting, and
spacing, percent
Performed at least
erosion, degradation,
equilibrium
other in stream
riffles, etc.
semiannually
aggradation, etc.
structures
Increase buffer
Vegetation plots:
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
width to 50 feet
Surveyed in
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 7: 210 trees/acre 10 ft. tall
To achieve
Improve stream
p
Vegetation plots:
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
appropriate
levels for water
temperature
Surveyed in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
temperature,
regulation through
(indirect measurement)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
ti
dissolved
Exclude livestock
introduction of
oxygen
from riparian areas
canopy
4
concentration,
with exclusion fence
Decrease nutrient
Visual assessment of
c
and other
or conservation
loading through
established fencing and
Inspect fencing and signage.
important
easement, and plant a
filtration of planted
conservation signage:
Identify and document any
J 01
nutrients
riparian buffer
riparian buffer, and
Performed at least
damaged or missing fencing
including but
removing livestock
semiannually
and/or signs
not limited to
from the riparian
(indirect measurement)
Nitrogen and
areas
Phosphorus
To achieve
Improve aquatic
functionality in
Plant a riparian
habitat through the
installation of
Visual monitoring of in
levels 1-4 to
buffer, install habitat
habitat features,
stream habitat features:
Identify and document significant
5
support the life
features, and
construction of
Performed at least
stream problem areas; i.e.
o
Pq
histories of
construct pools of
pools at varying
semiannually
degradation, aggradation,
aquatic and
varying depths
ar g
depths, and
p
(indirect measurement)
stressed or failed structures, etc.
riparian plants
planting the
and animals
riparian buffer
° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 44 November 2018
Project #100021

9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the necessary
performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the members of the IRT
and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 45 November 2018
Project #100021

14 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 nonreverting, interest-
bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account
will be governed by North Carolina General Statute GS 113A -232(d)(3). Interestgai ned 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 boundary markings as
needed. Any livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility the owner of
the underlying fee to maintain.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 46 November 2018
Project #100021

11 REFERENCES
Axiom Environmental, Inc., 2016. Annual Monitoring Report Year 5 (2016): Hauser Creek Stream
Restoration Site Davie County, North Carolina. DMS Project No. 92471. (available online at
https:Hdeg .nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-service s/dms-projects.)
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open -Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,
FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood Frequency Analyses. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1543-A.
Doll, B.A., D.E. Wise-Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S.D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harman, R.E. Smith and J.
Spooner. 2002. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams throughout the Piedmont of
North Carolina. Journal of the American water Resource Association. 38(3):641-651.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Fischenich, C. 2001. "Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials." ERDC Technical Note No.
EMRRP-SR-29, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Miss.
Fischenich, J.C., 2006. Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration, EMRRP Technical Notes
Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-52), US Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. (available online at hLtp:Hel.erdc.usace.gM.mil/elpubs/pdf/si52.pdf)
Griffith, G.E., J.M.Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H.McNab, D.R.Lenat, T.F.MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color
Poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S.
Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy.
AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function-
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number FHWA-HRT-
05-072.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 47 November 2018
Project #100021

Lotspeich, R.R., 2009, Regional curves of bankfull channel geometry for non -urban streams in the
Piedmont Physiographic Province, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2009-5206, 51 p.
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985, Geologic map of North Carolina: North Carolina Geological
Survey, General Geologic Map, scale 1:500000.
NCDENR 2012a. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water Quality
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wg/home. (February 2012).
NCDENR 2012b. "2012 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5." Water Quality Section.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wg/home. (August 2012).
NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2011. A Guide to Surface Freshwater
Classifications in North Carolina. Raleigh. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_librar/
get file?p 1 id=1169848&folderld=2209568&name=DLFE-35732.pdf, accessed October 2017.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). "Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities 2009.".
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2, December
24, 2002.
USACE. 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR -10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
USACE. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
USACE. 2018. Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 1986.
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.
USDA NRCS. 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH 654), USDA
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 48 November 2018
Project #100021

USDA NRCS. 2007. Soil Survey of Davie County, North Carolina.
USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov (October 2017).
USDA NRCS. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas,
G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. EPA Manual. Quantifying Physical
Habitat in Wadeable Streams.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina." North
Carolina Ecological Services. http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. (September 2014).
Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J., 2009, Magnitude and frequency of rural foods in the
Southeastern United States, through 2006—Volume 2, North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientifc Investigations Report 2009-5158, 111 p.
Mockingbird Mitigation Plan 49 November 2018
Project #100021

Figures List
Figure 1— Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — USGS Map
Figure 3 —
Landowner Map
Figure 4 —
Land -use Map
Figure 5 —
Soils Map
Figure 6 —
Historical Conditions Map
Figure 7 —
FEMA Map
Figure 8a,
8b, and 8c — Existing Conditions Map
Figure 9 —
National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 10
—Concept Design Overview
Figure 10b — Concept Design Map - North
Figure 10c — Concept Design Map — South
Figure 11—
Monitoring Map

Targeted Local Watershed
Turner & Hauser Creek
03040101160010
-'0" Sid
'riPfr H Trl
K
Y
P�7
f
�a9 � HC N1 x
River Basin Restoration Priority o
Yadkin River Headwaters
03040101 a
RhY% o
YadkinviIIe
3
z'
Levei svill e
Legend
CIemmons Proposed Easement
Scout Easement
- Catbird Easement
- Hauser Creek Easement Rainbow gills Way _
Mockingbird locksviue HUC - 03040101
Mitigation Site
TLW - 03040101160010
N
Date: 11/9/2018
Figure 1 -Vicinity Map
w e Drawn by: MDE
Mockingbird Mitigation Site
s Checked By: CSC r^s-
0 1,000 2,000
Daive County, North Carolina 1 inch =2,000 feet
Feet

Fit
n�=
M
�
"
42
Le
Proposed Easement
Drainage Areas (1,540 ac.)
Date 11/9/2018
(Farmington 1967) Drawn by: EVVT
MOC
kingbird Mitigation Site res
1,00SO 2,000
Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch = 2,000 feet

MILLER NANCY�SPARKS
5853144949
5853153934
y
SPARKS,WILSON W JR &-
,.._ KATHERINE S LIV TRST
I
�' " 5853416631
�t PHIF,ERITERESA S
5853514536
` -5852594790
e
Legend
Proposed Easement's
Project Parcels
Parcels
Date: 11/9/2018
w
Figure 3 - Landowner Map
Drawn by: MDE
N 0 500 1,000 Mockingbird Mitigation Site res
Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1,000 feet
Feet

y �
J
♦ f
rL_
r
°
!"
� 4
., +..
Lil—
Le-gend row
Proposed Easement,,
Existing Streams
Hauser Creek`
Wetlands �\
Parcels
Date: 11/9/2018
Figure 8a - Existing Conditions Map
w� e Drawn by: MDE
s Mockingbird Mitigation Site
res
0 500 1,000
Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1,000 feet
Feet

Parcels
-
N
w e
Figure 8b - Existing Conditions Map (North)
Date: 11/9/2018
-
Drawn by: MDE
s
Mockingbird Mitigation Site
0
200 400
_
Davie County, North Carolina
1 inch = 400 feet
Feet

Parcels I
N
Date: 11 /9/2018
Figure 8c - Existing Conditions Map (South)
gAW w e Drawn by: MDE
s Mockingbird Mitigation Site
0 200 400
Davie County, North Carolina
1 inch = 400 feet
res
�
Ttl
r
TriPie
��
�
4r
d1;:f•
M 3
w
Myer§
M9
71.
Parcels I
N
Date: 11 /9/2018
Figure 8c - Existing Conditions Map (South)
gAW w e Drawn by: MDE
s Mockingbird Mitigation Site
0 200 400
Davie County, North Carolina
1 inch = 400 feet
res
�

Legend
JAC
Proposed Easement - 27.46 a
Parcels
Approach
Restoration (1:1) -
Enhancement 1 (1.5:1) I
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Preservation (10:1)
N
:
Figure 10 -Conceptual Map Date11/9/2018
gaW w e Drawn by: MDE res
s Mockingbird Mitigation Site
0 500 1,000
Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1,000 feet
Wckingbird Mtigation Site Credits
Proposed
M igation
Reach
Mfigation Type
SMUs
Length (H)
Ratio
HC2-A
Enhancement II
1,345
1:2.5
538
HC2-A
Fnhancement H
673
1:2.5
269
HC2-B
Restoration
595
1:1.0
595
HC2-C
Enhancement 1
155
1:1.5
103
HC2-D
Preservation
407
1:10.0
41
HCl
Restoration
2,083
1:1.0
2,083
TP1
Enhancement II
146
1:2.5
58
TP2
Enhancement II
471
1:2.5
188
TP3
Enhancement II
470
1:2.5
188
NN11
Enhancement II
229
1:2.5
92
NN12
Restoration
997
1:1.0
997
NN12
Restoration
371
1:1.0
371
NNB
Restoration
280
1:1.0
280
NN14
Enhancement H
253
1:2.5
101
JS1
Restoration
523
1:1.0
523
Total
8,998
6,427
Myra"
fed
2
,
h
lip2-p
1
Legend
JAC
Proposed Easement - 27.46 a
Parcels
Approach
Restoration (1:1) -
Enhancement 1 (1.5:1) I
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Preservation (10:1)
N
:
Figure 10 -Conceptual Map Date11/9/2018
gaW w e Drawn by: MDE res
s Mockingbird Mitigation Site
0 500 1,000
Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1,000 feet

a
4
a. r
i
�i1N74
1
" h
v �
l
Dlockingbirdlliitigation Site Credits
Proposed Nfitigation
Reach Nlitigalion Type Length (LF) Ratio SMUs
a' HC2-A Enhancement 11 1,345 1:2.5 538
HC2-A Enhancement II 673 1:2.5 269
L pend HC2-B Restoration 595 1:1.0 595
HC2-C Enhancement I 155 1:1.5 103
Proposed Easement - 27.46 ac HC2-n Preservation 407 1:10.0 41
`
Parcels HCl Restoration 2,083 1:1.0 2,083
.`
TPl Enhancement II 146 1:2.5 58
Approach TP2 Enhancement 11 471 1:2.5 188
TP3 Enhancement II 470 1:2.5 188
Restoration (1:1) NMl Enhancement 11 229 1:2.5 92
NM2 Restoration 997 1:1.0 997
Enhancement 1 (1.5:1) NN12 Restoration 371 1:1.0 371
K 4
Enhancement II (2.5:1)' NNB Restoration 280 1:1.0 280
NMI Enhancement II 253 1:2.5 101
Preservation (10:1) JSl Restoration 523 1:1.0 523
.. ,, Total 8,998 6,427
N
Date: 11/9/2018
Figure 10a - Conceptual Map (North)
w e Drawn by: EWi res
s Mockingbird Mitigation Site
0 200 400
Davie County, North Carolina
1 inch = 400 feet
Feet

Mockingbird North
Mockingbird South
re
S.
N
W E
S
0 150 300
Feet
Figure 11 - Monitoring Plan Map
Mockingbird
Mitigation Site
Davie County,
North Carolina
Date: 11/12/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM 1 in = 300 feet
Proposed Cross Sections
REFERENCE
1) Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Z15N.
2) Map Projection is NAD_1983_StatePlane_
North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
Legend
❑
Proposed Easement
Proposed Top of Bank
Planting Area
Flow Gauge
®
Crest Gauge
Vegatation Plot
Wetland Gauge
Proposed Cross Sections
REFERENCE
1) Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Z15N.
2) Map Projection is NAD_1983_StatePlane_
North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet

Appendix A -Plan Sheets

N
(i3
T
co0
LU
Q
d
LU
O
U,
Korh
F[RF.t
f l H €n rl V&-n'na
d21'.
t�w=�rilfQ
iCaperr,ium
.and
6_4'rlith G-ot+e
crnn aer
MarckswiI -c
Bethai,ia
»:za1x0a11.zN-Al115•]►
VVES T
W113 SLO r1 -
i
i
7
- - - — — —
7.-
3 w :10111 =10 a 116161 -Al 1150] 01 -
Arradla
Wekorne
VICINITY MAP
NTS
DMS PROJECT #: 100021
CONTRACT #: 7185
USACE ACTION ID #: SAW -2017-01505
RFP #: 16-006993
REACH JS I
REACH Nr
REA
MOCKINGBIRD SITE
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
YADKIN 01 RIVER BASIN: HUC 03040101
NOVEMBER 2018
RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC
302 JEFFERSON ST, SUITE 110
RALEIGH, NC 27605
SITE MAP
REACH TP2
REACH TP I
Sheet Li5t Table
Sheet Number
Sheet Title
-
COVED
A I
OVERALL AERIAL VIEW
E I
NOTES
E2
INDEX SHEET
E3
EX15TING CONDITIONS
MB I
LEACH HC2
MB2
LEACH HC2
M153
LEACH HC2
M154
LEACH HC2
M155
LEACH HC2
MBG
LEACH HC2
M157
LEACH TP 1
M158
LEACH TP2
M159
LEACH TP3
MB 10
LEACH HC
MBI 1
LEACH HC
MB 1 2
LEACH HC
MBI 3
LEACH HC
M B 14
REACH NMI
M B 1 5
REACH N M 2
MBI G
REACH N M 2
MBI 7
REACH N M 2
MBI 6
LEACH N M3
MBI 9
REACH N M 4
M1520
LEACH J5
P I
PLANTING PLAN
M I
MONITORING PLAN
D I
DETAI L5
D2
D ETAI L5
D3
DETAIL5
D4
DETAI L5
D5
D ETAI L5
DG
DETAI L5
D7
DETAI L5
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 500
0 500 1000
2" = FULL SCALE
"
I`
1 = HALF SCALE
w
Q 00
o C)
0
� N
0
o_
Z
0
U
Z
0
0-1
z
0
O
LL
Z
LU
0
o �
_
v0
Q
z
z
0
U)
Q J
LU W
oc
Q
>
WW
Ir
Ir 0 -
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:

N
(i3
T
co0
LU
Q
rr
LU
0
U,
.-t ;ems
O&AAIV -IV
ILI
rqw
Ad W.).4
.6
*j.
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 300
0 300
600
2" = FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
w
Q00
CD
04
N
O
0404
J
�
0_
Z
0
U
Z
O
0-1
Z
O
O
LL
�
Z
W
0
0-1
LU
Q
z
z
D
0
O
Lu
Q
Lu
LU
Q
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Z
J
0�
s
Q
W
W
U
�
�
U) =
J
0
Fn
W
(D zQ
Z
J
Y �
J
Q =)
01
O
>
U
w
w
O
< w
z
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
Ir
Ir
0-
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
Al

a
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
I . INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS DESCRIBED IN THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND
NOTES. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE PHASED -IN TO THOSE AREAS OF THE PROJECT
CURRENTLY BEING WORKED ON. THE CONTRACTOR MAY MODIFY OR RELOCATE EROSION
CONTROL MEASURES TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR UNFORESEEN FIELD CONDITIONS SO LONG
AS PROPER CONSTRUCTION IS MAINTAINED TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY AND USEFULNESS OF THE
PROPOSED MEASURES. ALL DISTURBED AREAS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS SHALL BE STABILIZED
WITH TEMPORARY SEED AND MULCH AT THE END OF EACH DAY.
2. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAM
DIRECTION.
3. EXISTING WETLANDS CANNOT BE ENCROACHED UPON UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IF NOT
APPROVED AS DESIGNATED IMPACT AREAS. HIGH VISIBILITY FENCING MUST BE PLACED AROUND
ALL EXISTING WETLANDS THAT ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND/OR
ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
4. DURING STREAM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE WORK AREA SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE END
OF EACH WORKING DAY.
5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION AND
STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE ABANDONED AT AN
ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE PROPOSED CHANNEL.
G. STOCKPILE AREAS MAY BE RELOCATED UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. SILT FENCING
MUST BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL STOCKPILE AREAS.
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND SHALL
NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANY WAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED,
PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF THE TREES TO BE SAVED. ANY
COMPROMISED TREES NOT USED IN CONSTRUCTION ARE TO BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF
OFF SITE.
8. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL/COBBLE SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS TO
BE ABANDONED. THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW
CHANNEL SECTIONS.
9. IN -STREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS (BRUSH TOES,
LOG VANES, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER
APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.
10. THE WORK TO RESHAPE THE CHANNEL BANKS WILL BE PERFORMED USING EQUIPMENT WORKING
FROM THE TOP OF THE EXISTING STREAM BANK, WHERE POSSIBLE.
1 1. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL NOT BE PLACED WITHIN THE ACTIVE CHANNEL TO PERFORM
WORK IF POSSIBLE. PLATFORMS SHOULD BE USED TO CROSS CHANNEL WHERE ACCESS IS NOT
POSSIBLE.
12. NO MORE CHANNEL SHALL BE DISTURBED THAN CAN BE STABILIZED BY THE END OF THE WORK
DAY OR PRIOR TO RESTORING FLOW TO NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL SEGMENTS.
13. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY CONTROL DEVICES ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS
COMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED. A MAXIMUM OF 200 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM MAY BE
DISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME.
14. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.
15. AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE EXISTING CHANNEL IS BEING MAINTAINED, TEMPORARY PUMP
AROUND DAMS AND BYPASS PUMPING WILL BE USED TO DE -WATER THE WORK AREA AS
DESCRIBED IN THE DETAILS.
I G. WHEN THE PROPOSED CHANNEL HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED TO PREVENT EROSION, ALL
TEMPORARY PUMP AROUND DAMS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE STREAM CHANNEL AND
NORMAL FLOW RESTORED. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN DESIGNATED
SPOILS AREAS PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY PUMP AROUND DAM.
17. AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH ROCK STRUCTURES, BOULDER TOE STABILIZATION, AND LOG TOE
STABILIZATION ARE CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS, TEMPORARY COFFER DAMS AND BYPASS
PUMPING WILL BE USED TO DE -WATER THE WORK AREA, EXCEPT AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE
NORMAL FLOW CAN BE DIVERTED AROUND THE WORK AREA WITH THE USE OF AN EXISTING
CHANNEL. WHEN THE TOE HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED TO RESTRAIN EROSION ALL
TEMPORARY COFFER DAMS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE STREAM CHANNEL AND
NORMAL FLOW RESTORED. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN DESIGNATED
SPOILS AREA PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY COFFER DAM.
18. MATERIAL THAT IS REMOVED FROM THE STREAM WILL BE RE -DEPOSITED OUTSIDE OF THE ACTIVE
CHANNEL AND ITS FLOODPLAIN.
19. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF ALL DISTURBED GRASSED AREAS AT THE TOP OF
THE CHANNEL BANKS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEEDING AND MULCHING SPECIFICATION
AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
20. RE -FERTILIZE AND RE -SEED DISTURBED AREAS IF NECESSARY.
2 1. TEMPORARY AND/OR PERMANENT IMPACTS TO EXISTING WETLANDS SHALL BE AVOIDED TO THE
EXTENT POSSIBLE. HIGH VISIBILITY FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL EXISTING
WETLANDS LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND/OR ADJACENT TO ANY CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES.
STREAM CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE:
1. CONDUCT PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING INCLUDING OWNER, ENGINEER, ASSOCIATED
CONTRACTORS, NCDEQ EROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL, AND OTHER AFFECTED PARTIES.
CONTACT NCDEQ EROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL AT 9 19-79 1-4200.
2. OBTAIN EROSION CONTROL PERMIT FROM NCDENR -LAND QUALITY SECTION AND ALL OTHER
APPROVALS NECESSARY TO BEGIN AND COMPLETE THE PROJECT.
3. CONTRACTOR IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL APPROPRIATE PARTIES AND
ASSURING THAT UTILITIES ARE LOCATED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION.
CALL NC ONE -CALL (PREVIOUSLY ULOCO) AT I -800-G32-4949 FOR UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES
48 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION
AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
4. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, STABILIZED GRAVEL ENTRANCE/EXIT AND ROUTES OF INGRESS AND
EGRESS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND DETAILS. MAINTAIN EXISTING
DRIVEWAY OVERTOPPING ELEVATION / PROFILE.
5. PREPARE STAGING AND STOCKPILING AREAS IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION
PLANS OR AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ANY EXCESS SPOIL FROM STREAM CONSTRUCTION
SHALL BE USED TO CONSTRUCT CHANNEL PLUGS AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
G. INSTALL PUMP AROUND APPARATUS AND IMPERVIOUS DIKES AT UPSTREAM END OF PROJECT.
AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES, MOVE PUMP AROUND OPERATION DOWNSTREAM. (SEE
DETAILS ON SHEET D 1 )
7. INSTALL SILT FENCE, TEMPORARY CROSSINGS AND ALL OTHER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS
SHOWN ON PLANS.
8. CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE CHANNEL FIRST, WORKING IN AN UPSTREAM TO
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
9. ROUGH GRADING OF CHANNEL SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.
10. INSTALL STRUCTURES AS SHOWN ON PLANS AND DETAILS. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING, OBTAIN
APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER ON INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.
1 1. UPON COMPLETION OF FINE GRADING, INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING OR SOD MATS
ALONG CHANNEL BANKS.
12. FILL AND STABILIZE ABANDONED SEGMENTS OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL PER DIRECTION OF THE
ENGINEER.
13. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND PUMPING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREAM AT
THE END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.
14. DURING STREAM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE WORK AREA SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE END
OF EACH WORKING DAY.
15. INSTALL LIVE STAKE, BARE ROOT, AND CONTAINERIZED PLANTINGS AS SPECIFIED ON PLANTING
PLANS.
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
50
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
46
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
42
EXISTING WETLAND
www.res.us
SEAL
EXISTING STREAM
99 --
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITY LINE
-OHE
PROPERTY LINE
- -
EXISTING FENCELINE
x
EXISTING TREELINE
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK -
- - - - - - - -
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF CHANNEL
-
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LCE
PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG
(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)
J
PROPOSED FILL AREA
o_
EXISTING TREE
0
BRUSH TOE PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL D2)
Z
LOG SILL
(SEE DETAIL D4)
LOG CROSS VANE
(SEE DETAIL D5)
DOUBLE LOG DROP
�-
(SEE DETAIL D4)
Raleigh, INC 27605
ROCK CROSS VANE
Main: 919.829.9909
(SEE DETAIL D5)
Fax: [phone]
ROCK A -VANE
(SEE DETAIL D5)
LOG VANE
(SEE DETAIL D3)
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
(SEE DETAIL DG)
SEDIMENT TRAP
(SEE DETAIL D2)
LOG SILL
(PROFI LE)
LOG CROSS VANE 0
(PROFILE) M
UU
DOUBLE LOG DROP
(PROFI LE)
ROCK CROSS VANE/A-VANE
(PROFI LE)
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
6i
Q
co
p
o
N
OCN
J
o_
Z
O
H
U
0-1
Z
O
0'
z
O
O
LL
Z
LU
O
0'
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
U)
Q
_
J
W
oc
Q
>
w
w
0-'
0=
0=
0_
z
J
O
LU Q
U
(1) =
p
w
m
z0
(D
z
z
U Z
=)O
O
U
Lu W_
Lu
g
J
\
/
~
H<
IL 0
o
Z
O
Q
0_
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
E1

N
W
0
LU
Q
LU
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 200
0 200
400
2" FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
6i
Q
00
p
o
N
O
0404
J
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
�Q
U)
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
O
U
� =
W
0
O�
W
Oz
m
cn
O
X
z
W
Z
z
U
O D
O
U
Lu
w
<W
z
�
U Q
Z
Q
O
Ir
Ir
0-
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
E2

a�
N
m
0
LU
Q
LU
a
REACI
LEACH r
r
)N
�`. ED G A /— 1-4 —r M '?
LEACH TP2
REACH TP
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 300
0 300
600
2" FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
6i
Q
00
p
o
N
O
0404
J
z
O
U
z
O
z
0
O
LL
Uz
c/),
0
o
LU
Q
Q
zLu
z
O
Lu
Q
LU
Q
w
w
Ir
Ir
0-
z Z
J
O
(1)
z
W U
O
z
m Oz
O
C�
Y
z
O
O
C)
W
Lu
w
< W
z
�
U Q
z
LU
Q
O
0
0-
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
E3

PROPOSED -FORD CROSSING
J /E DETAIL SHEET D3
i
\�HANCEIVIENT II
A 0+74 TO 14+i c)
M ADOWS BAPTIST CHURCH,) X
DB 77, PG/202 \, 00 / \
T5 �V - 0
-33-�
O
TB
+00
9 i r.- �— _
W ODS \ — / A �._� TB_
4t WOODS A
00
�(10
—
\ L -
� � LCE --
--�-- __ ��CE
�� _ LC
-� E
795
790
785
780
775
LCE
-LCE.
LCE
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50
SCALE: HOR I''=20'; VERT I''=2'
aiMWA
ao-M
10i-1.
795
790
785
780
775
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" FULL SCALE
I`
EXISTING TOP
OF BANK
Lu
Q00
ocp
N
O
CNCN
J
�
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
U)
Q
LU
J
W
oc
>
Ito
Ir
Ir
0-
z
J
O
Q
o
W
U
\✓ \----
p
U_
O
Q �
U
EXISTING G
DE ALONG
Y
w
— ��—
L.1_
� 1 0
O =)
STREAM
CENTERLINE
�O
U
\
\
6i
Lu
cW
Z
�
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
o
0-
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
O
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB1
\
J
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50
SCALE: HOR I''=20'; VERT I''=2'
aiMWA
ao-M
10i-1.
795
790
785
780
775
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
Lu
Q00
ocp
N
O
CNCN
J
�
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
U)
Q
LU
J
W
oc
>
Ir
Ir
0-
z
J
O
Q
W
U
p
U_
O
C� z
U
Y
w
L.1_
O =)
�O
U
6i
Lu
cW
Z
�
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
o
0-
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB1

U
i
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
( �0
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
6i
Q
00
p
o
N
O
0404
J
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
�Q
U)
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
O
Q
W
U
�
U) =
N
p
U_
O
C� z
U
W
Y
L.1_
O =)
�O
U
Lu
w
<W
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
Q
O
Ir
Ir
0-
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB2

a�
ro
N
ca
U
-3j 3- -- -
O
N
_
REACH hC2 Jj
ED z ENHANCEMEM-It
STA 0+74 -TO -t-4+1 E) / LCE L E LCE _ L E
cc
� / � _ � CO
E
AC"C2—
� _ _ /
WOODS - - - \ �� / — _ _
�voODs STA 14+50 TO-Z"r+23 —
z
�WO9DS
Q
00
9Z
j/ e 1
I i
/ \�
1
\J !— TBS
> \
WOODS
\
OOD'-'
�
1 1 I (3�1 – � r
LCA ------, L
-
— —�
EXISTING FORD C 'QS�ING
TO BE IMP VEE�
<\ SEE DETAIL SH E D3
-TERESA S. PhIFE
l
DB 173 _RG 157
-----------
7(50
780 I' 780
775 - — - 775
— — _ EXISTING TOP OF ANK
770- \ / – \ 770
7G5 J , _ — \ �� 7G5
EXISTING GRADEALONG—/—' — — — — — — — —
STREAM CENI ERLI NE �_ O—
+ Q w 1 +
w> L
Lu
Q �nQm Q
0 w
7GO — - 7GO
12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 1 G+00 I G+50 17+00 17+50 1 8+00
SCALE: HOR I''=20'; VERT 1 "=2'
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" = FULL SCALECA
I`
1" = HALF SLE
w
Q
00
p
o
N
OCN
J
�
0_
r
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
IL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
_
uLu
Q
z
Z_
O
�
Lu
U)
Q
J
Q
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
O
Q
w U
U) =
N
p
U_
O
C� z
U
Y
W
�
O �
�p
U
w
w
<w
Z
�
U Q
Z
LU
Q
O
Ir
Ir
0—
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB3

N
ca
U
I
TB' REACH HC2 STA 2 1+23 TO STA 27+ 18
�'P
/ / rXGTfI G C H ANN EL TBE � 2. 1 4.2'
Af5'ANDONED AND FILLED
S EE �T� ET P 03
BAN KFU LL STAGE
Z-�
--
/
REACH HC2 QTR-- ,v _ / TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION
g
C/-Efl HAITI C M E N T 11
+
o --- ,� �� � STA—I a+5-0-TCS2 I +23 � wooDS
– – —
� 13.5'
-00-0-
10.01 2.0'
--- -
TB 5 G BAN KFU LL STAGE
/ Al i
54
9 91
9ir
10 d
- / - -
/ TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
u -i Lnj
2.0' 10.0'
BAN KFULL STAGE
- _ TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
REACH HC2
RES ice -RATION
STA 21 +23 TO 27+ 1,5
770
7G5
7GO
755
750
18
770
7G5
7GO
755
750
00
SCALE: HOR I''=20'; VERT I''=2'
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
I
SEAL
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
en
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
030
60
2 — FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
W
Q
00
o
CD
N
O
0404
J
�
0_
z
O
PROPOSED TOP 53
U
�- - -
OF BANK
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
ILL
—
—
4�
O
�
z
LU
10,
-0.50%a
0-1
LL
--
z
Lu
Z_
O
�
U)
Q
J
Q
w
0=
0=
�I
-0.50%
\ �/
z
J
1
Q
W
U
XISTI NG GRADE ALONG
p
U_
-0.50%
O
STREAM CENTERLINE
C� z
U
W
Y
PROPOSED CHANNEL
�p
U
w
w
BED SLOPE
�
U Q
Z
Q
O
1
0=
+00 1,5+50 10+00 10+50 20+00
20+50
21+00 21+50
22+00
22+50
23+00
23+50
24+
770
7G5
7GO
755
750
00
SCALE: HOR I''=20'; VERT I''=2'
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
en
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
030
60
2 — FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
W
Q
00
o
CD
N
O
0404
J
�
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
ILL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
�
U)
Q
J
Q
w
w
0=
0=
0-
Q
z
J
O
Q
W
U
p
U_
O
C� z
U
W
Y
O
�p
U
w
w
<W
Z
�
U Q
Z
Q
O
1
0=
0=
0_
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB4

U
i
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
6i
Q
00
p
o
N
O
0404
J
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
�Q
U)
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
O
Q
W
U
�
U) =
N
p
U_
O
C� z
U
W
Y
L.1_
O =)
�O
U
Lu
w
<W
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
Q
O
Ir
Ir
0-
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB5

a�
N
CID
0
LU
Q
U
C -�
Ld
\ \
F71
-1
O00
\ G,
x \
r
WOODS _
\ A \
TBS"
_
J
I
WOO S
RfACH\�jC2
PRESERVATION --
��01
755
750
ZR
1110
3C
SCALE: HOR I''=20'; VERT I''=2'
7 -TO]
755
ZR
Z[�
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" FULL SCALE
I`
EXISTIN TOP OF BANK
W
Q
00
p
o
N
O
0404
J
0_
z
O
U
z
O
z
w
0-1
z
O
O
w
LL
Q
oc
O
�
w
z
LU
z
O
EXISTING
GRADE ALONG
O
STREAM
CENTERLINE
�m
LL
Q
z
m
�Q
z �
O
Z_
O
�Q
U)
Q
-
LU J
U
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
w
O
IY
IY
Q_
Q
In
z
J
O
Q
W
U
�
J
(n =
+00 30+50
31+00 31+50
32+00
32+50
33+00
33+50
34+
SCALE: HOR I''=20'; VERT I''=2'
7 -TO]
755
ZR
Z[�
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
W
Q
00
p
o
N
O
0404
J
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
�Q
U)
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
O
Q
W
U
�
(n =
N
p
U_
O
C� z
U
W
Y
L.1_
O =)
�O
U
Lu
w
<W
Z
�_
�
U Q
Z
LU
Q
O
0
0-
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB6

a�
N
T
m
0
LU
790
785
780
775
770
/ \ / REAC H STP I I I I \ \ \ \
\ENHANCEMENT II / \ \ \ y \ \
10
\ \
STA I + 19 TO 2 � 6 5
y \
REACH HC2
px tee_- _-- A 2� +�3 V A
O��— — 6=
rnkz
e
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
SCALE: HOR 1 ''=20'; VERT 1 ''=2'
790
785
780
775
770
3+ 0
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
_
1" = HALF SCALE
EXISTING TOP
Ill
OF BANK
Q00
CD
04
N
O
0404
J
�
0_
z
0
U
w
�
z
w
O
�
EXISTING
GRADE ALONG Q
STREAM
CENTERLINE z
0-1
z
O
O
mQ0—
IL
F-
+
oc
>
O
�
CL/ —
Q
z j
EXISTI NG TP I
LU
00
CONFLUENCE
L
O
WITH REACH HC2
O
In
z
Lu
z_
O
�Q
U)
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
J
IY
IY
Q_
Q
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
SCALE: HOR 1 ''=20'; VERT 1 ''=2'
790
785
780
775
770
3+ 0
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2 FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
Ill
Q00
CD
04
N
O
0404
J
�
0_
z
0
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
IL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1Q
z
Lu
z_
O
�Q
U)
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
O
Q
W
U
U) _
�
O
CD z
U
Z�
W
C) z
O =)
�0
U
w
w
<W
Z
�
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
Ir
Ir
0-
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB7

BRYAN E./OMINGE
MEEK B. ROMINGE
DB 9�9, 1 O�5
\ ) 1
i
jA \
T7 f"] /1 T7 /1 r' C f"l r' C f""1 1 I. ACI. I T T f"] A T"J
\M BREAK
x_0ZO
I �\
\ \ REAC HI H C
_ e 0
\ \REACH TP
\ \ \ \ E�(HANCEMENT II
ICE . 3TA0+00 TO 4+'71
VC-
TER
�. P�I FE I
\ DB 173 PG 15
� I I I I I
:..
0
F
7701
L
i
«�U
SCALE: HOP, 1 "=20'; VERT 1 "=4'
:..
790
• e]
770
760
5+00
1p resi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2 FULL SCALE
I`
1" =HALF SCALE
W
Q
00
p
o
N
O04
J
�
0_
Z
0
EXIS
INGTOP
U
OF EANK
Z
0
0-1
z0
L
ILL
C
oc
0
o
LU
o
�
�o
Qzo
z
0U)
�Q
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
Z
J
O
Q
W
U
7
GRADE
ALONG EXISTING
O
C� z
U
Z �
W
=
C) z
5
REAM CENTERLINE
O
J
w
w
<W
�_
z
U Q
Z
LU
XI5TING TP2 CONFLUENCE
0
0-
PROJECT NUMBER:
WITH REACH H
2
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
«�U
SCALE: HOP, 1 "=20'; VERT 1 "=4'
:..
790
• e]
770
760
5+00
1p resi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2 FULL SCALE
I`
1" =HALF SCALE
W
Q
00
p
o
N
O04
J
�
0_
Z
0
U
Z
0
0-1
z0
o
ILL
oc
0
Z
LU
o
�
Qzo
z
0U)
�Q
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
Z
J
O
Q
W
U
O
C� z
U
Z �
W
C) z
O =)
O
U
w
w
<W
�_
z
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
0
0-
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB8

a�
N
ca
co
-44
�% I
REAC N TP3 STA 5 + 3 0 TO STA 5 +,5,5
REACH TP3 v REACH 12
ENHA EMENT II
STA I /I 8 TO 5 +8 b� � / / 1.5' 1.5' / / / I —f�
/
LCE
\ L/CE
BAN KFULLSTAGE
'9' ot\0— ElrL
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
TIE TO PRO/DOSED HC2 PER \ b I
TB --� — — T� TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
THIS SHEET
LU
\\
J TED!
T -B -
� 9� 5 — ,B \
0/f00
\ /----�� 5100
51 1 \
/11Y
PROPOSED DRY,, D ENTION'�BASIN
/ —0.,E3E \ INSTALLS PSTREA OF / EPHEMERAUINTERMITTENT SEAM BREAK
I
SEE D\ET HEET D I I
790
780
770
760
750
790
780
770
760
750
0+00 0+50 1 +00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50
SCALE: HOR I "=20'; VERT 1 "=4'
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
I
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" = FULL SCALE
I`
1" =HALF SCALE
W
Q00
—
5100
O
0404
J
�
5101
--
z
_EXISTING
TOP
O
OF BANK
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
ILL
oc
O
�
z
LU
o
0-1Q
z
0
z
O
�
U)
Q
_
J
W
oc
Q
>
W
W
Q
z
J
O
Q
W U
cle)
p �
�
~
O
C� z
U
Z�
W
C) z
Lu Q—
O
U
w
w
<W
z
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
0—
0-
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
-1.500/,
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
GRATE
ALONG
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB9
O
STREAM C
NTERLINE
- 50%
TIE REACH TP3
INTO
PROPOSED CHANNEL
PROPOSED
BED OF
BED SLOPE
REACH
HC2
790
780
770
760
750
0+00 0+50 1 +00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50
SCALE: HOR I "=20'; VERT 1 "=4'
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" = FULL SCALE
I`
1" =HALF SCALE
W
Q00
oCD
N
O
0404
J
�
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
ILL
oc
O
�
z
LU
o
0-1Q
z
0
z
O
�
U)
Q
_
J
W
oc
Q
>
W
W
Q
z
J
O
Q
W U
cle)
p �
�
~
O
C� z
U
Z�
W
C) z
O
U
w
w
<W
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
0
0-
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB9

1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
( C)
FULL SCALE: 1 "_ ##
0 ##
##
2" FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
6i
Q
00
p
o
N
O
0404
J
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
�Q
U)
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
O
Q
W
U
�
U) 2
p
U_
O
C� z
U
W
Y
I1/
O =)
�O
U
Lu
w
<W
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
Q
O
Ir
Ir
0-
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB1 0

1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
6i
Q
co
p
o
N
O
0404
J
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
�Q
U)
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
O
Q
W
U
�
U) 2
p
U_
O
C� z
U
W
Y
I1/
O =)
�O
U
Lu
w
<W
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
Q
O
Ir
Ir
0-
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB11

1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
6i
Q
co
p
o
N
O
0404
J
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
�Q
U)
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
O
Q
W
U
�
U) 2
p
U_
O
C� z
U
W
Y
I1/
O =)
�O
U
Lu
w
<W
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
Q
O
Ir
Ir
0-
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB12

1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
6i
Q
00
p
o
N
O
0404
J
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
�Q
U)
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
O
Q
W
U
�
U) 2
p
U_
O
C� z
U
W
Y
I1/
O =)
�O
U
Lu
w
<W
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
Q
O
Ir
Ir
0-
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB1 3

N
ca
T
z
REACH HC I 565
71" 566 II 1 1 I
/ IENH�,NC ENT II � �� � II II III
\ \ \ \ \ \ �<TA\I +� 4 TO
EERAU
\ I E ITTENT RKEAK \ el \ m
101
oy
X"S/ II X11
I / \ \ I\\
15"
SCE S.E. INV. 12.2 , \
�s
` \ ��\ �� REACH MM2
`V/� — ` \ \ \ ` PIE BE REMOVED \ ��A� �\ 1 IIII
AN DISPOSED OF �\ I
y _WV -720.6OFF SATE
730
725
720
715
710
730
725
720
715
710
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00
SCALE: HOR 1''=20'; VERT 1''=2'
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" = FULL SCALE
I`
1" =HALF SCALE
w
\�
Q00
0CD
N
I
o04
J
�
0_
Z
0
EXISTING TOP
OF BANK
U
Z
0
0-1
z
0
o
ILL
oc
0
Z
LU
O
0-1Q
0
z
z
0
0
�
LL
U)
Q
J
oc
Q
>
W
_jW
W
'
Q
z
J
O
Q
W U
�
U) _
z
z0
m 0
_
U
W
1
—
O
Q +
GRADE ALONG
L0
— —
U
CL/ —
S
REAM CENTERLINE
<w
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
0=
0=
0_
1 0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
U
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
TIE REACH NMI INTO--/\
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
0
CHECKED:
AFM
PROPOSED BED OF
MB14
cn
_
REACH HC I
J
730
725
720
715
710
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00
SCALE: HOR 1''=20'; VERT 1''=2'
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" = FULL SCALE
I`
1" =HALF SCALE
w
Q00
0CD
N
o04
J
�
0_
Z
0
U
Z
0
0-1
z
0
o
ILL
oc
0
Z
LU
O
0-1Q
0
z
z
0
0
�
LL
U)
Q
J
oc
Q
>
W
_jW
W
'
Q
z
J
O
Q
W U
�
U) _
z
m 0
_
U
W
1
O
L0
U
w
w
<w
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
0=
0=
0_
1 0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB14

7-13+
— — 6 _ k�O
I—_ A
— — \H. CURT HEGE,—SR. x I =
\ B 1036 -PG 258 / \ `� — =g� ,-� = x 0
1+00
-
�Z\A \ vv / \�� �\ —� ��'`S0
o ��—� 3700
�
v�v \\_
LGE REACH
RESTO-
- STA O
NA t
\
730
725
720
715
710
NM2
RATION
+59 TO 10+
i
I
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
I�
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2 FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
w
EXISTING GRADE ALONG
Q
00
p
STREAM CENTERLINE
O04
516
J
517
519
0_
z
O
U
PROPOSED TOP
\
OF BANK
I
O
0-1
z
O
O
-0.29%
oc
O
�
z
LU
z
O
w
_
z
Lu
z_
O
�
U)
Q
J
W
oc
Q
>
W
W
w
Q
z_
J
0
Q
W
U
w
z
Oz
m
2
U
z
W
1
0
O
PROPOSED
CHANNEL
w
w
<W
z
Q+
�
BED SLOPE
Z
LU
OQ
0=
0=
_
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
R/ O
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB1 5
w Q
z �
0-
"O
0
J
0+00
Vfi�V I five I fi�V CfiVV Cfi�V -)fiVV -)fi0V
SCALE: HOR 1 ''=20'; VERT 1 ''=2'
'+fi0v
0fiVV
0 fiOV
730
725
720
715
710
G+00
a
al
BEACH NM2 STA 0+59 TO 14+G7
1 I^ n'
rL
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION
17 ?'
rL
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
17 ?'
rL
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
presi
IF
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2 FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
w
Q
00
p
o
N
O04
J
�
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1Q
z
Lu
z_
O
�
U)
Q
J
W
oc
Q
>
W
W
Q
z_
J
0
Q
W
U
z
Oz
m
2
U
W
1
0
�0
U
w
w
<W
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
0=
0=
0_
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB1 5

N
T
N
5
z
I
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
6i
Q
co
p
o
N
O
0404
J
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
�Q
U)
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
0
Q
W
U
�
U) 2
N
z
0
m
2
U
W
1
ry
O =)
�p
U
Lu
w
<W
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
Q
O
Ir
Ir
0-
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB16

a�
N
ca
T
N
z
I
N 95, S. Gly �R I\ i I I J / /
II 1
EXISTING CHANNELBE
TO //
J I ABANDONED AND BACKFILLED �\ ����\\ \��� / ( 1 I BEACH NM2 STA 0+59 TO 14+G7
( SEE DETAIL SHEET D2 ��
I G.01BAN KFU LL STAGE
R S ORATON
STA I 0+9 TO 14+G7
/ N
ANCY SPARKS MILLER ��1 - % y�\�% — — �� � �\ � I \ \� � / I � � (L
DB 179, PG 6 �� �/ _ �� I \ S72 / / I TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION
TU
17.2'
13.2' 2.35
/ I BANKFULL STAGE
571 .........:
- ---
I
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
0
X`�
17.2'
/ cJ30 �I 1) I /l / / BAN KFULL STAGE
m
x
0
rL� I ( ( \ \
w REACH I I \ 1 TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
J
725 725
-EXISTING GRADE ALONG
STREAM CENTERLINE
720 - - - 720
529 530
531
PROPOSED TOP
OF BANr\
715 ---- - 715
-0.26%
-0.26% � I
� I
-0.2 C % I
-0.2 % I
I
710 - — - � I 710
I I
I
I I TIE REAC NM2 INTO
PROP DSED CHANNEL II i PROPOSED BED OF
BED SLOPE I REACH h I
705 705
1 2+00 1 2+50 1 3+00 1 3+50 1 4+00 1 4+50 1 5+00 1 5+50
SCALE: HOR 1 "=20'; VERT I''=2'
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
030
60
2 — FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
6i
Q00
0CD
N
O
04
04
J
�
0_
z
O
U
z
0
0-1
z
O
o
ILL
oc
O
z
LU
O
0-1
LU
LL
Q
Z
z_
0
O
�
LL
U)
Q
J
W
oc
Q
>
W
W
z
J
0
Q
W
U
Z
m 0
_
U
�e
w
I.J_
O =)
�0
U
w
w
<w
Z
�
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
0=
0=
0_
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB1 7

N
ca
z
REACH N M 3 STA I +3G TO STA 4+ 1 6
EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE/ / 7� I I I
ABANDONED AND BACKFILLED BAN KFU LL STAGE
SEE DETAIL SHEET D2
i �
/ REACH NM3 I \ `�� / TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION
RE,STORAT�01\1
STA I +3G T-0-4+ 1 6In
IrT1
��� I I 4. 1' 1.81
tE
�BANKFULL STAGE
`
W.—WV�=713.0+ 0 / Q
lam✓=712.81 "\ \
587 �bbeaxv— X� A
i S89
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
\DO
4.I
tv.
RCP BAN KFU LL STAGE
N.W.=711.51' l ( I I I
I l^ S.E/INV.=711.99' I I
LI
LIC
TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION
\ \ \ \ \ I l NANCY SPARKS MILLER
\ \ \ \ \ I I d I DB 179, PG 6
\ \ \ \ \ l I DB 167, PG 759
\ I DB 130, PG 263
lII
lap
725 I I 725
720 720
585
587 588
589
i EXISTING GRADE AL NG
STREAM CENTER INE
715 — — 715
PROPOSED 7OP
OF BANK
1 �
� I
710 –0- — I 710
~ 1
z I —
w
Lu I -0.93%
Q PRO OSED CHANNEL I
BED SLOPE I _
1
Ola I m 1 I
>±
-
1 I
705(S) 705
z0 TIE REACH NM3 INTO
U _ PROPOSED BED OF
U_ REACH HC I
O
In
V__
J
0+00 0+50 I+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00
SCALE: HOR 1 ''=20'; VERT 1 ''=2'
Presl
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2 FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
W
Q00
0cp
N
0
o
N
J
�
z
O
U
z
0
0-1
z
0
o
ILL
oc
0
z
LU
O
0-1
LU
LL
Q
Z
z_
0
O
�
LL
U)
Q
J
oc
Q
>
W
_jW
W
'
z
J
O
Q
W
U
2
M
z
m 0
_
O
U
W
�e
O
O
U
w
w
<w
Z
�
U Q
Z
LU
0
Q
O
0=
0=
0_
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB1 8

a�
N
ca
T
z
i17
E01i
�AC
REACH NM4 STA 2+70 TO STA 3+35
RHCI \ jl I III III I
I I / I I I G.01
1.5' 1.5'
BANKFULL5TAGE
(o
°
BE
IPE TO REMOVED AND
SP6SED O OFF—SITE
-_�
\
5(53 I \ \ I TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
Tp
+00 _ 12" RC�
W. INV. =713. INV.=712.
00
— 91
W. INV.=1.66' I /
E. INV.=712.22'
� I �
�REACH
\ I_ E�ANCE ENT II \ I I
STP 0+8 TO +35vu
\
�A \ L E
° \
4� 1 ill
\ ✓ � 1 I OI I) 'III
/ / I EXITING �HANNEL �O BE 586
� a I
NDONED AID BACK ILLED /
% \ SEE DETAIL SHEET D2
7
725
720
715
710
705
725
720
715
710
705
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00
SCALE: HOR 1 ''=20'; VERT 1 ''=2'
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
—
2 FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
Lu
Q
00
p
o
N
O
CNCN
J
�
0_
\
\
EXISTING TOP
5105
\
O BANr\
5106
U
5107
KED TOP 5106
O BPO
z
O
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
-2 5/ %
z
w RA E ALONG
STREAM CENTERLINE
O
TIE REACH
NM4 INTO
N
PROPO
ED BED OF
Q +
� O
O
REACH
C I
Q
z �j
O
-24/ %
0
LL
Q Z
U1,
O
0
Z_
�
O
PROPOSED CHANNEL
Q
U)
GI
J
BED SLOPE
Q
z_
725
720
715
710
705
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00
SCALE: HOR 1 ''=20'; VERT 1 ''=2'
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
—
2 FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
Lu
Q
00
p
o
N
O
CNCN
J
�
0_
z
O
U
z
O
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q Z
O
0
Z_
�
U)
Q
J
LU
Q
W
W
Q
z_
J
0
Q
W
U
� 2
�
z
Oz
m
2
U
W
1
O
�
�
�0
U
Lu
Lu
<w
Z
�
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
0=
0=
0_
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB1 9

N
FT
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 30
0 30
60
2" FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
6i
Q
co
p
o
N
O
0404
J
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
O
0-1
LL
Q
z
Lu
Z_
O
�Q
U)
Q
-
LU J
oc
Q
>
W
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
O
Q
W
U
U) _
m O
C�
U
Z�
W
C) z
O =)
O
U
Lu
w
<W
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
Q
O
Ir
Ir
0-
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
MB20

a�
N
m
0
LU
Q
LU
a
In
REACH IIii
vv���� /�
)A—�_.-.
LEACH NM3
LEACH NM 2
REACH N M 4
r
)N
�`. ED G A /-1-4 —r M '?
FENCING LEGEND
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
EXISTING FENCELINE
PROPOSED FENCELINE
LL #### LF Of
:N WIDE FENCE
ETAIL 5HT D5
LEACH TP2
REACH TP
LCE
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 300
0 300
600
2" = FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
Lu
Q
00
o
CD
N
O
0404
J
�
z
O
U
z
O
z
0
O
LL
Uz
c/),
0
°
LU
Q
Q
zLu
z
O
Lu
Q
LU
w
Q
w
w
Ir
Ir
0-
z Z
J
O
Q
w
U
Z
J
0° �
c�
z
Y
z
o
�
LL
�o
U
Lu
Lu
<W
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
0
0-
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
F1

N
CID
0
LU
Q
LU
a
PI ONITINIr I Fr-FND
E
PLANTING TABLE
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Virginia Wildrye
Elymus virginicus
2507o
Indian Grass
Sorghastrum nutans
2507o
Little Blue Stem
Schizachyrium scoparium
1007o
Soft Rush
Juncus effusus
1007o
Blackeyed Susan
Rudbeckia hirta
1007o
Deertongue
Dichanthehum clandestmum
1007o
Common Milkweed
Asclepias syriaca
507o
Showy Goldenrod
Sohdago erecta
5070
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Percent
Scientific Name Composition
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum 4007o
Black willow
Salix nigra G007o
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Water Oak
Quercus nigra
15070
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
15070
River Birch
Betula nigra
15%
American Sycamore
Platanas occidentalis
15%
Northern Red Oak
Quercus rubra
1007o
Green Ash
Fraxmus pennsylvanica
1007o
Yellow Poplar
briodendron tulipifera
I O o
Persimmon
Diospyros vircjImana
507o
Black Gum
Nyssa biflora
507o
PLANTING NOTES
ALL PLANTING AREAS
I . EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION
IS ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE
FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.
2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10
WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN.
3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BY DISC OR SPRING -TOOTH
CHISEL PLOW TO MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSS
PLANTING AREAS WITH THE IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHIC
CONTOURS.
4. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2. LIVE
STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2.
5. TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN G" DBH SHALL
BE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.
G. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO G PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES ARE
GROUPED TOGETHER.
7. BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 800 STEMS PER ACRE.
8. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH
BANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.
9. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS
WITH SLOPES EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3: 1.
10. PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
1 1. PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BREAKS AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 200
0 200
400
2" FULL SCALECA
I`
1" = HALF SLE
6i
Q
00
0
0
N
O
CNCN
J
0_
z
O
U
z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
z
LU
0
0-1
Q
z
Z
D
0
O
(n
Lu
U
Q
Lu
C
J
W
Q
W
W
0=
0=
0-
z z
J
O
Q
W
U
z
U
Q
m O
CD
z
z
Z>
z
C) z
Q
=)
J
0 O
�
U
w
w
<W
z
�
>
I---
0 Q
Z
LU
OQ
Ir
Ir
0_
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
p 1

N
co
0
LU
ui
a
ILEAC
VP
J
r
VP
\
REACH N M 3
LEACH NM 2
Ep
VP
REACH N M 4
REACH HC
LEACH NM
VP
V VP
er A. -W
J/ �
r
LEGEND
N
. '�����1
SUPPLEMENTAL
PLANTING/EVASIVES CONTROL
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
PROPOSED VEGETATION PLOT
(AREA: 0.02 AC)
PROPOSED CROSS SECTION
LOCATIONS
PROPOSED CREST GAUGE
PROPOSED FLOW GAUGE
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER
MONITORING GAUGE
LCE
Fv-pl
�J
1 7.1
�l
A�.
PROP05ED 5COUT
5TREAM MITIGATION
BANK 51TE
........
`. 1
/C
\ / —
a
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "= 200
0200
400
211 — FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
w
Q
00
o
CD
N
0
o
N
J
�
0_
z
O
U
z
O
z
O
O
w
U
z
0
°
LU
a
Q
U)
0
z
o
Q
LU
w
Q
w
w
Ir
Ir
0-
z
z
J
O
U
Q
� �
J
CD
O
z
m
z
Z
O
Y
0z
Z
O
� O
U
w
w
<w
z
�
U Q
Z
LU
Q
O
0
0-
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
m 1

H
J
Q
LU
i
WHEN AND WHERE TO USE IT
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
SILT FENCE IS APPLICABLE IN AREAS:
1.25 LB./LINEAR
FT. STEEL POSTS
Fax: [phone]
FLOW
www.res.us
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SHEET OR OVERLAND FLOW PATH LENGTH TO THE FENCE IS 100 -FEET.
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SLOPE STEEPNESS (NORMAL [PERPENDICULAR] TO FENCE LINE) IS 2H: I V.
THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CONCENTRATED FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 CFS.
EXTRA STRENGTH
B MIDDLE LAYER
BOTTOM LAYER
TOP LAYER
FILTER FABRIC
W
DO NOT PLACE SILT FENCE ACROSS CHANNELS OR USE IT AS A VELOCITY CONTROL BMP.
Q
EARTH SURFACE
\ STAND
o
cp
N
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:
\
\� \
A A
CNCN
I . USE A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC OF AT LEAST 9507o BY WEIGHT OF POLYOLEFINS OR POLYESTER, WHICH IS
\ �IePc
J
CERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER AS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM D G4G 1.
B
TRENCH 0.25' DEEP
SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE A
\\ �� \` HEAVY DUTY PLASTIC TIE
\ \ FOR STEEL POSTS
PLAN VIEW ENDS OF BAGS IN
ONLY WHEN PLACED ON
MINIMUM OF G MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF O° TO 1 20°EARTH
BACKFILL TRENCH WITH
ADJACENT ROWS BUTTED
SURFACE
F
COMPACTED EARTH
\ i\:
SLIGHTLY TOGETHER
2. ENSURE THAT POSTS FOR SEDIMENT FENCES ARE 1.33 LB/LINEAR FT STEEL WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 5 FEET.
\
MAKE SURE THAT STEEL POSTS HAVE PROJECTIONS TO FACILITATE FASTENING THE FABRIC.
\
SEE NOTE LOWEST POINT
SECTION
B -B
CONSTRUCTION:
GROUND LEVEL
0-1
\
1. CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENT BARRIER OF EXTRA STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRICS.
\/ BURY FABRIC
2. ENSURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND
SURFACE. (HIGHER FENCES MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE OF THE
USE EITHER FLAT -BOTTOM
/
\
STRUCTURE.)
OR V -BOTTOM TRENCH
!/-% - EARTH SURFACE
3. CONSTRUCT THE FILTER FABRIC FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO AVOID
SHOWN BELOW
z
SECTION A -A
JOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER CLOTH ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH 4
O
FEET MINIMUM OVERLAP TO THE NEXT POST.
4. EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC WITH G FEET POST SPACING DOES NOT REQUIRE WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE.
SILT FENCE INSTALLATION
NOTE: END OF DIKE AT GROUND LEVEL TO BE
SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC DIRECTLY TO POSTS. WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES SHOULD HAVE MINIMUM
�
HIGHER THAN THE LOWEST POINT OF FLOW CHECK. SANDBAG BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THREE LAYERS OF SANDBAGS.
50 POUND TENSILE STRENGTH.
Z
SUFFICIENT SANDBAGS ARE TO BE PLACED TO
5. EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES WIDE AND 8 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE PROPOSED LINE OF
PREVENT SCOURING. THE BOTTOM LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 3 ROWS OF BAGS, THE MIDDLE LAYER
POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER. FILTER FABRIC
FILTER FABRIC
SHALL CONSIST OF 2 ROWS OF BAGS AND THE TOP LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF I
G. PLACE 12 INCHES OF THE FABRIC ALONG THE BOTTOM AND SIDE OF THE TRENCH.
ROW OF BAGS. THE RECOMMENDED DIMENSION OF A FILLED SANDBAG SHALL BE
7. BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH SOIL PLACED OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT. THOROUGH COMPACTION COMPACTED
COMPACTED
APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT X 0.5 FT X 1 .5 FT.
OF THE BACKFILL IS CRITICAL TO SILT FENCE PERFORMANCE.
EARTH
EARTH NO
8. DO NOT ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES.
0
0
Z
RUQ co
RUQ co
SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS
DIKE
MAINTENANCE:
_
>
W
W
co
-I
NTS
IY
INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS
Q
z
IMMEDIATELY.
N N
SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE IT
L.1_
PROMPTLY.
U
FILTER
REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN AND TO FABRIC
411
FILTER FABRIC
REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT.
m O
Q
NOTES:
REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE AND STABILIZE FLAT -BOTTOM TRENCH DETAIL
V -SHAPED TRENCH DETAIL
I .
EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY IN DRY AND/OR ISOLATED SECTIONS OF
IT AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED.
0
U z
CHANNEL.
OD
2.
IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAM
U
FLOW.
LU
w
3.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED IN
Z
�
ONE WORKING DAY. A MAXIMUM OF 200 FEET MAY BE DISTURBED AT ANY ONE
Z
LU
CPO
TIME.
0Q
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
G O COARSE AGGREGATE - 4.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING PUMP SIZE
0-
0
o STONE SIZE = 2"-3"
SUFFICIENT TO PUMP BASE FLOW.
0381
NTS
5.
DIKE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON -ERODIBLE MATERIALS SUCH AS SANDBAGS.
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION:
SHEET NUMBER:
D1
I .
INSTALL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTFALL USING CLASS A RIP RAP AT THE
O O O O�o
DOWNSTREAM END THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA.
� 2.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY
�
PIPING THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK AREA
2" x I " 2" x 2" MINIMUM 9" EROSION
WOODENEN STAKE
�� O O O O
TO THE STABILIZED OUTFALL.
EXISTING CONTROL STRAW WATTLE
OR COIR WATTLE/LOG
NOTE:
EROSION CONTROL WATTLES OR COIR LOGS/WATTLES MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF
o 0 0 0 3.
oa
INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR
STREAM DIVERSION.
GRADE
SILT FENCE.
O�O�O�O 4.
INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND DEWATERING PUMPING
J
APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE
FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA.
SLOPE
jN
o
THIS WATER WILL ALSO BE PUMPED TO AN OUTFALL STABILIZED WITH CLASS A RIP
�� �/ �/ �// 77\-\,\�r
X\\��\��\�\
EROSION CONTROL WATTLE
L� N z
5.
RAP.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE
x\\��
��5
REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE. WHEN DEWATERING AREA, ALL DIRTY WATER
5
MUST BE PUMPED THROUGH A SILT BAG. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS,
NTS
AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE/PIPING STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKE
I NSTALL WATTLE I N 3" TO
FI RST.
5" TRENCH
G.
ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE ALL RIP RAP AND IMPERVIOUS
PURPOSE:
DIKES AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH.
7.
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE USED AT ALL POINTS WHERE TRAFFIC WILL BE LEAVING A
ALL WORK IN CHANNEL MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE REMOVING IMPERVIOUS DIKE.
CONSTRUCTION SITE AND MOVING DIRECTLY ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD.
INSTALLATION NOTES:
KEY -IN MATTING PER
FIG. I OR FIG. 2
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:
2.0'
FLOW
SITE PREPARATION
MIN.
I . CLEAR THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AREA OF ALL VEGETATION, ROOTS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL AND
PROPERLY GRADE IT.
I . GRADE AND COMPACT AREA.
2. PLACE THE GRAVEL TO THE SPECIFIC GRADE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DETAIL, AND SMOOTH IT.
INTAKE HOSE
2. REMOVE ALL ROCKS, CLODS, VEGETATION, AND OBSTRUCTIONS SO THAT MATTING WILL
1
3. PROVIDE DRAINAGE TO CARRY WATER TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET.
CLASS A
HAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL.
--
4. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRICS BECAUSE THEY IMPROVE STABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION IN LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO
STONE
3. PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL ABOVE FINAL GRADE.
SEEPAGE OR HIGH WATER TABLE.
PUMP AROUND
4. TEST SOILS FOR ANY NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND SUBMIT SOIL TEST RESULTS TO THE
��
ENGINEER. APPLY ANY TREATMENT SUCH AS LIME OR FERTILIZERS TO THE SOIL IF NEEDED.
KEYINAND/OR
PUMP
STAKE MATTING
MAINTENANCE:
SEEDING
JUST ABOVE
WORK
CHANNEL TOE
MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. DE -WATERING AREA
1. SEE PLANTING SHEETS FOR SEEDING REQUIREMENTS.
THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2 -INCH STONE. AFTER EACH RAINFALL, INSPECT ANY STRUCTURE
PUMP
2. APPLY SEED TO SOIL BEFORE PLACING MATTING.
USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS NECESSARY. IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS
INSTALLATION - STREAM BANK
SPILLED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS, OR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS.
IMPERVIOUS
I . SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND DETAIL SHEETS FOR
DIKE
INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE COIR MATTING.
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
2. OVERLAP ADJACENT MATS 3" (IN DIRECTION PARALLEL TO FLOW) AND ANCHOR EVERY 12"
ACROSS THE OVERLAP. THE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE DOWNSTREAM SOIL PILE
MAT.
TRENCH APPROX.
8" WIDE X 8" DEEP
TRENCH APPROX. SOIL PILE
8" WIDE x 8" DEEP FROM TRENCH
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
3. EDGES SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER. FROM TRENCH
FLOW
NTS
4. LAY MAT LOOSE TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT.
1 8"
5. ANCHOR MAT USING BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINS.
FLOW
DISCHARGE HOSE
G. CUT 8" x 8" TRENCH ALONG TOP OF BANK FOR MAT TERMINATION AS SHOWN IN FIGURES IF
LOW
�i���/jam,
\, \,��
CLASS A
$ 2. EXTEND MAT 2 TO 3 FEET PAST TOP OF BANK.
7. PLACE ADJACENT ROLLS IN THE ANCHOR TRENCH WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" OVERLAP.
SECURE WITH BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINES, BACKFILL ANCHOR TRENCH, AND
i�
r / %`
/ , /
� \ �\
,
� / / /\/\/� '
\ \ �\// /'
\ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / �\/\/
GENERAL NOTES: �B IG
# 5 WASHED STONE
1. CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDENR EROSION CONTROL
STONE
/ /\/\\/�\\/�\
\\\\\�
'�\'�\�\\/\\��: '` \\
MANUAL.
D NOTE: HOSE SHOULD BE
COMPACT SOIL. �T\/%\�\//
8. STAPLE AT 12" INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP.//�//\\//\\//\\///\//i
\\�\\�\/\• ��.x
9. STREAM BANK MATTING TO BE INSTALLED FROM TOE OF BANK TO A MINIMUM OF 2.0' �\ \\j/�y/�
\//\//�\//'
\i�\j�
\/ \
/\\/
\\\
\/
\�
2. ROCK DAM RIPRAP SHALL BE 50/50 MIX OF CLASS I AND II.
SILT
3. PLACE ROCK DAM AS SHOWN ON PLANS. EXTEND CLASS B RIP
KEPT OUTSIDE OF WORK
BAG AREA
%\ I ROW OF STAPLES OR
LOCATION
PAST TOP OF BANK. SEE FIGURE 3 FOR TERMINATION AT TOP OF BANK.
\//�'
/�\;�� STAKES, MIN. OF 24"
RAP ROCK APRON 5 FEET DOWNSTREAM FROM TOE OF ROCK o 0 0 0 o
10. IF MORE THAN ROLL IS REQUIRED TO COVER THE CHANNEL FROM THE TOP OF BANK DOWN /`%/
I ROW OF STAPLES OR
/
O.0
DAM. A A
TO THE TOE, THEN OVERLAP MATTING BY A MINIMUM OF 1'. \\/�
STAKES, MIN. OF 24"
o 0 0 0 0 0
O.0
STEP I
STABILIZED OUTFALL
A STONE FILTER FABRIC
STEP ICLASS
I .5' THICK CLASS
ROCK APRON
I ROW OF STAPLES ORB
I ROW OF STAPLES OR
B
STAKES, MIN. OF 18"
Fig O.0
STAKES, MIN. OF 12"
O.0
MINDISCHARGE
5[ PLAN
SPILLWAY CREST
EXISTING HOSE
\, 7 -
GROUND
\�/� jam\/\\/�\\,�\ ,
FLOW
W (SPILLWAY)
\//
P MIN OF # 5 MIN. 2/3 STREAM WIDTH
CLASS I AND II RIP WASHED STONE
STABILIZED
OUTFALL CLASS A 1 5' TO 20'
RAP
STONE
BELOW
1 .5' THICK CLASS , LOWESTBANK
N a FLOW
EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE
FROM SOIL PILE,
\�\\ \
\// ,/� /\ SOIL FILLED
B ROCK APRON LEVEL
o N
COMPACT WITH FOOT
\\/� \\!� FROM SOIL PILE,
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: STEP 2
• 100 % COCONUT FIBER (COIR) TWINE WOVEN INTO A
COMPACT WITH FOOT
-
CLASS AND II
FILTER FABRIC
HIGH STRENGTH MATRIX.
STEP 2
CUTOFF TRENCH RIP RAP FILTER FABRIC
8" OF CLASS A
• THICKNESS - 0.35 IN. MINIMUM.
FILTER
FABRIC SECTION A -A
STONE
• SHEAR STRESS - 5 LBS/SQFT FIGURE I
FIGURE 2
SECTION B -B
EXISTING
• FLOW VELOCITY- OBSERVED I G FT/SEC
CHANNEL
• WEIGH - 29 OZ/SY
SILT BAG PROFILE
• OPEN AREA - 3807o
• SLOPES - UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 1: 1
COIR
MATTING
TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM
PUMP AROUND DEWATERING DETAIL
NTS
NTS
NTS
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
W
Q
co
o
cp
N
0
CNCN
J
�
0_
Z
0
U
0-1
Z
0
0-1
z
0
O
LL
oc
0
�
Z
LU
O
0-1
Q
0
Z
Z
O
U)
Lu
U
Q
LL,
J
W
oc
Q
>
W
W
0-,
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
O/
L.1_
U
0
m O
Q
Z
LU
0
U z
OD
0
U
LU
w
<w
H
Z
�
0 Q
Z
LU
0Q
Ir
Ir
0-
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D1

ca
H
m
LU
a
J
Q
LU
I
NOTES:
I . LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER, 5-8 FEET LONG, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, AND
HARDWOOD.
2. CABLE ANCHORS SHOULD BE PLACED PTO 3' FROM EACH END OF LOG. REBAR (5/8" MINIMUM DIAMETER
3' MIN. LENGTH TYPICAL) MAY BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR CABLE ANCHORS PER DIRECTION OF
ENGINEER.
3. IF REBAR IS USED, PRE -DRILL HOLES WITH 5/8" DRILL BIT.
ON
EXPOSED
:ADING
PROPOSED BED
OF 2/3 OF LOG DIAMETER
3ELOW EXISTING CHANNEL INVERT
UM LOG DIAMETER (TYP.)
1OWN. DRILL (OR SAW CUT)
PILOT HOLE THROUGH LOG 1/3 TO 1/4 OF THE WAY DOWN
SO THAT ANCHOR CABLE IS NOT EXPOSED.
LOG TOE PROTECTION
NT5
UNCOMFACTED BACKFILL
1 .5' MINIMUM
COMPACTED BACKFILL
(1 2" LI FTS)
DF LOG
;AN BE EXPOSED
NAL GRADING
PROPOSED BED
I OF 112 TO 2/3 OF LOG
R BEDDED BELOW
INVERT
DIAMETER (TYP.)
NOTES:
I . INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL. TOP OF STAKE SHOULD
NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.
2. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH (DEPTH AFFROX 112 TO 2/3 OF LOG DIAM) FOR
PLACEMENT OF ROLL.
3. COIR LOGS SHALL BE 10 FT LONG AND HAVE A DIAMETER OF 12 IN.
IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL
(PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER)
COIR LOG (TOE PROTECTION)
NTS
NEW CHANNEL TO BE
CONSTRUCTED ��0
OLD CHANNEL CHANNEL PLUG
DIVERTEDD ORR
ABANDONED
PLAN VIEW
30'
FINISHED GRADE
TYPICAL SECTION
CHANNEL PLUG
NTS
BANKFULL ELEVATION
NEW CHANNEL BANK SHALL
BE TREATED AS SPECIFIED
IN PLANS
PROPOSED
CHANNEL INVERT
LOG TOE OR COIR LOG
CHANNEL BOTTOM
OF BANK
•
O 3.0'
m
• V,
•
FLOW
LIVE STAKES
•
A
• / Y •
SEDIMENT TRAP
NTS
PLANTED COIR FIBER
ROLL
NORMAL WATER
LEVEL
DENSE COIR MATTING
(ROLANKA BioD-Mat(@90 OR
EQUIVALENT)
WOOD STAKE
Lim.
A
SECTION VIEW
PEP
�.�do
SECTION B -B
B
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK
LIVE STAKES
SMALL BRANCHES
AND BRUSH
LIVE STAKES
PROPOSED
STREAM BED
`LC
SECTION A -A
AND/OF
,HES
)IAMETER
NOTES:
1. DRIVE 2 ROWS OF 4" CEDAR POSTS ON MINIMUN 3' CENTERS PAST MINIMUM DEPTH AS SHOWN.
2. FILL THE VOID BETWEEN POST ROWS W/ AN EVEN MIX OF HARDWOOD LOGS, LIMBS, AND BRUSH AS SHOWN.
3. REDUCE POST SPACING AS NEEDED TO IMPROVE STRUCTURE STABILITY.
BACKFILL AREA BETWEEN BANK AND COIR FIBER ROLL
(APPLY PERMANENT SEED MIX COIR MATING)
r -EXISTING BANK
irrc�n�
FLOW
f—
0.75" TO 2"
Owl i -m
FLAT TOP END�� r
LATERAL BUD
SIDE BRANCH
REMOVED AT
SLIGHT ANGLE
WATER TABLE
COIR FIBER
MATTI N G
z
co
45 DEGREE
TAPERED BUTT END
DETAI L
LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE LONG ENOUGH
TO REACH BELOW THE GROUNDWATER
TABLE. (GENERALLY, A LENGTH OF 2 TO 3
FEET IS SUFFICIENT.) ADDITIONALLY, THE
STAKES SHOULD HAVE A DIAMETER IN
THE RANGE OF 0.75 TO 2 INCHES.
NOTE:
I . ACCEPTABLE SPECIES INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW (SALIX NIGRA), SILKY WILLOW
(SALIX SERICEA) AND SILKY DOGWOOD (CORNUS AMMOMUM).
2. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED IN AN AREA EXTENDING 3 FEET OUT FROM TOP
OF BANK TO JUST BELOW BANKFULL.
3. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE SPACED 3 FEET APART, ALTERNATE SPACING.
LIVE STAKE
NTS
\VLL WOOD DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD
STAKES USING THE KBC PLANTING BAR
0.5' TO I .25'
PLAN VIEW
NOTES:
I . DESIGNER TO MARK LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF
SILLS IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
2. INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL.
TOP OF STAKE SHOULD NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.
3. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH (AFFROX 21n DEEP) FOR
PLACEMENT OF ROLL.
VEGETATED SILL DEFLECTOR
NTS
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING CHANNEL
BOTTOM
MIN. 25'
MAX. 75'
NOTES:
1. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL TO BANKFULL ELEVATION WHEN POSSIBLE.
2. CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED IN 12" TO 18" LIFTS,
3. IF CHANNEL CANNOT BE COMPLETELY FILLED TO TOP OF BANK, FILL TO TOP OF
BANK FOR 25' OUT OF EVERY 100' SEGMENT.
CHANNEL BACKFILL
NTS
.EAM
END OF ROLL APPROX
2-4 FT INTO BANK
COMPACTED BACKFILL
(12" TO 18" LI FTS)
FIBER
-ING
4w
6
2"
1. INSERT 2. REMOVE
3. INSERT
PLANTING BAR AS PLANTING BAR
PLANTING BAR 2
SHOWN AND PULL AND PLACE
INCHES TOWARD
HANDLE TOWARD SEEDING AT
PLANTER FROM
PLANTER. CORRECT DEPTH.
SEEDING.
SCALE: AS SHOWN
4. PULL HANDLE OF 5. PUSH
G. LEAVE
BAR TOWARD HANDLE
COMPACTION
PLANTER, FIRMING FORWARD
HOLE OPEN.
SOIL AT BOTTOM. FIRMING SOIL
WATER
AT TOP.
THOROUGHLY.
PLANTING NOTES:tA,
NOTES:
o
N
ROOTHALL BE PLANTED G
S SPLANTING
BAGBARE
FT. TO 1O FT. ON CENTER,
PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALL
SPACING, AVERAGING 8
BE KEPT IN A MOIST CANVAS BAG ORRANDOM
ADURING
SIMILAR CONTAINER TO PREVENT THE
FT. ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY
ROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING.
G80 PLANTS PER ACRE.
KBC PLANTING BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADE
WITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION,
AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4
INCHES WIDE AND I INCH THICK AT
O
CENTER.
ROOT PRUNING
ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOT
PRUNED, IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NO
ROOTS EXTEND MORE THAN 10
it
INCHES BELOW THE ROOT COLLAR.
DARE BOOT PLANTING
NTS
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
W
Q
00
p
o
N
O
CN
J
0_
Z
O
I—
U
U)
Z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
Z
LU
Ir
0
0-1
LU
Q
Zp
Z
O
—
Lu
U
Q
_
J
W
oc
Q
>
W
W
Q
z
J
O
�
w
U
0
Fn O
Q
Z
w
0
U z
OD
O
U
w
w
w
�_
Z
�
U Q
Z
LU
O
Q
0_
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D2

H
J
Q
LU
i
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
3' MAXIMUM STREAM CHANNEL
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
BANK HEIGHT
0
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
yrV�' , I
<o
00
SURFACE FLOW
DIVERSION
o
N
CNO
J
0_
ROOT WAD
✓� _ _
z
IIII �Ib 14i1 ° ; ° as
1 1 ° ° —
BOULDER
TED BY
U
ENGINEER)
INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAILA
1
/ I+�
SEE DWG D I
Z
I' �
II tVy
O
EXCAVATE / GRADE UPPER BANK
STONE APPROACH
/ SECTION: 2:1 MIN., 5:1
/
ROOT WAD
0'
z
O
BOULDER
MAX. SLOPE ON ROAD
(AS DIRECTED BY
INSTALL LIVE STAKES (SEE PLANTING
PLAN)
CLASS A STONE OVER
FILTER FABRIC
O
FOOTER LOG
ENGINEER)
Z
LU
'
EXISTING CHANNEL BANK
SURFACE FLOW
0
0-1
DIVERSION
PIAN VIEW - TRENCHING
METHOD
PIAN VIEW - DRIVE POINT METHOD
Q
z
Z
0
O
Lu
Q
LU
W
TIE TO EXISTING GRADE \\j\\�j //////////// 2.5' ±
IY
IY
0_
MIN SLOPE 2.5H: IV I\/\\\\\\\\\ (DESIGNER TO
MARK IN FIELD
EXISTING STREAM BAN K
J
O
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION)
Lu
U
IF ROOT WAD DOES NOT COVER
ENTIRE BANK $ CONSTRUCTION
15 BETWEEN MID OCTOBER TO
m O
Q
Z_
LU
0
U Z
SOD MATS
MID MARCH, PROTECT BANK
WITH BRUSH LAYER.
DRIVE POINT METHOD:
SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CHAINSAW BEFORE "DRIVING" IT INTO
CLASS A STONE
U
TOP OF BANK
THE BANK. ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO THAT THE STREAM FLOW
w
w
<w
FLOOD
PLAIN
Z
MEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90 -DEGREE ANGLE, DEFLECTING THE WATER
0 Q
FILTER FABRIC
LU
AWAY FROM THE BANK. A TRANSPLANT OR BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED
EXISTING_
Ir
Ir
0-
BANKFULL STAGE
ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMED
CHANNEL BED
NOTES:
PROJECT MANAGER:
BOULDER
—
BY THE ROOT WAD. THE BOULDER SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 3' X 3' X 2'.
NOTES: 5' to 10'
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
TRS
(AS DIRECTED — =III—
_— —III -
AFM
I . TREES NOT INDICATED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE BENCH
SHEET NUMBER:
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
D3
BY
ENGINEER) — =III—�
—III—
BASEFLOW —III—III—III—
-III—III—III-
TRENCHING METHOD:
PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION IN
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATE
—
IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE BANK NEEDS
ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS.
CHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
=1 1= —
=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1
TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, THE TRENCHING METHOD SHOULD BE USED. THIS
2. SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLING
4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.
METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION
COIR MATTING.
5. GRADE SLOPES TO A MINIMUM OF 2:1 SLOPE, MAXIMUM
24" MIN.
DIAMETER
FOOTER LOG > 1211 DIAMETER
OF THE ROOT WAD. IN THIS CASE, A FOOTER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLED
G. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT
BOULDER
MINIMUM OF 1/2 OF DIAMETER
UNDERNEATH THE ROOT WAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PARALLEL TO THE
ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
7. A STABILIZED PAD OF NATURAL CLASS A STONE, G TO 9 INCHES THICK, LINED WITH
1 O-1 5 FEET LONG
INSTALLED BELOW STREAM BED
BANK AND WELL BELOW THE STREAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THE ROOT WAD
SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES.
> 1011 DIAMETER
8. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT.
9. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (8' MIN.) TO ACCOMMODATE THE
LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
CROSS SECTION VIEW
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO
EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
1 1. TEMPORARY CROSSINGS ARE TO BE ABANDONED IN PLACE.
TYPICAL BANK GRADING
NTS
ROOTWAD
PO RD CROSSING
NTS
NTS
TOE OF BANK
NOTES:
I . LOG VANES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE OR MORE LOGS HELD IN PLACE BY EITHER BALLAST BOULDERS, DUCKBILL
INSTALL COIR
MATTING PER DETAIL
ANCHORS, OR REBAR. LOGS SHALL BE OF A LENGTH AND DIAMETER SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER AND BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT
SEE DWG D I
HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED. THE LENGTH SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE LOG IS BURIED INTO THE SOIL OF THE STREAM
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILEO STREAM BANK
BANK (ON ONE END) AND STREAM BED (ON THE OTHER END) A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 4.0'. FLAT -SIDED BALLAST BOULDERS
MIN 2.0'
FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE 11) ��
l�2 wld!h
SHALL BE OF SIZE 2'X 2'X I .5' OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
2. THE VANE SHALL INTERCE17THE
ELEVATION CONTROL PO NT MAY BEREAM ESTABLISH DT A HEIGHT AT THE LEFT OR RIGOBETWEEN HT STREAM/2 5ANKfULL STAGE BANK/VANE INTERCEPTDPO NT. FULL THE VANES. AN
COMPACTED SOIL
LIVE STAKES TOP
OF BANK
INTERCEPT LOCATION MAY BE OTHERWISE DESCRIBED BY ITS RELATIONSHIP TO BANKFULL STAGE OR BY THE LENGTH AND SLOPE
LIVE CUTTINGS
OF THE VANE ARM. BANKFULL IS NOT NECESSARILY THE TOP OF THE STREAM BANK SLOPE.
20° TO 30°\
BALLAST BOULDER
OR DUCK BILL ANCHORS
3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOGS AND UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL OF THE
VANE. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED TUCKED, OR TRIMMED AS
/\\%I
\ �
_ _ _ _ _ _
SMALL BRANCHES / �`
AND BRUSH
NOTES:
/
NEEDED.
MAX POOL DEPTH \/
\
— — — —
O1/4 \
I . OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACE
LARGER BRANCHES AND LOGS IN A CRISS-CROSS PATTERN.
4. LOG VANES SHALL BE BUILT TYPICALLY AS FOLLOWS:
A. OVER STREAM BED TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE TOTAL THICKNESS OF THE HEADER (AND FOOTER IF SPECIFIED)
\/ I
\ \ \ \
LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING G INTO 18 IN OF THE
LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS.
-EXCAVATE
LOGS.
1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH
\
�\
\ \ \ \
2. PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGER
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (1 11 TO 5")
B. PLACE FOOTER LOG OF THE VANE ARM IF SPECIFIED. THE SLOPE OF THE VANE ARM IS MEASURED ALONG THE VANE ARM
WHICH IS INSTALLED AT AN ANGLE TO THE STREAM BANK AND PROFILE.
\\
/\
BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) AND
COMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO
BAN KFULL
C. INSTALL HEADER LOG OF THE VANE ARM ON TOP OF AND SLIGHTLY FORWARD OR BACK FROM THE FOOTER LOG.
��\\�\
\\ \
\ / / / /
/,
i \ \ \ \ \ \
// / / / / /
LOCK I N PLACE.
q
D. NAIL FILTER FABRIC TO THE HEADER LOG USING A GALVANIZED NAIL WITH A PLASTIC CAP. THE SIZE AND GAGE OF NAIL
��
/� /
\\
3. ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTINGS SPECIES A INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW
AND NAIL SPACING SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
SMALL LOGS AND/OR
MIN 5.0'
\\/\ �\
(SALIX NIGRA) AND SILKY WILLOW (SALIX SERI CEA). WILLOW
CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOW
a a
E. PLACE BALLAST BOULDERS OR DUCKBILL ANCHOR ON THE VANE.
LARGE BRANCHES WITH A
BETTER ROOTING.
a a
LOG VANE
F. PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND LOGS ENSURING THAT ANY VOIDS BETWEEN THE LOGS ARE FILLED.
G. BACKFILL REMAINDER OF VANE WITH PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED MATERIAL.
MIN DIAMETER OF 4".
SECTION A -A
4. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTED
a a
SOIL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
a a
5. IF ANY EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS SPECIFIED FOR USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE STREAM BANK/VANE INTERCEPT POINT THE
5. INSTALL I TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE
v- a a
a a
MATTING EDGES SHALL BE NEATLY SECURED AROUND THE LOGS.
CUTTINGS LAYER PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
a POOL LEFT OR RIGHT VANE
a I ARM BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
I
I
A
F�pW
BANKFULL
BALLAST BOULDER
COIR MATTING
OR DUCKBILL ANCHORS LEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
PIAN VIEW
w o
FLOW Q �-
BANKFULL
3% TO 7°7°
\ \\ \\
CHANNEL TOP
STREAM BANK
/ / / _ L W
OF BANK
COARSE AGGREGATE
\/\ BACKFILL (I TO 5)
\%
/\\ POOL //\X/\
HEADER LOG\
FOOTER LOG
A�
C
TOE OF BANK FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG
STREAM BED
IN POOL
PROFILE VIEW
CHANNELOBOANK
A
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE 11)
VARIES / / /
o'ToY WIDTH
LOG VANE
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
BRUSH TOE
NTS
NTS
SECTION A -A
presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
W
Q
00
o
N
CNO
J
0_
z
O
U
Z
O
0'
z
O
O
LL
oc
O
�
Z
LU
'
0
0-1
Q
z
Z
0
O
Lu
Q
LU
W
IY
IY
0_
Z
J
O
Lu
U
m O
Q
Z_
LU
0
U Z
OD
O
U
w
w
<w
H
Z
�
0 Q
Z
LU
OQ
Ir
Ir
0-
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D3

a�
H
m
LU
a
J
Q
LU
MINIMUM
DIAMETER 12"
BANKFULL LIMITS OF
PROPOSED CHANNEL
PIAN VIEW
N OTE5:
REBAR (1/2" MINIMUM DIAMETER 3' MIN. LENGTH
TYPICAL) SHOULD BE PLACED PTO 3' FROM END OF
LOG. ADDITIONAL REBAR TO BE PLACED AT G'
OFFSETS. LAST REBAR SHOULD BE PLACED PTO 3'
FROM END OF LOG. DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BE
USED A5 A SUBSTITUTION FOR REBAR, 2 PER LOG.
FLOODPLAIN SILL
NTS
SECTIONAL VIEW A - A'
O
EXISTING DITCH U_
BANK
LOG STRUCTURE
PROPOSED CONSERVATION > �(5EE DETAIL)
EASEMENT LIMITS
a
J HEADER LOG
J
COARSE AGGREGATE � aJ a a INVERT ELEVATION
BACKFILL (2" TO G") 0� A
a
a a a a B
J LOW
I �
a
BANKFULL J a POINT REFERENCED IN MIN 5.0'
STRUCTURE TABLE
a a a a `L7a` a
a COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (2" TO G") (
a a °�
7 FOOTER LOG \l
a
��✓J�7`�7 HEADER LOG COARSE AGGREGATE (1� I
HIGH 1f CJS _ �f Y �f Y _ BACKFILL (2" TO G") ll °r
4'TO8'
FOOTER
LOG
—LOW HIGH
C LOG BURIED IN o C
B' BANK MIN 5FT o LNON-WOVEN —
on GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
LOG BURIED IN (NCDOT TYPE 11)
POINT REFERENCED IN BANK
STRUCTURE TABLE _ MIN 5FT _
I AI
PLAN VIEW
MIN 5FT
MIN 5FT
PROFILE B -B'
OF
UUWNS I REAM LOG
N IIN FFT
HEADER LOG
INVERT ELEVATION
> No
VARIE5 (TYPICALLY 20' TO 40')
PIAN VIEW
CHANNEL B0�^""
OF
COAR5EBAC
NON -W
GEOTEXTILE F/
(NCDOT T
MAX ALLOWABLE
DROP OF 0.5 FT ROOTWP
BRUE
MAX DEPTH/ OF IF
/1 LOG DIAMETER
(0)
(0 a c COARSE AGGREGATE
. 11 a BACKFILL (2" TO G")
II N
LOG SILL EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING DITCH:::,, (SEE DETAIL)
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED GRADE
0.57. SLOFE TIE-IN TO
(MAX) — EXISTING
EX I S /\/\/\/\ FLOODPLAIN
DITCH INVERT �L\ �L\\ ELEVATION
CONSTRUCT FLOW FILL DITCH AND
POOL INSTALL COIR
cG ri�ni A A MATTING
EX 15TI N G
GROUND
3:1 MAX SLOPE
INSTALL COIR MATTING PER
MAN U FACTU RER'5
INSTRUCTIONS
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
NTS
FLOW
SECTION B -B
3: 1 MAX
SLOPE
FILL DITCH
N OTE5:
1. NO FLOODPLAIN GRADING 15 ALLOWED WITHIN 10 FT OF
THE PROPOSED CHANNEL TOP OF BANK.
2. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST I O'-20' LONG AND AT LEAST 8
INCHES IN DIAMETER, AND HARDWOOD.
FROF05ED REBAR OR DUCKBILL
STREAM BED ANCHOR
BACKFILL WITH COARSE
FLOW MIN. 5.0' AGGREGATE (I " TO 5" DIA.)
/777
POOL APPROX.
0.75' TO I .5' DEEP
E3ACKf ILL AGGREGATE W� TO 5"" DRAOA5E\M \//\\IN
/\
\\fin\\\
\\j\\//
3 NON -WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TACK FABRIC
(NCDOT TYPE 11) TO LOG
CHANNEL TOP -- — rUUL
PROFILE A -A' OF BANK HEADER LO
TYPICAL PIAN VIEW (OPT 1 )
K A I K I GGT
DOUBLE LOG DROP
PROFILE C -C'
OVERLAP OF
UPSTREAM LOG
N OTE5:
I . LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY
HARVESTED.
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 18'
3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC U51NG 3" 1 OD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'
ALONG THE LOG
l_FV NwLL DV I I VIV
OF BANK
COARSE BACKFILL
FILTER FABRIC
ROOTWAD OR
BRU5HTOE
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK
FLOW
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 2)
FOOTER LO
NTS
LOG SILL
NTS
HEADER LO
SECTION B -B (OPT 1 )
PROPOSED STREAM BANK
�R, 4' MIN. LENGTH) OR
DUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
FOOTER LOG
OVERLAP OF
DOWNSTREAM LOG
SECTION B -B (OPT 2)
REBAR (5/8" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN. LENGTH) OR
DUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
N OTE5:
I . LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY
HARVESTED.
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 18'
NAIL FILTER FABRIC U51NG 3" 1 OD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'
ALONG THE LOG
3. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF REBAR.
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
PROPOSED//\�//\�///
FILL DITCH SUCH THAT
THE DOWNSTREAM
ELEVATION TIES INTO
O
LIMITS
OF GRADING//�//�/
//� EXISTING GRADE OF THE
PLAINo
www.res.us
g j�\ j��\
B FLOODPLAIN
SCALE: AS SHOWN
W
GRADE AREA SUCH THAT
MAX SLOPE BELOW LOG
co
w
\\X\\\
STRUCTURE 15 107o
p
o
N
a
J HEADER LOG
J
COARSE AGGREGATE � aJ a a INVERT ELEVATION
BACKFILL (2" TO G") 0� A
a
a a a a B
J LOW
I �
a
BANKFULL J a POINT REFERENCED IN MIN 5.0'
STRUCTURE TABLE
a a a a `L7a` a
a COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (2" TO G") (
a a °�
7 FOOTER LOG \l
a
��✓J�7`�7 HEADER LOG COARSE AGGREGATE (1� I
HIGH 1f CJS _ �f Y �f Y _ BACKFILL (2" TO G") ll °r
4'TO8'
FOOTER
LOG
—LOW HIGH
C LOG BURIED IN o C
B' BANK MIN 5FT o LNON-WOVEN —
on GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
LOG BURIED IN (NCDOT TYPE 11)
POINT REFERENCED IN BANK
STRUCTURE TABLE _ MIN 5FT _
I AI
PLAN VIEW
MIN 5FT
MIN 5FT
PROFILE B -B'
OF
UUWNS I REAM LOG
N IIN FFT
HEADER LOG
INVERT ELEVATION
> No
VARIE5 (TYPICALLY 20' TO 40')
PIAN VIEW
CHANNEL B0�^""
OF
COAR5EBAC
NON -W
GEOTEXTILE F/
(NCDOT T
MAX ALLOWABLE
DROP OF 0.5 FT ROOTWP
BRUE
MAX DEPTH/ OF IF
/1 LOG DIAMETER
(0)
(0 a c COARSE AGGREGATE
. 11 a BACKFILL (2" TO G")
II N
LOG SILL EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING DITCH:::,, (SEE DETAIL)
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED GRADE
0.57. SLOFE TIE-IN TO
(MAX) — EXISTING
EX I S /\/\/\/\ FLOODPLAIN
DITCH INVERT �L\ �L\\ ELEVATION
CONSTRUCT FLOW FILL DITCH AND
POOL INSTALL COIR
cG ri�ni A A MATTING
EX 15TI N G
GROUND
3:1 MAX SLOPE
INSTALL COIR MATTING PER
MAN U FACTU RER'5
INSTRUCTIONS
DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE
NTS
FLOW
SECTION B -B
3: 1 MAX
SLOPE
FILL DITCH
N OTE5:
1. NO FLOODPLAIN GRADING 15 ALLOWED WITHIN 10 FT OF
THE PROPOSED CHANNEL TOP OF BANK.
2. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST I O'-20' LONG AND AT LEAST 8
INCHES IN DIAMETER, AND HARDWOOD.
FROF05ED REBAR OR DUCKBILL
STREAM BED ANCHOR
BACKFILL WITH COARSE
FLOW MIN. 5.0' AGGREGATE (I " TO 5" DIA.)
/777
POOL APPROX.
0.75' TO I .5' DEEP
E3ACKf ILL AGGREGATE W� TO 5"" DRAOA5E\M \//\\IN
/\
\\fin\\\
\\j\\//
3 NON -WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TACK FABRIC
(NCDOT TYPE 11) TO LOG
CHANNEL TOP -- — rUUL
PROFILE A -A' OF BANK HEADER LO
TYPICAL PIAN VIEW (OPT 1 )
K A I K I GGT
DOUBLE LOG DROP
PROFILE C -C'
OVERLAP OF
UPSTREAM LOG
N OTE5:
I . LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY
HARVESTED.
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 18'
3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC U51NG 3" 1 OD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'
ALONG THE LOG
l_FV NwLL DV I I VIV
OF BANK
COARSE BACKFILL
FILTER FABRIC
ROOTWAD OR
BRU5HTOE
CHANNEL TOP
OF BANK
FLOW
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 2)
FOOTER LO
NTS
LOG SILL
NTS
HEADER LO
SECTION B -B (OPT 1 )
PROPOSED STREAM BANK
�R, 4' MIN. LENGTH) OR
DUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
FOOTER LOG
OVERLAP OF
DOWNSTREAM LOG
SECTION B -B (OPT 2)
REBAR (5/8" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN. LENGTH) OR
DUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
N OTE5:
I . LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY
HARVESTED.
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 18'
NAIL FILTER FABRIC U51NG 3" 1 OD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'
ALONG THE LOG
3. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF REBAR.
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
W
Q
co
p
o
N
O
CN
J
�
0_
Z
O
U
0-1
Z
O
0-1
z
O
O
LL
�
Z
LU
O
0-1
LU
LL
Q
z
Z
Lu
0
�Q
Lu
U
Q
_
LU J
oc
>
W
IY
IY
0_
Q
z
J
O
Lu
U
0
m
Q
z
LU
o
U z
OD
0
U
w
w
<w
Z
�
U Q
Z
LU
OQ
Ir
Ir
0-
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D4

ro
N
ca
H
m
n
LU
Q
J
Q
LU
LINE POST
BARBED OR
ELECTRIC WIRE
I G' MAX.
LINE POST
4" TO G"
WOVEN WIRE
GROUND LINE
WOVEN WIRE WITH ONE BARB DETAIL
LINE POST
WOVEN WIRE:
ASTM CLA55 3 GALVANIZED.
TOP AND BOTTOM WIRES MIN. 12 GAUGE.
INTERMEDIATE AND 5TAY WIRE5 MIN.
12 1/2 GAUGE.
N OTE5:
I . LINE POSTS (WOODEN): MIN. 4 IN. DIAM. OR 4 IN. SQUARE.
2. LINE POSTS (STEEL): STUDDED OR PUNCHED T, U, OR Y SHAPED, WITH ANCHOR PLATES.
3. MIN. WEIGHT 1.3 LBS./FT. (EXCLUDING ANCHOR PLATE). POSTS SHALL BE DRIVEN A MINIMUM
OF 18" DEEP AND MUST BE AT LEAST 5.5 FT IN LENGTH
4. SPECIES AND TREATMENT FOR ALL WOOD: USE UNTREATED DURABLE POSTS OF SPECIES
SUCH A5 RED CEDAR, BLACK LOCUST OR 05AGE-ORANGE WITH BARK REMOVED, OR
NON -DURABLE WOOD THAT 15 PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE TREATED (0.40 LBS./CUBIC FOOT
CCA, OR EQUIVALENT NON -CCA TREATMENT). DO NOT USE RED FINE.
CLA55 B RIF RAF
TIMBER MAT INSTALLED
PERPENDICULAR
WOVEN WIRE PENCE (NKCS DETAIL 382A)
NTS
1
1BER MAT INSTALLED
�ALLEL I FILTER I
:ARRIAGE BOLT
TIMBER MAT
(TYF)
CULVERT 1.01 UNLE55 NOTED
OTHEKW15E BY ENGINEER
SECTION VIEW
PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING
NTS
N OTE5:
I . CONSTRUCT STREAM CRO55ING WHEN FLOW 15 LOW.
2. INSTALL STREAM CRO55ING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.
3. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE APPROPRIATE BEDDING MATERIAL WITH MANUFACTURER.
4. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYFE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT.
5. WIDTH OF TYPICAL FARM CROSSINGS SHALL BE PER PLAN OR A MINIMUM OF 12'.
G. WHEN REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE FIFE MATERIAL AND COVER MEET H-20 LOADING
REQUI REMENT5.
INSTALL CLAY PLUG 2 FEET FLOW
BELOW CULVERT INVERT
COAR5EAGGREGATE-
0 0 0 V V V v v v V V
0 0 0 0 O. 0 0' 0 O 0
EARTH FILL COVERED BY
LARGE ANGULAR ROCK0 C
'0
>0.
� C
SOC
�O<
�0 0 0�0,�0"0,_,01,�0,� �0v0 "O0o0
C,�1O^On0n0n.On0n no On0.,, n 0 _
I[�7�►�lll��
TOP OF BANK
STREAM CHANNEL
PIAN VIEW
LOG OR ROCK 51 LL
SET TOP OF SILL I FT.
ABOVE CULVERT INVERT
MIN 3'
MIN 3'
0 0000000000`
r�
OC
o�
00
00
0 0
O
00
00
O
V. "0O00`J0`J00C
O OnOnOnOnOnOnOc
I O' MIN.
LOG OR ROCK SILL
SET TOP OF 51 LL I FT.
ABOVE CULVERT INVERT
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
N OTE5:
Raleigh, INC 27605
PIAN VIEW
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
I .
TIMBER MATS SHALL BE USED FOR TEMPORARY
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
CONSTRUCTION ACCE55 TO TRAVERSE WET AND/OR MUDDY
ARES ADJACENT TO THE STREAM AND TO CRO55 THE
STREAM AND OTHER CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS.
CARRIAGE BOLT
TIMBER MAT INSTALLED
(T F)
PERPENDICULAR
2.
THE STREAM CRO55ING SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN FLOW 15
TIMBER MAT
O
LOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO DISTURBANCE OF THE
CLA55 B RIF RAPz
TOP OF BANK INSTALLED PARALLEL
CHANNEL BED AND BANKS A5 A RESULT OF INSTALLING THE
F
APPROACHES OR CROSSING.
0
0 0 0
Z
O
3.
THE LENGTH OF TIMBER MAT REQUIRED TO CK055 THE
/
STREAM OR CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS SHALL BE SUCH
THAT THE TIMBER MAT EXTEN D5 PAST THE TOP OF BANK ON
\\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \
//
EACH SIDE OF THE CROSSING A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO
5U FFORT THE MAXIMUM EQU I FM ENT 51 ZE U 51 N G THE
\\\\�/�\�///�
//\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\//\
CR0551 N G.
\�\\
4
THE
O5ORIENTED
FILTER FABRIC
MAT LENGT PER5HALLPENDSCULARTOITH THE TO SMOFR
TOE OF BANK
THE STREAM BANKS. TIMBER MAT STREAM APPROACHES
(TYF)
APPROXIMATE BASE FLOW
SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT LENGTHS
WATER SURFACE
ORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS.
5.
STREAM CF055ING APPROACHES FROM DRY AREAS SHALL
BE CONSTRUCTED U51NG CLA55 B RIP RAF PLACED OVER
SECTION VIEW
FILTER FABRIC.
O
G.
ALL TIMBER MATS, FILTER FABRIC, AND RIP RAF SHALL BE
IL
COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM THE 51TE WHEN THE CF055ING
15 REMOVED.
oc
TIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CROSSING
O
NTS
CULVERT 1.01 UNLE55 NOTED
OTHEKW15E BY ENGINEER
SECTION VIEW
PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING
NTS
N OTE5:
I . CONSTRUCT STREAM CRO55ING WHEN FLOW 15 LOW.
2. INSTALL STREAM CRO55ING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.
3. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE APPROPRIATE BEDDING MATERIAL WITH MANUFACTURER.
4. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYFE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT.
5. WIDTH OF TYPICAL FARM CROSSINGS SHALL BE PER PLAN OR A MINIMUM OF 12'.
G. WHEN REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE FIFE MATERIAL AND COVER MEET H-20 LOADING
REQUI REMENT5.
INSTALL CLAY PLUG 2 FEET FLOW
BELOW CULVERT INVERT
COAR5EAGGREGATE-
0 0 0 V V V v v v V V
0 0 0 0 O. 0 0' 0 O 0
EARTH FILL COVERED BY
LARGE ANGULAR ROCK0 C
'0
>0.
� C
SOC
�O<
�0 0 0�0,�0"0,_,01,�0,� �0v0 "O0o0
C,�1O^On0n0n.On0n no On0.,, n 0 _
I[�7�►�lll��
TOP OF BANK
STREAM CHANNEL
PIAN VIEW
LOG OR ROCK 51 LL
SET TOP OF SILL I FT.
ABOVE CULVERT INVERT
MIN 3'
MIN 3'
0 0000000000`
r�
OC
o�
00
00
0 0
O
00
00
O
V. "0O00`J0`J00C
O OnOnOnOnOnOnOc
I O' MIN.
LOG OR ROCK SILL
SET TOP OF 51 LL I FT.
ABOVE CULVERT INVERT
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
W
Q
co
p
o
N
O
CNCN
J
0_
Z
O
U
0-1
Z
O
IY
z
O
O
IL
oc
O
�
Z
LU
0
0-1
Q
z
Z
Lu
0
Lu
U
QJ
_j
LU
oc
Q
>
W
W
'
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
NO
0.
1 U
0
m O
Q
z
LU
0
U z
OD
O
U
w
w
<w
Z
H
�
0 Q
Z
LU
Q
O
0
0-
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D5

BA
LOG BURIED IN
STREAM BED
ELEVATION
=CT BACKFILL MATERIAL
OF COARSE AGGREGATE
#5 STONE)
I . LOGS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS A5 FOLLOWS:
MIN DIAM = 10"
MIN LENGTH = 30'
2. ALL LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND LIMBS SHALL BE TRIMMED FLUSH.
3. FOOTER LOGS/BOULDERS ARE LOGS/BOULDER PLACED TO PROVIDE A FOUNDATION AND SCOUR PROTECTION FOR THE HEADER
LOGS/BOU LDER5.
4. HEADER LOGS/BOULDERS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER LOGS/BOULDERS UNLE55 OTHERWISE DIRECTED BYTHE ENGINEER.
5. HEADER LOGS ARE THE TOP MOST LOGS USED IN EACH LOG STRUCTURE. ALL HEADER LOGS CAN BE SEEN PROTRUDING FROM THE
WATER SURFACE DURING EXTREMELY LOW FLOWS.
G. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE OFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTING LOGS WHERE SCOUR POOLS ARE ANTICIPATED TO FORM A5
SHOWN IN THE DETAIL.
7. 5ILL LOGS SHALL BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO THE BANKFULL FLOW DIRECTION.
8. THE FOOTER LOGS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE 5ILL LOG TO THE END OF THE HEADER LOG TOWARD THE BANK.
9. HOOK BOULDERS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE HEADER LOG TO BEYOND BANKFULL WIDTH.
10. SET INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS.
1 1 . HEADER LOG SHALL TIE INTO THE STREAM BANK AT A MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 4 DMAX (MEASURED AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE)
BELOW BANKFULL ELEVATION AND A MINIMUM ELEVATION OF 2 DMAX (MEASURE AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE) BELOW BANKFULL
ELEVATION UNLE55 OTHERWISE DIRECTED BYTHE ENGINEER.
12. CUTTING OF THE 5ILL LOG ROOTWAD BAY BE REQUIRED TO PREVENT THE ROOTWAD FROM PROTRUDING ABOVE THE BANKFULL
ELEVATION.
13. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN I INCH BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTING LOGS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH LIMBS AND/OR BRUSH ON
THE UPSTREAM 5IDE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GEOTEXTILE.
14. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN I INCH BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTING BOULDERS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH GRAVEL AND COBBLES.
15. ON THE UPSTREAM 5IDE OF THE LOGS AND/OR BOULDERS, NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED A5 SHOWN IN PLANVIEW
AND IN SECTION B -B'. PLACE SELECT BACKFILL FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE LOG AND BOULDER HOOK.
1 G. BACKFILL STRUCTURE WITH SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL A5 SHOWN SHOWN IN PLANVIEW AND IN SECTION B -B'.
17. SELECT BACKFILL AND SOIL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLEMENT OF THE MATERIAL 15 KEPT TO A
MINIMUM.
18. NAIL NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE U5ING 3" 1 OD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL TO EDGE OF HEADER LOG AND BACKFILL AS SHOWN IN THE
GEOTEXTILE PLACEMENT AND SELECT BACKFILL DETAIL.
RIFFLE MATERIAL
SMALL POOL
LARGE COBBLE/
SMALL BOULDERS
LOGS/WOODY
DEBRIS
TOP OF BANK
TOE 0
FLOW
IK
RIFFLE MATERIAL
CONSTRUCTED R11=1=LE
NTS
LOG J -HOOK
NTS
SMALL POOL, TYF
4.0'
TYP
LOGS/WOODY DEBRIS
NON -WOVE
GEOTEXTILE FABRI
(NCDOT TYPE
SILL LOG OR
ROOT WAD
CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH
LIVE STAKES
(TYF.)
501 L
BACKFI LL
SELECT
BACKFILL MATERIAL
NON -WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
(NCDOT TYPE 11)
LARGE COBBLE/51MALL
BOULDER5, TYF
4.0'
TYP
RIFFLE MATERIAL; EQUAL
MIX OF #5/#57 STONE,
SURGE STONE AND NATIVE
SUBSTRATE MATERIAL
BEGIN RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
THALWEG
FLOW
CROSS SECTION A -A'
LOGS/WOODY J
DEBRIS
PROFILE
BAN KFU LL
0
HEADER LOG
5TREAMBED
FOOTER LOG
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED TOE OF BANK
RIFFLE MATERIAL; EQUAL MIX
OF #5/#57 STONE, SURGE
STONE AND NATIVE
SUBSTRATE MATERIAL
GRADE CONTROL ROCK
50/50 MIX OF CLA55 A AND
B RIPRAP
PROPOSED TOP
OF BANK
FELE CONTROL POINT
THALWEG
`GRADE CONTROL ROCK
50/50 MIX OF CLA55 A AND
B RIPRAP
BANKFULL
DITCH TOP C
BAIL
COMPACTED FILL—
DITCH BO
OF BANK
EX15TING MIN
GROUND 5.0'
X 7/77
COMPACTED FILL
WOODY DEBRIS FILL (LOGS, -
BRANCHE5, AND BRUSH) COMPACTED
WITH 501L TO PROPOSED GRADE.
MIN I'
EX15TING DITCH
INVERT
NOTES:
I . CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, A5 SPECIFIED BY
THE DESIGNER.
2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TO
ESTABLISH PART OF THE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE REQUIRED
TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.
3. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A 50/50 MIX OF CLASS A AND B RIPRAP. GRADE
CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OF RIFFLE
MATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.
4. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ROCKS AND WOOD. THE ROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF
AN EQUAL MIX OF #5 / #57 STONE, SURGE STONE AND NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL. RIFFLE MATERIAL
SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE -USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. OTHERWISE
ROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE SLIGHTLY ROUNDED, "RIVER -TYPE" ROCK, UNLE55 OTHER ROCK
CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHANNEL. IN ADDITION, LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHALL
BE INCLUDED WITH THE ROCK MATERIAL A5 SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
5. THE PLACEMENT OF GRADE CONTROL ROCK AND/OR RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TO
CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT "JUMP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM
POOL -GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT "DROP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND
THE DOWNSTREAM RUN -POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL
GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH 50ME
VARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION A5 A RESULT OF THE SMALL POOLS AND LOGS.
G. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER IN -STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG 5ILL OR
J -HOOK).
7. THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM BANKS AND/OR BED A5 DESIGNATED BY
THE DESIGNER. THE "KEY" SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK AT THE BEGINNING (CREST) OF THE
RIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANK VEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY" MAY NOT
BE USED (OR THE DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.
COMPACTED FILL
A
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
FROF05ED
GROUND
\—EX15TING DITCH
INVERT
PROFILE VIEW
BRUSH DED SILL
NTS
WOODY DEBRIS FILL
(LOGS, BRANCHES, AND
BRUSH) COMPACTED
WITH 501L TO PROPOSED
GRADE.
PROPOSED
GROUND
12" MIN DIAM.
HARDWOOD LOG;
MIN LENGTH = 20'
"—NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (TYP.)
1presi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
LLI
Q
00
p
o
N
CNO
J
0_
Z
O
I—
U
Z
O
0-1
z
O
O
IL
0
oc
O
�
Z
LU
O0-1
Q
z
0
z
O
�
U)
Q
_
J
W
oc
Q
>
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
z
J
O
U
U) _
0
Q
fm
vw
z
0
U z
OD
2 O
U
w
w
w
H
Z
�
U Q
Z
LU
0
O
Q
�
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D6

TOE OF BANK
BANKFULL
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (I " TO 5")
RIGHT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (I " TO 5")
FLOW
20° TO 30°
FOOTER ROCK
ca
m
LU
a
J
Q
LU
MIN
5.0'
FLOW
Ya C1 ANNEL Ya CHANNEL Ya CHANNEL
IDTH WIDTH WIDTH
BANKFULL
O' TO 0.8'
3 o7o TO 5 07o---
POOL
PROFILE VIEW
STREAM BANK
MIN
5.0'
CROSS VANE INVERT
CONTROL POINT
HEADER AND FOOTER
BOU LDER5
FI LTER FABRIC
B
LEFT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
LEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
HEADER ROCK
FLOW
BANKFULL
TOE OF BANK
STREAM BANK
COAR5EAGGREGATE
BACKFILL ( I " TO 5")
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
N FOOL BED
FILTER FABRIC
SECTION A -A'
Ys CHANNEL / CHANNEL Ys CHANNEL
WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH
VANE ARM BANK
INTERCEPT CONTROL
POINT
VANE ARM BANK
INTERCEPT CONTROL
POINT
i
FILTER J
FABRIC ��- -_j
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
BOCK CROSS VANE
NTS
FLOW
TOE OF BAN K, TYPI CAL STREAM BAN K5,
TYPICAL
COARSE AGGREGAT
BACKFILL (2" TO G
PIAN VIEW
ANE INVERT
LL
IVERT LOG (SEE NOTE G 1 1)
ER FABRIC
VANE ARM LOG, TYPICAL
'TIONAL BALLAST BOULDER
ADER LOG
-P LOG
BANKFULL
TOE OF BANK FLOW r
BAN KFUILL
Ya C1 ANNEL Ya CHANNEL Ya CHANNEL
W11 DTH WIDTH WI DTIH
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL ( I " TO 5")
20° TO 30°
RIGHT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT q
CONTROL POINT
B
MIN
5.0'
COAR5EAGGREGATE
BACKFILL (I " TO 5")
I1�Z�7�
V
POOL
PIAN VIEW
BANKFULL
STREAM BANK
CROSS VANE INVERT
CONTROL POINT
MIN
STEP INVERT
CONTROL POINT
HEADER AND FOOTER
BOULDERS
FILTER FABRIC
B
LEFT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
LEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM
BANK INTERCEPT
CONTROL POINT
FLOW VARIES
------- O' TO 0.8'
3%� -
POOL POOL
FILTER FABRIC J
FOOTER ROCKS
STREAM BANK
FILTER FABRIC
PROFILE VIEW
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL (2" TO G")
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG, IF
SPECIFIED
SECTION A -A'
HEADER ROCKS
STREAM BED IN POOL
MIN
51 INVERT LOG
COARSE AGGREGATEBANKFULL
BACKFILL (2" TO G")
_\ —
HEADER LOG
FLOW 3% TO 5%
o,
FLOVI
\ Poop \ \ \
FILTER FABRIC
FOOTER LOG
LOG CROSS VANE
NTS
DUCKBILL ANCHOR
BANKFULL
TOE OF BANK
STREAM BANK
COARSE AGGREGATE
BACKFILL ( I " TO 5")
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
\ N FOOL BED
FILTER FABRIC
SECTION A -A'
Ya CHANNEL Ya CHANNEL Y CHANNEL
WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH
VANE ARM BANK
INTERCEPT CONTROL
POINT
VANE ARM BANK
INTERCEPT CONTROL
POINT
FILTER J
FABRIC
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
BOCK A -VANE
NTS
N OTE5:
I . LOGS SHALL BE OF A MINIMUM OF 1 2' IN LENGTH AND 10" IN DIAMETER AND
RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. A SINGLE LOG MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF A HEADER/FOOTER LOG
COMBINATION, PER DIRECTION OF DESIGNER.
3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOG(5) AND
THE STREAM BED, UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL. THERE SHALL BE
NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED,
TUCKED, OR TRIMMED A5 NEEDED.
4. COARSE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED TO A THICKNESS EQUAL TO THE DEPTH
OF THE HEADER (AND ANY FOOTER) LOGS AND 5HALL EXTEND OUT FROM THE
VANE ARM TO THE STREAM BANK AND UPSTREAM.
5. A5 AN OPTION, FLAT -SIDED BOULDERS MAY BE PLACED A5 BALLAST ON TOP
OF THE STREAM BANK 51DE OF THE EMBEDDED VANE ARMS. DUCK BILL
ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF BALLAST BOULDERS.
G. DUCKBILL ANCHORS WITH GALVANIZED CABLE ATTACHED MAY BE USED TO
SECURE LOGS INTO THE STREAM BED AND/OR BANKS. FLAT 51DED BOULDERS
CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THE LOG INVERT/DUCKBILL ANCHOR SYSTEM.
10resl
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
SCALE: AS SHOWN
W
Q
00
p
o
N
CNO
J
�
0_
Z
O
H
U
Z
O
IY
z
O
O
IL
oc
O
�
z
LU
0
(�E
>-
0
0-1
LU
Q
z
Z
Lu
O
Lu
Q
Lu
LU
Q
W
W
IY
IY
Q_
Q
z
J
O
�
w Q
� U
U _
0
m
Q
O
Z
w
0
U z
O D
2O
U
w
w
LU
�_
Z
�
U Q
Z
LU
O
Q
Ir
Ir
o-
p
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
CSC
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
D7

Appendix B —
Data/Analysis/Supplementary Information

IRT Meeting Notes

fires
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 29, 2017
Re: Mockingbird Site Post -Contract IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes
CU: 03040101
DMS Project No.: 100021
DEQ Contract No.: 7185
County: Davie
Location: 36.029909'N, -80.503020° W, Spillman Road
DMS Project Manager: Harry Tsomides
Meeting Summary
Date: August 15, 2017
RES Attendees: Daniel Ingram, Cara Conder, David Godley, Daniel Ramsay
DMS Attendees: Paul Wiesner, Harry Tsomides, Kirsten Ullman
IRT Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE), Mac Haupt (NCDWR), Olivia Munzer (NCWRC)
General Summary: IRT members generally agreed the Mockingbird Site is suitable to provide
compensatory stream mitigation credits. IRT members also confirmed the technical approach,
and ratios proposed as appropriate. No adjustment to contracted credit amounts are expected.
IRT members requested any changes in technical approach between the proposal and mitigation
plan be clearly communicated in the mitigation plan. Specific discussions related to each reach
are discussed below.
Reaches TPI, TP2, TP3, HC2-A, and HC2-B: These reaches are proposed as Enhancement II
within the upper portion of the project area. IRT members agreed with that approach and 2.5:1
credit ratio. IRT members requested flow monitoring gauges on headwater reaches to document
30 days of continuous flow, regardless of JD status. Cattle exclusion is being provided through
landowner agreement. No fencing is proposed. Todd Tugwell expressed some concern for that
approach long-term but did not object in principle regarding the Mockingbird project. Several
small isolated wetland areas were discussed but are not expected to impact the project
implementation.
Reach HC2-C: This reach was proposed as Enhancement I, however, Mac Haupt suggested
Restoration may be more appropriate based on the level of impairment. RES will evaluate the
final technical approach based on survey and detailed assessment data.
Reach HC2-D: IRT members discussed several potential approaches to this forested reach.
Generally, the upper two meanders are incised and unstable on outside bends. Todd Tugwell
suggested stabilizing these upper meanders could generate EI credit (1.5:1) and preservation is
appropriate downstream. Another potential option is preservation on the entire reach, with wider
412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Terminal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219
701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2otl Floor 3751 Westere Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 1371/2 East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901

res
buffers, and photo documentation of stability in monitoring (10:1 ratio). RES will determine the
final approach in design phase to maximize uplift and minimize damage to mature riparian
forest. All IRT members agreed that including this reach in the project has value.
Reach HC 1: This reach is proposed as Restoration. IRT members generally agreed with the
restoration approach. P 1 vs P2 approach was discussed in the context of the proposed RES
Scout Bank Site located on Hauser Creek between HC 1 and HC2-D. RES proposes to permit
and construct the two sites in sequence to allow for a P 1 approach on Reach HC 1, providing
higher functional lift and less risk of failures.
Reaches NMI and NM4: Both of these reaches are proposed as EII_ IRT members did not
provide any direct feedback on these reaches but generally accepted their suitability for EII credit
due to livestock exclusion and buffer plantings. Similar to other small headwater reached RES
will provide flow duration monitoring tied to success criteria.
Reaches NM2, NM3, and JS 1: These reaches are proposed as P 1 restoration. IRT members
generally agreed with the restoration approach. It was noted that the upstream limits may require
a P2 approach blended into P1 at the confluence with Hauser Creek. No specific comments were
provided by the IRT on these reaches.
412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Terminal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219
701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2otl Floor 3751 Westere Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 1371/2 East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901

Vegetation Survey

Protocol for Existing Conditions Vegetation Surveying
Plot Selection and Setup
Survey multiple plots on-site, which together are representative of all ecotypes present within the
easement boundaries. Each plot is a 5m X 20m belt transect, positioned parallel to the channel in the
floodplain or adjacent upland.
Take a GPS point at the origin and set the bounds with 5m as the "x-axis" and 20m as the "Y-axis." Set
the plot with the y-axis as the side parallel to the stream channel. Record the y-axis azimuth to allow for
future resampling. Conclude selection and set-up with a representative photo of the plot taken from the
origin.
Data Collection
Identify each plant in the plot to the species level. Sort and measure tree species by height class and
diameter at breast height (DBH). Count seedlings <54in (137cm) in height into height categories 0-9cm,
10-50cm, 51-100cm, or 101-137cm. Count saplings >54in (137cm) in height into DBH categories 0-lcm,
1-2.5cm, 2.5-5cm, or 5-12.7cm. Measure the DBH of all trees >5in (12.7cm) DBH. Shrubs, vines, and
herbaceous taxa receive an estimation of their percent cover over the substrate within the plot. If the
personnel are unable to identify to the species level, collect voucher photos and/or specimen(s) for later
identification. Record these on the data sheet as UNK-1, UNK-2, etc.
Data Processing
Begin processing collected data by identifying the unknown species observed from voucher photos and
specimen(s) collected. When species present are sufficiently identified, use the dominant canopy species
assemblages and ecological region to identify a habitat type from Schafale (2012).
Calculate both basal area and stems per acre for each plot surveyed using the formulas below. These
metrics help to inform the existing conditions of the canopy on-site and inform the development of the
project's planting plan.
Basal Area Formula:
Basal area of each tree (m2) = 0.00007854 X (DBHcm)2
Basal area of plot (m2/ha) = (sum of basal areas for all trees in plot) X 100
• 100 is to scale up from our O.Olha plot to lha
Stems per Acre Formula:
Stems/Acre = (# of stems)/0.02471

Existing Conditions Vegetation Survey Date: (_{ i ..
_ �
Latitude:
TES:
!
Site: Mb , � rE Plot:v
Longitude:
Basal area = Om2/ha
Stems per acre = 0
Personnel: � I. .,%, ? y'
,� t
Azimuth: 1,
Form SEEDLINGS - Height Classes
SAPLINGS - DBH
TREE - DBH
Est. % Cover
Species T S H 0-9cm 10-50cm 51-100cm 101-137cm
(19_
.8
0-1cm 1-2.5cm 2.5-5cm
5-12.7cm >lecm =Measure Size
Record 5% to 100% in
(0-3.5in) {3.6-19.7in) 39 4in (39.5-54in)
(0-0.4in) (0.5-lin (1-2in)
(2-5in) (>5in)
Increments of 5; <5% for
anything below
0
rvo o'� Lamiu amplex caule & amium
rpureu
L} If
fStVe
fi. Vicia ativa
Ranu culus re ens
If
` V
a ' Card 'ne flexu sa
" Galiu aparme
�O0� vo , ". Veron ca persi
i
1_ i-U A
r''JVIP( f' Duch snea ind ca
Geran' m carol nianum
*List unidentified species starting with UNK-1; Take pics and/or
pressings for later ID

Existing Conditions Vegetation Sure yfi
Date:
Latitude:
NOTES: )(SRIv6ct)Ok"1
Basal area = 23.59MA2/ha
Site: �� , , r
Plot:
Longitude:
Stems per acre = 202.35
Personnel:
M,,
©�
�,r
Azimuth:
{ '
For
SEEDLINGS
-
Height Classes
SAPLINGS
- DBH
TREE - DBH Est. % Cover
Species
T
S
H
o-9cm
10-50cm
51-100cm
{19,8-
101-137cm
0-1cm
1-2.5cm
2.5-5cm
5-12.7cm >10cm = Measure Size Record 5%tolo0%in
0-3.5in}
I3.619.7in)
39.4in
i39s-sain]
(0-0.4in}
{0.5-lin)
{1 tin)
increments of 5; <S%Icr
{2-sin} {>5in} anythingbeiow
1' 'an
,.
�C-fd �Ft 1?�
`✓
r
o 4i�^1e-y _
Fti]
oY
gRa
1tfr, Q..
C1 K dx�, (�4
i
s r
Art e2l
iC..p
Tipula
i.a disco
or
c l
0 0' O� � ��
Allium
vineale
o
Galiu
aparme
Eragro
tis sp.°l
Potent
Ila cana
ensis
t�
Ch��S-kr..uS
4 r
t
U rl b w> i +
Ranun
ulus sp
PIA, '> i c +�
Mitch
la repen
b
{l
''� �te�
Botryp
virgini
nus
{1
*List unidentified species starting with UNK-1; Take pics and/or pressings for later ID

LA-kl
rervu�.d tags: -r -�� �Vp�-t
'ahVz©wn �,e.r b 2 (yp I
pn of +
&Ir i s�, I
VP6
Euonymus fortunei
,,� t Botrypus virginianus
Cj
S
t�
Geum canadense

Existing Conditions Vegetation Survey
j
Date: �` f -b eb
Latitude:
NOTES:
Basal area = 76.19MA2/ha
Stems per acre = 283.29
TREE - DBH Est. % Cover
5-12.7cm >lOcm =Measure Size Record 5%tc 100% in
increments of 5; <5% for
(2 -Sin) (>SinJ anything tielow
Site: y+`V ..( q
Plot: IT
Longitude:
Personnel:-
Form SEEDLINGS - Height Classes
51-1000m
Species T S H 0-9cm 10-50on 101-137cm
(19.8-
(D-3.5in) (3.6-19.7in) 394in (39.5-54in)
Azimuth: R0
SAPLINGS - DBH
0-1cm 1-2.5cm 2.5-5cm
(0-0.4in) (0.5-lin) (1 -tin}
r
w,11ow
l�_
e_
Podopl
iyllum p
ltatum
ell
II
{X�
# ••F -
f 2,
�x
1"1�.� � IL✓� i�.
rh �.
�
♦�
1�
Ranun
ulus arb
rtivus
Tipula
is discolor
{
Lbnhown vIP
Geum
anadens
cf
L
L151 uniaentmea species starting with UNK-1; lake pies and/or pressings for later ID

Morphological Parameters

Mockingbird Morphological Parameters
Existing
HC1 HC2A HC2B HC2C HUD JS1 I NM1 NM2 NM3 NM4 TP1 TP2 TP3
Feature
Riffle
Riffle
I Pool
Pool
I
Riffle
Riffle I
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
I
Pool
Riffle
Riffle
I Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
I
Pool
Riffle I Riffle
Riffle
I
Pool
Drainage Area ac
1319
55
151
194
207
221
20
330
74
27
45
20
20
Drainage Area (mi2)
2.06
0.09
0.24
0.30
0.32
0.35
0.03
0.52
0.12
0.04
0.07
0.03
0.03
NC Regional Curve Discharge cfs z
150.9
14.8
31.0
37.3
39.1
41.0
7.1
54.9
18.4
8.8
12.8
7.1
7.1
NC Regional Curve Discharge cfs 3
153.1
1
16.0 1
32.9
1 39.3
1 41.1 1
43.1
1 7.8 1
57.2
1 19.8 1
9.7 1
13.9
1 7.8 1
7.8
Design/Calculated Discharge cfs
-
-I
-
I -
I - I
-
I - I
-
I - I
- I
-
I - I
-
Dimension
BF Cross Sectional Area ftz
40.0
23.0
38.0
6.0
10.0
18.9
11.9
14.0
11.6
12.1
14.4
14.7
16.9
17.8
23.0
3.9
2.7
3.6
3.2
3.0
3.1
4.3
BF Width ft
20.0
11.9
15.4
11.7
10.7
18.3
11.7
16.9
12.6
12.2
8.8
8.6
10.6
10.0
9.3
6.7
4.8
9.3
5.3
6.1
8.0
14.7
BF Mean Depth ft
2.0
1.9
2.5
0.5
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.8
2.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
BF Max Depth ft
3.2
3.7
3.8
0.8
1.4
1.8
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.3
3.0
3.8
2.8
2.6
4.0
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.8
1.2
0.5
0.4
Wetted Perimeter ft
22.3
14.4
18.3
12.0
12.1
18.9
12.5
17.9
13.2
13.1
12.0
12.8
12.4
12.2
12.7
7.4
5.4
9.8
6.0
6.7
8.2
14.8
Hydraulic Radius ft
1.8
1.6 1
2.1
0.5
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
Width/Depth Ratio
10.1
6.1
6.2
22.9
11.4
17.8
11.6
20.3
13.7
12.2
5.4
5.0
6.6
5.6
3.8
11.4
8.5
24.1
9.0
12.2
21.0
50.3
Floodprone Width ft
27.4
30.0
50.0
19.0
11.9
25.0
15.0
21.4
30.0
28.0
10.7
15.7
>30
20.7
>30
21.9
17.0
15
11
15.0
11
24
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
2.5
3.2
1.6
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.3
2.4
0.0
1.2
1.8
>2.2
2.1
>2.2
3.3
3.5
1.6
2.1
2.5
1.4
1.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
-
-
2.0
2.1
1.5
2.1
1.1
-
1.0
2.4
1.1
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.1
2.1
2.5
Bed Material
Description D50
Silt/Sand
Cobble
Cobble
Cobble
Cobble
Sand
Sand/Gravel
Sand/Gravel
Gravel
Silt/Sand
Gravel/Cobble
Silt
Silt
D16 mm
-
-
-
-
-
0.72
-
0.74
0.062
0.062
-
-
-
D50 mm
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
-
2.3
1.7
0.062
-
-
-
D84 mm
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
29
13
1.4
-
-
-
Pattern
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min MaxjinMax
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Channel Beltwidth ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Radius of Curvature ft
-Radius
jMa
of Curvature Ratio
-Meander
Wavelen th ft
-Meander
Width Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
-
- -
-
-
Profile
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Shallow Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
Run Length ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
Glide Length ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
Pool Length ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
Pool -to-Pool Spacing ft
-
I -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
1925
1159
586
487
380
470
229
1089
190
260
124
433
473
Channel Length ft
2135
1344
673
569
563
465
229
1219
198
286
157
450
525
Sinuosity
1.11
1.16
1.15
1.17
1.48
0.99
1.00
1.12
1.04
1.10
1.27
1.04
1.11
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.0051
-
0.011
-
-
0.0095
-
0.0042
-
-
-
-
-
Channel Slope ft/ft
0.0028
0.0170
0.0092
0.0139
0.0102
0.0065
0.0128
0.0076
0.0250
0.0289
0.0167
0.0357
0.0257
Ros en Classificationj
E5
I
133c I
F3
F3/C3
I C3 I
E5
I E4 I
E4
I C4 I
E6b I
133c
I C6b I
B6
Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003)
3 NC Regional Curve equations source: Sweet and Geratz (2003)

Mockingbird Morphological Parameters
Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003)
3 NC Regional Curve equations source: Sweet and Geratz (2003)
Reference Reach
UT to Grassy Creek UT to Hauser Creek
NM2
NM3
Design
HC1
HC21B
Js1
Feature
Riffle
F
Pool
Riffle
I
Pool
Riffle I
Pool
Riffle
I
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
I
Pool
Riffle I
Pool
Drainage Area (ac)
426
29
330
74
1324
194
220
Drainage Area mit
0.67
0.05
0.52
0.12
2.07
0.30
0.34
NC Regional Curve Discharge cfs 2
66.2
9
54.9
18.4
151.4
37.3
40.8
NC Regional Curve Discharge cfs 3
68.6
10
57.2
19.8
153.5
39.3
42.9
Design/Calculated Discharge (cfs)
50
5-7
46-53
9-10
129
40-47
25-48
Dimension
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft)
18.1
23.4
3.0
4.2
25.3
33.2
4.7
6.1
47.0
61.0
16.4
21.7
19.4
23.8
BF Width (ft)
13.7
15.0
5.2
5.6
16
17.2
6.4
6.9
21.8
23.5
12.6
13.5
13.5
14.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.6
0.6
1.2
1.6
1.9
0.7
0.9
2.2
2.6
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.7
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.7
2.7
0.8
2.1
2.2
3.4
1.0
1.4
2.9
4.5
1.8
2.8
1.9
2.9
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
14.9
16.8
5.6
11.0
17.0
19.7
6.9
7.9
23.3
26.8
13.5
15.6
14.5
16.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.2
1.4
0.5
1.0
1.5
1.7
0.7
0.8
2.0
2.3
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.4
Width/Depth Ratio
9.8
9.6
8.9
7.5
10.1
8.9
8.7
7.8
10.1
9.1
9.7
8.4
9.4
8.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
---
>30
---
50
26.5
30
30
50
26.5
50
26.5
50
26.5
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
---
>4
---
3.1
1.5
4.7
4.3
2.3
1.1
4.0
2.0
3.7
1.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1 t
1.2
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Bed Material
Description (D50)
Gravel
Gravel
Sand/Gravel
Cobble/Gravel
Cobble/Gravel
Cobble/Gravel
Sand/Gravel
D16 (mm)
2.8
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
D50 (mm)
11
3.7
-
-
-
-
-
D84 (mm)
16
25
-
-
-
-
-
Pattern
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
26.3
55.5
15.0
35.0
33
60
18
43
45
82
26
47
28
51
Radius of Curvature (ft)
13.5
103.3
6.0
17.0
28
75
7
21
38
103
22
59
24
64
Radius of Curvature Ratio
1.0
6.9
1.2
3.0
1.8
4.4
1.1
3.0
1.7
4.4
1.7
4.4
1.8
4.4
Meander Wavelength (ft) 1
49.4
1
66.0 1
23.0
1
43.0
69
1
91 1
28
1
53
1 95
123
1 55
1
71 1
59
76
Meander Width Ratio 1
3.6
1
4.4 1
4.4
1
7.7
2.1
1
3.5 1
4
1
6.2
1 2.1
1
3.5
1 4
1
3.5 1
2.1
5
Profile
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Shallow Length (ft)
6
18
4
18
7
21
4
22
10
29
6
17
6
18
Run Length (ft)
7
16
2
8
8
19
4
10
11
26
6
15
7
16
Glide Length (ft)
5
13
3
8
6
15
3
10
8
21
5
12
5
13
Pool Length (ft)
5
42
3
10
6
49
4
12
8
67
5
39
5
42
Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft) 1
18
64
12
35
21
75 1
15
43
29
103
1 17
59 1
18
64
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
279
146
1348
240
1925
487
470
Channel Length (ft)
318
185
1366
280
2083
595
500
Sinuosity
1.14
1.27
1.01
1.17
1.08
1.22
1.06
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
1.69
0.0026
0.013
0.003
0.005
0.0036
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.0130
0.0026
0.0130
0.0030
0.0050
0.0036
Rosgen Classification
E4
E4
E4/E5
E3/E4
E3/E4
E3/E4
E4/E5
Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003)
3 NC Regional Curve equations source: Sweet and Geratz (2003)

Mocking Bird
Reach
HC1
HC2-B
JS1
NM2
NM3
DA (ac)
1324
194
220
330
74
DA (sqmi)
2.07
0.30
0.34
0.52
0.12
Ex. Conds XSs
— QBKF
129
40-47
25-48
46-53
9-10
FFQ Analysis
Q1.1
125
43
47
58
26
Q1.5
204
68
73
92
39
Q2
257
88
95
119
52
Q10
613
190
205
263
106
Piedmont Regional Curves
NC-QBKF(1)
154
39
43
57
20
NC-QBKF(2)
151
37
41
55
18
VA-QBKF
87
14
16
23
6
SCS (Hydraflow Hydrographs with 6 hour duration and a PSF of 484)
Q1
97
33
7
23
3
Q2
181
56
14
48
6
Q5
350
100
37
100
18
Q10
510
138
64
151
29
Q25
758
195
111
228
48
SCS (Hydraflow Express with 24 hour duration and a PSF of 484)
Q1
357
112
43
115
22
Q2
596
168
90
194
43
Q5
1005
260
182
331
81
Q10
1357
336
734
448
730
Q25
1869
444
390
619
165
USGS RR Eqns (Region 1)
Q2(1996 EQNS)
238
63
69
91
32
Q2(2001 EQNS)
225
58
64
85
30
Q2
253
73
79
103
39
Q5
465
140
151
195
76
Q10
623
191
206
264
105
Q25
834
261
281
359
145
Q50
1022
323
348
444
181
Recommended Design Flows =
Qbnkfull
145
43
40
50
11
" QBKF/ FFQ Q1.1
1.031
1.083
0.860
0.860
0.431
Hydraflow Avg
139
44
10
36
5
FFQ Q1.1
1.16
0.99
0.86
0.86
0.43
RC
0.96
1.15
0.98
0.91
0.60

Cross Sections of Current Conditions
& Reference Reaches

v k
Right Bank
Downstream
Reach HC1 - XS1 (Riffle)
102.00
101.00
100.00
99.00
$_
98.00
c
97.00
0
r
>
d
96.00
Lu
95.00
94.00
93.00
92.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
—o-- Reach HC1 - XS1 (Riffle) Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
101.00
Reach HC1 - XS2 (Riffle)
100.00
IL
99.00
$_
98.00
97.00
c
rO
>
96.00
95.00
W
Lu
94.00
93.00
92.00
91.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
—o-- Reach HC1 - XS2 (Riffle) Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

t�`
r
r r+'a ;
VI
k�
_
-
wTV
1 �• .
t�`
r
r r+'a ;
VI
k�
_

Upstream Downstream
Reach HC2A - XS43 (Riffle)
95.5
95
94.5
p 94
.2
R
w 93.5
93
92.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
—o --Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

OR
nom..
�s
At-
c
ooiww-au*
17

Upstream
Downstream
Reach HC213 - XS39 (Riffle)
101.00
100.50
100.00
99.50
"99.00
C
O
98.50
>
98.00
w
97.50
97.00
96.50
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
—o --Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

i �
r 1��
T � r,
Yd"
_� _
e� �.
• K _ '�-'�
��, .` y��
' ' R '�� 4
{r t �,-
r. `� . _ a
_ � ` .. _

97
96
95
p 94
.2
R
d 9
w 3
92
91
0
Upstream
Reach HC2C - XS47 (Riffle)
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
—o --Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
35

t
kr
07
e •.
r

�'�• � is j �„ •. :�
�y��3. T_:�- .+^ ,; -ti•' fit;" f�
s
`}}L d
Alt
F ¢T
r - ✓ '-,J - � a � f

Upstream
h
Reach JS1 - XS21 (Pool)
r
95.00
�
ill'
P ,rv� ��a��w►'
93.00
i,
e
O
91.00
r
Upstream
h
Reach JS1 - XS21 (Pool)
95.00
94.00
93.00
92.00
O
91.00
r
90.00
Downstream
Reach JS1 - XS21 (Pool)
95.00
94.00
93.00
92.00
O
91.00
90.00
m
89.00
Lu
88.00
87.00
86.00
0 5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
tReachJS1 -XS21 (Pool) Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach JS1 - XS22 (Riffle)
94.00
93.00
92.00
91.00
c
0
> 90.00
m
LU
89.00
88.00
Pm
87.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
—a --Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

L:.
Upstream
Downstream
Reach NM1 - XS3 (Riffle)
95.00
94.00
93.00
92.00
O
91.00
90.00
m
89.00
Lu
88.00
87.00
86.00
0 5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
tReachJS1 -XS21 (Pool) Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

2�
��(����3�»&«%,
�`
\ \ \
lit
. . .. . . &. .

Upstream
Downstream
Reach NM2 - XS26 (Riffle)
97.00
96.00
95.00
94.00
93.00
r_
92.00
O
91.00
R
90.00
w
89.00
88.00
87.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
—a --Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach NM3 - XS24 (Riffle)
95.50
95.00
94.50
94.00
S93.50
c
O
+r 93.00
R
4'92.50
w
92.00
91.50
91.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
—a --Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach NM4 - XS23 (Riffle)
96.00
95.50
95.00
F94.50
C
O
94.00
m
LU 93.50
93.00
92.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
—a --Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach NM5 - XS5 (Riffle)
102.00
101.00
100.00
99.00
C
O
w
98.00
m
Lu
97.00
96.00
95.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
—o-- Reach NM5-XS5(Riffle) Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

� '�4•+1 i
r
1/ { k

Upstream
95
94.5
94
p 93.5
w
R
93
Lu
92.5
92
0
Downstream
Reach TP1 - XS46 (Riffle)
5 10 15
Distance (ft)
—o --Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
20

Upstream Downstream
Reach TP2 - XS42 (Riffle)
95.5
95
94.5
O 94
w
R
w 93.5
93
92.5
0 5 10 15
Distance (ft)
—o --Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Reach TP3 - XS49 (Riffle)
760.5
760
759.5
759
p 758.5
F
w
R
y 758
ZOO*"
Lu
757.5
757
756.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
—o --Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

. .. _
-
.-
\3-�� �. •
�(`�
. �.

Hauser Creek Reference
Cross Section 1 — UT to Hauser Creek - Pool
103
102
101
$100
0
.� 99
a�
W 98
97
96
Downstream
Upstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (ft)

Hauser Creek Reference
Cross Section 2 — UT to Hauser Creek — Riffle
103
102
101
100
0
99
a�
W 98
97
96
Downstream
Upstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Width (ft)

Hauser Creek Reference
Cross Section 3 — UT to Hauser Creek — Pool
Downstream
102
101
100
99
0
TO 98
a�
Lu
97
96
95
Upstream
10 15 20 25 30
Width (ft)

Hauser Creek Reference
Cross Section 4 — UT to Hauser Creek — Riffle
Downstream
102
101
100
99
0
98
m
Lu 97
96
95
Upstream
10 15 20 25 30
Width (ft)

Al
a
v�

Upstream
Downstream
UT to Grassy Creek Cross Section 3 Pool
103
102
101
100
0
0 99
9$
Lu
97
96
95
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Cross Section 3 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
UT to Grassy Creek Cross Section 4 Riffle
102
101
100
0 99
Lu
98
97
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Distance (ft)
Cross Section 4 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Channel Stability Assessment

Channel Stability Assessment Summary Table
JSI HCI HC2-A HC2-B HC2-C HC2-D (E) HC2-D (P) NMI NM2 NM3 NM4 NM5 TPI TP2 TP3
1
Watershed characteristics
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
2
Flow habit
6
8
3
4
6
6
6
5
8
7
3
4
4
4
4
3
Channel pattern
3
9
3
4
6
2
2
9
8
6
5
9
2
6
6
Entrenchment/channel
4
7
10
1
3
3
7
7
6
11
12
3
3
3
4
3
confinement
5
Bed material
6
12
1
2
5
6
6
10
11
10
9
10
2
11
9
6
Bar development
4
10
2
7
6
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
10
8
7
Obstructions/debris jams
2
7
1
5
3
3
3
6
4
5
6
9
3
9
2
Bank soil texture and
8
5
8
5
5
7
6
6
5
9
7
5
7
6
9
6
coherence
9
Average bank angle
10
10
2
6
6
8
8
7
10
11
4
3
4
6
5
10
Bank vegetation/protection
12
9
5
6
4
1
1
8
10
11
10
9
2
11
9
11
Bank cutting
11
11
2
4
4
8
8
5
9
9
6
6
4
5
6
12
Mass wasting/bank failure
9
9
1
4
5
8
8
4
8
9
7
9
2
8
8
Upstream distance to
13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
bridge
Score
83
111
34
58
63
66
66
75
98
98
69
79
43
91
74
Rating*
Fair
Poor
Excellent
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Fair
* Excellent (0 < Score <= 36), Good (36 < Score <= 72), Fair (72 < Score <= 108), Poor (108 < Score <= 144)

Stream
Trib to Hauser Creek
Reach: JS1
Date: 4/3/2018
Weather: Overcast, 48F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 )
Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
watershed. Significant cattle activity,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
landslides, channel sand or gravel
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
mining, logging, farming, or
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
construction of buildings, roads, or
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
other infrastructure. Highly urbanized
significant portion of watershed
or rapidly urbanizing watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
6
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
straight (step -pool system, narrow
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically)
valley), stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
areas of instability and/or erosion
with few bends. Straight, unstable
around bends. Straightened, stable
reach.
channel.
3
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
plain abandoned; levees are moderate
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
back from the river
in size and have minimal setback from
active flood plain; levees are high and
the river
along the channel edge
7
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
6
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of
1/2 the stream width at low flow. Bars
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
newly deposited coarse sand to small
are composed of extensive deposits of
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
cobbles and/or may be sparsely
fine particles up to coarse gravel with
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation
vegetated. Bars forming for S > 0.02
little to no vegetation. No bars for S <
12, no bars are evident
on portions of the bar. For S > 0.02
and w/y < 12
0.02 and w/y > 12
and w/y <12, no bars are evident
4
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams,
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause
continual shift of sediment and flow.
grade control, bridge bed paving,
noticeable erosion of the channel.
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
revetments, dikes or vanes, riprap
Considerable sediment accumulation
to migrate and/or widen
behind obstructions
2

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
lenses of noncohesive or
lenses that include noncohesive sands
unconsolidated mixtures
and gravels
5
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
10
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
50-70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily soft wood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
off of the bank. Woody vegetation
both banks are lined or heavily
root exposure. Partial lining or
often with evident root exposure. No
oriented at less than 70% from
armored
armoring of one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring
horizontal with extensive root exposure.
may be in place on one bank
No lining or armoring of banks
12
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of
bends and at prominent
banks. Raw banks comprise large
some extending over most of the
total bank
constrictions. Raw banks comprise
portion of bank in vertical direction.
banks. Undercutting and sod -root
minor portion of bank in vertical
Root mat overhangs
overhangs
direction
11
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
9
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well-
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly
meander impact point and alignment
aligned with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not
aligned with flow
centered beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 83

Stream:
Hauser Creek
Reach:
HC1
Date:
4/3/2018
Weather:
Overcast, 48F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
8
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
9
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
10
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
12
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
10
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
7

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
8
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
10
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
9
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
11
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
9
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 111

Stream:
Trib to Hauser Creek
Reach:
NM 1
Date:
4/3/2018
Weather:
Overcast, 48F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
5
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
9
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
6
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
10
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
2
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
6

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
5
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
7
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
8
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
5
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
4
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 75

Stream:
Trib to Hauser Creek
Reach:
NM2
Date:
4/3/2018
Weather:
Overcast, 48F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
8
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
8
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
11
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
11
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
2
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
4

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
9
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
10
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
10
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
9
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
8
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 98

Stream:
Trib to Hauser Creek
Reach:
NM3
Date:
4/3/2018
Weather:
Overcast, 48F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
7
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
6
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
12
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
10
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
3
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
5

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
7
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
11
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
11
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
9
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
9
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 98

Stream:
Trib to Hauser Creek
Reach:
NM4
Date:
4/3/2018
Weather:
Overcast, 48F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
3
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
5
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
3
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
9
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
3
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
6

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
5
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
4
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
10
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
6
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
7
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 69

Stream:
Trib to Hauser Creek
Reach:
NM5
Date:
4/3/2018
Weather:
Overcast, 48F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
4
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
9
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
3
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
10
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
2
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
9

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
7
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
3
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
9
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
6
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
9
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 79

Stream:
Trib to Hauser Creek
Reach:
TP1
Date:
4/3/2018
Weather:
Overcast, 55F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
4
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
2
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
3
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
2
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
3
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
3

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
6
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
4
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
2
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
4
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
2
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 43

Stream:
Trib to Hauser Creek
Reach:
TP2
Date:
4/3/2018
Weather:
Overcast, 55F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
4
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
6
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
4
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
11
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
10
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
9

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
9
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
6
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
11
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
5
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
8
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 91

Stream:
Trib to Hauser Creek
Reach:
TP3
Date:
4/3/2018
Weather:
Overcast, 55F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
4
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
6
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
3
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
9
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
8
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
2

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
6
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
5
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
9
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
6
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
8
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 74

Stream: Trib to Hauser Creek
Reach: HC2-A
Date: 4/3/2018
Weather: Overcast, 55F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
3
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
3
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
1
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
1
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
2
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
1

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
5
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
2
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
5
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
2
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
1
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 34

Stream:
Trib to Hauser Creek
Reach:
HC2-B
Date:
4/3/2018
Weather:
Overcast, 55F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
4
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
4
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
3
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
2
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
7
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
5

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
5
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
6
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
6
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
4
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
4
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 58

Stream: Trib to Hauser Creek
Reach: HC2-C
Date: 4/3/2018
Weather: Overcast, 55F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
6
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
6
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
3
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
5
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
6
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
3

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
7
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
6
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
4
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
4
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
5
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 63

Stream:
Trib to Hauser Creek
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Reach:
HC2-D (Enhancement)
Project:
Mockingbird
Date:
4/3/2018
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Weather:
Overcast, 55F
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Location:
Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent 11 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor 110 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
6
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
2
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
7
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
6
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
3
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
3

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
6
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
8
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
1
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
8
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
8
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 66

Stream:
Trib to Hauser Creek
Reach: HC2-D (Preservation)
Date: 4/3/2018
Weather: Overcast, 55F
Location: Mocksville, NC
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 1 Good (4 - 6)
Observers:
EWT, MDE, JRM
Project:
Mockingbird
Drainage Area:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Stream Type:
pool -riffle
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the watershed.
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
Significant cattle activity, landslides,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
channel sand or gravel mining, logging,
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
farming, or construction of buildings,
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
roads, or other infrastructure. Highly
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
urbanized or rapidly urbanizing
significant portion of watershed
watershed
8
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
6
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or straight
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
(step -pool system, narrow valley),
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized areas
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
of instability and/or erosion around
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
bends. Straightened, stable channel.
2
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood plain
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
abandoned; levees are moderate in
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
backfrom the river
size and have minimal setback from the
active flood plain; levees are high and
river
along the channel edge
7
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
6
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than 1/2
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of newly
the stream width at low flow. Bars are
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
deposited coarse sand to small cobbles
composed of extensive deposits of fine
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
and/or may be sparsely vegetated.
particles up to coarse gravel with little to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation on
Bars forming for S > 0.02 and w/y < 12
no vegetation. No bars for S < 0.02 and
12, no bars are evident
portions of the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y > 12
w/y <12, no bars are evident
3
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams, grade
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause noticeable
continual shift of sediment and flow.
control, bridge bed paving, revetments,
erosion of the channel. Considerable
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
dikes or vanes, riprap
sediment accumulation behind
to migrate and/or widen
obstructions
3

Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and lenses
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
of noncohesive or unconsolidated
lenses that include noncohesive sands
mixtures
and gravels
6
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
8
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with 50
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located off
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
of the bank. Woody vegetation oriented
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring of
often with evident root exposure. No
at less than 70% from horizontal with
armored
one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring may
extensive root exposure. No lining or
be in place on one bank
armoring of banks
1
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the banks.
bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
Undercutting and sod -root overhangs
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
8
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
8
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well -aligned
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not centerec
with flow
beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score 66

Appendix C —Site Protection Instrument

SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed below in Table Cl. EBX (an entity of RES) has obtained a conservation
easement from the current landowners for the project area. The easement deed and survey plat will be
submitted to DMS and State Property Office (SPO) for approval and will be held by the State of North
Carolina. The easement deed will follow the NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template dated
May 5, 2017 and included in this appendix. Once recorded, the secured easement will allow EBX to proceed
with the project development and protect the mitigation assets in perpetuity. Once finalized, a copy of the
land protection instrument(s) will be included in Appendix C.
Table C1. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
PIN
Site Protection
Deed Book and
Acreage
Owner of Record
County
Instrument
Page Numbers
Protected
Teresa S. Phifer
5852594790
Davie
Conservation
9.10 ac
5853514536
Easement
The Wilson W. and
Katherine S.
Conservation
Sparks Living
5853416631
Davie
--
3.30 ac
Trust, Dated
Easement
December 03, 2015
The Sparks Family
Conservation
Trust, Dated July
5853164843
Davie
1.71 ac
Easement
26, 2005
Michael A. Miller
5853144949
Conservation
and Nancy S.
Davie
'-
13.35 ac
Miller
5853153934
Easement

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
COUNTY
SPO File Number:
DMS Project Number:
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 , 20, by Landowner name goes here
, ("Grantor"), whose mailing address is Landowner address goes here '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
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 1 of 11

protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between ( insert name and
address of full delivery contract provider ) and the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, to provide stream, wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality Purchase and Services Contract Number
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 81h day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environmental
Quality, 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 adopted 5 May 2017
Page 2of11

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Township, County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being
more particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately
acres and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book at Page
of the 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 if known
insert name of stream, branch, river or waterway here.
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 along with a general Right of Access.
The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:
Tracts Number containing a total of acres as shown on the plats
of survey entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services, Project Name: , SPO File No. , EEP Site No. ,
Property of ," dated 20 by name of surveyor,
PLS Number and recorded in the 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 adopted 5 May 2017
Page 3of11

II. 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.
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.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 4of11

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.
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.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 5of11

III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities on the property to restore,
construct, manage, maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities
or a long-term management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation
Easement, the rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.
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.
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.
IV. 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
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 6 of 11

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.
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.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
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
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 7of11

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:
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.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 8of11

VI. 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 said premises 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 adopted 5 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 adopted 5 May 2017
Page 10 of 11

Exhibit A
[INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION]
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 11 of 11

Appendix D —Credit Release Schedule

CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved final mitigation
plan, unless there are major discrepancies and then a mitigation plan addendum will be submitted. 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 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 be restarted or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site
fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria
described as follows in Table D1.
Table D1. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Interim
Total
Release
Release Activity
Release
Release
Milestone
0
Initial Allocation — see requirements below
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
40%
standards are being met
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
50%
performance 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 /0 °
65%
standards are being met
(750//0**)
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 beingmet
90%
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
90%
performance standards are being met and project has
10%
(100%**)
received closeout 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 IRT.
"10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
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 E —Financial Assurance

FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the NCDEQ DMS (formerly Ecosystem Enhancement
Program) In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ) has provided the USACE-Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by NCDEQ DMS. This commitment provides financial
assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.

Appendix F —Maintenance Plan

MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection will be conducted a minimum of
once per year throughout the post construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.
These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine
maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and may
include the following:
F1. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in -stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental
installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where
stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance
to prevent bank failures and head -cutting. Stream maintenance activities will be
documented and reported in annual monitoring reports. Stream maintenance will
continue through the monitoring period.
Wetland
N/A
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.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be marked with signs
identifying the property as a mitigation site, and will include the name of the long-term
steward and a contact number. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard,
post, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation
easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or
replaced on an as -needed basis. Easement monitoring and staking/signage maintenance
will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Road Crossing
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by conservation
easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
Crossings in easement breaks are the responsibility of the landowner to maintain.
Livestock Fencing
Livestock fencing is to be placed outside the easement limits. Maintenance of fencing
is the responsibility of the landowner.
Beaver
Routine site visits and monitoring will be used to determine if beaver management is
needed. If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability or vegetative success, RES
will trap beavers and remove impoundments as needed. All beaver management
activities will be documented and included in annual monitoring reports. Beaver
monitoring and management will continue through the monitoring period.

Appendix G — DWR Stream ID Forms

NC DWQ Stream Identification Scores
HCl
NMI
NM2
NM3
NM4
NM5
Jsl
HC2-A
HC2-B
HC2-C
HC2-D
TPI
TP2
TP3
A. Geomorphology
1. Continuity
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2. Sinuosity
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3. In -channel structure
2
2
3
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
4. Particle size
3
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5. Floodplain
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6. Depositional bars
3
1
1
1
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
7. Alluvial deposits
2
1
1
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8. Headcuts
2
0
3
1
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
9. Grade control
1.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1.5
1
1
10. Natural valley
1.5
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11. Second order
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B. Hydrology
12. Baseflow
3
2
3
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
1
2
2
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
1
1
1.5
1
1
1
1
1.5
1
1
15. Sediment
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0
0
16. Organic debris
1
0.5
1
0.5
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
17. Hydric soil
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
C. Biology
18. Fibrous roots
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
19. Booted upland plants
3
2
3
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
20. Macrobenthos
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22. Fish
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23. Crayfish
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24. Amphibians
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25. Algae
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26. Wetland plants
0
0.75
0
0
0.75
0.75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.75
0
Total 41
25.25
33.5
31
19.25
23.25
34.5
33
33
33
33
36
22.75
22

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

Appendix H — USACE District Assessment
Forms

Stream QualityAssessment
Worksheet ary
JS1
HC1
HC2-A
HC2-B
HC2-C
HC2-D (E)
HC2-D (P)
NM1
NM2
NM3
NM4
NM5
TP1
TP2
TP3
1
Presence of flow / persistent
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
pools in stream
2
Evidence of past human
1
1
4
3
3
5
5
2
1
0
1
1
5
2
2
alteration
3
Riparian zone
0
1
3
3
1
4
5
1
1
0
1
1
4
0
1
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical
0
0
3
2
1
2
3
0
1
0
1
1
3
1
0
discharges
5
Groundwater discharge
0
0
3
4
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
4
4
�a
y
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
a
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
1
0
4
3
1
1
3
2
0
0
3
3
3
2
3
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0
0
3
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
4
9
Channel sinuosity
1
1
3
3
2
2
4
0
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
10
Sediment input
1
0
4
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
11
Size & diversity of channel bed
1
1
4
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
substrate
12
Evidence of channel incision or
1
0
3
2
1
1
2
2
0
0
2
2
3
2
2
widening
13
Presence of major bank failures
3
0
5
3
2
2
3
3
0
1
3
1
4
3
4
14
Root depth and density on banks
0
1
4
3
2
3
3
1
1
0
1
2
4
1
1
Cn
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock,
0
0
3
1
0
4
0
1
1
0
0
1
3
0
0
or timber production
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool
1
1
5
3
1
3
4
1
2
1
1
1
4
1
2
complexes
17
Habitat complexity
2
2
5
4
2
3
5
2
3
1
2
2
5
2
3
18
Canopy coverage over
0
2
4
5
3
5
5
1
1
0
1
1
5
0
1
streambed
19
Substrate embeddedness
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
1
1
4
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
21
Presence of amphibians
0
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
op
22
Presence of fish
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
Evidence of wildlife use
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
Total Score: 1 22 1 23 1 81 1 64 1 43 1 53 1 67 1 29 1 25 1 15 1 30 1 28 1 75 1 37 42

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 Total Points Possible 1 100 I 100 ' 100 1 2?— I
I TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
RLQ 1� POINT
GE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = maxpoints)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points
3no
Riparian zone
0-6
0 — 4
0-5
buffer = 0; conti ous, wide buffer = max ints
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive disch es = 0; no disch es =max ints
'
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 — 4
0-2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)0-4
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0 — 5
0-4
0-2
j
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = maxpoints)
I
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max ints
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
'
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
/
>+
(degly incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxints
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = max points
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
E ,
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
142�'
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
/
E
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max oints
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NAS
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
/
no evidence = 0• common numerous tEEs = max ints
�}
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
�O
4
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)0-4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
1 Total Points Possible 1 100 I 100 ' 100 1 2?— I
I TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

A�f/Lil, � -?//W
/ A--,- Y/,
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
#
CHARACFERISTICS
SCO
Coastal . -
Pietintent
MaAown.
1
Presence of now / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0--4
O_5
no now or saturation.= 0• Wong flow = max igo). _ _
2-
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-- 5
extensive alteration .= 0; no alteration = max points
3
RipariAn zone
0-6
0-4
'0-5
nobuffer= 0; coati oust wide buffer maxpoints)
4
_ Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 _ 4
0-4: :
extensive di es = 0; no disc . -: es = max .
. ints
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4,-
0-4
do discharge = 0; springs, s s, wetlands etc. =max tats
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
0— 4
0- 2
no floodplain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
a"
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
0-5
0_4
0 — 2
d l entrenclxed = 0; cent fl = max ints
$no
Presence of adjacent wetlands
mints
0 — 6
0-4
0 — 2
wetlands = 01 l adjacent wetlands = max
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max ints
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points).
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
fine, homogenous = 0; large,diverse sizes = max ints
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
�.(deep.!y
incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
l3
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
—
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max tats
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
D 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max is
16
Presence of riffle-pooVripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
E-4
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = mawpoints)
l$
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canoex = maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
1+iA*
0-4-,
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0 — 4
0-5
0-5
s
no evidence = 0• commor4 numerous qMs = maxpoints)
�}
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
Ono
evidence = 0• common, numerous s = max points)
Presence offish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common,numerous s = max points
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = maxpoints).
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

iCe" N ^4)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
�1131/8'
s These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
E
#
CHARACTERISTICS
0 —5
0-4
0-5
SC`OR�
Mountain
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max ints
Coastal - Piedmont
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
. 0-4 .
0-5
0-5
0-5
no flow Or saturation = 0; stmug flow = max ints
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = maxrots
Z
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 — 5
0-3
0-4
0-5
/
extensive alteration = q;,10 altelmoon =.max rots
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = maxpoints)I
3
Riparian zone
0-6
t} — 4
0-5
r
0-5
no buffer = 0- conn ons, wide buffer = max
substantial im act fp; no evidence = maxpoints)
/
_
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical disci�arges
0 — 5,
0-4
0-4
0-5
0-6
1
extensive disch s = 0; no diso . es =max rots
no riffl*ijpples or pools = 0• well-developed = max rots
,
5
Groundwater discharge
0— 3
0— 4_-
d— 4
'
0-6
no discharge = 0; springs, .. s, wetlands etc. = max rots_
little or no habitat = 0; uent, varied habitats = max points)0—G
m
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0- 4
0— 4
0- 2
LI
y
no floai lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max np#s .
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = maxpoints)
/
Entrenchment / floodplain access
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 — 4
,i
W
0— 5
0— 4
D— 2
2
(deeply entrenched = 0 frequent fl = max rots
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0 — 4
0-5
0-5
$
Presence of adjacent wetlands
-0-6
0-4
0-2
no wetlands = 0;1 _ adjacent_ wetlands = max rots.
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0— 4
0-3
extensive chane eliration = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
Presence of fish
0 — 4
0-4
10
Sediment input �
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max porots .
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
j
l l
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
fine, homo enous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxrats
100
100
1002-9
1
s These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
E
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 —5
0-4
0-5
2
yr
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max ints
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = maxrots
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
/
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = maxpoints)I
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
substantial im act fp; no evidence = maxpoints)
_
16
Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
H
no riffl*ijpples or pools = 0• well-developed = max rots
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; uent, varied habitats = max points)0—G
l8
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0—S
0-5
J
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = maxpoints)
/
rl
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 — 4
dee l embedded = 0; .loose structure = .max . .
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0 — 4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = maxpoints)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
Q
no evidence = 0; common,, numerous es = maxpoints)
22
Presence of fish
0 — 4
0-4
no evidence = 0 • common,numerous s = maxpoints)0-4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points
Total Points Passible
100
100
1002-9
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
s These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
E

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
extensive cnannei ation =, 0; natural meander = maxPoints)- i
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition- 0; little or no sediment = marcm: 4).. -- -
#
CnARACTERtISTICS
NA*
0-4
0-5
f
SCOL
Coastal,
fine, homogenous = 0;1-. e, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
�iiedment
Moana.
1
Presence of flow i persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4.,
0 5
3
no flow or sPiration.= 0; strung flow. = max
ints
13
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-5
— 6
9 5
0-5
severe erosion = 0;.no erasion, stable banks = maxpoints)
extensive alteration = 0- no alteration = maxPoints)0
..
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
3
Riparian zone
/
0-60—
4
0— 5
no. buffer= 0• conn uous,.wide buffer=max
rots
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
' 0-5
0-4
0-4:.
p
extensive discharges =9; - no discharges. = max
rots
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
1
12-2no
5
Groundwater discharge
riffles/ripples les or is = 0• well-developed= max points)
Habitat complexity
0-3
0-4.-
0-4—
1
no discharge = 0• springs, seeps, wetlands etc. =max ids
0-6
0-6
0– 6
r.rPresence
6
of adjacent floodplain
0 5
0-4
0-4
0-2
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
no flood lain = 0; exiensive floc►d lain =max
npfs
deeply@eeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
Entrenchment / floodplain access
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page d)
0-4
a
7
>
0-5
0-4
0-2
(deep] entrenched = 0• fieguent figoft = max
p2rnljl
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
J
O
Presence of adjacent wetlands
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max ints
.0-6
0-4
0-2
F9
no wetlands = 0;1. ad'acent. wetlands = max
ittts .
0-4
0-4
0
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-1
1
extensive cnannei ation =, 0; natural meander = maxPoints)- i
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition- 0; little or no sediment = marcm: 4).. -- -
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
11
size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
f
fine, homogenous = 0;1-. e, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of chapel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0;.no erasion, stable banks = maxpoints)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
/
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
/
substantial impact fQ• no evidence = max is
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0 – 6
12-2no
riffles/ripples les or is = 0• well-developed= max points)
Habitat complexity
1
little habitat = 0; frequent, habitats =
0-6
0-6
0– 6
1
or no varied max porots
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy= maxpoints)–
0 – 5
0 5
0 – 5
/
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
deeply@eeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page d)
0-4
0-5
0-5
>
tto evidence = 0• common numerous types. = maxpoints)
0
2i
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
J
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max ints
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous s = max poistis
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0– 5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100.
ZS
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on fast page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NM 3 v)R) 17
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
#
CHARACTEERLSTIC
S(:`(3R
Coastal . -
Piedmont
Ma�n�
_
Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
no flow or saturation.= 0; -strong flow ..= max F),
2
Evideute of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0— 5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3.
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no. buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max iris
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
p 5
0— 4
8— 4
extensive discharges = 0y no disch . es = max points)
5
Crodwater discharge
u.2
0-3
Q-4_-
0-4
—
no disc rin s,etc.=
wetlands max
b
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max infs
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7(deep.1
'entrenched
0-4
0 — 2
= 0; uent fl = max points)0-5
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2t
no wetlan_ ds = 0;1_ a a jlacenwetlands = max ints
9
Channel sinuosity
0— S
0— 4
0-3
l
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
t
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)f
I 1Size
& diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
/
(fine, homogenous = 0; lar a diverse sizes = max int)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
�—
�+
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks ±= max ints
13presence
of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
f
�-�
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max po
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
H
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu out = maxpoints)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0--4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max rots
16
Presence or jr iifle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
F
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max int)
l7
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)
l8
Canopy coverage over streambed
0--5
0--5
0-5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 — 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0' common numerous qWs = maxpoints)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
-
O
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = maxpoints)
"a
O z2
- Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
�
no evidence = 0; cornmoA numerous types = maxpoints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use15r
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max ints
Total Points Possible
100
.100
100.
p
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
#
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
CHARACTERISTICScoastal,
•
Piedmnnt
Mountain,SCORE
1
Presenceof flow l persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
O_5
no flow or saU ation = 0; ArOn flew = UMP ints
2
Evidence of past human alteration
o-6
fl— S
0-5
exiensiVe alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian .zone
G-6
0-4
0-5
no: buffer = 0- con& ous, wide buffer = max " is
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
I
extensive dist - s = 0, no disc . _. es =max rots
.
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4,-
0 —4
no disc = 0• rin s, wetlands etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 — 4
0-2
no floodplain = 0; extensive flood lAin = max ants
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
'
0-5
0-4
0-2
??
d 1 entrenched = 0; fiNuent t122ft = maxpoints)J
.8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
no wetlands = 0; lmvp adjacent. wetlands=. = max
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5.
0-4
0-3
I
extensive channelizaiion =,O; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
`
extensive de ax deposition-- 0; little or no sediment = mpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
fine, homo enous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2-
>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxrots
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = maxpoints)
e
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
E.,
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max rots .
15
impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 4
0-5
substantial impact =0, no evidence = maxpoints)
16
Presence or riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
J
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed= maxpoints)
Habitat
-
17
complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max ints
18
Canopy coverage over streambed0
— 5
0 5
fl — 5
'
no shadingvegetation = 0; continuous canopy= maxpoints)—
14
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 — 4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 _ 5
0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous s = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
Ono
evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0— 6
0— 5
0— 5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max ints
z
Total Points Possible
100
100
100 Q
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
#
CHARACTEtISTICS
SCORE
- Coastal, -iedmant
Moentain.
1
- ' Presence of flow ! persistent pools in stream
0-5
� . 0-4
_ • 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0. s1rong flow =,maxpoints)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
.0-6
l
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max . mts
-0-5
.0-5
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-3
j
no buffer = 0- coa#giqtts,, wide buffer = max. ims
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical d wharges -
0-5.
:.0-4
0-4
r
extensive disch s =il; no disc ... es = max into
!
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4..
0-4
no discharge = 0• son"ngs, seeps, wetlands etc. = maxpoints)_
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0- 4
0- 4
0- 2
no flood lain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
r
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
y
0-5
..0-4
0-2
d 1 entrenched = 0; Lmquent fl22&1 = maxpoint'.)
.8
Presence of adjacent wetlands0
_
0-4
0 - 2
no wetlands = 0; i gwent, wetlands = max rots "
Channel sinuosity
0- 5
0- 4
0- 3
extensive channelization =. 0; nat�ai meander = umints
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive de sition-- 0; little or no sediment = maxwits.
-
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
!
fine, homo enous = 0 • lar a diverse sizes = max ints
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
>4(deeplyincised
= 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = maxpoints)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
00
I5
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0--5
J
substantial finpact =0; no evidence = max ints
16
Presence of riffle-pooltrippie-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0- 6
I
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max rots
Habitat complexity
160
17
=
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
little or no habitat 0; cent, varied habitats = max points)
1 S
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shadiqZ vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max porots
0-5
0-5
0-5
/
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
f
dee 1 . embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous tM2s = max ints
0
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
ano
evidence = 0; common, numeroust5rpes = max ints
O
22
Presence of fish
0- 4
0- 4
0- 4 -�
no evidence = 0• commo numerous es = max points)
90
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)v
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
2�
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

70\1� C-( ( 4
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed iri coastal streams
#
CHARACTERISTIC
SCORES
Coastal..
Piedmont
1Viou
1
Presence.of flow I persistent pools in stream
0-5
.0-4
O_5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max ints
f
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-60
— 5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no aherat_ion = max rots .
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no, buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
.0-5
< 0-4
0 — 4 '
extensive disch es = 0; no disc es = max rots
.
,
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4,..
0-4
no discharge = o; springs,s, wetlands etc. = max rots.
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
no flood Iain = 0; extensive flopd 1Ain. =max poLnts
Entrenchment I floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
"
] entrenched = 0, cent 1122 = ma_ x rots
/
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
.0-6.
0-4
0-2
no wetlands = 0; 1..y adjacent wetlands = max ints
Channel sinuosity
0 5
0- 4
. 0— 3
extensive channelb ation = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition-- 01 little or no sediment =maxin_ is .
I i
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
line, homogenous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max rots
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max pohit.0
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0; no. erosion, stable banks = maxpoints)
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0— 4
0-5Llno
F15
visible roots = 0• dense roots throe nut = max intsImpactbyagriculture,
livestock, or timber production
— 5
0 — 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max ints
16
Presence of riffle-pool/tipple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pook — 0• well-developed = max rots
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
1$
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
no shadingvegetation = 0; continuous canopy= maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddeduess
NA*
0-4'
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = .max .. -
20
Presence of stream invertebrates {see page 4)
0 — 5
0-5
r�
no evidence = 0• common numerous s = maxpoints)0-4
021
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max poin22 ts
{O
Presence of fishn
0 — 4
0-4
0 — 4
,
no evidence = 0; common,numerous s = max fats .
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max ints
Total Points Possible
100
100
100.
TOTAL. SCORE (also enter on first page
* These characteristics are not assessed iri coastal streams

)- C2 ,5
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
O 22 Presence of fish 0— 4 0— 4 0— 4
no evidence = 0• common,numerous s =max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max ints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100.
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on fust pale)
* These characteristics are not assessed in"coastal streams
2
#
CHARAC,TERISTICS_
t
SC4I1-1
Ctmstaf . -
�'ied`ntant
Mositdain.
Presence..of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
.0-5
no flow or saturation = 0;str o now = max . rots
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0— 5
0-5
3
(extensive alteTation = 0; no alteration = max pprots
3
kiparian zone
©— 6
0-4
0
no buffer = 0 Conti nus; wide buffer = anax-Points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharge's
0— 5
0-4
0-4..
extensive discharges = 0, no discha. es =maxpoints
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
no disc4Me `- 0; rin s, se s, wetlands etc... = max ints
.:
60
Presence of adjacent floodplain
— 4
0-4
0-2
?
y
no floodplain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points.)y�
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
"entrenched
0-5
0--4
0-2
d 1 = 0, firqucnt Bqoft = max ints
.9
Presence of adjacent wetlands - .
'0-6
0 — 4
0-2
no wetlands 0; .__ adjacent wetlands .:=.max rots .
9
Channel sinuosity'
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization =.0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input -
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition-- 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I 1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 5
2
fine, homo enous = 0; lar a diverse sizes = max. points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
?+
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max ints
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
�'
�-�
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)c
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
E+.
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw out = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 5
0-4
0 — 5
substantial impact �; no evidence = max is
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
N
no riffles/ripples or is = 0• well 12d d = max ints
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
�f
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)!
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
0-4
0 — 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)NA*
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 — 5
0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous s = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
O
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = maxpoints)
O 22 Presence of fish 0— 4 0— 4 0— 4
no evidence = 0• common,numerous s =max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max ints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100.
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on fust pale)
* These characteristics are not assessed in"coastal streams
2

H C rl- C q/-3jI �,
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
#J",
CHARACTERISTICS
SCOR9
coastal,
Piedmont
Mountain.
1
Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream -�
� 0-5
0-4 -
� 0-5
_
no flow pr satulahon. = O; strop flow = znts
_
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0— 6
0— S
0— 5
3
extensive alteration = 0; no altom ion = max furs
3
Riparian zone
D-6
0-4
0-5
no.buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
.0 _ 5
0-4
0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4--
0-4
. mo disc = 0; springs,seeps, wetlands etc, = max inti
!.0
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
-
0-4
0-2
y
no floodplain = 0; extensive flood Iain = max . fats
�y+
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
7d
5
0— 4
0— 2
j
1 entrenched = 0; cent fl = maxpoints)0—
.9
Presence of adjacent wetl$nds
0 — 6
0-4
0-2
t�
no wetlands = 0;. I .. e.ad'acent, wetlands = max hats
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max inti
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment W maxpoints)
1 I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
2
fine homo enous = 0; Iar a diverse sizes =max ants
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5 — 5
>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max imts
f
l 3
Presence of major bank failures
0- 5
0— 5
0— 5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max inti
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
Z
no visible roots = 0• dense roots ±MurJ1out = max porots .
rA
15
impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
16
Presence or riffle-poottripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
E
no riffies/ri. les or pools = 0; well-developed = max rots
.�
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
little or no habitat = 0; fLeguent, varied habitats = maxpoints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 — 5
0-5
no shadingvegetation = 0; continuous canopy= maxpoints)0-5
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
-
0 4
0 — 5
0 — 5
'
no evidence = 0• common numerous -types = max inti
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max rots
/
0 22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0; commoA numerous types = max POrots
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6 `
0-5
0-5
Z
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max . rots
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
'
TOTAL SCORE (afro enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

1��,Z, -�> ( V,4 *N �� Nvc- r-47 ) jl I
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed iri coastal streams
CHARAi."f+,iti.STICSCflastaf.
menti
Mon 10J.
1
Presence of flow ! persistent pools in stream=
_
.. 0-5
0-4
• 0-5
- -points)
no flow or souration = 0, �n flow = max tats _
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 — 5
0 — 5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max . fats
3
Wparian zone
0-6
0-4
0—s
(!!o,buffer= 0• c2mti ous, wide buffer = max
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharge's
0 - 5
0. 4
0 — 4
extensive disc es =it; no dice ,., es = max irrts
,
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0--4,-
0-4
no dischar = 0; springs,seeps, wetlands etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2 , 1
`7
no floodplain = 0; extensive flood lain = max ixets
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
'
deeply entrenched = 0; Lmquent Lo2ft = maxpoints)
Presence of adjacent wetlirnds
0-6
0 - 4
0-2)
no wetlands = Ox fargo adjacent. wetlands;--maxpoints
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander =max rots
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4 0-4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = Max POWs)
i 1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4 0-5
fine, homogenous = 0;Inc, diverse sizes = max p2rntjs
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4 0-5
>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5 0-5 2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = maxrots
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0--4 0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max ints
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4 0-5
substantial im act =0; no evidence = max ants
16
Presence of riffle-poollrlpple-pool complexes
0-3
0 — 5 0-6
no riffles/ripples les or is = 0• well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
— 6
0-6 0 — 6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)0
f�
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
'
0-5 0-5
no shading vegetation = 0, continuous canopy = max pottJs
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4 0-4 Z
(deeply embedded = 0; .loose structure = znax
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5 0-5 Z
no evidence = 0• common, numerous t5Ws = maxpoints)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4 0-4 {
Q
no evidence = 0• conunon, numerous s = max points)
;
22
Presence offish0 .'
0-4
D-4 0-4
no evidence = 0• common,numerous es = max rots
23
Evidence of wildlife use
1
0-6
0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max iota
Total Points Possible
100
.100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on Furst page)
* These characteristics are not assessed iri coastal streams

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

-/P I yf3h,�
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in�coastal streams
ECOREGION
POINT
RAN69
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = maxpoints)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max pDints
3
Riparian zone
0 — 4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)0-6
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
5
Groundwater discharge
0— 3
0— 4
0— 4
no discharge = 0; springs, se s, wetlands, etc. = max Dints
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
y
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Fri
A4
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = maxpoints)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max ints
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition= 0• Iittle or no sediment = max ints
I 1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
L
fine, homo enous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
'+
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = maxpoints)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
substantial impact —0; no evidence = maxpoints)
K
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
E
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
r--
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cano =max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
>(
no evidence = 0• common numerous t22s = max ints
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous VAns = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
J
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in�coastal streams

lPz `i�3%rX
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in` coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = maxpoints)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)l
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
V
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max pDints
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0 — 4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max oints)0-6
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
fine, homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
F,
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max Dints
i 5
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
E
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed =maxpoints)
e4
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
no shadingvegetation = 0; continuous canopy= max oints
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = maxpoints)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in` coastal streams.

� yj=lisp
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
EC0WG-1 NPO
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = maxpoints)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0 — 4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)0-6
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive dischar es — 0; no dischar es =max ints
-"�
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)J
I
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
y,
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points
pi
7
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
p"'
(dee 1 entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = maxpoints)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
t
no wetlands = 0; large 4acent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
i
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
1 I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points
[y+,
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
(�
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
1
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
r/
I S
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = maxpoints)
16
Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or nnnk = 0; well-develo ed =max oints
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
-
shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = maxpoints)
rno
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = maxpoints)
G7
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

Appendix I —Wetland JD Forms and Maps

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505 County: Davie U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Farmington
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor: North Carolina Deoartment of Environmental Oualitv, Division of Mitigation Services
Harry Tsomides
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone Number: 828-545-7057
E-mail: harry.tsomides(dncdenr.gov
Size (acres) 37.0 Nearest Town Mocksville
Nearest Waterway Yadkin River River Basin Upper Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040101 Coordinates Latitude: 36.0261
Longitude: -80.5050
Location description: The review areas are located on the west side of Spillman Road. PINS: 5853144949, 05853153934,
5843932576, 5853416631, 5852594790, 5853601920, 58535114536, 5853164843, and 5853173894. Reference review area
description in Jurisdictional Determination Request Package entitled "Potential Wetland or Non -Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Map" and Printed Date of 2/28/2018.
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 on the enclosed delineation map dated 2/28/2018. 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 wetlands, on 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 -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505
❑ 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 MAP DATE. If you
wish to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon completion. Once verified, this survey
will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA 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 SURVEY SIGNED DATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] 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 Brvan Roden-Revnolds at 704-510-1440 or
b ry an. ro den-revno ld s(d, u s ace. armv. mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 03/26/2018.
D. Remarks: None.
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)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
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.

SAW -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505
Corps Regulatory Official: RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574 so��� ,"o ="vK o `Isa, IEIHEY111151Ir IIEIIE,Ea 111114
Date of JD: 03/26/2018 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

SAW -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.anny.mil/cm_apex/Vp=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Agent:
Resource Environmental Solutions
Jeremv Schmid
Address:
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Telephone Number:
919-926-1473
E-mail:
i schmid(d res.0 s

SAW -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: North Carolina Department of
File Number: SAW -2017-01469 and
Date: 03/26/2018
Environmental Oualitv, Division of Mitigation Services,
SAW -2017-01505
Harry Tsomides
Attached is: See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission) A
❑ PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission B
❑ PERMIT DENIAL C
❑ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
® PRELIM"NARY JUT rrnICTIONAL DF "TNATION 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.gM.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Res4ulatoiyPros4ramandPennits.aspx
or the 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.

SAW -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505
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. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Bryan Roden -Reynolds
CESAD-PDO
Asheville Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Phone: [phone]
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 opportuni to participate in all site investi 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: Bryan Roden -Reynolds , 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. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 03/26/2018
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Mitigation Services, Harry Tsomides, 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102, Asheville, NC 28801
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Scout and Mockingbird Sites,
SAW -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review areas are located on the west
side of Spillman Road. PINS: 5853144949, 05853153934, 5843932576, 5853416631, 5852594790, 5853601920,
58535114536, 5853164843, and 5853173894. Reference review area description in Jurisdictional Determination
Request Package entitled "Potential Wetland or Non -Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map" and Printed Date of 2/28/2018.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Davie City: Mocksville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 36.0261 Longitude: -80.5050
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Yadkin River
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 10/03/17 and 02/15/18

TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Estimated amount of
Geographic authority to
Type of aquatic
aquatic resources in
which the aquatic resource
Latitude (decimal
Longitude (decimal
resources (i.e.,
Site Number
review area (acreage
'may be" subject (i.e.,
degrees)
degrees)
wetland vs. non -
and linear feet, if
Section 404 or Section
wetland waters)
applicable
10/404)
Scout Site (SAW -2017-01469)
Wetland
36.0028026
-80.5144835
0.75 acres
Wetland
404
WD
Stream
36.030105
-80.516072
2,428 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
HC3
Stream
36.030583
-80.517263
238 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
JD1
Stream
36.029308
-80.515734
77 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
JD2
Mockingbird Site (SAW -2017-01505)
Wetland
36.026870
-80.504691
0.83 acres
Wetland
404
WA
Wetland
36.023060
-80.503075
0.08 acres
Wetland
404
WB
Wetland
36.020154
-80.503590
0.13 acres
Wetland
404
WC
Wetland
36.024412
-80.504582
0.36 acres
Wetland
404
WE
Wetland
36.024210
-80.504827
0.05 acres
Wetland
404
WF
Wetland
36.023900
-80.504506
0.23 acres
Wetland
404
WG
Wetland
36.025417
-80.505161
0.75 acres
Wetland
404
WH
Stream
36.036092
-80.516843
1,960 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
HC1
Stream
36.021119
-80.503956
855 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
HC2-A
Stream
36.023879
-80.504621
937 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
HC2-B
Stream
36.025208
-80.505265
426 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
HC2-C

Stream
36.025872
-80.506699
455 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
HC2-D
Stream
36.039677
-80.517472
505 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
JS1
Stream
36.034585
-80.516771
378 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
NM1
Stream
36.035076
-80.518932
1,148 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
NM2
Stream
36.037264
-80.516842
202 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
NM3
Stream
36.037801
-80.515787
310 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
N M4
Stream
36.037645
-80.516801
101 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
NM5
Stream
36.021662
-80.503054
380 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
TP1
Stream
36.023014
-80.503143
438 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
TP2
Stream
36.026046
-80.505192
489 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
TP3
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 (AID) 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 AID 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 AID
before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AID 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 AID
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 AID
or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AID, 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 AID 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: Vicinity Map Dated 10/26/2017
® 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: USGS Map, 1:24,000 Farmington
® Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soils Map, Davie County Dated 10/26/2017
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: National Wetlands Inventory Map, USFWS NWI Mapper
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMAIFIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ®Aerial (Name & Date): Potential Wetland or Non -Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map Dated
02/28/2018
or ❑Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been
verified by the Corus and should not be relied uuon for later iurisdictional determinations.
RODEN Digitally signed byRODEN
REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KEN N ETH.1263385574
REYNOLDS.BRYAN.K ON: c=US,o=U.S.Government, ou=DoD,
ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=RODEN
ENNETH.1263385574 oat"°o°8.0326"42558T 4'003385574
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing PJD
03/26/2018
Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable)'
1 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.

Appendix J —Invasive Species Plan

INVASIVE SPECIES PLAN
Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
project. These site inspections may identify the presence of invasive vegetation. RES will treat invasive
species vegetation within the project area and provide remedial action on a case by- case basis. Common
invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), will be treated to
allow native plants to become established within the conservation easement. Invasive species vegetation
will be treated by approved mechanical and/or chemical methods such that the percent composition of
exotic/invasive species is less than 5% of the total riparian buffer area. Any control methods requiring
herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules
and regulations. If areas of invasive species exist within the easement, they will be monitored yearly as part
of the monitoring protocol, and treated if necessary. If required, problem areas will continue to be treated
until the project easement shows overall trending towards meeting all monitoring requirements.

Appendix K —Approved FHWA
Categorical Exclusion Form

Categorical Exclusion Form for Division of Mitigation Services
Projects
Version 1.4
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Mockingbird
Coun Name: Davie
DMS ID Number: 100021
Project Sponsor. Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Project Contact Name: Cara Conder
Project Contact Address: 302 Jefferson Street Suite 110, Raleigh, NC 27605
Project Contact E-mail: cconder res.us
DMS Project Manager: Haa Tsomides
Project Description
The Mockingbird site is a stream restoration site in the Turner and Hauser Creeks
(Yadkin River: 03040101160010) watershed whose objectives are to restore or
enhance 8,799 linear feet of a portion of Hauser Creek and seven unnamed
tributaries. The project watershed is primarily forested and mixed agricultural land,
and has historically served this purpose. Most project reaches are currently being
impacted by livestock production, agricultural production, and lack of riparian buffer.
A combination of stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation is proposed to
increase hydrologic and ecological function and protect these natural features in
perpetuity.
Reviewed By:
Date DMS Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
1Z -9-1T
&"#Z��:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8116105

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Q.Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management 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
® N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal
❑ Yes
Management Program?
❑ No
® N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
® 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?
® 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
® 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
® 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?
® No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
® 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
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

Part 3: Ground -Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Q.Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Reliciious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians? ® No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® 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
❑ Yes
objects of antiquity?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Archaeolociical Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
® Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
® No
❑ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the specie and/or "likely to adversely
❑ Yes
modify" Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
® N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

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?
® No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian
❑ Yes
sacred sites?
❑ No
® N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
® Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
® Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6 f
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
® N/A
Maq nuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Manaciement Act Essential Fish Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the
❑ Yes
MBTA?
® No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

Categorical Exclusion Summary
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly
known as Superfund, created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries to clean up abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
As a part of the ERTR and CERCLA compliance, an EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck was ordered
for the Mockingbird Mitigation Site through Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR) on July 10, 2017.
According to the EDR report, there were not listed sites located within I mile of the project site. In addition
to the EDR search, a visual inspection of the Mockingbird site was conducted to assess the potential for the
occurrence of recognized environmental conditions on the property that might not have been revealed in
the EDR report. The inspection was conducted to locate and identify any obvious use, storage, or generation
of hazardous materials. No hazardous storage containers or substances were observed.
Overall, the EDR assessment revealed no evidence of "recognized environmental conditions" in connection
with the target property. The summary of the EDR report is included in the Appendix.
National Historical Preservation Act (Section 106)
The National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) is legislation intended to preserve historical and
archaeological sites in the United States of America. RES requested review and comment from the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) with respect to any archaeological and architectural resources related
to the Mockingbird Mitigation Site on October 20', 2017. SHPO responded on November 3, 2017 and had
no objections to the Mockingbird Project. The correspondence SHPO can be found in the Appendix.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) provides
important protections and assistance for those people affected by federally funded projects. The Uniform
Act applies to the acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of real property for federally funded projects.
The Mockingbird Mitigation Site is a full -delivery project that includes land acquisition. Notification of
fair market value of the property and the lack of condemnation authority was completed by RES. The
landowner was notified of fair market value and condemnation authority was listed in the option agreement.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7 of the ESA 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.
Davie County's list of threatened and endangered species include Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii) and
Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis). Other than the NLEB, the Mockingbird
Mitigation Site does not support any habitat related to any of the threatened or endangered species listed
above.
During site visits performed by RES, no NLEB individuals were found to exist on the site. A completed
NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamline Consultation Form will be submitted by the Federal Highways Administration
to the USFWS is included in Appendix F. The NLEB 4(d) Rules states "that the project may affect the
NLEB, but that any resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule." All
correspondence with the USFWS is included in the Appendix.

Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on
the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The Mockingbird
Mitigation Site includes the conversion of prime farmland. As such, Form AD -1006 has been completed
and submitted to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The completed form and
correspondence is included in the Appendix.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of the United States was enacted to protect fish and
wildlife when federal actions result in the control or modification of a natural stream or body of water.
Since the Mockingbird Mitigation Site includes stream restoration RES requested comment from the North
Carolina Fish and Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). The NCWRC responded on December 1,
2017 and stated there are no records for any listed aquatic species in the vicinity of the project. All
correspondence can be found in Appendix F.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship import, or
extort and 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 at taking.
RES requested comment on the Mockingbird Mitigation Site from the USFWS regarding migratory birds
on October 20', 2017. The USFWS responded on November 20, 2017 and stated that besides the Northern
long-eared bat, there is no record of other federally protected species in the project vicinity. All
correspondence with USFWS will be included in the Appendix.

fires
October 20, 2017
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of 33 Terminal Way
any historic properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Renee Gledhill -Earley
Suite 130
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
Owings Mills, MD
site disturbance associated with this project.
z11v
4617 Mail Service Center
Suite 110
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Sincerely,
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
2Floor
Richmond, VA
100 Calhoun St.
The Mockingbird Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) to
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts. The proposed project involves
29401
the restoration and enhancement of approximately 8,800 linear feet of stream.
5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
RES requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
Houston, TX
archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential stream mitigation project on the
77006
Mockingbird Site (a USGS site map with approximate limits of conservation easement is attached).
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database
Lafayette, LA
(hllp:Hgis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/; accessed October 11, 2017) was performed as part of the site due
70508
diligence evaluation. The database did not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or
1371/2 East Main St.
archeological resources on the proposed properties. In addition, the majority of the site has
Suite 210
historically been disturbed due to cattle grazing.
oak Hill, WV
25901
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of 33 Terminal Way
any historic properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You
Suite 431
may return the comment to my attention at the address below, or via email. Please feel free to
Pittsburgh, PA
contact me at mdeangelo(&res.us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of
15219
site disturbance associated with this project.
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605
Sincerely,
1521 W. Main
2Floor
Richmond, VA
233 220
Matt DeAngelo
Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
November 3, 2017
Kim Browning
Mitigation Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Mockingbird Mitigation Site, SAW 2017-01505, Davie County, ER 17-1790
Dear Ms. Browning:
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
We have received a public notice concerning the above project. We apologize for the delay in our
response.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewkncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
60VRamona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

fires
October 20, 2017
Sincerely,
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Mr. Vann Stancil
Suite 130
Habitat Conservation Biologist
�
Owings Mills, MD
Matt DeAn elo
21117
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Floo
2 or
215 Jerusalem Church Road
412 N. 4th St.
Kenly, NC 27542
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
Subject: Project Scoping for Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Project in Davie County.
100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
Dear Mr.Stancll,
29401
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on an possible issues that might
P 1P q Y P �
5020 Montrose Blvd.
suite 650
emerge with respect to fish and wildlife associated with a potential stream restoration project on
Houston, TX
the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground
77006
disturbance are enclosed). The Mockingbird Site has been identified by Resource Environmental
Solutions, LLC (RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts. The
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 8,800 linear feet of
Lafayette, LA
stream. The site is currently used for cattle grazing and the stream channels have been channelized
70508
and impounded.
1371/2 East Main St.
Suite 210
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment
Oak Hill, WV
to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at mddeangelo(a)res.us with
25901
any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this
33 Terminal Way
project.
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
15219
Sincerely,
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605
Matt DeAn elo
121
1251Main
g
Floo
2 or
Ecologist
Richmond, VA
23220
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]

From: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 1:17 PM
To: Matthew DeAngelo
Subject: RE: [External] Mockingbird Mitigation Site
Matt,
Thanks for the opportunity to review these 3 mitigation project for issues related to fish and wildlife.
The Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site is located on Hauser Creek and its tributaries in Davie
County. Hauser Creek is a direct tributary to the Yadkin River. There's an existing easement
downstream of this new mitigation site. There are no records for any listed aquatic species in the
vicinity of this project.
The Catbird Stream Mitigation Site appears to be located on an unnamed tributary to the Yadkin River
located east of Hauser Creek in Davie County. There are no records for any listed aquatic species in the
vicinity of this project.
The Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Site is located in Surry County on Mill Creek and 3 of it's
tributaries. Mill Creek is a tributary to the Mitchell River. While there are no records of listed aquatic
species in Mill Creek, there are records for brook floater, Alasmidonta varicosa, in the Mitchell River
upstream and downstream of the Mill Creek confluence. Brook floater is a state endangered
species. I've consulted with our aquatic biologists about the possibility of brook floaters in Mill
Creek. There are no records from Mill Creek, but we don't have any records of collection efforts there
either. So brook floaters may inhabit Mill Creek, near the area proposed for restoration. Our biologist
plan to investigate Mill Creek to see if there are brook floaters present or if the habitat there is likely to
support them. If brook floaters, or another listed aquatic species is found, additional measures will be
needed to protect these species if restoration efforts are likely to impact them. While restoration
efforts are likely to improve habitat conditions in the long term in Mill Creek, and potentially improve
conditions downstream in the Mitchell River as well, there may be short term impacts to aquatic species
and habitats during restoration. Additional measures during restoration may be needed to minimize
these short term impacts.
Regarding terrestrial species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently listed the northern
long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Davie & Surry
counties are within the range
(https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf) of the northern long-
eared bat and may be present or in the vicinity of the project site. As such, consultation with the USFWS
may be required. For more information, please see
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/ or
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/NLEB RFO.html or contact the Asheville office of the USFWS to ensure
that potential issues related to this species are addressed.
Please let me know if I can assist further. Also, feel free to follow up on the results of survey efforts in
Mill Creek if you have not yet heard from me.
Thanks,
Vann

From: Matthew DeAngelo [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 12:50 PM
To: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>
Cc: Brad Breslow <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Mockingbird Mitigation Site
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you verify that the attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail].
Dear Mr. Stancil,
The Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
(RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. The purpose of this letter is to request, review, and
comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife associated with a
potential stream restoration project on the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property
lines and areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed along with a KMZ file). We thank you in
advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to my attention at the
address below. Please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] with any questions that you may
have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Matt DeAngelo
Ecologist
RES I res.us
Direct: 984.255.9133 1 Mobile: [phone]
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

fires
October 20, 2017
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (accessed 11 October 2017) lists one
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Mrs. Janet Mizzi
Suite 130
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Owings Mills, MD
protected species or potential habitat for protected species was observed during preliminary site
z11v
Asheville Field Office
33 Terminal Way
160 Zillicoa Street
412 N. 4th St.
Asheville, NC 28801
Suite 300
project.
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
Subject: Project Scoping for Mockingbird Mitigation Site in Davie County
suite 110
100 Calhoun St.
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the construction of a stream restoration
Suite 320
project on the subject property. Maps showing the location and approximate limits of the
Charleston, SC
Dear Mrs. Mlzzl,
29401
Resource Environmetal Solutions (RES) requests review and comment from the United States Fish
5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on any possible concerns they may have with regards to the
Houston, TX
implementation of the Mockingbird Mitigation Project. Please note that this request is in support
77006
of the development of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the referenced The
project. proposed
1200 Camellia Blvd.
project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 8,800 linear feet of stream The
Suite 220
Site is currently in agricultural use, specifically as pasture and row crops.
Lafayette, LA
70508
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (accessed 11 October 2017) lists one
1371/2 East Main St.
endangered species for Davie County, North Carolina: Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The
Suite 210
database also lists the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as a threatened species. No
Oak Hill, WV
protected species or potential habitat for protected species was observed during preliminary site
25901
evaluations. A review of the NHP database indicates that there are no known occurrences of state
33 Terminal Way
threatened or endangered species within a one -mile radius of the project area. Based on initial site
Suite 431
investigations, no impacts to federally protected species are anticipated as a result of the proposed
g p Y p p p p p
Pittsburgh, PA
15219
project.
302 Jefferson St.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
suite 110
Raleigh, NC
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the construction of a stream restoration
27605
project on the subject property. Maps showing the location and approximate limits of the
conservation easement are enclosed.
1521 W. Main
21 Floor
Richmond, VA
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment
23220
to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at mdean elo&res.us with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
A%VA'6�
Matt DeAngelo
Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]

ua
United States Department of the Interior `-�L �
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
November 20, 2017
Mr. Matt DeAngelo
Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Dear Mr. DeAngelo:
Subject: Mockingbird Mitigation Site; Davie County, North Carolina
Log No. 4-2-18-027
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence received via email dated October 20, 2017. We submit the following comments
in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); and
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to your correspondence, you are seeking our scoping comments to inform a NEPA
document for a proposed mitigation bank near Farmington, North Carolina. The proposed bank
would entail restoration and enhancement of approximately 8,800 linear feet of Hauser Creek
and its unnamed tributaries. Adjacent land use is dominated by pasture and row crops.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
According to Service records, suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the project
area for the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). 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 (which may or may not require tree
clearing) 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 avoid
any associated tree clearing activities during the maternity roosting season from May 15 —
August 15 if possible.
The Service has record of no other federally protected species in the project vicinity.
We offer the following comments in the interest of protecting fish and wildlife resources:
Stream Channel and Bank Restoration
A natural, stable stream system is one that is able to transport a wide range of flows and
associated bed load (sediment) while maintaining channel features and neither degrading

(accelerating the erosion of banks and scour of the channel bed) nor aggrading (accelerating the
deposition of sediment within the channel). Alterations to the dimension (cross-sectional view of
the channel), pattern (the sinuosity of the channel), or profile (longitudinal slope) of the stream
channel as well as changes to streambank vegetation, floodplains, hydrology, or sediment input
can significantly alter this equilibrium. Accordingly, we recommend the following:
Only the absolute minimum amount of work should be done within stream channels to
accomplish necessary reconstruction. The amount of disturbance to in -stream and
riparian areas should not exceed what can be stabilized by the end of the workday.
Restoration plans should account for the constraints of the site and the opportunities to
improve stream pattern, dimension, and profile with minimal disturbance.
2. All reconstruction work should follow natural channel design methodologies that are
based on the bank -full, or channel -forming, stage of the stream. Bank -full stage
maintains the natural channel dimensions and transports the bulk of sediment over time
(Doll et al. 2003). Natural channel conditions should be identified using a reference
reach (nearby stream reaches that exemplify restoration goals). Restoration design
should match the pattern, dimension, and profile of the reference reach to ensure the
project's success. The Service is available to assist with the identification of reference
reaches.
All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area to the
extent possible. Sandbags, cofferdams, bladder dams, or other diversion structures
should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water. These diversion structures should
be removed as soon as the work area is stable. When practical, a pump -around operation
shall be used to divert flow during construction.
4. Equipment should not be operated in the stream unless absolutely necessary. Machinery
should be operated from the banks in a fashion that minimizes disturbance to woody
vegetation. Equipment should be: (a) washed to remove any contaminant residue prior
to project construction, (b) in good working order, and (c) checked to ensure there are no
leaks of potential contaminants (such as oil or other lubricants) prior to and during
construction.
5. Streambanks with deep-rooted woody vegetation are the most stable, and stream
restoration efforts should incorporate the use of native vegetation adapted to the site
conditions. Biodegradable erosion -control materials may be incorporated into
bank -restoration design in order to stabilize soils as vegetation becomes established.
Live dormant stakes (such as black willow) may be used to reestablish root structure in
riparian areas. In areas where banks are severely undercut, high, and steep, whole -tree
revetment or rock may be used as a stabilization treatment (small rock, gravel, sand, and
dirt are not recommended due to their erosive nature), and it should not extend above the
bank -full elevation (the elevation of the channel where the natural floodplain begins).
Deep -rooting woody vegetation should be established along banks where any channel
work is accomplished. Tree and shrub plantings should be spaced at intervals no greater

than 10 feet along banks. Vegetated riparian zone widths should be as wide as practical
but should extend at least 30 feet from the stream channel.
6. Adequate measures to control sediment and erosion must be implemented prior to any
ground -disturbing activities in order to minimize effects on downstream aquatic
resources. In North Carolina, non -cohesive and erosion -prone soils are most common in
the felsic-crystalline terrains of the mountain and upper piedmont regions (Miller and
Kochel 2010). Therefore, reconstruction work should be staged such that disturbed areas
would be stabilized with seeding, mulch, and/or biodegradable (coir) erosion -control
matting prior to the end of each workday. No erosion -control matting or blankets should
contain synthetic (netting) materials. Matting should be secured in place with staples;
stakes; or, wherever possible, live stakes of native trees. If rain is expected prior to
temporary seed establishment, additional measures should be implemented to protect
water quality along slopes and overburden stockpiles (for example, stockpiles may be
covered with plastic or other geotextile material).
7. Woody debris, detritus, and other vegetative materials are the main sources of nutrients
and carbon necessary for primary productivity in stream ecosystems. Removal of this
material can impact the production of higher trophic levels, including fish. The Service
does not recommend the removal of woody debris within the stream channel or
floodplain unless it is causing a debris blockage (logjam) or will affect the ability to
achieve bank stability along a specific reach of stream. Woody debris that must be
removed should be chipped on the site.
8. At each restoration site, cross-sections (at intervals based on restoration reach size),
longitudinal profiles, and stream -pattern plans should be measured and mapped prior to
and immediately following any channel work. In addition, photographs should be taken
to document the condition of the project site prior to initiating the work and upon
completion of the work. However, since a project's restoration success does not
necessarily equate to biological success, the ecological goals of the project should be
clearly defined and assessed for improvement after construction is completed (Palmer
et al. 2005).
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 225, if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-18-027.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

References
Doll, B.A., G.L. Grabow, K.R. Hall, J. Halley, W.A. Harman, G.D. Jennings, and
D.E. Wise. 2003. Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute, North Carolina State University.
128 pp.
Hall, K. 2003. Recommended Native Plant Species for Stream Restoration in North
Carolina. Raleigh: North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute, North Carolina
State University.
Miller, J.R., and Kochel, R.C. 2010. Assessment of channel dynamics, in -stream
structures and post -project channel adjustments in North Carolina and its
implications to effective stream restoration. Environmental Earth Sciences, 59(8),
pp. 1681-1692.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, J.D. Allan, P.S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr,
S. Clayton, C.N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, and D.L. Galat. 2005. Standards for
ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(2),
pp. 208-217.
:i

Northern Lone -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies should use this form for the optional streamlined consultation framework for the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB). This framework allows federal agencies to rely upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) January 5, 2016, intra -Service Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) on the final 4(d) rule for the
NLEB for section 7(a)(2) compliance by: (1) notifying the USFWS that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework; (2) describing the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and (3) enabling
the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation is required per 50 CFR 402.16.
This form is not necessary if an agency determines that a proposed action will have no effect to the NLEB or if
the USFWS has concurred in writing with an agency's determination that a proposed action may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the NLEB (i.e., the standard informal consultation process). Actions that may cause
prohibited incidental take require separate formal consultation. Providing this information does not address
section 7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Information to Determine 4(d) Rule Compliance:
YES NO
1. Does the project occur wholly outside of the WNS Zone'?
❑
❑X
2. Have you contacted the appropriate agency2 to determine if your project is near
❑X
❑
known hibernacula or maternity roost trees?
3. Could the project disturb hibernating NLEBs in a known hibernaculum?
❑
❑X
4. Could the project alter the entrance or interior environment of a known
❑
❑X
hibernaculum?
5. Does the project remove any trees within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at
❑
❑X
any time of ear?
6. Would the project cut or destroy known occupied maternity roost trees, or any
❑
❑X
other trees within a 150 -foot radius from the maternity roost tree from June 1
through July 31.
You are eligible to use this form if you have answered yes to question #1 or yes to question #2 and no to
questions 3, 4, 5 and 6. The remainder of the form will be used by the USFWS to track our assumptions in the
BO.
Agency and Applicant3 (Name, Email, Phone No.):
Donnie Brew, Donnie.brewkdot.gov, 919-747-7017
Federal Highway Administration
Cara Conder, cconderkres.us, 919-209-1052
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (EBX is an entity of RES)
' http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdVVWNSZone.pdf
z See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nhisites.html
3 If applicable - only needed for federal actions with applicants (e.g., for a permit, etc.) who are party to the consultation.

Project Name: Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site, DMS Project #100021
Project Location (include coordinates if known):
The Project is located in Davie County, approximately eight miles west of Clemmons and five miles northwest of
Bermuda Run. From Raleigh, proceed west on I-40 towards Greensboro. Continue on I-40 West for 115 miles. Take
exit 180B to merge onto NC -801. Stay on NC -801 for 4 miles. Take a right onto Spillman road and continue for
approximately 1 mile and the project will be on the left. Coordinates for the site are as follows: 36.036000 N, -
80.517000 W.
Basic Project Description (provide narrative below or attach additional information):
The Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site is located in Davie County, approximately eight miles west of Clemmons
and five miles northwest of Bermuda Run (Figure 1). The Project is located in the Yadkin River Basin within
Cataloging Unit 03040101, TLW 03040101160010, and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) subbasin 03-07-
02. The Project area includes Hauser Creek and seven unnamed tributaries. The current State classification for
Hauser Creek is Water Supply IV (WS -IV). WS -IV waters are sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or
food processing purposes where a WS -I, II or III classification is not feasible. Water quality stressors currently
affecting the Project include livestock production, agricultural production, and lack of riparian buffer. Field
evaluations determined all reaches to be either intermittent or perennial. A combination of stream restoration,
enhancement, and preservation is proposed to increase hydrologic and ecological function and protect these features
in perpetuity (Figure 2). Reaches proposed for the Project have minimum 50 -foot buffers throughout and RES has
the ability to protect larger buffers if necessary. Agricultural BMPs are proposed above intermittent enhancement
reaches to capture and treat concentrated runoff from adjacent pasture.
The Site will include Priority II stream restoration, stream Enhancement Levels I and II, and stream preservation
on 13 reaches (Figure 2; HCI, NMI, NM2, NM3, NM4. JS1, HC2-A, HC2-B, HC3-C, HC2-D, TPI, TP2, TP3).
Priority II stream restoration will incorporate the design of a single -thread meandering channel, with parameters
based on data taken from reference sites to be identified later, published empirical relationships, regional flood
frequency analyses, NC Regional Curves, and analysis of the downstream Hauser Creek project design and
performance. Analytical design techniques will also be an important element of the project and will be used to
determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.
Priority II Stream Restoration activities will include constructing an E/C type stream with appropriate dimensions
and pattern, reconnecting the channel to the floodplain, and backfilling the abandoned channel. In -stream structures
such as log sills and brush toes will be installed for vertical stability and to improve habitat. Buffer improvements
will filter runoff from agricultural fields, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. The widening
and restoration of the riparian areas will also provide wildlife corridors throughout the project area.
Enhancement I activities will include bank grading and stabilization and the installation of log grade control
structures, brush toes, and live stakes. Stabilization through in -stream structures and bank treatments will enhance
hydrologic function and reduce sediment loads to downstream channels. Habitat will further be improved through
buffer plantings and livestock exclusion. Livestock fencing will follow current NRCS standards and specifications.
The widening and restoration of the riparian areas will provide wildlife corridors throughout the project area. The
re-establishment of minimum 50 -foot buffers will filter runoff from adjacent pastures, thereby reducing nutrient
and sediment loads to the channel.
Enhancement II activities will include the re-establishment of a riparian buffer and live staking the channel banks
with native vegetation. Proposed buffer activities will improve riparian areas that will filter runoff from adjacent
agricultural areas, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. The buffers will extend a minimum
of 50 feet from the top of each bank.

Preservation activities include maintaining a 50 -foot minimum buffer on each bank.
One agricultural BMP will be installed at the upper end of the reach (TP3, Figure 2) to provide nutrient/sediment
control and flow attenuation from the adjacent pasture.
Any tree removal due to the construction of the stream mitigation site will be limited to the area along the channel
banks. An effort will be made to conduct any tree cutting of suitable summer roosting tree species between August
1 and May 31, but will ultimately depend on the construction/contractor timeline.
The following objectives are proposed for accomplishing project goals:
a. The Project presents the opportunity to provide up to 6,047 warm stream mitigation units. These will be
derived from 4,244 linear feet of Priority II Restoration, 449 linear feet of Enhancement I, 3,644 linear feet
of Enhancement II, and 462 linear feet of Preservation (see table below).
b. Restore stable channel morphology and proper sediment transport capacity.
c. Create and improve stream bed form and improve aquatic and benthic macroinvertebrate habitat.
d. Construct a floodplain bench that is accessible at the proposed bankfull channel elevation.
e. Improve channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating in -stream structures and native bank
vegetation.
f. Provide approximately 22.9 acres of riparian buffer restoration by establishing a native forested and
herbaceous riparian buffer plant community with a minimum width of 50 feet from the edge of the restored
channels. This new community will be established in conjunction with the eradication of any existing exotic
or undesirable plant species.
Proposed Mitigation
Reach Restoration Level Linear Feet Mitigation Ratio Stream Mitigation
Units (SMUs)
HCl
Restoration
2,181
1 : 1
JS1
Restoration
561
1 : 1
561
NMI
Enhancement II
383
2.5 : 1
153
NM2
Restoration
1,277
1 : 1
1,277
NM3
Restoration'
225
1:1
225
NM4
Enhancement II
314
2.5 : 1
126
HC2-A
Enhancement II
868
2.5 : 1
347
HC2-B
Enhancement II
857
2.5 : 1
343
HC2-C
Enhancement I
449
1.5 : 1
299
HC2-D
Preservation
462
10 : 1
46
TPI
Enhancement II
265
2.5 : 1
106
TP2
Enhancement II
450
2.5 : 1
180
TP3
Enhancement II ■
507
2.5 : 1
203
Stream Totals
8,799
6,047

General Project Information
YES NO
Does the project occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum?
❑
Does the project occur within ISO feet of a known maternity roost tree?
❑
Does the project include forest conversion'? (if yes, report acreage below)
® ❑
Estimated total acres of forest conversion
1.5 ac
If known, estimated acres' of forest conversion from April I to October 31
1.5 ac
If known estimated acres of forest conversion from June I to July 316
Does the project include timber harvest? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
Estimated total acres of timber harvest
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31
Does the project include prescribed fire? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April I to October 31
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31
Does the project install new wind turbines? (if yes, report capacity in MW below)
❑ ED
Estimated wind capacity MW
Agency Determination:
By signing this form, the action agency determines that this project may affect the NLEB, but that any
resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule.
If the USFWS does not respond within 30 days from submittal of this form, the action agency may
presume that its determination is informed by the best available information and that its project
responsibilities under 7(a)(2) with respect to the NLEB are fulfilled through the USFWS January 5,
2016, Programmatic BO. The action agency will update this determination annually for multi-year
activities.
The action agency understands that the USFWS presumes that all activities are implemented as
described herein. The action agency will promptly report any departures from the described activities to
the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The action agency will provide the appropriate USFWS Field
Office with the results of any surveys conducted for the NLEB. Involved parties will promptly notify the
appropriate USFWS Field Office upon finding a dead, injured, or sick NLEB.
Signature: Date Submitted: / Z — GY—1
A Any activity that temporarily or permanently removes suitable forested habitat, including, but not limited to, tree removal
from development, energy production and transmission, mining, agriculture, etc. (see page 48 of the BO).
s If the project removes less than 10 trees and the acreage is unknown, report the acreage as less than 0.1 acre.
e If the activity includes tree clearing in June and July, also include those acreage in April to October.

-pYadkinville
A
a
g
I �
I o`
� I
`l 4
d TebaCCwllle
t S
s
East Bend
1
l H"Yndya
a r q -
<iRd •� � K�
a
Bethanla
o x \ sh_,•
U = r
to
J^
r
I
A l
old USd 21 Hry .' tt� y•d ^.;N•ad G
�
r 6 �3a / •� �
p'L\ � SPic•�o
J5
o\a r
a
' Ra
Robmhod'
• o l� n d
- Shalfawlora, � 2e
P^, Lewisville
°
ps'
o - ' co„^
5N�
'
M.11 8"
a'
y
k ^;
c
i
5:191 i',"
Clemmons
"cl•mmno:
Bermuda Run
�un county� /
� v
- 8ii1
I
Advance
I I
pa I
des
I \
I'
I I
1 �
1 �
I r
I � I
I ® �
i Macksville \
Legend -
i r
- Mockingbird Easement
TLW: 03040101160010 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), Mapmylndia,
NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 1 Date: 11/13/2017
wE 1 inch = 3 miles Drawn by: MDEres
Watershed Map
0 1.6 3 6 Mockingbird Stream Site
Miles Davie County, North Carolina

2
ter. e,- All
f;4��,�
Legend
Mockingbird Easement
Proposed Mitigation
Crossing y`
r -
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
t
Preservation
Restoration -
X X Proposed Fence es
i t v
Agricultural BMP
HC1 Restoration 2181 1.0:1 2181
i F>„
JS1 Restoration 561 1.0:1 561
NM1 Enhancement II 383 2.5 : 1 153
NM2 Restoration 1277 1.0:1 1277
NM3 Restoration 225 1.0:1 225 _
NM4 Enhancement II 314 2.5 : 1 126
HC2-A Enhancement II 868 2.5 : 1 347 4� _
HC2-B Enhancement II 857 2.5 : 1 343
HC2-C Enhancement 1 449 1.5 : 1 299 3
HC2-D Preservation 462 10.0:1 46
TP1 Enhancement II 265 2.5:1 106
TP2 Enhancement 11 450 2.5 : 1 180
TP3 Enhancement 11 507 2.5 : 1 203
Stream Totals 8799 6047
b
Figure 2 Date: 11/13/2017
1 inch = 900 feet Conceptual Design Map Drawn by: MDEres
o aso soo 1,aoo Mockingbird Stream Site
Feet Davie County, North Carolina

- - yy ` •► 1.5 ac of Temporary Forest Impacts
AA
*Tree removal will be limited to the
F • >`.3+ minimum amount needed along
,, • ., t 3 vs ! r' ice,. " channel banks for construction. Native
''"� ,�. ,.► r trees will be planted along reaches
.i
that are proposed for restoration.
FRI
_ IIF
r a �
-Ltd
A
r+.
Legend •
Mockingbird Easement , c ti
Inset B
rtiL�#•
Proposed Mitigation
+�
3
� Crossing
Enhancement I
4
Enhancement 11
Preservationq'► a
Restoration �� b
Figure 3 Date: 11/13/2017
wE 1 inch = 900 feet Drawn by: MDE
Temporary Forest Impacts Map
res
o aso soo soo Mockingbird Stream Site
Feet Davie County, North Carolina

A Ilk
Inset A
1.3 ac of Temporary Forest Impacts
A
*Tree removal will be limited to, 7the
minimum amount needed along
channel banks for construction. Native
trees will be planted along reaches that
are proposed for restoration.
jr
� , '.' . . 0 1
Air
k
it V
>
P, NM2
J I .
Le
A -gend
Mockingbird Easement
Temporary Forest Impacts
All
Proposed Mitigation
jr
J Crossing
0
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Preservation
Restoration
Figure 3 (Inset A) Date 11/13/2017
1 inch 400 feet Temporary Forest Impacts Map Drawn by: MDE res
200 400 800 Mockingbird Stream Site
Feet Davie County, North Carolina

ir ro
wE 1 inch = 400 feet
0 200 400 800
Feet
Figure 3 (Inset B)
Temporary Forest Impacts Map
Mockingbird Stream Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Inset B
0.22 ac of Temporary Forest Impacts
*Tree removal will be limited to the
minimum amount needed along channel
lrw- banks for construction. Native trees will
be planted along reaches that are
proposed for restoration.
Legend
Mockingbird Easement
Temporary Forest Impacts
Proposed Mitigation
Crossing
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Preservation
Restoration
Date: 11/13/2017
Drawn by: MDE j-.
._w
ft
r
t
J
ir ro
wE 1 inch = 400 feet
0 200 400 800
Feet
Figure 3 (Inset B)
Temporary Forest Impacts Map
Mockingbird Stream Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Inset B
0.22 ac of Temporary Forest Impacts
*Tree removal will be limited to the
minimum amount needed along channel
lrw- banks for construction. Native trees will
be planted along reaches that are
proposed for restoration.
Legend
Mockingbird Easement
Temporary Forest Impacts
Proposed Mitigation
Crossing
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Preservation
Restoration
Date: 11/13/2017
Drawn by: MDE j-.

fires
October 20, 2017
An inventory of soils data was completed by RES utilizing Web Soil Survey to determine prime 23220
farmland classifications for the project area. Five soil map units in the project area are classified
as prime farm land, making up approximately 20% of the site. Four soil map units in the project
area are classified as farmland of state importance, making up approximately 6% of the site. One map soil unit
in the project area is classified as Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing season, making up approximately 75% of the site. One soil map unit in the project
area is classified as not prime farmland, making up less than 1% of the site.
Enclosed is Form AD -1006 with Parts I and III Completed and maps of the Mockingbird Site. We ask that
you review the site information and complete Parts II, IV, and V as required by NRCS. Please email
(men eg_l&res.us), or mail your reply to the address below.
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Randy Blackwood
Suite 130
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Owings Mills, MD
z11v
301 E Center St.
Lexington, NC 27292-4107
412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
Subject: AD -1006 Request for the Mockingbird Mitigation Site in Davie County
70802
100 Calhoun St.
Dear Mr. Blackw000d,
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) requests review and comment from the Natural
Resources Conservation Service on any possible concerns that may emerge with respect to
5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
farmland resources including prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland associated
Houston, TX
with the Mockingbird stream mitigation project. This project is being developed for the
77006
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. Please note that this request is in support
1200 Camellia Blvd.
of the development of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) and an Environmental Resource
Suite 220
Technical Report for the referenced project.
Lafayette, LA
70508
The Mockingbird Site has been identified for the purposes of providing mitigation for unavoidable
1371/2 East Main St.
stream channel impacts in the Yadkin River Basin. RES has been awarded the contract to design
Suite 210
and implement the Mockingbird project. A requirement of the project is to prepare and
Oak Hill, WV
Environmental Resource Technical Document that describes resources present on the project site.
25901
33 Terminal Way
The Project is located in the Turner and Hauser Creeks Watershed (03040101160010), a Targeted
Suite 431
Local Watershed TLW . The Project supports man of the Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration
( ) J pp Y pp
Pittsburgh, PA
15219
Priorities (RBRP) goals and presents an opportunity to restore and enhance 8,800 linear feet of
warm water stream and riparian corridor. The Project will provide numerous ecological and water
302 Jefferson St.
quality benefits within the Yadkin River Basin. These benefits are not limited to the project area,
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
but have more far-reaching effects throughout the Yadkin River Basin. The Project will provide
27605
improvements to water quality, hydrologic function, and habitat. Coordinates for the site are as
W.
follows: 36.036000 N -80.517000 W
1521 W. Main
'
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
An inventory of soils data was completed by RES utilizing Web Soil Survey to determine prime 23220
farmland classifications for the project area. Five soil map units in the project area are classified
as prime farm land, making up approximately 20% of the site. Four soil map units in the project
area are classified as farmland of state importance, making up approximately 6% of the site. One map soil unit
in the project area is classified as Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing season, making up approximately 75% of the site. One soil map unit in the project
area is classified as not prime farmland, making up less than 1% of the site.
Enclosed is Form AD -1006 with Parts I and III Completed and maps of the Mockingbird Site. We ask that
you review the site information and complete Parts II, IV, and V as required by NRCS. Please email
(men eg_l&res.us), or mail your reply to the address below.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Megan D Engel
Field Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attachements: Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS topographc Map (Figure 2), Conceptual Plan Maps (Figure 7,
7A, and 713), & AD -1006
2

Megan Engel
From: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 2:57 PM
To: Megan Engel; Blackwood, Randy - NRCS, Asheboro, NC
Cc: Brad Breslow
Subject: Mockingbird Conservation Easement Project, Davie County, NC.
Attachments: AD1006_Mockingbird_Mitigation_DavieCo.pdf; Letter_Mockingbird_Mitigation_DavieCo.pdf
Importance: High
Megan
Please, find attached the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for the Mockingbird Conservation Easement Project, Davie
County, NC.
If we can be of further assistance please let us know.
Cordially;
Assistant State Soil Scientist
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd, Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
milton.corteslcDnc.usda.eov
USDA
From: Megan Engel [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 10:52 AM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>; Blackwood, Randy - NRCS, Asheboro, NC
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Brad Breslow <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: AD1006 requests, Davie County, NC
Milton,
Good morning, and thank you for providing me with the updated FY2018 FPPA guidance. I have attached the two AD -
1006 requests for Davie County (Mockingbird and Catbird mitigation sites) and they now include the WSS maps as per
your email below.
Please let me know if you need anything else, and have a great day.
Megan D Engel
Field Ecologist
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]

From: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 10:29 AM
To: Megan Engel <[e-mail]>
Cc: Blackwood, Randy - NRCS, Asheboro, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: AD1006 requests, Davie County, NC
Importance: High
Hi Megan:
I received the attached Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Requests from Randy Blackwood, Supervisory Soil
Conservationist, Team 9.
I have attached a document with some instructions on what it is required to complete this type of request. All I need, at
this time, is the soils map as described in the included instructions. Now, an alternative would be to get the GIS
boundary shape file in a zip file so that I can import the file to WSS and generate the map and the mapunit inventory I
need to complete the farmland evaluation.
If you have any question, please let me know.
Cordially:
Assistant State Soil Scientist
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd, Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
slcDnc.usda.eov
USDA
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any
unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and
subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender and delete the email immediately.

USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
November 14, 2017
North Carolina
State Office
Megan D Engel
4407 Bland Road
Field Ecologist
Suite 117
Res
Raleigh, NC 27609
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Voice 919-873-2171
Raleigh, NC 27605
Fax [phone]
Dear Megan D Engel:
Thank you for your letter dated October 25, 2017. Subject: Mockingbird
Conservation Easement Project, Davie County, NC. The following guidance is
provided for your information.
Projects are subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements
if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to non-
agricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a
federal agency. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section
1540(c)(1) of the FPPA or farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or
unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture to be farmland of statewide local importance.
For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland,
and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA
requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be
forestland, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up
land.
Farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development
or water storage. Farmland already in urban development or water storage
includes all such land with a density of 30 structures per 40 -acre area. Farmland
already in urban development also includes lands identified as urbanized area
(UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a tint overprint
on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, or as
urban -built-up on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Important Farmland Maps.
The area in question meets one or more of the above criteria for Farmland.
Farmland area will be affected or converted. Enclosed is the Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating form AD 1006 with PARTS II, IV and V completed by
NRCS. The corresponding agency will need to complete the evaluation,
according to the Code of Federal Regulation 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection
Policy Act.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources mission.
An Equal Opportunity Provider, Employer and Lender

Megan D Engel
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Milton Cortes, Assistant State Soil Scientist at
919-873-2171 or by email: milton.cortesgnc.usda.gov.
Again, thank you for inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Milton Cortes
Assistant State Soil Scientist
cc:
Kent Clary, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Raleigh, NC

fires
November 20, 2017
John & Carol Sparks
900 Spillman Road
Mocksville, NC 27028
Re: Mockingbird Mitigation Project
Dear John and Carol,
As part of the environmental documentation process in preparation for the stream mitigation
project on your property, this letter is to inform you of provisions in the Federal Highway
Administration Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, as amended, referred to as the Uniform Act.
The Uniform Act requires that we inform you in writing that this conservation easement
transaction is voluntary and that the project is being developed by Environmental Banc &
Exchange, LLC for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). Neither EBX
nor NCDMS have the authority to acquire the property by eminent domain. In addition, EBX
believes that the agreed purchase price for the conservation easement area represents the fair
market value.
This letter is for your information, and you do not need to respond. As always, please feel free to
call me at 919-817-7378 with any questions.
Sincerely,
� &"'�q V, - r"
Daniel Ramsay
Land Representative
412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Terminal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219
701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2otl Floor 3751 Westere Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 1371/2 East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901

fires
November 20, 2017
Michael & Nancy Miller
903 Spillman Road
Mocksville, NC 27028
Re: Mockingbird Mitigation Project
Dear Mike and Nancy,
As part of the environmental documentation process in preparation for the stream mitigation
project on your property, this letter is to inform you of provisions in the Federal Highway
Administration Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, as amended, referred to as the Uniform Act.
The Uniform Act requires that we inform you in writing that this conservation easement
transaction is voluntary and that the project is being developed by Environmental Banc &
Exchange, LLC for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). Neither EBX
nor NCDMS have the authority to acquire the property by eminent domain. In addition, EBX
believes that the agreed purchase price for the conservation easement area represents the fair
market value.
This letter is for your information, and you do not need to respond. As always, please feel free to
call me at 919-817-7378 with any questions.
Sincerely,
f" -
Daniel Ramsay
Land Representative
412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Terminal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219
701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2otl Floor 3751 Westere Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 1371/2 East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901

fires
November 20, 2017
Teresa Phifer
PO Box 971
Monroe, NC 28111
Re: Mockingbird Mitigation Project
Dear Teresa,
As part of the environmental documentation process in preparation for the stream mitigation
project on your property, this letter is to inform you of provisions in the Federal Highway
Administration Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, as amended, referred to as the Uniform Act.
The Uniform Act requires that we inform you in writing that this conservation easement
transaction is voluntary and that the project is being developed by Environmental Banc &
Exchange, LLC for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). Neither EBX
nor NCDMS have the authority to acquire the property by eminent domain. In addition, EBX
believes that the agreed purchase price for the conservation easement area represents the fair
market value.
This letter is for your information, and you do not need to respond. As always, please feel free to
call me at 919-817-7378 with any questions.
Sincerely,
p an f �
Daniel Ramsay
Land Representative
412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Terminal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219
701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2otl Floor 3751 Westere Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 1371/2 East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901

fires
November 20, 2017
Wilson W. & Katherine S. Sparks
150 Herons Lane
Advance, NC 27006
Re: Mockingbird Mitigation Project
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sparks,
As part of the environmental documentation process in preparation for the stream mitigation
project on your property, this letter is to inform you of provisions in the Federal Highway
Administration Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, as amended, referred to as the Uniform Act.
The Uniform Act requires that we inform you in writing that this conservation easement
transaction is voluntary and that the project is being developed by Environmental Banc &
Exchange, LLC for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). Neither EBX
nor NCDMS have the authority to acquire the property by eminent domain. In addition, EBX
believes that the agreed purchase price for the conservation easement area represents the fair
market value.
This letter is for your information, and you do not need to respond. As always, please feel free to
call me at 919-817-7378 with any questions.
Sincerely,
p&�nf(I-
Daniel Ramsay
Land Representative
412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Terminal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219
701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2otl Floor 3751 Westere Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 1371/2 East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901

Appendix L —DMS Floodplain
Requirements Checklist

rY
Ens)da°ement
PROGRAM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of
the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with
three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Mockingbird
Name if stream or feature:
Hauser Creek
County:
Davie County
Name of river basin:
Yadkin — Pee Dee River Basin
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:
Davie County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
5842
(Map Number 3710584200L, Revised Date May 18,
2009)
Consultant name:
Resource Environmental Solutions
Phone number:
[phone]
Address:
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
FEMA—Floodplain Checklist Page 1 of 4

Design Information
The Mockingbird Mitigation Site is located within a rural watershed in Davie County,
within the Yadkin River Basin and USGS 14 -digit HUC 03040101160010. The Project
proposes to restore 4,849 linear feet (LF), enhance 3,742 LF, preserve 407 LF of stream,
and provide water quality benefit for 27 acres of conservation easement. The Scout
Mitigation Bank is nestled between two Project easement locations (north and south),
involving Hauser Creek and eight unnamed tributaries. The stream mitigation components
are summarized in the table below. The purpose of the Project is to meet water quality
improvements addressed in the River Basin Restoration Priorities and improve overall
stream health.
Reach
Length
Mitigation Type
HCI
2,083
Restoration
NMI
229
Enhancement II
NM2
1,368
Restoration
NM3
280
Restoration
NM4
253
Enhancement II
JS 1
523
Restoration
HC2-A
2,018
Enhancement II
HC2-B
595
Restoration
HC2-C
155
Enhancement I
HC2-D
407
Preservation
TPI
146
Enhancement II
TP2
471
Enhancement II
TP3
470
Enhancement II
FEMA—Floodplain Checklist Page 2 of 4

Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
r- Yes rNo
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
F Redelineation
F Detailed Study
P-0 Limited Detail Study
F Approximate Study
F Don't know
List flood zone designation: Zone AE
Check if applies:
F7 AE Zone
r Floodv,ay
r Non -Encroachment
r None
F A Zone
r Local Setbacks Required
r No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?
(- Yes r: No
Land Acquisition (Check)
F State owned (fee simple)
F Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
F%0_ Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed
to the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
919 807-4101
Is community/county participatingcommunity/countin the NFIP program?
FEMA Floodplain Checklist Page 3 of 4

Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
E Yes C No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP attn: State NFIP Engineer, 919 715-8000)
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Andrew Meadwell
Phone Number: [phone]
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
r No Action
F No Rise
r Letter of Map Revision
r Conditional Letter of Map Revision
W Other Requirements
List other requirements:
HEC -RAS modeling will take place, resulting in one of the above items.
Comments:
Name: Olivia L. Pilkington
Title: _Engineer II_
Signature: L__�
Date: _0 7.09.2018
FEMA—Floodplain Checklist.docx Page 4 of 4
--C_