20171156 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_FINAL_July2019_20191210

Mitigation Plan
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Surry County, North Carolina
FINAL VERSION

NCDEQ DMS Project Identification # 100026
NCDEQ DMS Contract # 7181
Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03040101)
USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2017-01510
Contracted Under RFP # 16-006993

Prepared for:

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

July 2019

Page ii

Prepared by:

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.
• North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), “Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule”, Rule
15ANCAC 02B .0295, Effective November 1, 2015, for all Riparian Buffer Mitigation.
These documents govern NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services operations and procedures for the
delivery of compensatory mitigation.

Kayne M. Van Stell
Vice President, Ecosystem Design Services
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

July 29, 2019

Regulatory Division

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Plan; SAW-2017-
01510; NCDMS Project # 100026

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 Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Plan, which closed on June 21,
2019. 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 project along with a copy of this letter. Issues identified
above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final Mitigation Plan
should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the document. If it is determined
that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a copy of the
Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the 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.

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

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, ext 60.

Sincerely,

Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Henry Wicker

Enclosures

Electronic Copies Furnished:

NCIRT Distribution List
Paul Wiesner– NCDMS
Matthew Reid—NCDMS
Kayne VanStell—WLS

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:

CESAW-RG/Browning July 12, 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation Plan Review

PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCDMS Mitigation Plan Review Portal during the
30-day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.

NCDMS Project Name: Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Site, Surry County, NC

USACE AID#: SAW-2017-01510

NCDMS #: 100026

30-Day Comment Deadline: June 21, 2019

DWR Comments:
1. Section 3.1.4- Benthic Macroinvertebrates- DWR appreciates WLS performing the preconstruction
monitoring for benthic macroinvertebrates. DWR looks forward to the results of post construction
monitoring.
2. Table 14: please explain the differing measurement methodologies referred to in note 2.
3. Section 6.4- DWR likes the attention paid to wetlands on the site even though there are no wetland credits
proposed for this project. In these cases, DWR is mostly concerned with maintaining the current wetland
resources on site and when possible, enhancing or restoring the wetland resources on site.
4. Section 6.7- Water Quality Treatment Features- While DWR appreciates the installation of these features,
their placement above reach R3 may negatively affect the flow for this intermittent stream.
5. In the Monitoring Section, there is no mention of macrobenthic monitoring. Does WLS intend to monitor
macrobenthics during the monitoring phase and if so, what is your general protocol?
6. Design sheet 3- DWR would prefer to see specific bank slopes identified on the typicals. We realize these
slopes may vary, however; we would prefer to see the slopes specified even if they are “on average”.
7. DWR believes that reaches R2 and R3 are at a high risk to lose flow or not have enough flow to maintain
stream characteristics.
8. Design sheet 10- DWR would like to see the flow gauge moved to station 12+00 on reach R2.
9. While DWR will not require a flow gauge on reach R3, this reach should probably have at least a camera
to document flowing conditions.
10. Design sheet 11- is the crossing on this sheet existing? One concern is it shows the crossing going through
a wetland. DWR recommends this crossing be eliminated. In addition, three stream segments (R4, R4a
and R4b) will be constructed in or immediately adjacent to wetlands. DWR recommends installation of a
gauge at station 22+00 on R4 on stream left. If the crossing is not removed, DWR will want a plan on
how the designer will maintain no net loss of wetlands on site.
11. Looking at the photos of reach R4a, particularly at the downstream reach and its confluence with R4, there
does not appear to be a need for any channel construction. Please substantiate why channel construction
is needed in this area.

Kim Browning, USACE:
1. R2 and R3 have very small watersheds, concern about maintaining flow and jurisdiction. Recommend
camera points and flow gauges here.
2. Design Sheet 10: It appears that there are three BMPs within the easement. Please ensure that these
features are not in the jurisdictional areas as it is unclear on the maps and design sheets, and that their
short-term maintenance is discussed in the text, if any is necessary.
3. Even though there are no wetland credits being sought, and existing wetlands are fairly small, the
restoration of reach 4 appears to run through WD. Please ensure that permanent impacts to these wetlands
during construction do not result in loss of function, though it is anticipated that overall wetland function
will improve from increased hydrology in this area. It’s recommended that a temporary veg plot be placed
in this area.
4. It would be helpful to depict photo points on Figure 9.
5. Section 4.1.2 Functional Uplift Potential and Table 11: The functional pyramid is cited to show existing
conditions for each category, and was used to describe the functional uplift potential of the project,
which is appreciated. Please note that the functional pyramid and SQT tool have not been approved for
use by the IRT in determining success for mitigation projects. It would be interesting to see the
correlation of the NCSAM assessment compared to the SQT throughout the project. Furthermore, three
of the reaches are already scored as FAR and the proposed condition is also FAR. Please justify the
functional uplift if the conditions are not changing.
6. Table 12 and Table 23: Hydraulics, the BHR goal should read not to exceed 1.2.
7. Page 41, last paragraph and Table 21: please ensure that red maple are not included in the planting plan.
8. Section 7.1: Stream Hydrology—“In addition to the two bankful flow events, two…” is confusing. It
should read four bankful events.
a. Jurisdictional Stream Flow: Please add a statement that intermittent streams should be added
requiring at least 30-days consecutive flow within a calendar year.
b. Stream Profiles: The ER should be no less than 1.4 for B type channels.
c. Stream Horizontal Stability: It would be beneficial to have a specific measurement parameter, for
example, BHR and ER at any measured riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10%
from the baseline condition during any given monitoring interval.
9. Section 7.3: Please include a vigor standard for vegetation of 7 feet high in year five and 10 feet high in
year 7.
10. Did I miss the section on site constraints or potential risks?
11. Buffer Widths: Portions of R1, R2, and R5 do not meet the minimum buffer width of 30 ft. This is
approximately 11% of the total restored length, which exceeds the guidance allowing no more than 5%
of the total project length. Would the 11% change if you calculated the total project length, verses only
using the restored length? If the result is still over 5%, the buffer tool needs to be used. If the Buffer
Tool is used, please clearly show the loss or addition of credits in the Table 1 and 14.
a. The Buffer calculation table in the appendix, Table 1 and Table 14 all appear to have different
credit totals. Please clarify.

Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division

July 29, 2019
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division, Wilmington District
Attn: Kim Browning
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

RE: WLS Responses to NCIRT 30-day Review Comments Regarding Task 3 Submittal, Final Mitigation
Plan Approval for the Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project, USACE AID# SAW-2017-01510,
NCDEQ DMS Full-Delivery Project ID #100026, Contract #7181, Yadkin River Basin, Cataloging Unit
03040101, Surry County, NC
Dear Ms. Browning:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to provide our written responses to the North Carolina
Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) review comments dated July 12 th, 2019 regarding the Final Draft Mitigation
Plan for the Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project. We are providing our written responses to the NCIRT’s
review comments below, which includes editing and updating the Final Draft Mitigation Plan and associated
deliverables accordingly. Each of the NCIRT review comments is copied below in bold text , followed by the
appropriate response from WLS in regular text:
DWR Comments:
1. Section 3.1.4 - Benthic Macroinvertebrates - DWR appreciates WLS performing the preconstruction
monitoring for benthic macroinvertebrates. DWR looks forward to the results o f post construction
monitoring. Response: WLS intends to monitor macroinvertebrate communities and aquatic health post -
construction through MY7 using methods and procedures defined by DWR’s “Standard Operating Procedures
for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates” (NCDWR, 2016) as mentioned Section 3.1.4 and
in Table 23 ‘Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary’. The proposed sample locations are shown on Figure 9 and
will be taken at restored reaches R1/R5. It should be mentioned that the footnote under Table 23 states “Level
4 and 5 project parameters and monitoring activities states that the results will not be tied to performance
standards nor required to demonstrate success for credit release.” To provide further emphasis, the followin g
language is also included under Section 4.1.3-Restoration Potential of the mitigation plan, “Not all functional
categories and parameters, such as water quality (Physicochemical - Level 4) and performance standards listed
in the SQT will be compared or required to determine project success and stream mitigation credit and debit
scenarios.”
2. Table 14: please explain the differing measurement methodologies referred to in note 2.
Response: WLS has deleted the note since it not necessary nor does it clarify the table contents. During the
project’s proposal stage, we used GIS shapefiles and field hip chains to estimate the total existing stream length.
The difference between the existing stream lengths estimated at the proposal stage (and the associated
proposed stream mitigation credits) and existing stream lengths measured during the existing condition s
survey presented in the mitigation plan is a result of a detailed professional topographic survey conducted i n
support of project development. Using the existing conditions survey, WLS used the surveyed stream thalweg
which provided more accurate data to determine the actual stream thalweg length.
3. Section 6.4 - DWR likes the attention paid to wetlands on the site even though there are no wetland
credits proposed for this project. In these cases, DWR is mostly concerned with maintaining the current
wetland resources on site and when possible, enhancing or restoring the wetland resources on site.
Response: WLS appreciates the comment as we expect the stream restoration activities and design approaches
to improve overall wetland hydrology and function as compared to the current conditions. A lthough the DMS
project contract and RFP requirements are for stream mitigation only, we strive to improve aquatic resources
to the fullest extent possible. Any expected permanent impacts to existing wetlands as shown on Figure 11 will
be documented in the PCN permit application.
4. Section 6.7- Water Quality Treatment Features - While DWR appreciates the installation of these
features, their placement above reach R3 may negatively affect the flow for this intermittent stream.
Response: WLS appreciates the comment as we expect the water quality treatment features to improve overall
downstream hydrology and function as compared to the current conditions. As discussed during the IRT post
contract site visit and meeting minutes, the water quality improvement features will be installed above the
jurisdictional determination (see stream origin points in PJD App 9 WOTUS information) as approved by the
USACE and DWR. We anticipate these water quality improvement features will provide an overall benefit as
they will increase infiltration and groundwater recharge, allow nutrient uptake within the riparian buffer areas,
and diffuse flow energies rather than a rapid flush under current conditions.
5. In the Monitoring Section, there is no mention of macrobenthic monitoring. Does WLS intend to
monitor macrobenthics during the monitoring phase and if so, what is your general protocol? Response:
WLS intends to monitor macroinvertebrate communities and aquatic health post-construction through MY7
(in MY3 and MY7) per DWR’s “Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic
Macroinvertebrates” (NCDWR, 2016) as mentioned in Section 3.1.4 and Table 23 ‘Proposed Monitoring Plan
Summary’. The proposed sample locations are shown on Figure 9 and will be taken at restored reaches R1/R5.
However, we did not include in performance monitoring section of the mitigation plan since the results will not
be tied to performance standards nor required to demonstrate success for credit release. We are collecting this
data across multiple restoration sites with intent that it may potentially be used to support future guidance and
restoration goals, even if it does not demonstrate a measurable improvement from pre-construction conditions
through the seven-year monitoring period.
6. Design sheet 3 - DWR would prefer to see specific bank slopes identified on the typicals. We realize
these slopes may vary, however; we would prefer to see the slopes specified even if they are “on
average”. Response: Revised the typical sections on design plan sheet 3 to include average side slopes.
7. DWR believes that reaches R2 and R3 are at a high risk to lose flow or not have enough flow to
maintain stream characteristics. Response: As mentioned in response comment #3, we expect the
restoration activities and proposed design approaches to improve the natural headwater flow regime and
hydrological function as compared to the current conditions. We also expect that these water quality
improvement features will provide a project benefit as they will increase infiltration and groundwater
recharge, allow nutrient uptake within the riparian buffer area s, and diffuse flow energies rather than a rapid
flush under current conditions. However, since the existing stream bed elevations will be raised along R2/R3,
we will install one (1) automated data logger along R2 near station 12+00 to monitor surface flow and
document any changes to stream characteristics during the monitoring period.
8. Design sheet 10 - DWR would like to see the flow gauge moved to station 12+00 on reach R2.
Response: The proposed flow gauge has been moved from the R2/R3 confluence (station 13+13) to
approximate station 12+00 on the design plan sheet 10 and figure 9.
9. While DWR will not require a flow gauge on reach R3, this reach should probably have at least a
camera to document flowing conditions. Response: WLS will install a camera facing upstream at the
confluence of R2/R3 to document surface flow conditions during the monitoring period as described in
Sections 7 and 8 of the mitigation plan.
10. Design sheet 11 - is the crossing on this sheet existing? One concern is it shows the crossing going
through a wetland. DWR recommends this crossing be eliminated. In addition, three stream segments
(R4, R4a and R4b) will be constructed in or immediately adjacent to wetlands. DWR recommends
installation of a gauge at station 22+00 on R4 on stream left. If the crossing is not removed, DWR will
want a plan on how the designer will maintain no net loss of wetlands on site. Response: There is an
existing ford stream crossing at approximate station 23+50 that has been heavily impacted by cattle usage (See
R4 site photos). WLS understands the concern for this proposed crossing location and rationale for installing a
groundwater well for the purpose of monitoring potential impacts to wetland hydrology. We made every effort
to omit this crossing and easement break, however the adjoining landowners would not be able to access the
property on either side given the existing wetland areas (R4a and R4b) and steep hillslopes along R4 stream
left. Therefore, WLS is reconstructing the existing crossing in the same location with a properly sized pipe
culvert with embedded substrate that conveys the design discharges and provides adequate fish passage. We
expect the restoration activities and proposed approaches to improve overall wetland hydrology and function
as compared to the current conditions. Since the existing stream bed elevation will be raised to promote
overbank flows and groundwater recharge, we do not expect to negatively affect wetland hydrology in this
area. As such, we will install one (1) automated groundwater well within the wetland/left floodplain area along
R4 to document groundwater hydrology. Any expected permanent impacts to existing wetlands due to the
culvert crossing installation will be documented in the PCN permit application.
11. Looking at the photos of reach R4a, particularly at the downstream reach and its confluence with
R4, there does not appear to be a need for any channel construction. Please substantiate why channel
construction is needed in this area. Response: Reaches R4/R5 are incised and will be raised to provide
access to their historic floodplain and maximize functional uplift. As a result of this restoration approach, WLS
needed to raise the existing stream bed along oversized channel portions of R4a (and R4b) to avoid a backwater
condition and to restore the natural connection between Reaches R4/R5.
Kim Browning, USACE:
1. R2 and R3 have very small watersheds, concern about maintaining flow and jurisdiction. Recommend
camera points and flow gauges here. Response: As described in DWR response comment #9, WLS
understands this concern and will install a camera facing upstream at the confluence of R2/R3 and a flow gauge
to document surface flow conditions during the monitoring period as described in Sections 7 and 8 of the
mitigation plan.
2. Design Sheet 10: It appears that there are three BMPs within the easement. Please ensure that these
features are not in the jurisdictional areas as it is unclear on the maps and design sheets, and that their
short-term maintenance is discussed in the text, if any is necessary. Response: As discussed during the
IRT post contract site visit and meeting minutes, the water quality improvement features are located above the
streams jurisdictional determination (origin points) and are designed to be self-maintaining, therefore should
not require annual maintenance as cattle are excluded and buffer vegetation becomes established. Please refer
to Appendix 9 WOTUS information for the USACE PJD correspondence, including stream and wetland
location/origination maps.
3. Even though there are no wetland credits being sought, and existing wetlands are fairly small, the
restoration of reach R4 appears to run through WD. Please ensure that permanent impacts to these
wetlands during construction do not result in loss of functio n, though it is anticipated that overall
wetland function will improve from increased hydrology in this area. It’s recommended that a
temporary veg plot be placed in this area. Response: As described in DWR comment response #10, WLS
understands the concern for the proposed crossing and relocating the design channel through the existing
wetland area (wetland area ‘WD’ as shown on the PJD Figure 3). However, we have tried to avoid and minimize
the permanent wetland impacts as much as possible (~0.04 ac) and expect the stream restoration activities to
improve overall wetland functions as compared to the current conditions. A proposed vegetation plot is shown
along R4 (see Figure 9) in this area along the right floodplain which can be easily adjusted as requested by the
USACE. The existing wetland vegetation in this WD area is highly impacted from cattle trampling and mostly
limited to the herbaceous stratum. Since the existing stream bed elevation will be raised to promote overbank
flows and groundwater recharge, we do not expect to negatively affect overall wetland hydrology. As such, we
will install one (1) automated groundwater well within the wetland/left floodplain area along R4 to document
groundwater hydrology. Any expected permanent impacts to existing wetlands due to the culvert crossing
installation will be documented in the PCN permit application.
4. It would be helpful to depict photo points on Figure 9. Response: We have added existing conditions
photo points on Figure 6 to correspond with the site photographs located in Appendix 2. Post-restoration photo
point will be included with the MY0 Baseline Report - Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) map to document
and quantify the visual assessment throughout the monitoring period.
5. Section 4.1.2 Functional Uplift Potential and Table 11 : The functional pyramid is cited to show
existing conditions for each category, and was used to describe the functional uplift potential of the
project, which is appreciated. Please note that the functional pyramid and SQT tool have not been
approved for use by the IRT in determining success for mitigation projects. It would be interesting to
see the correlation of the NCSAM assessment compared to the SQT throughout the project.
Furthermore, three of the reaches are already scored as FAR and the proposed c ondition is also FAR.
Please justify the functional uplift if the conditions are not changing. Response: WLS appreciates USACE’s
comment regarding our use of the stream quantification tool (SQT) to consider functional lift for the project.
Although there are similarities between the NC SAM and the SQT assessment methods and functional
summaries (i.e. LOW~NF, MEDIUM~FAR, HIGH~F), NC SAM and the SQT methods were not originally
developed for determining mitigation success and credit calculations on constructed stream sites. While we
understand the SQT has not yet been approved by the USACE for determining credit, the SQT requires a more
robust data collection and analysis effort in order will help determine the highest level of restoration potential
and associated lift that can be achieved for the project, considering site constraints and existing conditions. We
agree with the concern and understand the limitations of using the SQT, especially in catchments with a Curve
Number greater than 56 or shorter reach segments that do not increase restored length and predict a nominal
functional lift (i.e. Existing FAR vs Proposed FAR). Based on our use and understanding of the functional lift
scoring summary (%), we do expect a functional lift in these reaches (R3, 58%, R4 64%, R5, 116%) even though
the score output is still FAR. As a comparison, NC SAM predicts these reaches will be scored ‘HIGH’ in the
restored condition. WLS has verified the SQT inputs and outputs are correct as shown in the table.
6. Table 12 and Table 23: Hydraulics, the BHR goal should read not to exceed 1.2. Response: Revised
Table 12 and Table 23 language to state BHRs should not exceed 1.2.
7. Page 41, last paragraph and Table 21: please ensure that red maple are not included in the plant ing
plan. Response: Removed Red maple from Table 21 and the proposed planting plan on sheet 16 and
substituted with Northern red oak and Blackgum. It should be noted WLS has implemented numerous
successful riparian buffer planting strategies, which has included Red maple, as we believe it provides a
functional benefit to natural riparian buffers. However, we understand its distribution is abundant and that the
species can propagate aggressively.
8. Section 7.1: Stream Hydrology—“In addition to the two bankfull flow events, two…” is confusing. It
should read four bankfull events. Response: Revised language in Section 7.1 stream hydrology stating ‘four
(4) separate bankfull events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. Two of the four
bankfull events must occur in separate years.’ To avoid confusion and remain consistent with 2016 USACE
guidance, we omitted language ‘In addition to the two bankfull flow events, two “geomorphically significant”
flow events (Qgs=0.66Q2) must also be documented during the monitoring period.’
a. Jurisdictional Stream Flow: Please add a statement that intermittent streams should be
added requiring at least 30-days consecutive flow within a calendar year. Response: Revised
language in Section 7.1, jurisdictional stream flow, stating any streams classified as intermittent must
exhibit base flow for at least 30-days consecutive flow within a calendar year under normal rainfall
conditions.
b. Stream Profiles: The ER should be no less than 1.4 for B type channels. Response: Revised
language in Section 7.1, stream profiles, vertical stability, and floodplain access, stating ERs shall be no
less than 2.2 (1.4 for Rosgen ‘B’ stream types) to be consistent with and Table 23, Level 2 Performance
Standards.
c. Stream Horizontal Stability: It would be beneficial to have a specific measurement parameter,
for example, BHR and ER at any measured riffle cross -section should not change by more than
10% from the baseline condition during any given monitoring interval. Response: Per 2016
USACE guidance, added language in Section 7.1, stream horizontal stability ‘In general, BHR and ER at
any measured riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from the baseline condition
during any given monitoring interval’.
9. Section 7.3: Please include a vigor standard for vegetation of 7 feet high in year five and 10 feet high
in year 7. Response: Per 2016 USACE guidance, added language stating trees in each veg plot must average 6
feet in height at MY5 and 8 feet in height at MY7 since Surry county is considered a mountain county.
10. Did I miss the section on site constraints or potential risks? Response: WLS added section 3.5 to the
mitigation plan to document project site constraints and potential risks.
11. Buffer Widths: Portions of R1, R2, and R5 do not meet the minimum buffer width of 30 ft. This is
approximately 11% of the total restored length, which exceeds the guidance allowing no more than 5%
of the total project length. Would the 11% change if you calculated the total project length, verses only
using the restored length? If the result is still over 5%, the buffer tool needs to be used. If the Buffer
Tool is used, please clearly show the loss or addition of credits in the Table 1 a nd 14. a. The Buffer
calculation table in the appendix, Table 1 and Table 14 all appear to have different credit totals. Please
clarify. Response: As described in the DMS Final Draft response comments, WLS has made every effort to
acquire the necessary easement areas to meet or exceed the minimum buffer width requirements. However,
some areas along Reaches R1, R2 and R5 do not meet the minimum 30’ bu ffer requirement. This was due in
part to of lack of landowner involvement or where the constraints by ROWs resulted in acute angles in the
easement. The total length affected for the entire project is approximately 600 LF which is approximately 11%
of the total restored project length. Per the guidance in the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update, North Carolina Interagency Review Team (USACE, 2016) under Section XI.
Stream Buffers, heading A. Required Minimum Buffer Widths, subheading 5: Where streams intersect with
project boundaries (e.g., property lines, farm crossings, utility easements, etc.), it was not possible for buffers
to meet the minimum standard width all the way to the end of the channel where the intersection occurs at an
acute angle.
WLS used the DMS buffer calculation tool and USACE-Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator to
help tabulate stream credit gains/losses. WLS is proposing 5,389 stream mitigation credits for the affected
project reaches. The net change after buffer adjustments is approximately +25 stream credits as shown on
Figures 11a and 11b and in the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Calculator output in Appendix 2. Many buffer
widths greatly exceed the 30-foot minimum which includes the water quality treatment features within the
easement boundary. WLS updated Tables 1 and 14 to include the buffer tool calculations as requested and
included additional notes to clarify the buffer tool and stream mitigation credit calculations and adjustments
as described further in Section 6.1.
Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC

Kayne M. Van Stell
Vice President, Ecosystem Design Services
Water and Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Table of Contents
1 Project Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
2 Watershed Approach and Site Selection .............................................................................................. 2
3 Baseline Information and Existing Conditions Assessment .................................................................. 3
3.1 Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions ........................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Watershed Overview ............................................................................................................ 5
3.1.2 Surface Water Classification ................................................................................................. 5
3.1.3 Aquatic Resource Health and Function ................................................................................. 5
3.1.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Aquatic Habitat ................................................................ 5
3.1.5 Pollutant Load Considerations .............................................................................................. 6
3.2 Landscape Characteristics and Regional Controls ........................................................................ 8
3.2.1 Physiography and Geology .................................................................................................... 8
3.2.2 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.3 Climate .................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2.4 Existing Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 11
3.3 Land Use and Development Trends ............................................................................................ 12
3.4 Watershed Disturbance and Response ....................................................................................... 13
3.4.1 Existing Reach Condition Summary .................................................................................... 13
3.4.2 Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment.................................................................. 17
3.4.3 Channel Evolution ............................................................................................................... 19
3.4.4 Sediment Supply, Delivery and Storage .............................................................................. 19
3.4.5 Jurisdictional WOTUS .......................................................................................................... 20
3.5 Potential Site Constraints ............................................................................................................ 21
3.5.1 Existing Easements and Right-Of-Ways on the Site ............................................................ 21
3.5.2 Utility Corridors within the Site .......................................................................................... 21
3.5.3 Mineral or Water Rights Assurance .................................................................................... 21
3.5.4 Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................................................................ 21
3.5.5 Invasive Species Vegetation ................................................................................................ 21
4 Functional Uplift Potential .................................................................................................................. 21
4.1.1 Function-Based Parameters and Measurement Methods.................................................. 22
4.1.2 Performance Standards and Functional Capacity ............................................................... 22
4.1.3 Restoration Potential .......................................................................................................... 23
5 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives............................................................................................. 24

5.1.1 Project Benefits Summary ................................................................................................... 25
6 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan ....................................................................................... 27
6.1 Stream Mitigation Credit Adjustments ....................................................................................... 28
6.2 Stream Design Approach ............................................................................................................ 29
6.2.1 Proposed Design Parameters .............................................................................................. 30
6.2.2 Design Reach Summary ....................................................................................................... 31
6.3 Reference Reach Selection.......................................................................................................... 35
6.4 Flow Regime ................................................................................................................................ 36
6.4.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge .............................................................................................. 37
6.4.2 Regional Curve Comparison ................................................................................................ 38
6.4.3 Channel Forming Discharge ................................................................................................ 39
6.4.4 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis ........................................................... 40
6.5 Wetland Design Approach .......................................................................................................... 42
6.6 Riparian Buffer Design Approach ................................................................................................ 42
6.6.1 Proposed Vegetation Planting ............................................................................................ 43
6.6.2 Planting Materials and Methods ......................................................................................... 44
6.7 Agricultural Best Management Practices .................................................................................... 46
6.8 Water Quality Treatment Features ............................................................................................. 47
6.9 Site Construction Methods ......................................................................................................... 47
6.9.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements ............................................................................ 47
6.9.2 In-stream Structures and Site Improvement Features ....................................................... 48
6.9.3 Construction Feasibility ....................................................................................................... 48
7 Performance Standards ...................................................................................................................... 49
7.1 Streams ....................................................................................................................................... 49
7.2 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 50
7.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 50
8 Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................................. 50
8.1 Visual Assessment Monitoring .................................................................................................... 51
8.2 Stream Assessment Monitoring .................................................................................................. 51
8.2.1 Hydrologic Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 52
8.2.2 Geomorphic Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 52
8.2.3 Flow Duration Monitoring................................................................................................... 54
8.3 Wetland Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 54

8.4 Vegetation Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 54
9 Adaptive Management Plan ............................................................................................................... 57
10 Long-Term Management Plan ............................................................................................................ 57
11 References .......................................................................................................................................... 58

Tables
Table 1. Project Asset Summary ................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2. Project Attribute Data and Baseline Summary Information ........................................................... 3
Table 3. Total Annual Pollutant Loadings and Removal Estimates from EPA Region 5 Model..................... 6
Table 4. BANCS Reach Assessment ............................................................................................................... 7
Table 5. Pollutant Load Reduction Estimates from Livestock Exclusion and Riparian Buffers ..................... 7
Table 6. Project Soil Type and Descriptions .................................................................................................. 9
Table 7. Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts vs. Long-term Averages ............................................. 10
Table 8. Existing Site Vegetation ................................................................................................................. 11
Table 9. Existing Channel Morphology Summary ....................................................................................... 18
Table 10. Existing and Proposed Functional Condition Assessment Summary .......................................... 22
Table 11. Functional Lift Scoring Summary ................................................................................................. 23
Table 12. Function-Based Goals and Design Objectives Summary ............................................................. 25
Table 13. Project Benefits Summary ........................................................................................................... 26
Table 14. Mitigation Components and Proposed Credit Summary ............................................................ 28
Table 15. Proposed Design Parameters ...................................................................................................... 30
Table 16. Reference Reach Data Comparison ............................................................................................. 36
Table 17. Flow Level and Ecological Role .................................................................................................... 37
Table 18. North Carolina Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations ......................................................... 38
Table 19. Design Discharge Analysis Summary ........................................................................................... 40
Table 20. Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power .................................................................................. 41
Table 21. Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root and Live Stake Plantings ................................................... 44
Table 22. Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding............................................................................ 46
Table 23. Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary .......................................................................................... 56

Figures
Figure 1...................................................................................................................................... . Vicinity Map
Figure 2........................................................................................................................ Existing Geology Map
Figure 3.................................................................................................................... . USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4................................................................................................................................. . NRCS Soils Map
Figure 5......................................................................................................................................... LiDAR Map
Figure 6.................................................................................................................... Current Conditions Map
Figure 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e.................................................................................................. Historic Aerial Map
Figure 8....................................................................................................................... FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 9..................................................................Proposed Mitigation Assets & Monitoring Features Map
Figure 10....................................................................................................... Reference Reach Location Map
Figure 11a & 11b................................................................................................................Buffer Width Map

Appendices
Appendix 1................................................................................................................................... Plan Sheets
Appendix 2.......................................................................... . Site Analysis Data/Supplementary Information
Appendix 3.......................................................................................................... . Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 4............................................................................................................... Credit Release Schedule
Appendix 5...................................................................................................................... Financial Assurance
Appendix 6........................................................................................................................ Maintenance Plan
Appendix 7................................................................................................ DWR Stream Identification Forms
Appendix 8............................................................................... . USACE District Assessment Methods/Forms
Appendix 9......................................................................................................................WOTUS Information
Appendix 10.................................................................................................................. Invasive Species Plan
Appendix 11............................................................................ . Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
Appendix 12............................................................................................................. Agency Correspondence

Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 1
DMS Project #100026
1 Project Introduction
The Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project (“Project”) is a North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) full-delivery stream mitigation
project, contracted with Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS), on June 01, 2017 in response to RFP 16-
006993. The Project will provide stream mitigation credits in the Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit
03040101). The Project is located in Surry County approximately seven miles southwest of the Town
of Pilot Mountain at 36.2851950° North and -80.5032100° West. The project site is in NCDEQ Sub-
basin 03-07-02, in the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03040101, in the Ararat River & Upper Yadkin River
Local Watershed Plan Study Area (Local Watershed Plan ID: LWP-2008-51), and in the Targeted Local
Watershed 03040101110070 (Warm Water Thermal Regime), all within the Yadkin River Basin (Figure 1).
The P roject will involve the restoration, enhancement, and permanent protection of seven stream
reaches (R1, R2, R3, R4, R4a, R4b, and R5) and their riparian buffers, totaling approximately 5,681 linear
feet of existing streams. In addition, combinations of different practices or measures will include riparian
wetland enhancement and various agricultural best management practices (BMPs). The Project will
provide significant ecological improvements and functional uplift through stream and aquatic habitat
restoration, and through decreasing nutrient and sediment loads within the watershed. See Section 5 for
a detailed benefits summary and Table 1 for a summary of project assets. Figure 9 illustrates the project
mitigation components.
Table 1. Project Asset Summary
Project
Component
Type of Mitigation (Priority
Level)
Creditable
Units
Mitigation
Ratio
Stream Mitigation
Credits (SMCs)
R1 Stream Restoration (PI) 1,320 LF 1:1 1,320
R2 Stream Restoration (PI) 296 LF 1:1 296
R3 Stream Restoration (PI) 76 LF 1:1 76
R4 Stream Restoration (PI) 1,167 LF 1:1 1,167
R4a Stream Restoration (PI) 111 LF 1:1 111
R4a Stream Enhancement Level II 57 LF 2.5:1 23
R4b Stream Restoration (PI) 125 1:1 125
R4b Stream Enhancement Level II 27 LF 2.5:1 11
R5 Stream Restoration (PI) 2,249 LF 1:1 2,249
Totals 5,428 5,378
Credit Loss in Required Buffer -300
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer 325
Net Change in Credit from Buffers +25
Total Credits per Buffer Calculator 5,403
Total Adjusted SMCs 5,389
Note 1: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
Note 2: The Wilmington District Stream Buffer Calculator was used to determine credit losses/gains due to 11%
of the total project lengths buffer widths being less than 30’. Based on the stream buffer credit calculator the total
net increase in stream credits is 25 credits. This is due in part to many areas within the buffer being greater than
30’. WLS is proposing the adjusted SMCs totaling 5,389 credits.
Note 3: Values in table were rounded to the nearest whole number.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 2
DMS Project #100026

The project streams are all unnamed headwater tributaries to Horne Creek. Horne Creek flows southeast
to its confluence with the Yadkin River at Pilot Mountain State Park. Horne Creek is listed by the NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources as ‘WS-IV’ (Water Supply IV) waters from its source all the way downstream
to its confluence with the Yadkin River. The project site is located in the Northern Inner Piedmont (‘45e’)
US Environmental Protection Agency Level IV Ecoregion and the North Carolina Piedmont Physiographic
Province (Omernik, 2014). The site involves a series of direct headwater tributaries to Horne Creek, which
will provide maximum ecological uplift due to our comprehensive watershed approach.
2 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
In an effort to update its watershed planning process, DMS amended the 2003 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee
RBRP in 2009 (Yadkin 01 RBRP, 2009). In 2003, 54 hydrologic units were targeted in the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin Watershed Restoration Plan. In the 2009, an additional 37 HUCs were newly identified as
Targeted Local Watersheds, and two HUCs had their TLW status removed. In total, 89 HUCs are highlighted
as TLWs by DMS in the 2009 RBRP. The purpose of the 2009 RBRP is to identify and prioritize potential
mitigation strategies to reduce sediment inputs, restore/enhance aquatic resources, improving riparian
corridors, promoting agronomic farm management techniques, and coordinating with landowners and
local government agencies the Yadkin 01 basin. The recommendations include traditional stream and
wetland mitigation, buffer restoration, nutrient offsets, non-traditional mitigation projects such as
stormwater and agricultural BMPs (Yadkin 01 RBRP, 2009).

The project is situated in the northern inner Piedmont in the southern portion of the Yadkin River Basin,
where the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) considers this a priority area for conservation
measures and aquatic habitat for freshwater mussel species. USGS 2011 National Land Cover Data (NLCD)
GIS Datasets and StreamStats was used to estimate the impervious cover and dominant land use
information for the project catchment area. Currently, the catchment area has an impervious cover
estimated to be less than one percent and the dominant land uses are pasture lands (predominantly for
hay and cattle), row-crop agriculture, and mixed forest. The project will extend the wildlife corridor and
protect diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the area through a permanent conservation easement,
ahead of anticipated development.

As cited in the Yadkin 01 RBRP, the Project site was selected to provide a unique opportunity for
implementing a combination of different practices or measures, as part of a comprehensive watershed
approach to improve and protect aquatic resource functions, as outlined in the DMS Compensation
Planning Framework (CPF) and the Federal Mitigation Rule (USACE, 2008). Developing specific goals and
objectives that directly relate to functional improvement is a critical path for implementing a successful
restoration project. The expected functional uplift is discussed further and in more detail under Section
4, and project goals and objectives are further described and discussed under Section 5.

Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 3
DMS Project #100026
3 Baseline Information and Existing Conditions Assessment
WLS performed an existing conditions assessment for the Project by compiling and analyzing baseline
information, aerial photography, and field data. The purpose of this assessment was to determine how
aquatic resource functions have been impacted within the catchment area. Watershed parameters such
as drainage patterns, percent impervious cover, controlling vegetation and hydrology (rainfall/runoff
relationships) were evaluated, along with the analysis of physiography, local geology, soils, topographic
position (basin relief, landforms, valley morphology), and flow regime (discharge, precipitation, sediment
supply).
Combined with historical context, the processes of hydrology and geomorphology must be linked to
evaluate current physical and biological conditions and system responses to human activities within the
riparian ecosystem (Montgomery and Bolton, 2003). Identifying the hydrogeomorphic variability, site
constraints, and cause-and-effect relationships plays a key role in determining the functional loss and
maximizing potential uplift (Harman et al., 2012). The following sub-sections further describe the existing
site conditions, degrees of impairment, and primary controls that were considered for developing an
appropriate restoration design approach. Table 2 represents the project attribute data and baseline
summary information.
Table 2. Project Attribute Data and Baseline Summary Information
Project Information
Project Name Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
County Surry
Project Area
(acres) 11.9
Project
Coordinates
(latitude and
longitude)
36.2851950° N, -80.5032100° W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic
Province Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic
Unit 03040101110070
DWR Sub-basin 03-07-02
Project Drainage
Area (acres) 166 (R5) and 38 (R1)
Project Drainage
Area Percentage
of Impervious
Area
<1
CGIA Land Use
Classification 2.01.03, 2.01.01, 3.02 (46% pasture/hay, 24% row crop, 16% mixed forest)

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 4
DMS Project #100026

Reach Summary Information
Parameters R1 R2 R3 R4 R4a R4b R5
Length of reach
(linear feet) 1,397 286 75 1,191 124 89 2,519
Valley
confinement
(Confined,
moderately
confined,
unconfined)
moderately
confined
moderately
confined
moderately
confined unconfined unconfined unconfined unconfined
Drainage area
(acres) 38 41 29 83 29 2 166
Perennial,
Intermittent,
Ephemeral
Perennial Intermittent Intermittent Perennial Perennial/
Int1
Perennial/
Int1 Perennial
NCDWR Water
Quality
Classification
C C, WS-IV, C C, WS-IV, C C C, WS-IV,
Stream
Classification
(existing)
E5b/F5b
(incised) G4 (incised) E6b(incised) B4 (incised) B4c
(incised) G5 B4c/G4c
(incised)
Evolutionary
trend (Simon) III/IV III III IV/V I I IV/V
FEMA
classification N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting
Docs?
Water of the
United States -
Section 404
Yes Yes Categorical
Exclusion
Water of the
United States -
Section 401
Yes Yes Categorical
Exclusion
Endangered
Species Act No N/A Categorical
Exclusion
Historic
Preservation Act No N/A Categorical
Exclusion
Coastal Zone
Management Act
(CZMA or CAMA)
No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain
Compliance No N/A N/A
Essential
Fisheries Habitat No N/A Categorical
Exclusion
Note 1: Indicates that the lower section of the reach was classified as perennial and upper stream reach was classified as
intermittent.

Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 5
DMS Project #100026
3.1 Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions
3.1.1 Watershed Overview
Spatial and temporal variability of hydrologic and geomorphic processes, as well as fine sediment have
influenced the overall system response and stability trends in multiple reach segments across the Project
site. Measurable changes in the landscape ecology were first identified upon review of aerial photography,
including native buffer vegetation disturbance and/or removal and stream channel alteration. Evidence
of these observed changes were documented throughout the watershed as increased channel
widths/depths and bank height ratios, decreased riffle-pool frequency and bedform diversity, as well as
limited floodplain connectivity and hyporheic zone interaction. Additionally, direct cattle access to the
streams and surrounding agricultural fertilization has likely increased fecal coliform bacteria and nutrient
levels within the watershed. These ecological impacts have negatively impacted historic stream and
wetland functions at the site and have likely increased over the past few decades due to anthropogenic
changes within catchment.
3.1.2 Surface Water Classification
Horne Creek is classified as Water Supply IV (WS-IV) (Stream Index 12-75) “From source to Yadkin River”.
WS-IV are waters used as 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 (Class
‘C’ waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and
survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class ‘C’). WS-IV waters are generally in moderately to
highly developed watersheds or Protected Areas.
3.1.3 Aquatic Resource Health and Function
WLS reviewed DWR biological and water quality data within the Upper Horne Creek watershed to identify
any potential stressors near receiving waters. Currently, no DWR water quality monitoring stations, or
benthic or fish monitoring stations exist in or near the project watershed. At this time, no known DWR
monitoring sites are proposed for monitoring use by WLS for this project. It is generally accepted that
nutrient loading and sedimentation from streambank erosion is a significant pollutant to water quality
and aquatic habitat. However, there can be data uncertainties and excessive costs for monitoring nutrient
levels and sediment delivery in streams (Hess, 2014). Without an extensive nutrient monitoring and
management plan, types, application rates, groundwater leaching and lag times can vary considerably,
making it difficult to effectively determine water quality improvements in response to various restoration
practices. Additionally, measuring in situ sediments that deposit over time can often have longer transport
times and legacy effects that can mask the water quality improvements and biologic functions related to
common stream and wetland restoration activities (Bain, 2012).
3.1.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Aquatic Habitat
WLS evaluated benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) communities and aquatic habitat at two locations (Site 1
along R1 and Site 2 along R5) within the proposed project area. The sample number and location where
selected based on stream lengths, watershed position and headwater flow regime. Macroinvertebrates are
useful biological monitors because they are found in all aquatic environments, are less mobile than many
other groups of organisms, and easily collectable. BMI sampling was conducted on June 5, 2018 using
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 6
DMS Project #100026

methods and procedures defined by DWR’s “Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis
of Benthic Macroinvertebrates” (NCDWR, 2016). Samples were collected by WLS staff and verified by Larry
Eaton (Eaton Scientific, LS, Inc.). Sample Site 1 had a Biotic Index (BI) value of 6.53 resulting in a
bioclassification rating of “Good-Fair”. Site 1 had a habitat assessment score of 74. Sample Site 2 had a BI
value of 4.99 resulting in a bioclassification rating of “Good-Fair”. Site 2 had a habitat assessment score of
80. The BMI diversity was greater in Sample Site 2 with higher total taxa, EPT richness and abundance.
Additional sampling will be conducted again in Spring/Summer during post-construction monitoring year
3. The pre-restoration BMI results and habitat assessment score summary is shown in Appendix 2.
3.1.5 Pollutant Load Considerations
EPA Region 5 Model: WLS first utilized the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region
5 Model to quantify how the project may reduce pollutant loads into Horne Creek and the Yadkin River
Watershed. The Region 5 Model was developed for the EPA (Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality, 1999) and is used throughout the United States to determine sediment and nutrient load
reductions from the implementation of urban and agricultural BMPs, including, but not limited to,
vegetated filter strips, wetland detention, and bank stabilization/stream restoration. Model inputs include
eroded streambank length, streambank height, lateral recession rates, soil weight, and BMP
type/efficiency applicable to the agricultural Piedmont area. The summary of total annual pollutant
loadings and removal estimates are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Total Annual Pollutant Loadings and Removal Estimates from EPA Region 5 Model

Although the EPA Region 5 model data is more empirically based, it is intended to be used as a basic
planning tool. Inherently, there are certain assumptions and limitations that must be considered when
refining model inputs and evaluating the results. For example, water quality calculations and sediment
loading are highly dependent on actual BMP efficiencies, sophisticated algorithms, regression analysis,
and not calibrated field measurements.
BANCS Method: As a comparison to the EPA Region 5 model results for sediment loading, WLS predicted
streambank erosion rates and annual sediment yields using the Bank Assessment for Non-point-source
Consequences of Sediment (BANCS) method (Rosgen 1996, 2001a) which considers two streambank
erodibility estimation tools: The Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near Bank Stress (NBS). This rating
method is used to describe existing streambank conditions (i.e., bank migration and lateral stability) and
quantify the lateral erosion potential of a stream reach in feet per year. The components of the BANCS
methodology can be subjective and vary based on the region’s climatic condition, geologic controls, and
Project
Watershed
(ac)
Existing
Stream
Length
(ft)

Length
of
Scoured
Bank
(ft)
Sediment
Load
(ton/yr)
Nitrogen
Load
(lb/yr)
Phosphorus
Load (lb/yr)

Sediment
Reduction
w/ BMP
(ton/yr,
%)
Nitrogen
Reduction
w/ BMP
(lb/yr, %)
Phosphorus
Reduction
w/ BMP
(lb/yr, %)
166.4 5,681 8,014 586.1 402.9 806.0 474.2,
80.9%
205.1,
50.9%
432.0,
53.6%
Note 1: Soil Texture Class is predominantly loam, sandy clay loam.
Note 2: Average Bank heights in scour areas ranged 2 to 5 feet.
Note 3: Lateral Recession Rates (ft/yr) ranged from slight category (0.01 to 0.05) to severe (0.06 to 0.40)
Note 4: Agricultural BMP input used for streambank stabilization/restoration and cattle exclusion fencing.
Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 7
DMS Project #100026
the experience level and professional training of the observers. However, it is a repeatable estimation
method and the intent is to be used as a relative comparison for pre- and post-restoration conditions.

WLS used the unpublished NC Piedmont BEHI and NBS ratings curve (personal communication with NRCS,
Walker, 2016) to estimate annual sediment loss based on local observations and streambank
measurements taken on May 10th and 11th, 2018. The BEHI/NBS estimates for the existing conditions (pre-
construction) predict that the project reaches contribute approximately 732.3 tons of sediment per year
to the Yadkin River, which is 146.2 tons higher than the EPA Region 5 Model estimates. The BEHI ratings
varied from ‘very low’ to ‘extreme’, with Reach R3 average BEHI rating ‘moderate/low’ based on minimal
shear stress, stream bed/bank stability and controlling vegetation. The middle reaches and reach R1
contribute the majority of the bank sediment to the system, due to a lack of bank protection and hoof
sheer from cattle which have access to these reaches. The average ‘moderate’ to ‘high’ BEHI ratings and
observations are typical of a degraded stream system with active bank erosion. See Table 4 below and
Appendix 2 for sediment loading assessment sheets.
Table 4. BANCS Reach Assessment
Project Component BEHI Range NBS Range Sediment Loading
(tons/yr)
R1 Very-Low/High Very Low/High 18.9
R2 Low/Moderate-High Very Low/Moderate 8.5
R3 Low/Very-High Low/High 11.9
R4/R5 Very-Low/Extreme Very-Low/Extreme 693.0
Note 1: R4a and R4b were not assessed due to their small size and minimal erosion potential.
Note 2: R4 and R5 were combined due to the reach connection.

Fecal Coliform Bacteria: Pollutant load reduction performance standards for nutrients and fecal coliform
bacteria are not proposed nor required for this project, however, WLS is interested in evaluating how the
proposed project could reduce pollutant loads into the Horne Creek Watershed. Based on DMS referenced
studies represented in Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock Exclusion and Riparian Buffer
Establishment for Stream Restoration (DMS, 2016), WLS expects that implementation of this project could
reduce Fecal Coliform Bacteria colonies (col), by as much as 80% as shown on Table 4.
Table 5. Pollutant Load Reduction Estimates from Livestock Exclusion and Riparian Buffers
Total
Riparian
Buffer Area
(ac) 1
Cattle
Exclusion:
Grazing
Pasture (ac)
Nutrient
Reduction: TN
(lbs/yr) 2
Nutrient
Reduction: TP
(lbs/yr) 2
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria from
Direct Inputs
(col) 3
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
Reduction (col) 4
10.7 10.0 510.4 42.3 1.20E+12 2.35E+11
Note 1: Applicable for restored buffer widths ranging from 6m to 30m from the top of streambanks.
Note 2: NC Division of Water Quality – Methodology and Calculation (1998) for determining nutrient reductions
associated with Riparian Buffer Establishment (DWR, 1998). TN reduction (lbs/yr) = 51.04 (lbs/ac/yr) x Area
(ac) and TP reduction (lbs/yr) = 4.23 (lbs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
Note 3: Fecal Coliform Reduction from Direct Cattle Input (colonies) = 2.2 x 10^11 (col/AU/day) x AU x 0.085
and assumes ~160 black beef cattle (ave. 400 lbs/each)
Note 4: Fecal Coliform Reduction from Buffer Filtration (colonies) = Runoff’s fecal coliform concentration
(col/gal) x Runoff volume (Gal) x 0.85 and assumes pastures are under continual grazing year-round
(1.894*10^6), runoff curve number (CN) for Soil Group 'B' in pastureland is ~67 for a 1 inch - 24 hr storm event.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 8
DMS Project #100026

Based on existing condition assessments, findings indicate the overall stream health is considered ‘Poor’,
which is consistent with model estimates and comparisons with numerous referenced studies. WLS expects
that the implementation of this restoration project will significantly reduce pollutant loads, including
sediment and nutrients, improving the overall aquatic functions and water quality in Upper Horne Creek.
WLS will conduct pre- and post-restoration sampling to document improvements directly related to
pollutant load reductions. WLS understands that such monitoring activities are not tied to performance
standards nor required to demonstrate success for credit release. However, collecting and evaluating
pollutant reduction data aligns with the goals and objectives of the project. We believe selecting applicable
monitoring and evaluation methods will help develop a more function-based assessment and improve our
project implementation process, thereby contributing positively to the advancement of the practice of
ecosystem restoration.
3.2 Landscape Characteristics and Regional Controls
3.2.1 Physiography and Geology
The project site is located within the Blue Ridge and Inner Piedmont Belts of the Northern Inner Piedmont
physiographic province. The Blue Ridge and Inner Piedmont Belts are separated by the Brevard fault zone.
More specifically, the geologic unit is classified as Metagraywacke and Muscovite-Biotite Schist (CZmg)
formation interlayered and gradational with muscovite-biotite schist; minor marble and granite rock
(Geologic Map of North Carolina, NC Geological Survey, 1998).

The Northern Inner Piedmont province is generally characterized by higher elevations, more rugged
topography, higher stream gradients and more mountain outliers than other areas of the Piedmont
province (Griffith et al, 2002). The project area is within the Sauratown Mountain Anticlinorium and
immediately south of the Pilot Mountain monadnock which represents a unique ecotonal transitional
zone between Piedmont and Mountain Level III/IV Ecoregions that is characterized by prominent ridges
and knobs that rise above 1,000 feet in elevation.
3.2.2 Soils
Soils at the project site were initially determined using NRCS soil survey data for Surry County (NRCS Surry
County Soil Survey, 2007). The soils within the project area were verified during on-site field
investigations. Figure 4 illustrates soil conditions throughout the project area and the soil descriptions are
provided below in Table 6.

Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 9
DMS Project #100026
Table 6. Project Soil Type and Descriptions
Soil Name Hydric Description
Braddock Fine (BbC)
(0.3% of project
area)
No Well drained soils formed mainly on stream terraces and mountain valleys in
the Piedmont region. Slope ranges from 8 to 15% on landscapes with
moderate erosion and are not flooded. Fine sandy loam surface layer and
clay subsoil or clay loam underlying material. Depth to bedrock is greater
than 80 inches.
Colvard and Suches
(CsA)
(43.6% of project
area)
No Well drained soils formed on flood plains and natural levees on flood plains.
Typically, the surface layer is fine sandy loam (~10 inches) and subsoil is also
fine sandy loam. Slopes range from 0 to 3% in the flood plains in the
Piedmont and are occasionally flooded. Permeability, water capacity and
shrink-swell are moderately high to high with low to very low surface runoff.
Many areas are well suited for pasture and row crops given low runoff and
erosion potential.
Fairview (FeB2)
(1.5% of project
area)
No Well drained soils formed mainly on ridges and interfluves in the Piedmont
region. Slope ranges from 8 to 15% on landscapes with moderate erosion
and are not flooded. Sandy clay loam surface layer and clay subsoil or clay
loam underlying material. Depth to bedrock is greater than 80 inches.
Fairview (FeC2)
(8.3% of project
area)
No Well drained soils formed mainly on ridges and interfluves in the Piedmont
region. Slope ranges from 2 to 8% on landscapes with moderate erosion
and are not flooded. Sandy clay loam surface layer and clay subsoil or clay
loam underlying material. Depth to bedrock is greater than 80 inches.
Fairview (FeD2)
(45.8% of project
area)
No Well drained soils formed mainly on ridges and interfluves in the Piedmont
Region. Slope ranges from 15 to 25% on landscapes with moderate erosion
and are not flooded. Sandy clay loam surface layer and clay subsoil or loam
underlying material. Depth to bedrock is greater than 70 inches.

The soils within the floodplain and riparian areas are predominantly mapped Colvard and Suches (CsA)
and Fairview (FeD2). The soil properties have been degraded by historic agricultural and silvicultural
activities and more recent cattle disturbances (i.e., hoof trampling) have resulted in a significant loss of
surface/groundwater interaction, and increased streambank erosion and sedimentation. In the flatter
valley sections along R5, it is common to discover legacy sediment in numerous floodplains in the mid-
Atlantic Piedmont (Jacobson and Coleman, 1986). In this setting and context, legacy sediment can be
defined as alluvium that was deposited following human disturbances in a watershed that represent
episodic erosion in response to the colonization of land by European settlers (James, 2013). Interest in
legacy sediment and its ecological implications have grown in recent years, as we understand how these
deposits influence lateral channel connectivity, sediment budgets, water quality, and appropriateness of
geomorphic restoration practices.
3.2.3 Climate
The Project site is located in Surry County, NC and has a warm moderately humid climate with hot
summers, minimal snowfall and no dry season (NRCS, 2007). The average growing season for the Project
site is 174 days, beginning on April 24th and ending October 16th (NRCS Surry County Soil Survey, Weather
Station: Mt. Airy, NC). The average annual precipitation in the Project area is approximately 47.43 inches
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 10
DMS Project #100026

with a consistent monthly distribution, except for convective storm events or hurricanes that occur during
the summer and fall months. In late 2017/2018, the area received over 60.75 inches as shown on WETS
Table 7. Over the past 48 months, the Surry County Airport Weather Station (KMWK) has recorded over
185.22 inches of rain.
Table 7. Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts vs. Long-term Averages
Month-Year Observed Monthly
Precipitation (in)
WETS Average Monthly
Precipitation (in)
Deviation of Observed from
Average (in)
Nov-17 5.89 1.12 +4.77
Dec-17 6.76 4.04 +2.72
Jan-18 9.8 4.76 +5.04
Feb-18 15.8 2.67 +13.13
Mar-18 N/A 4.69 N/A
Apr-18 N/A 6.08 N/A
May-18 0.43 6.37 -5.94
Jun-18 4.29 7.21 -2.92
Jul-18 3.84 11.03 -7.19
Aug-18 2.67 6.07 -3.4
Sep-18 5.23 7.96 -2.73
Oct-18 6.04 0.44 +5.6
Sum 60.75 62.44 +108.41

Throughout much of the southeastern US, average rainfall often exceeds average evapotranspiration (ET)
losses and areas experience a moisture excess during normal years, which is typical of the Project site.
Excess water leaves the Project site by groundwater flow, surface runoff, channelized surface flow, or
seepage. Annual losses due to seepage, or percolation of water are not considered a significant loss
pathway for excess water. However, groundwater flow and the hyporheic exchange is critical in small
headwater stream and wetland systems like those at the Project site, as most excess water is lost via
surface and shallow subsurface flow.

The Project streams’ drainage density relative to the geomorphic/geologic character and hydrologic
regime is common given the seasonal rainfall patterns, runoff rates, topographic relief, groundwater
recharge, and infiltration capacity/depth to impermeable bedrock layer. Further observations of perennial
flow frequency, response time to storm events, streambank erosion and groundwater saturation over the
past year support this conclusion.
Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 11
DMS Project #100026
3.2.4 Existing Vegetation
Historic land management surrounding the Project area has been primarily for agricultural and silvicultural
purposes. Prior to anthropogenic land disturbances, the riparian vegetation community likely consisted
of Mesic Mixed Forest (Piedmont Subtype) in the uplands with Alluvial Forest and Piedmont Bottomland
Forest in the lower areas and floodplains (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The existing vegetation within the
project area consists of successional forest, pasture, and agricultural fields. Many of the riparian and
upland areas have a narrow tree canopy and lack understory vegetation due to heavy livestock use and
grazing. Widespread channel degradation is likely a result of the alteration of natural drainage patterns
and the significant removal of native species vegetation.
Table 8. Existing Site Vegetation
Common Name Scientific Name
Canopy Vegetation Red maple Acer rubrum
Yellow-poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
River birch Betula nigra
American sycamore Plantanus occidentalis
Swamp white oak Quercus bicolor
White oak Quercus alba
Understory & Woody Shrubs Black willow Salix nigra
Silky willow Salix sericea
Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana
Umbrella magnolia Magnolia tripetala
American holly Ilex opaca
Hazel alder Alnus serrulata
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana
Herbaceous & Vines Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Joe pye weed Eutrochium maculatum
Dog fennel Eupatorium capillifolium
Jewelweed Impatiens capensis
Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium angustifolium
Greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia
Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora
Christmas fern Polystichum acrostichoides
Lady fern Athyrium filix-femina
Fescue Fescue sp.
Soft rush Juncus effusus

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 12
DMS Project #100026

Agricultural Fields and Pasture Areas: Currently, the majority of pasture areas are used for cattle grazing
and the vegetation within open fields and pasture areas is primarily comprised of fescues, clovers, and
some dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). In smaller wooded riparian areas or clusters within the
pastures and fields, the canopy is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), yellow-poplar (Liridendron
tulipifera), and understory species consist of Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), umbrella magnolia
(Magnolia tripelata). Woody shrub and vine species include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). Herbaceous species consist of dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) and
soft rush (Juncus effusus).

Mixed Hardwood Forest: The mature canopy is dominated by American beech (Fagus grandifolia),
hickory (Carya spp.), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalus), red maple, but also includes white oak
(Quercus alba), yellow-poplar, black willow (Salix nigra), and river birch (Betula nigra). Woody shrub and
vine species include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier, and hazel alder (Alnus serrulata).
Herbaceous species include jewelweed (Woodwardia areolata) and common juncus (Juncus effusus).

Invasive Species Vegetation: The invasive species vegetation present on the Project site are primarily
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
3.3 Land Use and Development Trends
The USGS 2011 National Land Cover Data GIS Dataset and StreamStats was used to estimate the current
impervious cover and land use information for the project catchment area. The 647-acre catchment area
has an impervious cover approximately one percent and the dominant land uses are 46% pasture/hay,
24% row crops, and 16% mixed forest. WLS conducted extensive field reconnaissance to verify the current
land use practices within the catchment, which include active agricultural land managed as pasture for
cattle grazing, hay/crop production and forested areas along reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, R4a, R4b, and R5.

Prior to the 1940s, most of the watershed was a mixture of forested area and agricultural fields as
illustrated on historic aerials (See Figure 7a). WLS was unable to obtain land use information prior to the
1930s. By the late 1970s, much of the headwater area remained a mixture of forest and agricultural fields,
but an increase in agricultural production was evidenced. Over time the natural stream and wetland
processes and aquatic resource functions have been significantly impacted because of these historic
anthropogenic disturbances.

As a design consideration, WLS coordinated with the landowner to extend the easement boundary to
capture additional wetland areas and natural drainage features within the Project corridor. Increasing the
Project footprint will provide wider riparian buffers and allow the implementation of agricultural best
management practices, which ultimately improve floodplain functions and pollutant removal
effectiveness.

Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 13
DMS Project #100026
3.4 Watershed Disturbance and Response
To determine what actions are needed to restore the riparian corridor structure and lift ecological
functions, it is critical to examine the rates and type of disturbances, and how the system responds to
those disturbances. Across the Project site, landowners historically cleared large portions of mature forest
and manipulated, and/or straightened streams and ditched riparian wetland systems to provide areas for
crop production and cattle grazing. These activities have caused changes to historic channel patterns,
sediment transport, in-stream habitat and restriction of fish movement, thermal regulation, and dissolved
oxygen (DO) content.

Cleared portions of the riparian buffer area are shown on historical aerial photographs (See Figures 7a,
7b, 7c, 7d, and 7e). A majority of the Project reaches has been heavily impacted from these historic and
current land use practices, including livestock production, agriculture, and silviculture. Within the Project
area, approximately 90% of the streambanks have inadequate (less than 30 feet wide) riparian buffers.
Figure 9 represents the most recent aerial photography with clearly narrow and/or absent riparian buffers
throughout much of the project area.

Continuous livestock intrusion and associated hoof shear have severely impacted the streambanks along
the Project stream reaches. The stream channels are actively incising, and the floodplain connection has
been lost in many locations. The lack of adequate and high-quality buffer vegetation, past land use
disturbances, active channel degradation, minimal impervious cover, and current agricultural and
livestock practices present a significant opportunity for water quality and ecosystem improvements
through the implementation of this project.
3.4.1 Existing Reach Condition Summary
The streams at the Project site were categorized into seven reaches (R1, R2, R3, R4, R4a, R4b, and R5)
totaling approximately 5,681 linear feet of existing streams. Reach breaks were based on drainage area
at confluences, changes in existing condition, restoration/enhancement approaches, and/or changes in
intermittent/perennial stream status. Field evaluations conducted by WLS at the proposal stage and
during existing conditions assessments determined that Project reaches R1, R4, and R5 are perennial
streams R2, and R3 were determined to be intermittent streams, and R4a and R4b were determined to
be perennial/intermittent streams. Determinations were based on NCDWQ’s Methodology for
Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins, (NCDWQ v4.11, Effective Date:
September 1, 2010) stream assessment protocols. Copies of the referenced DWR Stream Identification
Forms are included in Appendix 7 and reach condition summaries are provided below.
R1 is a small perennial headwater tributary that extends from the upstream western boundary of the
project site. R1 has a stream length of approximately 1,397 feet, average valley slope of 3.2 percent, and
drainage area of 38 acres. The reach originates at a stream crossing that has prevented further headcut
migration. Based on field observations, depositional patterns and headwater location, sediment supply
appears to be limited to finer grained material mostly from bed/bank materials.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 14
DMS Project #100026

The channel is severely incised in most
locations. Cattle intrusion has degraded
the riparian and aquatic habitat and
many areas has resulted is poor channel
definition. Bank erosion is widespread
throughout as a result of hoof shear and
lack of deep rooting vegetation. The
riparian buffer along most of the reach is
nonexistent as a result of the removal of
riparian vegetation along both
streambanks.
At the upper end of the reach, a
headcut has been arrested by an
existing stream crossing and associated
rip rap. Further downstream, channel
formation is poor as a result of cattle
trampling and wallowing. Bank height
ratios throughout R1 exceed 4.0 and the reach has a low sinuosity (k=1.12). Severe bank erosion and
channel aggradation was observed throughout the reach. A few larger mature trees exist along the
downstream portion; however, cattle have unrestricted access to 100 percent of R1, which has resulted
in sparse understory vegetation establishment.

R1 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of cattle trampling and minimal riparian
buffer widths. Based on the existing channel conditions and historic anthropogenic disturbances, R1 is
classified as a severely incised E5b/F5b stream type throughout most of its length.

R2 is an intermittent stream that begins
approximately 200 feet downstream of
a roadway culvert under Caudle Road.
From this culvert, R2 continues for
approximately 286 feet to the
confluence with R3. The average valley
slope is 3.3 percent and the drainage
area is 41 acres. R2 is severely incised,
with active bank erosion present and
bank height ratios exceeding 2.0. The
sinuosity is with low sinuosity (k=1.08).
Bank erosion appears to have resulted
from bank scour and lateral instability
caused by high near bank stresses
during storm flows.
Looking upstream at headcut, debris in channel, and
severe bank erosion along R2.
Photo of R1 showing severe cattle trampling and a lack
of woody riparian buffer vegetation.
Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 15
DMS Project #100026
R2 appears to have been historically manipulated. This is evidenced by the unnatural position of the
existing channel where it has been relocated away from the valley center/low point to the toe of the left
valley wall. The riparian buffer on the right bank consists of maintained lawn with some large trees along
the top of bank. The riparian buffer on the left valley slope consists of some mature trees with little
understory vegetation. Based on the existing conditions and medium gravel to small cobble bed materials,
R2 is classified as an incised G4 stream type.

R3 is a small intermittent stream that
begins at an existing tree root that is
providing grade control, approximately 75
feet before its confluence with R2. Along
this reach, the bedform diversity is
unnatural and the degree of incision is
high, with bank height ratios exceeding 2.7,
along with low sinuosity (k=1.07). R3 has a
small drainage area of approximately 29
acres. R3 has experienced significant cattle
intrusion and associated trampling for
most of its length and the riparian buffer is
limited to herbaceous vegetation with a
few small trees.

Bank erosion is widespread throughout
the reach. The entire reach is subject to
active water quality stressors, mainly
resulting from hoof shear from
unrestricted cattle access and little to no
riparian buffers on the streambanks.
Based on the existing conditions, R3 is
classified as an incised E6b stream type.

R4 is a perennial stream that begins at the
confluence with R2 and R3. The channel
flows south for approximately 1,191 feet
before its confluence with R4b. R4 has an
average valley slope of 3.8 percent and a
drainage area of 83 acres. R4 is exposed
to cattle intrusion along its entire length
and the riparian buffer is limited to
herbaceous vegetation with a few small
and larger trees. R4 appears to be highly
incised, with active bank erosion present, along with channel aggradation, livestock intrusion and
associated trampling, and bank height ratios exceeding 4.0.

Photo depicts degraded stream channel conditions along
R2 near its confluence with R3.
R3 looking upstream towards existing headcut from
confluence with R2 and R4.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 16
DMS Project #100026

The lower end of R4 at its confluence with R4a
has poor channel definition resulting from
cattle intrusion and associated trampling and
wallowing. R4 is subject to water quality
stressors, mainly in the form of cattle access
and minimal riparian buffer widths. Based on
the existing channel conditions and
anthropogenic disturbances, R4 is classified as
B4 stream type for most of its length.

R4a is a small perennial headwater tributary
that begins at a spring head within the upper
catchment. The channel flows south for
approximately 124 feet before its confluence
with R4. R4a has a small drainage area of
approximately 29 acres. R4a has experienced
the results of severe cattle intrusion, but
beginning downstream of the spring head, the remainder of R4a maintains a stable channel form until it
meets R4. The riparian buffer is limited to herbaceous vegetation with a few small trees.

R4a is actively subject to water quality
stressors, mainly in the form of cattle access
and minimal riparian buffer widths. The reach
classifies as a B4 stream type throughout most
of the reach that is defined.

R4b is a small perennial headwater tributary
that begins at a spring head within the upper
catchment. The channel flows south for
approximately 75 feet before its confluence
with R4/R5. R4b has a very small drainage area
of approximately 1.67 acres. R4b appears to be
stable for most of its length except for a short
section impacted by a headcut that has
propagated upstream from R5.

Looking downstream at cattle wallowing area of R4.
Note poor channel definition resulting from cattle
intrusion.
Looking upstream along stable section of R4a.
Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 17
DMS Project #100026
R4b is subject to water quality stressors, mainly in
the form of cattle access and minimal riparian
buffer widths. The reach classifies as a G5 in the
section below a headcutting propagating
upstream.

R5 begins at the confluence of R4 and R4b. R5
flows approximately 2,519 feet before it enters a
roadway culvert under Kiger Road. R5 has an
average valley slope of 2.4 percent and drainage
area of 166 acres. The riparian buffer is limited to
an immature hardwood forest with a few larger
trees in the upper reaches. The lower section lacks
a riparian buffer resulting from current land use
practices.

The channel is severely incised and the upper 1,400
feet exhibits moderate planform geometry. The
lower 1,120 feet of the reach appears to have
been manipulated and straightened. This is
evidenced through its position in valley and
observed spoil piles along the top of the
streambanks. Bank erosion is widespread
throughout this reach. The riparian buffer is
nonexistent or consists of immature vegetation,
and there is clear evidence that the riparian
vegetation has been removed along both
streambanks.

Bank height ratios throughout R5 often exceed 3.0
and the reach has a moderate sinuosity (k=1.3) in
the upper reach, and a low sinuosity (k=1.02) along
the lower reach. Severe bank erosion and channel
aggradation was observed throughout the reach. A few mature trees exist the throughout reach, however
cattle have unrestricted access to 100 percent of R5, which has led to sparse understory vegetation
establishment. R5 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of cattle access and
minimal riparian buffer widths. Based on the existing channel conditions and anthropogenic disturbances,
R5 is classified as an incised B4c/G4c stream type for most of its length.
3.4.2 Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment
WLS conducted geomorphic and ecological assessments for each Project reach to assess the current
stream channel condition and overall lateral and vertical stability. Data collection included seven
representative riffle cross-sections, longitudinal profiles, and sediment samples. The existing channel
morphology is summarized in Table 9 and detailed geomorphic assessment data is included in Appendix
2. Consistent geomorphic indicators of the bankfull stage were difficult to identify in the field given the
modified flow regime and degraded channel conditions. Therefore, bankfull cross-sectional areas were
Looking downstream along R5. Note severe bank
erosion and lack of mature buffer vegetation.
Looking downstream along stable section of R4b.
Note stable bed and banks adjacent wetlands
and lack of mature forest.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 18
DMS Project #100026

initially compared with the published NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999). The
surveyed cross-sectional areas were slightly below the regional curve prediction (See Appendix 2 for
comparison plots).
Bank Height Ratios (BHR) were measured in the field to assess the degree of channel incision. BHRs ranged
from 1.7 (R4a) to greater than 7.1 (R1). BHR values greater than 1.5 typically indicate the stream channel
is disconnected from its floodplain and system wide self-recovery is considered unlikely to occur within a
desired timeframe (Rosgen, 2001). Entrenchment Ratios (ER) were measured to determine the degree of
vertical confinement. ERs ranged from 1.2 (R5) to greater than 4.1 (R1) throughout the project area
indicating reach segments are slightly-to-moderately entrenched.
Table 9. Existing Channel Morphology Summary
Project
Reach
Designation
Watershed
Drainage
Area (Ac)1
Entrenchment
Ratio
(ER)
Width/Depth
Ratio (W/D)
Bank
Height
Ratio
(BHR)
Sinuosity
(K)
Channel Slope
(S, ft/ft)
D50
(mm)
R1 37.8 4.1/1.1 3.3/13.0 3.0/7.2 1.12 0.0326 22.6
R2 41.0 1.2 6.4 2.1 1.08 0.0301 24.6
R3 29.4 4.0 5.8 2.7 1.07 0.0463 16.6
R4 83.2 1.7 8.9 4.4 1.29 0.0296 23.1
R4a 28.8 1.4 10.6 1.7 1.18 0.0197 10.0
R4b 1.66 1.3 7.9 4.3 1.02 0.0255 2.0
R5 166.4 1.9/1.2 7.2/10.6 3.2/4.5 1.3 0.0187 19.6
Note 1: Watershed drainage area was approximated based on topographic and LiDAR information and compared
with USGS StreamStats at the downstream end of each reach.
Note 2: Cross-section locations are shown on Figure 8, Channel Stability & Pre-Monitoring Features.
Note 3: Geomorphic parameters for project reaches are based on best professional judgment and rapid field
measurements.
Note 4: Additional values and dimensionless ratios for meander geometry and facet slopes are provided in
Appendix 2. The existing degraded channel parameters are compared to stable stream systems in the Piedmont
Physiographic Region.

WLS also compared historic aerial photographs with BANCS model estimates (Rosgen, 2006) described in
Section 3.1.5 to identify areas susceptible to lateral bank erosion or accelerated meander migration.
BEHI/NBS rating forms are in Appendix 2. Based on this comparison, most of the laterally unstable reach
segments have occurred after riparian buffers where removed over the past few decades. As described in
the reach condition summaries, the average valley slopes range from 1.9 to 4.7 percent and channel
sinuosities range from 1.02 to 1.30. Most of the vertical grade control along the project reaches appears
to be provided by infrequent vegetation root mass, bedrock outcrops, and culvert crossings. The surveyed
longitudinal profile indicates reaches R2, R3, and R4a have headcuts near the upper segments and have
been heavily manipulated.
Many of the reach segments have poor bedform diversity and minimal habitat features with shallow pools
and longer/flatter riffles with higher pool-to-pool spacing. Reach R1 is vertically unstable throughout the
reach however, below the dilapidated culvert the reach exhibits marginal bedform morphology and some
habitat features (woody debris) with heavy bank erosion. Reaches R2 and R3 are marginally stable due to
their drainage area but exhibit poor bedform morphology. Reach R4 is laterally unstable throughout the
Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 19
DMS Project #100026
reach but does have woody and herbaceous vegetation that helps reduce excessive degradation. R4a is
relatively stable except but transition to vertically unstable following a headcut resulting from
downcutting in Reach R4. Reach R4b is relatively stable but does have a headcut resulting from
downcutting occurring in Reach R4. Reach R5 is laterally unstable on the upper portion of the reach and
has been channelized in the lower section.
NC SAM: WLS completed stream evaluations of the Project reaches using the NC Stream Assessment
Method (NC SAM, Version 2.1, 2015) developed by the NC Stream Functional Assessment Team (SFAT).
The purpose of NC SAM is to provide the public and private sectors with an accurate, consistent, rapid,
observational, and science-based field method to determine the level of function of streams within North
Carolina. NC SAM can be used as a tool for the consideration of project restoration design and planning,
allowing for impacts to be avoided and/or minimized, and to provide information concerning assessed
stream characteristics and functions for the regulatory review process.
WLS evaluated the NC SAM metrics relevant to the project assessment reaches, as shown in Appendix 8.
The metrics were documented to evaluate various stream functions. The Project reach scores ranged from
‘low’ to ‘medium’. Reaches R1, R2 and R3 scored ‘low’ due unstable channel and bank conditions, buffer
and water quality stressors from cattle access, and altered stream morphology. Reaches R4, R4A, R4B and
R5 scored ‘’medium” because of improved aquatic habitat, substrate and marginal buffer widths.
These channel stability and ecological assessments incorporated qualitative and quantitative observations
using historic aerials, field evaluations, and detailed topographic survey data collected across the site. The
conclusions from these assessments help describe the current stream stability, ecological conditions and
functional ratings, however, these methods are not intended to be used for determining mitigation
success on constructed stream and wetland sites.
3.4.3 Channel Evolution
The modified Simon Channel Evolution Model (CEM) describes a predictable sequence of change in a
disturbed channel system (Simon, 1989). Channel evolution typically occurs when a stream system begins
to change its morphologic condition, which can be a negative or positive trend towards stability. The
channel evolution processes and stage vary across the Project site and have been greatly affected by
human-induced disturbances. After reviewing the channel dimension, plan form, and longitudinal profile
information, WLS concluded that none of the Project reaches currently exhibit positive trends towards
stability or quasi-equilibrium. Project reaches R1, R2 and R3 vary between Class ‘III’ and ‘IV’ of the CEM as
evidenced by migrating headcuts and will likely continue to degrade and widen. Reach R4 and R5 are
transitioning from Class ‘IV’ to Class ‘V’ as evidenced by channel widening and sediment aggradation.
Reach R4a and R4b are transitioning from Class ‘I’ to Class ‘II’ resulting from downcutting occurring in
Reach R4. The proposed stream restoration approaches described in Section 6.1 are supported by these
observations.
3.4.4 Sediment Supply, Delivery and Storage
Visual inspections of the channel substrate materials were conducted for each of the Project stream
reaches. Representative bed materials were bulk sampled from all reaches. The existing streams consist
of predominantly medium to coarse gravel, with some small cobble materials (D50 ranging from 15.2 mm
on R1, 13.7 mm on R4, and 45.6 mm on R5). Subpavement sampling indicating D50 ranging from 21 mm
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 20
DMS Project #100026

on R1 to 45.8 mm. Due to past downcutting associated with headcut migration, most grade control along
the project reaches appears to be provided by exposed bedrock knickpoints and ford/culverted stream
crossings. Much of the parent material, which contains fine/medium gravel particle sizes, are mostly
buried and still evident in some of the bank profiles. Field investigations suggest that the sediment supply
is being recruited predominantly from streambank erosion along the project stream reaches. The
streambank erosion along the project stream reaches appears to be limited during episodic storm flows
due to the small headwater drainages, minimal impervious cover, cattle hoof shear, and influences from
herbaceous vegetation and rotational hay crop cover.

Over the past few decades, the removal of woody buffer vegetation from the stream channels has
decreased channel stability and increased the episodic pulse deliveries of stored sediment to downstream
channels (Bilby, 1984). This anthropogenic derived sediment does not occur uniformly over the landscape
(James, 2013) and changes in the amount and local storage areas for water and sediment can substantially
affect hydrogeomorphic variability in headwater stream systems (McKenney et al. 1995). Improving the
existing stream crossings and restoring more natural flood flows will facilitate positive adjustments to
sediment routing and storage across the reconnected floodplain.
3.4.5 Jurisdictional WOTUS
WLS investigated on-site jurisdictional waters of the US (WOTUS) using the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Routine On-Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement
(USACE, 1987. Determination methods included stream classification utilizing the NCDWQ Stream
Identification Form and the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. Potential jurisdictional (JD)
wetland areas as well as upland areas were classified using the USACE Wetland Determination Data Form.
The results of the on-site field investigation indicated that Project Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, R4a, R4b, and
R5 were determined to be jurisdictional stream channels. Project Reaches R1, R4, R4b, and R5 were
determined to be perennial while Project Reaches R2, R3, and R4a were determined to be intermittent.
Four (4) jurisdictional wetland areas were delineated within the proposed project area (See Figure 6) and
are located within the floodplain areas along the project stream reaches. WLS received a preliminary JD
approval letter from the USACE in March 2019 and supporting documents and are located in Appendix 9.
Currently, some of the existing wetland areas located in the floodplain have been impacted by cattle
wallowing and past land clearing. After restoration activities, these areas will experience a more natural
hydrology and flooding regime, and the riparian buffer area will be planted with native woody vegetation
species that is more tolerant of wet conditions. The restoration design approach will likely enhance any
areas of adjacent fringe or marginal wetlands. Existing stream profiles will be elevated along all reaches,
which will improve local water table conditions adjacent to the channels and encourage more frequent
flooding of riparian wetland areas. The proposed stream and wetland impacts are considered temporary
and included with the 401/404 permit application.
Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 21
DMS Project #100026
3.5 Potential Site Constraints
3.5.1 Existing Easements and Right-Of-Ways on the Site
No existing easement exists within the project site. There is an area along the left terrace of R1 and the
downstream extent of R5 that is impacted by a road right-of-way. The road right-of-way along R1 is
impacting the minimum buffer width for approximately 200 linear feet of the left buffer width along R1.
This is documented in Figure 11b and is included in the stream buffer credit calculator output in Appendix
2. Additionally, R5 is impacted by a road right-of-way at the downstream reach extent. The road right-of-
way is impacting the minimum buffer channel buffer width in the left floodplain for approximately 40
linear feet. This is documented in Figure 11a and is included in the stream buffer credit calculator output
in Appendix 2.
3.5.2 Utility Corridors within the Site
There is an existing utility crossing on the downstream extent of reach R5 that parallels Kiger Road. This
existing utility easement was excluded from the conservation easement boundary.
3.5.3 Mineral or Water Rights Assurance
There are no mineral or water rights issues within or adjacent to the Project properties.
3.5.4 Hydrologic Trespass
None of the Project reaches are located within a FEMA regulated floodplain. While it is not anticipated
that there will be issues associated with FEMA permitting or documentation, WLS will coordinate with the
local floodplain administrator as needed and prepare the required documentation to obtain approval for
any FEMA regulated impacts. In addition, the Project will be designed so that any increase in flooding will
be contained within the Project boundary and will not impact adjacent landowners; therefore, hydrologic
trespass will not be a concern.
3.5.5 Invasive Species Vegetation
There are currently no substantial communities of invasive plant species within the Project boundaries.
Some small, immature Chinese privet plants and multiflora rose were observed within the existing riparian
buffer areas. These areas will be monitored by WLS, and any invasive plants found within the Project
boundary will be treated to prevent expansion and establishment of a substantial invasive community.
4 Functional Uplift Potential
Harman et al. (2012) provides a framework for conducting function-based assessments to develop project
goals and objectives based on a site’s restoration potential and functional uplift. The framework is based
on the Stream Functions Pyramid (SFP) which is a conceptual model that can be used to better define
project goals and objectives by linking them to stream functions. Stream functions are separated into a
hierarchy of functions and structural measures, ranging from Level 1 to Level 5 and include the following
functional categories: Hydrology (Level 1), Hydraulic (Level 2), Geomorphic (Level 3), Physiochemical
(Level 4), and Biological (Level 5). Chapter 4 of A Function-Based Framework (Harman et al., 2012) provides
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 22
DMS Project #100026

a more detailed description of the SFP and is illustrated in Appendix 2. The SFP framework is applied below
to further describe the functional lift potential based on the existing conditions assessment and proposed
restoration design elements.
4.1.1 Function-Based Parameters and Measurement Methods
Function-based parameters and measurement methods were evaluated using the NC Stream Functional
Lift Quantification Tool (SQT, v3.0) to help assess the existing stream conditions, determine restoration
potential and identify risks associated with the project site. The SQT is a qualitative and quantitative
resource used to describe the function-based condition of each project reach, as well as evaluate
functional capacity and predict the overall proposed lift (Harman and Jones, 2016). WLS applied the SQT
to help further define goals and objectives based on the restoration potential. The results of this
assessment helped determine the highest level of restoration that may be achieved based on-site
constraints and existing conditions. Table 10 shows the function-based condition assessment parameters
and measurement methods selected to help quantify and describe each functional category. The
complete SQT functional assessment worksheets and summaries are provided in Appendix 2.
Table 10. Existing and Proposed Functional Condition Assessment Summary
Functional Category (Level) Function-Based Parameters Measurement Method
Hydrology (Level 1) Catchment Hydrology Catchment Assessment/ Curve
Number
Runoff Curve Number
Hydraulics (Level 2)
Floodplain Connectivity Bank Height Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Migration/Lateral Stability Meander Width Ratio
BEHI/NBS
Riparian Vegetation
Left Buffer Width (ft)
Right Buffer Width (ft)
Left Density (stems/acre)
Right Density (stems/acre)
Bed Form Diversity Pool Depth and Spacing Ratio
Percent Riffle and Pool
Geomorphic (Level 3) Sinuosity Plan Form
Channel Evolution Simon Channel Evolution Model
Physicochemical (Level 4) Organic Carbon Percent Shredders
Biology (Level 5) Macrobenthos Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Note: Table adapted from Harman et al. (2012).
4.1.2 Performance Standards and Functional Capacity
The Pyramid Framework includes performance standards associated with the function-based assessments
and measurement methods described above. The performance standards are used to determine the
functional capacity and are stratified into three types: Functioning (F), Functioning-at-Risk (FAR), and Not
Functioning (NF). The detailed definitions and index value ranges for each type are described further in
Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 23
DMS Project #100026
the SQT (Harman and Jones, 2016). Table 11 summarizes the overall reach scoring and functional lift
summary for each project reach.
Table 11. Functional Lift Scoring Summary
Reach Scoring / Rating R1 R2 R3 R4 R4A R4B R5
Overall Existing Condition Score (ECS) 0.15 0.24 0.31 0.31 0.27 0.24 0.38
Overall Proposed Condition Score (PCS) 0.79 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.90
Functional Lift Score 0.64 0.24 0.18 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.52
Percent Condition Lift (%) 427% 100% 58% 61% 81% 104% 137%
Functional Foot Score (FFS)
Existing vs. Proposed
210 69 14 234 48 53 1106
Functional Lift (%) 412% 107% 58% 63% 144% 249% 116%
Overall Existing vs. Proposed Condition
NF /
FAR
NF /
FAR
FAR /
FAR
FAR /
FAR
NF /
FAR
NF /
FAR
FAR /
FAR
4.1.3 Restoration Potential
After completing the function-based assessment, the restoration potential was determined to better
define the Project design goals and objectives. It is common for restoration projects to occur at a reach
scale that provide minimum functional lift of Level 2 and 3 parameters. However, to achieve goals in
Levels 4 and 5, a combination of reach scale restoration and upstream watershed health must be
measurable and sustainable. The overall restoration potential was determined at Level 3
(Geomorphology) since the watershed assessment scored ‘Fair’ and may not fully support biological
reference conditions in the upper reaches given the current nutrient inputs, smaller drainages,
intermittent flow, and current watershed conditions.
Based on the existing condition assessments, the overall bioclassification is considered ‘Fair’. It is expected
that the implementation of this project will reduce pollutant loads, including sediment and nutrients,
improving overall aquatic functions and bioclassification from ‘Fair’ to ‘Good’. Given the landscape
position and catchment size, the restoration activities will likely provide functional lift within the
physicochemical and biological functional categories. Post-restoration efforts will also include
supplemental monitoring of biological parameters (Level 5 Category) to document any functional
improvements and/or identify trends during the monitoring period.
However, any Level 4 and 5 function-based parameters and monitoring activities will not be tied to
performance standards nor required to demonstrate success for credit release.
The SQT manual recommends that practitioners, stakeholders and regulators collaborate when selecting
appropriate parameters for determining whether project goals and objectives are being met or if any
performance standards need to be adjusted based on local site conditions. Not all functional categories
and parameters, such as water quality (Physicochemical - Level 4) and performance standards listed in the
SQT will be compared or required to determine project success and stream mitigation credit and debit
scenarios. However, selecting applicable monitoring and evaluation methods will help develop a more
function-based assessment and improve our project implementation process, thereby advancing the
practice of ecosystem restoration.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 24
DMS Project #100026

5 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
WLS set mitigation project goals and objectives to provide compensatory mitigation credits to DMS based
on the resource condition, functional capacity and restoration potential of the watershed to improve and
protect diverse aquatic resources comparable to stable headwater stream systems within the Piedmont
Physiographic Province. The proposed mitigation types and design approaches considered the general
restoration and resource protection goals and strategies outlined in the Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin
Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP, 2009). More specifically, watershed goals and management strategies
described in the Upper Yadkin Local Watershed Plan (LWP) will be met by:

• Reducing sediment, soil erosion, turbidity, and nutrient inputs such as fecal coliform bacteria,
nitrogen, and phosphorus to the Horne Creek Watershed.
• Restoring, enhancing, preserving and protecting headwater streams, wetlands, riparian buffers
and aquatic habitat functions.
• Improving riparian corridor management and targeting restoration of impacted streams and
riparian buffer areas.
• Promoting agronomic farm management techniques and implementing agricultural BMPs and
water quality features such as livestock exclusion fencing, alternative watering structures,
nutrient management, and wetlands restoration.
• Coordinating with landowners and NRCS/USDA through local program(s), farmland protection
planning and education/outreach.

The following site-specific goals were developed to address the primary concerns outlined in the LWP and
RBRP and include:

• Restore stream and floodplain interaction and geomorphically stable conditions by reconnecting
historic flow paths and promoting more natural flood processes,
• Improve and protect water quality by reducing streambank erosion, nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and habitat connectivity in perpetuity by recording
a permanent conservation easement,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters.

Function-based goals and objectives were considered that relate restoration activities to the appropriate
parameters from the SFP framework, which are based on existing conditions, site constraints and overall
restoration potential. When developing realistic function-based project goals and design objectives, it is
imperative to know why the functions or resources need to be restored (Goal) and what specific
restoration activities and measurement methods will be used to validate the predicted results (Objective).
To accomplish these site-specific goals, the following function objectives will be measured to document
overall project success as described in Table 12 below.

Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 25
DMS Project #100026
Table 12. Function-Based Goals and Design Objectives Summary
Functional Category
(Level) Functional Goal / Parameter Functional Design Objective
Hydrology (Level 1) Improve Base Flow
Improve and/or remove existing stream
crossings and restore a more natural flow
regime and aquatic passage.
Hydraulics (Level 2) Reconnect Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area Widths
Design BHRs to not exceed 1.2 and increase
ERs no less than 2.2 Rosgen ‘C’ and ‘E’ stream
types and 1.4 for ‘B’ stream types.
Geomorphology
(Level 3)
Improve Bedform Diversity Increase riffle/pool percentage and pool-to-
pool spacing ratios.
Increase Lateral Stability
Reduce BEHI/NBS streambank erosion rates
comparable to downstream reference
condition and stable cross-section values.
Establish Riparian Buffer Vegetation
Plant native species vegetation a minimum 30’
wide from the top of the streambanks with a
composition/density comparable to
downstream reference condition.
Physicochemical
(Level 4) Improve Water Quality Remove cattle from riparian corridor and
increase percent shredders.
Biology
(Level 5)
Improve Macroinvertebrate
Community and Aquatic Species
Health
Incorporate native woody debris into channel.

As described in Section 4, the function-based assessment suggests that the proposed mitigation activities
will result in a higher functioning aquatic ecosystem. The project goals and objectives address water
quality stressors by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs through stream restoration, riparian buffer
restoration, riparian wetland restoration and implementing agricultural BMPs. Hydrologic functions will
be improved by raising the local water table. A more natural flow regime will be restored to riparian
wetlands and floodplain areas by implementing a Priority Level I Restoration. The water quality functions
will also be improved by installing permanent cattle exclusion fencing. The biologic and habitat functions
will be improved by extending wildlife corridors that connect with wooded areas near the upstream and
downstream extents of the project reaches.
Additionally, site protection through a conservation easement in excess of 30 feet from the top of banks,
will protect all stream reaches and aquatic resources in perpetuity. These mitigation efforts will provide a
significant ecological benefit with minimal impacts and constraints during a recovery period that would
not otherwise occur through natural processes.
5.1.1 Project Benefits Summary
The project will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Upper Horne Creek
Watershed. While many of these benefits will focus on the project area, others, such as nutrient removal,
sediment reduction, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, others have more far-reaching effects
that extend downstream. The expected project benefits and ecological improvements are summarized
below in Table 13.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 26
DMS Project #100026

Table 13. Project Benefits Summary
Benefits Related to Hydrology
Rainfall/Runoff
Improving existing stream crossings and properly sizing pipe culverts and water quality
treatment features will reestablish more natural flow conditions and water transport during
various storm events.
Benefits Related to Hydraulics
Floodplain
Connectivity
The restored streams will be raised and reconnected to their active or relic floodplains to
spread higher flow energies onto the floodplain thereby increasing retention time and
floodplain roughness.
Surface
Storage and
Retention
Incorporation of vernal pools, depressional areas, and other constructed floodplain features
will improve flow dynamics by reducing runoff velocities and provide additional surface
storage and habitat diversity.
Groundwater
Recharge/
Hyporheic
exchange
Benefits will be achieved through establishing vegetated buffers, which increase groundwater
infiltration, surface water interaction, and recharge rates.
Benefits Related to Geomorphology
Proper
Channel Form
Restoring an appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile will efficiently transport and deposit
sediment (point bars and floodplain sinks) relative to the stream’s power and load that is
supplied from banks and uplands. Stream channels that are appropriately sized to convey
higher frequency storm flows will greatly improve channel stability by reducing active bank
erosion (lateral stability) and bed degradation (vertical stability; i.e. headcuts, downcutting,
incision).
Sediment
Transport
Boundary conditions, climate, and geologic controls influence stream channel formation and
how sediment is transported through its watershed. Adequate channel capacity will ensure
sediment supply is distributed such that excessive degradation and aggradation does not
occur.
Riparian Buffer
Vegetation
Planting buffer vegetation will improve thermal regulation (stream shading) along the riparian
corridor, as well as increase woody root mass and density thereby decreasing bank erosion
and sedimentation and increasing organic matter and woody debris.
Bioengineering
Treatments
Bioengineering practices such as live staking, brush layering, and vegetated soil lifts will help
encourage lateral bank stability and prevent further bank erosion and sedimentation.
Benefits Related to Physicochemical (Water Quality)
Nutrient
Reduction
Benefit will be achieved through the removal of cattle manure in the form of fecal coliform
bacteria and excess nutrients through exclusion fencing, filtration and nutrient uptake within
the restored and enhanced vegetated buffers.
Sediment
Reduction
Benefit will be achieved through stabilization of eroding banks; installation of vegetation
buffers; and by dissipating stream energy with increased overbank flows during storm events.
DO, NO3-, DOC
Concentration
Benefits will be achieved through the restoration of more natural stream forms including riffle
and pool sequences, which will increase dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations. In addition, as
planted riparian buffers mature, the increased shade and wider vegetation density/structure
will reduce water temperatures and groundwater nitrates (NO3-) as well as increase dissolved
organic carbon (DOC) (King et al, 2016).
Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 27
DMS Project #100026
Benefits Related to Biology
Terrestrial and
Aquatic
Habitat
Benefits will be achieved through the incorporation of physical structure, removal of invasive
species vegetation and returning native vegetation to the restored buffer areas. Benefits to
aquatic organisms will be achieved through the installation of appropriate in-stream
structures. Adequately transporting and depositing fine-grain sediment onto the floodplain
will prevent embeddedness and create interstitial habitat, organic food resources and in-
stream cover.
Landscape
Connectivity
Benefits to landscape connectivity will be achieved by restoring a healthy stream corridor,
promoting aquatic and terrestrial species migration and protecting their shared resources in
perpetuity.
6 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
The project includes the restoration, enhancement, and permanent protection of seven stream reaches
(R1, R2, R3, R4, R4a, R4b, and R5) totaling approximately 5,681 linear feet of existing tributaries (See
Figure 10). The design approach will utilize the entire suite of stream mitigation practices, from Priority
Level I Restoration to Enhancement Level II, and appropriately addresses all the intermittent and
perennial stream reaches at the project site. The project also includes restoring riparian buffers and
riparian wetlands along streams currently in agriculture or pasture, providing permanent livestock
exclusion, and improving the existing stream crossings, thus providing the maximum functional uplift and
a unique opportunity to implement a comprehensive watershed approach. The mitigation components
and proposed credit structure is outlined in Table 14 and the design approach and mitigation work plan
are described in the following subsections.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 28
DMS Project #100026

Table 14. Mitigation Components and Proposed Credit Summary
Project
Component
Existing
Footage
or
Acreage
Proposed
Reach
Stationing
Restored
Footage,
Acreage,
or SF
Creditable
Footage,
Acreage
or SF
Restoration
Level
Approach
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Mitigation
Credits
R1 1,397
10+00 –
23+40 1,320 1,320 R PI/PII 1 1,320
R2 286
10+17 –
13+13 296 296 R PII 1 296
R3 75
11+80 –
12+55 76 76 R PII 1 76
R4 1,191
13+13 –
25+19 1,167 1,167 R PI/PII 1 1,167
R4a 124
10+98 –
11+54 57 57 EII - 2.5 23
R4a -
11+55 –
12+65 111 111 R PI 1 111
R4b 89
10+72 –
10+99 27 27 EII - 2.5 11
R4b -
10+99 –
12+24 125 125 R PI 1 125
R5 2,519
25+19 –
48+12 2,249 2,249 R PI 1 2,249
Totals 5,681 5,428 5,428 5,378
Credit Loss in Required Buffer -300
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer 325
Net Change in Credit from Buffers +25
Total Credits per Buffer Calculator 5,403
Total Adjusted SMCs 5,389
Note 1: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
Note 2: The difference in Proposed Reach Stationing length and Restored Footage is the result of permanent crossings.
Note 3: The Wilmington District Stream Buffer Calculator was used to determine credit losses/gains due to 11% of the total
project lengths buffer widths being less than 30’. Based on the stream buffer credit calculator the total net increase in
stream credits is 25 credits. This is due in part to many areas within the buffer being greater than 30’. WLS is proposing the
adjusted SMCs totaling 5,389 credits.
Note 4: Values in table were rounded to the nearest whole number.
6.1 Stream Mitigation Credit Adjustments
To calculate the stream credit adjustments, WLS utilized the USACE-Wilmington District Stream Buffer
Credit Calculator (USACE, 2018). To perform this calculation, a GIS analysis was performed to determine
the area (in square feet) of ideal buffer zones and actual buffer zones around all streams within the
project. Minimum standard buffer widths were measured from the top of bank (50 feet in Piedmont and
Coastal Plain counties or 30 feet in Mountain counties). The ideal buffers are the maximum potential size
(in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS,
including areas outside of the easement. The actual buffer is the square feet in each buffer zone, as
measured by GIS, excluding non-forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer),
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 29
DMS Project #100026

easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc.
Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are more than 150
feet from creditable streams were not included in this measurement. Non-creditable stream reaches
within the easement were removed prior to calculating this area with GIS (for both ideal and actual). The
stream lengths, mitigation type, ideal buffer, and actual buffer were all entered into the calculator. This
is data was processed, and the resulting credit amounts were totaled for the entire project. See Tables 1
and 14, Figures 11a and 11b, and the stream buffer credit calculator in Appendix 2 for additional
information.
6.2 Stream Design Approach
As described above in Sections 4 and 5, WLS used function-based assessment methods and data analyses
to determine overall restoration potential and functional uplift. The stream design approach generally
followed the techniques and methods outlined in the NRCS Stream Restoration Design–National
Engineering Handbook (NRCS, 2007) and Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects (USACE, 2001).
In addition, the natural stable channel design (NCD) procedures outlined in the Natural Channel Design
Review Checklist (Harman and Starr, 2011) were applied to address specific stream functions lost across
the site, while also minimizing disturbances to existing wooded areas and higher functioning resources.
WLS first compiled and assessed watershed information such as drainage areas, historical land use,
geologic setting, soil types, sediment inputs and plant communities. Kee Surveying and Mapping then
performed detailed existing conditions topographic and planimetric surveying of the project site and
produced a 1-foot contour map, based on survey data, to create base mapping and plan sheets (See
Appendix 1). Detailed geomorphic surveys were also conducted along the channel and floodplain to
determine valley slopes/widths, channel dimensions, longitudinal profile elevations, and to validate the
signatures shown on the LiDAR imagery (See Figure 5).
Project stream design criteria was developed using a combination of industry sources and applied
approaches, including a review of applicable reference reach data (analog), evaluation of published
regression equations and hydraulic geometry relationships (regional curves), monitoring results from
stable past projects (empirical), and building a 2D unsteady state hydraulic model using process-based
equations (HEC-RAS) to test design channel geometry and bed stability (analytical).
It should be mentioned, while analog and empirical form-based approaches have been proven effective
in designing stable stream systems, their application assumes quasi-equilibrium conditions and similar
watershed and boundary conditions (i.e. dominant discharge, flow regime, channel roughness, controlling
vegetation). Using a static design template that accounts for natural channel variability can be limited by
the regional data sets and overlook other local controlling factors such as flow impoundments, bedrock
geology, woody debris/abundance, and sediment supply (Skidmore, 2001).
Conversely, analytical or process-based approaches rely heavily upon precise data inputs and a more
robust level of effort may not be practical or even necessary to replicate channel geometry given the
model sensitivity and desired outcome. Designing dynamic headwater channels is an iterative process that
requires a detailed assessment of sediment continuity and predicted channel response for a range of
smaller flows. Although it is difficult to definitively predict long term hydrologic conditions in the
watershed, designing an appropriate stream channel for the valley characteristics (i.e. slope, width, and
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 30
DMS Project #100026

confinement) is always the preferred design rationale. Therefore, best professional judgment must be
used when selecting appropriate design criteria for lifting the desired ecological functions.
6.2.1 Proposed Design Parameters
The proposed design parameters were developed so that plan view layout, cross-section dimensions, and
longitudinal profiles could be described for developing construction documents. The design philosophy
considers these parameters as conservative guidelines that allow for more natural variability in stream
dimension, facet slopes, and bed features to form over long periods of time under the processes of
flooding, re-colonization of vegetation, and other watershed influences (Harman, Starr, 2011).
Evaluating reference reach information and empirical data from monitoring stable rural Piedmont stream
restoration projects provided pertinent background information and rationale to determine the
appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and restoration potential. The proposed
stream design parameters also considered the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003
(rev. October 2005) and the Natural Channel Design Checklist (Harman, 2011).
Table 15. Proposed Design Parameters
Parameter R1 R2 R3 R4 R4a R4b R5
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.059 0.064 0.046 0.130 0.045 0.003 0.260
Stream Type (Rosgen) B4 B4 B4a B4/C4b B4 B4 C4
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area,
Abkf (sq ft) 2.89 2.75 2.25 5.20 2.28 0.83 7.20
Bankfull Mean Velocity,
Vbkf (ft/sec) 4.16 3.93 4.44 4.23 4.39 3.64 3.75
Bankfull Riffle Width,
Wbkf (ft) 7.0 6.0 6.0 9.0 6.0 3.5 10.0
Bankfull Riffle Mean
Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.7
Width to Depth Ratio,
W/D (ft/ft) 17.0 13.1 16.0 15.6 16.0 14.8 13.9
Width Floodprone Area,
Wfpa (ft) 28 – 65 15 – 19 20 – 34 38 – 79 25 – 46 8 – 46 54 – 134
Entrenchment Ratio,
Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 4 – 9.3 2.5 – 3.2 3.3 – 5.7 4.2 – 8.8 4.2 – 7.7 2.3 –
13.1
5.4 –
13.4
Riffle Max Depth Ratio,
Dmax/Dbkf 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
Bank Height Ratio,
Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Meander Length Ratio,
Lm/Wbkf
7.0 –
12.0
7.0 –
12.0
7.0 –
12.0
7.0 –
12.0
7.0 –
12.0
7.0 –
12.0
7.0 –
12.0
Radius of Curvature
Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 2.0 – 3.0 2.0 – 3.0 2.0 – 3.0 2.0 – 3.0 2.0 – 3.0 2.0 – 3.0 2.0 – 3.0
Meander Width Ratio,
Wblt/Wbkf 3.5-8.0 3.5 – 8.0 3.5 – 8.0 3.5 – 8.0 3.5 – 8.0 3.5 – 8.0 3.5 – 8.0
Channel Sinuosity, K ~1.1 ~1.1 ~1.1 ~1.3 ~1.1 ~1.1 ~1.2
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 31
DMS Project #100026

Parameter R1 R2 R3 R4 R4a R4b R5
Channel Slope, Schan
(ft/ft) 0.0341 0.0302 0.0464 0.0290 0.0205 0.0241 0.0201
Riffle Slope Ratio,
Sriff/Schan 1.1 – 1.8 1.1 – 1.8 1.1 – 1.8 1.1 – 1.8 1.1 – 1.8 1.1 – 1.8 1.5 – 2.0
Pool Slope Ratio,
Spool/Schan 0.0 – 0.4 0.0 – 0.4 0.0 – 0.4 0.0 – 0.4 0.0 – 0.4 0.0 – 0.4 0.0 – 0.2
Pool Width Ratio,
Wpool/Wbkf 1.1 – 1.5 1.1 – 1.5 1.1 – 1.5 1.1 - 1.5 1.1 - 1.5 1.1 - 1.5 1.3 – 1.7
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio,
Lps/Wbkf 1.5 – 5.0 1.5 – 5.0 1.5 – 5.0 1.5 – 5.0 1.5 – 5.0 1.5 – 5.0 1.5 – 7.0
Pool Max Depth Ratio,
Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 – 3.5 2.0 – 3.5 2.0 – 3.5 2.0 – 3.5 2.0 – 3.5 2.0 – 3.5 2.0 – 3.5
6.2.2 Design Reach Summary
For design purposes, the stream segments were divided into multiple reaches labeled R1, R2, R3, R4, R4a,
R4b, and R5, as shown in Figure 9. The following narrative summarizes the proposed design approach,
rationale and justification for each of stream reaches.
R1 – Restoration
R1 begins at the upstream western boundary of the project site immediately downstream of an existing
stream crossing. R1 has a stream length of approximately 1,397 feet and average valley slope of 3.4
percent. R1 is severely incised with bank height ratios (BHR) exceeding 4.0. The existing channel generally
flows through the low point of the valley. The majority of the reach will be restored in its current location
and will tie into the downstream channel. Work along R1 will involve relocating the channel towards the
center of the valley and implementing a Priority Level I/II Restoration by raising the bed elevation and
reconnecting the stream with its abandoned floodplain.

The reach will be restored as a Rosgen B4 stream type using appropriate riffle-pool and step-pool
morphology with minimal meander planform geometry that accommodates the valley slope and width.
This approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well
as improved ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The proposed design
width/depth ratio will range from 12-18, which will be similar to stable streams in this geologic setting.
In-stream structures will be incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow energies, protect streambanks,
and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. In-stream structures will include constructed
riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat, log and rock weirs for encouraging step-pool formation, bank
stability, and bedform diversity. Additionally, existing stream substrate will be reused in the project
structures where appropriate. Bioengineering techniques such as geolifts and live stakes will also be used
to protect streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks. Any mature trees
or significant native vegetation will be protected and incorporated into the design.

WLS proposes to plant native woody species vegetation and restore the riparian buffer in excess of 30
feet within the conservation easement in most areas. A section of the reach between Station 21+45 and
Station 23+11 has a reduced left buffer width (less than 30 feet). This reduced buffer is due to an adjacent
roadway Right-Of-Way (ROW) that will not allow for extension of the buffer width to the required 30 feet
through the entire reach. To compensate for the reduced left buffer width in this section, WLS proposes
to increase the right buffer width. The right buffer width ranges from 44 feet to 70 feet at its widest point.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 32
DMS Project #100026

Permanent fencing will be installed to permanently exclude livestock and reduce sediment and nutrient
inputs. A permanent 20-foot culverted crossing will be installed to allow for landowner access between
pastures. Additionally, a water quality treatment feature will be installed inside of the conservation
easement to reduce direct sediment and nutrient inputs. Permanent fencing will be installed to exclude
livestock and reduce sediment and nutrient inputs. These proposed restoration activities will provide the
maximum possible functional uplift.
R2 – Restoration
R2 is an intermittent stream that begins approximately 200 downstream of a roadway culvert under
Caudle Road. The valley slope is approximately 3.3 percent. R2 is severely incised with BHRs exceeding
2.0. During site investigations, the channel appears to have been historically manipulated and relocated
away from the center/low point of the valley. The reach will be restored as a Rosgen B4 stream type using
appropriate riffle-pool and step-pool morphology with minimal meander planform geometry that will
accommodate the valley slope and width. This approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form
with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as improved ecological function through increased aquatic
and terrestrial habitats. The proposed design width/depth ratio will range from 12-18, which will be
similar to stable streams in this geologic setting. In-stream structures will be incorporated to control
grade, dissipate flow energies, protect streambanks, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel
incision. In-stream structures will include constructed riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat and rock
weirs for encouraging step-pool formation, bank stability, and bedform diversity. Additionally, existing
stream substrate will be reused in the project structures where appropriate. Bioengineering techniques
such as live stakes will also be used to protect streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along
the streambanks.

WLS proposes to plant native woody species vegetation and restore the riparian buffer in excess of 30
feet within the conservation easement in most areas. Along the entire reach length there is a reduced left
buffer width (less than 30 feet). This reduced buffer is due to an adjacent property that is currently not
under option. This will not allow for extension of the buffer width to the required 30 feet through the
entire reach. Finally, one agricultural BMP is proposed along R2 to capture, attenuate, and treat overland
flow that would otherwise enter the riparian buffer as untreated water. The BMP will be constructed
within the conservation easement to allow for easy access and maintenance and to protect the structure
in perpetuity.
R3 – Restoration
R3 is an intermittent stream that begins approximately 75 feet upstream of the confluence with R2 and
R4. The valley slope is approximately 5.0 percent. R3 is severely incised with BHRs exceeding 2.7. Work
along R3 will involve Priority Level II by raising the bed elevation and reconnecting the stream with a
constructed floodplain. The reach will be restored as a Rosgen B4a stream type using appropriate step-
pool morphology with minimal meander planform geometry to accommodate the valley slope and width.
This approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well
as improved ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The design
width/depth ratio will range from 12-18, which will be similar to stable streams in this geologic setting.
In-stream structures will be incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow energies, protect streambanks,
and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. In-stream structures will include constructed
riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat and rock weirs for encouraging step-pool formation, bank
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 33
DMS Project #100026

stability, and bedform diversity. Additionally, existing stream substrate will be reused in the project
structures where appropriate. Bioengineering techniques such as live stakes will also be used to protect
streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks. Finally, two agricultural
BMPs in series are proposed along R3 to capture, attenuate, and treat overland flow that would otherwise
enter the riparian buffer as untreated water. The BMP will be constructed within the conservation
easement to allow for easy access and maintenance and to protect the structure in perpetuity.
R4 - Restoration
R4 is begins at the confluence of R2 and R3. The valley slope is approximately 3.0 percent with the valley
flattening as it nears the confluence with R4a. R4 is severely incised with BHRs exceeding 4.0. The channel
appears to have been historically manipulated in a few locations, but generally flows through the low
point of the valley. Work along R4 will involve a mix of Priority Level I and II Restoration by raising the bed
elevation and reconnecting the stream with its adjacent floodplain or a constructed floodplain. A majority
of the channel will be restored in its current location while the lower 200 feet will be relocated to its
historic position to meander across the left floodplain to tie into R5.
The reach will be restored as a Rosgen B4/C4b stream type using appropriate riffle-pool and step-pool
morphology with a conservative meander planform geometry in the lower 200 feet that accommodates
the valley slope and width. This approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate
bedform diversity, as well as improved ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial
habitats. The design width/depth ratio will range from 12-18 for the channel will be similar to stable
streams in this geologic setting. In-stream structures will be incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow
energies, protect streambanks, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. In-stream
structures will include constructed riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat, log j-hook vanes, log vanes,
and log and rock weirs for encouraging step-pool formation, bank stability, and bedform diversity. Two
(2) permanent 20-foot culverted crossings will be installed to allow for landowner access between
pastures. Additionally, existing stream substrate will be reused in the project structures where
appropriate.
WLS proposes to plant native woody species vegetation and restore the riparian buffer in excess of 30
feet within the conservation easement in most areas. A section of the reach between Station 13+13 and
Station 13+60 has a reduced left buffer width (less than 30 feet). This reduced buffer is due to an adjacent
property that is currently not under option and will not allow for extension of the buffer width to the
required 30 feet through the entire reach.
R4a – Enhancement Level II/Restoration
R4a is small perennial headwater tributary that begins at a spring head within the upper catchment. It
flows for approximately 100 ft before it becomes a jurisdictional stream. Work along R4a will involve
Enhancement Level II practices in upper 57 linear feet to maintain and improve the stability of the channel.
Currently the upper part of the existing channel is fairly stable with limited bank erosion and channel
incision. The lower 111 feet will be restored as a Rosgen B4 stream type using appropriate riffle-pool and
step-pool morphology with minimal meander planform geometry that will accommodate the valley slope
and width. This approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform
diversity, as well as improved ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It will
also allow the channel to be tied into Reach R4 which is being relocated.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 34
DMS Project #100026

In-stream structures will be incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow energies, protect streambanks,
and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. In-stream structures will include constructed
riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat and log weirs for encouraging step-pool formation, bank
stability, and bedform diversity. Additionally, existing stream substrate will be reused in the project
structures where appropriate.
R4b – Enhancement Level II/Restoration
R4b is another small perennial headwater tributary that begins at a spring head within the upper
catchment. A majority of this reach is stable except for a small section at the downstream end where an
active headcut has propagated upstream from R5. Work along R4b will involve Enhancement Level II
practices in upper 27 linear feet to maintain and improve the stability of the channel. Currently the upper
part of the existing channel is moderately stable with limited bank erosion and channel incision.

The lower 125 linear feet will be restored as a Rosgen B4 stream type using appropriate riffle-pool and
step-pool morphology with minimal meander planform geometry that will accommodate the valley slope
and width. This approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform
diversity, as well as improved ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It will
also allow the channel to be tied into Reach R4 which is being relocated. The design width/depth ratio
for the channel will be similar to stable streams in this geologic setting. In-stream structures will be
incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow energies, protect streambanks, and eliminate the potential
for upstream channel incision. In-stream structures will include constructed riffles for grade control and
aquatic habitat and log weirs for encouraging step-pool formation, bank stability, and bedform diversity.
Additionally, existing stream substrate will be reused in the project structures where appropriate.
R5 - Restoration
R5 is begins at the confluence of R4 and R4b. The valley slope is approximately 2.0 percent until the slope
flattens further downstream closer to the channel’s terminus at Kiger Road. R5 is severely incised with
BHRs exceeding 3.0. During site investigations, the channel appears to have been historically manipulated
as evidenced by spoil piles, remnant abandoned channels, and position in the valley. Work along R5 will
involve Priority Level I Restoration by raising the bed elevation and reconnecting the stream with its
adjacent floodplain. A majority of the channel will be constructed offline and the existing channel filled.
This approach will promote more frequent over bank flooding in areas with hydric soils, thereby creating
favorable conditions for wetland restoration (both rehabilitation and re-establishment).

The reach will be restored as a Rosgen C4 stream type using appropriate riffle-pool morphology with a
conservative meander planform geometry accommodates the valley slope (~1.9 percent) and widths. This
approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as
improved ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The design width/depth
ratio will range from 10-14 which is similar to stable streams in this geologic setting. In-stream structures
will be incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow energies, protect streambanks, and eliminate the
potential for upstream channel incision. In-stream structures will include constructed riffles for grade
control and aquatic habitat, log j-hook vanes, log vanes, and log and rock weirs for encouraging step-pool
formation, bank stability, and bedform diversity. Additionally, existing stream substrate will be harvested
and reused in the project structures where appropriate. Bioengineering techniques such as geolifts, toe
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 35
DMS Project #100026

wood, brush layers, and live stakes will also be used to protect streambanks and promote woody
vegetation growth along the streambanks.

Riparian buffers in excess of 30 feet will be restored and protected along the entire length of R5 except
for a section at the downstream project terminus. The reduced buffer width at the downstream project
end is the result of conflicts with an adjacent road ROW. Any mature trees or significant native vegetation
will be protected and incorporated into the design. Permanent fencing will be installed to exclude
livestock and reduce sediment and nutrient inputs. A permanent 20-foot culverted crossing will be
installed to allow for landowner access between pastures. The existing unstable channel will be filled to
an elevation sufficient to connect the new bankfull channel to its historic floodplain or an excavated
floodplain using suitable fill material from the newly restored channel and remnant spoil piles. Shallow
floodplain pools will be created in depressional areas to provide habitat diversity, temporary sediment
storage and improved treatment of overland flows. These proposed restoration activities will provide the
maximum possible functional uplift. Any exotic species vegetation will be removed in this area and native
riparian species vegetation will be planted in the resulting disturbed areas.
6.3 Reference Reach Selection
The morphologic data obtained from reference reach surveys can be a valuable tool for comparison and
used as a template for analog design of a stable stream in a similar valley type with similar bed material.
To extract the morphological relationships observed in a stable system, dimensionless ratios are
developed from the surveyed reference reach. These ratios can be applied to a stream design to allow the
designer to ‘mimic’ the natural, stable form of the target channel type.
While reference reach data can be a useful aid in analog design, they are not always necessary and can
have limitations in smaller stream systems (Hey, 2006). The flow patterns and channel formation for many
reference reach quality streams are often controlled by slope, bed material, drainage areas and larger
trees and/or other deep-rooted vegetation. Some meander geometry parameters, such as radius of
curvature, are particularly affected by vegetation control. Pattern ratios observed in reference reaches
may not be applicable or are often adjusted in the design criteria to create more conservative designs that
are less likely to erode after construction, before the permanent vegetation is established. Often the best
reference data is from adjacent stable stream reaches or reaches within the same watershed.
For comparison purposes, WLS selected local reference reaches in the same and nearby watersheds and
compared them with composite reference data. The reference reach data set represents small “Rural
Piedmont Streams,” and falls within the same climatic, hydrophysiographic and ecological region as the
project site. The data shown on Table 16 helped to determine how the stream system may have
responded to changes within the watershed. Figure 10 shows the reference reach locations as compared
to the project site.

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 36
DMS Project #100026

Table 16. Reference Reach Data Comparison
Parameter Local Reference Data Composite Reference Data
SCP BF
Stream Type (Rosgen) C4b B4 B4 C4
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 6.9 5.4 4.0 - 6.0 3.5 - 5.0
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 18.4 68 12.0 – 18.0 5.0 – 12.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 3.7 1.7 >2.2 >2.2
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 2.3 3.0 1.2 - 1.4 1.1 - 1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.1 1.0 - 1.1
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf - - - 7.0 - 12.0
Radius of Curvature Ratio, Rc/Wbkf - - - 1.2 – 2.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf - - - 3.0 - 8.0
Sinuosity, K 1.10 1.13 1.1 – 1.2 1.2 - 1.6
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0142 0.0317 0.02 – 0.03 0.005 – 0.150
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0123 0.028 --- ---
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf - - 2.0 – 3.5 2.0 – 3.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf - - 1.1 – 1.5 0.8 – 1.2
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf - - 1.5 – 5.0 4.0 - 7.0
Note 1: Composite reference reach values and ratios were compared using stable stream restoration projects
surveyed and monitored in NC as illustrated in the Natural Channel Design Checklist (Harman, 2011).
Note 2: Local reference reach data was collected at Shoals Community Park (SCP) and Brown Farms (BF) sites
respectively.
6.4 Flow Regime
Extensive research demonstrates that a wide range of flows are essential to maintain stable and high
functioning habitat across ecological systems. The flow regime has been identified as the primary factor
in sustaining the ecological integrity of riparian systems (Poff et al. 1997) and is a key variable in
determining the abundance, distribution, and evolution of aquatic and riparian species (Schlosser 1985,
Resh et al. 1988, Power et al. 1995, Doyle et al. 2005). The ecological significance of variable stream flows
is more relative to flow duration, not necessarily just the flow recurrence interval. Seasonal flow variations
correlate to biological relationships and habitat response. The flow conditions can generally be
categorized as low flow, channel-forming flow, or flood flows, each with specific ecological significance
(Postel and Richter, 2003).
A majority of stream miles (>80 percent) in North Carolina are classified as headwater streams (drainage
area <3.9 mi2), however, less than 10 percent of the 284 USGS stream gages in North Carolina are located
on headwater streams (EFSAB, 2013). WLS recognizes the importance of these stream flow variables and
the ecological role they play in supporting high functioning headwater steam and wetland systems. As
such, flow monitoring will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored headwater stream systems
exhibit seasonal base flow during a year with normal rainfall conditions. The stream surface flow
documentation methods are further described in Section 8.2. Table 17 summarizes the basic flow levels
and ecological roles the restoration design will provide after project implementation.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 37
DMS Project #100026

Table 17. Flow Level and Ecological Role
Low Flow (Base Flow):
occurs most
frequently/seasonally
-Provide year-round habitat for aquatic organisms (drying/inundation pattern)
-Maintain suitable conditions for water temperature and dissolved oxygen
-Provide water source for riparian plants and animals
-Enable movement through stream corridor and refuge from predators
-Support hyporheic functions and aquatic organisms

Channel-forming Flow:
infrequent, flow duration of
a few days per year
-Shape and maintain physical stream channel form
-Create and maintain pools, in-stream and refuge habitat
-Redistribute and sort fine and coarse sediments
-Reduce encroachment of vegetation in channel and establishment of exotic
species
-Maintain water quality by flushing pollutants
-Maintain hyporheic connection by mobilizing bed and fine material
-Create in-channel bars for seed colonization of native riparian plants

Flood Flow: very infrequent,
flow duration of a few days
per decade or century
-Deposition of fine sediment and nutrients on floodplain
-Maintain diversity, function, and health of riparian floodplain vegetation
-Create streamside habitat, new channels, sloughs, and off-channel rearing
habitat through lateral channel migration and avulsion
-Recharge floodplain and storage processes
-Recruitment of native wood and organic material into channel
6.4.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge
Bankfull stage and its corresponding discharge are the primary variables used to develop a natural stable
channel design. However, the correct identification of the bankfull stage in the field was difficult and can
also be subjective (Williams, 1978; Knighton, 1988; and Johnson and Heil, 1996). Numerous definitions
exist of bankfull stage and methods for its identification in the field (Wolman and Leopold, 1957; Nixon,
1959; Schumm, 1960; Kilpatrick and Barnes, 1964; and Williams, 1978). The identification of bankfull stage
in the humid Southeast can be especially challenging because of dense understory vegetation and
extensive channel modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology.
It is generally understood that bankfull stage corresponds with the discharge that fills a channel to the
elevation of the active floodplain and represents a breakpoint between processes of channel formation
and floodplain development. The bankfull discharge, which also corresponds with the dominant discharge
or effective discharge, is the flow that moves the most sediment over time in stable alluvial channels.
Field indicators include the back of point bars, significant breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, the
highest scour line, or the top of the streambank (Leopold, 1994). The most consistent bankfull indicators
for streams in the Piedmont of North Carolina are the backs of point bars, breaks in slope at the front of
flat bankfull benches, or the top of the streambanks (Harman et al., 1999).
Upon completion of the field survey and geomorphic assessment, accurate identification of bankfull stage
could not be made in all reach sections throughout the site due to incised and impaired channel
conditions. Although some field indicators were apparent in segments with lower streambank heights and
discernible scour features, the reliability of the indicators was inconsistent due to the altered condition of
the stream channels. For this reason, the bankfull stage and discharge were estimated using published
regional curve information.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 38
DMS Project #100026

6.4.2 Regional Curve Comparison
Regional curves developed by Dunne and Leopold (1978) relate bankfull channel dimensions to drainage
area and are based on the channel forming discharge theory, which states that one unique flow can yield
the same channel morphology as the full range of flows. A primary purpose for developing regional curves
is to aid in identifying bankfull stage and dimension in un-gaged watersheds, as well as to help predict the
bankfull dimension and discharge for natural channel designs (Rosgen, 1994). Gage station analyses
throughout the United States have shown that the bankfull discharge has an average return interval of
1.5 years or 66.7% annual exceedance probability on the maximum annual series (Dunne and Leopold,
1978; Leopold, 1994).
Hydraulic geometry relationships are empirically derived and can be developed for a specific river or
extrapolated to a watershed in the same physiographic region with similar rainfall/runoff relationships
(FISRWG, 1998). Published and unpublished watershed specific bankfull regional curves are available for
a range of stream types and physiographic provinces. The NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et
al., 1999) and unpublished NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve developed by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS, Walker, private communication, 2015) were used for comparison when
estimating bankfull discharge. The NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve and bankfull hydraulic geometry
equations are shown in Table 18.
Table 18. North Carolina Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
(Unpublished Revised NC Rural Piedmont Regional
Curve (NRCS, 2015)
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
(Published Harman et al., 1999)
Qbkf = 55.31 Aw 0.79 R2=0.97 Qbkf = 89.04 Aw 0.72 R2=0.91
Abkf = 19.23 Aw 0.65 R2=0.97 Abkf = 21.43 Aw 0.68 R2=0.95
Wbkf = 17.41 Aw 0.37 R2=0.79 Wbkf = 11.89 Aw 0.43 R2=0.81
Dbkf = 1.09 Aw 0.29 R2=0.80 Dbkf = 1.50 Aw 0.32 R2=0.88

It’s important to note these tributaries are classified as first order streams, and generally smaller
headwater streams can be poorly represented on the regional curves. Based on our experience, the
published NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations can slightly overestimate discharge and channel
dimensions for smaller ungaged streams, such as those present at this site. Furthermore, estimating
bankfull parameters subjectively rather than using deterministic values may encourage designers to make
decisions on a range of values and beliefs that the bankfull depths must inherently be within that range
(Johnson and Heil, 1996).
WLS has implemented numerous projects in ungaged drainages in the piedmont hydrophysiographic
province of North Carolina, including nearby projects in Surry and surrounding counties, and has
developed “mini-curves” specific to these projects. The data set on these small stream curves help reduce
uncertainty by providing additional reference points and supporting evidence for the selection of bankfull
indicators that produce slightly smaller dimensions and flow rates than the published regional curve data
set. Channel slope, valley setting, channel geometry, and sediment supply, as well as information from
the USGS regression and Manning’s equations were all considered during examination of the field data.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 39
DMS Project #100026

The estimated bankfull discharges and surveyed cross-sectional areas at the top of bank were plotted on
the NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve and illustrated in Appendix 2.
6.4.3 Channel Forming Discharge
A hydrologic analysis was completed to estimate and validate the design discharge and channel geometry
required to provide more frequent overbank flows and floodplain inundation. WLS used multiple methods
for evaluating the bankfull stage and dominant discharge for the project reaches. Cross-sections were
identified and surveyed to represent reach-wide conditions. Additional bankfull estimation methods, such
as the commonly accepted Manning’s equation, were compared to help interpret and adjust field
observations to select the appropriate design criteria and justification for the design approach.
The bankfull flows in gaged watersheds within the NC Rural Piedmont study documented return intervals
(RI) that ranges from 1.1 to 1.8, with a mean of 1.4 years (Harman et al, 1999). WLS also compared the 2-
year flow frequency using the published USGS regression equation for small rural streams (DA ≤3 mi2)
within the piedmont hydrologic area of North Carolina (USGS, 2014). As expected, these values fall slightly
above the published bankfull discharge, but were extrapolated to represent a wider range of flows. WLS
then compared lower flow frequencies in the 1.0-yr, 1.2-yr, and 1.5-yr RI range versus survey data, field
observations, and HEC-RAS 2D model outputs (See Appendix 2).
It should be noted that this best fit approach does not always match the dataset, since it falls at the low
end of the curve. Therefore, caution should be used when comparing these lower RIs with additional data
sets. Using the rationale described above, Table 19 provides the bankfull discharge analyses and
comparisons based on the rural piedmont regional curves, the Manning’s equation discharges calculated
from the representative cross-section geometry for existing reaches, USGS regional regression equations,
and the design discharge estimated based on the proposed design cross-sections for all project reaches.

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 40
DMS Project #100026

Table 19. Design Discharge Analysis Summary
Project
Reach
Designation
Watershed
Drainage
Area (Ac)
Published
NC Rural
Piedmont
Regional
Curve
(cfs) 1
Unpublished
NC Rural
Piedmont
Regional
Curve (cfs) 2
Manning’s
Equation
(cfs) 3
USGS
Regression
Equation
for 2-year
Recurrence
Interval
(cfs) 4
USGS
Regression
Equation
for 1.5-
year
Recurrence
Interval
(cfs) 5
USGS
Regression
Equation
for 1.2-
year
Recurrence
Interval
(cfs) 5
Design
Discharge
Estimate
(cfs)
R1 38 12.2 5.7 6.6 22.5 19.0 15.9 12.0
R2 41 13.0 6.2 11.4 24.1 20.1 16.8 12.0
R3 29 10.3 4.7 8.6 18.9 16.1 13.6 10.0
R4a 29 10.1 4.6 7.9 18.7 16.0 13.5 10.0
R4b 1.7 1.3 0.5 4.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 3.0
R4 83 21.5 10.9 19.4 39.7 31.7 25.6 22.0
R5 166 35.2 19.0 33.0 64.8 49.3 38.4 27.0
Note 1: Published NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999).
Note 2: Unpublished Revised NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve developed by NRCS (A. Walker personal communication,
2015).
Note 3: Bankfull discharge estimates vary based on Manning’s Equation for the representative riffle cross-sections.
Bankfull stage roughness estimates (n-values) ranged from approximately 0.047 to 0.059 based on channel slopes, depth,
bed material size, and vegetation influence.
Note 4: USGS rural regression equation for 2-year flood recurrence interval, Q2
=163(DA)^0.7089*10^(0.0133*(IMPNLCD06)) for small rural streams (USGS, 2011)
Note 5: NC USGS rural regression equation extrapolated for 1.2- and 1.5-year flood recurrence interval (USGS, 2011)

After considering these estimation methods and results (geometry measurements, regional curves, flow
frequency and USGS regional regression equations), WLS estimated the design discharge using values
between the published NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve and Manning’s equation to select the
appropriate design dimensions and flows rates that best correspond to the design channel that will convey
the 1.2-yr to 1.5-yr RI.
6.4.4 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis
The sediment transport capacity and competency (entrainment) was analyzed to help predict stable
channel design conditions and discharges for the project reaches. Sediment samples were collected to
obtain a sediment size distribution, determine dimensionless critical shear stress, and calculate/predict
corresponding slope and depth required to move the largest particle class size (D100). The sample locations
are shown on Figure 9. The sieve data indicate that the dominant bed material in the stream reaches is
medium gravel under current conditions, with a few localized sections of coarser cobble material and
exposed bedrock. Table 20 illustrates boundary shear stress and stream power values under proposed
design conditions for the project reaches. See Appendix 2 for sediment particle size distribution for the
project reaches.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 41
DMS Project #100026

Table 20. Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power
Parameter R1 R2 R3 R4 R4a R4b R5
Channel Bottom
Width (ft) 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 6.0
Channel Energy
Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0341 0.0302 0.0464 0.0290 0.0205 0.0241 0.0201
Median Particle
Size, D50 (mm) 15 24.7 16.6 23.1 10.0 2.0 19.6
Bankfull XSC
Area (square
feet)
2.89 2.75 2.25 5.20 2.25 0.83 7.20
Composite
Mannings ‘n’
Value
0.040 0.053 0.050 0.055 0.035 0.033 0.049
Bankfull Width,
W (feet) 7.0 6.0 6.0 9.0 6.0 3.5 10.0
Bankfull Depth, D
(feet) 0.41 0.46 0.38 0.58 0.38 0.24 0.72
Hydraulic Radius,
R (feet) 0.37 0.40 0.33 0.51 0.39 0.31 0.68
Bankfull Velocity,
V (cfs) 4.2 4.0 4.4 4.2 4.4 3.6 3.8
Bankfull
Discharge, Q (cfs) 12.0 12.0 10.0 22.0 10.0 3.0 27.0
Boundary Shear
Stress, τ (lbs/ft2) 0.79 0.75 0.97 0.93 0.42 0.31 0.79
Stream Power
(W/m2) 47.6 43.3 62.4 57.1 27.6 16.6 43.1

As a design consideration, portions of the bed material may contain particle sizes larger than the D84 to
achieve vertical stability in steeper sections immediately after construction. The proposed channel slopes
throughout the project reaches range from approximately 2.0% to over 4.0%. In general, sections with
steeper slopes will be addressed by installing a combination of grade control structures such as log/rock
riffles and log/boulders step pools in straighter segments. Incorporating these structures will prevent
further channel degradation and embeddedness, promote natural scour and sediment storage, and
increase bed/bank stability since shear stress and sediment entrainment are directly affected by factors
such flow energy distribution and channel resistance. While it is predicted that the restoration and
enhancement efforts will reduce stream bed and bank erosion, the channels must still adequately
transport finer bedload material while maintaining vertical and lateral stability.
A site-specific sediment rating curve and budget was not developed given the limited sediment supply
and headwater position in the watershed. This detailed effort requires using on-site monitoring data from
documented flow events within the project watershed. However, empirical relationships from stable
streams were compared to published values and reference streams that have similar characteristics and
boundary conditions such as slope, controlling vegetation and bedform morphology. Based on field
observations within the project watershed, the streams receive most materials directly from streambank
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 42
DMS Project #100026

erosion with minimal contributions from the upper catchment area. This was evidenced by visual
observations of a gravel/cobble lens approximately 2 to 3 feet below the existing top of bank along
portions of the degraded channels. Further field investigations confirmed that the sediment supply from
project reaches is transported during larger storm events due to small headwater drainage, and influences
from vegetation cover.
6.5 Wetland Design Approach
While it is understood that wetland mitigation credits are not contracted nor proposed for this project,
the project area will benefit from the restoration of riparian wetland hydrology and improved ecological
function along the floodplains of the project stream reaches where Priority Level I Restoration approaches
are implemented. The project site is located in an agricultural setting in the Upper Piedmont, within a
Priority Sub-watershed as described in the Yadkin-Pee Dee 09 RBWP River Basin Watershed Restoration
Plan, where smaller headwater stream and wetland restoration projects are highly recommended and
prioritized.

Based on field investigations, soil conditions are favorable for rehabilitating areas of significantly degraded
existing riparian wetlands along R4a and R4b. The verified wetland areas are shown on Figure 6 and total
approximately 0.35 acres. Riparian wetland rehabilitation is expected to occur in areas of drained hydric
soils by improving current hydrologic conditions and overbank flooding across the historic floodplain as a
direct result of implementing Priority Level I Restoration, removing cattle from the riparian area which
will improve soil structure, and restoration of the riparian buffer. Additionally, the wetland restoration
approach will improve the hyporheic zone interaction and both biological and chemical processes
associated with aquatic functions of the stream. These activities, including minimal grading and blending
of natural microtopography, will provide significant functional uplift across the project area.
6.6 Riparian Buffer Design Approach
One of the primary project goals includes restoring riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat. An
objective identified in support of this goal includes planting to re-establish a native species vegetation
riparian buffer corridor along the entire length of the project reaches. This objective will be met by
establishing riparian buffers which extend a minimum of 30 feet from the top of the streambanks along
each of the project stream reaches, as well as permanently protecting those buffers with a conservation
easement. For project stream reaches proposed for restoration and enhancement, the riparian buffers
will be restored through reforestation.

Many of the proposed riparian buffer widths within the conservation easement are greater than 30 feet
along one or both streambanks to provide additional functional uplift potential, such as encompassing
adjacent wetland areas. The riparian buffer zone for the project includes the streambanks, floodplain,
riparian wetland, and upland transitional areas. The proposed planting boundaries are shown on the
revegetation plans in Appendix 1. The conservation easement areas also may include areas outside of the
riparian buffer zone that will be revegetated, including areas that lack vegetation species diversity, or
areas otherwise disturbed or adversely impacted by construction.

Proposed plantings will be conducted using native species bare-root trees and shrubs, live stakes, and
seedlings. Proposed plantings will predominantly consist of bare root vegetation and will generally be
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 43
DMS Project #100026

planted at a total target density of 680 stems per acre. This planting density has proven successful with
the reforestation of past completed mitigation projects, based on successful regulatory project closeout,
and including the current USACE regulatory guidelines requiring levels of woody stem survival throughout
the monitoring period, with a MY7 final survival rate of 210 stems per acre.

WLS recognizes that riparian buffer conditions at mature reference sites are not reflected at planted or
successional buffer sites until the woody species being to establish and compete with herbaceous
vegetation. To account for this, we will utilize a successful riparian buffer planting strategy that includes
a combination of overstory, or canopy, and understory species. WLS will also consider the supplemental
planting of larger and older planting stock to modify species density and type, based on vegetation
monitoring results after the first few growing seasons. This consideration will be utilized particularly to
increase the rate of buffer establishment and buffer species variety, as well as to decrease the vegetation
maintenance costs. An example might include selective supplemental planting of older mast producing
species as potted stock in later years for increased survivability.

The site planting strategy also includes early successional, as well as climax species. The vegetation
selections will be mixed throughout the project planting areas so that the early successional species will
give way to climax species as they mature over time. The early successional species which have proven
successful include river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and American sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis). The climax species that have proven successful include oaks (Quercus spp.) and
tulip-tree (Liriodendron tulipifera). The understory and shrub layer species are all considered to be climax
species in the riparian buffer community.
6.6.1 Proposed Vegetation Planting
The proposed plant selection will help to establish a natural vegetation community that will include
appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species) based on an appropriate
reference community. Schafale and Weakley’s (1990) guidance on vegetation communities for Piedmont
Bottomland Forest (mixed riparian community) and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (Piedmont Subtype),
the USACE Wetland Research Program (WRP) Technical Note VN-RS-4.1 (1997), as well as existing mature
species identified throughout the project area, were referenced during the development of riparian buffer
and adjacent riparian wetland plants for the site. The proposed natural vegetation community will include
appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species) based on the appropriate
reference community. Within each of the four strata, a variety of species will be planted to ensure an
appropriate and diverse plant community.
Tree species selected for restoration and enhancement areas will be weak to tolerant of flooding. Weakly
tolerant species can survive and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short
periods of time. Moderately tolerant species can survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several
months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species can survive on sites in which the soil is saturated
or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997). Species proposed for
revegetation planting are presented in Table 21.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 44
DMS Project #100026

Table 21. Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root and Live Stake Plantings
Botanical Name Common Name % Proposed for Planting
by Species
Wetland Tolerance
Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings – Overstory
(Proposed 8’ x 8’ Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)
Betula nigra River birch 7% FACW
Tilia americana Basswood 7% FACU
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 7% FACW
Nyssa sylvatica Black gum 6% FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip-poplar 7% FACU
Quercus alba White oak 6% FACU
Quercus alba Northern red oak 3% FACU
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash 3% FACW
Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings – Understory
(Proposed 8’ x 8’ Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 7% FAC
Amelanchier arborea Common serviceberry 5% FAC
Magnolia tripetala Umbrella magnolia 6% FACU
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam 6% FAC
Hamamelis virginiana Witch-hazel 6% FACU
Asimina triloba Pawpaw 6% FAC
Lindera benzoin Spicebush 6% FACW
Alnus serrulata Hazel alder 6% OBL
Corylus americana Hazelnut 6% FACU
Riparian Buffer Live Stake Plantings – Streambanks
(Proposed 2’-3’ Spacing @ Meander Bends and 6’-8’ Spacing @ Riffle Sections)
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 20% FACW
Salix sericea Silky Willow 30% OBL
Salix nigra Black Willow 10% OBL
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 40% FACW
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. Species
substitutions will be coordinated between WLS and planting contractor prior to the procurement of plant stock.
6.6.2 Planting Materials and Methods
Planting will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees installed between Mid-November
and early March if possible. However, trees must be installed by the end of May to have the first year of
monitoring in that year. Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative
wetness of areas to be planted as compared to the revegetation plan. The final planting zone limits may
be modified based on these observations and comparisons, and the final selection of the location of the
planted species will be matched according the species wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of
the planting area. It should be noted that smaller tree species planted in the understory, such as American
hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), will unlikely meet the height targets for tree species after seven years.
Plant stock delivery, handling, and installation procedures will be coordinated and scheduled to ensure
that woody vegetation can be planted within two days of being delivered to the project site. Soils at the
site areas proposed for planting will be prepared by sufficiently loosening prior to planting. Bare root
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 45
DMS Project #100026

seedlings will be manually planted using a dibble bar, mattock, planting bar, or other approved method.
Planting holes prepared for the bare root seedlings will be sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread
outward and downward without “J-rooting.” Soil will be loosely re-compacted around each planting, as
the last step, to prevent roots from drying out.
Live Staking and Live Branch Cuttings: Where live staking is proposed, live stakes will typically be installed
at a minimum of 40 stakes per 1,000 square feet and the stakes will be spaced approximately two to three
feet apart in meander bends and six to eight feet apart in the riffle sections, using a triangular spacing
pattern along the streambanks, between the toe of the streambank and bankfull elevation. When
bioengineering is proposed, live branch cutting bundles comprised of similar live stake species, shall be
installed at five linear feet per bundle approximately two to three branches thick. The basal ends of the
live branch cuttings, or whips, shall contact the back of the excavated slope and shall extend six inches
from the slope face.
Permanent Seeding: Permanent seed mixtures of native species herbaceous vegetation and temporary
herbaceous vegetation seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. The
individual species were specifically selected due to their native occurrence in Surry County, NC. Temporary
and permanent seeding will be conducted simultaneously at all disturbed areas of the site during
construction and will conducted with mechanical broadcast spreaders. Simultaneous permanent and
temporary seeding activities helps to ensure rapid growth and establishment of herbaceous ground cover
and promotes soil stability and riparian habitat uplift.

Table 22 lists the proposed species, mixtures, and application rates for permanent seeding. The vegetation
species proposed for permanent seeding are deep-rooted and have been shown to proliferate along
restored stream channels, providing long-term stability. The vegetation species proposed for temporary
seeding germinate quickly to swiftly establish vegetative ground cover and thus, short term stability. The
permanent seed mixture proposed is suitable for streambank, floodplain, and adjacent riparian wetland
areas, and the upland transitional areas in the riparian buffer. Beyond the riparian buffer areas, temporary
seeding will also be applied to all other disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion. These
areas include constructed streambanks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If temporary seeding is
applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130 pounds per acre.
If applied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop millet, applied at a rate
of 40 pounds per acre.

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 46
DMS Project #100026

Table 22. Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding
Botanical Name Common Name % Proposed for
Planting by
Species
Seeding Rate
(lb/acre)
Wetland
Tolerance
Andropogon gerardii Big blue stem 10% 1.50 FAC
Dichanthelium
clandestinum
Deer tongue 15% 1.50 FACW
Carex intumescens Bladder sedge 10% 2.25 FACW
Chasmanthium latifolium River oats 5% 1.50 FACU
Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye 15% 1.50 FAC
Juncus effusus Soft rush 10% 2.25 FACW+
Sisyrinchium angustifolium Blue-eyed grass 5% 1.50 FAC+
Eutrochium fistulosum Joe pye weed 5% 0.75 FACW
Schizachyrium scoparium Little blue stem 10% 0.75 FACU
Tripsacum dactyloides Eastern gamagrass 5% 0.75 FAC+
Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass 10% 0.75 FACU
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. Species
substitutions will be coordinated between WLS and planting contractor prior to the procurement of seeding
stock.

Invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet, multiflora rose, and microstegium (Microstegium
vimineum), will be treated to allow native plants to become established within the conservation
easement. Larger native tree species will be preserved and harvested woody material will be utilized to
provide bank stabilization cover and/or nesting habitat. Hardwood species will be planted to provide the
appropriate vegetation for the restored riparian buffer areas. During the project implementation, invasive
species exotic vegetation will be treated both to control its presence and reduce its spread within the
conservation easement areas. These efforts will aid in the establishment of native riparian vegetation
species within the restored riparian buffer areas.
6.7 Agricultural Best Management Practices
WLS proposes various agricultural best management practices (BMPs) as practices or measures to be
implemented as part of a “project cluster” approach. When combined with stream and riparian buffer,
agricultural BMPs can be effective at reducing pollutants, particularly sediment loadings, and therefore
provide additional ecological uplift to the project. The agricultural BMPs that are best suited at this project
site include no till planting, grassed waterways, restricted grazing, livestock fencing, and alternate
watering sources for livestock. Currently, the landowner actively employs the use of grassed waterways
and restricted or rotational grazing. Therefore, livestock exclusion fencing, providing alternate watering
sources for livestock, and the addition of treatment basins are proposed for this project. WLS will provide
a permanent watering source for livestock at the project site through the installation of livestock drinkers
and associated watering infrastructure. The livestock watering stations will be designed and located in
direct coordination with the landowner and the Surry County Soil and Water Conservation District and/or
NRCS staff to ensure that adequate watering facilities are provided. The watering stations will be located
outside of the conservation easement boundaries and well away from the restored stream corridors.

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 47
DMS Project #100026

As previously discussed, direct livestock access and the resulting sedimentation, erosion, and pollutants
are one of the primary stressors for the project site. Permanent livestock exclusion from the applicable
conservation easement areas will be provided with fencing, installed to NRCS technical standards. The
permanent fencing will be installed to maximize the length of straight fence lines and minimize the
number of fence corners. At the active culverted stream crossings, the permanent livestock exclusion
fencing will be installed along both the upstream and downstream limits of the conservation easement
“alley” or break to prevent livestock from accessing the stream from the actual crossing. The locations of
the proposed stream crossings are shown on Figure 9. The proposed conservation easement is broken at
each of these proposed crossing locations to best facilitate the landowner’s use of the property. The
proposed stream crossings will be culverted and the pipes have been sized to pass the 10-year design
storm to ensure proper hydraulic function and stream stability, as well as to encourage aquatic passage.
6.8 Water Quality Treatment Features
Water quality treatment features in the form of small basins or impoundments designed to capture and
treat runoff from the surrounding active cattle pastures and/or agricultural fields are proposed in multiple
locations adjacent to the restored riparian buffer corridor. These basins will increase infiltration and
groundwater recharge, diffuse flow energies, and allow nutrient uptake within the extended riparian
buffer area. The water quality improvement features will be fenced out, such that they are connected to
the easement fencing system, to prevent livestock intrusion and will be included in the conservation
easement. These features are sized to treat storage volumes, which have been calculated by comparing
the SCS Curve Number Method and Simple Method. The features are intended to function most similar
to a stormwater wetland to temporarily store surface runoff in shallow pools that support emergent and
native riparian vegetation. They will be designed and constructed such that they do not require any long-
term maintenance and will be sited immediately outside of the conservation easement boundary to allow
for modifications should that be desired.

The treatment basins will be excavated along non-jurisdictional flat or depressional areas where
ephemeral drainages intersect with the proposed restored stream corridor. The areas will be improved
by grading flatter side slopes (>3H:1V) and planting appropriate wetland vegetation as outlined in Section
6.5.1. Over time, as vegetation becomes established, the areas will function as shallow wetland complexes
or depressions. The outlets will be constructed with suitable material and stabilized with permanent
vegetation or stone that will prevent headcut migration or erosion into the newly constructed areas. Each
of the basins have been designed with low-maintenance weir outlets. The basins will be planted and
located outside the conservation easement area. This strategy will allow these features to function
properly with minimal risk and without long term maintenance requirements. A stable outlet channel will
be constructed to deliver runoff to the receiving restored stream reach.
6.9 Site Construction Methods
6.9.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements
Following initial evaluation of the design criteria, detailed refinements were made to the design plans in
the field to accommodate the existing valley characteristics, vegetation influences and channel
morphology. This was done to minimize unnecessary disturbance of the riparian area, and to allow for
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 48
DMS Project #100026

some natural channel adjustments following construction. The design plans and construction elements
have been tailored to produce a cost and resource efficient design that is constructible, using a level of
detail that corresponds to the tools of construction. A general construction sequence is included on the
project design plan sheets located in Appendix 1.
Much of the grading across the site will be conducted within the existing riparian corridor. The restored
streams will be excavated within the existing headwater valley. Suitable fill material will be generated
from new channel excavation and adjacent upland areas and hauled to ditch fill/plugs or stockpile
locations as necessary. Portions of the existing, unstable channels will be partially to completely filled in
along their length using compactable material excavated from construction of the restored channels.
Wetland and floodplain grading activities will focus on restoring pre-disturbance valley topography by
removing field crowns, overburden/spoil, surface drains, and legacy pond sediments that were imposed
during conversion of the land for agriculture. In general, floodplain grading activities will be minor, with
the primary goal of soil scarification, creating depressional areas, water quality and habitat features, and
microtopographic crenulations by filling the drainage features on the site back to natural ground
elevations (Scherrer, 1999). Any excess material not used for ditch plugging or suitable as a soil base for
vegetation will be spread across upland areas outside of the easement boundary and jurisdictional
WOTUS.
6.9.2 In-stream Structures and Site Improvement Features
A variety of in-stream structures are proposed for the project. Structures including log vanes, constructed
log riffles, constructed stone riffles, grade control log j-hook vanes, log vanes, rootwads, log weirs, stone
and log step pools, and log step pools. Geolifts with toe wood, various other bioengineering measures,
and native species vegetation transplants will be used to stabilize the newly-restored stream and improve
bedform diversity and habitat functions. All in-stream structures will be constructed from native materials
such as hardwood trees, trunks/logs, brush/branches, and gravel stone materials. Native woody debris
will be harvested on-site during the project construction and incorporated into the stream channel
restoration whenever possible. To ensure sustainability of these structures, WLS will use design and
construction methods that have proven successful on numerous past projects in the same geographic
region and similar site conditions.
Floodplain features such as small sloughs, meander scars, vernal pools, and tree throws are commonly
found in natural riparian systems. These features will be appropriately added to provide additional habitat
and serve as water storage and sediment sinks throughout the restoration corridor. When appropriate,
these depressional features will be added adjacent to abandoned channel sections and/or strategic
locations throughout the floodplain to provide habitat and serve as water storage and sediment sinks
throughout the corridor (Metcalf, 2004).
6.9.3 Construction Feasibility
WLS has field verified that the project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile
areas. Physical constraints or barriers, such as stream crossings or ROWs, account for only a small
percentage of the proposed total stream reach length within the project boundary. Existing site access
points and features may be used for future access after the completion of construction. Any potential
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 49
DMS Project #100026

impacts to existing wetland areas will be avoided whenever possible during construction. Only minimal,
temporary impacts will be allowed when necessary for maximized permanent stream, wetland, and
riparian buffer functional uplift.
7 Performance Standards
The applied success criteria for the project will follow necessary performance standards and monitoring
protocols presented in this mitigation plan, once approved, and are developed in compliance with the DMS
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template Guidance, adopted August 2016, as well as the USACE
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update issued in October 20016, and
Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule, issued in 2008.
In addition, the monitoring success criteria, practices, and corresponding reporting will follow the NCEEP’s
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines issued February 2014, the NCEEP As-built Baseline
Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance issued in February 2014, the NCEEP
Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance, issued April, 2015, the
NCEEP Closeout Report Template, Version 2.1, adopted March, 2015, and the NCEEP Closeout Template
Guidance, Version 2.1, adopted February, 2015. Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of
seven (7) years with the final duration dependent upon performance trends toward achieving project goals
and objectives. Specific success criteria components and evaluation methods are described below.
7.1 Streams
Stream Hydrology: Four (4) separate bankfull events must be documented within the seven-year
monitoring period. Two of the four bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream
monitoring will continue until all four bankfull events have been documented in separate years. In the
event that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve
credits is at the discretion of the NCIRT. Surface flow for intermittent streams will be documented using
gages or automated data loggers.
Stream Profiles, Vertical Stability, and Floodplain Access: Stream profiles, as a measure of vertical stability
will be evaluated by looking at Bank Height Ratios (BHR) which is the streams ability to access its floodplains
during bankfull events. In addition, observed bedforms should be consistent with those observed for
channels of the design stream type(s). Vertical stability and floodplain access will both be evaluated by
looking at Entrenchment Ratios (ER) which is lateral extent of flooding during bankfull. The ER shall be no
less than 2.2 (1.4 for ‘B’ stream types) along the restored project stream reaches. This standard only applies
to restored reaches of the channel where ERs were corrected through design and construction.
Stream Horizontal Stability: Cross-sections will be used to document stability of stream dimension. There
should be minimal change expected in post-restoration cross-sections. If measurable changes do occur,
they should be evaluated to determine if the changes represent a movement toward a more unstable
condition (e.g., downcutting, erosion) or a movement towards increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetation
establishment, deposition along the streambanks, 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. In general, BHR and ER at any
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 50
DMS Project #100026

measured riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from the baseline condition during any
given monitoring interval.
Streambed Material Condition and Stability: After construction, it anticipated that particle size
distributions will migrate to those identified as appropriate for gravel dominated supply as part of the
design process. Some fining of stream bed material may occur during the first few years after construction.
However, long term trends are anticipated to demonstrate minimal change in the particle size distribution
of the streambed materials, over time, given the current watershed conditions and future upstream
sediment supply regime. Since the streams are predominantly gravel-bed systems with minimal sand,
significant changes in particle size distribution are not expected.
Jurisdictional Stream Flow: The restored stream systems must be classified as at least intermittent, and
therefore must exhibit base flow for at least 30-days consecutive flow within a calendar year under normal
rainfall conditions as described in Section 8.2.3.
7.2 Wetlands
Wetland mitigation credits are not contracted or proposed for this project. Wetland mitigation
performance standards are therefore not included in this section.
7.3 Vegetation
Vegetative restoration success for the project during the intermediate monitoring years will be based the
survival of at least 320, three-year-old planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period
(MY3) and at least 260, five-year-old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period
(MY5). The final vegetative restoration success criteria will be achieving a density of no less than 210,
seven-year-old planted stems per acre in Year Seven of monitoring (MY7). In addition, planted trees in
each vegetation plot must average 6 feet in height after MY5 and 8 feet in height at MY7 before closeout.
8 Monitoring Plan
The proposed monitoring plan is intended to document the site improvements based on restoration
potential, catchment health, ecological stressors and overall constraints. The measurement methods
described below provide a connection between project goals and objectives, performance standards, and
monitoring requirements to evaluate functional improvement. They specifically include:
• What will be measured,
• How measurements will be taken,
• When measurements will be taken,
• Where measurements will be taken.
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as-built
monitoring report documenting the stream and riparian buffer mitigation will be developed within 60
days of the completion of planting and monitoring device installation at the restored project site. In
addition, a period of at least six months will separate the as-built baseline measurements and the first-
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 51
DMS Project #100026

year monitoring measurements. The baseline monitoring document and as-built monitoring report will
include all information required by the current DMS templates and guidance referenced above, including
planimetric (plan view) and elevation (profile view) information, photographs, sampling plot locations, a
description of initial vegetation species composition by community type, and location of monitoring
stations. The report will include a list of the vegetation species planted, along with the associated planting
densities.
WLS will conduct mitigation performance monitoring based on these methods and will submit annual
monitoring reports to DMS by December 31st of each monitoring year during which required monitoring
is conducted. The annual monitoring reports will organize and present the information resulting from the
methods described in detail below. The annual monitoring reports will provide a project data chronology
for DMS to document the project status and trends, for population of DMS’s databases for analyses, for
research purposes, and to assist in decision making regarding project close-out. Project success criteria
must be met by the final monitoring year prior to project closeout, or monitoring will continue until unmet
criteria are successfully met. Table 23 in Section 8.5 summarizes the monitoring methods and linkage
between the goals, parameters, and expected functional lift outcomes. Figure 9 illustrates the pre- and
post-construction monitoring feature types and location.
8.1 Visual Assessment Monitoring
WLS will conduct visual assessments in support of mitigation performance monitoring. Visual assessments
of all stream reaches will be conducted twice per monitoring year with at least five months in between
each site visit for each of the seven years of monitoring. Photographs will be used to visually document
system performance and any areas of concern related to streambank and bed stability, condition of in-
stream structures, channel migration, active headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts from invasive plant
species or animal browsing, easement boundary encroachments, cattle exclusion fence damage, and the
general condition of pools and riffles. The monitoring activities will be summarized in DMS’s Visual Stream
Morphology Stability Assessment Table and the Vegetation Conditions Assessment Table as well as a
Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) drawing formatted to DMS digital drawing requirements, which are
used to document and quantify the visual assessment throughout the monitoring period.
A series of photographs over time will be also be compared to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation
(bar formations) or degradation, streambank erosion, successful maturation of riparian vegetation, and
effectiveness of sedimentation and erosion control measures. More specifically, the longitudinal profile
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or excessive increase in channel
depth, while lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks.
The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five feet to ensure that the same locations
(and view directions) at the site are documented in each monitoring period and will be shown on a plan
view map. The results of the visual monitoring assessments will be used to support the development of the
annual monitoring document that provides the visual assessment metrics.
8.2 Stream Assessment Monitoring
Based on the stream design approaches, different stream monitoring methods are proposed for the
various project reaches. Hydrologic monitoring will be conducted for all project stream reaches. For
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 52
DMS Project #100026

reaches that involve a combination of traditional Restoration (Rosgen Priority Level I and II) and
Enhancement Level I (bed/bank stabilization) approaches, geomorphic monitoring methods that follow
those recommended by the USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update, and NCEEP’s Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines, which are described below,
will be employed to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices.
Visual monitoring will be conducted along these reaches as described herein. For project reaches involving
an Enhancement Level II approach, monitoring efforts will focus primarily on visual inspections, photo
documentation, and vegetation assessments, each as described herein. The monitoring of these project
reaches will utilize the methods described under visual monitoring. Each of the proposed stream
monitoring methods are described in detail below.
8.2.1 Hydrologic Monitoring
The occurrence of the two required bankfull events (overbank flows) and the two required
“geomorphically significant” flow events (Qgs=0.66Q2) within the monitoring period, along with floodplain
access by flood flows, will be documented using crest gauges and automated photography. Four (4)
separate bankfull events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. Two of the four
bankfull events must occur in separate years. The crest gages will be installed on the floodplain of and
across the dimension of the restored channels as needed for monitoring. The crest gages will record the
watermark associated with the highest flood stage between monitoring site visits. The gages will be
checked each time WLS staff conduct a site visit to determine if a bankfull and/or geomorphically
significant flow event has occurred since the previous gage check. Corresponding photographs will be
used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during
monitoring site visits. This monitoring will help establish that the restoration objectives of restoring
floodplain functions and promoting more natural flood processes are being met.
8.2.2 Geomorphic Monitoring
Horizontal Pattern: A planimetric survey will be conducted for the entire length of restored channel
immediately after construction to document as-built baseline conditions (Monitoring Year 0). The survey
will be tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, bankfull, and top of banks.
The plan view measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, meander width ratio will be taken on
newly constructed meanders during baseline documentation (Monitoring Year 0) only. The described visual
monitoring will also document any changes or excessive lateral movement in the plan view of the restored
channel. The results of the planimetric survey should show that the restored horizontal geometry is
consistent with intended design stream type. These measurements will demonstrate that the restored
stream channel pattern provides more stable planform and associated features than the old channel, which
provide improved aquatic habitat and geomorphic function, as per the restoration objectives.
Longitudinal Profile: A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of restored channel
immediately after construction to document as-built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring
only. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, water
surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each
feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth. The longitudinal profile should show that the
bedform features installed are consistent with intended design stream type. The longitudinal profiles will
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 53
DMS Project #100026

not be taken during subsequent monitoring years unless vertical channel instability has been documented
or remedial actions/repairs are deemed necessary.
These measurements will demonstrate that the restored stream profile provides more bedform diversity
than the old channel with multiple facet features (such as scour pools and riffles) that provide improved
aquatic habitat, as per the restoration objectives. BHRs will be measured along each of the restored reaches
using the results of the longitudinal profile.
Horizontal Dimension: Permanent cross-sections will be installed and surveyed at an approximate rate of
one cross-section per twenty (20) bankfull widths or an average distance interval (not to exceed 500 LF) of
restored stream, with approximately ten (10) cross-sections located at riffles, and five (5) located at pools.
Each cross-section will be monumented on both streambanks to establish the exact transect used and to
facilitate repetition each year and easy comparison of year-to-year data. The cross-section surveys will
occur in years 0 (as-built), 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7, and will include measurements of bankfull cross-sectional area
(Abkf) at low bank height, Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey
will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of streambanks, bankfull, inner berm, edge
of water, and thalweg, if the features are present.
There should be minimal change in as-built cross-sections. Stable cross-sections will establish that the
restoration goal of creating geomorphically stable stream conditions has been met. If changes do take
place, they will be documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down-cutting or erosion) or a movement toward
increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the streambanks, or decrease in
width-to-depth ratio). Using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, all monitored cross-sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the smaller
channel sizes and meander geometry of the proposed steams, bank pin arrays will not be installed unless
monitoring results indicate active lateral erosion at cross-sections occurring in meander bends, typically at
pools.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-section. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the streambanks. Photographs will be taken of both
streambanks at each cross-section. A survey tape stretched between the permanent cross-section
monuments/pins will be centered in each of the streambank photographs. The water elevation will be
shown in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the streambank as possible will be included in each
photo. Photographers should attempt to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Streambed Materials: Representative streambed material samples will be collected in locations where
riffles are installed as part of the project. The post-construction riffle substrate samples will be compared
to the existing riffle substrate data collected during the design phase. Any significant changes (e.g.,
aggradation, degradation, embeddedness) will be noted after streambank vegetation becomes established
and a minimum of two bankfull flows or greater have been documented. If changes are observed within
stable riffles and pools, additional sediment transport analyses and calculations may be required.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 54
DMS Project #100026

8.2.3 Flow Duration Monitoring
Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation: Monitoring of stream flow will be conducted to demonstrate
that the restored stream systems classified as intermittent exhibit surface flow for a minimum of 30
consecutive days throughout some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall conditions. To
determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the given year, a rainfall gage will be installed on the site to
compare precipitation amounts using tallied data obtained from the Surry County Airport Weather Station
(KMWK), approximately fifteen miles north of the site. Data from the weather station can be obtained from
the CRONOS Database located on the State Climate Office of North Carolina’s website. If a normal year of
precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, monitoring of flow conditions on
the site will continue until it documents that the intermittent streams have been flowing during the
appropriate times of the year.
The proposed monitoring of the restored intermittent reaches will include the installation of continuous
stream stage recorders within the bottom (toe of slope) of the channel towards the upper portion of reach
R2 near the confluence with R3. In addition, photographic documentation using a continuous series of
remote photos over time will be used to subjectively evaluate and document channel flow conditions
throughout the year. More specifically, the longitudinal photos should indicate the presence of flow within
the channel to illustrate water levels within the pools and riffles. The photographs will be taken from a
height of approximately five feet to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) at the site are
documented in each monitoring period and will be shown on a plan view map.
Monitoring flow gages (continuous-read pressure transducers) will be installed towards the upper portion
of restored intermittent reaches. Continuous surface water flow within the channel must be documented
to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days during the prescribed monitoring period. The devices
will be inspected on a quarterly basis to document surface flow hydrology and provide a basis for evaluating
flow response to rainfall events and surface runoff during various water tables levels throughout the
monitoring period (KCI, DMS, 2010).
8.3 Wetland Monitoring
Wetland mitigation credits are not contracted or proposed for this project. Wetland mitigation monitoring
is therefore not included for this project.
8.4 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation at the project site is dependent upon successful hydrologic
restoration, active establishment and survival of the planted preferred canopy vegetation species, and
volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. To determine if these criteria are successfully
achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants or plots will be installed and monitored across the restoration
site in accordance with the CVS-EEP Level I & II Monitoring Protocol (CVS, 2008) and DMS Stream and
Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (DMS, 2014). The vegetation monitoring plots shall be approximately 2%
of the planted portion of the site with a minimum of twelve (12) plots established randomly within the
planted riparian buffer areas. The sampling may employ quasi-random plot locations which may vary upon
approval from DMS and IRT. Any random plots should comprise no more than 50% of the total required
plots, and the location (GPS coordinates and orientation) will identified in the monitoring reports.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 55
DMS Project #100026

No monitoring quadrants will be established within undisturbed wooded areas, such as those along
reaches R4a and R4b, however visual observations will be documented in the annual monitoring reports
to describe any changes to the existing vegetation community. The size and location of individual
quadrants will be 100 square meters (10m X 10m or 5m X 20m) for woody tree species and may be
adjusted based on site conditions after construction activities have been completed.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall each required monitoring year, prior to the loss of leaves.
Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings
and the current year's living, planted seedlings. Data will be collected at each individual quadrant and will
include specific data for monitored stems on diameter, height, species, date planted, and grid location, as
well as a collective determination of the survival density within that quadrant. Relative values will be
calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual planted seedlings will be marked at
planting or monitoring baseline setup so that those stems can be found and identified consistently each
successive monitoring year. Volunteer species will be recorded and counted in the total list of species in
the plots in all cases, however non-native species counts will be excluded from the calculation of total
(planted plus volunteer) densities. The presence of invasive species vegetation within the monitoring
quadrants will also be noted, as will any wildlife effects.
At the end of the first full growing season (from baseline/year 0) or after 180 days between March 15th
and November 15th, species composition, stem density, and survival will be evaluated. For each
subsequent year, vegetation plots shall be monitored for seven years in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, and visual
monitoring in years 4 and 6, or until the final success criteria are achieved. While measuring species
density is the current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation success on mitigation projects,
species density alone may be inadequate for assessing plant community health. For this reason, the
vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of native volunteer species, and the presence
of invasive species vegetation to assess overall vegetative success. WLS will provide required remedial
action on a case-by-case basis, such as replanting more wet/drought tolerant species vegetation,
conducting beaver and beaver dam management/removal, and removing undesirable/invasive species
vegetation, and will continue to monitor vegetation performance until the corrective actions demonstrate
that the site is trending towards or meeting the standard requirement. Existing mature woody vegetation
will be visually monitored during annual site visits to document any mortality, due to construction
activities or changes to the water table, that negatively impact existing forest cover or favorable buffer
vegetation.

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 56
DMS Project #100026

Table 23. Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary
Functional
Category
(Level)
Project Goal /
Parameter
Measurement
Method Performance Standard Potential Functional
Uplift
Hydrology
(Level 1)
Improve Base Flow
Duration and
Overbank Flows (i.e.
channel forming
discharge)
Well device (pressure
transducer), regional
curve, regression
equations, catchment
assessment
Maintain seasonal flow for a
minimum of 30 consecutive
days during normal annual
rainfall.
Create a more natural
and higher functioning
headwater flow regime
and provide aquatic
passage.
Hydraulics
(Level 2)
Reconnect
Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area
Widths
Bank Height Ratio,
Entrenchment Ratio,
crest gauge
Maintain average BHRs
between 1.0-1.2 and ERs no
less than 2.2 (1.4 for B stream
types) and document over
bank and/or geomorphically
significant flow events.
Provide temporary
water storage and
reduce erosive forces
(shear stress) in
channel during larger
flow events.
Geomorphology
(Level 3)
Improve Bedform
Diversity
Pool to Pool spacing,
riffle-pool sequence,
pool max depth ratio,
Longitudinal Profile
Increase riffle/pool
percentage and pool-to-pool
spacing ratios compared to
reference reach conditions.
Provide a more natural
stream morphology,
energy dissipation and
aquatic habitat/refugia.
Increase Vertical and
Lateral Stability
BEHI / NBS, Cross-
sections and
Longitudinal Profile
Surveys, visual
assessment
Decrease streambank erosion
rates comparable to
reference condition cross-
section, pattern and vertical
profile values.
Reduce sedimentation,
excessive aggradation,
and embeddedness to
allow for interstitial
flow habitat.
Establish Riparian
Buffer Vegetation
CVS Level I & II
Protocol Tree Veg
Plots (Strata
Composition and
Density), visual
assessment
Within planted portions of
the site, a minimum of 320
stems per acre must be
present at year three; a
minimum of 260 stems per
acre must be present at year
five; and a minimum of 210
stems per acre and average
eight foot tree heights must
be present at year seven.
Increase woody and
herbaceous vegetation
will provide channel
stability and reduce
streambank erosion,
runoff rates and exotic
species vegetation.
Physiochemical
(Level 4)
Improve Water
Quality N/A N/A
Removal of excess
nutrients, FC bacteria,
and organic pollutants
will increase the
hyporheic exchange
and dissolved oxygen
(DO) levels.
Biology
(Level 5)
Improve Benthic
Macroinvertebrate
Communities and
Aquatic Health
DWR Small Stream/
Benthic sampling, IBI N/A
Increase leaf litter and
organic matter critical
to provide in-stream
cover/shade, wood
recruitment, and
carbon sourcing.
Note: Level 4 and 5 project parameters and monitoring activities will not be tied to performance standards nor
required to demonstrate success for credit release.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 57
DMS Project #100026

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
NCIRT and work with the NCIRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
10 Long-Term Management Plan
The site 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 and endowments are established. The NCDEQ
Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the non-reverting, interest-bearing
Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is
governed by NC General Statue GS 113A-232(d) (3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used
only for stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.
WLS does not expect that easement compliance and management will require any additional or
alternative management planning, strategies or efforts beyond those typically prescribed and
followed for DMS full-delivery projects.

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 58
DMS Project #100026

11 References
Bain, Daniel J. 2012. Legacy Effects in Material Flux: Structural Catchment Changes Predate Long-Term
Studies. BioScience. Vol. 62 No. 6.
Bilby, R. E. 1984. Removal of woody debris may affect stream channel stability. Journal of Forestry 82:609-
61.
Cooper, A. B.; Smith, C. M.; Smith, M. J. 1995: Effects of riparian set-aside on soil characteristics in an
agricultural landscape: implications for nutrient transport and retention. Agriculture Ecosystems
& Environment 55: 61-67.
Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects. Washington, DC.
Division of Mitigation Services. 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock Exclusion and
Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration.
Doyle, M.W. Stanley, E.H. Strayer, D.L. Jacobson, R.B. & Schmidt, J.C. 2005. Effective discharge analysis of
ecological processes in streams. Water Resources Research, 41, W11411, doi:
10.1029/2005WR004222.
Dunne, T. & Leopold, L.B. (1978): Water in Environmental Planning W.HG. Freeman Co., San Francisco,
818 pp.
Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB). 2013. Recommendations for Estimating Flows to
Maintain Ecological Integrity in Streams and Rivers in North Carolina.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E.
Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland
Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water
Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Harman, W.A. and C.J. Jones. 2016. Functional Lift Quantification Tool for Stream Restoration Projects in
North Carolina: Spreadsheet User Manual. Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh, NC.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A function based
framework for developing stream assessments, restoration goals, performance standards and
standard operating procedures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, D.C.
Harman, W., R. Starr. 2011. Natural Channel Design Review Checklist. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD and US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division. Washington D.C. EPS 843-B-12-005.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 59
DMS Project #100026

Hey, R.D. 2006. Fluvial Geomorphological Methodology for Natural Stable Channel Design. Journal of
American Water Resources Association. April 2006. Vol. 42, No. 2. pp. 357-374. AWRA Paper No.
02094.
Hess, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 2014. Flow pathways and nutrient transport mechanisms
drive hydrochemical sensitivity to climate change across catchments with different geology and
topography. V 18, 5125–5148.
Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham, J.D.,
and Megown, K., 2015, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the
conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change information.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5, p. 345-354.
Jacobson, R.B. and Coleman, D.J., 1986. Stratigraphy and recent evolution of Maryland Piedmont Flood
Plains. American Journal of Science 286:617-637.
James, Allan L., 2013. Legacy sediment: Definitions and processes of episodically produced anthropogenic
sediment. Geography Department, University South Carolina. Anthropocene, v. 2, pg 16–26.
Johnson, P.A., and T.M. Heil, 1996. Uncertainty in Estimating Bankfull Conditions. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 32(6): 1283-1292.
KCI Associates of NC, DMS. 2010. Using Pressure Transducers for Stream Restoration Design and
Monitoring.
Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes – A New Perspective. Arnold Publishers. London.
Kilpatrick, F.A. and H.H. Barnes, Jr. 1964. Channel Geometry of Piedmont Streams as Related to Frequency
of Floods. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 422-E. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Washington, D.C. 10 pp.
King, S. E., Osmond, D.L., Smith, J., Burchell, Dukes, M., Evans, M., Knies, M., Kunickis, S. 2016. Effects of
Riparian Buffer Vegetation and Width: A 12-Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Environmental
Quality.
Leopold, Luna B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.
Line, D.E., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., Thompson, E.J., Osmond, D.L., 2000. Nonpoint-source pollutant
load reductions associated with livestock exclusion. J. Environ. Qual. 29, 1882–1890.
McKenney, R., R. B. Jacobson, and R. C. Wertheimer. 1995. Woody vegetation and channel morphogenesis
in low gradient gravel-bed streams. Geomorphology 13:175-198.
Metcalf, C. 2004. Regional Channel Characteristics for Maintaining Natural Fluvial Geomorphology in
Florida Streams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Fisheries Resource Office. Panama
City, FL. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/researchcenter/Completed_Proj/Summary_EMO/FDOT_
BD470_final.pdf
Miller, J., Chanasyk, D., Curtis, T., Entz, T., and Willms, W. 2010. Influence of streambank fencing with a
cattle crossing on riparian health and water quality of the Lower Little Bow River in Southern
Alberta, Canada. Agriculture Water Management, Lethbridge, AB. pp. 247-258.
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 60
DMS Project #100026

Montgomery D.R. and S. M. Bolton 2003. Hydrogeomorphic variability and river restoration, 39–80. ©
2003 by the American Fisheries Society.
Nixon, M.A. 1959. A study of the bankfull discharges of rivers in England and Wales. Institute of Civil
Engineers Proceedings Paper No. 6322, pp. 157-174.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources, Water Sciences
Section, Biological Assessment Branch. 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection
and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates, v. 5.0.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2010. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins. Version 4.11, September 2010.
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC. Cited from http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/geomap.htm on
July 17, 2016.
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team, 2015. “NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM)
User Manual”. Version 2.1, August 2015.
Omernik, J.M. and G.E. Griffith. 2014. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: evolution of a
hierarchical spatial framework. Environmental Management 54(6):1249-1266.
Owens, L.B., Edwards, W.M., van Keuren, R.W., 1996. Sediment losses from a pastured watershed before
and after stream fencing. J. Soil Water Conserv. 51 (1), 90–94.
Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg.
1997. The natural flow regime. BioScience 47:769-784.
Postel, S. and B. D. Richter. 2003. Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press.
Power, M. E., R. J. Stout, C. E. Cushing, P. P. Harper, F. R. Hauer, W. J. Mathews, P. B. Moyle, B. Statzner,
AND I. R. Wais De Badgen. 1988. Biotic and abiotic controls in river and stream communities.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:456-479.
(RBRP) North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2009. Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin
Watershed Restoration Priorities (RBRP). February 2009.
Resh, V. H., A. V. Brown, A. P. Covich, M. E. Gurtz, H. W. Li, G. W. Minshall, S. R. Reice, A. L. Sheldon, J. B.
Wallace, and R. C. Wissmar. 1988. The role of disturbance in stream ecology. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 7:433–455.
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
Rosgen, D.L., 2006. Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply. Wildland Hydrology
Books, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
Scherrer, E. 1999. Using Microtopography to Restore Wetland Plant Communities in Eastern North
Carolina. http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/shear/public/restore/scherrer.htm
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 61
DMS Project #100026

Schlosser, I. J. 1985. Flow regime, juvenile abundance, and the assemblage structure of stream fishes.
Ecology 66: 1484- 1490.
Schumm, S.A., 1960. The Shape of Alluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 352-B. U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC.
Simon, Andrew. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms. Volume 14, Issue 1, pg 11–26.
Skidmore, P.B, Shields, F., Doyle, M., and Miller, D. (2001). A Categorization of Approaches to Natural
Channel Design. Wetlands Engineering & River Restoration: pg 1-12.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
___. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-RS-4.1. Environmental
Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
___. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
___. 2008. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2008, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. Stream Visual
Assessment Protocol, Version 2. NBH, Part 614.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division. A.
Walker, Personal communication, 2015. NC BEHI/NBS rating curve.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division.
2007. Soil Survey of Surry County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Stream
Restoration Design Part 654, National Engineering Handbook.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. National Climate
Dataset.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
1999. Region 5 Model for Estimating Load Reductions. v4.3.
United States Geological Survey. 1998.
Williams, G.P., 1978. Bank-Full Discharge of Rivers. Water Resources Research 14(6):1141-1154, doi:
10.1029/WR014i006 p01141.
Wilcock, P. R. 1993. Critical shear stress of natural sediments. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 1199:491-
505.
Wolman, M. G., and Leopold, L. B., 1957, River flood plains; some observations on their formation: U.S.
Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 282-C, pg 22.
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),
NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community±0 0.4 0.8
Miles
FIGURE1Horne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Vicinity Map
^_
^_
Surry Co unty Stokes Coun ty
Forsyth County
Yadkin County
Legend
^_Proje ct L ocatio n
TLWs
TLW: 03040101110070
LWP-2 008-51
HUC: 0304010 1
HUC-1 2
Surry Co . Hydrography
Surry Co unty
NC Coun ties
Conservation Easement
0 4 8
Miles050100Miles
Project is located in
TLW HUC-14: 03040101110070
LWP: 2008-51
Horne Creek
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
±0 1,000 2,000
Feet
FIGURE2Horne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Existing Geology
Map
Legend
Conserva tio n Easeme ntExisting G eology
Inner Piedm ont, C hauga Belt, Sm ith R iver
Allochthon, and Sauratown Mountain: CZm g
Inner Piedm ont, C hauga Belt, Sm ith R iver
Allochthon, and Sauratown Mountain: Yg
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
±0 500 1,0 00
Fee t
FIGURE3Horne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
USGS
Topographic Map
Legend
Conservation Easement
Catchment Are a: 28 acre s
Catchment Are a: 38 acre s
Catchment Are a: 81 acre s
Catchment Are a: 169 acres
Pilot Mountain QuadrangleNorth Carolina- Surry Co.
FeC2
FeD2
FeD2
CsA
FeC2
FeB2
FeB2
FeB2
FeC2
FnC2
FeB2
FnC2
FeC2
FeD2
FrC2
DrB
FeC2
WoD
WoD
FeB2
FeB2
FeB2
W
FeC2BbC
BdC
W
FeC2FeC2
W
FeC2
FeB2
FeC2
FeB2
FfD FfDFfD FnB2
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE4Horne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
NRCS
Soils Map
Legend
Conservation EasementSoil Map Units (NRCS Data from We b Soil Survey)
BbC: B raddock fine sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
BdC: B raddock cobbly fine sandy loam, 8-15% slopes, stony
CsA: Colvard and Suches soil. 0-3% slopes, occasionally flooded
DrB: Dillard fine sandy loam, 2-8% slopes, rarely flooded
FeB2: Fairview sandy clay loam, 2-8% slopes, moderately
eroded
FeC2: Fairview sandy clay loam, 8-15% slopes, moderately
eroded
FeD2: Fairview sandy clay loam, 15-25% slopes, moderately
eroded
FnB2: Fairview cobbly sandy clay loam, 2-8% slopes, moderately
eroded, stony
FnC2: Fairview cobbly sandy clay loam, 8-15% slopes,
moderately eroded, stony
FrC2: Fairview-Siloam complex, 8-15% slopes, moderately
eroded
W: Water
Legend
Qconservation Easement
LiDAR
Data percentage: 0
Elevation
1131.51 - 1241.03
1099.45 - 1131.51
1078.42 - 1099.45
I[=]I 1064.09 - 1078.42
1046.64 - 1064.09
1038.3 - 1046.64
1031.26 - 1038.3
1026.53 - 1031.26
1023.11 - 1026.53
1019.55 - 1023. 11
1016.21 - 1019.55
1013.09 - 1016.21
1009.58 - 1013.09
1005.3 - 1009.58
1000.64 - 1005.3
996.78 - 1000.64
992.63 - 996.78
988.27 - 992.63
® 984.24 - 988.27
978.74 - 984.24
973.51 - 978.74
968.73 - 973.51
963.06 - 968.73
957.86 - 963.06
953.46 - 957.86
948.85 - 953.46
942.5 - 948.85
933.24 - 942.5
921.85 - 933.24
907.94 - 921.85
894.83 - 907.94
878.09 - 894.83
,/ow,60i
WATER & LAND Tm
Horne Creek Tributaries LiDAR Map
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT I
w
FIGURE
5

R1
R4B
R4A
R4
R2
R3
R5
8
6 5
3 2
1
15
14
13
12
16
17
19
2022
23
24
25
26
27
28
9 7
4
10
11
1821
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE6Horne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Current
Conditions
Map
Legend
Conservation Easement
Photo Location P oint
Verified Wetlands
Stream Classification
Intermittent
Perennial
Kiger Road
Impervious Cover: 0.5%
Dominant Land Use: Agricultural (Pasture/Hay
(46%), Row Crop (24%)), Mixed Forest (16%)
Caudle Road
WA
WB
WD
WC
See Appendix 2 for
site photographs.
Legend
Conservation Easement
±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE7aHorne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
1936 Aerial
Photograph
Source: Surry Soil & Water
Conservation District
Legend
Conservation Easement
±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE7bHorne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
1940 Aerial
Photograph
Source: Surry Soil & Water
Conservation District
Legend
Conservation Easement
±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE7cHorne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
1951 Aerial
Photograph
Source: Surry Soil & Water
Conservation District
Legend
Conservation Easement
±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE7dHorne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
1992 Aerial
Photograph
Source: Surry Soil & Water
Conservation District
Legend
Conservation Easement
±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE7eHorne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
2006 Aerial
Photograph
Source: Surry Soil & Water
Conservation District
9709789749829869909949981
0
1
8
1
0
2
2
102610341
0
3
0
1038
1
0
1
4 10101
0
0
6
1002958966954 9629
5
01042 10461 0 5 0
9
4
6 9421 0 5 4 10581 0 6 2
9 3 8
9
3
4
1066
10 701 0 7 4
9309
2
6
9
2
2
9
1
8
9149
1
0107810821086
9061090
9021 0 9 41098
898110211069941014 1038
990
9581010
1 0 7 8
994962950
1018
1 0 8 2
10341026 1
0
4
2
1 0 0 6 96610229181086
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE8Horne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Floodplain Map
Legend
Conservation Easem ent
Existing S treams (Warm Water Thermal Regime)
2ft C ontours
Minor
Major
Site reaches are not within any FEMA
mapped floodplains or regulated streams.
Kiger Road
R1
R4B
R4A R4
R2
R3
R5
kj
kj
!.
!.
!.
!>
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE9Horne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Proposed Mitigation
Assets & Monitoring
Features Map
Lege nd
!>Flow Guage
!.Sediment Sample
Conservation Easement
kj Macro Samples
Water Quality Treatment
Vegetation PlotsCross Sectio ns
Pool
RiffleStream Mitigation Type
Enhancement Level II
Restoration (PI)
Kiger Road
R1
R4B
R4A R4
R2
R3
R5
^_
^_SCP
BF
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE10Horne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Reference Reach
Location
Map
Legend
^_Reference Reach Locations
Conservation Easement
Shoals C omm unity Park
Brown Farm
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE11aHorne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Buffer Width
Map
Legend
Conservation Easement
Top of Bank
Buffer Width Zones
15 ft
20 ft
25 ft
30 ft
50 ft
75 ft
100 ft
125 ft
150 ft
R4B
R4A
R4
R2
R3
R5
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE11bHorne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Buffer Width
Map
Legend
Conservation Easement
Top of Bank
IdealBufferBuffer Width Zones
15 ft
20 ft
25 ft
30 ft
50 ft
75 ft
100 ft
125 ft
150 ft
R1
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feetMax Possible Buffer (square feet)162,840 54,280 54,280 54,280 217,120 271,400 271,400 271,400 271,400Ideal Buffer (square feet)164,103 54,682 54,341 53,780 210,182 260,415 263,400 268,013 273,997Actual Buffer (square feet)158,814 51,210 49,893 48,533 117,951 20,978 11,418 7,748 2,386Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,689 1,076 807 807 484 376 323 269 161Percent of Ideal Buffer 97%94%92%90%56%8%4%3%1%Credit Adjustment -87 -68 -66 -79 272 30 14 8 1
Total Baseline Credit
5,378
Total Credit
5,403
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-300
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
325
Net Change in Credit from Buffers25
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project

Appendix 1 – Plan Sheets

CECECECECE CECECE CECECECECECE CE CE CECECECECECECECE
CE CE
CECECE
CECEC
E
C
E
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
CECE
CE
CECE
CECECECE
CE
CECECEC
E
CECECECECEPR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCDEFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NCDRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S17/26/19100026CAT/APLCOVERSHEETN/AHORNE CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECTSURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAVICINITY MAPSHEET INDEX1234-78-1516-19COVER SHEETLEGEND/CONSTRUCTIONSEQUENCE /GENERALNOTESTYPICAL SECTIONSDETAILSPLAN AND PROFILEREVEGETATION PLANN.T.S.DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICESNCDEQ - DMS PROJECT ID # 100026NCDEQ - DMS CONTRACT #7181 UNDER RFP 16-006993YADKIN RIVER BASIN (CU 03040101)USACE ACTION ID # SAW-2017-01510TYPE OF WORK : STREAM MITIGATIONPROJECT SUMMARYNCDEQ-DMS CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR:KRISTIE CORSON1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTERRALEIGH, NC 27699-1652PH: 919-707-893501_HORNE CREEK_COVER.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCAT2501250250500GRAPHIC SCALER3R2R4R4AR4BR5R1CAUDLE ROADKIGER ROADSHOALS ROAD JOHN SCOTT ROADSHOALS ROAD ELLIS HARDY ROADSHT 8SHT 9SHT 10PROJECTLOCATIONAPPROXIMATE PROJECT CENTER36.2851950° N-80.5032100° WBEGIN CONSTRUCTION R1STATION 10+00END CONSTRUCTION R1STATION 23+58END CONSTRUCTION R5STATION 48+12BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R2STATION 9+49BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R3STATION 10+51END CONSTRUCTION R2BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4STATION 13+13END CONSTRUCTION R3STATION 12+55END CONSTRUCTION R4BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R5STATION 25+19END CONSTRUCTION R4BSTATION 12+24END CONSTRUCTION R4ASTATION 12+65BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4ASTATION 10+98BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4BSTATION 10+72KIGER RD. (SR-2071)SHOALS RD. (SR - 2069)
CAUDLE RD. (SR-2070)1" = 500'SH
T

1
1
SH
T

1
2SHT 13
S
H
T

1
4SHT 15
GENERAL NOTESCONSTRUCTION SEQUENCEGRADING NOTESLEGENDROOTWADLOG VANELOG WEIRLOG STEP-POOLGRADE CONTROL LOG J-HOOK VANEPROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARYCECE100EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR101EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR100PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR101PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUREXISTING TREECHANNEL BLOCKCHANNEL FILLLDLDLIMITS OF DISTURBANCEPROPOSED TOP OF STREAM BANKEXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARYTEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGPERMANENT STREAM CROSSINGPROPOSED CENTERLINE ( THALWEG)GEOLIFT W/ TOEWOODC/FC/FCUT/FILL LIMITSWLBWLBEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYPROPOSED WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FEATUREXXPROPOSED FIELD FENCETPTPTPPROPOSED TREE PROTECTION FENCESTONE AND LOG STEP-POOLCONSTRUCTED STONE RIFFLEPROPOSED OUTLET CHANNELCONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLEEXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICOHEEXISTING WOODLINE15+00EXISTING FENCEXPROPOSED GATEEXISTING STRUCTUREEXISTING WETLAND AREA1.NO GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL OCCUR BEYOND THEPROJECT LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (LOD) AS SHOWN ONTHE DESIGN PLANS.2.ONCE PROPOSED GRADES ARE ACHIEVED ALONG THECONSTRUCTED STREAM CHANNEL, BANKFULL BENCHESAND FLOODPLAIN AREAS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS,GRADED AREAS SHALL BE ROUGHENED USINGTECHNIQUES DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTIONSPECIFICATIONS.3.ALL SUITABLE SOIL MATERIAL REQUIRED TO FILL AND/ORPLUG EXISTING DITCHES AND/OR STREAM CHANNEL SHALLBE GENERATED ON-SITE AS DESCRIBED IN THECONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. ANY EXCESS SPOILMATERIAL SHALL BE STOCKPILED IN DESIGNATED AREASAND OR HAULED OFF-SITE AS APPROVED BY THEENGINEER.1.THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, APPROXIMATELY 7.5MILES SOUTH OF THE TOWN OF PILOT MOUNTAIN AS SHOWN ON THE COVER SHEET VICINITYMAP. TO ACCESS THE SITE FROM RALEIGH, TAKE I-40 W TO EXIT 206 (I-40 BUS/US-421 N). TAKEEXIT 6B (NC-8 NC/US-311/US-52 N) FROM I-40 BUS/US-421 N (12.4 MI) TOWARD MT. AIRY. TAKEEXIT 129 TOWARD PINNACLE (20.1 MI). TURN LEFT ONTO PERCH RD. TRAVEL 1.5 MI ON PERCHROAD TO STONY RIDGE. TURN RIGHT ONTO STONY RIDGE AND TRAVEL 2.7 MI. TURN LEFT ONSHOALS RD. AND TRAVEL 1.3 MI. TURN LEFT ONTO CAUDLE RD. TRAVEL 0.6 MI TO UPPERPROJECT BOUNDARY. LOWER PROJECT BOUNDARY CAN BE ACCESS BY TRAVELING EAST ONCAUDLE RD TO KIGER RD. TURN RIGHT ONTO KIGER RD. AND TRAVEL 0.5 MI TO LOWERPROJECT BOUNDARY.2.THE PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIES ARE SHOWN ON THE DESIGN PLANS AS THE PROPOSEDCONSERVATION EASEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ALL RELATED WORKACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIES AND/OR WITHIN THE LIMITS OFDISTURBANCE (LOD). THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE ACCESSED THROUGH THE DESIGNATEDACCESS POINTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FORMAINTAINING PERMITTED ACCESS THROUGHOUT ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS AND MEASURES TO PROTECTALL PROPERTIES FROM DAMAGE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ALL DAMAGE CAUSED BYHIS/HER OPERATIONS TO ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY AND LEAVE THE PROPERTY INGOOD CONDITION AND/OR AT LEAST EQUIVALENT TO THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS.UPON COMPLETION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE AREA IS TO BE RESTORED TO ACONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN FOUND PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.4.THE TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP WAS DEVELOPED USING SURVEY DATA COLLECTED BY KEEMAPPING & SURVEYING (KEE) IN THE FALL OF 2017. THE HORIZONTAL DATUM WAS TIED TONAD83 NC STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, US SURVEY FEET AND NAVD88 VERTICALDATUM USING VRS NETWORK AND NCGS MONUMENT. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EXISTINGELEVATIONS AND SITE CONDTIONS MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE ORIGINAL SURVEY WASCOMPLETED DUE TO EROSION, AND/OR SEDIMENT ACCRETION. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'SRESPONSIBILITY TO CONFIRM EXISTING GRADES AND ADJUST QUANTITIES, EARTHWORK, ANDWORK EFFORTS AS NECESSARY.5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND THOROUGHLY FAMILIARIZEHIM/HERSELF WITH ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS. PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. THECONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE CONSTRUCTIONSPECIFICATIONS AND DESIGN PLANS REGARDING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE WORKDESCRIBED.6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRING ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE CONSTRUCTION PLANSAND SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR FIELD CONDITIONS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SPONSORSENGINEER BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS.7.THERE SHALL BE NO CLEARING OR REMOVAL OF ANY NATIVE SPECIES VEGETATION OR TREESOF SIGNIFICANCE, OTHER THAN THOSE INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR AS DIRECTED BY THEENGINEER.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE DURING GRADING ACTIVITIES IN THE VICINITY OFNATIVE VEGETATION AND TREES OF SIGNIFICANCE AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. ALLGRADING IN THE VICINITY OF TREES NOT IDENTIFIED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE MADE IN AMANNER THAT DOES NOT DISTURB THE ROOT SYSTEM WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE.9.WORK ACTIVITIES ARE BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN NEARPRIVATE RESIDENCES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TOREDUCE SEDIMENT LOSS, PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY, AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITEWHILE PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK. ALL AREAS SHALL BE KEPT NEAT, CLEAN,AND FREE OF ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS, AND ALL REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS SHALL BE TAKENTO AVOID DAMAGE TO EXISTING ROADS, VEGETATION, TURF, STRUCTURES, AND PRIVATEPROPERTY.10.PRIOR TO START OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE SOURCE OF MATERIALS,INCLUDING AGGREGATES, EROSION CONTROL MATTING, WOOD AND NATIVE PLANTINGMATERIAL TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. NO WORK SHALL BE PERFORMEDUNTIL THE SOURCE OF MATERIAL IS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.11.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY NECESSARYCOORDINATION BETWEEN THE VARIOUS COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCIES, UTILITYCOMPANIES, HIS/HER SUB-CONTRACTORS, AND THE ENGINEER FOR THE DURATION OF THEPROJECT.12.PRIOR TO START OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THEIR DETAILED PLANTINGSCHEDULE TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW. NO WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED UNTIL THISSCHEDULE IS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. THE DETAILED PLANTING SCHEDULE SHALLCONFORM TO THE PLANTING REVEGETATION PLAN AND SHALL INCLUDE A SPECIES LIST ANDTIMING SEQUENCE.13.THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND CULVERT PIPESUSING A BACKHOE/EXCAVATOR WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACESTRUCTURES INCLUDING LOGS, STONE, BOULDERS, ROOT WADS, AND TEMPORARY WOODMAT STREAM CROSSINGS.THE ENGINEER WILL PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION DURING THECONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCESHALL BE USED DURING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTCONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE APPROVED PERMITS FORSPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ITEMS AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORFOLLOWING THE APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT CONDITIONS.1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY “NC 811” (1-800-632-4949) BEFORE ANYEXCAVATION BEGINS. ANY UTILITIES AND RESPECTIVE EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THEPLANS ARE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THEENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FORLOCATING ALL UTILITIES AND ADJOINING EASEMENTS AND SHALL REPAIR ORREPLACE ANY DAMAGED UTILITIES AT HIS/HER OWN EXPENSE.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND PREPARESTAGING AREA(S) AND STOCKPILE AREA(S) AND HAUL ROADS AS SHOWN ON THEPLANS.3.CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE PROJECT AREABOUNDARIES OR AS DENOTED “LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE” OR “HAUL ROADS” ON THEPLANS.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL APPROVED TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION ANDEROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT LOCATIONS INDICATED ON THE PLANS.5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TEMPORARY SILT FENCE AROUND ALL STAGINGAREA(S). TEMPORARY SILT FENCING WILL ALSO BE PLACED AROUND THETEMPORARY STOCKPILE AREAS AS MATERIAL IS STOCKPILED THROUGHOUT THECONSTRUCTION PERIOD.6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STREAMCROSSINGS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEDIMENTATIONAND EROSION CONTROL PERMIT. THE EXISTING CHANNEL AND DITCHES ON SITEWILL REMAIN OPEN DURING THE INITIAL STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION TO ALLOW FORDRAINAGE AND TO MAINTAIN SITE ACCESSIBILITY.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT ONLY THE PORTION OF THE PROPOSEDCHANNEL THAT CAN BE COMPLETED AND STABILIZED WITHIN THE SAME DAY. THECONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING, MATTING ANDMULCHING TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR AND GRUB AN AREA ADEQUATE TO CONSTRUCTTHE STREAM CHANNEL AND GRADING OPERATIONS AFTER ALL SEDIMENTATION ANDEROSION CONTROL PRACTICES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AND APPROVED. INGENERAL, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK FROM UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAM ANDIN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND CHANNEL FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED USINGA PUMP-AROUND OR FLOW DIVERSION MEASURE AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.9.THE CONTRACTOR WILL BEGIN CONSTRUCTION BY EXCAVATING CHANNEL FILLMATERIAL IN AREAS ALONG THE EXISTING CHANNEL. THE CONTRACTOR MAY FILLDITCHES WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN ANY WATER DURING THE GRADING OPERATIONS.ALONG DITCHES WITH WATER OR STREAM REACHES, EXCAVATED MATERIALSHOULD BE STOCKPILED IN DESIGNATED AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. IN ANYAREAS WHERE EXCAVATION DEPTHS WILL EXCEED TEN INCHES, TOPSOIL SHALL BESEPARATED, STOCKPILED AND PLACED BACK OVER THESE AREAS TO A DEPTH OFEIGHT INCHES TO ACHIEVE DESIGN GRADES AND CREATE A SOIL BASE FORVEGETATION PLANTING ACCORDING TO THE DESIGN PLANS AND CONSTRUCTIONSPECIFICATIONS.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL BEGIN DESIGN CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION AT STATION 10+00AND PROCEED IN A DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION. THE DESIGN CHANNEL SHOULD BECONSTRUCTED OFFLINE AND/OR IN THE DRY WHENEVER POSSIBLE.11.AFTER EXCAVATING THE CHANNEL TO DESIGN GRADES, INSTALL IN-STREAMSTRUCTURES, GRASSING, MATTING, AND TEMPORARY VEGETATION IN THISSECTION, AND READY THE CHANNEL TO ACCEPT FLOW PER APPROVAL BY THEENGINEER.12.FLOWING WATER MAY BE TURNED INTO THE CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL ONCE THEAREA IN AND AROUND THE NEW CHANNEL HAS BEEN STABILIZED. IMMEDIATELYBEGIN PLUGGING, FILLING, AND GRADING THE ABANDONED CHANNEL, AS INDICATEDON PLANS, MOVING IN A DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION TO ALLOW FOR DRAINAGE OFTHE OLD CHANNELS. NO FLOWING WATER SHALL BE TURNED INTO ANY SECTION OFRESTORED CHANNEL PRIOR TO THE CHANNEL BEING COMPLETELY STABILIZEDWITH ALL IN-STREAM STRUCTURES INSTALLED.13.THE NEW CHANNEL SECTIONS SHALL REMAIN OPEN ON THE DOWNSTREAM END TOALLOW FOR DRAINAGE DURING RAIN EVENTS.14.ANY GRADING ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING OR LIVE STREAM CHANNELSHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO TURNING WATER INTO THE NEW STREAM CHANNELSEGMENTS. GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT BE PERFORMED WITHIN 10 FEET OFTHE NEW STREAM CHANNEL BANKS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT GRADE ORROUGHEN ANY AREAS WHERE EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES HAVE NOT BEENCOMPLETED.15.ONCE A STREAM WORK PHASE IS COMPLETE, APPLY TEMPORARY SEEDING TO ANYAREAS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN HOURS AND ALL SLOPESSTEEPER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH GROUND COVER AS SOON ASPRACTICABLE WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS. ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS ANDSLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS FROTHE LAST LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY.16.PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 15WORKING DAYS OR 90 CALENDAR DAYS (WHICHEVER IS SHORTER) FOLLOWINGCOMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHOULD HAVEESTABLISHED GROUND COVER PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION. REMOVE ANYTEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS AND TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES.17.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TREAT AREAS OF INVASIVE SPECIES VEGETATIONTHROUGHOUT THE PROJECT AREA ACCORDING TO THE DESIGN PLANS ANDCONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION.18.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PLANT WOODY VEGETATION AND LIVE STAKES,ACCORDING TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLCOMPLETE THE REFORESTATION PHASE OF THE PROJECT AND APPLY PERMANENTSEEDING AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OF THE YEAR.19.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OFF-SITE REMOVAL OF ALL TRASH,EXCESS BACKFILL, AND ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL MATERIALS PRIOR TODEMOBILIZATION OF EQUIPMENT FROM THE SITE. THE DISPOSAL AND STOCKPILELOCATIONS SELECTED MUST BE APPROVED TO THE ENGINEER AND ANY FEESSHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE CONTRACTOR.BOULDER STEP POOLPR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCDEFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NCDRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S27/26/19100026CAT/APLLEGENDCONSTRUCTIONSEQUENCEGENERALNOTES02_HORNE CREEK_GENERAL NOTES - SYMBOLS_SHEET.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCATN/AN/A//
Reach NameR1R2R3R4R4AR4BR5FeatureRifflePoolRifflePoolRifflePoolRifflePoolRifflePoolRifflePoolRifflePoolOUTLETCHANNELWidth of Bankfull, Wbkf (ft)7.09.06.09.06.08.09.012.06.08.03.54.010.016.03.00Average Depth, Dbkf (ft)0.40.70.50.70.40.60.60.90.40.60.20.40.71.0NAMaximum Depth, D-Max (ft)0.61.20.61.00.50.90.81.70.50.90.30.50.92.00.50Width to Depth Ratio, bkf W/D17.012.313.112.516.012.915.612.916.012.914.910.713.915.6NABankfull Area, Abkf (sq ft)2.96.62.86.52.35.05.211.22.35.00.81.57.216.4NABottom Width, Wb (ft)3.53.54.04.03.03.04.04.03.03.02.02.06.06.0NARIFFLEWbkfD-maxWbRIFFLE WITH BANKFULL BENCHWbkfD-maxWbVARIESVARIES2:1 2:1TOP OF TERRACED-maxWbkfMEANDER POOLWbD-maxWbkfMEANDER POOL WITH BANKFULL BENCHWb2:1VARIESVARIESTOP OF TERRACEEXISTINGGROUNDEXISTINGGROUNDEXISTINGGROUNDEXISTINGGROUNDPROPOSEDGROUNDPROPOSEDGROUNDPROPOSEDGROUNDPROPOSEDGROUNDN.T.SN.T.SN.T.SN.T.S2:1
OUTLET CHANNELWbkfD-max3:13:1WbEXISTINGGROUNDPROPOSEDGROUNDN.T.SPR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCDEFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NCDRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S3100026CAT/APLTYPICALSECTIONSN/A03_HORNE CREEK_TYPICAL_SECTIONS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCATN/ASTEP POOL WITH BANKFULL BENCHWbkfD-maxWbVARIESVARIES2:1 2:1TOP OF TERRACEEXISTINGGROUNDPROPOSEDGROUNDN.T.SSTEP POOLWbkfD-maxWbEXISTINGGROUNDPROPOSEDGROUNDN.T.S7/26/19VARIES1.85:1 TO 3.18:1VARIES1.85:1 TO 3.18:1VARIES1.85:1 TO 3.18:1VARIES1.85:1 TO 3.18:1VARIES2:1 TO 3.85:1VARIES2:1 TO 3.85:1VARIES2:1 TO 3.85:1VARIES2:1 TO 3.85:1VARIES1.5:1 TO 2:1VARIES3.5:1 TO 6.15:1VARIES1.5:1 TO 2:1VARIES3.5:1 TO 6.15:1
NOTES:1.THE TRENCHING METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FORTHE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOTWAD. A COVER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLEDUNDERNEATH THE ROOTWAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PERPENDICULARTO THE BANK AND BELOW THE RESTORED STREAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THEROOTWAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.ROOTWADSPLAN VIEWROOTWAD (TYP.)FLOWTRANSPLANTSBANKFULL STAGEBASE FLOWOPTIONALCOVER LOGROOTWADTRANSPLANTSRESTOREDSTREAMBANKBERM (0.5' MAX. HT.)NOT TO EXTEND BEYONDLIMITS OF ROOTWADS.> 1/2 OF ROOT MASSIS BELOW BASE FLOWSECTION A-ATOP OFSTREAMBANKBASE FLOWROOTWADS WITH TRANSPLANTSBANKFULL STAGERESTOREDSTREAMBANKBERM (0.5' MAX. HT.) BERM(S)NOT TO EXTEND BEYONDLIMITS OF ROOTWADS.> 1/2 OF ROOT MASSIS BELOW BASE FLOWROOTWADROOTWADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTSSECTION A-ACOVER LOG(OPTIONAL)SCOURPOOLAEROSION CONTROL MATTINGATOP OFSTREAMBANKTOP OFSTREAMBANKENTIRE ROOTWAD TRUNK ISBELOW STREAMBED.COVER LOG(OPTIONAL)ENTIRE ROOTWAD TRUNK ISBELOW STREAMBED.NOT TO SCALENOTES:1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.3. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG INTO THE BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL.4. BOULDERS OF SUFFICIENT SIZE CAN PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.5. LOGS SHOULD BE BURIED INTO THE STREAM BED AND BANKS AT LEAST 5 FEET.6. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.7. TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOTWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.LOG VANEPLAN VIEWSECTION A-APROFILE B-BAAFLOWSCOURPOOL2/3 BANKFULLSTAGENON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRICROOT WADBURY LOGS INTOBANK AT LEAST 5'4% TO 7%ARM SLOPEFOOTER LOG(OPTIONAL)HEADERLOG1'2/3 BANKFULL STAGEFLOWRESTORED STREAMBED ELEVATIONBOULDER(OPTIONAL)ARM ANGLE20° TO 30°BOULDER(OPTIONAL)BTOP OF STREAM BANKBINVERT/GRADE POINTHEADERLOGSTONE BACKFILLNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC5' MINIMUMFOOTER LOG(OPTIONAL)STREAMBEDSCOURPOOLINVERTELEVATIONTOP OF STREAM BANKFLOWROOT WADNOT TO SCALEAABBFLOWBEGIN STEP INVERTELEVATIONSTONEBACKFILLLARGESTONEBACKFILLALONG TOETOE OFSTREAM BANKTOP OF STREAM BANKPOOL WIDTH(1.3X BANKFULLWIDTH)POOL TO POOL SPACINGVARIES. SEE NOTE #9 FOR POOLSPACING REQUIREMENTS.STEP INVERTELEVATIONFLOWH = STEPHEIGHTNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILEFABRICPOOLPROFILE B-BSTONE AND LOG STEP POOL BASEFLOWBANKFULL STAGERESTOREDSTREAMBEDHEADERLOGFOOTERLOGSECTION A-ASET INVERT ELEVATIONBASED ON DESIGN PROFILETRANSPLANTSOR LIVE STAKESBANKFULL STAGETOP OF STREAM BANKBASEFLOW BURY INTOBANK 5'MINIMUM(TYP.)1% - 2% CROSS SLOPEEND STEP INVERTELEVATIONSCOURPOOLSCOURPOOLNOTES: LARGE STONEBACKFILL5' MINIMUMPLAN VIEW10. INTERIOR LOGS SHOULD BE AT A SLIGHT ANGLE (~70 DEGREES) FROM THESTREAMBANK AND CROSS SLOPES SHOULD BE 1-2%.11. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADERLOG AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.12. AVERAGE STEP HEIGHTS/DROPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.5 UNLESS SHOWNOTHERWISE.13. CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE CHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION. NOTCHSHALL BE USED TO CENTER FLOW AND NOT EXCEED 3 INCHES IN DEPTH.14. THE NUMBER OF STEPS MAY VARY BETWEEN BEGINNING AND ENDSTATIONING. SEE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE FOR STATION AND ELEVATION.15. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.16. PLACE VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OFSTREAMBANK.17. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.1.LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD ANDRECENTLY HARVESTED.2.LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG FILTER FABRICSHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG. LOGS SHOULD EXTEND INTO THE BANKS 5' ON EACHSIDE.3. SOIL SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND BURIED PORTION OF FOOTER LOGS WITH BUCKET OFTRACK HOE.4. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC UNDERNEATH LOGS.5. UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION 8 INCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYER OF STONE. INSTALL LARGE STONEBACKFILL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.6. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE EROSION CONTROLMATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION.7. INSTALL LARGE STONE BACKFILL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.8. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, COMPACTED, AND CONCAVE, WITH THE ELEVATIONOF THE BED APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT THE EDGES.9. AVERAGE POOL TO POOL SPACING SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PROFILE OR SPECIFIED BY ENGINEERBASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS SLOPE AND SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL. RIFFLE STEP-POOLSOR CASCADE POOLS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING SLOPES EXCEED 10% ASDETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER.NOT TO SCALEEROSION CONTROLMATTINGLOG WEIRBBAAINVERTELEVATION~1.3X CHANNEL WIDTHPOOL LENGTH
FLOWSCOURPOOLPLAN VIEWNOTES: 1.LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHTHARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.2.LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT ANADDITIONAL LOG FILTER FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUNDLOG, AT THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.3.PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADERLOG AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.4.CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE CHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION. NOTCHSHALL BE USED TO CENTER FLOW AND NOT EXCEED 3 INCHES IN DEPTH.5.USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.6.INSTALL VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAM BANK TO TOPOF STREAM BANK.7.SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.HEADERLOGFOOTERLOGSECTION A-ASET INVERT ELEVATIONBASED ON DESIGN PROFILETRANSPLANTSOR LIVE STAKESBANKFULL STAGETOP OF STREAM BANKBASEFLOWPROFILE B-BSTONE BACKFILLNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC5' MINIMUMFOOTER LOGSTREAMBEDSCOURPOOLINVERTELEVATIONTOP OF STREAM BANKTOP OF STREAM BANKFLOW BURY INTOBANK 5'MINIMUM(TYP.) BURY INTOBANK 5'MINIMUM(TYP.)HEADER LOGNOT TO SCALEEROSION CONTROLMATTINGPR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCDEFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NCDRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S47/26/19100026CAT/APLDETAILS04-07_HORNE_CREEK_DETAILS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCATN/AN/A
CONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLEFLOWFOOTERLOGHEADERLOGSTREAMBEDSTREAMBEDPRIMARYLOGSSECONDARY LOGSAND WOODY DEBRISHEADERLOGBACKFILL WITHON-SITE ALLUVIUMNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(TYPICAL) BACKFILL WITHSUITABLE ON-SITEALLUVIUMPROFILE B-B5' MINIMUM5' MINIMUMH ≤ 0.3'HEADERLOGFOOTERLOGSECTION A-ASET INVERT ELEVATION BASEDON DESIGN PROFILE5' MINIMUMBURIED INTOBANK5' MINIMUMBURIED INTOBANKBBAAFLOWBEGIN INVERTELEVATIONTRANSPLANTSOR LIVE STAKESHEADERLOGPRIMARY LOGS SPACEEVERY 8'-12'END INVERTELEVATIONSECONDARY LOGSAND WOODY DEBRISPLAN VIEW1. PRIMARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12" OR MORE IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK 5' ON EACH SIDE.2. SECONDARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 4" IN DIAMETER AND NO LARGER THAN 10" AND EXTEND INTO THE BANK 3' ON EACH SIDE. WOODY DEBRIS MATERIAL SHALL BE VARYING DIAMETER TO ALLOWMATERIAL TO BE COMPACTED.3. NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE HEADER LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.4. ROOT WADS AND EROSION CONTROL MATTING CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE STAKES PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.5. AFTER TRENCH HAS BEEN EXCAVATED A LAYER OF SECONDARY LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHOULD BE PLACED WITH MINIMAL GAPS. A LAYER OF ON-SITE ALLUVIUM SHOULD BE APPLIED TO FILL VOIDS BETWEEN SECONDARY LOGS BEFORE ADDITIONAL LAYERS ARE PLACED.6. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.NOTES:BANKFULL STAGETOP OF STREAM BANKTOP OF STREAM BANKBASEFLOWH ≤ 0.3'TOE OF STREAM BANK24" MINIMUM DEPTHBASEFLOWNOT TO SCALEEROSION CONTROLMATTINGSECTION A - APLAN VIEWANOTES:WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FEATURE18" POOL DEPTHASLOPE VARIES(3:1 MAX.)NOT TO SCALECONSTRUCT EMBANKMENT WITHCOMPACTED SOIL AND SUITABLEBACKFILL MATERIAL (TYP.)PROPOSED BOTTOMOUTLET CHANNELINFLOWSTORAGE VOLUME ELEVATIONFINISHED GRADE8" THICK STONE SPILLWAY(OPTIONAL AS DIRECTEDBY ENGINEER)3:13:1EXISTING GRADE1.CONSTRUCT EMBANKMENT WITH COMPACTED SOIL ANDSUITABLE MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS.2.WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FEATURE VARIES IN SIZE ANDSHAPE AS SHOWN ON PLANS.3.PLANT APPROPRIATE WETLAND SPECIES VEGETATION AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANTING PLAN.4' WIDEEMBANKMENT4' WIDE EMBANKMENT WITHSTONE COVER (OPTIONAL ASDIRECTED BY ENGINEER)GRADE SIDE SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN 3H:1VINFLOWPROPOSEDOUTLET CHANNEL(WIDTH VARIES)SHALLOWPOOLSHALLOWPOOLPR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCDEFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NCDRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S57/26/19100026CAT/APLDETAILS04-07_HORNE_CREEK_DETAILS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCATN/AN/APOOL SECTION A-AAABBCCFLOW
STEP INVERTELEVATIONFOOTERBOULDERHEADERBOULDERSTONEBACKFILLLARGESTONEBACKFILLALONG TOE1. FOOTER BOULDERS SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT 1/4 OF THE LENGTHIS DOWNSTREAM OF THE HEADER BOULDERS.2. SOIL SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND BURIED PORTION OF FOOTERBOULDERS WITH BUCKET OF TRACK HOE.3. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC UNDERNEATH FOOTER BOULDERS.4. UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION 8 INCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYER OFSTONE.5. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCHTHAT THE EROSION CONTROL MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANKEXTENDS DOWN TO THE ELEVATION OF THE BOTTOM OF THE HEADERBOULDERS AND LARGE STONE BACKFILL AT THE TOE.6. INSTALL LARGE STONE BACKFILL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.7. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, COMPACTED, ANDCONCAVE, WITH THE ELEVATION OF THE BED APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FTDEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT THE EDGES.8. AVERAGE STEP HEIGHT (H) SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.5 FT.9. AVERAGE POOL TO POOL SPACING SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PROFILE ORSPECIFIED BY ENGINEER BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH ASSLOPE AND SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL. RIFFLE STEP-POOLS OR CASCADEPOOLS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING SLOPESEXCEED 5% AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER.ACTUAL NUMBER OFBOULDERS MAY VARYTOE OFSTREAM BANKTOP OF STREAM BANKBACK OFBENCHPOOL WIDTH(1.3X BANKFULLWIDTH)POOL TO POOL SPACINGVARIES. SEE NOTE #9 FORSPACING REQUIREMENTS.FOOTERBOULDERHEADERBOULDERSTEP INVERTELEVATIONSTONEBACKFILLFLOWH = STEPHEIGHTNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILEFABRICPOOLSTEPPROFILE C-CSTONEBACKFILLEXISTINGGROUND2:12:1
2:1 POOL WIDTH(1.3X BANKFULL WIDTH)2:1EROSION CONTROLMATTINGD = POOLDEPTHSTEP SECTION B-BEXISTINGGROUND2:1BACK OF BENCH(WIDTH VARIES)BANKFULL(WIDTH VARIES)2:12:1
2:1
EROSION CONTROLMATTING (STOPS BEHINDHEADER BOLDERS)NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(START BEHINDHEADER BOULDERS)FOOTERBOULDERHEADERBOULDERSTEPINVERTNOTES:BASEFLOWBANKFULL STAGEBACK OF BENCH(WIDTH VARIES)LARGE STONEBACKFILLALONG TOETOP OF RESTOREDSTREAM BANKBOULDER STEP-POOLNOT TO SCALEPERMANENT CULVERT STREAM CROSSINGNOT TO SCALEPIPE CULVERTINSTALL 8" THICK ABCSTONE OR EQUIVALENTFOR FARM PATH COVER13132% MAX2% MAX2'6'CL2'6'NOTES:1. INSTALL PIPE CULVERT(S) IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAILSPECIFICATIONS. SEE PLANS FOR NUMBER, SIZE AND LENGTH.2. INSTALL COIR FIBER MATTING FOR EROSION CONTROL ALONGFILL SLOPES IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS.3. PIPE CULVERTS ARE TO BE A MINIMUM OF 24" COVER ANDSPACING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS.MATTING FOR EROSIONCONTROL SLOPESCOMPACTEDEARTHEN FILLVARIES3:13
:
1 RELOCATED FARMPATHNATURALGROUNDAPPLY CLASS B STONETO FILL SLOPESAROUND FLOOD PLAINCULVERTS.MIN. 24"COVERBANKFULL ELEVATIONVARIESVARIESBURY PIPE BELOW THE STREAM BED ELEVATION AS SHOWN ON PLANSPROPOSEDSTREAM BED
PLAN VIEWGEOLIFT W/ TOE WOODBASEFLOWRESTORED STREAMBED POINT BAR (SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS)TOP OF RESTORED STREAM BANK4' DEEP (TYP.)STAKE TOP LAYER OFEROSION CONTROLMATTING IN 6" TRENCH(SEE COIR FIBER MATTINGDETAIL)INSTALL FOUNDATION LOGSSUCH THAT AT LEAST HALF OFTHE LOG DIAMETER IS BELOWTHE RESTORED STREAMBEDELEVATION.SLOPE VARIESCOVER LOGS AND/OR ROOT WADSINSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ONPLANS AND PER RESPECTIVE DETAILSPLACE THICK LAYEROF 1"- 6" DIAMETERWOODY DEBRISLIVE BRANCH CUTTINGS (SEEPLANTING PLAN FOR SPECIES)EROSION CONTROL MATTINGENCOMPASSES LIFTBANKFULL STAGEADD BOULDERS OR OTHER APPROVEDCOUNTERWEIGHT TO PREVENT WOODFROM FLOATINGSECTION A - AFLOWFOUNDATION LOGS TO BE INSTALLEDAT ANGLES SHOWN BETWEEN 15-25°EXTEND WOODY DEBRIS MATERIALTO 1/4 BANKFULL WIDTHAATOP OF RESTORED STREAM BANKBACKFILL 1.5' LIFT OF COMPACTEDON-SITE SOIL (TYP.)SCOURPOOLHORIZONTAL SETBACK FOR LIFT ISAPPROX. 1 FT.NOT TO SCALETOE OF STREAMBANKLIVE STAKINGLIVE STAKEPLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANKSECTION A - AAATOE OF STREAMBANKTOP OF STREAMBANKLIVE STAKE DETAIL2' TO 3' LENGTHSQUARE CUT TOPBUDS FACING UPWARDLIVE STAKEPLANT LIVESTAKES FROMTOP OFSTREAM BANKTO TOE OFSTREAM BANKIN A DIAMONDSHAPED,STAGGEREDPATTERN TOSPECIFIEDSPACING1. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY.2. DO NOT INSTALL LIVE STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.3. LIVE STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.4. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK.5. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE 1/2 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND 2 TO 3 FEET LONG.6. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING 1/5 OF THE LENGTH OF THE LIVE STAKE ABOVE GROUND.6' TO 8' SPACING2' TO 3' SPACINGNO LIVE STAKES ON POINT BARTOP OF STREAMBANKTOE OF STREAMBANKLIVE STAKE SPACING PLAN VIEWTOP OF STREAMBANKRESTORED STREAMBEDANGLE CUT 30 TO45 DEGREESLIVE CUTTINGMINIMUM 1/2"DIAMETERNO LIVE STAKESRESTORED STREAMBEDBANKFULL STAGEBASEFLOWTHALWEGNOTES:F
L
OWNOT TO SCALECHANNEL BLOCKCHANNEL TO BERELOCATEDAAOLD FLOWNEW FLOW DIRECTION100' MINIMUMPLAN VIEWOLD FLOWFINISHED GRADEUNCOMPACTEDFILL 1.5' MINIMUMCOMPACTEDBACKFILLNEW STREAMBANKSHALL BE TREATED ASSPECIFIED IN PLANSCHANNEL INVERTOPTIONAL ROOT WADPLACEMENT AS DIRECTEDBY ENGINEER21SECTION A-A1. COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON-SITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS.2. FILL DITCH PLUG TO TOP OF BANKS OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.CHANNEL BLOCKNOTES:TOP OF STREAMBANKNOT TO SCALEGLIDERIFFLEFLOW
POOLNOTES:16" MIN. THICKNESSSTONE BACKFILL16" MIN. THICKNESSSTONE BACKFILL1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE RESTORED STREAMBED FOR THE STONE BACKFILL.2. FILL TRENCH WITH STONE BACKFILL.16" MIN. THICKNESSSTONE BACKFILLCONSTRUCTED STONE RIFFLEBSECTION A-APLAN VIEWPROFILE B-BAATOE OF STREAM BANKEROSION CONTROLMATTING SHOULD BEPLACED BENEATH STONEBACKFILLHEAD OF RIFFLEINVERT ELEVATIONHEAD OF RIFFLEINVERT ELEVATIONBASEFLOWBANKFULL STAGERIFFLE Dmax = MAX DEPTHTOP OF STREAM BANKTOP OF STREAM BANKRUNTAIL OF RIFFLEINVERT ELEVATIONTAIL OF RIFFLEINVERT ELEVATIONTOE OF STREAMBANKFLOW BOTTOM WIDTH OFCHANNELBBANKFULL STAGENOT TO SCALEPR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCDEFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NCDRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S67/26/19100026CAT/APLDETAILS04-07_HORNE_CREEK_DETAILS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCATN/AN/A
GRADE CONTROL LOG J-HOOK VANE1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 18" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.2. LOGS SHOULD BE BURIED INTO THE STREAM BED AND BANKS AT LEAST 5 FEET.3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.4. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER LOG AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER LOG AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.5. EXCAVATE A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER LOG AND PLACE FILL ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF VANE ARM, BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAMBANK.6. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER BOULDERS FIRST AND THEN HEADER BOULDERS.7. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.8. AN OPTIONAL COVER LOG CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT AT DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.9. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER BOULDERS.10. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH ON-SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER BOULDER AND LOG.11. VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOTWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.1/3BOTTOMWIDTH OFCHANNEL1/3BOTTOMWIDTH OFCHANNELAASTONEBACKFILLTOE OF STREAMBANKPLAN VIEWFLOW SCOURPOOL1/3 - 1/4 BANKFULL STAGE 2/3 BANKFULL STAGENOTES:ARM ANGLE20° TO 30°BBSECTION A-APROFILE B-BHEADERLOGSTONE BACKFILLNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC5' MINIMUMGEOTEXTILEFABRICROOTWADLOGS BURIED INSTREAMBANKAT LEAST 5'4% TO 7%ARM SLOPEFOOTER LOG(OPTIONAL)HEADERLOG1'2/3 BANKFULL STAGEFLOWRESTORED STREAMBED ELEVATIONHEADERBOULDERFOOTER LOG(OPTIONAL)ROOTWADNOT TO SCALEHEADERBOULDERINVERT/ GRADE POINTVEGETATION TRANSPLANTS TOP OF STREAM BANKPLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANKRESTORED STREAMBEDSECTION A-ANOTES: 1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE RESTORED STREAM BANK THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLANTED. BEGIN EXCAVATION AT TOE OF THE STREAM BANK.2. EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE TRANSPLANT ROOT MASS AND ASMUCH ADDITIONAL SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE. IF ENTIREROOT MASS CAN NOT BE EXCAVATED AT ONCE, THETRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE AND ANOTHER SHOULD BESELECTED.3. PLANT TRANSPLANT IN THE RESTORED STREAM BANK SO THAT VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY.4. FILL IN ANY HOLES OR VOIDS AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.6. WHEN POSSIBLE, PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT THEIR ROOT MASSES CONTACT.TOE OF STREAM BANKTOE OF STREAM BANKTOP OF STREAM BANKTRANSPLANTED VEGETATION,WITH ROOTMASS, AND SOILMATERIALBANKFULL STAGEBASE FLOWTRANSPLANTED VEGETATION,WITH ROOTMASS, AND SOILMATERIALAARESTORED STREAMBEDNOT TO SCALEHEAD THICKNESSLEG LENGTHHEAD WIDTHLEG WIDTHLEG THICKNESSTOTAL LENGTH11.00 IN (27.94 CM)1.25 IN (3.18 CM)0.40 IN (1.02 CM)0.60 IN (1.52 CM) (TAPERED TO POINT)0.40 IN (1.02 CM)12.00 IN (30.48 CM)LENGTH24.00 IN ( 60.96 CM) (TAPERED TO POINT)WIDTHTHICKNESS1.5 IN (3.81 CM)1.5 IN (3.81 CM)RESTORED STREAMBEDTOE OF STREAM BANKINSTALL EDGE OF EROSION CONTROL MATTING IN 12 INCH DEEPTRENCH, AND SECURE BY STAKING, BACKFILLING, AND COMPACTINGSOIL TO FINISHED GRADE.TOP OF STREAM BANKLARGE MATTING STAKES (TYP.)TRENCH LIMITSEROSION CONTROL MATTINGSMALL MATTING STAKES (TYP.)LARGE MATTING STAKESSMALL MATTING STAKESTYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE2.5 INCH GALVANIZEDROOFING NAILTYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKEPLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANKSECTION A - AAAEROSION CONTROLMATTING TO BEEXTENDED TO TOEOF SLOPETOP OF STREAM BANKSECURE EROSION CONTROLMATTING AT TOE OF SLOPEWITH LARGE MATTING STAKES.BANKFULL STAGEBASEFLOW24" MAX. TYP (TRENCH ONLY)36" MAX. TYPNOT TO SCALENOTES:1.RESTORED STREAM BANKS MUST BE SEEDED ANDMULCHED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF EROSION CONTROLMATTING.2.SEE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR MATTING STAKESPACING REQUIREMENTS.3.PLACE LARGE STAKES ALONG ALL MATTING SEAMS, INTHE CENTER OF STREAM BANK, AND TOE OF SLOPE.AABBFLOW
BEGIN STEP INVERTELEVATIONSTONE BACKFILLOR SUITABLESOIL MATERIALTOE OFSTREAMBANKTOP OF STREAMBANKPOOL WIDTH(~1.3X BANKFULLWIDTH)POOL TO POOL SPACINGVARIES. SEE NOTE #9 FOR POOLSPACING REQUIREMENTS.STEP INVERTELEVATIONSTONEBACKFILLFLOWH = STEPHEIGHTNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILEFABRICPOOLPROFILE B-BLOG STEP POOL BASEFLOWBANKFULL STAGERESTOREDSTREAMBEDHEADERLOGFOOTERLOGSECTION A-ASET INVERT ELEVATIONBASED ON DESIGN PROFILETRANSPLANTSOR LIVE STAKESBANKFULL STAGETOP OF STREAMBANKBASEFLOW BURY INTOBANK 5'MINIMUM(TYP.)1% - 2% CROSS SLOPEEND STEP INVERTELEVATIONSCOURPOOLNOTES: 5' MINIMUMPLAN VIEWNOT TO SCALE1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOODAND RECENTLY HARVESTED.2. LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG FILTERFABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG. LOGS SHOULD EXTEND INTO THEBANKS 5' ON EACH SIDE.3. SOIL SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND BURIED PORTION OF FOOTER LOGS WITHBUCKET OF TRACK HOE.4. INSTALL NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDERNEATH LOGS.5. UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION 8 INCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYER OF STONE. INSTALLSTONE BACKFILL OR SUITABLE ALLUVIUM ALONG SIDE SLOPES.6. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE EROSIONCONTROL MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUTELEVATION.7. INSTALL STONE BACKFILL OR SUITABLE SOIL MATERIAL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.8. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, COMPACTED, AND CONCAVE, WITH THEELEVATION OF THE BED APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT THEEDGES.9. AVERAGE POOL TO POOL SPACING SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PROFILE OR SPECIFIED BYENGINEER BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS SLOPE AND SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL.RIFFLE STEP POOLS OR CASCADE POOLS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN AREAS WHERE EXISTINGSLOPES EXCEED 10% AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER.10. INTERIOR LOGS SHOULD BE AT A SLIGHT ANGLE (~70 DEGREES) FROM THESTREAMBANK AND CROSS SLOPES SHOULD BE 1-2%.11. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER LOGAT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.12. AVERAGE STEP HEIGHTS/DROPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.5 UNLESS SHOWNOTHERWISE.13. CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE CHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION. NOTCHSHALL BE USED TO CENTER FLOW AND NOT EXCEED 3 INCHES IN DEPTH.14. THE NUMBER OF STEPS MAY VARY BETWEEN BEGINNING AND ENDSTATIONING. SEE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE FOR STATION AND ELEVATION.15. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.16. PLACE VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OFSTREAMBANK.17. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCDEFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NCDRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S77/26/19100026CAT/APLDETAILS04-07_HORNE_CREEK_DETAILS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCATN/AN/A
10+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+00CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX92093094095096097092093094095096097010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0017+50PI STA=10+00.00 ELEV=955.90PI STA=10+07.00 ELEV=955.50PI STA=10+12.00 ELEV=953.50PI STA=10+19.00 ELEV=954.70PI STA=10+26.00 ELEV=952.70PI STA=10+32.00 ELEV=953.90PI STA=10+39.00 ELEV=951.90PI STA=10+46.00 ELEV=953.10PI STA=10+52.00 ELEV=951.10PI STA=10+58.00 ELEV=952.30PI STA=10+69.00 ELEV=951.70PI STA=10+71.00 ELEV=950.50PI STA=10+73.00 ELEV=951.70PI STA=10+91.00 ELEV=950.80PI STA=10+97.00 ELEV=949.60PI STA=11+03.00 ELEV=950.80PI STA=11+08.00 ELEV=948.80 PI STA=11+13.00 ELEV=950.00PI STA=11+19.00 ELEV=949.65PI STA=11+22.00 ELEV=948.45PI STA=11+27.00 ELEV=949.65PI STA=11+37.00 ELEV=949.15PI STA=11+40.00 ELEV=947.95PI STA=11+42.00 ELEV=949.15PI STA=11+52.00 ELEV=948.65PI STA=11+56.00 ELEV=947.45PI STA=11+62.00 ELEV=948.65PI STA=11+67.00 ELEV=946.85 PI STA=11+73.00 ELEV=948.05PI STA=11+78.00 ELEV=946.25PI STA=11+81.00 ELEV=947.45PI STA=11+93.00 ELEV=946.85PI STA=12+00.00 ELEV=945.65PI STA=12+06.00 ELEV=946.85PI STA=12+12.00 ELEV=945.05PI STA=12+19.00 ELEV=946.25PI STA=12+30.00 ELEV=944.45PI STA=12+42.00 ELEV=945.65
PI STA=12+54.00 ELEV=944.95
PI STA=12+60.00 ELEV=943.75
PI STA=12+66.00 ELEV=944.95
PI STA=12+76.00 ELEV=944.45
PI STA=12+80.00 ELEV=943.25
PI STA=12+84.00 ELEV=944.45
PI STA=12+91.00 ELEV=942.65
PI STA=12+94.00 ELEV=943.85
PI STA=13+02.00 ELEV=942.05
PI STA=13+06.00 ELEV=943.25
PI STA=13+17.00 ELEV=942.65
PI STA=13+19.00 ELEV=941.45
PI STA=13+22.00 ELEV=942.65
PI STA=13+37.00 ELEV=941.85
PI STA=13+40.00 ELEV=940.65
PI STA=13+43.00 ELEV=941.85
PI STA=13+56.00 ELEV=941.15
PI STA=13+61.00 ELEV=939.95
PI STA=13+69.00 ELEV=941.15
PI STA=13+72.00 ELEV=939.35
PI STA=13+78.00 ELEV=940.55
PI STA=13+84.00 ELEV=938.75
PI STA=13+86.00 ELEV=939.95
PI STA=13+96.00 ELEV=939.45
PI STA=13+99.00 ELEV=938.25
PI STA=14+02.00 ELEV=939.45
PI STA=14+13.00 ELEV=938.85
PI STA=14+19.00 ELEV=937.65
PI STA=14+26.00 ELEV=938.85
PI STA=14+36.00 ELEV=938.35
PI STA=14+44.00 ELEV=937.15
PI STA=14+54.00 ELEV=938.35
PI STA=14+60.00 ELEV=936.65
PI STA=14+65.00 ELEV=937.85
PI STA=14+74.00 ELEV=936.15
PI STA=14+82.00 ELEV=937.35
PI STA=14+93.00 ELEV=936.93
PI STA=15+03.00 ELEV=935.73
PI STA=15+12.00 ELEV=936.93
PI STA=15+16.00 ELEV=935.13
PI STA=15+22.00 ELEV=936.33
PI STA=15+27.00 ELEV=934.53
PI STA=15+32.00 ELEV=935.73
PI STA=15+42.00 ELEV=935.33
PI STA=15+50.00 ELEV=934.13
PI STA=15+60.00 ELEV=935.33
PI STA=15+69.00 ELEV=934.98
PI STA=15+75.00 ELEV=933.78
PI STA=15+82.00 ELEV=934.98
PI STA=15+97.00 ELEV=934.41
PI STA=16+04.00 ELEV=933.21
PI STA=16+11.00 ELEV=934.41
PI STA=16+15.00 ELEV=932.91
PI STA=16+21.00 ELEV=934.11
PI STA=16+30.00 ELEV=933.71
PI STA=16+50.00 ELEV=932.81
PI STA=16+54.00 ELEV=931.61
PI STA=16+56.00 ELEV=932.81
PI STA=16+65.00 ELEV=931.11
PI STA=16+72.00 ELEV=932.31
PI STA=16+77.00 ELEV=930.51
PI STA=16+83.00 ELEV=931.71
PI STA=16+97.00 ELEV=930.91
PI STA=17+09.00 ELEV=929.71
PI STA=17+18.00 ELEV=930.91
PI STA=17+31.00 ELEV=930.24
PI STA=17+35.00 ELEV=929.04
PI STA=17+40.00 ELEV=930.24
PI STA=17+47.00 ELEV=928.44 -5.71%-5.45%-5.00%-5.83%-5.00%-5.00%-5.00%-5.83%-5.00%-5.33%-5.38%-5.00%-5.45%-3.82%-4.00%-3.89%-3.80%-4.44%-4.50%-5.71%-5.15%-5.45%-5.45%FLOWBOULDER STEP POOL(TYP.)LOG WEIR (TYP.)BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R1STATION 10+00EXISTING FENCE TO REMAINEXISTING GROUNDDESIGN BANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGINSTALL WATER QUALITY TREATMENTFEATURE WITH OUTLET CHANNEL (SEETYPICAL SECTION AND DETAIL)EXISTING RIP RAP TOREMAINPR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCD1" = 60'EFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NC1" = 12'DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SCONSTRUCTEDSTONE RIFFLE (TYP.)CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)REMOVE EXISTING 24" CULVERTINSTALL PROPOSED 48" HDPEINV IN = 935.52'INV OUT = 934.62'N/FBROWN FARMS OF SURRYCOUNTY, LLC.DB 900 PG 448PN 5952-00-56-7091FLOW87/26/19100026CAT/APLPLAN ANDPROFILE08-15_HORNE CREEK_PP_SHEETS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCAT301503060GRAPHIC SCALEMAT
C
H
L
I
N
E

-

S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

9REMOVE EXISTING 24"CULVERTINSTALL PROPOSED 48" CMPINV IN = 935.52'INV OUT = 934.62'KIGER RD. (SR-2071)30' R.O.W.INSTALL RIP RAP LINEDPLUNGE POOL TO ATTENUATECONCENTRATED FLOW ANDREDUCE EROSION.
17+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0023+58CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX90091092093094095090091092093094095017+5018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+00PI STA=17+51.00 ELEV=929.64PI STA=17+64.00 ELEV=928.94PI STA=17+69.00 ELEV=927.14PI STA=17+73.00 ELEV=928.34PI STA=17+82.00 ELEV=927.84PI STA=17+85.00 ELEV=926.64PI STA=17+88.00 ELEV=927.84PI STA=17+98.00 ELEV=927.39PI STA=18+01.00 ELEV=926.19PI STA=18+04.00 ELEV=927.39PI STA=18+14.00 ELEV=926.94PI STA=18+17.00 ELEV=925.74PI STA=18+21.00 ELEV=926.94PI STA=18+30.00 ELEV=926.56PI STA=18+33.00 ELEV=925.36PI STA=18+36.00 ELEV=926.56PI STA=18+47.00 ELEV=925.96PI STA=18+57.00 ELEV=924.46PI STA=18+66.00 ELEV=925.66PI STA=18+71.00 ELEV=924.16PI STA=18+79.00 ELEV=925.36PI STA=18+87.00 ELEV=923.56PI STA=18+96.00 ELEV=924.76PI STA=19+07.00 ELEV=924.16PI STA=19+16.00 ELEV=922.96PI STA=19+24.00 ELEV=924.16PI STA=19+30.00 ELEV=922.36PI STA=19+34.00 ELEV=923.56PI STA=19+45.00 ELEV=921.76
PI STA=19+57.00 ELEV=922.96
PI STA=19+67.00 ELEV=922.41
PI STA=19+75.00 ELEV=920.51
PI STA=19+84.00 ELEV=921.71
PI STA=19+92.00 ELEV=919.91
PI STA=19+98.00 ELEV=921.11
PI STA=20+05.00 ELEV=919.31
PI STA=20+12.00 ELEV=920.51
PI STA=20+26.00 ELEV=919.81
PI STA=20+33.00 ELEV=918.61
PI STA=20+40.00 ELEV=919.81
PI STA=20+52.00 ELEV=919.21
PI STA=20+64.00 ELEV=917.71
PI STA=20+76.00 ELEV=918.91
PI STA=20+88.00 ELEV=918.31
PI STA=20+98.00 ELEV=916.51
PI STA=21+07.00 ELEV=917.71
PI STA=21+16.00 ELEV=915.91
PI STA=21+25.00 ELEV=917.11
PI STA=21+31.00 ELEV=915.31
PI STA=21+37.00 ELEV=916.51
PI STA=21+45.00 ELEV=914.71
PI STA=21+53.00 ELEV=915.91
PI STA=21+65.00 ELEV=915.31
PI STA=21+70.00 ELEV=913.51
PI STA=21+75.00 ELEV=914.71
PI STA=21+88.00 ELEV=914.11
PI STA=21+96.00 ELEV=912.91
PI STA=22+05.00 ELEV=914.11
PI STA=22+12.00 ELEV=912.31
PI STA=22+23.00 ELEV=913.51
PI STA=22+28.00 ELEV=912.01
PI STA=22+33.00 ELEV=913.21
PI STA=22+51.00 ELEV=912.41
PI STA=22+56.00 ELEV=910.91
PI STA=22+61.00 ELEV=912.11
PI STA=22+71.00 ELEV=911.61
PI STA=22+77.00 ELEV=910.11
PI STA=22+82.00 ELEV=911.31
PI STA=22+97.00 ELEV=910.61
PI STA=23+01.00 ELEV=909.41
PI STA=23+06.00 ELEV=910.61
PI STA=23+16.00 ELEV=908.61
PI STA=23+20.00 ELEV=910.21
PI STA=23+27.00 ELEV=909.81
PI STA=23+39.00 ELEV=908.11
PI STA=23+45.00 ELEV=909.31
PI STA=23+58.00 ELEV=908.71 -5.38%-5.56%-4.50%-4.50%-4.22%-5.45%-5.45%-5.50%-5.00%-5.00%-5.00%-5.00%-4.62%-4.44%-5.00%-4.67%-5.71%-4.62%MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 8CONSTRUCTEDSTONE RIFFLE (TYP.)CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)BOULDER STEP POOL (TYP.)EXISTING GROUNDDESIGN BANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGN/FBROWN FARMS OF SURRYCOUNTY, LLC.DB 900 PG 448PN 5952-00-56-7091FLOWCHANNEL FILL (TYP.)GEOLIFT W/ TOEWOOD (TYP.)PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCD1" = 60'EFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NC1" = 12'DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SLOG WEIR (TYP.)CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)BOULDER STEP-POOL (TYP.)END CONSTRUCTION R1STATION 23+58FLOWKIGER RD. (SR-2071)30' R.O.W.95/8/19100026CAT/APLPLAN ANDPROFILE08-15_HORNE CREEK_PP_SHEETS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCAT301503060GRAPHIC SCALEINSTALL RIP RAP LINEDPLUNGE POOL TO ATTENUATECONCENTRATED FLOW ANDREDUCE EROSION.
9+5510+0011+0012+0013+001
4+0
0
15+
0
0
16+0017
+
0
0
18+0010+0011+
0
0
1
2
+
0
0
12
+
5
7
XXXXXXXXXC
E
C
E
C
E
C
E CECECECECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXXXCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX96097098099010001010960970980990100010109+4510+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+00PI STA=9+49.56 ELEV=1000.20PI STA=9+66.22 ELEV=995.50PI STA=9+66.22 ELEV=995.50PI STA=10+04.58 ELEV=995.50PI STA=10+04.58 ELEV=995.50PI STA=10+09.35 ELEV=997.00PI STA=10+09.35 ELEV=997.00PI STA=10+17.00 ELEV=996.00PI STA=10+17.00 ELEV=996.00PI STA=10+32.00 ELEV=995.20PI STA=10+32.00 ELEV=995.20PI STA=10+39.00 ELEV=993.55PI STA=10+46.00 ELEV=994.55PI STA=10+56.00 ELEV=994.05PI STA=10+63.00 ELEV=992.40PI STA=10+70.00 ELEV=993.40PI STA=10+70.00 ELEV=993.40PI STA=10+83.00 ELEV=992.70PI STA=10+93.00 ELEV=991.20PI STA=11+01.00 ELEV=992.20PI STA=11+09.00 ELEV=990.70PI STA=11+14.00 ELEV=991.70PI STA=11+23.00 ELEV=990.20PI STA=11+30.00 ELEV=991.20PI STA=11+40.00 ELEV=990.70PI STA=11+45.00 ELEV=989.20PI STA=11+50.00 ELEV=990.20PI STA=11+56.00 ELEV=988.70PI STA=11+60.00 ELEV=989.70PI STA=11+76.00 ELEV=988.90PI STA=11+85.00 ELEV=987.40PI STA=11+94.00 ELEV=988.40
PI STA=11+98.00 ELEV=986.90
PI STA=12+02.00 ELEV=987.90
PI STA=12+14.00 ELEV=987.10
PI STA=12+18.00 ELEV=985.60
PI STA=12+24.00 ELEV=986.60
PI STA=12+38.00 ELEV=985.90
PI STA=12+42.00 ELEV=984.50
PI STA=12+47.00 ELEV=985.50
PI STA=12+53.00 ELEV=985.20
PI STA=12+59.00 ELEV=983.80
PI STA=12+68.00 ELEV=984.80
PI STA=12+76.00 ELEV=984.40
PI STA=12+81.00 ELEV=982.90
PI STA=12+86.00 ELEV=983.90
PI STA=12+92.00 ELEV=982.50
PI STA=12+97.00 ELEV=983.50
PI STA=13+05.00 ELEV=983.08
PI STA=13+12.00 ELEV=980.88
PI STA=13+25.00 ELEV=982.58
PI STA=13+40.00 ELEV=981.98
PI STA=13+47.00 ELEV=979.78
PI STA=13+60.00 ELEV=981.48
PI STA=13+72.00 ELEV=980.88
PI STA=13+86.00 ELEV=978.88
PI STA=14+00.00 ELEV=980.58
PI STA=14+11.00 ELEV=980.18
PI STA=14+20.00 ELEV=978.18
PI STA=14+31.00 ELEV=979.88
PI STA=14+45.00 ELEV=977.78
PI STA=14+57.00 ELEV=979.48
PI STA=14+64.00 ELEV=979.23
PI STA=14+74.00 ELEV=977.03
PI STA=14+84.00 ELEV=978.73
PI STA=14+93.00 ELEV=978.28
PI STA=15+05.00 ELEV=976.08
PI STA=15+16.00 ELEV=977.78
PI STA=15+22.00 ELEV=975.58
PI STA=15+30.00 ELEV=977.28
PI STA=15+45.00 ELEV=976.78PI STA=15+45.00 ELEV=976.78
PI STA=15+57.00 ELEV=974.58
PI STA=15+69.00 ELEV=976.08
PI STA=15+86.23 ELEV=975.18
PI STA=16+06.00 ELEV=974.63PI STA=16+06.00 ELEV=974.63
PI STA=16+18.00 ELEV=972.38PI STA=16+18.00 ELEV=972.38
PI STA=16+24.00 ELEV=974.08
PI STA=16+44.00 ELEV=973.08
PI STA=16+52.00 ELEV=970.88
PI STA=16+60.00 ELEV=972.58
PI STA=16+70.00 ELEV=970.38
PI STA=16+75.00 ELEV=972.08
PI STA=16+83.00 ELEV=969.88
PI STA=16+90.00 ELEV=971.58 -5.38%-5.00%-5.00%-6.67%-5.00%-5.00%-5.00%-5.25%-4.00%-5.00%-3.64%-5.00%-5.00%-5.38%-5.00%-5.33%-13.07%-3.33%-5.22%-2.78%975980990100010+0011+0012+0012+57PI STA=10+51.67 ELEV=991.27
PI STA=10+59.34 ELEV=988.54PI STA=10+59.34 ELEV=988.54
PI STA=10+99.00 ELEV=988.54PI STA=10+99.00 ELEV=988.54
PI STA=11+04.39 ELEV=990.00
PI STA=11+11.92 ELEV=988.50
PI STA=11+15.92 ELEV=988.00PI STA=11+15.92 ELEV=988.00
PI STA=11+20.46 ELEV=986.50PI STA=11+20.46 ELEV=986.50
PI STA=11+59.38 ELEV=986.50
PI STA=11+64.26 ELEV=988.00
PI STA=11+80.00 ELEV=984.84PI STA=11+80.00 ELEV=984.84
PI STA=11+90.00 ELEV=984.04
PI STA=11+95.00 ELEV=982.64
PI STA=11+99.00 ELEV=983.54
PI STA=12+04.00 ELEV=982.14
PI STA=12+10.00 ELEV=983.04
PI STA=12+19.00 ELEV=982.34
PI STA=12+24.00 ELEV=981.34
PI STA=12+28.00 ELEV=982.24
PI STA=12+35.00 ELEV=981.74
PI STA=12+38.00 ELEV=980.54
PI STA=12+43.00 ELEV=981.44
PI STA=12+47.49 ELEV=980.88 CONSTRUCTEDSTONE RIFFLE (TYP.)BOULDER STEP-POOL (TYP.)BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R2STATION 9+49EXISTING GROUNDDESIGN BANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 11INSTALL WATER QUALITY TREATMENTFEATURE WITH OUTLET CHANNEL(SEE TYPICAL SECTION AND DETAIL)END CONSTRUCTION R2BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4STATION 13+13 END CONSTRUCTION R3STATION 12+55FLOWREMOVE EXISTING RIP RAPAND CONCRETE BLOCKSTIE PROPOSED SLOPETO EXISTING GRADEINSTALL 4 TONS CLASSA RIP RAP FOR SLOPEPROTECTIONPR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCD1" = 60'EFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NC1" = 12'DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
SMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 24CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)BOULDER STEP-POOL (TYP.)GRADE CONTROL LOGJ-HOOK VANE (TYP.)N/FWILLIAM F. FULP &WIFE DEBRA P. FULP DB 521 PG 1524PN 5952-00-77-4688N/FNELSON B. KIRBY, JR. & WIFE NANCY C. KIRBYDB 458 PGPN 2365952-00-77-8215FLOW107/26/19100026CAT/APLPLAN ANDPROFILE08-15_HORNE CREEK_PP_SHEETS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCAT301503060GRAPHIC SCALEBEGIN CONSTRUCTION R3STATION 10+51EXISTING GROUNDDESIGN BANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGREACH R3 PROFILEREACH R2/R4 PROFILELOG WEIR (TYP.)STONE AND LOGSTEP POOL (TYP.)REMOVE AND RESET SWING SETPER DIRECTION OF ENGINEERINSTALL 20 LF - 48" CMPINV IN = 975.18'INV OUT = 974.63'INSTALL 20 LF - 48" HDPEINV IN = 975.18'INV OUT = 974.63'LOG VANE (TYP.)TOP ELEV.=980.40980.40 +
WLBWLBWLB
WLB
WLB
WLB
WLB
WLB WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWL
B
WL
B
WL
B
WL
B
W
L
B
WLBWLBWL
B
WLB
WLB
WLB
WLBWLBWLBWLB17+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+00
25+0026+0010+00
11+0012+0012+7011+0012+0012+32CECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X
X
XXXX
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXCECECECECECECECECECECEC
E
C
E
CECE
CECECE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEXXXXXCECECEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX94595096097098099094595096097098099017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+00PI STA=17+03.00 ELEV=970.88PI STA=17+17.00 ELEV=968.68PI STA=17+32.00 ELEV=970.38PI STA=17+47.00 ELEV=969.68PI STA=17+57.00 ELEV=967.73PI STA=17+67.00 ELEV=969.43PI STA=17+76.00 ELEV=967.43PI STA=17+90.00 ELEV=969.13PI STA=18+04.00 ELEV=968.53PI STA=18+10.00 ELEV=966.83PI STA=18+20.00 ELEV=968.53PI STA=18+25.00 ELEV=966.63PI STA=18+30.00 ELEV=968.33PI STA=18+40.00 ELEV=966.43PI STA=18+50.00 ELEV=968.13PI STA=18+60.00 ELEV=966.33PI STA=18+75.00 ELEV=968.03PI STA=18+90.00 ELEV=967.53PI STA=18+95.00 ELEV=965.83PI STA=19+00.00 ELEV=967.53PI STA=19+11.00 ELEV=965.53
PI STA=19+23.00 ELEV=967.23
PI STA=19+33.00 ELEV=966.91
PI STA=19+40.00 ELEV=964.71
PI STA=19+45.00 ELEV=966.41
PI STA=19+57.00 ELEV=965.86
PI STA=19+72.00 ELEV=963.66
PI STA=19+88.00 ELEV=965.36
PI STA=19+94.00 ELEV=963.16
PI STA=20+01.00 ELEV=964.86
PI STA=20+08.00 ELEV=962.86
PI STA=20+15.00 ELEV=964.56
PI STA=20+36.00 ELEV=962.36
PI STA=20+58.00 ELEV=964.06
PI STA=20+68.00 ELEV=963.56PI STA=20+70.00 ELEV=961.36
PI STA=20+75.00 ELEV=963.06
PI STA=20+85.00 ELEV=962.56
PI STA=21+04.00 ELEV=960.36
PI STA=21+18.00 ELEV=962.06
PI STA=21+46.00 ELEV=960.86
PI STA=21+49.00 ELEV=958.66
PI STA=21+57.00 ELEV=960.36
PI STA=21+67.00 ELEV=959.86
PI STA=21+73.00 ELEV=957.66
PI STA=21+80.00 ELEV=959.36
PI STA=21+93.00 ELEV=957.16
PI STA=22+10.31 ELEV=958.86
PI STA=22+30.31 ELEV=957.66PI STA=22+30.31 ELEV=957.66
PI STA=22+45.00 ELEV=955.86
PI STA=22+53.00 ELEV=957.56
PI STA=22+78.00 ELEV=956.56PI STA=22+78.00 ELEV=956.56
PI STA=22+90.00 ELEV=954.66
PI STA=23+06.00 ELEV=956.36
PI STA=23+16.00 ELEV=954.46
PI STA=23+22.00 ELEV=956.16
PI STA=23+36.00 ELEV=955.66
PI STA=23+47.00 ELEV=953.86
PI STA=23+59.00 ELEV=955.56
PI STA=23+82.00 ELEV=954.56PI STA=23+82.00 ELEV=954.56
PI STA=23+92.00 ELEV=952.86
PI STA=24+00.00 ELEV=954.56 -4.67%-4.29%-3.33%-3.20%-4.58%-5.00%-5.00%-4.29%-5.00%-3.57%-4.00%-4.35%-6.00%CONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLE(TYP.)GRADE CONTROL LOGJ-HOOK VANE (TYP.)STONE AND LOGSTEP POOL (TYP.)GEOLIFT W/TOE WOOD (TYP.)CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)EXISTING GROUNDDESIGN BANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 10 N/FWILLIAM F. FULP &WIFE DEBRA P. FULP DB 521 PG 1524PN 5952-00-77-4688N/FMARY ELLEN BROWN SMITHPORTION OF DB 370 PG 890PN 5952-00-77-2795FLOWCHANNEL FILL (TYP.)PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCD1" = 60'EFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NC1" = 12'DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S117/26/19100026CAT/APLPLAN ANDPROFILE08-15_HORNE CREEK_PP_SHEETS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCAT301503060GRAPHIC SCALEMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 12
END CONSTRUCTION R4ASTATION 12+55BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4BSTATION 10+72END CONSTRUCTION R4BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R5STATION 25+19END CONSTRUCTION R4BSTATION 12+24DO NOT DISTURBEXISTING WETLANDSOUTSIDE OF CHANNELCONSTRUCTION (TYP.)BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4ASTATION 10+98VERNAL POOL (TYP.)ROOT WAD (TYP.)LOG VANE (TYP.)N/FMARY E. SMITHDB 527 PG 589,AND DB 528 PG 491PN 5952-00-76-5174N/FBROWN FARMS OF SURRYCOUNTY, LLC.DB 900 PG 448PN 5952-00-56-7091CONSTRUCTEDSTONE RIFFLE (TYP.)INSTALL 20 LF - 48" CMPINV IN = 958.86'INV OUT = 957.66'INSTALL 20 LF - 48" HDPEINV IN = 958.86'INV OUT = 957.66'TOP ELEV.=964.30+ 964.30
WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB23+0024+0025+0026+0027+0028+0029+0030+0031+0011+0012+0012+7010+0011+0012+0012+32CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCE XXX93094095096097093094095096097024+0025+0026+0027+0028+0029+0030+0031+0031+50PI STA=24+00.00 ELEV=954.56PI STA=24+07.00 ELEV=954.31PI STA=24+14.00 ELEV=952.11PI STA=24+19.00 ELEV=953.81PI STA=24+25.00 ELEV=953.51PI STA=24+40.00 ELEV=951.81PI STA=24+55.00 ELEV=953.51PI STA=24+80.00 ELEV=952.41PI STA=24+90.00 ELEV=950.71PI STA=25+00.00 ELEV=952.41PI STA=25+19.00 ELEV=951.61PI STA=25+35.00 ELEV=949.41PI STA=25+51.00 ELEV=951.41PI STA=25+78.00 ELEV=950.51PI STA=25+91.00 ELEV=948.21PI STA=26+04.00 ELEV=950.21PI STA=26+12.00 ELEV=949.96PI STA=26+20.00 ELEV=947.46PI STA=26+28.00 ELEV=949.46PI STA=26+38.00 ELEV=949.06
PI STA=26+50.00 ELEV=946.56
PI STA=26+63.00 ELEV=948.56
PI STA=26+93.00 ELEV=947.56
PI STA=27+09.00 ELEV=945.06
PI STA=27+25.00 ELEV=947.06
PI STA=27+57.00 ELEV=946.06
PI STA=27+71.00 ELEV=943.76
PI STA=27+84.00 ELEV=945.76
PI STA=27+89.00 ELEV=943.26
PI STA=27+95.00 ELEV=945.26
PI STA=28+02.00 ELEV=942.76
PI STA=28+09.00 ELEV=944.76
PI STA=28+25.00 ELEV=942.51
PI STA=28+41.00 ELEV=944.51
PI STA=28+47.00 ELEV=944.31
PI STA=28+53.00 ELEV=942.31
PI STA=28+59.00 ELEV=944.31
PI STA=28+64.00 ELEV=944.12
PI STA=28+80.00 ELEV=942.12
PI STA=28+95.00 ELEV=944.12
PI STA=29+20.00 ELEV=943.12
PI STA=29+36.00 ELEV=940.82
PI STA=29+52.00 ELEV=942.82
PI STA=29+78.00 ELEV=942.03
PI STA=29+91.00 ELEV=940.03
PI STA=30+05.00 ELEV=942.03
PI STA=30+32.00 ELEV=941.03
PI STA=30+48.00 ELEV=939.03
PI STA=30+66.75 ELEV=941.03
PI STA=30+86.75 ELEV=940.13
PI STA=31+07.00 ELEV=938.13
PI STA=31+22.00 ELEV=940.13
PI STA=31+48.00 ELEV=939.18 -3.57%-5.00%-4.40%-4.21%-3.33%-3.12%-4.00%-3.33%-3.12%-3.33%-3.80%-4.00%-3.04%-3.70%-4.50%-3.65%94095096097094095096097011+5012+0012+70PI STA=11+54.67 ELEV=954.83PI STA=11+59.69 ELEV=954.20PI STA=11+64.62 ELEV=954.73PI STA=11+76.42 ELEV=954.47PI STA=11+81.58 ELEV=953.91PI STA=11+86.48 ELEV=954.41PI STA=11+91.54 ELEV=953.86PI STA=11+96.47 ELEV=954.36PI STA=12+01.49 ELEV=953.79PI STA=12+06.42 ELEV=954.33PI STA=12+18.39 ELEV=954.07PI STA=12+23.39 ELEV=953.54PI STA=12+28.32 ELEV=954.04PI STA=12+33.34 ELEV=953.48PI STA=12+38.27 ELEV=954.02PI STA=12+47.95 ELEV=953.82PI STA=12+52.98 ELEV=953.29PI STA=12+57.91 ELEV=953.82PI STA=12+69.70 ELEV=953.51-2.21%-2.15%-2.03%-2.67%94095096097094095096097011+0012+0012+32PI STA=11+04.13 ELEV=953.84PI STA=11+10.65 ELEV=953.13PI STA=11+16.25 ELEV=953.60PI STA=11+27.78 ELEV=953.31PI STA=11+32.80 ELEV=952.77PI STA=11+37.13 ELEV=953.24PI STA=11+42.15 ELEV=952.61PI STA=11+46.49 ELEV=953.08PI STA=11+53.39 ELEV=952.88PI STA=11+58.41 ELEV=952.33PI STA=11+62.74 ELEV=952.80PI STA=11+69.64 ELEV=952.60PI STA=11+74.66 ELEV=952.05PI STA=11+79.00 ELEV=952.52PI STA=11+86.56 ELEV=952.33PI STA=11+91.58 ELEV=951.76PI STA=11+95.92 ELEV=952.23
PI STA=12+00.94 ELEV=951.60
PI STA=12+05.27 ELEV=952.07
PI STA=12+10.29 ELEV=951.44
PI STA=12+14.63 ELEV=951.90
PI STA=12+31.68 ELEV=951.61-2.56%-2.84%-2.84%-2.49%-1.73%MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 11GRADE CONTROL LOGJ-HOOK VANE (TYP.)CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)ROOTWADS (TYP.)END CONSTRUCTION R4ASTATION 12+55BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4BSTATION 10+72END CONSTRUCTION R4BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R5STATION 25+19END CONSTRUCTION R4BSTATION 12+24LOG WEIR (TYP.)CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)GEOLIFT W/TOE WOOD (TYP.)EXISTING GROUNDDESIGN BANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGREACH R4 PROFILEREACH R4A PROFILEREACH R4B PROFILEEXISTING GROUNDDESIGN BANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGEXISTING GROUNDDESIGN BANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGN/FMARY E. SMITHDB 527 PG 589,AND DB 528 PG 491PN 5952-00-76-5174N/FBROWN FARMS OF SURRYCOUNTY, LLC.DB 900 PG 448PN 5952-00-56-7091FLOWCONSTRUCTEDSTONE RIFFLE (TYP.)PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCD1" = 60'EFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NC1" = 12'DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S125/8/19100026CAT/APLPLAN ANDPROFILE08-15_HORNE CREEK_PP_SHEETS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCAT301503060GRAPHIC SCALEMATC
H
L
I
N
E

-

S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
3BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4ASTATION 10+98VERNAL POOL (TYP.)STONE AND LOGSTEP POOL (TYP.)CHANNEL FILL (TYP.)INSTALL 20 LF - 60" CMPINV IN = 941.03'INV OUT = 940.13'INSTALL 20 LF - 60" HDPEINV IN = 941.03'INV OUT = 940.13'LOG VANE (TYP.)DO NOT DISTURBEXISTING WETLANDSOUTSIDE OF CHANNELCONSTRUCTION (TYP.)TOP ELEV.=947.50+ 947.50
30+0031+0032+0033+0034+0035+0036+0037+0038+00CECECECECECECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX92093094095096092093094095096031+0032+0033+0034+0035+0036+0037+00PI STA=31+07.00 ELEV=938.13PI STA=31+22.00 ELEV=940.13PI STA=31+48.00 ELEV=939.18PI STA=31+64.00 ELEV=936.88PI STA=31+80.00 ELEV=938.88PI STA=31+85.00 ELEV=938.68PI STA=31+90.00 ELEV=936.18PI STA=31+95.00 ELEV=938.18PI STA=32+04.00 ELEV=937.88PI STA=32+22.00 ELEV=935.38PI STA=32+40.00 ELEV=937.38PI STA=32+64.00 ELEV=936.43PI STA=32+80.00 ELEV=933.93
PI STA=32+98.00 ELEV=935.93
PI STA=33+02.00 ELEV=933.43
PI STA=33+10.00 ELEV=935.43
PI STA=33+17.00 ELEV=932.93
PI STA=33+20.00 ELEV=934.93
PI STA=33+38.00 ELEV=932.43
PI STA=33+57.00 ELEV=934.43
PI STA=33+88.00 ELEV=933.43
PI STA=33+99.00 ELEV=931.23
PI STA=34+10.00 ELEV=933.23
PI STA=34+36.00 ELEV=932.38
PI STA=34+45.00 ELEV=930.18
PI STA=34+53.00 ELEV=932.18
PI STA=34+75.00 ELEV=931.49
PI STA=34+92.00 ELEV=929.49
PI STA=35+06.00 ELEV=931.49
PI STA=35+31.00 ELEV=930.69
PI STA=35+45.00 ELEV=928.29
PI STA=35+59.17 ELEV=930.29
PI STA=35+89.00 ELEV=929.39
PI STA=35+98.00 ELEV=927.39
PI STA=36+08.00 ELEV=929.39
PI STA=36+30.00 ELEV=928.54
PI STA=36+41.00 ELEV=926.34
PI STA=36+52.00 ELEV=928.34
PI STA=36+72.00 ELEV=927.72
PI STA=36+90.00 ELEV=925.22 -3.65%-4.00%-3.33%-3.96%-3.23%-3.27%-3.14%-3.20%-3.02%-3.86%-3.10%MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 12CONSTRUCTEDSTONE RIFFLE (TYP.)GRADE CONTROL LOGJ-HOOK VANE (TYP.)LOG WEIR (TYP.)STONE AND LOGSTEP POOL (TYP.)CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)ROOTWADS (TYP.)CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)GEOLIFT W/TOE WOOD (TYP.)EXISTING GROUNDDESIGN BANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGN/FMARY E. SMITHDB 527 PG 589,AND DB 528 PG 491PN 5952-00-76-5174N/FBROWN FARMS OF SURRYCOUNTY, LLC.DB 900 PG 448PN 5952-00-56-7091FLOWCHANNEL FILL (TYP.)VERNAL POOL (TYP.)PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCD1" = 60'EFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NC1" = 12'DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S137/26/19100026CAT/APLPLAN ANDPROFILE08-15_HORNE CREEK_PP_SHEETS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCAT301503060GRAPHIC SCALEMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 14LOG VANE (TYP.)INSTALL 20 LF - 60" CMPINV IN = 930.19'INV OUT = 929.39'
37+0038+0039+00
40
+
0
0
4
1
+
0
0
4
2
+
0
0
43+0044+0045+0046+00CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX91092093094095091092093094095037+0038+0039+0040+0041+0042+0043+0044+00PI STA=37+08.00 ELEV=927.22PI STA=37+29.00 ELEV=926.42PI STA=37+45.00 ELEV=923.92PI STA=37+62.00 ELEV=925.92PI STA=37+69.00 ELEV=925.67PI STA=37+75.00 ELEV=923.17PI STA=37+80.00 ELEV=925.17PI STA=37+88.00 ELEV=924.92PI STA=38+05.00 ELEV=922.62PI STA=38+22.00 ELEV=924.62PI STA=38+27.00 ELEV=924.46PI STA=38+32.00 ELEV=921.96PI STA=38+37.00 ELEV=923.96PI STA=38+42.00 ELEV=923.79PI STA=38+62.00 ELEV=921.29PI STA=38+83.00 ELEV=923.29PI STA=39+05.00 ELEV=922.54PI STA=39+23.00 ELEV=920.54
PI STA=39+41.00 ELEV=922.54
PI STA=39+58.00 ELEV=921.89
PI STA=39+77.00 ELEV=919.89
PI STA=39+96.00 ELEV=921.89
PI STA=40+12.00 ELEV=921.29
PI STA=40+32.00 ELEV=919.29
PI STA=40+52.00 ELEV=921.29
PI STA=40+56.00 ELEV=918.79
PI STA=40+60.00 ELEV=920.79
PI STA=40+65.00 ELEV=920.59
PI STA=40+82.00 ELEV=918.09
PI STA=40+98.00 ELEV=920.09
PI STA=41+03.00 ELEV=919.89
PI STA=41+08.00 ELEV=917.49
PI STA=41+13.00 ELEV=919.49
PI STA=41+18.00 ELEV=919.29
PI STA=41+34.00 ELEV=917.29
PI STA=41+50.00 ELEV=919.29
PI STA=41+67.00 ELEV=918.64
PI STA=41+86.00 ELEV=916.64
PI STA=42+05.00 ELEV=918.64
PI STA=42+23.00 ELEV=918.04
PI STA=42+40.00 ELEV=915.54
PI STA=42+57.00 ELEV=917.54
PI STA=42+77.00 ELEV=916.89
PI STA=42+96.00 ELEV=914.39
PI STA=43+15.00 ELEV=916.39
PI STA=43+39.00 ELEV=915.59
PI STA=43+56.00 ELEV=913.09
PI STA=43+73.00 ELEV=915.09
PI STA=43+94.00 ELEV=914.39 -3.81%-3.57%-3.12%-3.20%-3.40%-3.41%-3.82%-3.75%-4.00%-4.00%-4.00%-3.82%-3.33%-3.25%-3.33%-3.33%MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 13CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)ROOTWADS (TYP.)LOG VANE (TYP.)LOG WEIR (TYP.)GEOLIFT W/TOE WOOD (TYP.)CONSTRUCTEDSTONE RIFFLE (TYP.)EXISTING GROUNDDESIGN BANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGN/FMARY E. SMITHDB 527 PG 589,AND DB 528 PG 491PN 5952-00-76-5174N/FBROWN FARMS OF SURRYCOUNTY, LLC.DB 900 PG 448PN 5952-00-56-7091FLOWCHANNEL FILL(TYP.)PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEER
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCD1" = 60'EFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NC1" = 12'DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S147/26/19100026CAT/APLPLAN ANDPROFILE08-15_HORNE CREEK_PP_SHEETS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCAT301503060GRAPHIC SCALEMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 15VERNAL POOL(TYP.)OFFSITE CONCENTRATEDFLOW TO BE REDIRECTEDINTO VERNAL POOL FORATTENUATION.
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
42+0043+0044+0045+0046+0047+0048+00CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX89090091092093089090091092093044+0045+0046+0047+0048+0049+00PI STA=44+14.00 ELEV=911.89PI STA=44+35.00 ELEV=913.89PI STA=44+52.00 ELEV=913.34PI STA=44+77.00 ELEV=910.84PI STA=45+01.00 ELEV=912.84PI STA=45+18.00 ELEV=912.24PI STA=45+18.00 ELEV=912.24
PI STA=45+37.00 ELEV=909.84
PI STA=45+56.00 ELEV=911.84
PI STA=45+62.00 ELEV=911.64
PI STA=45+68.00 ELEV=909.14
PI STA=45+74.00 ELEV=911.14
PI STA=45+79.00 ELEV=910.97
PI STA=46+00.00 ELEV=908.67
PI STA=46+20.00 ELEV=910.67
PI STA=46+53.00 ELEV=909.67
PI STA=46+70.00 ELEV=907.67
PI STA=46+86.00 ELEV=909.67
PI STA=46+99.00 ELEV=909.25
PI STA=47+08.00 ELEV=906.75
PI STA=47+16.00 ELEV=908.75
PI STA=47+30.00 ELEV=908.32
PI STA=47+38.00 ELEV=905.82
PI STA=47+46.00 ELEV=907.82
PI STA=47+61.00 ELEV=907.35
PI STA=47+65.00 ELEV=904.85
PI STA=47+68.00 ELEV=906.85
PI STA=47+80.00 ELEV=906.47
PI STA=47+87.00 ELEV=903.97
PI STA=47+91.00 ELEV=905.97
PI STA=48+11.55 ELEV=905.30-3.24%-3.40%-3.03%-3.23%-3.07%-3.13%-3.17%-3.53%LOG WEIR (TYP.)CONSTRUCTEDSTONE RIFFLE (TYP.)LOG VANE (TYP.)GEOLIFT W/TOE WOOD (TYP.)CONSTRUCTEDLOG RIFFLE (TYP.)CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)EXISTING GROUNDDESIGN BANKFULLDESIGN THALWEGMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 15N/FMARY E. SMITHDB 527 PG 589,AND DB 528 PG 491PN 5952-00-76-5174N/FBROWN FARMS OF SURRYCOUNTY, LLC.DB 900 PG 448PN 5952-00-56-7091FLOWCHANNEL FILL (TYP.)VERNAL POOL (TYP.)PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCD1" = 60'EFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NC1" = 12'DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S157/26/19100026CAT/APLPLAN ANDPROFILE08-15_HORNE CREEK_PP_SHEETS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCAT301503060GRAPHIC SCALEEND CONSTRUCTION R5STATION 48+12N/FTHERESA JAMES & MARTHAJAMESDB 488 PG 1305PN 5952-00-75-6182N/FJANE B.BOGERDB 945 PG 886PN 5952-00-73-3427N/FKEVIN E. BROWN & WIFEPATRICIA G. BROWNDB 802 PG 810PN 5952-00-63-4989KIGER RD. (SR-2071)30' R.O.W.30' DUKE ENERGY PROGRESSTRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENTD.B. 130 PG. 356 & D.B. 211 PG. 530DO NOT DISTURB EXISTINGPOWER POLE. NO WORK SHALLBE DONE WITHIN THE EXISTINGUTILITY EASEMENT BEYONDCHANNEL GRADING.EXISTING 60" CMPINV. IN=905.30INV. OUT=905.19
10+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0023+58CECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE CECECECECECECERICKY D. BOWEN & WIFEVICKIE P. BOWENPIN: 5952-00-54-1367DB: 656 PG: 1086FOR BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENTSEE DB: 386 PG: 342 & 345BROWN FARMS OF SURRY COUNTY, LLC.PIN: 5952-00-56-7091DB: 936 PG: 448, TRACT 7FOR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SEE DB: 709 PG: 1094REFERENCE: DB: 203 PG: 448PORTION OF PB: 9 PG: 191, TRACT AFOR BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT SEE DB: 386 PG: 342KIGER ROAD (S.R. 2071)NO DEED FOUND FOR R/W TO N.C.D.O.T.PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCDEFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NCDRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S PLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONPLANTING NOTESPLANTING SCHEDULEPERMANENT SEEDINGSCHEDULETEMPORARY SEEDINGSCHEDULE1.THE FOLLOWING TABLES LIST THE PROPOSEDVEGETATION SPECIES SELECTION FOR THE PROJECTREVEGETATION. THE TOTAL PLANTING AREA ISAPPROXIMATELY 10.2 ACRES AND WILL VARY BASED ONSITE CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION.2.FINAL VEGETATION SPECIES SELECTION MAY CHANGEDUE TO REFINEMENT OR SPECIES AVAILABILITY AT THETIME OF PLANTING. SPECIES SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BECOORDINATED BETWEEN ENGINEER AND PLANTINGCONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE PROCUREMENT OFPLANT/SEED STOCK.3.IN GENERAL, WOODY SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED AT ADENSITY OF 680 STEMS PER ACRE AND A MINIMUM OF30 FEET FROM THE TOP OF RESTORED STREAMBANKSTO THE REVEGETATION LIMITS. EXACT PLACEMENT OFTHE SPECIES WILL BE DETERMINED BY THECONTRACTOR’S VEGETATION SPECIALIST PRIOR TOSITE PLANTING AND BASED ON THE WETNESSCONDITIONS OF PLANTING LOCATIONS.4.SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING ACTIVITIES SHALL BEPERFORMED WITHIN THE EXISTING BUFFER AREAUSING SPECIES DESCRIBED IN RIPARIAN BUFFERPLANT MIXTURE.5.ANY INVASIVE SPECIES VEGETATION, SUCH ASCHINESE PRIVET (LIGUSTRUM SINENSE) ANDMULTIFLORA ROSE (ROSA MULTIFLORA) WILL BEINITIALLY TREATED AS DESCRIBED IN THECONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO PLANTINGACTIVITIES TO ALLOW NATIVE PLANTS TO BECOMEESTABLISHED WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.6.LARGER NATIVE TREE SPECIES TO BE PRESERVEDWILL BE FLAGGED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ANY TREES HARVESTEDFOR WOODY MATERIAL WILL BE UTILIZED TO PROVIDEBED AND BANK STABILIZATION, COVER AND/ORNESTING HABITAT.7.ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE STABILIZED USINGMULCHING AND SEEDING AS DEFINED IN THECONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AND THE APPROVEDSEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS.Botanical NameCommon Name% Proposedfor Plantingby SpeciesWetlandToleranceRiparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings – Overstory(Proposed 8’ x 8’ Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)Betula nigraRiver Birch7%FACWTilia americanaBasswood7%FACUPlatanusoccidentalisAmericansycamore7%FACWNyssa sylvaticaBlack Gum6%FACLiriodendrontulipiferaTulip-poplar7%FACUQuercus albaWhite oak6%FACUQuercus rubraWhite oak3%FACUFraxinuspennsylvanicaGreen Ash3%FACWRiparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings – Understory(Proposed 8’ x 8’ Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)Diospyros virginianaPersimmon7%FACAmelanchiervirginianaCommonserviceberry5%FACMagnolia tripetalaUmbrella magnolia6%FACUCarpinus carolinianaIronwood6%FACHamamelisvirginianaWitch-hazel6%FACUAsimina trilobaPaw Paw6%FACLindera benzoinSpicebush6%FACWAlnus serrulataHazel Alder6%OBLCorylus americanaHazelnut6%FACURiparian Buffer Live Stake Plantings - Streambanks(Proposed 2’-3’ Spacing @ Meander Bends and 6’-8’ Spacing @Riffle Sections)SambucuscanadensisElderberry20%FACWSalix sericeaSilky Willow30%OBLSalix nigraBlack Willow10%OBLCornus amomumSilky Dogwood40%FACWBotanical NameCommon Name% Proposedfor Plantingby SpeciesSeeding Rate(lb/acre)WetlandTolerancePermanent Herbaceous Seed Mixture – Streambank, Floodplain, Wetlands andRiparian Buffer Areas(Proposed Seed Rate @ 15 lbs/acre)Andropogon gerardiiBig blue stem10%1.50FACDichantheliumclandestinumDeer Tongue15%1.50FACWCarex crinataFringed sedge10%2.25FACW+ChasmanthiumlatifoliumRiver oats5%1.50FACUElymus virginicusVirginia wild rye15%1.50FACJuncus effususSoft rush5%2.25FACW+Panicum virgatumSwitchgrass10%1.50FAC+Eutrochium fistulosumJoe-pye-weed5%0.75FACWSchizachyriumscopariumLittle blue stem10%0.75FACUTripsacum dactyloidesEasterngamagrass5%0.75FAC+Sorghastrum nutansIndiangrass10%0.75FACUPlanting DatesBotanical NameCommon NameApplication Rate(lbs/acre)September toMarchSecale cerealeRye Grain (Cool Season)130April to AugustUrochloa ramosaBrowntop Millet (WarmSeason)40BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R1STATION 10+00167/26/19100026CAT/APLREVEGETATIONPLAN16-18_HORNE_CREEK_REVEGETATION_PLANS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCATN/A1" = 100'END CONSTRUCTION R1STATION 23+585025050100GRAPHIC SCALE
9+5510+0011+00
12+00
13+0014+0015+0016+00
17+0018+0019+0020+0010+0011+0012+0012+57CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CECECECE
CE
CE
CE CECE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEEND CONSTRUCTION R2BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4STATION 13+13 END CONSTRUCTION R3STATION 12+55BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4APLANTINGS ON THE RIGHTTERRACE OF R2 AND THE LEFTTERRACE OF R3 TO BE LOWSTATURE UNDERSTORYVEGETATIONBEGIN CONSTRUCTION R2STATION 9+49END CONSTRUCTION R2BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4STATION 13+13 END CONSTRUCTION R3STATION 12+55BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R3STATION 10+51BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4APLANTINGS ON THE RIGHTTERRACE OF R2 AND THE LEFTTERRACE OF R3 TO BE LOWSTATURE UNDERSTORYVEGETATIONCAUDLE RO
A
D
(S.R. 2
0
7
0
)
R/W WIDTH 60'

P
E
R

D
B
:

2
9
0

P
G
:

4
6
2
NELSON B. KIRBY, JR. & WIFE NANCY C. KIRBYPIN: 5952-00-77-8215DB: 458 PG: 236WILLIAM F. FULP & WIFE DEBRA P. FULPPIN: 5952-00-77-4688DB: 521 PG: 1524MARY ELLEN BROWN SMITHPIN: 5952-00-77-2795PORTION OF DB 370 PG 890PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCDEFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NCDRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S177/26/19100026CAT/APLREVEGETATIONPLANN/A16-18_HORNE_CREEK_REVEGETATION_PLANS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCAT5025050100GRAPHIC SCALE1" = 100'PLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 18
WLBWLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLB20+0021+0022+0023+0024+0025+0026+0027+002
8
+
0
0
29
+
00
30+0031+0032+0033+0034+0035+0010+00 11+0012+0012+7010+00 11+0012+0012+32CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CECECECECECECECECEWLBWLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBWLBBEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4ASTATION 10+98BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4BSTATION 10+72END CONSTRUCTION R4BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R5STATION 25+19END CONSTRUCTION R4BSTATION 12+24END CONSTRUCTION R4ASTATION 12+65BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4ASTATION 10+98BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4BSTATION 10+72MARY E. SMITHPIN: 5952-00-76-5174DB: 318 PG: 904, DB: 527 PG: 589,AND DB: 528 PG: 491REFERENCE: DB: 138 PG: 368BROWN FARMS OF SURRY COUNTY, LLC.PIN: 5952-00-56-7091DB: 936 PG: 448, TRACT 7FOR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SEE DB: 709 PG: 1094REFERENCE: DB: 203 PG: 448PORTION OF PB: 9 PG: 191, TRACT AFOR BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT SEE DB: 386 PG: 342MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 19
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 18
PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCDEFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NCDRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S187/26/19100026CAT/APLREVEGETATIONPLANN/A16-18_HORNE_CREEK_REVEGETATION_PLANS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCAT1" = 100'PLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 17
5025050100GRAPHIC SCALE
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE36+0037+0038+0039+0040+00
4
1
+
0
0
4
2
+
0
0
43+0044+0045+0046+004
7
+
0
0
4
8
+
0
0CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEEND CONSTRUCTION R5STATION 48+12PRIVATE
DR
IVEKEVIN E. BROWN & WIFEPATRICIA G. BROWNPIN: 5952-00-65-4316DB: 1126 PG: 875KEVIN E. BROWN & WIFEPATRICIA G. BROWNPIN: 5952-00-63-4989DB 802 PG 810JANE B. BOGERPIN: 5952-00-73-3427DB: 945 PG: 886, TRACT 2THERESA JAMES & MARTHA JAMESPIN: 5952-00-75-6182ESTATE FILE: 13E PG: 40DB: 488 PG: 1305BROWN FARMS OF SURRY COUNTY, LLC.PIN: 5952-00-56-7091DB: 936 PG: 448, TRACT 7FOR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SEE DB: 709 PG: 1094REFERENCE: DB: 203 PG: 448PORTION OF PB: 9 PG: 191, TRACT AFOR BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT SEE DB: 386 PG: 342KIGER ROAD (S.R. 2071)NO DEED FOUND FOR R/W TO N.C.D.O.T.MARY E. SMITHPIN: 5952-00-76-5174DB: 318 PG: 904, DB: 527 PG: 589,AND DB: 528 PG: 491REFERENCE: DB: 138 PG: 368PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERSNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BY :DRAWN BY :DATE :PROJECT NO. :FILENAME :DRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALE :VERT. SCALE :PROJECT ENGINEERAENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480BCDEFWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Fork Rd., Suite 130Raleigh, NC 27614(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comDRAFT MIT PLAN12-13-18SURRY COUNTY, NCDRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN5-8-19FINAL MIT PLAN7-26-19N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S197/26/19100026CAT/APLREVEGETATIONPLANN/A16-18_HORNE_CREEK_REVEGETATION_PLANS.DWGHORNE CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTCAT6030060120GRAPHIC SCALE1" = 100'MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 18
PLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project

Appendix 2 – Site Analysis Data/Supplementary Information

Habitat Assessment Scores and Taxa List
Existing Cross-Section and Longitudinal Profile Data
Particle Size Distribution (Sediment Samples)
BANCS (BEHI/NBS) Method Estimates
Watershed Information and Site Runoff Volume
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Comparison
USGS Regression Flow Analysis
Stream Quantification Tool Reach Summary
Design Criteria and Stream Morphology Parameters Table
HEC-RAS Output
Buffer Tool Excel Output
Site Photographs

Appendix A — Mountain/Piedmont Habitat Assessment Form
I 1 r 13 Revision 8
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Branch, DWR 110TALSIZORE
Direclions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 teeters preferred of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting
above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat
evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score.
If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from tine different
melrics.
5lrestm(�T'o rjj- Crcrh : I Location/road: ,,,,, 4 - (Road Namc 'Ed )County Strer„
�/ r r_.
Date 6-11- rY CC# Basin 1i7)k;n Subbasin UUL 63&Nof01
Observers)JM,JM8 Type of Study: ❑ Fish 1913enthos ❑ Basinwide []Special Study (Describe)
Latitude36,afa1N5° Longitude -TO.50y'/7-9° Ecoregion: ❑ 141T UP ❑ Slalc l;elt ❑ Triassic haste
Water Quality: TcmperatureX. i T DO -7. 01 mg/I Conductivity (corr.) iff"I ) µS/cm pi-1 6AI
Physical Characterization: Visible laud use refers to immediate crest that you can see from sampling; location - include what you estimate driving thru
the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use:—5--morest %Residential 95 %Active Pasture °p Active Crops "Tallow Fields
Commercial `1111ndustrial "Wther - Describe:
Watershed land use' ❑Forest UAgriculture ❑Urban U/Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream %, 5� Channel (at top of bank)_ Stream Depth: (in) AvgO.07 Max 0.15
❑ Width variable ❑ Large river -,25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to lop of bank -first flat surface you stand oft): (m)_1.
Bank Angle: 6 or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles ., 90' indicate slope is towards void -channel, 90" indicate slope is away from
channel. NA i f bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
Whannelized Ditch
eeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑ uth banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits 1013ar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
37

Appendix A — MountainAedmont Habitat Assessment Form
❑ Excessive periphyton y with ❑ I leavy fiitamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: #Y- ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sedimentlgmde-control structure ❑Berm+levee
Flow conditions - 01-1ligh IMNormal ❑Low
Turbidity: ❑Clear & Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Mi y ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ❑ 1'ES EINO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ........................... ❑
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <35% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ❑ /
C. Water fills 35-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed.—,. ....... �
D. Root mats out of water......................................................................................................... ❑
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ❑
a
Weather Conditions: r ,E6 1' _ Photos: ON ❑Y ❑ Digital 035mtn
Remarks:
1. Channel Modification
A. channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ Sc e
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (cltannelization could be old) ............... —................................ -- 4
C, some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted............... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc.,..,,..,...,,.. .................................... 0
❑ E %-idcnce of dredging ❑Geidence of desnog.ging—uo large unody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks _ Subtotal 5
11. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >700b of the reach is rocks, I type is
present, circle the score of IT Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas).
Mark as Rare, Common. or Abundant.
2Rocks Macrophytes -Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats

Appendix A — Mountain/Piedmont Habitat Assessment Form
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
4 or 5 types present .................
3 types present .........................
2 types present .........................
I type present ...........................
No (5-pes present .......................
❑ No s►oudv scgoauon in riparian xont; Remarks
>70%
40-70%
2040%
<201-o
Score
Score
Score
Score
20
IG
12
8
19
15
Il
7
18
14
I0
G
Q
13
9
i
Subtotal _
Ill. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle for entbeddedness, and
use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "anud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1. entbeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
15
2. entbeddedness 20-40%..........................................................................................................
12
3. entbeddedness 40-80%.................... ....................................,.............................................._..
8
4. erttbeddedutess>80".0.........,...................................................................................................
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
. entbedded ness<2090,................ ...........................................................................................
2. embeddedness 20-40%.........................................................................................................
3. eattbeddeduess 40-80% ............................................._,....,,..,..,,...........................................
G
4. embeddeduess>80%
............................................................................................................
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. entbeddedness<50° .......................... ...................................,._.............................................
8
2. embedded rtess>50%............................................................................................................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock...................................................................................................
3
2. substrate nearly al l sand ................ .........
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus....................................................................................................
2
4. substrate nearly all sill/ clay ..................................................................................................
Remarks
Subtotal j 4-11
W. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities associated with pools are
always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools I-requent (>30%of200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools tilling in)............................................................ 8
39

Appendix A- MountainlPiedmont Habitat Assessment Form
2.Pools Infrequent (,-3V%wythe IOUn -area surveyed)
uvariety o[pool sizes ............................................
-.---_------.---------. /6)
h.pools about the same size ...................................................................................................... -4
B. Pawls ........ '--_--~.-----.-.............. ........... ............... .- O
/v Ou�o�u|_�"_
Omm|hmmm�m O GI/Silt botioni O�mopmb�mx��d�U
Remarks----��7--------- -- ----- ---- -----
' PoQcTnm|_Y"?—
V,R|0Oe lVubi:w$
Dcfinidon: Ri[Ocio-area o[rrurmhwn'cunhedebris dam. ornarrow chunnclorcu Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score
4.wc|idefined riffle and run, riffle uswide os stream and extends 2Xwidth o[stvxum.... b/ 12
B. riffle as wide o*stream but riffle length is not ZJKstream width ------.... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide omstoamund r|Olc|cngth is not2X stream width ... ........ ............. .. 10 3
D. riffles 0 -_- -----------------.-----------_---- .
Channel Slope: NQTyn1ca|for �O area St*ep-�oOuv, [3LuvrUmstr
eam Subto*uy/���
V1. Bank Stability and Vegetation
A. Erosion
|. No, orvery little, erosion present .......................... —..........
IErosion mostly at outside of meanders ................. ............... I-0/
3- Less than SOv6n[banks eroding ......... ................................... 3
4.Massive cn,don-................................................................... 0 Erosion Score
B. Bank Vegetation
i Mostly mature trees (�-|%~DBH) ?
%. Mostly small trees ("|2^DBH) present, large trees rare --j
3. Notrees oil batik. call have sonic shrubs and grasses .......... el%')
4.Mostly grasses urmosses oil batik -------------Z ,l
l Little ornobatik %cgmmion bare soil cverywhcm,.-.,,,,-O Vegetation Score
Remarks Subto(al.
Vlll. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as Irce or vegmve cover directly above tile stream's surface. Canopy would block out sunlight when the suit is
directly overlicad- Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
SCON
A.S(reumAvNh good canopy with sonic breaks for light penetration ......................... -........ _ iO
DLStream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Qoreon with partial oonnpy' sunlight and shading are essentially oqmd-'...-------'—
[1Stream with minimal canopy '6oUsun inall but ufew areas ....................................................... Z
E. Mmcanopy and no ........... .............................................................................. 0
40

Appendix A — Mountain/Piedmont Habitat Assessment Form
Remarks — — --
Subt0tal
VIII. Riparian Vegelmive Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area o1'natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond noodplain). Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any
place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter
slides, etc.
IWE UPSTREAM
Dominant vegetation: 1 rees ❑ Shrubs ❑ Grasses ❑ Weeds/old Geld ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc)
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
I. width • 18 meters.....................................................................................
2. %vidth 12-18 meters...................................................................................
3. %vidth 6-12111clers.....................................................................................
4. width < G meters......................................................................................
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
ss. tividth 18 meters.........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters.......................................................................
c. %vidth 6-12 meters.......................................................................
d. width < G meters.........................................................................
2. breaks common
a. %vidth > 18 meters.........................................................................
b. width 13-18 nlcters......................................................................
c. %vidtlt 6-12 meters.......................................................................
d. width < G meters.........................................................................
Remarks
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream.
Llt. Bank Rt, hank
Score Score
5 5
4 4
3 3
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
3 3
I 1
Subtotal
Page Total 3
TOTAL SCORE
41

11;13 Revision 8
Appendix A — Mountaml edmont Habitat Assessment Form
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Branch, DWR OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting
above the bridge pool and the road right -of --way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat
evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score.
If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different
metrics.
Streaml)T.A H'-" (17, -Uy Location/road: PA,,&(Road Name�in'�)County r/y
Date 6 L'- p CC# Basin Al' Subbasin)- U6, J)J 6 q01 61
Observer(s) '� . JM3 'type of Study: ❑ Fish U enthos ❑ Basinwide 0Special Study (Describe)
Latitude36,.&Lft" Longitude t%SU3GSI ° Ecoregion: ❑ MT E P ❑ Stale Dell ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature �9 ,2_°C DO 7 c? mg/I Conductivity (corr.) 69 9 pS/cm pl-1
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what you estimate driving thru
the watershed in watershed land use. 1
Visible Land Use: _�—%Forest 5 %Residential �°/oActive Pasture /S %Active Crops 0oFallow Fields on
Commercial %Industrial ZAgriculture
%Other - Describe:
Watershed land use` hJF'orest ❑Urban Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream m Channel (at top of bank) I- Stream Depth: (m) Avg Q. Max'1. _
❑ Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide /
Bank Fleight (from deepest pan of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m)
Bank Angie: V.�_° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 01. Angles 90" indicate slope is towards mid -channel, 90' indicate slope is away from
channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks Moth banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
37

Appendix A — Mountain/Piedmont Habitat Assessment Form
❑ Excessive periptryton gr wdi ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization_ NrN//❑Y. ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
. Flow conditio ; ❑High 6Crmal Mow
Turbidity: EfClear ❑ Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Mi y ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ❑YES O Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ ❑
B, Water fills >75% of available channel, or -�2 % of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ❑
C. Water fills 25-75%of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............. ......... ,.................. -.. 6�'
D. Root mats out of water .......... .............................».,..,..,..,..,..,............... .......................... .........-..... ❑
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools .................................................... ❑
Weather Conditions: Llear. fff Photos: ON ❑Y ❑ Digital 035mm
Remarks:
1. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends.... . . ................................!;T—
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C_ some channelization present..............................................—........... ».............................. ............... 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ...... ...................... ................_.....,,.,......... 2
E. no bends_ completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ....................... .......................... 0
❑ E%idence of dredging [Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream 1313anks of uniform shape/height
Remarks_ .. Subtotal
11, Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If>70°% of the reach is rocks, I type is
present, circle the score of IT Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas).
Mark as Rare Common or Abundant.
Rocks Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs '_Undercut banks or root mats
3B

Appendix A — Mountain/Piedmont Habitat Assessment Form
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVGRABIX FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
4 or 5 types present .................
I types . . ......... . .
2 types proserm .........................
I type present .......
No lypes proscnt .......................
0 No mvod}- vcguiaiiGn in riparian zone Remarks
>70%
40-70%
20-40P/L,
<20%
Score
Stare
---3cqLe
s�co
20
16
12
9
19
15
11
7
Is
(9
10
6
67
13
9
1
0
Sub4otal/V
111. Hostem Substrate (sik, sand, detritus. gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at enure reach for substrate scoring but only look at riffle for embeddedness, nod
use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for LIMed Ii Wor ditriculoy exuaci i rkg racks.
A. saWra to with good mix of gavel, cobble and boulders
§SM
1, mbcddedmss <204/o (very finle sand, usually only behind large boulden)L ...... . ...............
65
2. embeddedness 2040111z.-- . . ...... . ....... -..— ..... ................. -- ............... . .. . ... . ......................
12
3. embeddedness 40-90% ................................. .... . . . . . . ................................................
8
4. embeddedness > WIL. ............................................................ . ... . ............................ ....
3
IL subsi rate gravel and cobble
1, embeddedness .... . .... . ........................................
14
2. embeddedness 1040%. ........ ............................................................ . . ....................
0
3. embeddedness 4MO%................ ..........---- .... . .................. ......... ................... ..... --
6
4, ambeddeduess >90%,... .............. ............ --- .. . ......... . ....... ...
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
I. emk;cddedness <500/a ...... .............................. . ...................
2. enibeddedsess>5100/6 ............... --- ........... . . . . . . .................................................. ...
4
D. subsimite homogeneous
1. substrate nearly nil bedmck.---..---.......................................
3
2. substrate nearly all sund,........................................
3
3. substrate nearly all delfilus . ... . ....... . .... . ............................ .......
2
4. substrate nearly til I silt) clay ............ . ......................... --- ...... . ...........................................
I
Remarks
Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper Than average maximum depths with Mile or no surface turbaLme. Water v6x ities associated %whii pools an
always slow. Pools may lake the (onn of 'pocket wear', small pools behind boulders or oWtvabns, in large high gra&mt stream, or side eddies,
A. Peek present Score
1, Pools FmVefft (>30% of 200m area sum*)
a. variety of pool sizes .................................. ...................................................... ......
b. pools abow ihe maw size (indicates pools filling in) ...........................................................
39

Appendix A — MountairWiedmont Habitat Assessment Form
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 6
b, pools about the same size...................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent............ ....... .....................».............................................................. 0
absent.......___. .... ..... .... . - - - Subtotal-8—
0 fool bottom boulder-cobble=hard Q Rottom sandy -sink as you walk ElSilt bottom ❑ Some pools over vender depth
Remarks _ _
Page Total y
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run. riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 1� 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
D. riffles absent ....... ................,,........................ ................................................................ 0
Channel Slope. ❑Typical for area 13Steep--Fast flow OLow=like a coastal stream Subtotal ;a
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
A. Erosion
I, No, or very little, erosion present..........................................07
2. Erosion mostly at outside of meanders ....................._..__._...._.._ 6
3. Less than 50% of banks eroding ............................................ 3
4. Massive erosion..................................................................... 0 Erosion Score
B. Bank Vegetation
I. Mostly mature trees (>12" DBH) present ..............................7
2. Mostly small trees ( 12" DBH) present, large trees rare .....5
3- No trees on bank, can have some shrubs and grasses....,....... 3
4- Mostly grasses or mosses on bank.,.,., ................................... 2
5. Little or no bank vegetation, bare sail everywhere ................ 0 Vegetation Score
Remarks. _ _ _ _ Subtotal_y
V11. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out sunlight when the sun is
directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ................ .... .. .................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... f 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal— ............. __ .. . ........... 7
D, Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading._. .... ............ ......., » . » . »..........................................................— 0
40

Remarks..
Appendix A — Mountain/Piedmont Habitat Assessment Form
Subtotal J-
Vill. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Vermilion. Riparian woe for this form is area o(natural vegetat ion adjacent lo simarn (can go beyond floodplain). Definiti on, A break in the riparian ziDne is any
place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to d ired ly enW ilhe sirmm, such as paths down to sirearn, storm drains, up ru u ted [rats, otter
slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM
Dominant vegetation. 0 Tr"s OShrobs 0 Grasses 0 Wcedskoki rield "eics (kudzu, etc)
A- Riparian zone inlocill (no breaks)
6. width > 19 melen......................... . .... ................. --- ..............
2. width 6 2- 6 9 meters ......... ..................
3. width &12 meters....,... . .......... ............................
4. width < 6 meierL ........................... ..................................
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks}
1, breaks rare
a. width > IS meters ......................... ....... . ............... -- ...... ......
K width 12-19 . ....... .................... -- ........
c, width 6-12 meters ....... ....... . ............
d. width < 6 mewrs--.— . .............................................................
2, breaks common
a, width -> 18 meters.. . .... . ......... . ...................................................
Kwidth 12-13 n-wilem .......... ................. --- ..... -- . . ......................
c. %vidth 6-12 melers.. .... ...... . . . ......................................................
d. width < 6 motem ............... ......... . .............................................
Remarks
0 Disclaimer -farm filled out, but score doosul match subjective opinion atypical sucarn.
Lft- Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
5 5
4 4
3
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
sublotal.
Page Tc4 al—q 0
IMALSCORE—LO
41

Taxa / Biotic Index Value Horne 1 Horne 2
EPHEMEROPTERA
Family Baetidae
Baetis flavistriga (6.8)
Baetis pluto (3.4)C
Diphetor hageni (1.1)R
Family Caenidae
Caenis spp (6.8)
Family Ephemerellidae
Telagonopsis deficiens (2.6)
Family Heptageniidae
Leucrocuta spp (2.0)
Maccaffertium modestum (5.7)A
Family Leptophlebiidae
Habrophlebia vibrans (0.3)R
Habrophleboides spp C
Paraleptophlebia spp (1.2)A
PLECOPTERA
Family Perlidae
Agnetina flavescens (1.1)R
Eccoptura xanthenes (4.7)C
Isoperla holochlora (1.2)
TRICHOPTERA
Family Glossosomatidae
Glossoma spp (1.4)
Family Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche spp (6.6)A
Diplectrona modesta (2.3)C
Hydropsyche betteni (7.9)R C
Family Limnephilidae
Neophylax atlanta (1.6)R
Family Odontoceridae
Psilotreta spp (0.5)R
Family Philopotamidae
Chimarra spp (3.3)A
Family Rhyacophilidae
Rhyacophila carolina (0.4)R
MISC DIPTERA
Family Culicidae
Aedes spp R
Anopheles (8.6)R
Culex spp R
Family Dixidae
Dixa spp (2.5)R C
Family Simuliidae
Simulium spp (4.9)A R
Family Tabanidae
Chrysops (6.7)
Family Tipulidae
Dicranota spp (0)R
Hexatoma spp (3.5)
Tipula spp (7.5)R A
DIPTERA; CHIRONOMIDAE
Chironomus spp (9.3)A
Corynoneura spp (5.7)
Cricotopus bicintus (C/O sp 1) (8.7)
Eukieferiella claripennis (6.2)R
Limnophyes spp R
Micropsectra polita (2.4)C
Microtendipes pedellus (3.9)
Nilotanypus fimbratus (4.9)
Parametriocnemus lundbecki (3.7)
Phaenopscetra obediens gp (6.6)
Polypedilum aviceps (3.6)R R
Polypedilum fallax (6.5)
Polypedilum flavum (5.7)R
Polypedilum illinoense (8.7)R
Polypedilum tritum
Psectrotanypus dyari (10)
Rheocricotpus glabricolis (4.7)R
Rheotanytarsus spp (6.5)R
Stictochironomus devinctus (5.4)
Tanytarsus acifer/buckleyi (6.6)R
Thienemaniella spp (6.4)
Thienemannimyia group (8.4)R C
Tvetenia bavarica gp (E sp 1) (3.6)
Zavrelimyia spp (6.1)R
COLEOPTERA
Family Dryopidae
Helichus spp (4.1)R
Family Dytiscidae
Neoporus spp (5.0)
Platambus spp
Prodaticus spp R
Family Elmidae
Stenelmis spp (5.6)C
Family Hydrophilidae
Cymbiodyta spp R
Family Psephenidae
Psephenus herricki (2.3)
Family Ptilodactylidae
Anchytarsus bicolor (2.4)A
ODONATA
Family Aeshnidae
Boyeria vinosa (5.6)R
Family Calopterygidae
Calopteryx spp (7.5)R
Family Cordulegasteridae
Cordulegaster spp (5.7)R
Family Gomphidae
Gomphus spp (5.9)
Stylogomphus albistylus (5.0)
OLIGOCHAETA
Family Lumbriculidae (7.0)R
Family Naidae
Nais spp (8.7)R
Pristina spp (7.7)R
Slavina appendiculata (8.4)
MEGALOPTERA
Family Corydalidae
Nigronia fasciatus (6.1)R
CRUSTACEA
Family Asellidae
Caecidotea spp (8.4)
MOLLUSCA
Family Ancylidae
Ferrissia spp (6.6)
Family Pleuroceridae
Elimia spp (2.7)C
OTHER TAXA
Family Planariidae
Dugesia tigrina (7.1)
Total Taxa Richness 15 38
EPT Taxa Richness 1 15
EPT Abundance 1 61
Biotic Index 6.53 4.99
RIVERMORPH STREAM CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Horne Creek
Reach Name: Horne Creek <-- This is not a Reference Reach
Drainage Area: 0.059 sq mi
State: North Carolina
County: Surry
Latitude: 36.2841
Longitude: 80.5036
Survey Date: 11/21/2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification Data

Valley Type: Type VIII(a)
Valley Slope: 0.0366 ft/ft
Number of Channels: Single
Width: 3.13 ft
Mean Depth: 0.95 ft
Flood-Prone Width: 12.95 ft
Channel Materials D50: 0.39 mm
Water Surface Slope: 0.0326 ft/ft
Sinuosity: 1.12
Discharge: 12 cfs
Velocity: 4.03 fps
Cross Sectional Area: 2.98 sq ft
Entrenchment Ratio: 4.14
Width to Depth Ratio: 3.29
Rosgen Stream Classification: E 5b
XS13NGround PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)9359600310Wbkf = 3.13Dbkf = .95Abkf = 2.98
RIVERMORPH STREAM CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Horne Creek
Reach Name: Horne Creek <-- This is not a Reference Reach
Drainage Area: 0.059 sq mi
State: North Carolina
County: Surry
Latitude: 36.2841
Longitude: 80.5036
Survey Date: 11/21/2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification Data

Valley Type: Type VIII(a)
Valley Slope: 0.0366 ft/ft
Number of Channels: Single
Width: 5.9 ft
Mean Depth: 0.45 ft
Flood-Prone Width: 6.44 ft
Channel Materials D50: 0.39 mm
Water Surface Slope: 0.0326 ft/ft
Sinuosity: 1.12
Discharge: 12 cfs
Velocity: 4.48 fps
Cross Sectional Area: 2.68 sq ft
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.09
Width to Depth Ratio: 13.11
Rosgen Stream Classification: F 5b
XS15Ground PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)9159500250Wbkf = 5.9Dbkf = .45Abkf = 2.68
RIVERMORPH STREAM CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Horne Creek
Reach Name: Horne Creek <-- This is not a Reference Reach
Drainage Area: 0.0642 sq mi
State: North Carolina
County: Surry
Latitude: 36.2841
Longitude: 80.5036
Survey Date: 11/21/2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification Data

Valley Type: Type VIII(a)
Valley Slope: 0.0325 ft/ft
Number of Channels: Single
Width: 4.4 ft
Mean Depth: 0.69 ft
Flood-Prone Width: 5.46 ft
Channel Materials D50: 6.04 mm
Water Surface Slope: 0.0301 ft/ft
Sinuosity: 1.08
Discharge: 12 cfs
Velocity: 3.93 fps
Cross Sectional Area: 3.05 sq ft
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.24
Width to Depth Ratio: 6.38
Rosgen Stream Classification: G 4
XS2Ground PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)98010100160Wbkf = 4.4Dbkf = .69Abkf = 3.05
RIVERMORPH STREAM CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Horne Creek
Reach Name: Horne Creek <-- This is not a Reference Reach
Drainage Area: 0.0457 sq mi
State: North Carolina
County: Surry
Latitude: 36.2841
Longitude: 80.5036
Survey Date: 11/21/2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification Data

Valley Type: Type VIII(a)
Valley Slope: 0.0496 ft/ft
Number of Channels: Single
Width: 3.61 ft
Mean Depth: 0.62 ft
Flood-Prone Width: 14.42 ft
Channel Materials D50: 0.01 mm
Water Surface Slope: 0.0463 ft/ft
Sinuosity: 1.07
Discharge: 10 cfs
Velocity: 4.46 fps
Cross Sectional Area: 2.24 sq ft
Entrenchment Ratio: 3.99
Width to Depth Ratio: 5.82
Rosgen Stream Classification: E 6b
Slope is out of range
XS4Ground PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)9809950270Wbkf = 3.61Dbkf = .62Abkf = 2.24
RIVERMORPH STREAM CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Horne Creek
Reach Name: Horne Creek <-- This is not a Reference Reach
Drainage Area: 0.13 sq mi
State: North Carolina
County: Surry
Latitude: 36.2841
Longitude: 80.5036
Survey Date: 11/21/2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification Data

Valley Type: Type VIII(a)
Valley Slope: 0.0381 ft/ft
Number of Channels: Single
Width: 6.66 ft
Mean Depth: 0.74 ft
Flood-Prone Width: 11.13 ft
Channel Materials D50: 17.28 mm
Water Surface Slope: 0.0296 ft/ft
Sinuosity: 1.29
Discharge: 22 cfs
Velocity: 4.44 fps
Cross Sectional Area: 4.96 sq ft
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.67
Width to Depth Ratio: 9
Rosgen Stream Classification: B 4
W/D is out of range
XS6Ground PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)9559750170Wbkf = 6.66Dbkf = .74Abkf = 4.96
RIVERMORPH STREAM CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Horne Creek
Reach Name: Horne Creek <-- This is not a Reference Reach
Drainage Area: 0.045 sq mi
State: North Carolina
County: Surry
Latitude: 36.2841
Longitude: 80.5036
Survey Date: 11/21/2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification Data

Valley Type: Type VIII(a)
Valley Slope: 0.0233 ft/ft
Number of Channels: Single
Width: 4.92 ft
Mean Depth: 0.46 ft
Flood-Prone Width: 6.88 ft
Channel Materials D50: 10 mm
Water Surface Slope: 0.0205 ft/ft
Sinuosity: 1.14
Discharge: 10 cfs
Velocity: 4.39 fps
Cross Sectional Area: 2.28 sq ft
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.4
Width to Depth Ratio: 10.7
Rosgen Stream Classification: B 4
W/D is out of range
XS17 R4aGround PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)95095295495695896010001100Wbkf = 4.92Dbkf = .46Abkf = 2.28
RIVERMORPH STREAM CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Horne Creek
Reach Name: Horne Creek <-- This is not a Reference Reach
Drainage Area: 0.0026 sq mi
State: North Carolina
County: Surry
Latitude: 36.2841
Longitude: 80.5036
Survey Date: 11/21/2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification Data

Valley Type: Type VIII(a)
Valley Slope: 0.0262 ft/ft
Number of Channels: Single
Width: 3.03 ft
Mean Depth: 0.38 ft
Flood-Prone Width: 3.84 ft
Channel Materials D50: 2 mm
Water Surface Slope: 0.0241 ft/ft
Sinuosity: 1.09
Discharge: 4 cfs
Velocity: 3.45 fps
Cross Sectional Area: 1.16 sq ft
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.27
Width to Depth Ratio: 7.97
Rosgen Stream Classification: G 5
XS18 R4bGround PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)94596010001070Wbkf = 3.03Dbkf = .38Abkf = 1.16
RIVERMORPH STREAM CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Horne Creek
Reach Name: Horne Creek <-- This is not a Reference Reach
Drainage Area: 0.26 sq mi
State: North Carolina
County: Surry
Latitude: 36.2841
Longitude: 80.5036
Survey Date: 11/21/2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification Data

Valley Type: Type VIII(a)
Valley Slope: 0.0243 ft/ft
Number of Channels: Single
Width: 7.84 ft
Mean Depth: 1.08 ft
Flood-Prone Width: 14.98 ft
Channel Materials D50: 9.89 mm
Water Surface Slope: 0.0187 ft/ft
Sinuosity: 1.3
Discharge: 27 cfs
Velocity: 3.18 fps
Cross Sectional Area: 8.49 sq ft
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.91
Width to Depth Ratio: 7.26
Rosgen Stream Classification: B 4c
W/D is out of range
XS7Ground PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)9449700360Wbkf = 7.84Dbkf = 1.08Abkf = 8.49
RIVERMORPH STREAM CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Horne Creek
Reach Name: Horne Creek <-- This is not a Reference Reach
Drainage Area: 0.26 sq mi
State: North Carolina
County: Surry
Latitude: 36.2841
Longitude: 80.5036
Survey Date: 11/21/2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification Data

Valley Type: Type VIII(a)
Valley Slope: 0.0243 ft/ft
Number of Channels: Single
Width: 8.54 ft
Mean Depth: 0.81 ft
Flood-Prone Width: 9.87 ft
Channel Materials D50: 9.89 mm
Water Surface Slope: 0.0187 ft/ft
Sinuosity: 1.3
Discharge: 27 cfs
Velocity: 3.92 fps
Cross Sectional Area: 6.88 sq ft
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.16
Width to Depth Ratio: 10.54
Rosgen Stream Classification: G 4c
XS9Ground PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)914.91935.000250Wbkf = 8.54Dbkf = .81Abkf = 6.88
RIVERMORPH STREAM CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Horne Creek
Reach Name: Horne Creek <-- This is a Reference Reach
Drainage Area: 0.0518 sq mi
State: North Carolina
County: Surry
Latitude: 36.2841
Longitude: 80.5036
Survey Date: 11/21/2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification Data

Valley Type: Type VIII(a)
Valley Slope: 0.0317 ft/ft
Number of Channels: Single
Width: 12.25 ft
Mean Depth: 0.18 ft
Flood-Prone Width: 21.2 ft
Channel Materials D50: 3 mm
Water Surface Slope: 0.028 ft/ft
Sinuosity: 1.13
Discharge: 12 cfs
Velocity: 5.41 fps
Cross Sectional Area: 2.22 sq ft
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.73
Width to Depth Ratio: 68.06
Rosgen Stream Classification: B 4
Brown Farms Preservation ReachGround PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)93.093.594.094.50 5 10 15 20 25Wbkf = 12.3Dbkf = .18Abkf = 2.22
RIVERMORPH STREAM CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Horne Creek
Reach Name: Horne Creek <-- This is not a Reference Reach
Drainage Area: 0.0568 sq mi
State: North Carolina
County: Surry
Latitude: 36.2841
Longitude: 80.5036
Survey Date: 11/21/2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification Data

Valley Type: Type VIII(a)
Valley Slope: 0.0636 ft/ft
Number of Channels: Single
Width: 5.7 ft
Mean Depth: 0.31 ft
Flood-Prone Width: 21 ft
Channel Materials D50: 5 mm
Water Surface Slope: 0.058 ft/ft
Sinuosity: 1.1
Discharge: 12 cfs
Velocity: 6.86 fps
Cross Sectional Area: 1.77 sq ft
Entrenchment Ratio: 3.68
Width to Depth Ratio: 18.39
Rosgen Stream Classification: C 4b
Slope is out of range
Shoals Community Park RestorationGround PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)95.095.596.096.597.00 5 10 15 20 25Wbkf = 5.7Dbkf = .31Abkf = 1.75
REACH 1CHWSBKFLBRBLEWREWElevation (ft)Distance along stream (ft)9059209359509650.0 387.5 775.0 1162.5 1550.0
REACH 2CHWSBKFLBRBLEWREWElevation (ft)Distance along stream (ft)98098599099510000.0 87.5 175.0 262.5 350.0
REACH 3CHWSBKFLBRBLEWREWElevation (ft)Distance along stream (ft)975.0981.3987.5993.81000.00 75 150 225 300
REACH 4CHWSBKFLBRBLEWREWElevation (ft)Distance along stream (ft)94095597098510000 300 600 900 1200
REACH 4ACHWSBKFLBRBLEWREWElevation (ft)Distance along stream (ft)9509529549569589600 50 100 150 200 250
REACH 4BCHWSBKFLBRBLEWREWElevation (ft)Distance along stream (ft)9409459509559600 50 100 150 200
REACH 5CHWSBKFLBRBLEWREWElevation (ft)Distance along stream (ft)9009109209309409509600 260 520 780 1040 1300 1560 1820 2080 2340 2600
XS20
n Uu 10000
Particle Size (mm)

CD
C
Co
N
a
XS20
0.125-0.25 0.50-1.0 4.0-5.7 8.0-11.3 16.0-22.6 32-45 64-90 128-180
Particle Size (mm)

L
C
U
L
LL
XS21
Particle Size (mm)

XS21
0-0.062 0.125-0.25 1.0-2.0 4.0-5.7 5.7-8.0 8.0-11.3 16.0-22.6 22.6-32.0 32-45 45-64 64-90 90-128 128-180
Particle Size (mm)

XS22
Particle Size (mm)

XS22
30- -
0.50-1.0 1.0-2-0 4.0-5.7 8.0-11.3 11.3-16.0 16.0-22.6 22.6-32.0 32-45 45-64 64-90 90-128
Particle Size (mm)

BANCS Method Calcs Appendix 2
Location: Horne Creek Mitigation Project - R1 Field Crew: J. Morgan/ K. VanStell Date: 5/9/2018
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
AB C D E F AB C D E F
BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)STA BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)STA
Low V. Low 5.5 0.02 13 1.4 1013 Low V. Low 5.8 0.02 13 1.5 1013
Low-Mod Low 4.5 0.055 20 5.0 1033 Low Mod 2.9 0.068 20 3.9 1033
Mod Low-Mod 4.3 0.135 10 5.8 1043 Low V. Low 2.1 0.02 33 1.4 1066
V. Low V. Low 1.7 0.008 23 0.3 1066 V. Low V. Low 1.7 0.008 70 1.0 1136
Low Low 2.1 0.034 40 2.9 1106 Mod Mod-High 2.1 0.27 5 2.8 1141
Low-Mod Low 2.1 0.055 15 0.0 1121 V. Low V. Low 1.6 0.008 50 0.6 1191
Low V. Low 1.9 0.02 15 0.6 1136 Mod Mod 1.9 0.18 9 3.1 1200
Low Low 1.9 0.034 13 0.8 1149 V. Low V. Low 2.1 0.008 34 0.6 1234
Low-Mod Mod 2.0 0.1 10 2.0 1159 Low V. Low 2.0 0.02 54 2.2 1288
Low V. Low 1.4 0.02 15 0.4 1174 Mod-High High 2.3 0.4 7 6.4 1295
Mod-High V. High 2.1 0.8 7 11.8 1181 Low Low 2.0 0.034 56 3.8 1351
Low-Mod V. Low 1.6 0.03 10 0.0 1191 Low V. Low 2.5 0.02 54 2.7 1405
Low Low-Mod 1.7 0.051 22 1.9 1213 High Mod 3.0 0.3 27 24.3 1432
Low V. Low 1.3 0.02 20 0.5 1233 V. Low V. Low 2.2 0.008 81 1.4 1513
High Mod-High 2.6 0.4 8 8.3 1241 High V. High 1.8 0.8 6 8.6 1519
Low V. Low 2.6 0.02 9 0.5 1250 V. Low V. Low 2.1 0.008 126 2.1 1645
V. Low V. Low 1.3 0.008 30 0.3 1280 Low V. Low 1.2 0.02 120 2.9 1765
Low V. Low 2.2 0.02 12 0.5 1292 High V. High 2.9 0.8 12 27.8 1777
V. Low V. Low 2.1 0.008 15 0.3 1307 Low Low 2.1 0.034 83 5.9 1860
Low V. Low 1.8 0.02 29 1.0 1336 Low V. Low 2.8 0.02 18 1.0 1878
Mod Mod-High 1.7 0.27 5 2.3 1341 Mod Low 2.6 0.09 27 6.3 1905
V. Low V. Low 1.1 0.008 36 0.3 1377 High V. High 2.5 0.8 15 30.0 1920
V. Low V. Low 1.4 0.008 29 0.3 1406 Low Low 1.9 0.034 31 2.0 1951
V. Low V. Low 1.8 0.008 13 0.2 1419 Low V. Low 2.1 0.02 40 1.7 1991
Mod High 2.2 0.38 13 10.9 1432 Low Mod 1.3 0.068 21 1.9 2012
Low V. Low 1.9 0.02 25 1.0 1457 Low V. Low 1.7 0.02 33 1.1 2045
Low V. Low 2.0 0.02 67 2.7 1524 V. Low V. Low 0.7 0.008 43 0.2 2088
Mod High 1.9 0.38 20 14.4 1544 High V. High 2.7 0.8 25 54.0 2113
V. Low V. Low 0.8 0.008 42 0.3 1586 Low V. Low 1.1 0.02 48 1.1 2161
Low V. Low 1.6 0.02 55 1.8 1641 Mod-High High 1.8 0.4 9 6.5 2170
V. Low V. Low 0.6 0.008 27 0.1 1668 V. Low V. Low 0.9 0.008 71 0.5 2241
Low V. Low 1.5 0.02 52 1.6 1720 Low Low 1.8 0.034 18 1.1 2259
Mod Mod-High 1.9 0.27 5 2.6 1725 Mod Low 2.5 0.09 48 10.8 2307
Low V. Low 1.7 0.02 104 3.5 1829 V. Low V. Low 0.7 0.008 22 0.1 2329
Mod-High High 1.4 0.4 7 3.9 1836 Low V. Low 1.7 0.02 15 0.5 2344
Low V. Low 1.6 0.02 50 1.6 1886 Low Low 0.9 0.034 22 0.7 2366
Mod-High High 3.4 0.4 11 15.0 1897 Low Low 0.6 0.034 8 0.2 2374
Mod Mod-High 2.3 0.27 49 30.4 1946 Low V. Low 2.5 0.02 13 0.7 2387
Mod V. Low 1.5 0.035 147 7.7 2093 V. Low V. Low 0.9 0.008 10 0.1
V. Low V. Low 0.7 0.008 201 1.1 2294
Mod-High High 3.6 0.4 15 21.6 2309
V. Low Low 0.6 0.02 88 1.1 2397
TOTAL FT³/YR 168.6 TOTAL FT³/YR 223.5
Divide FT³/yr by 27 TOTAL YD³/YR 6.2 TOTAL YD³/YR 8.3
Multiply YD³/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 8.1 TOTAL TONS/YR 10.8
Total Length 1397 1397
North Carolina unpublished curve (Alan Walker, NRCS)Total ft assessed 2794
V. Low Low Low-Mod Mod Mod-High High V. High Extreme BEHI Total TONS per year 18.9
V. Low 0.008 0.02 0.03 0.035 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.8 Tons per ft per year 0.0068
Low 0.02 0.034 0.055 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.44 Tons per 1000ft 6.8
Low-Mod 0.03 0.051 0.078 0.135 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.77
Mod 0.035 0.068 0.1 0.18 0.25 0.3 0.3 1.1
Mod-High 0.07 0.1 0.15 0.27 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.8
High 0.1 0.14 0.25 0.38 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.7
V. High 0.2 0.28 0.4 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.8 6
Extreme 0.8 0.52 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 10
NBS
BANCS Method Calcs Appendix 2
Location: Horne Creek Mitigation Project - R2 Field Crew: C. Tomsic, J. Bell Date: 5/9/2018
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
AB C D E F AB C D E F
BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)STA BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)STA
Mod V. Low 8.0 0.035 40 11.2 1040 Mod V. Low 8.0 0.035 40 11.2 1040
Mod V. Low 12.0 0.035 47 19.7 1087 Mod V. Low 12.0 0.035 65 27.3 1105
Low V. Low 2.0 0.02 50 2.0 1137 Mod-High Mod 12.0 0.25 23 69.0 1128
Mod V. Low 12.0 0.035 32 13.4 1169 Mod V. Low 12.0 0.035 9 3.8 1137
1169 Mod V. Low 12.0 0.035 45 18.9 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169 1182
1169
1169
1169
1169
TOTAL FT³/YR 46.4 TOTAL FT³/YR 130.2
Divide FT³/yr by 27 TOTAL YD³/YR 1.7 TOTAL YD³/YR 4.8
Multiply YD³/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 2.2 TOTAL TONS/YR 6.3
Total Length 169 182
North Carolina unpublished curve (Alan Walker, NRCS)Total ft assessed 351
V. Low Low Low-Mod Mod Mod-High High V. High Extreme BEHI Total TONS per year 8.5
V. Low 0.008 0.02 0.03 0.035 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.8 Tons per ft per year 0.0242
Low 0.02 0.034 0.055 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.44 Tons per 1000ft 24.2
Low-Mod 0.03 0.051 0.078 0.135 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.77
Mod 0.035 0.068 0.1 0.18 0.25 0.3 0.3 1.1
Mod-High 0.07 0.1 0.15 0.27 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.8
High 0.1 0.14 0.25 0.38 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.7
V. High 0.2 0.28 0.4 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.8 6
Extreme 0.8 0.52 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 10
BANCS Method Calcs Appendix 2
Location: Horne Creek Mitigation Project - R2 Field Crew: C. Tomsic, J. Bell Date: 5/11/2018
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
AB C D E F AB C D E F
BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)STA BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)STA
Mod Low 1.0 0.09 20 1.8 1020 Mod Low 1.0 0.09 20 1.8 1020
Low Low 0.5 0.034 30 0.5 1050 V. High Mod 3.0 0.3 30 27.0 1050
Mod Low 6.0 0.09 35 18.9 1085 Mod Low 6.0 0.09 54 29.2 1104
Mod Low 3.0 0.09 109 29.4 1194 V. High High 7.0 0.5 40 140.0 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194 1144
1194
1194
1194
1194
TOTAL FT³/YR 50.6 TOTAL FT³/YR 198.0
Divide FT³/yr by 27 TOTAL YD³/YR 1.9 TOTAL YD³/YR 7.3
Multiply YD³/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 2.4 TOTAL TONS/YR 9.5
Total Length 194 144
North Carolina unpublished curve (Alan Walker, NRCS)Total ft assessed 338
V. Low Low Low-Mod Mod Mod-High High V. High Extreme BEHI Total TONS per year 12.0
V. Low 0.008 0.02 0.03 0.035 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.8 Tons per ft per year 0.0354
Low 0.02 0.034 0.055 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.44 Tons per 1000ft 35.4
Low-Mod 0.03 0.051 0.078 0.135 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.77
Mod 0.035 0.068 0.1 0.18 0.25 0.3 0.3 1.1
Mod-High 0.07 0.1 0.15 0.27 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.8
High 0.1 0.14 0.25 0.38 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.7
V. High 0.2 0.28 0.4 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.8 6
Extreme 0.8 0.52 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 10
BANCS Method Calcs Appendix 2
Location: Horne Creek Mitigation Project - R2 Field Crew: C. Tomsic, J. Bell Date: 5/9/2018
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
AB C D E F ABC D E F
BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)STA BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)STA
V. High Mod 12.0 0.3 182 655.2 1182 Mod V. Low 7.0 0.035 240 58.8 1240
Mod V. Low 7.0 0.035 49 12.0 1231 High Mod-High 8.0 0.4 18 57.6 1258
Mod V. Low 4.0 0.035 27 3.8 1258 Mod V. Low 6.0 0.035 20 4.2 1278
V. Low V. Low 3.0 0.008 37 0.9 1295 V. Low V. Low 2.0 0.008 40 0.6 1318
Mod Mod 4.0 0.18 39 28.1 1334 High Mod 4.0 0.3 16 19.2 1334
Mod Low 3.0 0.09 60 16.2 1394 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 60 16.2 1394
Low V. Low 3.0 0.02 30 1.8 1424 Mod Low 5.0 0.09 49 22.1 1443
V. Low V. Low 5.0 0.008 19 0.8 1443 Mod Low 6.0 0.09 47 25.4 1490
Mod Low 6.0 0.09 136 73.4 1579 Mod Low 12.0 0.09 30 32.4 1520
Mod Mod 6.0 0.18 15 16.2 1594 High High 12.0 0.5 33 198.0 1553
Mod Low 6.0 0.09 234 126.4 1828 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 64 17.3 1617
Mod Low 4.0 0.09 45 16.2 1873 Mod Low 6.0 0.09 56 30.2 1673
Mod Low 4.0 0.09 32 11.5 1905 Mod Low 8.0 0.09 85 61.2 1758
Mod High 4.0 0.38 26 39.5 1931 High High 10.0 0.5 23 115.0 1781
V. Low V. Low 0.0 0.008 39 0.0 1970 Mod Low 6.0 0.09 75 40.5 1856
Mod Low 3.0 0.09 141 38.1 2111 High Mod 4.0 0.3 17 20.4 1873
Low Low 3.0 0.034 24 2.4 2135 Mod Low 4.0 0.09 32 11.5 1905
Low Low 2.0 0.034 28 1.9 2163 V. Low V. Low 0.0 0.008 26 0.0 1931
High High 5.0 0.5 14 35.0 2177 Extreme Extreme 3.0 10 39 1170.0 1970
Low Low 4.0 0.034 46 6.3 2223 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 141 38.1 2111
V. Low V. Low 0.0 0.008 28 0.0 2251 Low Low 3.0 0.034 11 1.1 2122
Extreme Extreme 6.0 10 30 1800.0 2281 Mod High 4.0 0.38 13 19.8 2135
Low V. Low 3.0 0.02 26 1.6 2307 Low Low 3.0 0.034 28 2.9 2163
Mod V. Low 5.0 0.035 26 4.6 2333 Low Low 2.0 0.034 29 2.0 2192
Low V. Low 2.0 0.02 30 1.2 2363 Mod Low 4.0 0.09 31 11.2 2223
High High 6.0 0.5 44 132.0 2407 High Extreme 5.0 1.5 28 210.0 2251
V. Low V. Low 0.0 0.008 36 0.0 2443 V. Low V. Low 0.0 0.008 30 0.0 2281
Mod Low 6.0 0.09 19 10.3 2462 Mod Mod 5.0 0.18 26 23.4 2307
Extreme V. High 6.0 6 14 504.0 2476 Low V. Low 3.0 0.02 100 6.0 2407
Low Low 6.0 0.034 21 4.3 2497 High V. High 4.0 0.8 36 115.2 2443
Extreme Mod 5.0 1.1 20 110.0 2517 Low Low 3.0 0.034 17 1.7 2460
Low Low 2.0 0.034 52 3.5 2569 Low Low 3.0 0.034 57 5.8 2517
Mod Mod 5.0 0.18 45 40.5 2268 Mod High 7.0 0.38 52 138.3 2163
Extreme V. High 5.0 6 17 510.0 2285 Mod-High Low 3.0 0.15 45 20.3 2208
Low V. Low 3.0 0.02 22 1.3 2307 V. Low V. Low 0.0 0.008 17 0.0 2225
Mod Low 6.0 0.09 20 10.8 2327 High High 6.0 0.5 22 66.0 2247
V. Low V. Low 2.0 0.008 13 0.2 2340 Mod Low 6.0 0.09 20 10.8 2267
High Mod 1.5 0.3 29 13.1 2369 Mod Low 4.0 0.09 58 20.9 2325
Low Low 2.0 0.034 44 3.0 2413 High High 5.0 0.5 28 70.0 2353
Mod Low 6.0 0.09 38 20.5 2451 Mod Low 4.0 0.09 38 13.7 2391
V. High High 6.0 0.5 50 150.0 2419 Low Low 3.0 0.034 50 5.1
V. Low V. Low 0.0 0.008 25 0.0 2444 V. High High 6.0 0.5 25 75.0
Mod Low 6.0 0.09 69 37.3 2520 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 69 18.6
High Mod 5.0 0.3 23 34.5 2543 Low V. Low 1.5 0.02 23 0.7
Low V. Low 2.0 0.02 31 1.2 2254 High High 5.0 0.5 31 77.5 2142
Mod Low 4.0 0.09 85 30.6 2339 Mod Low 4.0 0.09 85 30.6 2227
V. Low V. Low 0.0 0.008 20 0.0 2359 Extreme Mod 4.0 1.1 20 88.0 2247
Mod Extreme 5.0 1.6 42 336.0 2401 Mod Low 5.0 0.09 40 18.0 2287
Low Low 3.0 0.034 8 0.8 2409 V. High High 5.0 0.5 20 50.0 2307
V. Low V. Low 2.0 0.008 10 0.2 2419 Low Low 3.0 0.034 42 4.3 2349
High High 5.0 0.5 42 105.0 2461 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 66 17.8 2415
Mod Low 4.0 0.09 66 23.8 2527 Extreme V. High 6.0 6 67 2412.0 2482
Mod Low 3.0 0.09 67 18.1 2486 Mod V. Low 2.0 0.035 30 2.1
Mod V. High 6.0 0.78 30 140.4 2516 Mod Low 4.0 0.09 24 8.6
V. Low V. Low 0.0 0.008 24 0.0 2551 V. Low V. Low 0.0 0.008 45 0.0
Extreme V. High 3.0 6 45 810.0 2596 Low High 2.0 0.14 58 16.2
V. Low V. Low 1.0 0.008 32 0.3 2601 Mod Low 7.0 0.09 55 34.7 2572
Extreme V. High 3.0 6 26 468.0 2627 Extreme V. High 8.0 6 38 1824.0 2610
Mod Low 4.0 0.09 5 1.8 2632 V. Low V. Low 0.0 0.008 41 0.0 2651
V. Low V. Low 2.0 0.008 88 1.4 2720 High Low 5.0 0.18 17 15.3 2668
High V. High 6.0 0.8 41 196.8 2761 Mod Low 5.0 0.09 37 16.7 2705
Mod Low 4.0 0.09 54 19.4 2570 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 33 8.9 33
Mod Low 3.0 0.09 162 43.7 2732 Mod Low 2.0 0.09 95 17.1 128
Mod Low 2.0 0.09 47 8.5 2779 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 34 9.2 162
High Mod 3.0 0.3 21 18.9 2591 Mod Low 2.0 0.09 47 8.5
Mod Low 2.0 0.09 149 26.8 2740 Low Low 1.0 0.034 21 0.7
Mod Low 3.0 0.09 74 20.0 2853 Mod Low 2.0 0.09 223 40.1
Mod Low 2.0 0.09 100 18.0 2953 Mod Low 2.0 0.09 100 18.0
Extreme Mod 3.0 1.1 15 49.5 2776 V. Low V. Low 1.0 0.008 15 0.1 2720
Mod Low 3.0 0.09 150 40.5 2926 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 150 40.5 2870
2926 2870
2776
2776
2926
2926
TOTAL FT³/YR 6857.8 TOTAL FT³/YR 7536.0
Divide FT³/yr by 27 TOTAL YD³/YR 254.0 TOTAL YD³/YR 279.1
Multiply YD³/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 330.2 TOTAL TONS/YR 362.8
Total Length 3398 3398
North Carolina unpublished curve (Alan Walker, NRCS)Total ft assessed 6796
V. Low Low Low-Mod Mod Mod-High High V. High Extreme BEHI Total TONS per year 693.0
V. Low 0.008 0.02 0.03 0.035 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.8 Tons per ft per year 0.1020
Low 0.02 0.034 0.055 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.44 Tons per 1000ft 102.0
Low-Mod 0.03 0.051 0.078 0.135 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.77
Mod 0.035 0.068 0.1 0.18 0.25 0.3 0.3 1.1
Mod-High 0.07 0.1 0.15 0.27 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.8
High 0.1 0.14 0.25 0.38 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.7
V. High 0.2 0.28 0.4 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.8 6
Extreme 0.8 0.52 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 10
NBS
Watershed Information and Site Runoff VolumeAppendix 2Catchment Area 7.67 BMP R1Pervious Area7.59Impervious Area 0.08The Simple MethodRV = 0.05 + 0.9 * IAStep 1 Simple MethodRV = 0.05963 Runoff coefficient (unitless)IA = 0.0107 Impervious fraction [impervious portion of drainage area (ac)/drainage area (ac)], (unitlessV = 3630 * RD * RV * A Step 2 in the Simple MethodV1660 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (cubic feet)V0.46 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (acre‐in)RD1.0 Design storm rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")A7.67 Watershed area (ac)***CN Method in this spreadsheet is for 2 CN areas only. The equations may be modified if using multiple CNs or use a composite pervious CNSCS Curve Number MethodQ* = (P ‐ 0.2S)^2 / (P + 0.8S)S = 1000/CN - 10Q* = 0.053 Runoff depth (in)CN (Composite)78 Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover. (Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables)P = 1.0 Rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")S = 2.90 Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in)Soil Type Colvard and Suches, Fairviewhttp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986) A, B, C, and D Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the area of interest is identifiedBMP Sizing ReqsV = A(Q*)0.41 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage VolumeV1483 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage VolumeV11094 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (gallons) Required Storage VolumeV0.46 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage VolumeV1660 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage VolumeRequired Ponding Depth 10 Depends on desired vegetation type and inundation time. Usually 6‐12" (inRequired BMP Surface Area 0.041 (ac) SCS MethodRequired BMP Surface Area 1780 (ft^2) SCS MethodRequired BMP Surface Area 0.046 (ac) Simple MethodRequired BMP Surface Area 1992 (ft^2) Simple MethodActual BMP Surface Area 0.033 (ac) Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.Actual BMP Surface Area 1436 (ft^2)Actual BMP Surface Volume 1986.5 (ft^3)**Per DWQ BMP design manual, the BMP must be designed to treat a volume at least as large as the volume calculated using the simple method****DWQ recommends 9" but requires ponding depth to be less then 12"**
Watershed Information and Site Runoff VolumeAppendix 2Catchment Area 29.24 BMP R2Pervious Area29.08Impervious Area 0.16The Simple MethodRV = 0.05 + 0.9 * IAStep 1 Simple MethodRV = 0.05486 Runoff coefficient (unitless)IA = 0.0054 Impervious fraction [impervious portion of drainage area (ac)/drainage area (ac)], (unitlessV = 3630 * RD * RV * A Step 2 in the Simple MethodV5823 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (cubic feet)V1.60 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (acre‐in)RD1.0 Design storm rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")A29.24 Watershed area (ac)***CN Method in this spreadsheet is for 2 CN areas only. The equations may be modified if using multiple CNs or use a composite pervious CNSCS Curve Number MethodQ* = (P ‐ 0.2S)^2 / (P + 0.8S)S = 1000/CN - 10Q* = 0.005 Runoff depth (in)CN (Composite)70 Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover. (Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables)P = 1.0 Rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")S = 4.29 Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in)Soil Type Colvard and Suches, Fairviewhttp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986) A, B, C, and D Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the area of interest is identifiedBMP Sizing ReqsV = A(Q*)0.13 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage VolumeV489 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage VolumeV3659 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (gallons) Required Storage VolumeV1.60 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage VolumeV5823 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage VolumeRequired Ponding Depth 10 Depends on desired vegetation type and inundation time. Usually 6‐12" (inRequired BMP Surface Area 0.013 (ac) SCS MethodRequired BMP Surface Area 587 (ft^2) SCS MethodRequired BMP Surface Area 0.160 (ac) Simple MethodRequired BMP Surface Area 6987 (ft^2) Simple MethodActual BMP Surface Area 0.024 (ac) Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.Actual BMP Surface Area 1025 (ft^2)Actual BMP Surface Volume 1178 (ft^3)**Per DWQ BMP design manual, the BMP must be designed to treat a volume at least as large as the volume calculated using the simple method****DWQ recommends 9" but requires ponding depth to be less then 12"**
Watershed Information and Site Runoff VolumeAppendix 2Catchment Area 29.24 BMP R3Pervious Area29.07Impervious Area 0.17The Simple MethodRV = 0.05 + 0.9 * IAStep 1 Simple MethodRV = 0.05522 Runoff coefficient (unitless)IA = 0.0058 Impervious fraction [impervious portion of drainage area (ac)/drainage area (ac)], (unitlessV = 3630 * RD * RV * A Step 2 in the Simple MethodV5861 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (cubic feet)V1.61 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (acre‐in)RD1.0 Design storm rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")A29.24 Watershed area (ac)***CN Method in this spreadsheet is for 2 CN areas only. The equations may be modified if using multiple CNs or use a composite pervious CNSCS Curve Number MethodQ* = (P ‐ 0.2S)^2 / (P + 0.8S)S = 1000/CN - 10Q* = 0.005 Runoff depth (in)CN (Composite)70 Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover. (Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables)P = 1.0 Rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")S = 4.29 Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in)Soil Type Colvard and Suches, Fairviewhttp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986) A, B, C, and D Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the area of interest is identifiedBMP Sizing ReqsV = A(Q*)0.13 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage VolumeV489 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage VolumeV3659 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (gallons) Required Storage VolumeV1.61 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage VolumeV5861 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage VolumeRequired Ponding Depth 10 Depends on desired vegetation type and inundation time. Usually 6‐12" (inRequired BMP Surface Area 0.013 (ac) SCS MethodRequired BMP Surface Area 587 (ft^2) SCS MethodRequired BMP Surface Area 0.161 (ac) Simple MethodRequired BMP Surface Area 7033 (ft^2) Simple MethodActual BMP Surface Area 0.047 (ac) Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.Actual BMP Surface Area 2050 (ft^2)Actual BMP Surface Volume 2356 (ft^3)**Per DWQ BMP design manual, the BMP must be designed to treat a volume at least as large as the volume calculated using the simple method****DWQ recommends 9" but requires ponding depth to be less then 12"**
y = 89.039x0.7223R² = 0.90691.0010.00100.001000.0010000.000.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00DISCHARGE (CFS)DRAINAGE AREA (SQUARE MILES)NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull DischargePublished Rural Peidmont, Harman 99Horne CreekPower (Published Rural Peidmont, Harman 99)
y = 21.433x0.6761R² = 0.94910.101.0010.00100.001000.000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000CROSS SECTIONAL AREA (SQFT)DRAINAGE AREA (SQUARE MILES)NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull Cross Sectional AreaHorne CreekPublished Rural Piedmont, Harman 99Power (Published Rural Piedmont, Harman 99)
y = 13.686x0.3766R² = 0.91921.0010.00100.001000.000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000WIDTH (FT)DRAINAGE AREA (SQUARE MILES)NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull WidthHorne CreekPublished Rural Piedmont, Harman 99Power (Published Rural Piedmont, Harman 99)
y = 1.5555x0.3009R² = 0.87050.101.0010.000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000DEPTH (FT)DRAINAGE AREA (SQUARE MILES)NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull DepthHorne CreekPublished Rural Piedmont, Harman 99Power (Published Rural Piedmont, Harman 99)
Horne Creek R1Appendix 2Site Description: Horne Creek Reach R1Drainage Area = 0.0586mi2Retun Interval Discharge Notes1 13.32 extrapolated1.2 15.86 extrapolated1.5 18.97 extrapolated2 22.54 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)5 36.13 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)10 45.77 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)25 58.19 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)50 67.76 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)100 77.45 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)y = 13.948ln(x) + 13.3181.0010.00100.001 10 100Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years)USGS Discharge versus Return Interval
Horne Creek R2Appendix 2Site Description: Horne Creek Reach R2Drainage Area = 0.0642mi2Retun Interval Discharge Notes1 14.02 extrapolated1.2 16.77 extrapolated1.5 20.13 extrapolated2 24.05 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)5 38.64 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)10 49.02 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)25 62.46 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)50 72.82 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)100 83.34 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)y = 15.066ln(x) + 14.0241.0010.00100.001 10 100Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years)USGS Discharge versus Return Interval
Horne Creek R3Appendix 2Site Description: Horne Creek Reach R3Drainage Area = 0.0457mi2Retun Interval Discharge Notes1 11.55 extrapolated1.2 13.61 extrapolated1.5 16.13 extrapolated2 18.90 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)5 30.10 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)10 37.95 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)25 47.99 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)50 55.67 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)100 63.42 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)y = 11.303ln(x) + 11.5521.0010.00100.001 10 100Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years)USGS Discharge versus Return Interval
Horne Creek R4Appendix 2Site Description: Horne Creek Reach R4Drainage Area = 0.13mi2Retun Interval Discharge Notes1 20.66 extrapolated1.2 25.64 extrapolated1.5 31.73 extrapolated2 39.65 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)5 64.90 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)10 83.43 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)25 107.93 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)50 127.18 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)100 146.94 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)y = 27.298ln(x) + 20.6581.0010.00100.001000.001 10 100Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years)USGS Discharge versus Return Interval
Horne Creek R4aAppendix 2Site Description: Horne Creek Reach R4aDrainage Area = 0.045mi2Retun Interval Discharge Notes1 11.45 extrapolated1.2 13.48 extrapolated1.5 15.97 extrapolated2 18.69 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)5 29.76 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)10 37.51 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)25 47.42 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)50 54.99 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)100 62.63 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)y = 11.156ln(x) + 11.451.0010.00100.001 10 100Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years)USGS Discharge versus Return Interval
Horne Creek R4bAppendix 2Site Description: Horne Creek Reach R4bDrainage Area = 0.0026mi2Retun Interval Discharge Notes1 2.00 extrapolated1.2 2.17 extrapolated1.5 2.39 extrapolated2 2.48 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)5 3.66 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)10 4.38 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)25 5.20 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)50 5.78 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)100 6.33 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)y = 0.9693ln(x) + 1.99691.0010.001 10 100Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years)USGS Discharge versus Return Interval
Horne Creek R5Appendix 2Site Description: Horne Creek Reach R5Drainage Area = 0.26mi2Retun Interval Discharge Notes1 29.46 extrapolated1.2 38.36 extrapolated1.5 49.26 extrapolated2 64.82 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)5 108.03 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)10 140.66 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)25 184.71 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)50 219.95 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)100 256.52 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)y = 48.83ln(x) + 29.4571.0010.00100.001000.001 10 100Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years)USGS Discharge versus Return Interval
Horne CrTribs-R1 Rater(s): KMV
Date: 5/9/18
F
Level 5 - Biology
Poor Fair Good
1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)
Potential for concentrated flow/impairments
immediately upstream of the project and no
treatments are in place
Some potential for concentrated flow/impairments
to reach restoration site, however, measures are
in place to protect resources
No potential for concentrated flow/impairments
from adjacent land use G
2 Impervious cover (Hydrology)Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25%Less than 10% G
3 Land Use Change (Hydrology)Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburban Rural communities/slow growth or primarily
forested G
4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)
Roads located in or adjacent to project reach
and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT
plans
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more
than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT
plans.
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No
proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.G
5 Percent Forested (Hydrology)<= 20%>20% and <70%>=70%P
6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width P
7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion
and surface runoff
Moderate sediment supply from upstream bank
erosion and surface runoff
Low sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and
surface runoff is minimal G
8
Located on or downstream of a 303(d)
listed stream TMDL list
(Physicochemical)
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G
9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland immediately upstream of project reach.
Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient
reach of stream is between Ag. land use and
project reach.
There is little to no agricultural land uses or the
livestock or cropland is far enough away from
project reach to cause no impact to water quality
or biology.
P
10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some
within one mile of project reach
A few NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach
No NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach G
11 Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC)
(Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -
12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)
Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area and/or has a negative
effect on project area and fish passage
No impoundment within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area OR impoundment
does not adversely affect project area but a
blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact
fish passage
No impoundment upstream or downstream of
project area OR impoundment provides beneficial
effect on project area and allows for fish passage
G
13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material,
but is impaired.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material.F
14 Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or
Restored
Less than 40% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.
40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining
to the project reach.
Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.G
15 Other
Categories Description of Catchment Condition Rating
(P/F/G)
Catchment Assessment Form
Overall Catchment Condition
CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT
Restoration Potential
Purpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Version 3.0 Catchment Assessment Form 1 of 1
Project Name: Horne Creek Tribs
Reach ID: R1
Restoration Potential:Level 5 ‐ Biology
Existing Stream Type: F
Proposed Stream Type: B Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.15 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.79 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.06 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.64 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Gravel Percent Condition Change 427% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 1397 Existing Stream Length (ft)1397
Proposed Stream Length (ft):1358 Proposed Stream Length (ft)1358
Stream Slope (%): 3.2 Additional Stream Length (ft) ‐39
Flow Type: Perennial Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)210 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 210
River Basin: Yadkin‐PeeDee Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)1073 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 1073
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 863 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 863
Data Collection Season: Summer Functional Change (%)412% Functional Change (%)411%
Valley Type: Confined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.30 0.30
Reach Runoff 0.61 0.70
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.00 1.00
Large Woody Debris
Lateral Stability 0.50 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.13 0.70
Bed Material 0.36 1.00
Bed Form Diversity 0.15 1.00
Plan Form 0.00 0.70
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter 0.00 0.75
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros 0.06 0.82
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 70 0.3 0.30
Curve Number 59 0.61
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 2.5 0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1 0
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS M/M 0.5
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%)
Right Canopy Coverage (%)
Left Buffer Width (ft)10 0.23
Right Buffer Width (ft)10 0.23
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)15 0.03
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)15 0.03
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.06 0.36 0.36
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 1.2 0.3
Percent Riffle 80 0
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.1 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders 00
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index 6.53 0.11
EPT Taxa Present 10
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 70 0.3 0.30
Curve Number 55 0.7
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Right Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.7 1 1.00
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 60 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.15 0.7 0.70
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders 9 0.75
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index 21
EPT Taxa Present 20 0.64
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Large Woody Debris
0.00 Not Functioning0.00
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical 0.00 0.75 0.75
Biology 0.06 0.82 0.76
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.04
1.00
0.65
Measurement Method
0.13
Roll Up Scoring
Not Functioning
Hydrology 0.46 0.50
Hydraulics 0.00
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.23 0.88
PCS
1.00
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.46 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.06
Functioning At Risk
0.15
0.23 Not Functioning
0.00
0.06 Not Functioning
0.61
Reach Runoff 0.70
0.50
0.50 Functioning At Risk
0.79
Measurement Method
0.75Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros 0.82
Bed Form Diversity 0.15
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
0.70
Hydrology
1.00
Macros
Functioning
0.82 Functioning
0.75
Not Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.88
Functioning
Large Woody Debris
Horne CrTribs-R2 Rater(s): KMV
Date: 5/9/18
F
Level 3 - Geomorphology
Poor Fair Good
1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)
Potential for concentrated flow/impairments
immediately upstream of the project and no
treatments are in place
Some potential for concentrated flow/impairments
to reach restoration site, however, measures are
in place to protect resources
No potential for concentrated flow/impairments
from adjacent land use G
2 Impervious cover (Hydrology)Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25%Less than 10% G
3 Land Use Change (Hydrology)Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburban Rural communities/slow growth or primarily
forested G
4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)
Roads located in or adjacent to project reach
and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT
plans
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more
than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT
plans.
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No
proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.G
5 Percent Forested (Hydrology)<= 20%>20% and <70%>=70%P
6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width P
7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion
and surface runoff
Moderate sediment supply from upstream bank
erosion and surface runoff
Low sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and
surface runoff is minimal G
8
Located on or downstream of a 303(d)
listed stream TMDL list
(Physicochemical)
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G
9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland immediately upstream of project reach.
Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient
reach of stream is between Ag. land use and
project reach.
There is little to no agricultural land uses or the
livestock or cropland is far enough away from
project reach to cause no impact to water quality
or biology.
P
10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some
within one mile of project reach
A few NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach
No NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach G
11 Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC)
(Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -
12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)
Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area and/or has a negative
effect on project area and fish passage
No impoundment within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area OR impoundment
does not adversely affect project area but a
blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact
fish passage
No impoundment upstream or downstream of
project area OR impoundment provides beneficial
effect on project area and allows for fish passage
G
13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material,
but is impaired.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material.P
14 Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or
Restored
Less than 40% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.
40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining
to the project reach.
Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.G
15 Other
Categories Description of Catchment Condition Rating
(P/F/G)
Catchment Assessment Form
Overall Catchment Condition
CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT
Restoration Potential
Purpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Version 2.0 Catchment Assessment Form 1 of 1 12-28-2016
Project Name: Horne Creek Tribs
Reach ID: R2
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type: G
Proposed Stream Type: B Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.24 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.48 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.064 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.24 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Gravel Percent Condition Change 100% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 286 Existing Stream Length (ft)286
Proposed Stream Length (ft):296 Proposed Stream Length (ft)296
Stream Slope (%): 3.1 Additional Stream Length (ft) 10
Flow Type: Intermittent Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)69 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 69
River Basin: Yadkin‐PeeDee Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)142 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 142
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 73 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 73
Data Collection Season: Summer Functional Change (%)107% Functional Change (%)106%
Valley Type: Confined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.36 0.36
Reach Runoff 0.63 0.74
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.15 1.00
Large Woody Debris
Lateral Stability 1.00 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.30 0.70
Bed Material 1.00 1.00
Bed Form Diversity 0.36 0.94
Plan Form 0.00 0.70
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 68 0.36 0.36
Curve Number 58 0.63
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 2.1 0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 0.3
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%)
Right Canopy Coverage (%)
Left Buffer Width (ft)5 0.12
Right Buffer Width (ft)50 1
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)20 0.04
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)20 0.04
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.8 1 1.00
Pool Spacing Ratio 6 0.4
Pool Depth Ratio 1.5 0.69
Percent Riffle 80 0
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.07 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 68 0.36 0.36
Curve Number 53 0.74
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Right Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.7 1 1.00
Pool Spacing Ratio 3 0.82
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 60 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.15 0.7 0.70
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Large Woody Debris
0.15 Not Functioning0.15
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.05
0.85
0.34
Measurement Method
0.30
Roll Up Scoring
Not Functioning
Hydrology 0.50 0.55
Hydraulics 0.15
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.53 0.87
PCS
1.00
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.50 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
1.00
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.24
0.53 Functioning At Risk
0.63
Reach Runoff 0.74
1.00
0.55 Functioning At Risk
0.48
Measurement Method
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
Bed Form Diversity 0.36
Bed Form Diversity 0.94
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
0.70
Hydrology
1.00
Macros
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.87
Large Woody Debris
Horne CrTribs-R3 Rater(s): KMV
Date: 5/9/18
F
Level 3 - Geomorphology
Poor Fair Good
1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)
Potential for concentrated flow/impairments
immediately upstream of the project and no
treatments are in place
Some potential for concentrated flow/impairments
to reach restoration site, however, measures are
in place to protect resources
No potential for concentrated flow/impairments
from adjacent land use G
2 Impervious cover (Hydrology)Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25%Less than 10% G
3 Land Use Change (Hydrology)Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburban Rural communities/slow growth or primarily
forested G
4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)
Roads located in or adjacent to project reach
and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT
plans
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more
than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT
plans.
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No
proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.G
5 Percent Forested (Hydrology)<= 20%>20% and <70%>=70%P
6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width P
7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion
and surface runoff
Moderate sediment supply from upstream bank
erosion and surface runoff
Low sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and
surface runoff is minimal G
8
Located on or downstream of a 303(d)
listed stream TMDL list
(Physicochemical)
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G
9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland immediately upstream of project reach.
Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient
reach of stream is between Ag. land use and
project reach.
There is little to no agricultural land uses or the
livestock or cropland is far enough away from
project reach to cause no impact to water quality
or biology.
P
10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some
within one mile of project reach
A few NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach
No NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach G
11 Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC)
(Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -
12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)
Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area and/or has a negative
effect on project area and fish passage
No impoundment within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area OR impoundment
does not adversely affect project area but a
blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact
fish passage
No impoundment upstream or downstream of
project area OR impoundment provides beneficial
effect on project area and allows for fish passage
G
13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material,
but is impaired.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material.P
14 Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or
Restored
Less than 40% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.
40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining
to the project reach.
Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.G
15 Other
Categories Description of Catchment Condition Rating
(P/F/G)
Catchment Assessment Form
Overall Catchment Condition
CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT
Restoration Potential
Purpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Version 2.0 Catchment Assessment Form 1 of 1 12-28-2016
Project Name: Horne Creek Tribs
Reach ID: R3
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type: G
Proposed Stream Type: B Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.31 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.49 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.05 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.18 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Gravel Percent Condition Change 58% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 76 Existing Stream Length (ft)76
Proposed Stream Length (ft):76 Proposed Stream Length (ft)76
Stream Slope (%): 4.6 Additional Stream Length (ft) 0
Flow Type: Intermittent Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)24 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 24
River Basin: Yadkin‐PeeDee Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)37 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 37
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 14 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 13
Data Collection Season: Summer Functional Change (%)58% Functional Change (%)54%
Valley Type: Confined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.36 0.36
Reach Runoff 0.63 0.74
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.50 1.00
Large Woody Debris
Lateral Stability 1.00 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.10 0.75
Bed Material 0.58 1.00
Bed Form Diversity 1.00 1.00
Plan Form 0.00 0.70
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 68 0.36 0.36
Curve Number 58 0.63
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 2.7 0
Entrenchment Ratio 41
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 5 0.06
Right Canopy Coverage (%)5 0.06
Left Buffer Width (ft)10 0.23
Right Buffer Width (ft)10 0.23
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)10 0.02
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)10 0.02
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.09 0.58 0.58
Pool Spacing Ratio 31
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 50 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.07 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 68 0.36 0.36
Curve Number 53 0.74
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)50 1
Right Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.7 1 1.00
Pool Spacing Ratio 31
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 60 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.15 0.7 0.70
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Large Woody Debris
0.50 Functioning At Risk0.50
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.05
0.50
0.35
Measurement Method
0.10
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning At Risk
Hydrology 0.50 0.55
Hydraulics 0.50
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.54 0.89
PCS
1.00
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.50 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
1.00
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.31
0.54 Functioning At Risk
0.63
Reach Runoff 0.74
1.00
0.55 Functioning At Risk
0.49
Measurement Method
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
0.75
Hydrology
1.00
Macros
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.89
Large Woody Debris
Horne CrTribs-R4 Rater(s): KMV
Date: 5/9/18
F
Level 3 - Geomorphology
Poor Fair Good
1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)
Potential for concentrated flow/impairments
immediately upstream of the project and no
treatments are in place
Some potential for concentrated flow/impairments
to reach restoration site, however, measures are
in place to protect resources
No potential for concentrated flow/impairments
from adjacent land use G
2 Impervious cover (Hydrology)Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25%Less than 10% G
3 Land Use Change (Hydrology)Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburban Rural communities/slow growth or primarily
forested G
4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)
Roads located in or adjacent to project reach
and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT
plans
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more
than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT
plans.
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No
proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.G
5 Percent Forested (Hydrology)<= 20%>20% and <70%>=70%P
6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width P
7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion
and surface runoff
Moderate sediment supply from upstream bank
erosion and surface runoff
Low sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and
surface runoff is minimal G
8
Located on or downstream of a 303(d)
listed stream TMDL list
(Physicochemical)
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G
9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland immediately upstream of project reach.
Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient
reach of stream is between Ag. land use and
project reach.
There is little to no agricultural land uses or the
livestock or cropland is far enough away from
project reach to cause no impact to water quality
or biology.
P
10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some
within one mile of project reach
A few NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach
No NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach G
11 Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC)
(Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -
12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)
Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area and/or has a negative
effect on project area and fish passage
No impoundment within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area OR impoundment
does not adversely affect project area but a
blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact
fish passage
No impoundment upstream or downstream of
project area OR impoundment provides beneficial
effect on project area and allows for fish passage
G
13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material,
but is impaired.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material.P
14 Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or
Restored
Less than 40% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.
40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining
to the project reach.
Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.G
15 Other
Categories Description of Catchment Condition Rating
(P/F/G)
Catchment Assessment Form
Overall Catchment Condition
CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT
Restoration Potential
Purpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Version 2.0 Catchment Assessment Form 1 of 1 12-28-2016
Project Name: Horne Creek Tribs
Reach ID: R4
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type: B
Proposed Stream Type: Bc Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.31 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.50 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.13 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.19 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Gravel Percent Condition Change 61% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 1191 Existing Stream Length (ft)1191
Proposed Stream Length (ft):1206 Proposed Stream Length (ft)1206
Stream Slope (%): 2.9 Additional Stream Length (ft) 15
Flow Type: Perennial Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)369 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 369
River Basin: Yadkin‐PeeDee Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)603 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 603
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 234 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 234
Data Collection Season: Summer Functional Change (%)63% Functional Change (%)63%
Valley Type: Unconfined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.36 0.36
Reach Runoff 0.63 0.74
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.41 1.00
Large Woody Debris
Lateral Stability 0.50 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.36 0.70
Bed Material 0.58 1.00
Bed Form Diversity 0.85 1.00
Plan Form 1.00 1.00
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 68 0.36 0.36
Curve Number 58 0.63
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 4.4 0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.7 0.81
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS M/M 0.5
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 50 0.58
Right Canopy Coverage (%)50 0.58
Left Buffer Width (ft)20 0.47
Right Buffer Width (ft)20 0.47
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)20 0.04
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)20 0.04
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.09 0.58 0.58
Pool Spacing Ratio 4 FALSE
Pool Depth Ratio 1.5 0.69
Percent Riffle 70 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.29 1 1.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 68 0.36 0.36
Curve Number 53 0.74
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Right Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.7 1 1.00
Pool Spacing Ratio 2 FALSE
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 60 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.25 1 1.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.94
Large Woody Debris
Bed Form Diversity 0.85
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
0.70
Hydrology
1.00
Macros
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
1.00
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.31
0.66 Functioning At Risk
0.63
Reach Runoff 0.74
0.50
0.55 Functioning At Risk
0.50
Measurement Method
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.66 0.94
PCS
1.00
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.50 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.05
0.59
0.28
Measurement Method
0.36
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning At Risk
Hydrology 0.50 0.55
Hydraulics 0.41
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Large Woody Debris
0.41 Functioning At Risk0.41
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
Horne CrTribs-R4A Rater(s): KMV
Date: 5/9/18
F
Level 3 - Geomorphology
Poor Fair Good
1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)
Potential for concentrated flow/impairments
immediately upstream of the project and no
treatments are in place
Some potential for concentrated flow/impairments
to reach restoration site, however, measures are
in place to protect resources
No potential for concentrated flow/impairments
from adjacent land use G
2 Impervious cover (Hydrology)Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25%Less than 10% G
3 Land Use Change (Hydrology)Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburban Rural communities/slow growth or primarily
forested G
4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)
Roads located in or adjacent to project reach
and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT
plans
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more
than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT
plans.
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No
proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.G
5 Percent Forested (Hydrology)<= 20%>20% and <70%>=70%P
6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width P
7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion
and surface runoff
Moderate sediment supply from upstream bank
erosion and surface runoff
Low sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and
surface runoff is minimal G
8
Located on or downstream of a 303(d)
listed stream TMDL list
(Physicochemical)
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G
9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland immediately upstream of project reach.
Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient
reach of stream is between Ag. land use and
project reach.
There is little to no agricultural land uses or the
livestock or cropland is far enough away from
project reach to cause no impact to water quality
or biology.
P
10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some
within one mile of project reach
A few NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach
No NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach G
11 Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC)
(Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -
12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)
Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area and/or has a negative
effect on project area and fish passage
No impoundment within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area OR impoundment
does not adversely affect project area but a
blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact
fish passage
No impoundment upstream or downstream of
project area OR impoundment provides beneficial
effect on project area and allows for fish passage
G
13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material,
but is impaired.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material.P
14 Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or
Restored
Less than 40% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.
40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining
to the project reach.
Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.G
15 Other
Categories Description of Catchment Condition Rating
(P/F/G)
Catchment Assessment Form
Overall Catchment Condition
CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT
Restoration Potential
Purpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Version 2.0 Catchment Assessment Form 1 of 1 12-28-2016
Project Name: Horne Creek Tribs
Reach ID: R4A
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type: G
Proposed Stream Type: Bc Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.27 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.49 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.05 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.22 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Gravel Percent Condition Change 81% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 124 Existing Stream Length (ft)124
Proposed Stream Length (ft):167 Proposed Stream Length (ft)167
Stream Slope (%): 2 Additional Stream Length (ft) 43
Flow Type: Perennial Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)33 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 33
River Basin: Yadkin‐PeeDee Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)82 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 82
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 48 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 49
Data Collection Season: Summer Functional Change (%)144% Functional Change (%)148%
Valley Type: Confined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.36 0.36
Reach Runoff 0.63 0.74
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.35 1.00
Large Woody Debris
Lateral Stability 0.60 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.49 0.70
Bed Material 0.58 1.00
Bed Form Diversity 0.15 1.00
Plan Form 0.74 0.70
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 68 0.36 0.36
Curve Number 58 0.63
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 1.7 0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 0.7
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS M/L 0.6
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 70 0.79
Right Canopy Coverage (%)70 0.79
Left Buffer Width (ft)25 0.58
Right Buffer Width (ft)25 0.58
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)50 0.1
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)50 0.1
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.09 0.58 0.58
Pool Spacing Ratio 4 FALSE
Pool Depth Ratio 10
Percent Riffle 80 0.3
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.18 0.74 0.74
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 68 0.36 0.36
Curve Number 53 0.74
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Right Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.7 1 1.00
Pool Spacing Ratio 3 FALSE
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 60 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.15 0.7 0.70
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.88
Large Woody Debris
Bed Form Diversity 0.15
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
0.70
Hydrology
1.00
Macros
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
1.00
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.27
0.51 Functioning At Risk
0.63
Reach Runoff 0.74
0.60
0.55 Functioning At Risk
0.49
Measurement Method
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.51 0.88
PCS
1.00
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.50 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.05
0.65
0.37
Measurement Method
0.49
Roll Up Scoring
Not Functioning
Hydrology 0.50 0.55
Hydraulics 0.35
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Large Woody Debris
0.35 Functioning At Risk0.35
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
Horne CrTribs-R4B Rater(s): KMV
Date: 5/9/18
F
Level 3 - Geomorphology
Poor Fair Good
1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)
Potential for concentrated flow/impairments
immediately upstream of the project and no
treatments are in place
Some potential for concentrated flow/impairments
to reach restoration site, however, measures are
in place to protect resources
No potential for concentrated flow/impairments
from adjacent land use G
2 Impervious cover (Hydrology)Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25%Less than 10% G
3 Land Use Change (Hydrology)Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburban Rural communities/slow growth or primarily
forested G
4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)
Roads located in or adjacent to project reach
and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT
plans
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more
than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT
plans.
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No
proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.G
5 Percent Forested (Hydrology)<= 20%>20% and <70%>=70%P
6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width P
7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion
and surface runoff
Moderate sediment supply from upstream bank
erosion and surface runoff
Low sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and
surface runoff is minimal G
8
Located on or downstream of a 303(d)
listed stream TMDL list
(Physicochemical)
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G
9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland immediately upstream of project reach.
Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient
reach of stream is between Ag. land use and
project reach.
There is little to no agricultural land uses or the
livestock or cropland is far enough away from
project reach to cause no impact to water quality
or biology.
P
10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some
within one mile of project reach
A few NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach
No NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach G
11 Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC)
(Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -
12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)
Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area and/or has a negative
effect on project area and fish passage
No impoundment within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area OR impoundment
does not adversely affect project area but a
blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact
fish passage
No impoundment upstream or downstream of
project area OR impoundment provides beneficial
effect on project area and allows for fish passage
G
13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material,
but is impaired.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material.P
14 Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or
Restored
Less than 40% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.
40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining
to the project reach.
Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.G
15 Other
Categories Description of Catchment Condition Rating
(P/F/G)
Catchment Assessment Form
Overall Catchment Condition
CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT
Restoration Potential
Purpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Version 2.0 Catchment Assessment Form 1 of 1 12-28-2016
Project Name: Horne Creek Tribs
Reach ID: R4B
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type: G
Proposed Stream Type: Bc Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.24 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.49 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.003 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.25 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Gravel Percent Condition Change 104% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 89 Existing Stream Length (ft)89
Proposed Stream Length (ft):152 Proposed Stream Length (ft)152
Stream Slope (%): 2.5 Additional Stream Length (ft) 63
Flow Type: Perennial Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)21 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 21
River Basin: Yadkin‐PeeDee Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)74 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 74
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 53 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 53
Data Collection Season: Summer Functional Change (%)249% Functional Change (%)252%
Valley Type: Confined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.36 0.36
Reach Runoff 0.63 0.74
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.37 1.00
Large Woody Debris
Lateral Stability 0.60 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.50 0.70
Bed Material 0.58 1.00
Bed Form Diversity 0.00 1.00
Plan Form 0.00 0.70
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 68 0.36 0.36
Curve Number 58 0.63
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 4.3 0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 0.74
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS M/L 0.6
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 60 0.69
Right Canopy Coverage (%)60 0.69
Left Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Right Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)50 0.1
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)50 0.1
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.09 0.58 0.58
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 10
Percent Riffle 90 0
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.02 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 68 0.36 0.36
Curve Number 53 0.74
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Right Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.7 1 1.00
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 60 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.15 0.7 0.70
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.88
Large Woody Debris
Bed Form Diversity 0.00
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
0.70
Hydrology
1.00
Macros
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
1.00
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.24
0.34 Functioning At Risk
0.63
Reach Runoff 0.74
0.60
0.55 Functioning At Risk
0.49
Measurement Method
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.34 0.88
PCS
1.00
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.50 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.05
0.63
0.54
Measurement Method
0.50
Roll Up Scoring
Not Functioning
Hydrology 0.50 0.55
Hydraulics 0.37
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Large Woody Debris
0.37 Functioning At Risk0.37
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
Horne CrTribs-R5 Rater(s): KMV
Date: 5/9/18
F
Level 5 - Biology
Poor Fair Good
1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)
Potential for concentrated flow/impairments
immediately upstream of the project and no
treatments are in place
Some potential for concentrated flow/impairments
to reach restoration site, however, measures are
in place to protect resources
No potential for concentrated flow/impairments
from adjacent land use G
2 Impervious cover (Hydrology)Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25%Less than 10% G
3 Land Use Change (Hydrology)Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburban Rural communities/slow growth or primarily
forested G
4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)
Roads located in or adjacent to project reach
and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT
plans
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more
than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT
plans.
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No
proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.G
5 Percent Forested (Hydrology)<= 20%>20% and <70%>=70%P
6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width
>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft
corridor width P
7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion
and surface runoff
Moderate sediment supply from upstream bank
erosion and surface runoff
Low sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and
surface runoff is minimal G
8
Located on or downstream of a 303(d)
listed stream TMDL list
(Physicochemical)
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies
On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and
TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G
9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland immediately upstream of project reach.
Livestock access to stream and/or intensive
cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient
reach of stream is between Ag. land use and
project reach.
There is little to no agricultural land uses or the
livestock or cropland is far enough away from
project reach to cause no impact to water quality
or biology.
P
10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some
within one mile of project reach
A few NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach
No NPDES permits within catchment and none
within one mile of project reach G
11 Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC)
(Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -
12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)
Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area and/or has a negative
effect on project area and fish passage
No impoundment within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of project area OR impoundment
does not adversely affect project area but a
blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact
fish passage
No impoundment upstream or downstream of
project area OR impoundment provides beneficial
effect on project area and allows for fish passage
G
13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material,
but is impaired.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of
project reach has native bed and bank material.F
14 Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or
Restored
Less than 40% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.
40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining
to the project reach.
Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is
draining to the project reach.G
15 Other
Categories Description of Catchment Condition Rating
(P/F/G)
Catchment Assessment Form
Overall Catchment Condition
CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT
Restoration Potential
Purpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Version 2.0 Catchment Assessment Form 1 of 1 12-28-2016
Project Name: Horne Creek Tribs
Reach ID: R5
Restoration Potential:Level 5 ‐ Biology
Existing Stream Type: Gc
Proposed Stream Type: Bc Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)
0.38 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.90 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.26 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.52 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Gravel Percent Condition Change 137% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 2519 Existing Stream Length (ft)2519
Proposed Stream Length (ft):2293 Proposed Stream Length (ft)2293
Stream Slope (%): 1.9 Additional Stream Length (ft) ‐226
Flow Type: Perennial Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)957 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 957
River Basin: Yadkin‐PeeDee Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)2064 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 2064
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 1106 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 1107
Data Collection Season: Summer Functional Change (%)116% Functional Change (%)116%
Valley Type: Unconfined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.36 0.36
Reach Runoff 0.63 0.74
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.25 1.00
Large Woody Debris
Lateral Stability 0.60 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.16 0.70
Bed Material 0.29 1.00
Bed Form Diversity 0.80 1.00
Plan Form 1.00 1.00
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter 0.00 1.00
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros 0.58 1.00
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 68 0.36 0.36
Curve Number 58 0.63
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 3.9 0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 0.5
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS M/L 0.6
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 20 0.24
Right Canopy Coverage (%)20 0.24
Left Buffer Width (ft)10 0.23
Right Buffer Width (ft)10 0.23
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)5 0.01
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)5 0.01
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.05 0.29 0.29
Pool Spacing Ratio 4 0.7
Pool Depth Ratio 1.5 0.69
Percent Riffle 70 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.3 1 1.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders 00
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index 4.99 0.79
EPT Taxa Present 15 0.36
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 68 0.36 0.36
Curve Number 53 0.74
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Right Buffer Width (ft)30 0.7
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)210 0.4
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.7 1 1.00
Pool Spacing Ratio 0.7 1
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 70 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.25 1 1.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders 12 1
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index 4.3 1
EPT Taxa Present 28 1
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Large Woody Debris
0.25 Not Functioning0.25
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical 0.00 1.00 1.00
Biology 0.58 1.00 0.42
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.05
0.75
0.37
Measurement Method
0.16
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning At Risk
Hydrology 0.50 0.55
Hydraulics 0.25
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.57 0.94
PCS
1.00
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.50 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.58
Functioning At Risk
0.38
0.57 Functioning At Risk
0.00
0.58 Functioning At Risk
0.63
Reach Runoff 0.74
0.60
0.55 Functioning At Risk
0.90
Measurement Method
1.00Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros 1.00
Bed Form Diversity 0.80
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
0.70
Hydrology
1.00
Macros
Functioning
1.00 Functioning
1.00
Not Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.94
Functioning
Large Woody Debris
Design Parameters R1Appendix 2Parameter MIN MAXStream Length (ft)Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)37.504Stream Type (Rosgen)Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)Calculated from analysis of USGS regression eq., velocity/discharge calcsBankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)Calcuated from Riffle TabBankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)C-channel 3.5-5, B-channel 4-6Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)C-channel 10-14, B-channel 12-18Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)28.00 65.00Must be greater than this value to not be entrenchedEntrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)4.00 9.29> 2.2 Not entrenchedRiffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)C-channel 1.1-1.3, B-channel 1.2-1.4Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)C-channel 1.0-1.1, B-channel 1.0-1.1Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)*49.00 84.00NAMeander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)*7.00 12.00C-channel 7.0-12.0Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)* 14.00 21.00NARc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)*2.00 3.00C-channel 2.0-3.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Belt Width, Wblt (ft)*24.50 56.00NAMeander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)*3.50 8.00C-channel 3.5-8.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan) C-channel between 1.2-1.6, B-channel 1.1-1.2Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)C-channel 0.005-0.015, B-channel 0.020-0.030Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) Calculated from valley slope and sinuosityRiffle Slope, Srif0.0376 0.0615Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.10 1.80C-channel between 1.5-2.0, B-channel 1.1-1.8Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0137Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan0.00 0.40C-channel 0.0-0.2, B-channel 0.0-0.4Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)0.83 1.44Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.00 3.50C-channel 2.0-3.5, B-channel 2.0-3.5Pool Width, Wpool (ft)7.70 10.50Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.10 1.50C-channel 1.3-1.7, B-channel 1.1-1.5Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)10.50 35.00Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.50 5.00C-channel 4.0-7.0, B-channel 1.5-5.0NotesHorne Creek Reach 12.894.167.00Proposed Stream Values (Restoration)13220.0586B412.000.4116.970.551.330.550.03660.0341* Only applicable for C and E type channels.1.001.07
Design Parameters R2Appendix 2Parameter MIN MAXStream Length (ft)Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)41.088Stream Type (Rosgen)Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)Calculated from analysis of USGS regression eq., velocity/discharge calcsBankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)Calcuated from Riffle TabBankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)C-channel 3.5-5, B-channel 4-6Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)C-channel 10-14, B-channel 12-18Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)15.00 19.00Must be greater than this value to not be entrenchedEntrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)2.50 3.17> 2.2 Not entrenchedRiffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)C-channel 1.1-1.3, B-channel 1.2-1.4Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)C-channel 1.0-1.1, B-channel 1.0-1.1Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)*42.00 72.00NAMeander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)*7.00 12.00C-channel 7.0-12.0Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)* 12.00 18.00NARc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 2.00 3.00C-channel 2.0-3.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Belt Width, Wblt (ft)* 21.00 48.00NAMeander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 3.50 8.00C-channel 3.5-8.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan) C-channel between 1.2-1.6, B-channel 1.1-1.2Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)C-channel 0.005-0.015, B-channel 0.020-0.030Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) Calculated from valley slope and sinuosityRiffle Slope, Srif0.0332 0.0543Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.10 1.80C-channel between 1.5-2.0, B-channel 1.1-1.8Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0121Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan0.00 0.40C-channel 0.0-0.2, B-channel 0.0-0.4Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)0.92 1.60Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.00 3.50C-channel 2.0-3.5, B-channel 2.0-3.5Pool Width, Wpool (ft)6.60 9.00Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.10 1.50C-channel 1.3-1.7, B-channel 1.1-1.5Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)9.00 30.00Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.50 5.00C-channel 4.0-7.0, B-channel 1.5-5.00.03250.0302* Only applicable for C and E type channels.1.001.080.4613.090.551.200.556.00Proposed Stream Values (Restoration)2960.0642B412.00NotesHorne Creek Reach 22.754.36
Design Parameters R3Appendix 2Parameter MIN MAXStream Length (ft)Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)29.44Stream Type (Rosgen)Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)Calculated from analysis of USGS regression eq., velocity/discharge calcsBankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)Calcuated from Riffle TabBankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)C-channel 3.5-5, B-channel 4-6Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)C-channel 10-14, B-channel 12-18Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)20.00 34.00Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)3.33 5.67> 2.2 Not entrenchedRiffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)C-channel 1.1-1.3, B-channel 1.2-1.4Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)C-channel 1.0-1.1, B-channel 1.0-1.1Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)*42.00 72.00NaMeander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)*7.00 12.00C-channel 7.0-12.0Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)* 12.00 18.00NaRc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 2.00 3.00C-channel 2.0-3.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Belt Width, Wblt (ft)* 21.00 48.00NaMeander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 3.50 8.00C-channel 3.5-8.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan) C-channel between 1.2-1.6, B-channel 1.1-1.2Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)C-channel 0.005-0.015, B-channel 0.020-0.030Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) Calculated from valley slope and sinuosityRiffle Slope, Srif0.0510 0.0835Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.10 1.80C-channel between 1.5-2.0, B-channel 1.1-1.8Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0186Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan0.00 0.40C-channel 0.0-0.2, B-channel 0.0-0.4Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)0.75 1.31Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.00 3.50C-channel 2.0-3.5, B-channel 2.0-3.5Pool Width, Wpool (ft)6.60 9.00Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.10 1.50C-channel 1.3-1.7, B-channel 1.1-1.5Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)9.00 30.00Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.50 5.00C-channel 4.0-7.0, B-channel 1.5-5.0NotesHorne Creek Reach 32.254.446.00Proposed Stream Values (Restoration)1540.046B4a10.000.3816.000.501.330.500.04960.0464* Only applicable for C and E type channels.1.001.07
Design Parameters R4Appendix 2Parameter MIN MAXStream Length (ft)Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)83.2Stream Type (Rosgen)Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)Calculated from analysis of USGS regression eq., velocity/discharge calcsBankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)Calcuated from Riffle TabBankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)C-channel 3.5-5, B-channel 4-6Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)C-channel 10-14, B-channel 12-18Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)38.00 79.00Must be greater than this value to not be entrenchedEntrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)4.22 8.78> 2.2 Not entrenchedRiffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)C-channel 1.1-1.3, B-channel 1.2-1.4Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)C-channel 1.0-1.1, B-channel 1.0-1.1Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)*63.00 108.00Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)*7.00 12.00C-channel 7.0-12.0Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)* 18.00 27.00Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 2.00 3.00C-channel 2.0-3.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Belt Width, Wblt (ft)* 31.50 72.00Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 3.50 8.00C-channel 3.5-8.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan) C-channel between 1.2-1.6, B-channel 1.1-1.2Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)C-channel 0.005-0.015, B-channel 0.020-0.030Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) Calculated from valley slope and sinuosityRiffle Slope, Srif0.0319 0.0522Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.10 1.80C-channel between 1.5-2.0, B-channel 1.1-1.8Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0116Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan0.00 0.40C-channel 0.0-0.2, B-channel 0.0-0.4Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)1.16 2.02Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.00 3.50C-channel 2.0-3.5, B-channel 2.0-3.5Pool Width, Wpool (ft)9.90 13.50Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.10 1.50C-channel 1.3-1.7, B-channel 1.1-1.5Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)13.50 45.00Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.50 5.00C-channel 4.0-7.0, B-channel 1.5-5.0NotesHorne Creek Reach 45.204.239.00Proposed Stream Values (Restoration)12820.13B4/C4b22.000.5815.580.801.380.800.03810.0290* Only applicable for C and E type channels.1.001.31
Design Parameters R4aAppendix 2Parameter MIN MAXStream Length (ft)Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)28.8Stream Type (Rosgen)Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)Calculated from analysis of USGS regression eq., velocity/discharge calcsBankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)Calcuated from Riffle TabBankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)C-channel 3.5-5, B-channel 4-6Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)C-channel 10-14, B-channel 12-18Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)25.00 46.00Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)4.17 7.67> 2.2 Not entrenchedRiffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)C-channel 1.1-1.3, B-channel 1.2-1.4Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)C-channel 1.0-1.1, B-channel 1.0-1.1Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)*42.00 72.00NaMeander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)*7.00 12.00C-channel 7.0-12.0Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)* 12.00 18.00NaRc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 2.00 3.00C-channel 2.0-3.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Belt Width, Wblt (ft)* 21.00 48.00NaMeander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 3.50 8.00C-channel 3.5-8.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan) C-channel between 1.2-1.6, B-channel 1.1-1.2Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)C-channel 0.005-0.015, B-channel 0.020-0.030Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) Calculated from valley slope and sinuosityRiffle Slope, Srif0.0226 0.0369Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.10 1.80C-channel between 1.5-2.0, B-channel 1.1-1.8Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0082Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan0.00 0.40C-channel 0.0-0.2, B-channel 0.0-0.4Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)0.75 1.31Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.00 3.50C-channel 2.0-3.5, B-channel 2.0-3.5Pool Width, Wpool (ft)6.60 9.00Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.10 1.50C-channel 1.3-1.7, B-channel 1.1-1.5Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)9.00 30.00Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.50 5.00C-channel 4.0-7.0, B-channel 1.5-5.00.02330.0205* Only applicable for C and E type channels.1.001.140.3816.000.501.330.506.00Proposed Stream Values (Restoration)1670.045B4c10.00NotesHorne Creek Reach 4A2.254.44
Design Parameters R4bAppendix 2Parameter MIN MAXStream Length (ft)Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)1.664Stream Type (Rosgen)Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)Calculated from analysis of USGS regression eq., velocity/discharge calcsBankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)Calcuated from Riffle TabBankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)C-channel 3.5-5, B-channel 4-6Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)C-channel 10-14, B-channel 12-18Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)8.00 46.00Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)2.29 13.14> 2.2 Not entrenchedRiffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)C-channel 1.1-1.3, B-channel 1.2-1.4Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)C-channel 1.0-1.1, B-channel 1.0-1.1Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)*24.50 42.00NaMeander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)*7.00 12.00C-channel 7.0-12.0Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)* 7.00 10.50NaRc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 2.00 3.00C-channel 2.0-3.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Belt Width, Wblt (ft)* 12.25 28.00NaMeander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 3.50 8.00C-channel 3.5-8.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan) C-channel between 1.2-1.6, B-channel 1.1-1.2Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)C-channel 0.005-0.015, B-channel 0.020-0.030Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) Calculated from valley slope and sinuosityRiffle Slope, Srif0.0265 0.0433Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.10 1.80C-channel between 1.5-2.0, B-channel 1.1-1.8Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0096Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan0.00 0.40C-channel 0.0-0.2, B-channel 0.0-0.4Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)0.47 0.83Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.00 3.50C-channel 2.0-3.5, B-channel 2.0-3.5Pool Width, Wpool (ft)3.85 5.25Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.10 1.50C-channel 1.3-1.7, B-channel 1.1-1.5Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)5.25 17.50Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.50 5.00C-channel 4.0-7.0, B-channel 1.5-5.0NotesHorne Creek Reach 4B0.833.643.50Proposed Stream Values (Restoration)1510.0026B43.000.2414.850.301.270.300.02620.0241* Only applicable for C and E type channels.1.001.09
Design Parameters R5Appendix 2Parameter MIN MAXStream Length (ft)Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)167.68Stream Type (Rosgen)Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)Calculated from analysis of USGS regression eq., velocity/discharge calcsBankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)Calcuated from Riffle TabBankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)C-channel 3.5-5, B-channel 4-6Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)C-channel 10-14, B-channel 12-18Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)54.00 134.00Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)5.40 13.40> 2.2 Not entrenchedRiffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)C-channel 1.1-1.3, B-channel 1.2-1.4Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)C-channel 1.0-1.1, B-channel 1.0-1.1Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)*70.00 120.00Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)*7.00 12.00C-channel 7.0-12.0Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)* 20.00 30.00Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 2.00 3.00C-channel 2.0-3.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Belt Width, Wblt (ft)* 35.00 80.00Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 3.50 8.00C-channel 3.5-8.0 (not applicable for B-channel)Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan) C-channel between 1.2-1.6, B-channel 1.1-1.2Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)C-channel 0.005-0.015, B-channel 0.020-0.030Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) Calculated from valley slope and sinuosityRiffle Slope, Srif0.0301 0.0401Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.50 2.00C-channel between 1.5-2.0, B-channel 1.1-1.8Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0040Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan0.00 0.20C-channel 0.0-0.2, B-channel 0.0-0.4Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)1.44 2.52Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.00 3.50C-channel 2.0-3.5, B-channel 2.0-3.5Pool Width, Wpool (ft)13.00 17.00Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.30 1.70C-channel 1.3-1.7, B-channel 1.1-1.5Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)15.00 70.00Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.50 7.00C-channel 4.0-7.0, B-channel 1.5-5.0NotesHorne Creek Reach 57.203.7510.00Proposed Stream Values (Restoration)22950.26C427.000.7213.890.901.250.900.02430.0201* Only applicable for C and E type channels.1.001.21
Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Oct 26 2018
R1 Culvert Crossing
Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 934.62
Pipe Length (ft) = 20.00
Slope (%) = 4.50
Invert Elev Up (ft) = 935.52
Rise (in) = 48.0
Shape = Circular
Span (in) = 48.0
No. Barrels = 1
n-Value = 0.024
Culvert Type = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe
Culvert Entrance = Projecting
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.034, 1.5, 0.0553, 0.54, 0.9
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft) = 940.00
Top Width (ft) = 12.00
Crest Width (ft) = 100.00
Calculations
Qmin (cfs) = 25.10
Qmax (cfs) = 69.20
Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs) = 69.10
Qpipe (cfs) = 69.10
Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00
Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 6.31
Veloc Up (ft/s) = 8.33
HGL Dn (ft) = 937.87
HGL Up (ft) = 938.03
Hw Elev (ft) = 939.64
Hw/D (ft) = 1.03
Flow Regime = Inlet Control
Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Apr 26 2019
R4 Upstream Culvert Crossing
Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 974.63
Pipe Length (ft) = 20.00
Slope (%) = 2.80
Invert Elev Up (ft) = 975.19
Rise (in) = 48.0
Shape = Circular
Span (in) = 48.0
No. Barrels = 1
n-Value = 0.024
Culvert Type = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe
Culvert Entrance = Projecting
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.034, 1.5, 0.0553, 0.54, 0.9
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft) = 981.15
Top Width (ft) = 12.00
Crest Width (ft) = 100.00
Calculations
Qmin (cfs) = 36.70
Qmax (cfs) = 77.50
Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs) = 76.70
Qpipe (cfs) = 76.70
Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00
Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 6.87
Veloc Up (ft/s) = 8.68
HGL Dn (ft) = 977.95
HGL Up (ft) = 977.84
Hw Elev (ft) = 979.68
Hw/D (ft) = 1.12
Flow Regime = Inlet Control
Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Apr 26 2019
R4 Downstream Culvert Crossing
Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 957.66
Pipe Length (ft) = 20.00
Slope (%) = 6.00
Invert Elev Up (ft) = 958.86
Rise (in) = 48.0
Shape = Circular
Span (in) = 48.0
No. Barrels = 1
n-Value = 0.024
Culvert Type = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe
Culvert Entrance = Projecting
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.034, 1.5, 0.0553, 0.54, 0.9
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft) = 964.86
Top Width (ft) = 12.00
Crest Width (ft) = 100.00
Calculations
Qmin (cfs) = 36.70
Qmax (cfs) = 77.50
Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs) = 76.70
Qpipe (cfs) = 76.70
Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00
Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 6.87
Veloc Up (ft/s) = 8.68
HGL Dn (ft) = 960.98
HGL Up (ft) = 961.51
Hw Elev (ft) = 963.29
Hw/D (ft) = 1.11
Flow Regime = Inlet Control
Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Apr 26 2019
R5 Culvert Crossing
Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 940.13
Pipe Length (ft) = 20.00
Slope (%) = 4.50
Invert Elev Up (ft) = 941.03
Rise (in) = 60.0
Shape = Circular
Span (in) = 60.0
No. Barrels = 1
n-Value = 0.024
Culvert Type = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe
Culvert Entrance = Projecting
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.034, 1.5, 0.0553, 0.54, 0.9
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft) = 947.03
Top Width (ft) = 12.00
Crest Width (ft) = 100.00
Calculations
Qmin (cfs) = 36.70
Qmax (cfs) = 118.00
Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs) = 117.70
Qpipe (cfs) = 117.70
Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00
Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 6.91
Veloc Up (ft/s) = 9.22
HGL Dn (ft) = 944.18
HGL Up (ft) = 944.13
Hw Elev (ft) = 946.08
Hw/D (ft) = 1.01
Flow Regime = Inlet Control
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2  Reach 1 Existing 2D model Results     
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2  
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2  
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2     
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2     
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 Reach 2, 4, and 5 Existing 2D model Results    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2  
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2   R5 existing water surface    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R5 existing velocity    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R5 existing Depth    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R4 existing water surface    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R4 Velocity    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R4 Depth    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R2 Water Surface    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R2 Velocity    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R2 Depth    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 Reach 1 Proposed 2D model Results    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2  
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 Reach 2, 4, 5 Proposed 2D model Results    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R5 Proposed water surface    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R5 Proposed velocity    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R5 Proposed depth   
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R4 Proposed water surface    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R4 Proposed velocity    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R4 Proposed depth    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R2 Proposed water surface    
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R2 Proposed Velocity   
HEC‐RAS 2D Model Output                  Appendix 2 R2 Proposed depth 
Site Name:USACE Action ID:NCDWR Project Number:Sponsor:County:SurryMinimum Required Buffer Width1:30Mitigation TypeMitigation Ratio Multiplier2Creditable Stream Length3Baseline Stream CreditRestoration (1:1)153445344.00Enhancement I (1.5:1)1.5Enhancement II (2.5:1)2.58433.60Preservation (5:1)5Other (7.5:1)7.5Other (10:1)10Custom Ratio 1Custom Ratio 2Custom Ratio 3Custom Ratio 4Custom Ratio 5Totals 5428.00 5377.60Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feetMax Possible Buffer (square feet)4162840542805428054280217120271400271400271400271400Ideal Buffer (square feet)5164102.5854681.8554340.9253780.43210181.79260414.77263399.80268013.31273997.05Actual Buffer (square feet)6158813.8651209.9549892.5648532.55117950.6920978.2411417.887748.472386.06Zone Multiplier50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%Buffer Credit Equivalent2688.801075.52806.64806.64483.98376.43322.66268.88161.33Percent of Ideal Buffer97%94%92%90%56%8%4%3%1%Credit Adjustment‐86.66‐68.29‐66.03‐78.71271.6030.3213.997.771.40Total Baseline CreditCredit Loss in Required BufferCredit Gain for Additional BufferNet Change inCredit from BuffersTotal Credit5377.60‐299.69325.0925.415403.01Water & Land Solutions, LLC4This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width.  This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference. Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)6Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non‐forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are more than 150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement.  Non‐creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS5Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement.  The inner zone (0‐15') should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known.  Non‐creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.2Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non‐standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet‐to‐credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8)1Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)3Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type.  If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easementWilmington District Stream Buffer Credit CalculatorHorne Creek Tributaries SAW‐2017‐01510
Photo 1: R1 –Looking upstream at bank erosion and incision
(1/2/2017)
Photo 2: R1 –looking upstream lack of mature buffer and
direct cattle access (1/2/2017)
Photo 3: R1 –Looking upstream at undefined channel due to
cattle wallowing (1/2/2017)
Photo 4: Reach R1 –Looking downstream at drainage and
lack of mature riparian buffer (1/2/2017)
See Figure 6. Current Condition Map for Photo Locations
Photo 5: R2 –Looking downstream at project start
(1/2/2017)
Photo 6: R2 –Looking downstream and bank erosion,
headcut and incision (1/2/2017)
Photo 7: R2 –Looking upstream at bank erosion and incision
(1/2/2017)
Photo 8: R2 –Looking downstream bank erosion and
confluence with R3 (1/2/2017)
See Figure 6. Current Condition Map for Photo Locations
Photo 9: R3 –Looking upstream at bank erosion (1/2/2017)Photo 10: R3 –Looking downstream at bank erosion and
confluence with R2 (1/2/2017)
Photo 11: R3 –Looking upstream at headcut (1/2/2017)Photo 12: R3 –Looking upstream at BMP location (1/2/2017)
See Figure 6. Current Condition Map for Photo Locations
Photo 13: R4 –Looking downstream at bank erosion and US
stream crossing location (1/2/2017)
Photo 14: R4 –Looking upstream at bank erosion and
incision (1/2/2017)
Photo 15: R4 –Looking downstream at bank erosion
(1/2/2017)
Photo 16: R4 –Looking upstream at hoof shear and direct
cattle access (1/2/2017)
See Figure 6. Current Condition Map for Photo Locations
Photo 17: R4b –Looking at stream/wetland area (1/2/2017)Photo 18: R4b –Looking downstream at headcut and
minimal riparian buffer (1/2/2017)
Photo 19: Reach R4b –Looking at headcut (1/2/2017)Photo 20: R4b –Looking downstream at channel incision and
confluence with R4 (1/2/2017)
See Figure 6. Current Condition Map for Photo Locations
Photo 21: R4a –Looking upstream at start of reach at cattle
wallowing area (1/2/2017)
Photo 22: R4a –Looking downstream at stable headwater
channel (1/2/2017)
Photo 23: R4a –Looking downstream at stable headwater
channel (1/2/2017)
Photo 24: R4a –Looking downstream at stable channel and
confluence with R4 (1/2/2017)
See Figure 6. Current Condition Map for Photo Locations
Photo 25: R5 –Looking downstream at bank erosion and
channel incision (1/2/2017)
Photo 26: R5 –Looking upstream in left floodplain at
remnant channel feature (1/2/2017)
Photo 27: R5 –Looking downstream at direct cattle access,
hoof shear, and bank erosion (1/2/2017)
Photo 28: R5 –Looking upstream at channel incision and
narrow riparian buffer (1/2/2017)
See Figure 6. Current Condition Map for Photo Locations
Water & Land Solutions
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Appendix 3 – Site Protection Instrument
WLS is in the process of obtaining 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. Once recorded, the secured easement will allow
WLS to proceed with the project development and protect the mitigation assets in perpetuity. The Table
below includes the draft Site Protection Instrument information.
Table 3-1. Site Protection Instrument Information
Owner of
Record
(N/F)
PIN County Site Protection
Instrument
Deed Book
and Page
Numbers
Acreage
Protected
William
Franklin Fulp
and Debra P.
Fulp
595200774688 Surry Conservation
Easement --- 2.66
Mary Ellen
Smith 595200765174 Surry Conservation
Easement --- 2.75
Mary Ellen
Smith 595200772795 Surry Conservation
Easement --- 0.28
Brown Farms
of Surry
County, LLC
(c/o
Edward
Thomas
Brown)
595200567091 Surry Conservation
Easement --- 6.07
Jane B. Boger 595200733427 Surry Conservation
Easement --- 0.002
Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project

Appendix 4 – Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as-built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer
(DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is
required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the NC Interagency
Review Team (NCIRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet
the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not
been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required
to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified
performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described in the Table
below.

Table 4-1. Credit Release Schedule
Stream Credits
Monitoring
Year Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Release
0 Initial Allocation - see requirements below 30% 30%
1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 10% 40%
2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 10% 50%
(60%*)
3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 10% 60%
(70%*)
4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 5% 65%
(75%*)
5 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met. 10% 75%
(85%*)
6 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met. 5% 80%
(90%*)
7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met and project has received closeout approval. 10% 90%
(100%)
*See Initial Allocation of Released Credits and Subsequent Credit Release descriptions below.

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project

Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the NCDEQ
DMS without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:

a. Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property.
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the NCDEQ 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.
d. 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 NCIRT, 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 two 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 two bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at
the discretion of the NCIRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the NCDEQ
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.

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project

Appendix 5 – 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.

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project

Appendix 6 – Maintenance Plan
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will take place at least
once a 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 will be most likely in the first two years following site construction and may include
the following components as described in the Table below:

Routine Maintenance Components
Horne Creek Mitigation Project – NCDEQ DMS Project No. 100026
Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in-stream
structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental
installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the project reaches. Areas
of concentrated stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the channel may also
require maintenance to
Wetland N/A
Vegetation Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental planting, pruning, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species will
treated by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any invasive plant species control
requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department
of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site Boundary Site boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence,
marker, bollard, post, 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.
Stream Crossing The stream crossing(s) within the site may be maintained only as allowed by the
recorded Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor
agreements.
Beaver
Management
Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include
supplemental planting, pruning, and dewatering/dam removal. Beaver management
will be implemented using accepted trapping and removal methods only within the
recorded Conservation Easement.

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project

Appendix 7 – DWR Stream Identification Forms
The streams at the project site were categorized into five reaches (R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5) totaling
approximately 5,203 linear feet of existing streams. Reach breaks were based on drainage area breaks at
confluences, changes in restoration/enhancement approaches, and/or changes in intermittent/perennial
stream status. Field evaluations conducted at the proposal stage and during existing conditions
assessments determined that Reaches R2, R3, R4 and R5 are perennial streams and project Reach R1 was
determined to be an intermittent stream. Determinations were based on NCDWQ’s Methodology for
Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins, (v4.11, Effective Date: September
1, 2010) stream assessment protocols. Copies of the supporting field forms are included herein.

Table 7-1. Summary of Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
Project
Reach
Designation
Existing Project
Reach Length
(ft)
NCDWQ Stream
Classification Form
Score1
Watershed
Drainage Area
(acres)1
Stream Status Based
on Field Analyses
R1 1,397 33 38 Perennial
R2 286 22 41 Intermittent
R3 75 29.75 29 Intermittent
R4 1,191 31.5 83 Perennial
R4a 124 30.5 29 Perennial/ Intermittent
R4b 89 30 2 Perennial/ Intermittent
R5 2,519 37 166 Perennial

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: �'� -� Project/Site: � �re�r� f `Latitude:
Evaluator: /- County: r
�vy V- I Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 2 2, Stream Determination (circle one) I other
if> 19 or perennial if> 30' % e Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal
1 a Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
riPPle-Pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
5. Active/relict floodpiain
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
V
0
0
0
0
Weak Moderate
1 2
1 2
1 2 ,'
1 �2
1- 2
1 2
E#___:::
1
Yes =3
Stron
3
3
Cl,
3
3
_a
1.5

,�4'0j-&kR&2
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: t Le Project/Site: �o�� � Latitude:
Evaluator: County:
-Tom � r r Longitude:
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determin tion (circle one) I Other
if>_ 19 or erennial if>_ 30' Z2. Ephemeral intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
H. veomor holo (Subtotal = l L { , )
Absent
0
We
1
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
1
ri le- ool se uence
0
1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
6. Headcuts
0
1
9. Grade control
0
1
10. Natural valley
0.�
11. Second or greater order channel
0
0.�
No 0
- - �• �� a,� --cute, see uiscussions in manual
ak
TNI
EYes=
1

4
1
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
ove ",l
C 'C (C Rc
Date: 12 /R
Project/Site: ��'
Latitude:
Evaluator:
uV
County:
Svc r
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30` 2�t, 7
Stream Determinat' n (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = I )
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Stronc
0
1
3':
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
1
3
ri le- ool sequence
0
1
t�'
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
-
5. Active/relict floodplain
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
p
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
�
,
3
10. Natural valley
0
0.51
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
0.5
1
1.
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
No = 0
----
,
Yes = 3
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
0
1i
2
31.5.;
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5;
0.5
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0.5
1 - _.
1.5
C. BiologySubtotal = - S
No = 0
t�'es = .3%
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
,3-
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
Z
1
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0'
1
2
3
23. Crayfish
,p'
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0,
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
.5
1
1.5
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See P. 35 of manua FACW = 0.75: OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
Notes:
Sketch:
.a
4 v d IC 9-11

NU DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: p Project/Site:
v ! Latitude:
Evaluator: f-_ County: Longitude:
�1 b'
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determin Lion (circle one) I Other
if 2! 19 or erenniai if>_ 30' Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
h. veomor nolo (Subtotal = Z-I ."
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
13 Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool;
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
�a
2
EM3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
16.
Depositional bars or benches
0
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Neadcuts
9. Grade control
0
0 I
0.5
23
1
1
1.5,
1.5
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
0 No
= 0 0.5
Yes =
3
B. Hydrology Subtotal = .
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 -
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0
C. Biolo Subtotal = `-
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1
21. Aquatic Mollusks L0 1
22. Fish
(0, 0.5
23. Crayfish -0 = 0.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5
25. Algae
C� 5
26. Wetland plants in streambed 0.5 FACW 0.
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p_ 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
2
V1.53
0.511
Yes =3
I 1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
3
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: (e I 1 Project/Site: J r
1- �-r i n Latitude:
Evaluator: County: I Longitude:
Total Points: Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determina ion (circle one) Other
if 2: 19 or perennial if_> 30' -1 ) ' Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
A (-4Qmmnrnhn1nm, ,c..t.a..a„i _ 'k 7! " F
1a_ Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ool se ,,Mn-
4. Particle size of stream substrate
r,vac„t
0
0
0
0
vveaK
1
1
1
1
moderate
2
2
_
2
Strang
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0
1 -
1
2
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
2
3
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control
p ;�
0
0.5
�2 �
3
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5'•o
11. Second or greater order channel
a arf dal ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
_
`�0
Yes =
3
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil -based evidence of high water
C. Biolo y (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streamb d
19. Rooted upland plants in streambec
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abl
21- Aquatic Mollusks
22. Fish
23. Crayfish
24. Amphibians
25. Algae
26. Wetland plants in streambed
'perennial streams may also be identified L
Notes:
Sketch
0 1 2
1 1 0.5
0.5 1
& a 1
table? No = 0
3 2
2 1
ice) 1 2
0 1 2
0 ' 0.5 1
0 0.5 1
0.5 1
0.5 1
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1-5 Other = 0
other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
1.5
V

k 411
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Z
Date: Project/Site: C (� I Latitude:
Evaluator:
> County: �_ / Longitude:
Total Points: Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determination (circle one) Other
if 2! 19 or perennial if>_ 30' Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
Q I llpl� I--
- - _-- -
f channel bed and bank
••��C���
0
nreaK
Moderate
Strong
channel along thalweg
0
1
1
2
2
3%
ZIn_channel.s tructure: ex. riffle pool, step -pool;
F4.
2
3
e uence
0
COY
of stream substrate
0
k
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
`d �
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
2
3 '
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1
1.5
.�-.
11. Second or greater order channel
N
= U
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in maniiai
Yes =
3
B- Hydrology (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2
14. Leaf litter 1 5 1
15. Sediment on plants or debris co 0.5 0.5 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles t' 0 5 1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No=O Yes='
C. Biolo Subtotal =
18 Fibrous roots ; t
Ins reambed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
t 2J
1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
2
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
01
1
2
22. Fish
0
1
0.50
2
1
23. Crayfish
0.5
24. Amphibians
12i
1
25. Algae
0.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
0 %
0.5
1
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
Notes: L
Sketch:
1.5
1.5
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

"Nk_ liWV Ntream Identification Form Version 4.11 /
Date: I j Project/Site: Latitude:
Evaluator: County: ` Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determin ion (circle one) Other
-if?: 19 or perennial if> 30` 3 Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomnrnhninrnr _ i 4- c-
-
1 a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
---WIIL
0
I rveaK
1
moClerate
2
Strong
\ 3 /
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
6 1 001 sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0
0
i
1
1
��
2
2
3
3 i
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0
1
2J
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1~
2
3
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
0
0
0
No
1
0.5
0.5
= 0
.y
1
3
1.5
1.5
Yes =
3
B. Hydrology ( Subtotal =
s
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
14. Leaf litter
1.5 1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
�-= 0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0.5
No = 0
C. Biology Subtotal =
;
18 Fibrou t
roo sin streambed
3
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
22. Fish
Oi
1
0.5
23. Crayfish
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
FACW = 0
Notes:
Sketch
2 3
2 3
0.5 n
1_5
1.5
Yes =
I 1 0
1
2
U1
2 3
1 1.5
1 1.5
1.5
I 1 15
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project

Appendix 8 – USACE District Assessment Methods/Forms

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same prope rty, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 5-9-2018
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Surry 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Ararat River 7. River basin: Yadkin-PeeDee
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.321882º -80.465275º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1,400
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates , debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access , disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads , retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting i n accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contribute s to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proport ions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other: No equipment during evaluation
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation
Project Date of Assessment 5-9-2018
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same prope rty, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 5-29-2018
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Surry 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Ararat River 7. River basin: Yadkin-PeeDee
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.172135º -80.300390º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 240
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3.3 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 13.1 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates , debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access , disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads , retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting i n accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contribute s to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proport ions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation
Project Date of Assessment 5-29-2018
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW LOW
(4) Microtopography NA NA
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability HIGH HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat HIGH HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat HIGH HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same prope rty, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 5-9-2018
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Surry 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Ararat River 7. River basin: Yadkin-PeeDee
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.319821º -80.463861º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R3 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 180
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4.1 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 17.7 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates , debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access , disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads , retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting i n accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contribute s to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proport ions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation
Project Date of Assessment 5-9-2018
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW LOW
(4) Microtopography NA NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(4) Channel Stability HIGH HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat LOW LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA NA
Overall LOW LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same prope rty, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 5-9-2018
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Surry 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Ararat River 7. River basin: Yadkin-PeeDee
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.171541º -80.300730º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R4 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 860
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2.9 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 12.9 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates , debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access , disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads , retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting i n accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contribute s to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proport ions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation
Project Date of Assessment 5-9-2018
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same prope rty, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 5-9-2018
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Surry 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Ararat River 7. River basin: Yadkin-PeeDee
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.170456º -80.301271º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R4A 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 200
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1.4 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 8.1 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates , debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access , disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads , retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting i n accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contribute s to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proport ions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation
Project Date of Assessment 5-9-2018
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat MEDIUM
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same prope rty, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 5-9-2018
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Surry 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Ararat River 7. River basin: Yadkin-PeeDee
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.170418º -80.301295º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R4B 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 160
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 0.4 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3.9 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates , debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access , disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads , retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting i n accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contribute s to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proport ions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation
Project Date of Assessment 5-9-2018
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat MEDIUM
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same prope rty, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation Project 2. Date of evaluation: 5-9-2018
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Morgan
5. County: Surry 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Ararat River 7. River basin: Yadkin-PeeDee
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.165990º -80.301303º
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R5 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 2,600
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4.9 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 16.9 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates , debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access , disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads , retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting i n accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contribute s to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proport ions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Horne Creek Tribs Mitigation
Project Date of Assessment 5-9-2018
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization J. Morgan

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat

NA
(2) Intertidal Zone

NA
Overall MEDIUM

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project

Appendix 9 – WOTUS Information

January 24, 2019

US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Attn: William Elliott 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project, Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination Concurrence Request, Surry County, NC Dear Mr. Elliot: Please find the attached Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request attached for the Horne Creek Tributaries Stream Mitigation Project. The project is located in Surry County, North Carolina, approximately seven miles southwest of the Town of Pilot Mountain. Attached you will find the following:
• Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) Form
• North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services Landowner Authorization Forms
• Three Maps: Project Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic Map, and Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters Map.
• Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Determination Forms
• NC DWR Stream Identification Forms If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, Adam V. McIntyre 7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615 Office Phone: [phone] Mobile Phone: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: Long.:
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody:
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE” SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2)In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be” navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: ___________________________________________________.
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: _______________________________.
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: ___________________________.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ______________________________________.
State/local wetland inventory map(s): _______________________________________________.
FEMA/FIRM maps: ____________________________________________________________.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ________________.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): ___________________________________________.
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 Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Site # Latitude Longitude Estimated amount
of resource in
review area
(acreage and linear
ft, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e.
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e. Section 404
or Section 10/401)
WA 36.282565 -80.510192 0.005 ac Wetland Section 404/401
WB 36.287452 -80.50265 0.076 ac Wetland Section 404/401
WC 36.287756 -80.50232 0.093 ac Wetland Section 404/401
WD 36.28756 -80.501849 0.175 ac Wetland Section 404/401
S1 36.289687 -80.500118 291 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
S2 36.289516 -80.501029 41 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
S3 36.289357 -80.500934 3,340 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
S4 36.287641 -80.502223 123 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
S5 36.287410 -80.502623 71 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
S6 36.282523 -80.510805 1,267 Non-wetland Section 404/401

LANDOWNER. AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book L o> z i Page County: ,
Parcel ID Number: 5J G ZCr?77!j b ,
Street Address: f i C '� Z,- v l l c ci .
Property Owner (please print: *"v ; } 61,,1 Fl�
Property Owner (please print):_ Dn i, � t p
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Ina-4p')PI", t-'e -( of 9f'dlS
(Contractor/Agent/Project Manager)' (Name of Contractor/Agent Firm/Agency)'-
to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s). I
agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the IDS Army Corps of Engineers, to visit the property
as part of these environmental reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address:
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: 7 0 S- _ -+2-_
Property Owner Telephone Number: C3 3 fie) 7 6,�-- U 3 y F
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
(Pr erq Owner Authorised Signature)
(Property, Owner Authorized Signature)
(Date)
(Date)
'Name of full deliver- staff member (full -deliveries) or DMS project manager (design -bid -build).
2NNa€ne of company (full -deliveries) or DMS (design -bid -build).

PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: C C�-7 Page: C. C-k _ County: S " I'll
Parcel ID Number: S `i s7--� rn 7 b S i i -4
Street Address:
Property Owner (please print:
Property Owner (please print):_
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
l e, 4 h- ,.j i7, e i o� of pm
(Contractor/Agent/Project _Manager)' (Name of Contractor/Agent Firm/Agency)=
to take all actions necessary- for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s). I
agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the US Army- Corps of Engineers, to visit the property
as part of these environmental reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address: 3! S S 6L o C-
(if different from above)
PlYtYie- ,�e Z-702--
Property Owner Telephone Number: 7 Q ,S-- 6 3� 2
Property Owner Telephone Number: ft'-.n.)
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
(Property- O ner Authorized Signature) (Date)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
(Date)
'Name of full delivery staff member (full -deliveries) or DMS project manager (design -bid -build).
-'Name of company (full -deliveries) or DMS (design -bid -build).

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
heed Book' i✓'> Page: County : , r
Parcel ID Number: S 1 ,57 2 cc -7 7 2- � Ct
Street Address: �,- - el t e 0-'1 .
E,1,16- c-�P N1c 27e43- 1�4�4
Property Owner {please print: _ d1 r i,
Property Owner (please print):
The undersigned, registered property owners) of the above property, do hereby authorize
(Contractor/Agent/Project Manager)r (Name of Contractor/Agent Firm/Agency)2
to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a potential strewn, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting strewn and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s). I
agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, to visit the property
as part of these environmental reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address: _ .3 � S 21 S1--70 r__ is 12 c ! .
(if different from above)
1P3rlylc C1t 1, Nc 2704-3 - �-,- 6 r
Property Owner Telephone Number:
Property Owner Telephone Number:
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
%I t, &U, 4ztz 7 0 4- f7
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Bate)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)
'Name of full delivery staff member (full -deliveries) or DMS project manager (design -bid -build).
'--Name of company (full -deliveries) or DMS (design -bid -build).

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 00 936 Page: C µme} a County: Sv r r
Parcel ID Number:- 5- 5"220 .567 Oci 1
Street Address: 3 6 3 K i o, e, f a
I -
�iv,rlCtG I p NC 270 3
i
Property Owner (please print: !3 r o v✓i s o Sv r-r LL C
Property Owner (please print):
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
1Aram.41,7ew R ,c) of 761S
(Contractor/Agent/Project Manager)' (Name of Contractor/Agent Firm/Agency)'
to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s). I
agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, to visit the property
as part of these environmental reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address:
(if different from above)
P,',n 4Lc(e SIC --------------
Property Owner Telephone Number: 2 - -- Z -4 S-
(�
Property Owner Telephone Number:
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
(Date)
(Date)
Name of full delivery staff member (full -deliveries) or DMS project manager (design -bid -build).
'Name of company (full -deliveries) or DMS (design -bid -build).

^_
Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors±0 0.5 1
Miles
FIGURE1Horne Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Vicinity Map
^_
^_
Surry County Stokes County
Forsyth County
Yadkin County
Davie County
Leg end
^_Pro ject Location
TLW s
TLW:0 3040101110070
LWP-2008-51
HUC: 03 040101
HUC-12
Su rry Co. H yd rography
Su rry County
NC C ounites
Conservation Easem ent
0 6 12
Miles050100Miles
Project is located in
TLW HUC-14: 03040101110070
LWP: 2008-51
WATER & LANDSOLUTIONS
TM
Siloam RoadHorne CreekYadkin River
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
USGS Topographic Map FIGURE2Horne Creek TributariesStream & Wetland Mitigation Project
Legend
Conservation Easement
Existing Wetlands
Existing Stream
Surry County, North Carolina
WA
WB
WC
WD
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID , IGN, and the GIS User Community
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Jurisdictional WatersMap FIGURE3Horne Creek TributariesStream & WetlandMitigation Project
Legend
Conservation Easement
Wetlands
Streams
Intermitten t
Perennial
WA
WB
WC
WD
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, U SDA, USGS,AeroGRID , IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity
WA
Surry County, North Carolina
Sampling Date:
State:Sampling Point:
Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No Yes X
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes x
Yes X
Yes X X
No wetland hydrology present.
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:Surry
WA-1
6-4-18
NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Shoals, NC
20slope
Datum:NAD83-80.501021
Project/Site: Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Site
Applicant/Owner: Water and Land Solutions
Investigator(s): C. Sheats
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): hillside slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 36.28247
NoneNWI classification:Colvard and Suches Soils
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
This form represents the upland adjacent to wetland WA, which is cattle pasture dominated by tall fescue. This also represents conditions adjacent
to wetlands WB, WC, and WD.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
Requirement Control Symbol
EXEMPT
(Authority: AR 335-15,
paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
WA-1
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
4X10 ft )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Schedonorus arundinaceus 100
4x10ft
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
4x10 )
100
2050
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
(A)
(B)
(A)
Multiply by:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)4x10ft
=Total Cover
FACUYes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%Texture
WA-1SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 5/4
10YR 4/4
3-14
0-3
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Soils have been disturbed by cattle.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Date:
State:Sampling Point:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No Yes X
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
Requirement Control Symbol
EXEMPT
(Authority: AR 335-15,
paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
0.5
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
This form represents wetland WA, which is a small depression within a topographic crenulation near the confluence of an unnamed tributary to Horne
Creek.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Surry
WA-1
6-4-18
NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Shoals, NC
0-2concave
Project/Site: Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Site
Applicant/Owner: Water and Land Solutions
Investigator(s): C. Sheats
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): hillside drainage crenulation
Datum:NAD83-80.50102136.28247LRR P, MLRA 136
NoneNWI classification:Colvard and Suches Soils
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
9
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)4x10ft
=Total Cover
FACW
FACW
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
Multiply by:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
(A)
(B)
(A)
615
4x10ft
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
4x10 )
30
Yes10Lobelia cardinalis
Persicaria maculosa 20
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
4X10 ft )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
WA-1
2
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Soils have been disturbed by cattle.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
90
Mucky Loam/Clay
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
C10YR 4/2
10YR 3/2
10YR 5/63-14
0-3
WA-1SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M10
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Date:
State:Sampling Point:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No Yes X
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
6
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:Surry
WB-4
6-4-18
NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Shoals, NC
0-2concave
Project/Site: Horne Creek Tributaties Mitigation Site
Applicant/Owner: Water and Land Solutions
Investigator(s): C. Sheats
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): hillside drainage crenulation
Datum:NAD83-80.50102136.28247LRR P, MLRA 136
NoneNWI classification:Colvard and Suches Soils
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
This form is for wetland WB which represent similar conditions in wetlands WC and WD, which are depressions within topographic crenulations in the
floodplain near Horne Creek.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
Requirement Control Symbol
EXEMPT
(Authority: AR 335-15,
paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
0.5
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
WB-4
4
4
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
FAC
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
20
Acer rubrum
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5m radius )
40
Indicator
Status
40
Dominant
Species?
Yes
Yes10
20
Murdannia keisak
Persicaria maculosa 35
5m radius
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
2m radius )
None
45
9
410
23
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
(A)
(B)
(A)
Multiply by:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
20 8
Yes FACW
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)2m radius
=Total Cover
FACW
OBL
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M25
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
C15
WB-4SOIL
7-14 10YR 5/2
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
85
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
10YR 5/6
%
Matrix
C10YR 4/2
10YR 4/2
10YR 5/61-7
0-1
Loc2
M
75
Mucky Loam/Clay
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Soils have been disturbed by cattle in Wetland C and D. Soils within Wetland B and C are mapped as Colvard and Suches, and Fairview sandy clay
loam in Wetland D. The Hydric soil indicator here is an F3. Yes, hydric soils are present. Macros in form not allowing to autofill for hydric soil
indicators.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: f �_ 15- I $
Project/Site:
ry'e'
Latitude:
Evaluator: C S -�S
County: Svcs
Longitude:10. SDa6S
Total Points: StrStream
isat/eastintermittent �S a CJ'
Dete circle one)
Other
if _> _ "►
ff2:19 orerennial if 30*
Ephemeral ntermittent erennial
e.g. Quad Name:oa�
Ir\
A. Geomor holo y (Subtotal = I LJ )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
la. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1)
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
O
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
fl
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
A
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
11 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 401
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal = % .S )
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
1
111.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
t 3
G. t310100V (Subtotal = (=, • l � ) -
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
M1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW .75)OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
h r 1
40 1 h
l
��l W
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: `�� 5- (�
Project/Site: �� C' fcCk
Latitude:`3C aS7_)3
Evaluator: C 5����5
County: St, f f
Longitude: Ao SD a a`}
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Dete circle one)
Other ioa
if a19 orperennial if _a 30"
Intermitten E hemera Perennial
p
e. Quad Name:>1n
g
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = A 1
Absent
Weak
Moderate
S ng
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
�
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0)-
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
W
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = q 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0:
1
62�1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
f 3
U. b!OIOQV (subtotal = 1.
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
f ate.
Sketch:
b �V�Ia,�
DAL* t. �v � m Cc4elE IS
DAL*
I ��.0 Uv` ► �0� 5 LaC P.�
�, v4 D
4r� CPI+j

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ,Q-15
Project/Site: CnC uc��
Latitude: g6.;aq(o-
Evaluator: Cl eAi;
County: �
Longitude:'�brj0(O(
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Deter circle one)
Other
if 19 or perennial if 2! 30*
Ephemeral termitte_q Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I U )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
W
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
V
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
'®
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
4J
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
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
munldal uRUIIWa alc nvI laiau, DCC ulbwb11UI15 III IIIGIIUdI
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = $ )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
02
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
U. 131010gy (Subtotal = ks )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
Q0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
Lo
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: VON C�o A'S)
�'op- O

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Versinn 4.11
Date: Ab- is (g
Project/Site: rn a
Latitude: 3%. a $ °1 S 5-
Evaluator:
County: SU C
Longitude:
e r S
Total Points:
Stream is at/east intermittent ,1
Stream Dete n (circle one)
Other
if >_ 19 or perennial if _> 30* Or1'i
Ephemera Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
r �
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ( - u )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
St r ng
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
' 2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
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
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
anmciai uncnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hydrologv (Subtotal = 3.5 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 0
Yes = 3
C. bioioav (Subtotal = LS 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
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
QQ�
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1 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:
'COCrA cum le�
~ � i SU -
x'.co, t
�T',b

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action 1D: SAW-2017-01510 County: Surry U.S.G.S. Quad: Siloam
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: Edward Brown
Address: 3865 Shoals Rd.
Pinnacle, NC 27043
Telephone Number: 336-325-2456
Size (acres): 121.34 Nearest Town: Pinnacle
Nearest Waterway: Horne Creek Coordinates: 36.28519,-80.50321
River Basin/ HUC: Upper Pee Dee
Location description: The site is located at 363 Kiser Rd., Pinnacle, NC 27043
Indicate Which of the Following AAA1V:
A. Preliminary Determination
X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, 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. 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 are wetlands on the above described 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 C WA/RHA jurisdiction overall 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 of the U.S. on your 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 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 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 waters of the U.S, including wetlands on the above described property subj ect to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your 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 of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. 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 of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed 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 to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or 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 William Elliott at
828-271-7980, ext. 4225 or [e-mail].
C. Basis for Determination:
See attached preliminary jurisdictional determination form.
The site contains wetlands as determined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountain and Piedmont
Region (version 2.0). These wetlands are adjacent to stream channels located on the property that exhibit indicators
of ordinary high water marks. The stream channel on the property is an unnamed tributary (UT) to" Horne Creek
which flows into the Yadkin River.
D. Remarks:
The potential waters of the U.S., at this site, were verified on -site by the Corps on 2/19/2019and are as approximately
depicted on the attached Potential Wetland/Waters Map
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/detenrimation 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 m
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 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 1OM15
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 N/A (Preliminary -JD).

**It is not necessary to submit an RFA to to the Division Office ' on do not ject to the determination in this
correspondence,** X o
Corps Regulatory Official:
William Elliott
Issue Date of JD: March 26, 2019 Expiration Date: N/A Preliminary JD
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure
we continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://corpsmgpu.usaec.gM.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0.
Copy furnished:
Adam V. McIntyre -Water & Land Solutions, 7721 Six Forks Rd. Ste 130, Raleigh, NC 27615

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Edward Brown File Number: SAW-SAW-2017-01510 1 Date: March 26, 2019
Attached is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of ermission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
®
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information maybe found at littp:Hl ""v.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civi]Works[Re ug latoUProjzramandPeiinits.aspx or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may acceptor 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 It 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 B of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD.
The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps
district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
4

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: William Elliott
CESAD-PDO
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
60 Forsyth Street, Room IOM15
828-271-7980, ext. 4232
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
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 opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Alto.: William Elliott, 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 (JD) FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JD: March 26, 2019
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Edward Brown
3865 Shoals Rd,
Pinnacle, NC 27043
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
CESAW-RG-A, SAW-2017-01510,
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The site is located at 363 Kiger Rd., Pinnacle, NC 27043
State: NC County/parish/borough: Sorry City: Pinnacle
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): 36.28519,-80.50321
Universal Transverse Mercator: N/A
Name of nearestwaterbody: Horne Creels
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
M Office (Desk) Determination. Date: March 26, 203.9
to FieldDetermination. Date(s): 2/19/2019
Use the table below to document aquatic resources and/or aquatic resources at different sites
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION
Site
Centered Coordinates
Estimated Amount
Type of Aquatic
Geographic -
Number
(decimal degrees)
of Aquatic Resource
Resources
Authority to Which
in Review Area
Aquatic Resource
Latitude Longitude
(linear feet or acre)
"May Be" Subject
See Attach List
0 Wetland
[I Section 404
Non -wetland Waters
1] Section 10/404
�] Wetland
] Section 404
Q Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
[] Wetland
[] Section 404
❑ Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 101404
Wetland
[ Section 404
Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 101404
Wetland
❑ Section 404
p Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
Wetland
] Section 404
Non -wetland Waters
[] Section 10/404
Wetland
❑ Section 404
0 Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
❑Wetland
❑ Section 404
Non -wetland Watersl
Q Section 10/404

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

SUPPORTING DATA
Data reviewed for preliminary JD (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 preliminary JD requester:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of preliminary JD requester.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rational:
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
❑ USGS map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Siloam.
to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey.
Citation: Surry County, NC
❑ National wetlands inventory (NWI) map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) / Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and
should not be relied upon for later jurisdictyfial deter ' ations.
William Elliott, March 26, 2019 Edward Brown
Signature and date of Regulatory Signature and date of person requesting
staff member completing preliminary JD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the
preliminary JD signature is impracticable)
Two copies of this Preliminary JD Form have been provided Please sign both copies. Keep one signed copy for your record
and return a signed copy to the Asheville Regulatory Field Office by nail or e-mail.
USArmy Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC28801-5006
'.Districts may establish timefiames 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.

Site #
Latitude
Longitude
Estimated amount
of resource in
review area
(acreage and linear
ft, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e.
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e. Section 404
or Section 10/401)
WA
36.282565
-80.510192
0.005 ac
Wetland
Section 404/401
WB
36.287452
-80.50265
0.076 ac
Wetland
Section 404/401
WC
36.287756
-80.50232
0.093 ac
Wetland
Section 404/401
WD
36.28756
-80.501849
0.175 ac
Wetland
Section 404/401
S1
36.289687
-80.500118
291 If
Non -wetland
Section 404/401
S2
36.289516
-80.501029
41 If
Non -wetland
Section 404/401
S3
36.289357
-80.500934
3,340 If
Non -wetland
Section 404/401
S4
36.287641
-80.502223
123 If
Non -wetland
Section 404/401
S5
36.287410
-80.502623
71 If
Non -wetland
Section 404/401 .
S6
36.282523
-80.510805
1,267
Non -wetland
Section 404/401

It A
ftO
Jot

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project

Appendix 10 – Invasive Species Plan

WLS 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) and
Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), will be removed 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 vegetation 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 necessary, these removal
treatments (i.e., cutting and/or spraying) will continue until the corrective actions demonstrate that the
site is trending towards or meeting the standard monitoring requirement.

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project

Appendix 11 – Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part 1: General Project
Name: i Horne Creek Tributaries M—itLqation Pro ect
Coun Name: Sur County
EEP Number: DMS #100026, DMS Contract #7181
Project Sponsor: Water &Land Solutions, LLC
Project Contact Name: William "Scott' Hunt, III, PE
Project Contact Address: 11 330 Raven Ride Road, Ste. 119, Ralei h, NC 27614
Project Contact E-mail: scoff waterlandsolutions.com
EEP Project Mana er: Matthew Reid
Project Description
The Home Creek Tributaries Mtigation Project is a full -delivery project for the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
identified and contracted to provide stream mitigation credits for permitted, unavoidable impacts in the Yadkin River Basin,
Cataloging Unit 03040101. The project vaill involve the restoration, enhancement, and permanent protection of seven stream
reaches (Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, R4a, R4b, and R5), totaling approximately 5,139 linear feet of existing streams that comprise
the headwaters of Home Creek. In addition, the adjacent riparian wetlands and riparian buffers will be restored, and the entire
restored corridor vrill be protected by a permanent conservation easement to be held by the State of North Carolina. The project
site consists of a degraded headwater stream and riparian wetland system that flaws through active cattle pastures, into the
headwaters of Horne Creek. The proposed restoration project not only has the potential to provide at least 5.389 stream mitigation
credits, but will also provide significant ecological improvements and functional uplift through habitat restoration, and through
decreasing nutrient and sediment loads from the project watershed. The project is located in Surry County approximately seven
miles southwest of the Town of Pilot Mountain.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
e
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
1 - z 1- 17
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

Version 1.4, 8/16/05 1
Part 2: All Projects
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
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
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 Management
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 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
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
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
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
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:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?

Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05 2

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities

Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
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
Places?
Yes
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 objects
of antiquity?
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
Archaeological 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
listed for the county?
Yes
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
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the specie and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
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 3
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory”
by the EBCI?
Yes
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
project?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites?
Yes
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
important farmland?
Yes
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
water body?
Yes
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,
outdoor recreation?
Yes
No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
No
N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 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
project on EFH?
Yes
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 Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
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
federal agency?
Yes
No
N/A

Water & Land Solutions

Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project

Appendix 12 – Agency Correspondence

waterlandsolutions.com | 11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Ste 119, Raleigh, NC 27614 | 919-614-5111
Meeting Minutes
Yadkin 03040101 Full-Delivery Project:
Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Contract # 7181, Project ID #
1000026)

Subject: NCIRT Post-Contract Site Meeting
Date Prepared: September 19, 2017
Meeting Date and Time: August 30, 2017 @ 1000
Meeting Location: On-site (Surry County, NC)
Recorded By: Kayne VanStell and Chris Tomsic
Attendees: USACE: Todd Tugwell (NCIRT) and Kim Browning (NCIRT)
NCDEQ DWR: Mac Haupt (NCIRT)
NCWRC: Andrea Leslie and Olivia Munzer
NCDEQ DMS: Paul Wiesner and Matthew Reid
ES: Chris Tomsic and Kip Mumaw
WLS: Kayne VanStell and Scott Hunt
These meeting minutes document notes and discussion points from the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) Post-Contract Site Meeting for the Horne Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project (Yadkin River Basin, CU
03040101, Warm Water Thermal Regime). This full-delivery project was contracted on June 1, 2017, by the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), with Water & Land
Solutions, LLC (WLS), under RFP 16-006993. The project site is located in Surry County, North Carolina, in the Shoals
Community, near Pilot Mountain, North Carolina.
The meeting began at 1000 with introductions and a general summary of the overall project concepts. After the
project introduction and overview, attendees toured the project site to review existing conditions and proposed
mitigation types, strategies, and design concepts. The project site review notes are presented below in the order
they were visited.

waterlandsolutions.com | 11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Ste 119, Raleigh, NC 27614 | 919-614-5111
1. Todd Tugwell asked where the jurisdictional stream call for Reach 2 was located. It was noted
that the unverified jurisdictional stream call was approximately 100’ downstream from the start
of the water quality improvement feature. The NCIRT generally agreed with the approximate
location, but suggested that the determination could be conservative and may be considered
approximately 100’ upstream of the initial stream call.
2. Andrea Leslie asked how the water quality improvement features would be designed and operate.
It was explained that the water quality improvement features will be designed for initial stream
flow attenuation and nutrient treatment. The water quality improvement feature would start at
an existing rip rap/rock outfall and flow through a series of step-pools/depressions. The NCIRT
agreed with the approach for the water quality improvement features.
3. It was explained that the Water quality improvement features would be excluded from the
conservation easement. It was WLS’s understanding based on previous conversations that this
was the NCIRT’s position. Andrea Leslie suggested that incorporating the water quality
improvement features within the conservation easement should be considered so that they can
be protected from future development. There was a concern about how the water quality
improvement features could/would be maintained after the project went into stewardship. It
was explained that there could be a maintenance agreement to allow for periodic maintenance.
However, it was expressed that the water quality improvement features will be designed to be
self-maintaining and therefore should not require annual maintenance following project close-
out.
4. Todd Tugwell commented that a concern of his in Reach 2 is maintaining stream jurisdiction
following restoration. It was explained that design approach and past experience with similar
projects within the watershed will allow for maintaining stream jurisdiction. It was further
discussed that the water quality improvement feature will allow for a slower release of water to
Reach 2 allowing for some attenuation rather than a rapid flush that is currently occurring. Todd
Tugwell suggested that this should be clearly explained in the mitigation plan.
5. Andrea Leslie asked about the stream design approach on Reach 2. It was explained that the
stream would start at the downstream extent of the water quality improvement feature and
would designed as a nested Rosgen ‘B’ or ‘Bc’ stream type channel. The existing channel would
be filled several feet, and a floodplain bench would be created to maintain proper entrenchment,
and banks would be sloped up to existing ground. In general, the channel would be restored more
like a shallow Priority Level 2 approach. Any large trees would be protected and/or incorporated
into the design. Todd Tugwell suggested that the channel could be relocated into the right
floodplain. WLS made note of this suggestion and commented that all options will be explored to
design and construct a stable stream system.
6. General discussion about Reach 3. It was noted where the jurisdiction determination was made
and Todd Tugwell generally agreed with the jurisdictional determination, but suggested that the
determination could be conservative and may be considered approximately 100’ upstream of the
initial stream call.

waterlandsolutions.com | 11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Ste 119, Raleigh, NC 27614 | 919-614-5111
7. Similar conversations about Reach 2, water quality improvement features were discussed in
regards to Reach 3 water quality improvement features.
8. General discussions about the restoration approach on Reach 4. It was explained that the stream
bed will be raised gradually and the existing channel will be filled starting from Reach 2 and
transitioning into Reach 4. The new design channel will be gradually relocated to tie from the
existing top of bank in order to meet the design top of bank. The design will capture relic channels
in areas through the Reach.
9. General discussions about Reach 4A and 4B design approaches. The NCIRT members agreed with
the proposed design approach on both these reaches.
10. Olivia Munzer asked about existing large trees throughout the project and the option to maintain
tree snags for terrestrial habitat. It was explained that all efforts will be made to preserve and/or
incorporate large trees within the project limits. Any trees that must be removed will be fully
utilized in the stream design. Any dead standing trees that serve as habitat for terrestrial species
will be incorporated into the design where appropriate and applicable. New tree snags will be
included in the design where appropriate and applicable so as to not detrimentally effect the
stream design and surrounding project amenities including fencing and cattle waterers. Olivia
agreed with this approach.
11. General discussion regarding Reach 5. It was explained that the new channel alignment would
utilize more of the left floodplain in the area where the Reach has minimal riparian corridor and
has been generally straightened. The NCIRT members agreed with this proposed mitigation
approach.
12. General discussion regarding Reach 1. There was further conversation about the water quality
improvement feature being excluded from the conservation easement. It was reiterated by WLS
that this was the preferred approach by the NCIRT. Andrea Leslie again stated that protecting the
water quality improvement feature minimally with fencing around the feature or including in the
conservation easement is strongly encouraged. WLS agreed with this recommendation and
indicated that this would be addressed fully in the mitigation plan.
Additional and Concluding Comments
The NCIRT expressed that overall, they accepted the proposed project mitigation approaches for all seven
(7) Reaches. Todd Tugwell reiterated that he does have concern with maintaining stream jurisdiction in
Reaches in 2 and 3. WLS explained that this concern would be incorporated in the design process and
would be abated based on the design approach and past experience with similar projects, as well as the
water quality improvement features ability to allow for slow release of water into stream Reaches. Todd
Tugwell also said that WLS should have a jurisdictional determination conducted on Reaches 2 and 3 for
final stream nexus location.

waterlandsolutions.com | 11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Ste 119, Raleigh, NC 27614 | 919-614-5111
Please be aware that although some intermittent/ephemeral break locations were discussed during the
site visit, a full Jurisdictional Determination will need to be completed for each of the project reaches at
the site and included in the Mitigation Plan.
There were several occasions throughout the meeting where the need for flow gages and/or trail cameras
would be used to document flow in reaches of concern. The gage type, locations (map), sampling
frequency and the associated success criteria should be presented in the mitigation plan.
The above minutes represents Water & Land Solutions’ interpretation and understanding of the meeting
discussion and actions. If recipients of these minutes should find any information contained in these
minutes to be in error, incomplete, please notify the author with appropriate corrections and/or additions
within five (5) business days to allow adequate time for correction and redistribution.