20081462 Ver 1_Mitigation Closeout Report_20170526

UT Rocky River — Harris Road Middle
DMS ID # 92383
USACE ACTION ID # SAW-2008-2809
CLOSEOUT REPORT: Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Project Settinq & Classifications
Meeting XY Coordinates:
35.425754,-80.740511
County
Cabarrus
General Location
Concord, NC
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
Ph sio ra hic Region:
Southern Piedmont
Ecoregion:
Southern Outer
Piedmont
USGS Hydro Unit:
03040105
NCDWQ Sub -basin:
03-07-11
Wetland Classification
Riparian
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
N
Project Performers
Source Agency:
DMS
Provider:
N/A
Designer.
HDR ICA
Monitoring Firm
HDR ICA
Channel Remediation
N/A
Plant remediation
DMS
Approved for transfer to
Stewardship
YES
Stewards
NCDEQ
Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Project Instituted
July-2007
USACE JD
March-2008
Permitted
December-2008
Planting
February-2011
Construction Completed
March-2011
As -built Data Collected
March-2011 through May-
2011
Beaver removal
October-2012
Monitoring Year-1 Data
Collected
March-2012 through October -
2012
Monitoring Year-1 Report
January-2013
Beaver removal
February-2013
Beaver removal
March-2013
Beaver removal
July-2013
Monitoring Year-2 Data
Collected
March-2013 through
September-2013
Monitoring Year-2 Report
November-2013
Live Stake Supplemental
Planting
February-2014
Beaver removal
April-2014
Monitoring Year-3 Data
Collected
April-2014 through
September 2014
Monitoring Year-3 Report
November-2014
Beaver removal
January-2015
Beaver removal
August-2015
Monitoring Year-4 Data
Collected
March-2015 through
September-2015
Monitoring Year-4 Report
November-2015
Monitoring Year-5 Data
Collected
February-2016 through
August-2016
Monitoring Year-5 Report
September-2016
Closeout Submission
May-2017

DMS Planning Context:
The UT Rocky River (Harris Road Middle) stream and wetland project is located in HUC 03040105010010, the
West Branch Rocky River watershed, which is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the 2009 Lower
Yadkin River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP). The project is also located in the Upper Rocky River Local
Watershed Plan (LWP). Currently, DMS has three other projects in this TLW/LWP (UT West Branch Rocky
River, Dye Branch II Stream Restoration and Dye Branch I Stormwater BMP).
The UT Rocky River (Harris Road Middle) project site drains to the Rocky River approximately 0.2 miles
downstream. The Rocky River is identified on the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) 2014 303d
Impaired Waters list. It was listed for not supporting benthic communities in 1998.
The 2009 Lower Yadkin RBRP indicates that impacts from construction, stormwater runoff and some
agricultural practices are likely contributing to degradation including impaired biological integrity. The Upper
Rocky River LWP indicates that major stressors in this watershed include high levels of fecal coliform bacteria,
nutrients, stream channelization, impacts from agricultural operations and lack of adequate forested buffer.
Goals of this LWP include: improve water quality and restore physical habitat.
The goals of the UT Rocky River (Harris Road Middle) project are consistent with DMS watershed planning
goals. The project goals aim to address water quality and habitat needs through stream stabilization and
improved instream sediment and flow transport and planting a riparian buffer and enhancing onsite wetlands to
reduce pollutant inputs and improve habitat. In addition, this project provides educational opportunities for
students at grade schools adjacent to the Site.
Project Setting and Backiround Summary
The NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) has completed restoration of 2,715 linear feet of stream
and enhanced 8.2 acres of riparian wetland at the UT Rocky River Project Site (Site) to assist in fulfilling
stream and wetland mitigation goals in the area. Prior to restoration, UT to Rocky River was influenced by
backwater effects from beaver dams, sediment control fence, and an in -line BMP. Other portions of the UT
were deeply eroded gullies. Riparian vegetation consisted of mostly early successional brush and shrubs.
Priority I and II restoration was implemented to restore a stable dimension, pattern and profile to the UT. In -
stream structures were installed to promote bank stabilization, grade control, and habitat improvement.
Restoration of the floodplains, side slopes, and stream -side habitats was completed by planting species
characteristic of a Piedmont Alluvial Forest community and a stream -side assemblage. Bare -root seedlings of
tree species were planted within the Piedmont Alluvial Forest at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre
on 8-foot centers. Shrub species in the stream -side assemblage were planted at a density of 2,720 stems per
acre on 4-foot centers.
UT Rocky River appears to be stable and functioning as designed. Heavy rain events have caused debris piles
to build up in the channel behind stream bank vegetation, leading to minor scour and deposition in the channel
profile. The most significant area of degradation on -site appears to be occurring between station 19+75 and
21+50. This change in profile is a result of natural pool scouring and is not an area of concern. The channel is
aggrading from station 36+00 though the end of the profile. This deposition is likely a result of backwater from
Rocky River entering the UT. Overall cross section data shows that while cross section dimensions have
fluctuated over the course of the monitoring period, channel geometry remains similar to baseline dimensions.
Fourteen vegetation plots have an average of 339 planted stems per acre meeting the success criteria of at least
260 stems per acre. Nine of the 14 plots are exceeding the year 5 criteria and 13 of the 14 plots are exceeding

criteria when including natural recruits. Only plot 8 fails to meet success criteria when including natural
recruits. Bare root plantings are surviving well across the site and are expected to sustain growth in the long
term.
Existing wetlands at the site were enhanced by removing exotic vegetation and planting native species. All
vegetation plots located within wetland areas are exceeding success criteria when including natural recruits.
Based on site -visits it appears that more wetlands have developed within the conservation easement than
presented in the closeout asset request. Additional wetlands are considered a project benefit and are incidental
to the assets; DMS will not be seeking credit for additional wetlands.
Beaver activity has been evident throughout a majority of the monitoring years. Two dams were removed in
2012, one dam in 2013, one dam in 2014, and 3 dams in 2015. In February 2014, DMS planted live stakes
along stream banks in areas affected by beaver. Live stakes were cut on -site and planting was minimal.
USDA -APHIS is continuing to monitor the site for beaver and beaver dam removal through project closeout in
2017.
Goals and Obiectives:
The primary goals of the UT Rocky River stream restoration project focus on:
• Improving water quality
• Enhancing aquatic and terrestrial habitat within the Site watershed
• Establishing wildlife corridors within the Site boundaries
• Enhancing riparian wetlands adjacent to UT Rocky River
• Providing educational opportunities for students at grade schools adjacent to the Site
These goals will be accomplished through the following objectives:
• Improve water quality and stabilize the UT to Rocky River by restoring a more natural pattern, profile,
and dimension that will transport its sediment and flow without aggrading (as seen in areas effected by
beavers and erosion control devices), or degrading (as seen in gully reaches on -site)
• Improve water quality by establishing a natural vegetative buffer adjacent to the UT to Rocky River that
will filter runoff from adjacent development.
• Improve aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability, providing shading/cover areas within the
stream channel, and introducing woody debris in the form of rootwads, log vanes, and log sills.
• Enhance terrestrial habitat by removing existing invasive vegetative species and planting the buffer
(floodplain) with native trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses.
• Create a wildlife corridor through the Site that will connect habitat areas along the Rocky River with
habitat areas at the upstream end of the Site. The corridors will provide connectivity to a diversity of
habitats including mature forest, early successional forest, stream -side forest, riparian wetlands, and
uplands.
• Enhance wetlands by removing existing invasive species and planting native vegetative species.
• Provide an educational benefit to children who can utilize the pedestrian footpath crossing the
floodplain, and can view the stream channel from adjacent terraces where schools are located.

Success Criteria
Success Criteria
Measured Parameter
Criteria Met
- Stream Dimension:
The width -to -depth ratio
should characterize a
Yes, throughout the course of
CS/ES type channel, bank-
monitoring the channel is moving
height ratios should be
from a C to an E type channel as
indicative of a stable or
width/depth ratios are decreasing.
moderately unstable
6 Cross Sections (3 riffles, 3 pools)
The majority of changes in cross
channel, and changes in
sectional areas are minimal, bank
cross sectional area,
height ratios remain at 1.0 and
channel width, and or bank
bank erosion is minimal.
erosion should be minimal.
- Stream Pattern and Profile:
Profile surveys conducted on the
Yes, pattern has remained
Channel abandonment
entire channel annually
consistent throughout the
and/or shoot cutoffs must
monitoring period and changes in
not occur and sinuosity
profile are typical of a sand bed
values should remain
system.
relatively constant.
- Sediment Transport:
Profile surveys and visual
Yes, fluctuation in channel profile
There should be an
assessments conducted on the
is consistent with the natural
absence of any significant
entire channel annually
aggregation/degradation of sand
trend in the aggradational
bed systems.
or depositional potential of
the channel.
- Vegetation:
14 vegetation plots (1Om x IOm)
Yes, tree species are averaging
260 planted tree species
338.5 planted stems per acre and
per acre should be
593 stems per acre when
surviving after year 5
including natural recruits; well
monitoring.
above the 260 stems per acre
criteria.
- Hydrology
2 crest gauges
Yes, 11 overbank flows were
A minimum of two
documented over the course of the
bankfull events must be
monitoring period.
documented within the
standard 5 year monitoring
period. The two bankfull
events shall occur within
separate years.

Asset Table
UT Rocky River — Harris Road Middle (DMS Project ID No. 92383)
Mitigation Credits
Stream*
Riparian Wetland**
Type
R
R
Total
2,605
4.1
Project Components
Restoration or
Restoration Segment/
Station
Existing
Mitigation
Approach
Restoration
Restored LF/AC
Reach ID
Range
LF/AC
Ratio
Equivalent
10+00 —
UT to Rocky River
2,020
PI
R
2,450
1:1
34+50
34+50 —
UT to Rocky River
330
PII
R
265
1:1
37+15
Invasive Removal &
Wetland
-
8.7
R
8.2
2:1
Planting
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream
Riparian Wetland
(linear feet)
(acres)
Riverine
Restoration 2,715
Enhancement
8.2
*Stream credits are less than the linear feet restored because 100 feet of the restored stream flows through sewer line easements and was not
included as part of the stream credit calculations. Ten credits were also removed due to a utility line crossing.
**Wetlands located within the sewer line easements were not planted during the construction phase of this project and are not included as part of
the enhanced wetland acreage or Wetland Mitigation Credits.

Asset Map

T000iraohic Map
i
.,
f—ter � 49�
t
a
1
Legend
MDrainage Area - 4 37. 9 Acres
� Immn Easement
Watershed flap
UT Rocky Fiver - Harris Road Middle
ICCaberrus County, North Caroline
0 450 900 1,804 Feet
LIL
' I 1 496 .0
/� k • L
F)l

Soils Mau
iD .,Ari PoB
_€ `-
r�.
A.A.
w
. I
Ugend
MEasement
' En'3 - Restored Stream
Soils
AaB - Altawista Sandy Uam
CcB2 - Cedl Sandy Clay Loam 2-13% Slope
Cca2 - Cecil Sandy Clay Loam B-15% Slope
Ch - Chewacla Sandy La am
EnB - Enffn Sandy Loam 2-3% Slope
J� & f EnEF - E nan Sandy Laarn 5-15% Siape
• r F a Med -Mecklenburg Loam
Po6 - Paindexter Loam 2-8% Slope
Of Pot} - P ourdexter Loam B-i �M Skye
Si8 - Sedgefield Sandy loam
r' ^
t«ti IJ '.V - Water
■ tE,B l We-wehadkee Loam
Soils Map
Rocky River - Harris Road diddle
ICAUT
abarrus County, Forth Carolina.
0 0.075 E.A5 0.9 Miles rLI

Remediation Map
Legend
Supplemental Planting (2014)
Beaver Dam
Restored Stream
Q Easement ,
Supplemental We stakes were
instated in 2014 to a potion of
the stream affected by heaver.
Remediation Map
FNICA UT Rocker River - Harris Road diddle
abarrus County, North Carolina

Stream Morphology Data: Cross sections
Figure 5.3, XS-3 Pool, Sta. 23+64.02
Baseline - 3/22/11 —Pearl
Year2 wear3
Year —Year 5
— — — Bankfull
616.0
-
c
•Q 614.0
IN
w 513.0 -
612.0
0.0 1C.0 20.0 30.0 4C.0 50.0
Distance (ft)
Figure 5.4, XS-4 Riffle, Sta. 25+54.29
Baseline-3/23/11 —wears
Year2 Year3
Year4 — Vear5
— — — Bankfull
614.0
613-0
s 612.0
W 6110
610-0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Distance [ft)
l
if
L

Figure 5.5, XS-5 Pool, Sta. 31+53.85
Baseline - 3/23/11 Year Year
'--Year3 -- vcar= —Year5
— — — Bankfull
6110
612.0
e 611.0
.4
610.0
A
W 6040
60M)
0.0 10.0 2C.0 3C.0 4C.0
Distance (ft)
Figure 5.6, XS-6 Pool (formerly Riffle), Sta.
33+18.49
Baseline - 3123111 -Year_ ---Year
Year3 — Year4 —Year5
— — — Bankfull
612.0
" 610.0
4
60&0
u,
606.0
Ol] loin 20.0 30.0
Distance {f j

Stream Morphology Data: Longitudinal Profiles
Figure 5.1 UT Rocky River - Longitudinal Profile
-13-h cThalweg
• Eaxlix 62nkfull YAI Th2lxre6 ■ YR i Barkfull YR 2Thahves YR 2 EankFull
YR 3Tha1rrg
YR 3 8-kfull
MTh21we6 Y+14- 62nkfun -YR 5 Thal-g -MY 5 W ie-r 5urFarx YR S B-kfull
626.0
Rod L-vane
LO Sill Log Vane w/5il!
424.0
• ■�.
Log VanewJ5i11
Rock Cross Vane
i! f ■ . ■i . +a -■ h ■ s,
IN +a ■ ■+i 1,14 ■F
-
+, } , ■
s 16.0
414.0
10+00.00 11+fl0.00
L2+00.00 13+00.00 14+W.GO 15+G0.00 15i00A0
17i00A0 LE-00.90
IR!
Figure 5.2 UT Rocky River - Longitudinal Profile
-13-Iinc Th;Ilweg
i 13-hne E-kFull YR IThahwrg • YRIS-kfuli
YR 2Th2lwr6
+ Y+L28ankhr8
YR 3ThaN-% • YR3&ankfua 114 Thalweg
YR462n*rull
-YR SThahveg
YR S 6ankfv1 -MY Swat. surf--
621.0
LO 5d!
anuhlestep Lag cross vane
�7.
to � � ■+y ■tL1
i
+■a. Legsill Log vanewf5ilk
• t ■+, nouhleStepLog CrossVane
617.0
Lag vane W"Sill
,Log Sill
i
615.0
613A
611.4
■
6N.0
16+00.00
19++10.O0
2C400-00 21 MOA0 22+00.00 23-00.00 24+00.00
25N1R.E0 24-00.U0
St.. IN
Figure 5.3 UT Rocky River - Longitudinal Profile
-B-H-Thahrag • fi-fi a 6ankfull -YR I Thai-ff ■ YR 1 SankFull
-YR 2 Tha fraeg
r YR 2 0ankfull -YR 3 Tha#xeg YR 3 5-kFull YR4 Thalweg
Yr4- 6ankfull
-YR 5 Thalwag -YR 5 Waver Surface • MY 5 EankUl
515A
613A
Bea Yer ❑W 2014 Rem oVedj Beaver Gam 2015 {Removed) Log Sill Leg Sill BTaaver Dam 2012 �Remored�
' +� } +! , 4 I Log 501 Log Sill
■+i • rt#` ++ 3.
Rock Cross Vane
611.0
6 ■„F . ,�, +.+ 1 tC 6 Lug 5m
Log Cross Vane
X
y
+
00uhFestep
_ A.
6a80
- *
Log Cross Vane
t
vN
607A
a
605-0
503.0
26+00.00 2Ei00.00 30+00.W 32+011.00 34-00.00
36iW.00
Su. {ftl

Stream Morphology Data: Morphology Table
Table 3. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
UT Rocky River - Harris Road Middle (DMS IMS No. 92383)
UT Rocky River: 2,715 If
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.10
10.30
8.70
7.09
7.63
8.33
9.30
10.06
9.34
8.91
923
7.59
Floodprone Width (ft)
185.00
185.00
185.00
185.00
185A0
185.00
175.00
175.00
175.00
175.00
175.00
175.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.90
0.87
0.73
0.97
0.88
1.14
0.90
0.83
0.88
0.51
0.83
0.89
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.60
1.56
1.21
1.59
1.37
1.74
1.65
1.83
1.85
2.02
2.02
1.73
Bankfu11 Cross Sectional Area (ft)
9.20
8.93
6.31
6.89
6.70
9.45
8.00
8.33
8.18
9.73
7.67
6.77
Bankfull Wdth/Depth Ratio
11.101
11.85
11.99
7.31
8.69
7.31
10.80
12.12
10.67
17.47
11.12
8.53
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
18.30
1 17.94
2126
26.D9
2424
2221
18.80
17.40
18.74
1964.
1995.
23.05
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio-
1.00
1.04
1.00
1.OD
1.06
1.14
1.60
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.07
1.00
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.02
10.13
10.73
11.16
10.00
6.56
8.50
8.68
8.75
9.10
8.05
5.68
Floodprone Width (ft)
132.00
132.00
132.00
132.DO
132.00
132.00
292.00
292.00
292.00
292.00
292.00
292.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.97
0.95
0.92
0.87
0.82
1.03
0.80
0.85
0.69
0.51
0.74
0.63
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.00
1.97
2.15
1.67
1.66
1.71
1.40
1.38
1.33
1.56
1.50
1.13
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
10.68
9.75
9.84
9.75
8.22
6.73
6.70
7.50
6.01
7.09
5.98
3.61
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.36
10.55
11.71
1 12.83
12.24
6.37
10.70
10.45
12.73
17.84
10.88
9.02
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
12.00
13.031
12.301
11.83
13.2
2D.12
34.30
1 32.88
1 33.38
32.09
36.27
51.39
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio"
1.DD
1.00
1 1.01
1 1.12
1.11
1 1.013
1.00
1 1.03
1 1.03
1.00
1.27
1.07
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Cross Section 6 (Pool/formerly Rifle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.30
13.71
12.84
10.80
13.00
7.43
11.60
1124
11.17
10.80
11.50
9.83
Floodprone Width (ft)
300.00
300.00
300.00
300.00
300.D0
300.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.90
1.09
0.99
1.13
0.66
0.98
0.90
1.18
1.31
1.61
0.88
1.42
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.05
2.45
2.29
2.50
1.98
1.70
1.90
2.62
3.11
3.41
3.23
3.12
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
12.30
14.95
12.72
12.28
8.65
7.31
10.70
13.27
14.64
17.41
10.11
13.97
Bankfull WidthlDepth Ratio
14.50
12.58
12.95
9.56
1976.
7.58
12.60
9.53
8.52
6.71
13.08
6.92
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
22.60
21.88
23.37
27.78
23.07
40.39
21.60
22.24
22.38
23.15
21.73
25.43
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio"
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.07
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
*Sank He gh t Ratios were delennined usin baseline bank flu II elevation.

Hydrology Data: Verification of Bankfull Events
Date
Crest Gauge Info
Gauge
Reading
(ft)
Gauge
Elevation
(ft)
Crest
Elevation
(ft)
Bankfull
Elevation
(ft)
Height
above
Bankfull
(ft)
Site
Sta.
3/8/2012
1
16+85
0.75
620.65
621.40
621.05
0.35
10/4/2012
1
16+85
1.13
620.65
621.78
621.05
0.73
3/20/2013
1
16+85
1.75
620.65
622.40
621.05
1.35
9/24/2013
2
29+70
1.30
611.80
613.10
612.33
0.77
9/23/2014
1
16+85
1.66
620.65
622.31
621.05
1.26
9/23/2014
2
29+70
1.83
611.80
613.65
612.33
1.32
3/24/2015
2
29+70
1.29
611.80
613.09
612.33
0.76
9/21/2015
1
16+85
1.46
620.65
622.11
621.05
1.06
2/17/2016
1
16+85
3.9
620.65
624.55
621.05
3.5
2/1/2016
2
29+70
3.9
611.80
615.77
612.33
3.72
9/11/2016
1
16+85
3.9
620.65
624.55
621.05
3.5

Vegetation Data:
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
1 HE Itoi1-1NI Id1Z-812-1Z-Z 1R1if-,1A
m{a�o{Mi���itn�li
LI 1—L 1-1 1-1 L 1 1 .1 1-1 1
1 sv13 ,n11,]1i1111llI QIQllU1 R,1 R,11,11 Ri 1ID 11!]11D 11A1
1 In_ u1V;4;4;1•l 1 a.r, 41 IN I I IIv;v;v;rl; rr,
1 I v,l 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I
1
1 It :.1 �1 �_ 1�14116i1 �1M11\1�1RI �_ 1�1�1'�1
1 I Ill 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I
Il l�I�l4_R, lNlnl,n inl�_CO_"l
im m - - - -
Sfl-Cl- 4`d-IT_Q-N_N-N-N-V-M_VI-Q-
1
1 1 ✓,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Igryl 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
H 'I�I�ItiINI�IIIA.I-NIIOILIITIRI
1 1 al CI 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 1_ 1 I i 1
yf'^IK4'n- -r4 r,lovllr'Ir'I�IrI^1I^4,Ia�
1 sf1` .
I 11Cn ILn �INII* "�AI NIAI NII* mILn
1 I a YI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
�u ,.- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
IElni I�Di cal -A itti i vli lei'` iyi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 �l�l�l l�lal l i�l�l------ l l
I lx �l,i-4 i-vini 1i i ;IImI ICI I
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
l5 €I�INI$INII�I�INIINI�IIINI
1 1 1
1 I n w,l 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
1 HE 1�15I�IWIeI1I4I�I�I�I�II9IzmzI14,I�I
I l ` �lol"'l �l I'"lNl I I�ININI I°°Ilnl cl._IF x1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Y INI— Al 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1
vI l� >=I ICI ICI I I INININIIMII1�1
YI In �1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
LII 1— VII 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
�1 lc a.l�IQIOTI IDICOI�IIOIIllll�l l�1'�ICOI �1�1
Y I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I
�I I alrl"I�IIAI"'I"'I"IwI�,I`'I.�I.�I.�I�I

DMS Recommendation and Conclusions
The UT Rocky River — Harris Road Middle Restoration Site (92383) has completed 5 years of successful post
construction monitoring. The Site has achieved success criteria parameters established in the
mitigation/restoration plan and is ready to be closed out.
Stream stability success criteria has been met. The Site's cross sections and profile monitoring data documents
the stream bed and banks are stable after five years of monitoring.
Vegetation success criteria requirements have been achieved. The Site's overall average planted stems per acre
is 338 and average total stems per acre is 593 when volunteer species are included.
Numerous bankfull events have been documented throughout the five years of monitoring, meeting success
criteria.
NCDMS recommends closing the UT Rocky River (Harris Middle) Restoration Site as proposed with 2,605
stream mitigation units and 4.1 wetland mitigation units as shown in the asset table.
Contingencies
There are no contingencies associated with the closeout of this project. DMS requests regulatory closure.

rl
d1
— o�

2
� 0 �
F +w7
wall

Appendix A: Property Ownership Information & Verification of Protection Mechanism
The site protection instrument for this mitigation project includes the following document(s), available at the specified
County Register of Deeds office, and is linked to the property portfolio at:
http://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Libra ry/Property/Property%20Portfolio/92383 UTRockyR
iver-HarrisRoadMiddle PD 2009.pdf
Project Name I County II Grantor Name u Deed Info II Property Rights
UT Rocky River Cabarrus ICabarrus County -Harris Road Middle School IDB 8896, P 155 Conservation Easement
Long-term stewardship of this property is managed by the NC DEQ Stewardship Program.

Appendix B: Permits & Jurisdictional Determinations
L-,N%.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Uf. L' - 4 �006
WILMINGTON DISTRICT NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Action ID. SAW-2008-2809 County: C:abarrus USGS Quad: Cornelius
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Prop -ram, Attn: lain Xu
Address: 1652 Mail Service Center
Ralei h NC 27699-1619
Telephone No.: 919-715-7571
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, etc.): UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration
Project incoriporating a roximatel 2350 linear feet of stream channel and adjacent wetlands on approximatel
18 acres located northeast of the Harris Road SR 1449 crossing of the Rocky River west of Kanna olis.
Description of projects area and activity: Restore 2703 linear feet of stream channel and enhance 8.7 acres of
riverine wetlands. Channel restoration work will impact approximately 1.05 acres of existing wetlands.
Applicable Law: X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 331JSC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Numbers: 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified,
suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or
modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of
the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are
under construction) or are under contract to continence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the
activity is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to detennine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA),
prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Steven Lund at telephone [phone].
Corps Regulatory Official: Steven Lund 'j W �(-- Date: December 1, 2008_
Expiration Date of Verification: December 1, 2010
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so,
please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit htt:Ilwww.saw.usace.arm .mil/WETLANDSIindex.htmI to
complete the survey online.

The UT Rocky River Creek 401 permit application was submitted in September 2008. The 401 was
deemed issued after 30 days from the submittal. EEP did not receive a copy of the permit or email
notification from NCDWQ.

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Carps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section 1V of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION is BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE 'MR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
R. DISTRICT OFFICE, FiL$ NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: North Carolina County/parishAxrrough: C"aha=,; City: See attached Map
Center coordinates of site (latllong in degree decimal format): f.at. 35.4256'N, f.ong. 80.7404" W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Narnc of ircarest watcrbodF Rocky Rivcr
[Name of rrcarest Traditional Navigable Water CIN W) into which the aquatic resource flows: Rocky River
Name ❑1'wat.er hed or f iydnrlogic IJrn1. C'.ade (ITlJC): 03040105010010
® Check if ruap/diagram of review area and/or potential jruisdictiorral areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Clicok if other sites (c.g., oflsite rxuitigation sites, disposal sites, ctc... ) arc associated with this action and arc recorded on a
ditfcrcnt Jll form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR STCF. EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Dctcrruination. Date 3/7/08
® Field Deterruinatiori Date(s): 3/5M and 3W08
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION lit DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick List "navigable wirers of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RI1A) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CF R part 329) in the
review area. I12equi—A
❑ Waters suhjectto the ebb and flow ofthe tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have heen used in the past, or may he suscepiibl a for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
R. CWA SECTION 404 DETE.RMINATiON OF.TURISDICTION.
There Are "Waters of gie L1.S' within Clean Water Act (C WA)jurisdiction (as defined by33 UYR part 329) in tlrc review area. [Rawfired]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indica(e presence of wailers of U.S. in review area (check all (hal apply):
❑ TNWsy including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively I)ermanent waters? (RPWs) alai. it OW dired.ly or ind iTed.ly role TNW%
❑ Non- RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TN Ws
® Wetlands di reed y abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that tlow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (eslinrale) adze of waters of the U.S. in The review area:
Non -wetland waters: linear feet width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands 9.2 acres.
c. L'uuits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1997 Delineation Manual
Elevation ofestablished.0HWM (ifknown):
2. Nan -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicahle):3
❑ 1'otciitially.jurisdictional waters and/or wLAairds were assessed within the roviow area and detemrined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
L Boxes checker/ below shall be supported by completing the approprial.e sections in Sect.im lit below.
'Fur purposes of this form, an RP W is defincd as a tributary that is not a TNW and [fiat typically flows year-round or has continuous flow al ICHA "scasunally"
(c.g., typically 3 months).
a Supporting documentation is presented in Section 111Y.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will asserl jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section iiI.A.1 and Section iii.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections iii.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
ldentifyTNW Rocky River.
Snurnnariac rationale supporting determination: The Rocky Rivcr adjacent to the Site has a drainage basin of approximately 44
sgivare miles. llpon leaving the Site marjins, the Rocky River drains for apprwdmately 66 miles prior to converging with the
Pee Dee River. The channel adjacent to the Site is approximately 35 feet in width and 6 to S feet in depth..
2. Wetland adjacent to T:\ W
Summari7.e rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent Wei]ands in the floodplain of the Rocky River and adjacent
to an uumrned tributary to the Ricky River.
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT 1S NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
T'his section summarizes into rmation regarding chi racterislics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapazroshave been nret.
The agencies will asserl jurisdiction over non -navigable tribularies of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPW s), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is a[so Jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, slip to Section HI.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abulting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section 111.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (And its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
It the waterbody4 is not art RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. if tire, tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the .ID request Is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. if the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section 111.B.I for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section IH.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsitc
and offske. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section 111.0 below.
1. CharacterMes of non-TNWs that floor• directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) C:encraI Arca CondiI inns:
Watershed size: 41 square mules
Drainage area. 0.8 square miles
Average arurual rainfall: 43.8 inches
Average animal snowfall: 5.7 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TN W.
® Tributary flows directly into'1'N W .
❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TN W.
Project waters are 1 (or less) rivcr rnilcs fromTN W.
Project waters are 1 (or less) rivcr miles from RPW.
Prnjeet waters are 1 (or less) aerial (.straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or leas) aerial (straight) inks from RIM.
Project waters crass or serve as state bonundarics. Explaiin: NA.
4 Note that the Instructional Q1ndeb nok contains additional information regarding swales, ditch es, wadi es, and erosional featiires generally and in the and
West.

Identify flow route to 'IN W5: The UT pocky Rivcr drians directly to the pocky River within the Site.
Trlbutarystrcarn Order, if known: second.
(b) C;eiieral'i'ributmy Cliaracteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natival
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain
❑ Manipulated (mare -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top ofbank (estimate):
Average width: 6 feet
Average depth: 1.5 feet
Average side slopes: 2A.
Primary tribirtnry substrate composition (check a]1 that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Tjpe/% cover: shnrb/senrp 30%
❑ Other. Explain:
Trihutarycondii ioWstaNlity [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing hanks]. Explain: erroding/headcutting or aggrading.
Presence ofnnnlrtff]elpool complexes. Explain: In parts, others are impacted by beaver.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (appro)imate average slope): 0.5 %
(c) Flow.
Tributary provides for: Seasuml flow
Estimate average numher of flow events in review area/year: 2-5
Describe flow regime: pereniid.
Otlrerinnionnadon car duration and volume: hartnediate vicinity is ingIly Lfftmiized.
Surface flow is Overland sheefflow Characteristics: Much of the Site is impacted by beaver. Also have numerous
Storruwater facilities adjauernt to Ilse Site.
Subsurface flow: Yes. Explaia findings: The Site is characterized by significant wetland acreage with springs.
❑ Dye (or ol.her) test performed:
Tributary has (clicck all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OIIWM`' (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural lime impressed on the bank
® changes in tllc character of soil
❑ shelving
® vegetation matted down, heal, or absent
® leaflitter disttubcd or washed away
® sedirne nt deposition
® water staining
❑ other (list).
❑ DiscrnrtrnrnusOHWM.' Explain:
❑ the presence of litter and debris
® destruction of terrestrial vegetation
® the presence of wrack line
® sediment sorting
® scrnnr
® multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ ahnrpt change in plant. community
If factors other than the C)HWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ I Iigh Tide Line inrdicaled by: ❑ Mean IIigh Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scorn lime along shore objects ❑ survey to available daturn;
❑ file shell or debris deposits (foresliorc) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physicil rnErrkingxlcharad.eristics ❑ wegetatiOr] IIneslclamges in vegelab (rri types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(ill) Chemical Characteristics:
Charwlerice tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed chardcterisL OS, etc.).
Explain: Sitc visits were conduetcd after periods of rain and relatively high ttubidity was observed..
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flaw into tributary b, which then flows into 'fNW.
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the 01IWM does nut mmssarily sevuajurisdidiun (c-p., where the Amin trrnpurarily fiuws underground, or where
the nHWM has been removed by development. or agricultural practices). Where there is abreak in the C7BVM thnf. is unrelated to thewaterhady's tlow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock ❑nterop or thmiigh a advert.), the agencies wi II lank frw indicators of flow shove and below the break.
'Ibid.

ldcntify sped fie pollutants, if known:

River.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all (hat apply):
® Riparian corridor_ Characteristics (type, average width): shrub scrub 15 to 50 feet.
® Welland dirlge. Chardcteristics: primarily herbaceous, sennpermanent impumdraents.
® 1labitat for:
® Federally Listed species. Explain findings: Schwcinitziis Su nflowcr in sewer lines and Carolina Hcclsplittcr in pocky
❑ Fishdspawn areas. Explain findings.
❑ Other cnvirolmrcntally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquaticlwildlifc diversity. Explain findings:
2. C:haraclerixtics of wetlandx adjacent to non-TIVW that flow direcllr or indirectly into TNW
(i) Phys cal Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland C:ha acterkties
Properties:
Wetland sizc:9.2 acres
Wetland type. Fxplain: Herbaceous or shrub scrub wetlands in beaver i mpacted areas.
Welland quality. Explain: disturbed areas characterized by blackberry and ruse thickets.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state borundarics. Explain: NA.
(b) General Flow Relation,.;Np with Non-TNW:
flow is. Interml(lent flow. Explain.
Surface flow is: Overland sheetfiow
Ctlaracteristics. Area is disturbed by beaver.
.Subsurface flow Yes. Explain findings: several springs were noted on edges of floodplains.
❑ Dye (M al.lFer) test perROrrned:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Dctcrmination with Non -TN W:
® Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic wmreetion. Explain:
❑ Ecological comiection. Explain:
❑ SepEiral.edlry l)ernllrirrier. FxpLnn:
(d) I'roxinntv(Rclationnshio) to'1'NW
Pro jcct wcflannds arc 1 (or less) river rn des fiom TN W.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) rrliles fiom TNW.
Flow is froze: Welland (olfrom navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within tlnc 2-year or less flood plain.
(ii) C:hernical Characteristics:
C'haracterim wetland system (c.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality, general watershed
characteristics, etc.). Dcplain: field reviews were conducted after a period of rain and high turbidity was noted.
Identify speci fic pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Charac(erislim Wetland supports (check all (hat apply):
® RiTnrian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): ] 5 to 50 feet.
® Vegetatinn typelpement cover. Explain: primarily herhacernzs, semipermanent imponrndments.
® Habitat for-
® Federally Listed species. Explain findings: Schwilutzis Sunflower in sewer lines and Caroluna Hcclsplittcr in Rocky
❑ Fitildspawn areas. Explain lindingx
❑ Other cnviroluucnrtally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ AgnaticJwilcilife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Charac(eris(ics of all wetlands adjacent (o (he tributary (if any)
All wcfland(s) being considcrcd in the curmdativc analysis: 5
Approximately ( 92 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumidative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres)
Yes 0.38 Yes 0.13
Yes 2.00 Yes 6.12
Yes 0_57
Sununarizc overall biological, clinical and physical functions being performed: Wildlife habitat in an urban area, water
quality fiinetians of pollutant removal, flood attenuation.
C. SIGNIFICANT NF.XIJS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the [low characteristics and function of the (rib ulary itselfand the functions performed
by any wetlands adiacent to the tributary to determine if they signiticairtly affect the cheinicaI, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significani nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chernicnl, physical and/or biological. integrity of a TINW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus Include, but are not lin>ated to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a T'N W, and the functions pertorrned by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to delernnine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the 'EN W). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a tloodplain is not solely deternninative of significard nexus
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
■ Does lie tributary, in combinatiour willr its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TN W s, or to reduce the annownt of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TN W7
• Docs the tributary, in combination with its adjaccnit wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifccycle support functions for fish and
other specks, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that arc present in tlu: TN W7
• Does the tabutary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to trarnsfcr nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs`)
■ Does Lire tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to Lire physical, chenneal, or
biological integrity of Lhe'1'NW7
Note: the above list of co nsid crations Is not Inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWre Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself; Ilrerr go to Sec lion II1.D.
2. Significant nexus furd'ungs for norr-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, wbere the non�RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on die tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wellands, then go to Seelion III.D.
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of signnlicant nexus below, based on die Lributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF ATRISDICTIONAT, FINDINGS. THE SI]RTECT WATF.RSIWFTI.ANDS ARE. (CHECK ALL
TIiAT APPLY);
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide rye estimates in review area
❑ 'I N Ws: linear feet width (11), Or, acres-
® Wetlands adjacent to TN Ws: 9.2 aeres.
2. RPW s that flow directly or Indirectly Into TNWs.
❑ 'Tributaries ofTNWs where tributaries typically flaw year-round are _jurisdictional- Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries ofTNW where tritnitaries have crntinium s flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
Jurisdictional- Data supporting this conchnsionis provided at Section 111.13. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flaws
seasonally: Drainage area is apprommaticy0.8 square milts in an urbanized watershed and a prominent OHWM.

Provide cstunatcs for _jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters. hirear feet width (11).
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
ldcntify typc(s) of waters:
Noon-RPWe that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Watcrbody that is not a'1N W or an RIV, but flows directly or indirectly into a'1N W, and it has a significant nexus with a
TN is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IIt-C.
Prcrvide eslinad.es fisr juriulidional wal.er:s within the review area (check all thal. apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TN W s.
® Well anch. directly abut RPW and thiLK are j on Sdi ell OVal a5 adjacent. wetlarxls.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting ari RPW where tributaries typically flow year-rourid. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section Idd.D-2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directlyahntting an RPW
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an I&W where tributaries typically flow `seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Sectiom IIi.R and rationale in Section iIT. D-2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Providc acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands iun the review area: 9.2 acres.
4. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ \Vcdands that do not directly abut an Hi'W, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with sinrilarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a sigrulicant nexus with a TN W are junsidictional. Data supporting tlds
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
G. Wellandsadjacenl to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWrs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in comhmali on with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with nudlarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TN W are jurisdictional. Data supporting lids
conclusion is provided at Section III-C..
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundorer" of jurisdictional waters.9
As ageneral rule, the impoundment of a jnrisdiciional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ l�emtnstral.e l.hal.impoundmertt w�ss creal.ed ficmt "wal.ers af'the dI.S.," or
❑ Dcmounstrate that water nnccts the criteria for one of tlnc categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate thatwater is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see F. below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, TIIE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SiIC"di WATERS (CIiECK ALL TiIAT APPLY):"'
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or ioreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could he taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain
❑ Otherfactors. Explant.
$See Footnote # 3.
To fumplac the analysis refer to Ihekcy in Soutim III.D.6 of Lit InAructima] Guidcbeok.
° Prior to asserting or declining C'.WA jnrisdirlion baser] solely on this category, Carps Districts will devote tlic action to Carps and F.PA HQfar
re,dew consistent with the process described In the Corp§ PA Melrlorand run Regarding CWA rlct JuH.sdtrtfon F'oUaWhg Rapines.

Identify looter body and summarize rationale supporting deterniination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Trilnrtary waters linear feet wi dth (R).
❑ Other non -wetland waters. acres.
ld cntify typc(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres -
NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CIIECK ALL TIIAT APPLY):
❑ if potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1997 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Mamial and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial ncmis to interstate (or foreign) corruncrec.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Suprcrnc Court decision in SWA1 CC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Ride" (MBR).
❑ Waters do riot meet the "Sigrn&cant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required 10r jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential lxisis orf jurisdiction is the MBR
[actors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endarigered species, use of water for irrigated agricullure), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, stream): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds. acres.
❑ Othernon-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in die review area that do riot meet the "Sigfn6cant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds. acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV. DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (cheek all (hat apply - checked itenis shall be included in case file arid, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below).
❑ Maps, plans, plots or plat subiriittcd by or on behalf of the applicanticonsidtant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Officc does not concur with data shcctsldclincation report.
❑ Data slucots prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study
❑ U.S. Geological Survoy Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHL] data.
❑ 1 JSGS 9 and 12 digit H[ JC maps.
® 1 J. S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name
® USDA Natual Resources L'onscrvation Service Soil Survcy. L'itation:
❑ National wetlands inventory nrap(s). Citc nine:
❑ Statelt.ncal wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMAIFiRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Gcodcctio Vertical Datum of 1929)
® phonographs ® Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other ([Name z& Date)
❑ Previous delerininationu(s). Pile no. and date of response letter.
❑ Applicablc/supporting case law:
❑ Applicablelsupporting scientific literature:
❑ Other intbrrnadon (please specity):
R. ADDiTiONAL COhiMVNTS TO SUPPORT JD:

Legend
_ Jurisdictional Wetlands = 9.2 acres
PO 115 230 460 690 !92Boundary
eetL\
2126 Rowland Pond Drive KEY TO SHEETS
9116 3 I9�215low pNC 27592 JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DELINEATION
919�3413839 fax UT TO THE ROCKY RIVER
Axory me Cabarrus County, North Carolina
CLF
KEY
Date
March 200E TO
SHEETS
07-015

D vn. by.
t126 Rowland Pond Drive
SHEET 1 CLF SHEET
NI low Sp rin g, N C 27592 Date:
919)215.1693 JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DELINEATION March200P
919)3413839fax UTTO THE ROCKY RIVER
Aalom EmlronmaMet, Irc.
CaharrusCounty, North Carolina Po,aa 07-0s

D vn. by.
t126 Rowland Pond Drive
SHEET CLF SHEET
NI low Sp rin g, N C 27592 Date:
919)215-1693 JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DELINEATION March 2ooe
919)3413839fax UTTO THE ROCKY RIVER
Aalom EmlronmaMet, Irc.
CaharrusCounty, North Carolina Po,aa 2
o7-o s

APPENDIX C: Debit ledger
Mitigation Project UT Rocky River - Harris Road Middle
DMS ID 92383
River Basin YADKIN
Cataloging Unit 03040105
Applied Credit Ratios: 1:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1
C
2
`
$
E
0E
c
W
E
Lin q
c
w
C
E
N
`
a
C
o
_
W U
c
O
_NN
2
w
C
.
M
a.
C C
m o
a
C
c
C
0
a c
c
M
C 0
_E ..is
EL
O
N C
� o
O N
W
N
W
�.an .o
N
U
N
�m 0
e
O
M
U W
N 0
�Nany
U�dNd
a
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
2,605.00
1
1 8.20
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
2,605.00
4.100
NCDOT Pre-DMS Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
DMS Debits (feet and acres):
DWR Permit No
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
2006-0695
Avinger Lane Realignment and
Extension
246.00
2007-0076
2007-00360-313
Rocky River Landing
150.00
2006-0059
2006-30385
Lemington
216.00
2006-0916
2006-33063-360
New Vermillion
222.00
2006-0101
2005-31042
Cedarvale Farms
367.00
2006-1652
2006-30076
Reedy Creek Commons Shopping
Center
294.00
2007-0195
2007-00483-360
Cheval
238.00
2008-1155
2008-02224
Kellswater Commons
180.00
2008-1154
2008-02201-360
Village at Cornelius
300.00
2008-1466
2008-02765-360
Hambright Road Extension
290.00
2005-1068
2004-31226
Crisco Road Industrial Park
102.00
2013-0234
2010-01615
Hendrick Concord Autoplaza
0.960
2013-0331
2013-00866
Brookdale Commons Subdivision
1.000
2012-01812
Southside at Cannon Crossing
0.280
2012-01460
University House
0.396
2013-0091
2013-00211
Johnston -Oehler Road Widening
0.500
2013-1156
2013-01509
Highway 74 Connector- Chestnut
Pkwy Ph
0.680
2013-1291
2012-00322
Prosperity Village NW Arc Phase
II
0.938
2013-1291
2012-00058
Prosperity Ridge Road
0.520
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
0.00
2.926
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)
0.00
1.463
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 05/19/2017