20161200 Ver 1_Draft Mitigation Plan_20200131

ID#* 20161200 Version* 2
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 02/03/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/31/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r1 Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Melonie Allen
Project Information
............................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20161200
Existing IDr
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Millstone Creek (Ken Cox) Site
County: Randolph
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*2
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Millstone (Ken Cox) DMS ID 204 Draft Mitigation
20.98MB
Plan_1_30_2020.pdf
Rease upload only one RDFof the corrplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Melonie Allen
Signature:*

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
CESAW-RG/Browning September 6, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received during 30-day comment period in accordance with
Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule in response to the Notice of NCDMS Mitigation Plan Review.
NCDMS Project Name: Millstone Creek Site, Randolph County,
NC USACEA ID#: SAW-2019-01363
NCDMS #: 204
30- Day Comment Deadline: August 25, 2019
DWR Comments, Mac Haupt and Erin Davis:
Note: The following comments are based on an initial review of the draft mitigation plan. Comments do not reflect
discussions from the August 15th site visit (e.g. credit ratios, RSC flow risk, wetland boundary) or technical review
of the project design. DWR will provide additional comments after review of the updated draft mitigation plan.
1.Please include page numbers consistently throughout the document. Completed
2.Please review section numbers and update as appropriate (e.g. Section 4.2, Section 10.3.1). Completed
3.Section 2.2 – There are three tributaries classified as intermittent based on the completed DWQ field forms.
However, Table 3 identifies the flow regimes as perennial and Section 4.2.1. notes the perennial channels
would likely be intermittent post-restoration. Please update any inconsistencies and include additional
discussion on the existing and proposed/expected flow regimes. Text has been added to the clarify the
difference between historic, existing, and proposed conditions.
4.Section 3.1.4 – A plant community classification should be included for the wetland area identified in
Figure 9. Completed
5.Section 10.1.4 – Please change from two to four bankfull events to be documented in separate years during
the seven-year monitoring period. Completed, all references to monitoring have been updated to comply
with 2016 monitoring guidance.
6.Section 10.1.6 – Please change the monitoring period from 5 to 7 years in the first sentence. Completed
7.Section 8.5.2 – Please include a list of potential tree and shrub species and estimated quantities (or
percentages). Species not included may not be counted towards the vegetation performance criteria. Please
also include a list of seed mix(s). The planting window should be noted as November 15 – March 15.
Completed
8.Table 17 – Include a row for the 6-18 inch zone since vegetation will differ from the 0-6 inch zone and
18-36 inch zone (open water). No longer applicable, the design has been revised and no longer specifies
planting in the wetland; wetland zones have been revised as well.
9.Table 19 – Please include four bankfull events criteria and MY7 10-foot veg vigor criteria. Completed
10.Table 21 – Please include a minimum of two veg plots within the proposed wetland area; one in each level
type (rehabilitation/enhancement and re-establishment). No longer applicable, the wetland will not be
planted per IRT input.
11.Figure 2 – Please show only delineated wetland feature(s) on the existing site resources map (do not
include re-establishment area). Completed
12.Figure 14 - The legend lists the jurisdictional wetland as 1.07 acres; however, Sections 1 and 4.2.4 state
the jurisdictional wetland area as 1.159 acres. Please confirm and update. Revised, existing wetland
acreage presented in Mitigation Plan based on USACE field visit and e-mail concurrence of mapped extent
as presented in Mitigation Plan map.
13.Figure 19 – Please remove the comment box shown within the easement area. The two wetland legend
items do not match text or other figures in the acreage amounts or term enhancement; please confirm and
update. Completed
14.Figures – Please confirm the jurisdictional status of the channel below the wetland area and update all
relevant figures. Revised to reflect the feature in question is a ditch.
15.Sheet 4.5 - Please confirm that the UTB R2 outfall area within the wetland boundary was not included in
the wetland credit acreage. The revised plans removed the outfall in that area; a minimally invasive weir
will be placed in the plugged ditch to enable water quality sampling for a limited period during monitoring
phase of project. This weir will then be removed.
16.Sheet 5.5 – Delete blank Note 25. A number of sod mat harvest areas are shown on Sheet 4.4, please
include a detail note describing the sod mat and top soil harvesting process (e.g. max. depth, topsoil
backfill, seeding). Detail added to current plan sheet 4.5
17.Detail Sheet - Please include planting related details (e.g. live stake, tublings, plugs, bare root and
container planting). Completed
18.Appendices – Please include completed NC SAM and NC WAM forms. Completed
USACE Comments, Kim Browning, Todd Tugwell:
1.The USACE ID for the cover page is SAW-2019-01363 and the DWR ID is 20161200. These ID numbers
have been added to the document.
2.Section10: All Performance Standards should be updated to follow the 2016 NCIRT Guidance. Completed
3.Table 23, Determination of Mitigation Credits: Credit ratios will be re-evaluated after reviewing the
revised Draft Mitigation Plan. Credit ratios have been revised to comply with current guidance.
4.There is concern that some of the tributaries proposed for RSC would lose jurisdiction after being filled.
Please clarify in the text how these areas will retain bed and bank single-thread features. Please see section
8 of the revised Mitigation Plan.
5.The wetland at the bottom of the project needs to be re-verified to determine the extent of the boundary.
DMS met with USACE regional representative on 8/29/19 for verification of delineation. Minor changes
were required, a revised map was submitted and approved. The approved map has been included in the
Mitigation Plan, a preliminary JD is pending.
6.Please describe how you plan to avoid impacts to functioning wetlands during restoration. It is
recommended that groundwater wells be installed, and monitored annually to ensure no functional loss.
In the revised plan, the wetland hydrology will be enhanced through removing two stressors affecting the
site, ditching and cattle compaction; however, relocation of the PII channel may affect hydrology. Gauges
will be installed.
7.Please justify the proposed ratio for the wetland rehabilitation area. The revised plan includes wetland
enhancement only at 2:1.
8.The proposed ratio for the enhancement reach is questionable. Please clarify the proposed activities
involved. The ratio has been revised to 1.5:1.
9.Please verify that the additional monitoring that is proposed to be paid for with federal funds will be
separated, and no credit can be claimed for these activities. The revised Mitigation Plan indicates credit
ratios based only monitoring that will be fully funded by DMS.
Digitally signed by
BROWNING.KIMBERLY.DANIELLE. DANIELLE.1527683510 1527683510
Date: 2019.09.06 09:09:20 -04'00'
Kim Browning
BROWNING.KIMBERLY.
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 December 18, 2019 1
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site
Randolph County, North Carolina
DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
Cape Fear Basin: HUC 03030003
NCDMS IMS# 204; USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment Quality Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
DRAFT - January 24, 2020
Prepared by:
Barbara A. Doll, Ph.D, PE
Biological & Agricultural Engineering Department, NC State University
Box 7625, Raleigh, NC 27695
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the
following documents, which govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery
of compensatory mitigation:
Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal
Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section
§ 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14).
NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and
dated July 28, 2010

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 4
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 5
1. PROJECT INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 6
2. WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION ............................................. 11
2.1 River Basin and Watershed Planning Context .................................................... 11
2.2 Stream Use Classification ................................................................................... 12
3. BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................ 12
3.1 Watershed Processes and Landscape Characteristics ....................................... 12
3.1.1 Watershed and Site Geology ....................................................................... 12
3.1.2 Watershed and Site Landuse ....................................................................... 14
3.1.3 Site Soils ...................................................................................................... 17
3.1.4 Site Vegetation ............................................................................................. 19
3.2 Site Resources ................................................................................................... 22
3.2.1 NT R1 and UTA R1 ....................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 NT R2 and UT R2 ......................................................................................... 22
3.2.3 UTB ............................................................................................................... 22
3.2.4 MC R1 and MC R2 ........................................................................................ 25
3.2.5 Wetland 1 ...................................................................................................... 26
5. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................... 28
5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................. 28
5.2 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 29
5.3 404/401 ................................................................................................................ 30
6. FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL ......................................................................... 30
6.1 Stream Functional Uplift Potential ........................................................................ 30
6.1.1 Hydrology ...................................................................................................... 30
6.1.2 Hydraulics ..................................................................................................... 31
6.1.3 Geomorphology ............................................................................................. 31
6.1.4 Physicochemical ........................................................................................... 31
6.1.5 Biology .......................................................................................................... 31
6.2 Constraints to Functional Uplift ............................................................................ 32
7. MITIGATION SITE GOALS AND FUNCTIONAL OBJECTIVES ............................ 32
8. DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN ....................................... 35

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
2
8.1 Design Approach Summary ................................................................................. 35
8.2 NT R1 and UTA R2 Basis for Design ................................................................... 35
8.2.1 Design Channel Size and Discharge ............................................................. 36
8.2.2 Reference Streams and Morphological Design Criteria ................................ 38
8.2.3 Nutrient Processing and Treatment Capacity ................................................ 38
8.2.4 Implementation Plan ..................................................................................... 39
8.3 NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB Basis for Design ......................................................... 39
8.3.2 Implementation Plan ..................................................................................... 40
8.4 MC R1 and MC R2 Basis for Design ................................................................... 40
8.4.1 MC R2 Design Channel Size and Discharge ................................................. 40
8.4.2 Reference Streams and Morphological Design Criteria ................................ 41
8.4.3 Morphological Design Criteria ....................................................................... 42
8.4.4 Sediment Transport ....................................................................................... 44
8.4.5 Implementation Plan ..................................................................................... 46
8.5 Wetland 1 Enhancement ..................................................................................... 47
8.6 Re-vegetation Plan .............................................................................................. 47
8.7 Post-Construction Stabilization Plan .................................................................... 52
8.8 Stream Crossings ................................................................................................ 52
8.9 Project Risks and Uncertainties ........................................................................... 52
9. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ............................................................................... 54
9.1 Streams ............................................................................................................... 54
9.1.1 Dimension ..................................................................................................... 54
9.1.2 Pattern and Profile ........................................................................................ 54
9.1.3 Substrate ....................................................................................................... 54
9.1.4 Photo Documentation .................................................................................... 55
9.1.5 Bankfull Events ............................................................................................. 55
9.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 55
9.3 Visual Assessments ............................................................................................. 55
9.4 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 55
9.5 Wetlands .............................................................................................................. 56
10. MONITORING PLAN ........................................................................................... 56
10.1 Mitigation Monitoring Components .................................................................... 56
10.2 Supplemental Monitoring Components .............................................................. 61
10.2.1 Supplemental Monitoring Objectives ........................................................... 61

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
3
10.2.2 Supplemental Monitoring Rationale and Approach ..................................... 61
10.3 Site Maintenance Plan ....................................................................................... 65
10.4 Adaptive Management Plan ............................................................................... 65
10.5 Long-Term Management Plan ........................................................................... 66
11. DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ........................................................................ 66
12. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 68
13. APPENDIX A: PRE-RESTORATION WATER QUALITY AND BIOLOGY
MONITORING ............................................................................................................... 71
13.1 Water Quality .................................................................................................... 71
13.2 Biology .............................................................................................................. 78
14. APPENDIX B: FIELD MORPHOLOGY DATA ..................................................... 84
15. APPENDIX C: DETAILED MILLSTONE CREEK SEDIMENT SUPPLY ANALYSIS
…………………………………………………………………………………………..109
16. APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL MAPS AND FIGURES ......................................... 116
17. APPENDIX E: NCSAM, NCWAM, ERTR .......................................................... 116

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Millstone Creek Site Mitigation Credit Summary ............................................ 7
Table 3.1: Watershed Temporal Landuse Summary by Site Resource ........................ 16
Table 3.2: Site Existing Stream Summary .................................................................... 23
Table 5.1: Regulatory Considerations for Millstone Creek Mitigation Site .................... 28
Table 5.2: Federally Endangered Species Listed for Randolph County, NC ................ 28
Table 5.3: Federal Species of Concern Listed for Randolph County, NC .................... 29
Table 5.4: Wetland 1 temporary and permanent impacts ............................................. 30
Table 7.1: Mitigation Site Goals, Treatments and Expected Outcomes ........................ 34
Table 8.1: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Restoration Approach Summary ................. 35
Table 8.2: NT R1 and UTA R1 design summary .......................................................... 37
Table 8.3: Select Reference Streams from Zink et al. (2012) with proposed
Morphological Design Criteria ....................................................................................... 38
Table 8.4: Summary of RSC water quality treatment .................................................... 39
Table 8.6: MC R2 Channel Size and Discharge Analysis ............................................. 41
Table 8.7: Millstone Creek Design Summary ................................................................ 43
Table 8.8 (Cont.): Millstone Creek Design Stream Summary ....................................... 44
Table 8.9: Millstone Creek Sediment Supply Summary ................................................ 45
Table 8.10: Woody Vegetation by Planting Zone .......................................................... 48
Table 8.11: Permanent Seed mixes for disturbed areas within the Site easement ....... 48
Table 8.12: Temporary seeding schedule to stabilized disturbed areas within the Site
easement ...................................................................................................................... 50
Table 10.1: Mitigation Monitoring Plan.......................................................................... 57
Table 10.2: Millstone Creek Mitigation Monitoring Components ................................... 59
Table 10.3: Millstone Creek Supplemental Monitoring Components ............................ 63
Table 10.4: General Site Maintenance Plan ................................................................. 65
Table 11.1: Determination of Mitigation Credits ............................................................ 67

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Vicinity Map ................................................. 8
Figure 1.2: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Resources ................................................... 9
Figure 1.3: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Summary ................................................... 10
Figure 3.1: Watershed and Site Geology Photos ......................................................... 14
Figure 3.2: Millstone Creek Site Soils ........................................................................... 18
Figure 3.3: Millstone Creek Site Existing Vegetation .................................................... 21
Figure 3.4: Tributaries .................................................................................................. 24
Figure 3.5: MC R1 and MC R2 ..................................................................................... 26
Figure 3.6: Wetland 1 ................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.7: August 29, 2019 wetland delineation map (USACE) .................................. 27
Figure 8.1: Step-pool systems with underlying sand layer in Anne Arundel County, MD
...................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 8.2: Reference Reaches ................................................................................... 42
Figure 8.3: Riparian Vegetation and Planting Plan ....................................................... 51
Figure 10.1: Millstone Creek Site Mitigation Monitoring Plan ....................................... 60
Figure 10.2: Millstone Creek Site Supplemental Monitoring Plan ................................. 64

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
6
1. PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Millstone Creek Mitigation Site (Site) is located in the Deep River sub-basin of
the Cape Fear River Basin in Randolph County, North Carolina (HUC: 03030003,
N35°41'48.06" W79°37'26.24"). The Site is located approximately 3 miles southeast of
the Town of Ramseur off Highway 22 (Figure 1.1). The site and contributing rural
watersheds are located within the Carolina Slate Belt (EPA Ecoregion 45c) with rolling
hills typical of the NC Piedmont. Land adjacent to the Site and within the established
conservation easement has been heavily impacted by cattle grazing and the land
application of swine waste for 20+ years. This agricultural production practice has led to
severe water quality and aquatic habitat impairment, streambank trampling and
degradation of the riparian and wetland vegetation on all of the Site’s mitigation
resources.
Streams at the Site are divided into seven (7) reaches (Figure 1.2). The tributaries
are: NT R1 (303 LF), NT R2 (103 LF), UTA R1 (505 LF), UTA R2 (100 LF), UTB (529 LF)
and the Millstone Creek mainstem reaches are: MC R1 (1,462 LF) and MC R2 (553 LF).
The total existing stream length is 3,555 LF. A single jurisdictional wetland feature (1.323
AC) is on the Site (Table 1.1). Stream restoration using a Regenerative Stormwater
Conveyance (RSC) step-pool system and underlying sand layer is proposed for NT R1
and UTA R1 to process nitrogen and improve downstream water quality (Figure 1.3).
Enhancement 1 activities at a Restoration equivalent mitigation ratio are proposed for NT
R2, UTA R2 and UTB for Enhancement 1 activities within the reach and the hydrology
and water quality uplift they will receive from upstream RSC treatments on NT R1 and
UTA R1. For Millstone Creek, Enhancement 1 treatments are proposed for MC R1 and
restoration is proposed for MC R2. Hydrologic enhancement using ditch plugs is proposed
for Wetland 1. In addition to the required mitigation monitoring, rigorous supplemental
water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring is proposed with a Site -wide 4% increase
in SMUs and WMUs. On the tributaries (NT R1, NT R2, UTA R1, UTA R2 and UTB) a 2%
increase is proposed for meeting approved water quality success criteria. The proposed
work and mitigation credits will result in 3,245 SMUs and 0.686 WMUs. Implementation
at the Site will be phased: Phase 1 will include NT R1, NT R2, UTB, MC R1 and MC R2
and Phase 2 will include UTA R2 and the RSC system on UTA R1.
Through a research partnership established in August 2014 between North
Carolina State University Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering (NCSU
BAE) and the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NC DMS), substantial effort
has been made to collect detailed hydrologic, hydraulic, water quality, macroinvertebrate,
geomorphic and functional data at the Site. The field collected data has been used to
develop and guide the mitigation planning effort. The proposed restoration approach for
the Site is designed to optimize functional uplift with respect to existing conditions, site
constraints, specific landscape processes, in-stream fluvial processes and onsite

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
7
constraints.
Table 1.1: Millstone Creek Site Mitigation Credit Summary
Mitigation Credits
Type SMUs Riparian WMUs Non-riparian
WMUs
Riparian
Buffer
Nitrogen
Offset
Phosphorus
Offset
Project Subtotal 3,089 - 0.660 - - -
4% Increase Site
wide* 124 - 0.026 - - -
2% Increase for
WQ Success on
Tribs** (At risk)
32 - - - - -
Project Total 3,245 - 0.686 - - -
*4% increase in credits applied site wide for supplement water quality and biology monitoring on streams and wetlands
**2% increase in credits applied to NT R1, NT R2, UTA R1, UTA R2, UTB (1,581 x 0.02 = 32) for meeting approved water
quality success criteria
Project Components
Resource Existing
Length Approach Level (R, E1,
E2, etc.)
Proposed
Length
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit
NT R1 303 LF Restoration with step-pool
system R 326 LF 1:1 326
NT R2 103 LF
Bank grading, in-stream
structures, WQ treatment on
NT R1
E1 (R equiv.) 103 LF 1:1 103
UTA R1 505 LF Restoration with step-pool
system R 523 LF 1:1 523
UTA R2 100 LF Bank grading, in-stream
structures, invasive removal E1 (R equiv.) 100 LF 1:1 100
UTB 529 LF
Bank grading, in-stream
structures, WQ treatment on
NT R1
E1 (R equiv.) 529 LF 1:1 529
MC R1 1,462 LF
Bank grading, in-stream
structures, bank treatments,
planting
E1 1,462 LF 1.5:1 975
MC R2 553 LF
Priority 2 restoration
approach. Appropriate
bankfull channel
dimensions, minor floodplain
grading, in-stream
structures, bank treatments,
planting
R 533 LF 1:1 533
Wetland 1 1.323 AC Enhancement E 1.320 AC 2:1 0.660

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
8

Figure 1.1: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Vicinity Map

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
9

Figure 1.2: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Resources

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
10

Figure 1.3: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Summary

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
11
2. WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
2.1 River Basin and Watershed Planning Context
Millstone Creek (HUC 03030003) is 7.22 miles long and flows into the Deep River,
which is a tributary to the Cape Fear River. The proposed Millstone Creek Mitigation Site
is located 1.39 miles above the confluence of Millstone Creek and the Deep River. Neither
Millstone Creek nor the sub-basin of the Deep River (HUC 03030003020030) that it lies
within are included in DMS’s Compensation Planning Framework (CPF). Further, there is
no site specific benthic or water quality monitoring data available for Millstone Creek from
the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) or the Upper Cape Fear River
Basin Association (UCFRBA). There is no specific mention of Millstone Creek in any
watershed plans available from neither the NCDEQ, NC DMS nor the Piedmont Triad
Regional Council (PTRC).
(NCDEQ, 2005) Cape Fear River Basin-Wide Plan noted that the Deep River from
Haskett Creek to Brush Creek (20.9 miles) is supporting of aquatic life because of a
“good” benthic community qualitative rating just D/S of the Town of Ramseur. The location
of this “good” benthic macroinvertebrate rating is approximately 5 miles U/S of the Deep
River’s confluence with Millstone creek. However, turbidity was noted as exceeding water
quality standards on several occasions at the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association
(UCFRBA) ambient monitoring station B5100000, which is located a short distance of
approximately 0.4 miles D/S of the Millstone Creek confluence with the Deep River.
Ambient monitoring data for this station from 2008 to 2012 reported 8 occurrences of
exceeding the fecal coliform standard (200/400) and 4 for exceeding the turbidity standard
(50 NTU) (n=60 samples). The station reported no exceedance for Nitrate/Nitrite, TKN,
TN, TP, DO, TSS, Temp, pH, or specific conductance. Similarly, the upstream ambient
monitoring station on the Deep River in Ramseur (B5070000), approximately 5 miles
upstream of the Millstone Creek confluence, reported 3 exceedances for Turbidity and 8
for fecal coliform during the same four year monitoring period (NCDEQ, 2014).
This reach of the Deep River is not rated for recreational use because of the fecal
coliform bacteria screening criteria at these stations both U/S and D/S of the Millstone
Creek confluence. In contrast, the current 319 Watershed Restoration Plan Map lists the
18.2 mile reach from Gabriel’s Creek to Brush Creek as impaired, which spans U/S and
D/S of the confluence (NCDEQ, 2015). However, this impairment is attributed to Copper
concentrations and Mercury in fish tissue. The reach is currently meeting the 50 NTU
criteria for turbidity and fecal coliform of 200 counts per 400 mL. The draft 2016 303 (d)
list does not include this stretch of the river citing inconclusive data for Chlorophyll a (40
ug/l standard) and no mention of copper or mercury (NCDEQ, 2016). PTRC (2016) also
indicates that 20 miles of the Deep River are currently listed as impaired for biological
community either due to low dissolved oxygen levels and/or high chlorophyl l-a levels,
both indicative of high nutrient inputs and eutrophication. This impairment is likely the

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
12
result of large contributions of nutrients from agricultural production practices in the sub-
basin. Exacerbating the effects of these pollutants are several small dams - most are
poorly maintained and slow water flow. The stagnant river flows allow algal growth and
possible river eutrophication, which can lead to hypoxic water conditions and biological
die-off. PTRC (2016) speculates that the rare and endangered species endemic to the
Deep River may be driven from this river system under these conditions.
PTRC (2016) has outlined the need for an Asheboro Municipal Watershed
Restoration Plan and is currently seeking funds to produce a comprehensive wate rshed
restoration plan including a detailed watershed assessment, policy and program
recommendations to address water quality needs. Based on the NCDEQ Cape Fear
Basin plan assessment of the Deep River D/S of the Millstone Creek confluence
combined with the observations and priorities of the PTRC and TJCOG, reducing the
export of sediment, nutrients and pathogens to the Deep River should be a priority for the
watershed and its tributaries, which includes Millstone Creek. Given the presence of
cultivated and pasture lands in the watershed, the conclusion that Millstone Creek is
contributing substantial loading of sediment, nutrients and fecal pollution to affected
segment of the Deep River is reasonable. The mitigation plan for the Site should be
targeted at addressing these pollutant issues.
2.2 Stream Use Classification
Millstone Creek is the only perennial stream located within the Site (DWQ Stream
Index Number 17-19) with a designated stream use classification. DWQ classifies
Millstone Creek as “C”. The “C” classification indicates waters protected for secondary
recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture and
other uses suitable for Class C. There are no restrictions on watershed devel opment or
types of discharges.
3. BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Watershed Processes and Landscape Characteristics
3.1.1 Watershed and Site Geology
The Site and contributing watersheds are located within the Carolina Slate Belt.
The Carolina Slate Belt consists mostly of rocks originally deposited on or near the earth’s
surface by volcanic eruption and sedimentation (North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985).
The major rocks of the slate belt are volcanic argillites, basic and acid tuffs, breccias and
flows (Daniels et al., 1999). Volcanic igneous rocks rise above the surrounding slates as
high rolling hills and small mountains. The interfluves are irregular, and sharp topographic
breaks like knolls and saddles are common. The valley sides are relatively short. Thick
soils tend to occur on the smoother parts of the Slate Belt and thin soils occur on the
broken or sharply irregular landscapes. Alluvial fills in the small streams draining the
Slate Belt tend to be narrow, shallow to hard rock, and contain an abundance of slate

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
13
fragments. The small first and second order streams or drainage ways tend to be short
and stubby with high angle junctions. Alignment of tributaries across the main stream is
common and may be related to the underlying rock structures. Right angle turn s are also
common in the main channels (Daniels et al., 1999). Most of the non-eroded or
moderately eroded soils have silt loam surfaces and over 30 percent silt with fine sand in
the B horizon. Soils formed in the Carolina Slate Belt have relatively high silt contents and
overlie relatively thin saprolite compared to soils formed in the felsic crystalline ar eas.
Soils in the Slate system have more slowly permeable B horizons and saprolite than their
felsic crystalline counterparts.
The Slate Belt is cut in several places by coarse-grained intrusive rocks, generally
termed granites, which are relatively un-deformed due to intrusion following the
metamorphism that affected the sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Millstone Creek and
nearly the entire contributing watershed are located in a sub -region characterized by
primarily intrusive rocks and metamorphosed granite rock. Intrusive granite material has
been observed as outcroppings within and adjacent to the existing easement as well as
in the upstream reaches of Millstone Creek (Figure 3.1). The substrate of the reach of
Millstone Creek that is within the Site is dominated by sand, however in the upstream
reaches cleaved rock and rounded granite boulders are common. The cleaved rock and
the erodible silty sand of the region combine to produce a bimodal bed in these U/S
reaches. Millstone Creek also contains periodic granite rock clusters and outcroppings,
which provide an important source of flow and bedform diversity.
Slopes within the watershed range from approximately 15% to 20% along some of
the interior ridges to approximately 2% to 4% along the watershed boundary and near the
streams. The highest elevations in the watershed are greater than 730 ft above mean sea
level in the southern portion of the drainage area, and the lowest elevations are at the
most downstream area of the project at approximate elevation 425 ft. The topographic
relief within in the Millstone Creek watershed is approximately 305 ft. Topography within
the Site varies widely. The valleys of NT and UTA are relatively steep longitudinally with
gentle hillside slopes connecting to the terrace. UTB and Mills tone Creek have flatter
valleys with steep hillside slopes connecting to the terrace. Elevations within the site
range from 480 ft above UTA down to 424 ft at the downstream end of Millstone Creek.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
14

Granite Rock Outcropping at the Site

Granite Rock Outcropping U/S of MC R1

Bimodal substrate U/S of MC R1

Bimodal substrate U/S of MC R1
Figure 3.1: Watershed and Site Geology Photos
3.1.2 Watershed and Site Landuse
For the last 25+ years, landuse characteristics in the NT, UTA and UTB
watersheds have been relatively constant with the majority of land being managed as
pasture or hay production and the remainder in forest cover (Table 3.1). By 2001, much
of the remaining forest cover was removed and the tributary watersheds on Site were
almost entirely managed as pasture or hay production. This landuse change is supported
by aerial photos that shows forest cover in the valleys and riparian zone of the proposed
mitigation site. The 2014 aerial photography shows that most of the forested area in the
valleys and along the streams was removed for hay production and grazing. Landuse
changes in the Millstone Creek watershed have been relatively dramatic since 1992.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
15
There has been a consistent trend in the conversion of forest to pasture and hay
production going from 62% forest in 1992 to 35% forest in 2011 with the majority o f the
landuse change occurring between 1992 and 2001. Disturbances like changes in land
cover may lead to changes in flow regime and sediment supply boundary conditions,
which can cause channel incision, down cutting and subsequent widening. There are no
major metropolitan areas, rapidly expanding municipalities or NC DOT planned highway
construction projects in the Millstone Creek watershed. The watershed is very rural with
just 4% developed and less than 1% impervious cover. Urbanization and impervious
cover is not expected to be a factor of future landuse changes. The Millstone Creek
watershed is more likely to experience the continued trend of the conversion of forest
cover to pasture, hay production and heavy cattle grazing potentially impacting future
stream flow and sediment supply regimes. The watersheds of the tributaries are nearly
entirely in pasture and simply establishing riparian vegetation within the existing
easement will lead to a substantial increase in forested c over likely similar to the 1992
conditions.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
16
Table 3.1: Watershed Temporal Landuse Summary by Site Resource
North Tributary – 26 Acres (0.04 mi2)
Landuse1 19922 2001 20062 2011
Forest 10% - - -
Grasslands - - - -
Shrub / Scrub - - - -
Pasture 90% 99% 99% 99%
Developed - <1% <1% <1%
Impervious - <1% <1% <1%
Other - - - -
UT Reach A – 26 Acres (0.04 mi2)
Landuse1 19922 2001 20062 2011
Forest 18% - - -
Grasslands - - - -
Shrub / Scrub - - - -
Pasture 82% 95% 95% 95%
Developed - 5% 5% 5%
Impervious - <1% <1% <1%
Other - - - -
UT Reach B – 53 Acres (0.1 mi2)
Landuse1 19922 2001 20062 2011
Forest 25% - - -
Grasslands - - - -
Shrub / Scrub - - - -
Pasture 75% 98% 98% 98%
Developed - 2% 2% 2%
Impervious - <1% <1% <1%
Other - - - -
Millstone Creek – 8.3 mi2
Landuse1 19922 2001 20062 2011
Forest 62% 39% 37% 35%
Grasslands - 5% 6% 7%
Shrub / Scrub - 4% 4% 5%
Pasture 37% 48% 49% 48%
Developed <1% 4% 4% 4%
Impervious <1% <1% <1% <1%
Other - <1% <1% <1%
1Landuse data and category obtained from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD)
2 For 1992 and 2006, NLCD reports Pasture and Hay Production as “Planted Area”

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
17
3.1.3 Site Soils
Soils at the Site are generally described as loams on moderately steep to steep
slopes. The dominant soil type within the easement is MaC or “Mecklenburg Loam” on 8
to 15% slopes. MaC soils tend to form in long narrow swaths and along ridges and
hillslopes (USDA NRCS, 1995). Mecklenburg Loams are highly erodible on slopes with
limited fertility properties unless supplemented with fertilization inputs. This soil type
characteristic of soils across the Slate Belt with relatively high silt contents that overlie
relatively thin saprolite layers. The 8% to 15% slope designation is indicative of the valley
configuration within the site where the valley walls slope quickly and steeply from a terrace
to the valley floor. RvA or “Riverview Sandy Loam” on 0% to 2% slopes and described as
“frequently flooded” is also present within the easement in the vicinity of the D/S reach of
UTB and Wetland 1. RvA soil type extends west and north beyond the existing earthen
berm towards Millstone Creek. Other soil types located within the site are CcB (“Cecil
Sandy Loam”, 2% to 8% slopes), MaD (“Mecklenburg Loam”, 15% to 25% slopes), and
MeB2 (“Mecklenburg Clay Loam”, 2% to 8% slopes), however these soils are outside the
extents of the proposed restoration effort. The soil type distribution within the easement
boundary is shown in Figure 3.2.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
18

Figure 3.2: Millstone Creek Site Soils

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
19
3.1.4 Site Vegetation
Four types of vegetation communities are present at the Site: Piedmont Alluvial
Forest, Piedmont Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Pasture / Disturbed and Wet Meadow.
These vegetation communities are described below and their extents are shown on
Figure 3.3.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Remnants of this community are located along the banks of Millstone Creek. This
area transitions into a Pasture/Disturbed community throughout the remainder of the Cox
property. The canopy along Millstone Creek is fragmented and mainly consists of yellow
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), box elder (Acer negundo), sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), red elm (Ulmus rubra), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Sub-
canopy and shrub species observed include black willow (Salix nigra), box elder,
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and the invasive
exotics, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). The
herbaceous layer includes poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbriar (Smilax spp.),
violets (Viola spp.), southern crownbeard (Verbesina occidentalis), poor man’s pepper
(Lepidium virginicum), (Bermuda grass (Cynodon sp.), and the invasive Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Piedmont Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
This community is confined to a narrow buffer along NT and UTA. These
tributaries converge at UTB and then transition into Wetland 1 and are encompassed by
the Pasture/Disturbed community. The canopy along NT and UTA consists of yellow
poplar, sweet gum, hackberry, red elm, sycamore, red maple, green ash, American
beech, (Fagus grandifolia), cucumber tree (Magnolia acuminata), and mockernut hickory
(Carya alba). Sub-canopy and shrub species black willow, elderberry, American holly
(Ilex opaca), ironwood, and the invasive exotics, multiflora rose and Chinese privet. The
herbaceous layer includes poison ivy, greenbriar (Smilax spp.), violets (Viola spp.),
polkweed (Phytolacca americana), southern crownbeard, Bermuda grass, and the
invasive Japanese honeysuckle.
Pasture/Disturbed Community
Land adjacent to and within the Site is used for animal production, primarily cattle
and hogs. As a result, pasture and disturbed conditions dominate the property mostly due
to heavy cattle grazing. This plant community is dominated by Bermuda grass, fescue
(Festuca spp.), poor man’s pepper, sow thistle (Sonchus sp.), and weedy dogfennel
(Chamaemelum mixtum). There is scattering of tree species such as loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), sweet gum, box elder, green ash, and Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) in
these open areas. Shrub and herbaceous species such as multiflora rose, blackberry

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
20
(Rubus spp.), and the invasive exotic Chinese privet are present and often common along
community ecotones.
Wet Meadow
Woody species within the wetland include swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), black willow (Salix nigra), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) and green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The herbaceous vegetation was dominated by common rush
(Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex sp.), Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria
pennsylvanica), switchgrass (Dicanthelium sp.), monkey flower (Mimulus ringens),
arrowhead (Sagitaria latifolia var. latifolia), seedbox (Ludwigia sp.), water hemlock (Cicuta
maculata), and orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis).

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
21

Figure 3.3: Millstone Creek Site Existing Vegetation

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
22
3.2 Site Resources
3.2.1 NT R1 and UTA R1
NT R1 and UTA R1 are small headwater tributaries that lie within confined valleys
with relatively small drainage areas managed nearly 100% as pasture. These reaches
are perennial channels, however the flow regime has likely been impacted by downcutting
and intersection of the groundwater table. These systems would likely be intermittent
systems prior to disturbance or post-restoration where the channel is lifted to connect to
the old floodplain. Headcutting that migrated up valley has resulted in incised channels
and the export of approximately 2,500 tons of sediment from each reach (determined by
surface comparison in AutoCAD C3D). The exported sediment was deposited in what is
now Wetland 1 below UTB. Additional stressors to these reaches include extreme
channel incision, cattle access, bank trampling and high nutrient inputs from land applied
swine wastes.
3.2.2 NT R2 and UT R2
NT R2 and UTA R2 are both relatively short perennial streams in confined valleys
located below NT R1 and UTA R1, respectively. NT R2 is a B5 stream type (Rosgen,
1994). Entrenchment varies from entrenched to moderately entrenched (ER = 1.4 to 2.0).
UTA R2 is an F5 stream type with low sinuosity (1.07) and low entrenchment ratio (1.1)
(Rosgen, 1994). The D50 for NT R1 and UTA R1 is sand, however both reaches also
contain some coarse riffle material and the streambed is dominated by riffle/run with little
habitat heterogeneity with few to no pools. Additional stressors to these reaches include
extreme channel incision, cattle access, bank trampling and high nutrient inputs from land
applied swine wastes. Pre-restoration water quality monitoring within NT R2 and UT R2
indicated that Total Nitrogen (TN) concentrations in streamflow were between 10 – 15
mg/L. Similar TN concentrations would also be expected in NT R1, NT R2 and UTB.
3.2.3 UTB
UTB is a 2nd order perennial system that begins below the confluence of NT R2
and UTA R2 in the vicinity of a former impoundment for cattle watering. The drainage
area is 56 ac and managed mostly as pasture. The valley floor rises steeply to a high
terrace at the edge of the existing pasture. UTB is incised through the upstream and
middle reaches and has been impacted by historical channelization along the southern
hillslope toe, livestock trampling, heavy cattle grazing of riparian vegetation and
impoundments at the upstream and downstream extents. UTB is nearly a plane bed
system characterized by mostly riffle – run features, two log steps and no defined pools.
The channel has limited floodplain connection due to moderate degradation. UTB
terminates at a jurisdictional wetland feature (Wetland 1) that formed through sediment
deposition behind a remnant sawmill impoundment. Bank height ratios are 1.4 to 2.3 in
much of the reach. UTB is also heavily impacted by high nutrient and sediment inputs

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
23
from agricultural operations and land applied swine wastes.
Table 3.2: Site Existing Stream Summary
Parameter
Reach
NT R1 NT R2 UTA R1 UTA R2 UTB MC R1 MC R2
Drainage Area 19 AC 25 AC 20 AC 26 AC 65 AC 8.2 mi2 8.3 mi2
Stream Order 1st 1st 1st 1st 2nd 4th 4th
Flow Regime Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial
Existing Length (LF) 303 103 505 100 529 1,462 553
Stream Type G5 / F5 B5 F5 F5 G5 / E5 E5 / C5 E5
QBKF (ft3/s) 8.7 6.7 9.7 171 - 295
ABKF (ft2) 2.3 – 3.7 2.3 8.0 - 9.9 14.6 2.1 – 3.7 75.3 –
123.6 105.8
WBKF (ft) 5.8 - 5.9 4.9 11.3 - 11.9 14.5 4.4 – 5.6 28.9 – 46.6 30.9
DBKF (ft) 0.4 – 0.6 0.5 0.7 - 0.8 1.0 0.5 – 0.7 2.6 – 3.3 3.4
W/D 9.4 - 14.5 10.2 15.8 - 14.3 14.3 6.6 – 9.3 11.1 – 17.6 9.0
BHR 3.0 - 3.2 1.5 3.1 – 3.5 2.0 1.0 – 2.3 1.0 - 1.1 1.2
ER 1.4 - 1.5 2.0 1.2 - 1.5 1.1 1.8 – 20 7.1 – 7.5 12.3
K 1.03 1.05 1.04 1.02 1.08 1.09 1.13
Valley Confinement Confined Confined Confined Confined Moderately
Confined
Moderately
Confined Unconfined
Valley Type Colluvial Colluvial Colluvial Colluvial Alluvial Alluvial Alluvial
Valley Slope (ft/ft) 0.0237 0.0405 0.0421 0.0265 0.0163 0.0023 0.0023
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.0230 0.0370 0.0405 0.0270 0.0144 0.0021 0.0021
D50 (mm) 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6
D84 (mm) 38 38 23 23 9 1.6 1.6

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
24

NT R1 STA

NT R2 STA

UTA R1

UTA R2
UTB UTB

Figure 3.4: Tributaries

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
25
3.2.4 MC R1 and MC R2
Millstone Creek is a 4th order sand bed system with a large watershed (DA = 8.3
mi2), low sinuosity and low channel water surface slope (0.0021 ft/ft). There are two
reaches of Millstone Creek within the Site: MC R1 north of the easement break and MC
R2 south of the easement break. Existing conditions and stressors within each reach are
very similar. The valley is flat and moderately confined to unconfined within the easement
boundaries. The hillside slopes steeply down from terraces on the east and west sides of
the valley. Channel bedform is dominated by riffle, ripple, dune and run features with only
a few pools around large woody debris (LWD). There are a few point bars and
depositional benches in the stream, however they are providing limited storage for heavy
sediment loads that are being transported to and through the reach. Rather, sediment is
accumulating across the streambed, marginalizing aquatic habitat and forming mid
channel and transverse bars. The banks have been impacted by cattle access and
removal of native riparian vegetation, which has caused mild to severe bank erosion and
lateral migration of several meander bends. The conte xt of the Simon and Hupp’s (1989)
channel evolution model, Millstone Creek has experienced relatively recent (on geologic
time scales) disturbance, degradation and is now is continuing into the degradati on and
widening phase (Stage IV). The stream has incised slightly with bank height ratios of 1.0
to 1.2, but maintains access to the floodplain. The slight degree of incision is likely due to
deposition of alluvium on the floodplain rather than downcutting of the channel bed. The
existing project reach is an E5/C5 stream type (Rosgen, 1994). The stream is not
entrenched (ER = 7.1 to 12.3), has moderate width-to-depth ratio (median = 11).The
reach also has a low sinuosity (1.09), which is not indicative of a typical E or C stream
type. However, two meander bends (STA 15+00 FT to STA 18+00 FT) with tight radii of
curvature are contributing to bank erosion and lateral adjustment.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
26

MC R1 STA 1+75

MC R1 STA 3+91

MC R2 STA 17+37

MC R2 STA 19+84
Figure 3.5: MC R1 and MC R2
3.2.5 Wetland 1
A jurisdictional determination was performed by USACE on August 29, 2019 at the
Site (Figure 3.6). Wetland 1 was delineated as 1.323 acres. From the Northeast, UTB
terminates within the first 35 feet of Wetland 1 and an existing ditch runs along the eastern
boundary. Wetland 1 has been degraded by damming, ditching, cattle access, grazing
and deposition of eroded sediment from NT, UTA and UTB. Anecdotal evidence was
gathered from the current land owner, who indicates that UTB was historically used for a
sawmill and a small impoundment formerly existed in the area of the wetland. This
evidence is reasonable given the presence of the berm and the ditch along the eastern
boundary. Since the cattle exclusion fencing was installed in 2015, recovery of some
woody and herbaceous vegetation has occurred and the existing vegetation community
is a wet meadow as described in Section 3.1.4.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
27

Wetland 1

Wetland 1
Figure 3.6: Wetland 1

Figure 3.7: August 29, 2019 wetland delineation map

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
28
5. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Regulatory considerations for the proposed Millstone Creek Mitigation Site include
Section 404/401, Endangered Species Act, Historic Preservation Act and FEMA
Floodplain Compliance. Site regulatory investigations, requirements and summary is
included in Table 5.1 and the following sections.
Table 5.1: Regulatory Considerations for Millstone Creek Mitigation Site
Regulatory Consideration Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs.
Waters of US – Section 404 Yes PCN to be prepared Appendix
Waters of US – Section 401 Yes PCN to be prepared Appendix
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix
Coastal Zone Management Act /
Coastal Area Management Act No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A

5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) digital
database of rare plants, animals, and natural areas for records of threatened and
endangered species or federally designated habitat found within one mile (1.6 kilometers)
of the project site resulted in no elemental occurrences. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
website was consulted on August 27, 2007, to obtain a listing of all threatened and
endangered species for Randolph County (Table 5.2). Plants and animals with federal
classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and Proposed
Threatened are protected under provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. There are two federally protected species listed for
Randolph County. The proposed project is Not Likely to Effect Cape Fear Shiner
populations in the vicinity of the project and will have No Effect on Schweinitz’s sunflower.
Table 5.2: Federally Endangered Species Listed for Randolph County, NC
Common Name Scientific name Status
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas E
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
29
There are ten Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the USFWS for
Randolph County (Table 5.3). FSC are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened
or Endangered. FSC species are those under consideration for listing or for which there
is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, FSCs which are listed as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and
Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered Species
Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, as amended. Table 5.3
summarizes federal species of concern listed for Randolph Counties (August 27, 2008
USFWS list).
Table 5.3: Federal Species of Concern Listed for Randolph County, NC
Vertebrates
Common Name Scientific name Record
American eel Anguilla rostrata FSC
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis FSC
Carolina redhorse Moxostoma sp. 2 FSC
Invertebrate
Common Name Scientific name Record
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia mason FSC
brook floater Alasmidonta varicose FSC
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC
Savannah Lilliput Toxolasma pullus FSC
yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Vascular Plant
Common Name Scientific name Record
Georgia aster Symphyotrichum georgianum C
birdsfoot-trefoil Lotus unifoliolatus var. Helleri FSC

5.2 Cultural Resources
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch conducted a
feasibility study for the Cox Site in 2004. According to the report, files were reviewed at
both the North Carolina Archeology Office and the North Carolina State Historical

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
30
Preservation Office on December 12, 2003, and all records indicated no known
archeological or historically relevant site within the project area.
5.3 404/401
During the design phase, efforts were made to align proposed restoration stream
sections to avoid existing wetlands as much as possible and minimize grading impacts.
Minor wetland impacts will be necessary during the construction of UTB and hydrologic
enhancement of Wetland 1. UTB Enhancement will permanently impact 0.003 AC and
berm removal and ditch plugs will temporarily impact 0.104 AC of Wetland 1 (Table 5.4).
Stream and wetland impacts will be detailed in the 401/404 PCN application.
Table 5.4: Wetland 1 temporary and permanent impacts
Jurisdictional
Feature
Existing
Area
Permanent Impact Temporary Impact
Proposed
Area Activity Impact
Area Activity Impact
Area
Wetland 1 1.323 ac UTB Stream
Enhancement 0.003 ac Berm removal
and ditch plug 0.104 ac 1.320 ac

6. FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
6.1 Stream Functional Uplift Potential
The potential for functional uplift at the Millstone Creek Mitigation Site has been
evaluated in the context of the “Stream Functions Pyramid” described by Harman et al.
(2012), which uses a hierarchy of five stream functions, each of which supports the
functions above it on the pyramid (and may reinforce those functions below it). The
functions from top to bottom are hydrology, geomorphology, physicochemical and
biology. This functional approach is based on the 2008 Federal Mitigation Rule (33 C.F.R.
§ 332/40 C.F.R. § 230).
6.1.1 Hydrology
The primary watershed disturbance for streams at the Site has been the
conversion of forested cover to pasture lands and hay production. Potential uplift is
produced for hydrology of the tributaries by reducing reach -scale runoff through buffer
planning (reforesting) and with upstream RSCs on the tributaries. The proposed RSCs
and temporary storage and treatment of runoff above NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB will
eliminate the erosional gullies (concentrated flow points) and result in catchment
hydrology more similar to a forested condition. The Millstone Creek watershed is relatively
large (8.3 mi2) and the restoration effort will not produce uplift in catchment hydrology.
Some reach-scale hydrology uplift is possible through establishment of riparian buffer
outside the right bank; however, it is insignificant in comparison to the larger catchment.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
31
6.1.2 Hydraulics
Restoration and enhancement efforts on the tributaries and the mainstem of
Millstone Creek will create functional uplift in Hydraulics by reconnecting the streams to
their floodplains. Target BHR for all reaches is 1.0 to 1.2 after project implementation.
Floodplain connection will increase the water table elevation in the riparian zone for
enhanced nutrient processing and uptake. Increased flood frequency will provide
additional opportunity for detention and spreading of flood flows to decrease in -channel
velocities and shear stresses.
6.1.3 Geomorphology
The restoration and enhancement treatments for the Site are designed to generate
uplift in Geomorphology. On the tributaries, constructed riffles with and log and boulder
steps will be used to diversify bedform, hold grade and maintain pools through energy
dissipation and scour. Log riffles, log j-hooks, brush toe and bank grading will be used to
stabilize the system and create appropriate riffle lengths, pool -to-pool spacings and pool
depths. LWD will be added to all reaches on the Site within the channels and on the
floodplains and native woody riparian vegetation will be established throughout the Site.
6.1.4 Physicochemical
Rigorous surface water and groundwater quality monitoring has been conducted
at the Site since summer 2014. High nutrient and pathogen inputs from land applied swine
wastes and cattle grazing are the most prevalent physicochemical stressors on the Site’s
tributaries. Treatments are thereby designed to restore and enhance physicochemical
functions, including cattle exclusion fencing, RSCs on tributaries NT R1 and UTA R1 and
re-vegetation of the riparian buffer. Stabilization of UTB and hydrologic enhancement of
Wetland 1 may also produce additional processing and treatment of nutrients and
sediment sources within the Site. Supplemental post -implementation water quality
monitoring of the tributaries and Wetland 1 will be conducted to quantify the water quality
benefits and physicochemical uplift. Riparian buffer re-vegetation, bank grading and
treatments on Millstone Creek may create moderate reach-scale lift in water quality,
however no major physicochemical impacts are anticipated due the large uncontrolled
drainage area to the project reach.
6.1.5 Biology
Currently, there is little habitat in the Site streams to support rich and diverse
macroinvertebrate communities. The tributaries are plane bed systems dominated by riffle
/ run bedforms with little to no flow or bedform diversity. Nutrient and sediment inputs to
the tributaries are extremely high and may be the greatest stressor to aquatic organisms
and habitat. RSC treatments on NT R1 and UTA R1 will be implemented to address the
nutrient stressors within the tributaries. Cobble riffles and wood will also be added to the

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
32
tributaries. Millstone Creek is a sand bed system with some small gravels deposited on
bars and in riffles, but lacks larger angular gravels typical of other Slate Belt streams that
typically support macroinvertebrate habitat. Wood and boulder structures will be added
to Millstone Creek to support aquatic habitat development. Supplemental post -
implementation macroinvertebrate sampling on the tributaries and Millstone Creek will be
conducted to evaluation the biology uplift.
6.2 Constraints to Functional Uplift
Constraints to creating functional uplift exist within the Site. Constraints are
primarily related to heavy agricultural nutrient inputs, catchment management and size,
physical site boundaries within the existing conservation easement, and the jurisdict ional
wetland onsite. NT R1, NT R2, UTA R1, UTA R2 and UTB are all heavily impacted by
management practices in their small contributing drainage areas, which are nearly 100%
pasture with land applied swine wastes. This has resulted in extremely high nitrogen and
phosphorus loads in both baseflow and storm flow of the tributaries. Some of the
contributing drainage area will be reclaimed as riparian buffer to the easement boundary,
but it is not likely to impact the overall catchment hydrologic response and condition.
RSCs will be installed on reaches above NT R2 and UTA R2 to provide additional nutrient
processing and physicochemical lift, however it is unlikely that instream TN and TP
concentrations and loads of the receiving tributaries will be decreased to a reference
quality condition described by Harman et al. (2012). Ongoing and rigorous field monitoring
of nutrient concentrations and loads will continue through the post -implementation phase
of the project to evaluate the overall nutrient processing and benefits to the tributaries.
The contributing drainage area to Millstone Creek is very large (8.3 mi2) and will likely
remain unchanged by any restoration activities within the project easement.
Proposed enhancement and restoration stream lengths are relat ively short and
their valleys are confined to moderately confined. Realignment is limited within the
existing conservation easement, confined valleys and limited reach lengths. Millstone
Creek in particular is constrained by the eastern valley wall and easement boundaries.
The proposed stream length is just 51 bankfull widths and is limited at the D/S extent by
Wetland 1 and the existing channel at the easement boundary along the toe of the eastern
hillslope. A break in the existing conservation easement to provided cattle access and a
ford crossing also restricts the proposed alignment configuration.
7. MITIGATION SITE GOALS AND FUNCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
The proposed mitigation Site goals represent desired outcomes that are verifiable
through physical field measurements or visual assessments. The project goals,
restoration objectives and expected outcomes are presented in Table 7.1. For the
development and preparation of this mitigation plan, substantial amounts of baseline and
existing condition data have been collected and will be used in the development of post -

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
33
implementation performance standards and project success criteria. Additional
supplemental monitoring of water quality and biology parameters will be included in the
post-implementation evaluation of the project for the purpose of research and
advancement of the science and practice of compensatory mitigation and stream
restoration. Proposed project performance standards and success cr iteria are described
in Section 9.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
34
Table 7.1: Mitigation Site Goals, Treatments and Expected Outcomes
Goal Treatment Expected Outcomes Likely Functional Uplift
Enhance processing of nutrients
from onsite sources.
Construct stream and wetland
systems designed to process
nitrogen and phosphorus.
Stable conveyances with
sediment trapping and
processing of nutrients.
Reduction in sediment and nutrient
inputs. Improved water quality and
aquatic habitat.
Improve stream channel stability.
Grade streambanks, construct
stream channels with appropriate
bankfull channel dimensions,
planform geometry and profile such
that channel maintenance and
adjustments are representative of
other natural systems.
Stable channels with BHR less
than 1.2.
Decrease sediment inputs from channel
and bank erosion. Efficiently transport
sediment leads and stream flow.
Improve instream habitat.
Install habitat features and
structures, add LWD, increase
bedform diversity, improve in-stream
water quality.
Visual assessment should report
an overall increase in habitat
complexity within the stream
systems.
Increase in available habitat for
macroinvertebrates and fish leading to
an increase in biodiversity.
Restore native riparian vegetation.
Plant native tree, understory and
grass species in riparian zones,
streambank and wetland areas.
Planted stem densities will be at
or above 210 planted stems per
acre at MY7, with volunteer trees
also growing onsite.
Reduce sediment inputs from bank
erosion. Increase nutrient processing,
uptake and storage within the floodplain.
Create riparian habitats. Add a source
of LWD and organic material to stream.
Permanently protect site resources
from local disturbance including
livestock
Establish and record conservation
easement on the Site. Install in
livestock exclusion fencing.
No detrimental impacts to the
conservation easement area, site
streams, wetlands or riparian
buffer in perpetuity.
Protection of the Site from
encroachment into the conservation
easement and direct impact to stream.
Supports all functions including
Hydrology (reach-scale), Hydraulic,
Geomorphology, Physicochemical, and
Biology.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
35
8. DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
8.1 Design Approach Summary
The design approach for the Site was develope d to address stressors described
in Section 3 and Mitigation Site Goals described in Section 7. Design approaches for
enhancement and restoration activities have utilized analog, analytical, empirical and
other published design guidance as a basis for design and the development of design
criteria. This design approach has been used successfully by the NCSU BAE Stream
Restoration Program for other projects throughout North Carolina and the methods and
process are covered in detail in the River Course Workshop Series (RC 101, 201, 302
and 311). For NT R1 and UTA R1, step-pool systems with an underlying sand layer are
proposed to provide processing and treatment of extremely high nutrient concentrations
and loads before being conveyed to downstream tributaries NT R2 , UTA R2 and UTB
and Wetland 1. Enhancement I activities on reaches NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB include
bank grading and increased bedform diversity and channel stability with constructed riffles
and log steps. Bank grading, in-stream structures and bank treatments will be
implemented on MC R1. MC R2 will be realigned with minor floodplain excavation and
grading. Hydrologic enhancement will be implemented on Wetland 1 by plugging the
existing ditch and removing berms and other high spots with minor grading. Native
riparian vegetation will be planted along all project reaches and out to the extents of the
conservation easement boundaries. The restoration activities will be protected in
perpetuity by an existing conservation easement that has be placed on the project area.
Table 8.1: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Restoration Approach Summary
Site Resource Existing Proposed Level Approach
NT R1 303 LF 326 LF Restoration Restoration with step-pool system
NT R2 103 LF 103 LF Enhancement I Bank grading, in-stream structures, WQ treatment on NT R1
UTA R1 505 LF 523 LF Restoration Restoration with step-pool system
UTA R2 100 LF 100 LF Enhancement I Bank grading, in-stream structures, WQ treatment on UTA
R1
UTB 529 LF 529 LF Enhancement I Bank grading, in-stream structures, WQ treatment on NT
R1, UTA R1
MC R1 1,462 LF 1,462 LF Enhancement I Bank grading, in-stream structures, bank treatments,
planting
MC R2 553 LF 533 LF Restoration Priority 2 restoration. Appropriate bankfull channel
dimensions, in-stream structures, bank treatments, planting
Wetland 1 1.323 AC 1.320 AC Hydrologic
Enhancement
Plug existing ditch, remove berm and other high spots with
minor grading

8.2 NT R1 and UTA R2 Basis for Design
Restoration level activities are proposed for NT R1 and UTA R1 using a
Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance (RSC) system, which specifically targets nutrient

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
36
processing and treatment. Step-pool systems or RSCs with an underlying sand layer will
be implemented on NT R1 and UTA R1 (Figure 8.1). This is an innovative approach to
the restoration of headcuts and incised gullies that also enhances nutrient processing.
The proposed systems include a series of pools connected by riffles, boulder steps and
a subsurface sand seepage layer (Brown et al., 2010). The riffles, steps and pools provide
grade control, energy dissipation and bedform diversity to restore high gradient systems.
When stream flow fills a pool, a hydraulic gradient is created forcing water downward into
the sand seepage layer providing added filtration. This interaction between the surface
and subsurface, the hyporheic zone (Boulton, 2007), is a hotspot for microbial growth and
nutrient processing (Groffman et al., 2005 ). The hyporheic zone is a critical component
of both the hydrology and water quality benefits of an RSC.

Figure 8.1: Step-pool systems with underlying sand layer in Anne Arundel County, MD
(left) and Durham, NC (right)
The channel morphology characteristics of high gradient headwater streams in
North Carolina have been characterized by Zink et al. (2012) and are applicable as a
starting point for design of step-pool channels. Morphological design parameters of for
energy dissipation, grade control and stability are riffle slope ratio, riffle length ratio, pool
length ratio, pool-to-pool spacing and step height ratio. A hybrid design approach was
adapted for NT R1 and UTA R1 that incorporates, analytical , analog and empirical
techniques. The primary purpose of the proposed step-pool systems is to provide grade
control and energy dissipation as stormflows move down valley and to enhance
physicochemical functions through processing of nutrient loads.
8.2.1 Design Channel Size and Discharge
The proposed step-pool systems are designed for storage and treatment of runoff
from 1.0” of rainfall and conveyance of the Q2 and Q100 discharges. A summary of NT R1
and UTA R1 design parameters is included in Table 8.2. The water quality design storm

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
37
ratio (runoff volume / design storage volume) is 1.0 and 1.3 for NT R1 and UTA R2,
respectively. More storage is available in UTA R1 because it is longer than NT R1. The
additional length of UTA R1 is needed to fill the eroded gully and to decrease the design
reach slope. The riffle cross-sections are sized to convey the Q2 discharge within the
channel. Higher flows will spread onto vegetated benches beyond the Q2 stage. A high
width-to-depth ratio and wide bench has been designed to minimize flow depths,
velocities and shear stresses. Max depth for the Q 100 discharge is 0.9 ft in the bankfull
channel and 0.3 ft on the vegetated benches. Large boulder steps and riffle substrate
material is needed to resist the high shear stresses of the relatively steep channel slopes.
For both reaches, the design D50 and D85 particles are 150 mm and 430 mm, respectively,
which will resist shear stresses and mobilization up to the Q100 discharge. Boulder step
structures will be used for additional grade control and energy dissipation. Sills will be
installed across the vegetated bench perpendicular to flow on each side of the boulder
structures to prevent scour and failure around the structures.
Table 8.2: NT R1 and UTA R1 design summary
Watershed and Hydrologic Summary
Parameter NT R1 UTA R1
DA (ac) 23.1 25.9
1 in ROV (ft3)1 4,164 4,513
2-Year 24-Hour Q (ft3/s) 15.7 17.3
100-Year 24-Hour Q (ft3/s) 61.4 66.5
Runoff Storage and Sand Layer Design
Stream Length (ft) 325 523
Pond Storage (ft3) 1,050 1,750
Pool Storage (ft3) 1,018 1,872
Sand Storage (ft3) 1,968 2,429
Total Storage (ft3) 4,036 6,051
Design Storm Ratio2 1.0 1.3
Sand Layer Volume (yd3) 180 300
Channel Design Hydraulic Summary
Q2 Q100 QBKF Q100
SWSE (ft/ft) 0.0478 0.0478 0.0518 0.0518
Area (ft2) 3.5 12.4 3.5 12.4
Width (ft) 8 22.5 8 22.5
Depth (ft) 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6
Dmax (ft) 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.9
W/D 18.3 40.7 18.3 40.7
Discharge (cfs) 16.1 61.4 16.8 66.5
Velocity (ft/s) 4.6 5.6 4.8 5.8
tCH (lb/ft2) 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.7

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
38
Competency – min. (mm) 95 127 104 138
Competency – max. (mm) 288 385 313 418
Proposed D50 (mm) 150 150
Proposed D84 (mm) 430 430
8.2.2 Reference Streams and Morphological Design Criteria
Select morphological parameters reported by Zink et al. (2012) with similar
longitudinal slopes to NT R1 and UTA R1 are presented in Table 8.3 with proposed design
parameters for NR R1 and UTA R1. All morphological design parameters are within the
range of the reference dataset with the expectation of pool-length ratio (LPOOL/ W BKF) and
pool-to-pool spacing ratio (p-p/WBKF). These parameters are slightly higher than the
reference data because the proposed pools were designed to be over wide (oversized)
for extra storage of runoff and energy dissipation. The increased pool width subsequently
increased pool length and pool-to-pool spacing. The decision to increase pool width and
storage was made based on observations of several similar systems in the Southeast
and Mid-Atlantic that appeared to have undersized pools not sufficient to dis sipate energy
and store runoff.
Table 8.3: Select Reference Streams from Zink et al. (2012) with proposed
Morphological Design Criteria
Stream S (ft/ft) D50 D84 W/D HSTEP/
WBKF
SRIF/
SWSE
LRIF/
WBKF
LPOOL/
WBKF
p-p/
WBKF
LS4 0.0370 71 347 21.5 0.02 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.6
LS2 0.0450 175 512 18.1 0.04 0.8 1.3 1.0 2.1
BF 0.0480 39 194 16.9 0.04 1.6 0.7 0.9 1.6
LS1 0.0540 145 450 18.4 0.04 - - 0.8 1.0
SR1 0.0680 163 745 17.6 0.07 0.4 1 0.7 1.3
AC 0.0900 70 191 20.7 0.08 1.1 0.8 0.7 2.0
NC 0.0920 47 154 25.0 0.09 0.7 1.5 0.7 1.9
PC 0.1040 96 268 19.5 0.10 0.8 1.5 0.2 1.3
Min 0.0370 39 154 16.9 0.02 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.6
Median 0.0610 84 308 19.0 0.06 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.5
Max 0.1040 175 745 25.0 0.10 1.6 1.5 1.0 2.1
NT R1 0.0478 150 430 18.3 0.08 0.7 1.3 1.5 2.6
UTA R1 0.0518 150 430 18.3 0.08 0.7 1.3 1.5 2.6

8.2.3 Nutrient Processing and Treatment Capacity
Several studies in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast have evaluated nutrient
processing and treatment capabilities of step-pool systems with an underlying sand layer.
Their findings have been incorporated into the Maryland Department of the Environment

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
39
(MD DoE) and Anne Arundel County design guidance documents (Table 8.4). West
Virginia Department of the Environment (WV DEP) has also developed similar
documentation. In North Carolina, three studies have evaluated water quality treatment
of step-pool systems with an underlying sand layer and reported variable findings. In
general, the reported reductions in TN and TP concentrations and loads from NC studies
have been substantially less than those included in the regulatory documentation from
MD and WV. However, influent TN and TP concentrations were also very low in the NC
studies, which is typical of urban stormwater runoff. At the Site, extremely high TN and
TP concentrations on NT R1 and UTA R1 have been documented through pre-restoration
monitoring in both stormflows and baseflows, which means there is more potential for
processing and treatment. Processing and treatment of nutrients is expected to occur
during both baseflow and stormflow conditions, which it will enhance the function and
efficiency of the sand layer within the step-pool system.
Table 8.4: Summary of RSC water quality treatment
Parameter TN TP
MD DoE 57% 66%
WV DEP 74% 76%
Cizek et al. (2014) 28% 30%
Koryto et al. (2017a)1 3% 17%
Koryto et al. (2017b)2 46% 68%
1System in Durham, NC was only 25% of design storm volume
2Simulated WQ trials of 1.0” design storm at NCSU’s SECREF facility
8.2.4 Implementation Plan
NT R1 will be constructed during Phase 1 implementation at the Site and UTA R2
will be construction during Phase 2 approximately 1 – 2 years later. Small ponds will be
excavated above the RSC step-pool systems on NT R1 and UT R2. The existing banks
will be graded to a stable slope and the excess material will be used as fill below a layer
of sand and wood chip filter media to lift the channel up to the old floodplain. The sand
and wood chip filter media will be 80% sand and 20% wood chips by weight and installed
a minimum of 2.0’ thick. A series of constructed riffles and boulder steps will then be
installed on top of the filter media to convey baseflows and storm flows and control grade
in the steep valleys. The channel banks will be covered with erosion control matting and
stabilized with temporary and permanent seeding and native riparian vegetation.

8.3 NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB Basis for Design
NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB R2 are relatively short perennial reaches located below
the RSC step-pool streams on NT R1 and UTA R1. The primary stressors within these

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
40
reaches are high nutrient and sediment inputs, channel incision, bank erosion and lack of
bedform diversity. Enhancement 1 activities including bank grading, constructed riffles
and log steps are proposed for these reaches to stabilize the streambanks, control grade,
add bedform diversity and reconnect channels to floodplains. Typical Step height ratios
(HSTEP/W BKF), Riffle length ratios (LRIFF/W BKF) and pool-to-pool spacings (p-p/WBKF) for
moderately sloping valleys were used to determine locations of design morphology
features. HSTEP/W BKF for NT R2, NT R2 and UTB is 0.04 to 0.08. Steeply sloping channels
tend to have greater step height ratios. Riffle slope ratios (SRIFF/ SAVE) ranged between
1.0 and 2.5 to allow the riffle sections of the channel to make up grade moving down
valley without excessive slope. In some instances and based on experience from
successful projects, riffle slope ratios up to 3.0 are acceptable when large substrate is
used to prevent mobilization of the substrate. Riffle length ratios (LRIFF/W BKF) for the
tributaries ranged from 1.0 to 1.8. P-P/W BKF ranged between 0.6 and 2.5, which is
characteristic of moderately sloping valleys.
8.3.2 Implementation Plan
NT R2 and UTB will be constructed during Phase 1 implementation and UTA R2
during Phase 2. Constructed riffles and log steps will be installed to design elevations to
moderately lift the channels back up to the existing floodplain. Streambanks will be graded
at 3:1 from the existing channel toe of slope and stabilized. The existing channel
alignment is not being changed and the streams are relatively straight with sinuosity
values near 1.0. The channel banks will be covered with erosion control matting and
stabilized with temporary and permanent seeding and native riparian vegetation.

8.4 MC R1 and MC R2 Basis for Design
Millstone Creek is a large sand bed system with a relatively large drainage area
(8.3 mi2). The primary stressors within MC R1 and MC R2 are streambank erosions, high
sediment supply, lack of bedform diversity and LWD, and little to no deep rooting
vegetation on the right bank. Enhancement 1 work is proposed for MC R1 and restoration
activities are proposed for MC R2. For MC R1, log riffles, log j-hooks, brush toe protection
and bank grading will be implemented. The existing MC R1 alignment will not be changed.
MC R2 will be realigned with a Priority 2 approach that includes minor floodplain grading.
Log riffles, log j-hooks and brush toe protection will be installed.
8.4.1 MC R2 Design Channel Size and Discharge
Empirical and analytical methods were used to size the MC R2 channel (Table
8.5). Where bankfull indicators were present, field cross-sections were measured and
Manning’s equation was used to estimate QBKF. Additionally, NCSU BAE installed a gage
station on Millstone Creek in fall 2015 and discharge data collection has been ongoing.
Field measured channel dimensions and discharges were compared the NC Piedmont

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
41
Regional Curve, the Alan Walker Curve and Lowther (2008) reference reach curves. The
proposed MC R2 ABKF and QBKF is 85 ft2 and 305 ft2, respectively.
Table 8.5: MC R2 Channel Size and Discharge Analysis
Millstone Creek DA = 8.3 mi2 and Proposed SWSE = 0.0019 (ft/ft) ABKF QBKF
Empirical Relationships
NC Piedmont Regional Curve 91 412
Alan Walker Curve - 373
Lowther Piedmont Reference Reach Curve 38 89
Manning’s from Field XS
MC XS 1 124 370
MC XS 3 75 245
MC XS 4 105 352
Field Monitoring Downstream Gage Station 109 311
Summary of Parameters
Mean 87 307
Median 89 352
Design 85 305

8.4.2 Reference Streams and Morphological Design Criteria
Two reference streams were used to develop channel dimension, planform
geometry and longitudinal profile morphological design criteria for MC R1 and MC R2.
The project reach of Millstone Creek is a unique stream in that it is a large sand bed
system with high sediment supply in a moderately confined valley located within the
Carolina Slate Belt. Locating a reference reach with the exact valley and morphology
characteristics proved challenging. Select reference streams used in development of
morphological design criteria are described below.
Terrible Creek
Terrible Creek is located near Fuquay Varina in Wake County (Figure 8.2). This
reach classifies as a C5 stream with a drainage area of 2.30 square miles. The stream
has an average bankfull width of 19.3 feet and an average slope 0.0049 ft/ft. A good
riparian buffer with a mix of pine and hardwood trees is present and wetland and aquatic
plants are prevalent on the streambanks and in the streambed. Overhanging vegetation
is prevalent with highly variable streambank cover. Large tree and extensive shade
dominate in some sections, while vines, other herbaceous plants and woody vegetation
dominate in other areas that are more open to sunlight. Some invasive species are
present. The upstream section of the reference appears to have been formerly impacted
by beaver, which likely contributed to timber loss and more open canopy.
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek is located in Randolph County (Figure 8.2). The reach length
surveyed is 1213 feet. This reach classifies as an E5 stream with a drainage area of 2.63

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
42
square miles. The stream has an average bankfull width of 20.9 feet and an average
slope 0.0057 ft/ft. Fairly well developed riparian buffer is present with a thick understory.
Streambank cover consists of some trees, grass and other herbaceous plants, including
Microstigium. Some streambanks are bare in spots. Overhanging vegetation is present
and the forest canopy nearly completely shades the creek bed.

Terrible Creek

Terrible Creek

Sandy Creek

Sandy Creek
Figure 8.2: Reference Reaches
8.4.3 Morphological Design Criteria
Proposed morphological design parameters are presented in Table 8.6. For MC
R2 channel dimensions, a width-to-depth ratio (W/D) of 14.0 was to develop channel
dimensions that will create stable streambanks after construction and promote sediment
transport, sediment deposition on low benches, and gentle side slopes up to the bankfull
stage. After implementation W/D may decrease as the channel narrows with sediment
deposited at the bankfull stage and on channel side slopes. For pool depths, a maximum
pool depth ratio of 3.0 to 3.5 for is proposed for MC R1 and MC R2 to create deep pools

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
43
for habitat, energy dissipation and potential settling of sediment. The pools are also
designed to be relatively wide, which will allow for construction of a gently sloping (7:1)
point bar for sediment deposition and storage. Most radius of curvature ratios (RC/W bkf)
ranged from 2.2 to 4.4, however there are some several very gentle curves included to
work with the existing MC R1 alignment. Lower RC/W bkf are represented in the reference
reach dataset, however in NCSU BAE’s experience, bank treatments or structures are
needed to deflect flows until streambank vegetation becomes established. R C/W bkf
between 2.0 and 3.5 tend to yield the most stable outside meander bends. Meander width
ratio (W blt/W bkf) range from 2.0 to 4.8, which is limited somewhat by the easement and
valley constraints but is within the reference reach design criteria. Pools are spaced at
2.6 to 7.1 channel widths with a median of 4.9, and proposed riffle length ratios range
from 0.5 to 4.8. Some of the design pool-to-pool spacing and riffle length ratios are outside
of the reference reach criteria due to constraints caused by working within the existing
channel and at the easement break.
Table 8.6: Millstone Creek Design Summary
Parameter Terrible Creek Sandy Creek MC R1* MC R2
DA (mi2) 2.3 mi2 2.6 mi2 8.2 mi2 8.3 mi2
Stream Type C5 E5 C5 / E5 C5 / E5
D50 (mm) 1.8 1.4 0.4 0.4
SVAL (ft/ft) 0.0071 0.0114 0.0021 0.0022
SWSE (ft/ft) 0.0050 0.0060 0.0020 0.0020
K (ft/ft) 1.41 1.90 1.06 1.09
Parameter
Design Summary
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
Wbkf (ft) 19.1 19.2 19.3 16.9 20.9 24.9 28.9 - 46.6 - 36.0 -
Dbkf (ft) 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.6 - 3.3 - 2.6 -
W/D 11.5 14.0 16.4 10.6 11.0 11.9 11.1 - 17.6 - 14.0 -
Abkf (ft2) 22.3 27.4 32.5 36.2 38.6 40.9 75.3 - 123.6 - 85.0 -
Dmbkf (ft) 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.4 - 4.8 - 3.6 -
ER 3.2 4.0 5.7 4.7 6.1 8.9 7.1 - 7.5 - 4.8
BHR 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.1 - 1.0 -
Parameter
Hydraulic Summary
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
Qbkf (cfs) 76 106 139 163 195 221 243 - 295 - 305 -
Vbkf (ft/s) 3.4 3.9 4.3 4.5 5.1 5.4 3.2 - 3.8 - 3.6 -
tbkf (lb/ft2) 0.37 0.45 0.53 0.60 0.71 0.79 0.27 - 0.35 - 0.29 -
wbkf (lb/ft/s) 1.3 1.7 2.3 2.7 3.6 4.3 0.9 - 1.3 - 1.0 -
Compt. (min) 30 37 43 49 58 64 22 - 28 - 24 -
Compt. (max) 92 111 130 147 175 193 67 - 85 - 72 -

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
44
Table 8.7 (Cont.): Millstone Creek Design Stream Summary
Parameter Dimension Summary
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
Dmbkf/Dbkf 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 - - - - 1.3 -
Dbkfp/Dbkf 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.1 1.4 1.8 - - - - 1.7 -
Wbkfp/Wbkf 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.1 - - - - 1.4 -
Abkfp/Abkf 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.0 1.5 2.1 - - - - 2.5 -
Dmbkfp/Dbkf 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.1 3.0 - 3.5 - 3.5 -
Parameter Pattern Summary
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
Lm/Wbkf 4.2 5.2 9.4 5.7 12.6 23.1 8.6 11.6 12.8 - 12.9 -
Rc/Wbkf 1.1 1.2 2.2 1.4 1.8 8.1 2.2 4.4 11.7 3.6 - 11.1
Wblt/Wbkf 1.6 2.5 3.6 2.8 4.3 4.7 1.8 2.8 3.5 2.0 - 4.4
Parameter Profile Summary
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
Lp/Wbkf 0.4 1.7 3.8 0.6 1.6 4.4 2.0 2.9 3.8 3.8 - 4.4
p-p/Wbkf 0.6 2.3 4.6 1.2 3.0 5.6 2.6 4.9 7.1 5.3 - 6.8
Sp/S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lrif/Wbkf 0.2 0.8 1.3 0.4 0.7 3.0 0.6 2.4 3.3 1.5 2.3 4.8
Srif/S 1.6 5.7 14.6 2.1 3.2 7.5 2.0 2.0 8.0 1.5 1.8 2.5
*MC R1 Dimension and Hydraulic data is from the existing conditions cross-sections.
8.4.4 Sediment Transport
Millstone Creek receives a relatively high watershed and reach sediment supply.
Sediment sources include upland, channel and bank sediments. The project reach has
also experienced mild incision and subsequent widening, decreasing in-channel
velocities, shear stress and stream power, which resulted in moderate aggradation of
sand and fine gravels in pools and on lateral bars. The reach also lacks sufficient
depositional storage for supplied sediment on low benches and point bars. Quantitative
sediment supply estimates can be highly variable and erroneous due to watershed,
channel, landscape, soils and fluvial process variability. To characterize sediment supply
to the project reach of Millstone Creek for the existing conditions assessment and
restoration design approach, three (3) distinct methods were employed:
1. Estimating the annual sediment load measured at the Millstone Creek field monitoring
station and converting TSS concentrations to SSC concentrations with USGS
regression equations described by Glysson et al. (2000).
2. Modeling of the Millstone Creek watershed and streams using ArcSWAT and ArcGIS
3. Modeling annual sediment load that is transported by the existing project reach of
Millstone Creek in HEC-RAS.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
45
Each method for estimating sediment supply to the Millstone Creek project reach has
strengths and weaknesses related to data collection and measurement methods, model
nuances and inherent variability. The methods and technical approach for estimating
sediment supply are described in detail below. Details of each method and quantification
approach are included in Appendix C.
Millstone Creek Sediment Supply Summary
Estimates of sediment supply ranged from 4,300 tons per year to 11,340 tons per
year. The approaches included estimates based on field collected TSS data and
correlated SSC data using the general USGS regression, watershed modeling of upla nds
and streams using ArcSWAT, and finally hydraulic and sediment transport modeling using
HEC-RAS.
Table 8.8: Millstone Creek Sediment Supply Summary
Method and Approach Predicted Annual Sediment Load
Field measured TSS data and the general
USGS equation for SSC concentration 4,300 to 8,600 tons per year
Watershed modeling in ArcSWAT using
historical weather data 11,340 tons per year
Mobile bed and annual sediment transport
capacity modeling in HEC-RAS 9,305 tons per year

While field collected data is often preferred for technical analysis, TSS data
collected at the project reach presents several challenges for use in estimating sediment
supply, which includes the configuration of the sampling apparatus, error in the correlation
of TSS data to SSC data and lack of bedload data. The sampling methods used can
dramatically under predict the sand fraction of the stream flow sample and do not capture
bed load at all. Thus, a substantial amount of error is introduced to the estimate. ArcSWAT
has the ability to estimate upland, channel bed and bank sediment loads from historical
weather and discharge records, which can determine long term averages or trends.
However, the model must be calibrated and validated to field collected weather, flow and
water quality data to accurately simulate discharges and pollutant loads. Calibration and
validation of a SWAT model was beyond the scope of this mitigation planning effort, but
the model outputs were loosely calibrated to field collected TSS data. Additionally,
SWAT’s routines for simulating channel bed and bank erosion are somewhat coarse with
multiple adjustable calibration coefficients. SWAT also lacks reach -scale sediment
transport routines.
Of the three (3) technical approaches used, hydraulic and mobile bed sediment

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
46
transport modeling with HEC-RAS 5.0 likely provides the most reliable estimate of
sediment supply for the Millstone Creek project reach. However, it should be noted that
is produced a number that is still only an estimate. This approach focused hydraulic and
sediment transport properties of the study channel rather than modeling and
characterizing the watershed, which means it is more feasible to physically measure all
necessary model input parameters. Model inputs like channel substrate gradation,
channel substrate depth, unsteady stream flow and cross -sectional geometry were all
physically measured in the field. Sediment transport equations described by Yang (19 79)
(which solve for suspended and bedload concentration) were then used to simulate the
movement of sediment from one (1) cross-section to the next. This approach minimizes
error compared to the other technical approaches described.
Millstone Creek Sediment Transport Capacity
Sediment transport capacity of the existing Millstone Creek project reach was
modeled using the hydraulic design tools in HEC-RAS 5.0. Sediment transport capacity
analysis is most valuable when used to compare the study reach to a reference condition
U/S or D/S of the project or to a proposed design configuration. A suitable reference
condition was not available U/S or D/S of the project reach, thus the existing sediment
transport capacity analysis was compared to proposed design and functional objectives
for the design. The existing project reach has shown signs of aggradation through the
formation of mid-channel and lateral bars.
One of the functional objectives of the restoration design approach will be to
moderately increase the sediment transport and storage capacity of the proposed channel
such that more sediment will be moved through the system to D/S reaches or be
deposited on depositional features like low benches and point bars within the project
reach. For the design QBKF of 305 cfs, the existing channel can move up to 3,000 tons of
sediment per day. Compare this to the proposed channel at QBKF (305 cfs) where the
channel can now move up to 4,100 tons of sediment per day. This modeling analysis
shows a moderate increase in sediment transport capacity from t he existing to the
proposed condition. The moderate increase in capacity should alleviate aggradation
within the existing channel in conjunction with the proposed depositional features like low
benches and wide point bars.
8.4.5 Implementation Plan
MC R1 and MC R2 will be constructed during Phase 1 implementation at the Site.
MC R1 begins at the north boundary of the easement and flows to the easement break.
The existing alignment will not be changed; meander bends will be enhanced with log j-
hooks, brush toe protection, LWD and excavation of a deep pool to the design profile
elevations and grades. Riffles will be enhanced with logs. Streambanks will be grad ed
from the design profile elevation up to the existing top of bank and stabilized.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
47
MC R2 is designed as an E4/C4 stream using a Priority 2 approach, which will
include moderate realignment of the channel from the easement break to south limits and
approximately 1.0 – 1.5’ of floodplain grading. Sinuosity and slope are relatively low due
to short reach length and valley constraints. Riffle and pool cross-sections will be
constructed throughout the reach that are designed to moderately increase sediment
transport capacity and depositional surface area for storage of sediment within the reach.
Large woody debris (LWD) will be incorporated into the channel for habitat features, flow
diversity, bank protection and grade control. Log riffles will be used for grade control and
brush toe protection will be used on most outside meander bends. Log j -hooks with
boulder sills, brush toe protection and soil geolifts will be used on outside meander bends.
Riffles with smaller woody debris and boulders will also be used to diversify the bed
features.
8.5 Wetland 1 Enhancement
Wetland enhancement is proposed for the Wetland 1 using hydrologic m odification only.
The existing ditch along the eastern boundary will be plugged by pushing adjacent
bermed material into the ditch. Previously excavated and mounded material at the
northern boundary of the wetland will be removed from the wetland area or used to plug
the ditch. This hydrologic modification will likely lead to expansion of the wetland area
and increased hydraulic retention times of nitrogen-rich baseflow conveyed by UTB for
enhanced nutrient processing and uptake. The existing area of Wetland 1 i s 1.323 ac.
During implementation, 0.003 ac of Wetland 1 will be permanently impacted by UTB
stream enhancement and 0.104 ac will be temporarily impacted by plugging the ditch and
removing existing berms and mounds. The final proposed enhancement area of W etland
1 is 1.320 ac. The temporarily disturbed wetland area will be revegetated with a temporary
and permanent seed mix, however no new wood y vegetation or herbaceous plugs will be
installed.
8.6 Re-vegetation Plan
The primary objective of the riparian vegetation and planting plan is to establish native
woody and herbaceous species to support geomorphic, physicochemical and biological
functions. Planting of vegetation will occur between November 15 and March 15. The
entire area within the conservation easement will be planted and revegetated by zones
described in Figure 8.3. Three vegetation communities are proposed for the Site:
Streambank, Riparian Floodplain and Upland Hardwood. Streambank trees and shrubs
will be planted within 15 feet of the channel. Shrubs and live stakes will be planted along
the reconstructed streambanks and concentrated along outer bends in meandering
sections of the channel. Streambank species will be planted at a density of 2,720 stems
per acre on 4-foot centers. Riparian Floodplain is the target community for the areas that
will experience regular flooding along the tributaries and Millstone Creek and Upland
Hardwood Forest is the target community for upland side-slopes within the easement.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
48
Bare-root seedlings within the Riparian Floodplain and Upland Hardwood Forests will be
planted at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8 -foot centers. Target stem
densities are 320 stems per acre at MY3; 260 stems per acre at MY5; and a minimum of
210 stems per acre at MY7. Disturbed streambank, floodplain and wetland areas will also
be seeded with permeant herba ceous vegetation. Temporary ground cover and soil
preparation will be applied following the schedule and rates in Table 8.11.

Table 8.9: Woody Vegetation by Planting Zone
Vegetation Area Streambank Floodplain Upland Hardwood
Forest Total
Area (acres) 2.5 5.3 9.6 17.4
Density 2,800 680 680 -
Species Stems % total Stems % total Stems % total Stems
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) 1,360 20 1,360
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) 1,360 20 1,360
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) 680 10 680
River Birch (Betula nigra) 680 10 500 14 1,425
Yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima) 680 10 680
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) 680 10 400 11 1,175
Water oak (Quercus nigra) 680 10 200 5 930
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) 680 10 200 5 250
Inkberry (Ilex glabra) 400 11 500
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 400 11 500
Sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis) 400 11 500
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) 200 5 250
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 250 7 250
Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum) 250 7 250
Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 250 7 400 5 550
Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) 250 7 500 10 850
White oak (Quercus alba) 1000 15 900
Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) 600 10 600
Red Bud (Cercis canadensis) 400 5 300
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) 300 5 300
Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 800 10 600
Sassafras (Sassafras albidum) 400 5 300
Red Oak (Quercus rubra) 900 15 900
Chestnut Oak (Quercus prinus) 600 10 600
American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) 600 10 600
Total 6,800 100 3,700 100 6,500 100 17,000

Table 8.10: Permanent Seed mixes for disturbed areas within the Site easement

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
49
Wetland Seed Mix – 20 lbs per acre
Species Common Name Percent
Bidens aristosa Showy tickseed 7
Carex vulpinoidea Fox sedge 12
Dichanthelium clandestinum Deertongue 8
Elymus virginicus Virginia wildrye 20
Juncus effusus Soft rush 4
Panicum dichotomiflorum Smooth panicgrass 14
Panicum rigidulum Redtop panicgrass 8
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 23
Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania smartweed 2
Sparganium americanum Eastern bur reed 2
100
Streambank and Floodplain Seed Mix – 20 lbs per acre
Species Common Name Percent
Agrostis perennans Autumn bentgrass 15
Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem 10
Coreopsis lanceolata Lanceleaf coreopsis 10
Elymus virginicus Virginia wildrye 20
Juncus effusus Soft rush 5
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 15
Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed susan 10
Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem 5
Sorghastrum nutans Indian grass 5
Tripsacum dactyloides Eastern gamagrass 5
100
Upland Hardwood Forest – 20 lbs per acre
Species Common Name Percent
Achillea millefolium Common yarrow 10
Agrostis perennans Autumn bentgrass 6
Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly weed 1
Bidens aristosa Showy tickseed sunflower 11
Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge pea 10
Coreopsis lanceolata Lance-leaf coreopsis 10
Echinacea purpurea Purple coneflower 4
Elymus virginicus Virginia wildrye 6
Gaillardia pulchella Indian blanket 8
Helianthus angustifolius Swamp sunflower 2
Helianthus maximiliani Maximilian’s sunflower 2
Monarda punctata Spotted beebalm 2
Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed susan 6
Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem 4
Sorghastrum nutans Indian grass 6

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
50
Symphyotrichum pilosum Heath aster 1
Tridens flavus Purpletop 4
Tripsacum dactyloides Eastern gamagrass 6
Verbena hastata Blue vervain 1
100

Table 8.11: Temporary seeding schedule to stabilized disturbed areas within the Site
easement
Temporary Seeding Schedule and Rates
Date Type Application Rate
(lbs/acre)
Jan 1 – May 1
Rye Grain 120
Ground Agricultural Limestone 2,000
10-10-10 Fertilizer 750
Straw Mulch 4,000
May 1 – Aug 15
German Millet 40
Ground Agricultural Limestone 2,000
10-10-10 Fertilizer 750
Straw Mulch 4,000
Aug 15 – Dec 30
Rye Grain 120
Ground Agricultural Limestone 2,000
10-10-10 Fertilizer 750
Straw Mulch 4,000

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
51

Figure 8.3: Riparian Vegetation and Planting Plan

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
52
8.7 Post-Construction Stabilization Plan
Immediately following grading, excavation and channel work, topsoil may be
reapplied and seasonally appropriate temporary seed, permeant seed, fertilizer, lime (or
other necessary soil amendments) and mulch will be spread over all bare earth. Coir
matting will placed on all graded streambanks. Live stakes will be installed in the outside
of meander bends to help anchor sod mats in place. Sod will be harvested from
excavated areas within the valley. The sod will be stripped and immediately transported
and installed to newly constructed streambanks. Irrigation (from the stream) will be
established to water the sod for the first 4 weeks following construction as needed,
depending on rainfall amounts. Erosion control matting will be installed on all
streambanks and anchored with wooden stakes. Additional post-construction stabilization
and S&EC descriptions and details are available in the construction documents.
8.8 Stream Crossings
A single easement break and stream crossing will be established at approximate ly STA
15 + 10 FT on Millstone Creek. The crossing will be an armored ford crossing for livestock
access to pastures on the adjacent landowner’s property. T he crossing will be gated and
fenced off. The fencing may be charged with high tensile wire when the crossing is in
active use. Cattle will not have access to Millstone Creek when moving through the
crossing. There is a break in the conservation easement where the crossing will be
installed and mitigation credits have not been included reach of the channel.
8.9 Project Risks and Uncertainties
Land adjacent to and surrounding the project and established conservation easement is
managed for cattle grazing and hay production. There is potential for cattle to
inadvertently access the project area. The exclusion fencing will be inspected twice a year
during post-implementation monitoring and signs of cattle intrusion will be reported. A
swine waste pond exists just upslope of Millstone Creek and swine wastes are also
applied on the fields adjacent to the project streams. Swine waste applications adjacent
to the tributaries have been targeted with treatment BMPs and the expansion and re -
establishment of the existing wetland area. However, it is possible that the waste
application areas or zones could change over time. There is a break in the easement with
a ford crossing through Millstone Creek for cattle access and grazing in fields east of the
project.
Contributing drainage areas to all site streams are very rural with no documented plans
for urban development or NC DOT roadway construction and expansion. Substantial
amounts of land cover have already been converted from forest to pasture and hay
production or shrub / scrub cover. It is unlikely that additional changes in landuse would
alter the hydrology, hydraulics and sediment supply to the project reaches. There are
three primary risks to the project which are detailed below:

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
53
1. Sediment supply to Millstone Creek is high, particularly from reaches immediately
upstream of the project where channel bed and bank erosion persist. Substantial effort
has been made to evaluate and quantify existing sediment supply to the project reach
on Millstone Creek through field evaluations and analytical studies. The existing
channel also shows signs of aggradation in the form of m id-channel bars, alternating
lateral bars and filling of pools. The proposed channel has been designed to provide
storage on point bars and low benches (inner berm) and moderately increase
sediment transport capacity to decrease the risk of aggradation within the channel.
Aggradation within the channel can negatively impact hydraulic, geomorph ic and
biologic functions. However, an increase in sediment transport capacity may also
create the risk of channel degradation. Analysis of the proposed design indicates the
risk of channel degradation is low. In general, with high sediment supply systems like
Millstone Creek there is substantial risk of dramatic post -implementation adjustment
of channel dimensions to occur as sediment is transported and stored within the
system.
2. Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance Systems (RSCs) have been proposed as
BMPs upstream of the tributaries. The primary purpose of the RSCs is to enhance
nutrient processing, detain storm flow runoff and adequately convey high flows without
degradation from the drainage area over a relatively steep gradient (NT R1 = 0.042
ft/ft, UTA R1 = 0.048 ft/ft) to the tributaries. The RSC grade controls and pools have
been designed to resist the shear stresses and dissipate energy up the Q 100
discharge. RSCs have been used in urban areas with mixed success of processing
and treatment of nutrients. However, this is largely due the low nutrient concentrations
and loads that are typically found in influent urban runoff (i.e. it is difficult to clean
relatively clean water). There are no published research studies available on the
application and performance of the RSC in an agricultural environment with high
nutrient supply. However, the principles and design approach o f the urban and
agricultural systems are similar and the treatment and processing capability at the
project site is expected to be higher than an urban scenario. This is because nutrient
concentrations and loads are extremely high in both storm flow and baseflow.
3. Restored stream features (bedforms, banks, structures and floodplain) are particularly
vulnerable to damage from flooding and overbank flows in the 1 – 2 years following
implementation. Overbank and flood flows can degrade immature streambank and
floodplain vegetation leading to bank erosion, floodplain rills and channelization, and
structure failure. This risk of damage during high flows dec reases substantially after
vegetation becomes established on the streambanks and floodplain. Adaptive
management strategies are detailed Section 12.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
54
9. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The performance standards for the Site follow guidance from the NC IRT’s October
2016 Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Performance standards will
be evaluated throughout the seven year post‐construction monitoring and described in
the annual monitoring reports. If all performance standards have been successfully met,
NC DMS may propose to terminate stream, wetland and/or vegetation monitoring after
MY5.
9.1 Streams
The stream performance standards for the project site will follow approved performance
standards presented in the NC IRT Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update (10/24/2016) and presented in the DMS Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance (June 2017). Annual monitoring and
semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project.
Specific performance standard components are proposed for stream morphology,
hydrology, and vegetation. Performance standards will be evaluated throughout the
seven-year post-construction monitoring.
9.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross-sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little
change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to-depth ratio. Per NC IRT
guidance, bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at
least 1.4 for restored B channels and 2.2 for restored E/C channels to be considered
stable. All riffle cross sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of
the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to
assess whether the system is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include
a vertically incising thalweg or eroding banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a
movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -to-depth
ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be
taken if channel changes indicate a trend toward stability.
9.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Visual assessments and photo documentation should indicate that streams are remaining
stable and do not exhibit a trend toward systematic instability. Signs of instability may
include bank scour, bank migration, and bed incision.
9.1.3 Substrate
Restoration reaches should show maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features
and smaller particles in the pool features. A reach‐wide pebble count will be performed in
each restoration reach each monitoring year for classification purposes. A pebble count

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
55
will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement during the baseline
monitoring only.
9.1.4 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the Site’s vegetation and morphological stability on an
annual basis. Cross-section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or
degradation of the banks. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persiste nt
mid-channel bars or vertical incision. Grade control structures should remain stable.
Deposition of sediment on the bank-side of vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour
pools on the channel-side of vane arms is expected.
9.1.5 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events will be documented throughout the monitoring period.
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven -year monitoring period.
The four bankfull events must occur in separate years. Bankfull events will be
documented using photographs and either a crest gage or a pressure transducer, as
appropriate for Site conditions. The selected measurement device will be installed in the
stream within a surveyed riffle cross section. The device will be checked at each site visit
to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will also be used to document
the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition.
9.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in
the riparian corridors at the end of the required monitoring period (MY7). The interim
measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 native
species stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year (MY3) and at lea st 260
stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring (MY5). Planted vegetation must
average 7 feet in height in each plot at the end of MY5 and 10 feet in height at Year 7.
The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and cont rolled as
necessary throughout the required monitoring period. Vegetation monitoring quadrants
will be installed across the Site to measure the survival of the planted trees. The number
of monitoring quadrants required, and frequency of monitoring will be based on the DMS
monitoring guidance documents. Vegetation monitoring will occur between July 1st and
leaf drop and will follow the CVS‐EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2008) or
another DMS approved protocol.
9.3 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards described above
9.4 Water Quality
Detailed supplemental water quality monitoring will be conducted downstream of the step-
pool systems on NT R2 and UT R2. Water quality treatment success criteria will be a

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
56
statistically significant decrease in Total Nitrogen (TN) concentrations in stormflow and
baseflow samples when compared to the pre-mitigation monitoring data. Success will
yield an additional 2% (at risk) of SMUs for NT R1, NT R2, UTA R1, UTA R2 and UTB.
There will be no loss of credits for failure to meet this performance standard.
9.5 Wetlands
Only hydrologic enhancement is proposed for Wetland 1. No specific performance
standards are included for Wetland 1. A visual assessment and photo points will be
used to document the condition of Wetland 1.

10. MONITORING PLAN
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required
performance standards are met, and project goals and objectives are achieved. Annual
monitoring data will be reported using the DMS Annual Monitoring Reporting Template
(June 2017). The monitoring report shall provide project data chronology that will facilitate
an understanding of project status and trends, ease population of DMS databases for
analysis and research purposes, and assist in close-out decision making. Using the DMS
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template (June 2017), a baseline monitoring
document and as-built record drawings of the project will be developed following the
planting and monitoring materials installation at the Site. Monitoring reports will be
prepared in the fall of each monitoring year and submitted to DMS by November 30.
These reports will be based on the DMS Annual Monitoring Template (June 2017) and
Closeout Report Template (June 2017). Full monitoring reports will be submitted to DMS
in monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Abbreviated monitoring reports will be submitted in
monitoring years 4 and 6. The closeout monitoring period may extend seven years
beyond completion of construction or until performance standards have been met.
10.1 Mitigation Monitoring Components
Project monitoring components are listed in more detail in Table 10.1. Approximate
locations of the proposed monitoring components are shown in Figure 10.1.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW -2019-01363 January 24, 2020
57
Table 10.1: Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Goal Treatment Performance Standard Monitoring Metric Expected Outcomes Likely Functional Uplift
Enhance
processing of
nutrients from
onsite sources.
Construct stream and
wetland systems
designed to process
nitrogen and
phosphorus.
Statistically significant
decrease in TN
concentrations.
Instream monitoring of
discharge, TN
concentrations on NT
R2, UTA R2 and UTB.
See “Supplemental
Monitoring”.
Stable conveyances with
sediment trapping and
processing of nutrients.
Reduction in sediment
and nutrient inputs.
Improved water quality
and aquatic habitat.
Improve stream
channel stability.
Construct stream
channels with
appropriate bankfull
channel dimensions,
planform geometry and
profile such that channel
maintenance and
adjustments are
representative of other
natural systems.
Stream profile and pattern
must remain stable. See
“Streams 9.1”.
Cross-section
monitoring and visual
assessment.
Stable channels with
BHR less than 1.2.
Decrease sediment
inputs from channel and
bank erosion. Efficiently
transport sediment leads
and stream flow.
Improve instream
habitat.
Install habitat features
and structures, add
LWD, increase bedform
diversity, improve in-
stream water quality.
There is no required
performance standard for
this metric.
Visual assessment
and
macroinvertebrate
surveys. See
“Supplemental
Monitoring”.
Visual assessment
should report an overall
increase in habitat
complexity within the
stream systems.
Increase in available
habitat for
macroinvertebrates and
fish leading to an
increase in biodiversity.
Restore native
riparian vegetation.
Plant native tree,
understory and grass
species in riparian
zones, streambank and
wetland areas.
In planted open areas the
survival of 210 planted
stems per acre at MY7.
Interim survival of at least
320 planted stems at MY3
and at least 260 planted
stems per acre at MY5.
Additionally, trees in each
plot must average 7 feet in
height by MY5 and 10 feet
by MY7. No success
criteria is associated with
shaded area planting.
Permanent and
mobile 100 m2
vegetation plots will
be placed on 2% of
the planted area.
Shaded areas will be
visually assessed.
Planted stem densities
will be at or above 210
planted stems per acre
at MY7, with volunteer
trees also growing
onsite.
Reduce sediment inputs
from bank erosion.
Increase nutrient
processing, uptake and
storage within the
floodplain. Create
riparian habitats. Add a
source of LWD and
organic material to
stream.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW -2019-01363 January 24, 2020
58
Exclude livestock
from stream
channels.
Establish a conservation
easement on the Site.
Record and close
conservation
easement prior to
implementation.
Visual assessment
Site remains protected by
conservation easement in
perpetuity.
Protection of the Site
from encroachment into
the conservation
easement and direct
impact to stream.
Supports all functions.
Permanently
protect site
resources from
local disturbance
and other uses.
Establish and record
conservation easement
on the Site. Install in
livestock exclusion
fencing.
Prevent easement
encroachment.
Site and easement
boundary visually
inspected annually for
encroachment.
No detrimental impacts to the
conservation easement, site
streams, wetlands or riparian
buffer.
Hydrology (reach-scale),
Hydraulic,
Geomorphology,
Physicochemical,
Biology

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW -2019-01363 January 24, 2020
59
Table 10.2: Millstone Creek Mitigation Monitoring Components
Monitoring Parameter Monitoring
Method
Quantity per Feature
Frequency Notes
NT R1 NT R2 UTA R1 UTA R2 UTB MC R1 MC R2 Wetland
Dimension
Riffle XS 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 1 N/A
Annual 1
Pool XS 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 1 N/A
Pattern Field Survey N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2
Longitudinal Profile Field Survey N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Baseline 2
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW),
Wetted Perimeter
(WP) pebble count
1 RW, 1
WP N/A 1 RW, 1
WP N/A 1 RW, 1
WP
1 RW,
WP
1 RW, 1
WP N/A Annual 3
Hydrology Gage Station,
Transducer 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 1 Continuous 4
Vegetation CSV Level 2 /
Mobile Plots 14, (10 Permanent, 4 Mobile) N/A MY 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 5
Visual Assessment Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Semi-Annual
Invasive Vegetation Semi-Annual 6
Easement Boundary Semi-Annual 7
Reference Station Photos Photographs 2 1 2 1 2 6 2 2 Annual -
1. Cross-sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including t op of bank, bankfull, edge of
water, and thalweg
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during as-built baseline monitoring survey only, unless
observations indicate widespread lack of vertical stability (greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or
survey repair work.
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling will be collected during the baseline monitoring only. Substrate assessments in subsequent monitoring years will consist of reachwide
substrate monitoring.
4. Gage stations and transducers will be inspected monthly, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible. Transducers will be set to record stage
once every two hours. Devices will be inspected and downloaded semi‐annually.
5. Both mobile and permanent vegetation plots will be utilized to evaluate the vegetation performance for the open areas planted. 2% of the open planted acreage will be monitored
with permanent plots and mobile plots. Permanent vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will
document number of planted stems and species using a circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed.
6. Locations of invasive vegetation will be mapped and submitted with the annual monitoring report.
7. Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped and submitted with the annual monit oring report.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
60

Figure 10.1: Millstone Creek Site Mitigation Monitoring Plan

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
61
10.2 Supplemental Monitoring Components
10.2.1 Supplemental Monitoring Objectives
Supplemental water quality and biology monitoring will be conducted at the Site to
achieve four key objectives:

1. Determine if media-based restoration (i.e. Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance
or RSC) applied to the tributary channels (NT R1 and UTA R1) is an effective
approach to decrease nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and loads from
agricultural sources.

2. Determine if stabilizing UTB and enhancing the existing downstream jurisdictional
wetland feature will decrease nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and loads
delivered to Millstone Creek.

3. Determine if RSC treatments on NT R1 and stabilization and habitat enhancement
of NT R2 and UTB result in improved health of the macroinvertebrate community
in UTB.

4. Determine if improved sediment transport, bank stabilization, re-establishment of
riparian vegetation and introduction of large wood and habitat features result in
improved health of the macroinvertebrate community of Millstone Creek.

10.2.2 Supplemental Monitoring Rationale and Approach
The rationale and technical approach for the supplemental monitoring objectives is
described below. Additional detail on the methods is tabulated in Table 10.3 and shown
in Figure 10.2.
Objective 1
NT R1 and UTA R1 will be treated using an RSC approach. The upper two feet of the
channels will be filled with a sand: mulch filter media (80:20 mix). A rock step channel will
be constructed atop the filter media to convey storm flows. The media is intended to
reduce dissolved nitrogen concentrations and loads to downstream surface waters by
enhancing denitrification. A paired watershed study of the two tributaries is being
conducted to gage the success of this approach in a high-nutrient load agriculture setting.
Both tributaries were monitored for three years prior to restoration. NT R1 will be restored
and UTA R1 will remain in its existing condition. Post-construction monitoring for 3 years
(1.5 years after NT and 1.5 years after UTA) on both tributaries will provide a clear
comparison for determining the effectiveness of RSC for agricultural nutrient stressors.
Post-restoration monitoring will be initiated once recovery from construction disturbance

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
62
is achieved following each phase of earthwork. ISCO samplers (2) and flumes located
within NT R2 and UTA R2 (just downstream of NT R1 and UTA R1, respectively) will
monitor flow, and collect composite water quality samplers to be tested for sediment and
nutrients. Groundwater wells installed in the RSC Channel (2 in NT R1) and the riparian
area (4) will be used to monitor groundwater levels and to sample nutrients. In addition,
macroinvertebrate sampling in UTA R2 and NT R2 will be conducted in both spring and
fall during Years 3, 5 & 7 to evaluate the potential improvement in the macroinvertebrate
community following a reduction in nutrients and sediment load reduction from upstream
sources. All sampling will follow NC Division of Water Resource protocols.

Objective 2
Upstream and downstream flow and water quality sampling will be conducted to assess
the water quality benefits of stabilizing UTB and enhancing the existing jurisdictional
wetland on site (i.e. plug ditch and remove berms and spoil piles). Water quality from the
two automated ISCO samplers downstream of NT R2 and UTA R2 (see Objective 1) will
represent the upstream water quality for UTB. A new automated ISCO sampler and flume
will be installed at the downstream outlet of the wetland and will be used to measure flow
and sample base and storm flow for nutrients and sediment.

Objective 3
Before and after macroinvertebrate sampling during both spring and fall in UTB will be
conducted to assess the habitat enhancement and macroinvertebrate community health
of UTB that results from both upstream and in -reach stabilization and restoration efforts.
All monitoring will follow NC Division of Water Resource protocols.

Objective 4
Before and after macroinvertebrate sampling in Millstone Creek will be conducted to
assess the habitat and macroinvertebrate community improvements of the in -reach
restoration and enhancement efforts. All monitoring will follow NC Division of Water
Resource protocols.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW -2019-01363 January 24, 2020
63
Table 10.3: Millstone Creek Supplemental Monitoring Components
Monitoring
Parameter
Monitoring
Method
Quantity per Feature Monitoring
Years (MY) Notes
NT R1 NT R2 UTA R1 UTA R2 UTB MC R1 MC R2 Wetland
Surface water
Hydrology
Continuous
Discharge and
Volume
- 1 - 1 - - - - MY 1, 2, 3 1, 2
Groundwater
Hydrology
Riparian 2 - 2 - - - - - MY 1, 2, 3 1, 2
In-Channel 2 - - - - -
-
- MY 1, 2, 3 1, 2
Water Quality TN, NOx-N, NH3-N,
TP, TSS - 1 - 1 - - - 1 MY 1, 2, 3 1, 2
Macroinvertebrates NC DWR Qual 4 - 1 - 1 1 1 1 - MY 3, 5, 7 -
1. Surface water hydrology and water quality monitoring stations will be installed within reaches NT R2 and UTA R2. Data collect ed at these two monitoring stations will be used to
make inferences about effects within NT R1, UTA R1 and UTB.
2. The phased implementation approach will require monitoring at NT R2 and UTA R2 during MY 1, 2, and 3

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
64

Figure 10.2: Millstone Creek Site Supplemental Monitoring Plan

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
65
10.3 Site Maintenance Plan
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of all site
features and easement boundaries shall be conducted a minimum of once per year
throughout the post‐construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.
These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine
maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years
following site construction and is described in Table 10.4.
Table 10.4: General Site Maintenance Plan
Site Feature Maintenance through Project Close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities m ay include chinking of
instream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the
channel. Areas where storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel
may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head‐cutting.
Beaver activity will be monitored and beaver dams on project streams will
typically be removed during the monitoring period by a contracted entity to
allow for bank stabilization and stream development outside of this type of
influence.
Wetland
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental
plantings of live stakes or containerized plants and spreading of wetland
seed mixes. Areas where floodplain flows intersect the wetland may also
require maintenance to prevent scour.
Riparian Vegetation
Riparian vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the
targeted community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities
may include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing.
Invasive plant species or excessive native volunteer tree growth that
threatens the viability of planted species shall be controlled by mechanical
and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide
application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Easement Boundaries
Easement boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear
distinction between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries
may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree‐blazing, or other
means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement.
Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or
replaced on an as needed basis.

10.4 Adaptive Management Plan
The Adaptive Management Plan will be implemented if monitoring results indicate
that all or some portions of the site fail to meet one or more of the required performance
standards. Annual monitoring reports will provide a remedial action plan to address the
deficiency and the USACE mitigation contact will be notified as soon as possible if a
situation is discovered that requires remedial action. The remedial action plan will
describe the failure, the source or reason for the failure, a concise description of the

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
66
corrective measures that are proposed, and a time frame for the implementation of the
corrective measures. Remedial action plans should follow specific guidelines for
vegetation, stream stability, invasive species, and beaver described by the NC IRT’s
October 2016 Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Additional
monitoring may be required as described by the October 2016 Compensatory Mitigation
Update.
10.5 Long-Term Management Plan
Upon approval for close‐out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) the site will be
transferred to the NCDEQ Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation’s
Stewardship Program. This party shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site
to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement or the deed restriction
document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed
restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party. The NCDEQ
Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation’s Stewardship Program
currently houses DMS stewardship endowments within the non‐reverting, interest‐
bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from
the Endowment Account is governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A‐
232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only for the purpose of
stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non ‐
wasting endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to
steward the compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will
be re‐invested in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation.

11. DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
The estimated SMUs and WMUs for the Site are listed in Table 11.1. Projections
are based on current Site design documents. Upon completion of the implementation
phases, the project components and credits data will only be revised to be consistent with
the as-built condition. Restoration level credit ratios have been proposed for reaches NT
R2, UTA R2 and UTB for Enhancement 1 activities within the reach and the hydrology
and water quality uplift they will receive from upstream RSC treatments on NT R1 and
UTA R1. An additional 4% (124 SMUs, 0.026 WMUs) of the Project Subtotal has been
included for supplemental monitoring that NC DMS has conducted for the prior to
restoration and proposed post-restoration supplemental monitoring (See Section 10.2).
An additional 2% (32 SMUs) of the NT R1, NT R2, UTA R1, UT R2 and UTB SMUs has
been proposed for meeting approved water quality success criteria (See Section 9.4).

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
67
Table 11.1: Determination of Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Type Stream Riparian Wetland Non-riparian
Wetland
Riparian
Buffer
Nitrogen
Offset
Phosphorus
Offset
Project Subtotal 3,089 - 0.660 - - -
4% Increase Site
wide* 124 - 0.026 - - -
2% Increase for
WQ Success on
Tribs** (At risk)
32 - - - - -
Project Total 3,245 - 0.686 - - -
*4% increase in credits applied site wide for supplemental water quality and biology monitoring on streams and wetlands
**2% increase in credits applied to NT R1, NT R2, UTA R1, UTA R2, UTB (1,581 x 0.02 = 32) for meeting approved water
quality success criteria
Project Components
Resource Existing
Length Approach Level (R, E1,
E2, etc.)
Proposed
Length
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit
NT R1 303 LF Restoration with step-pool
system R 326 LF 1:1 326
NT R2 103 LF
Bank grading, in-stream
structures, WQ treatment on
NT R1
E1 (R equiv.) 103 LF 1:1 103
UTA R1 505 LF Restoration with step-pool
system R 523 LF 1:1 523
UTA R2 100 LF
Bank grading, in-stream
structures, WQ treatment on
UTA R1
E1 (R equiv.) 100 LF 1:1 100
UTB 529 LF
Bank grading, in-stream
structures, WQ treatment on
NT R1, UTA R1
E1 (R equiv.) 529 LF 1:1 529
MC R1 1,462 LF
Bank grading, in-stream
structures, bank treatments,
planting
E1 1,462 LF 1.5:1 975
MC R2 553 LF
Priority 2 restoration
approach. Appropriate
bankfull channel
dimensions, in-stream
structures, bank treatments,
planting
R 533 LF 1:1 533
Wetland 1 1.323 AC Hydrologic Enhancement E 1.320 AC 2:1 0.660

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
68
12. REFERENCES
Daniels, R., Buol, S., Kleiss, H., & Ditzler, C. (1999). Soil Systems in North Carolina.
Technical Bulletin. Soil Science Department. North Carolina State University.
Raleigh, NC.
Doll, B., Jennings, G., Spooner, J., Penrose, D., Usset, J., Blackwell, J., & Fernandez,
M. (2016). Identifying Watershed, Landscape, and Engineering Design Factors
that Influence the Biotic Condition of Restored Streams. Water, 8(4), 151.
Doll, B. A., Grabow, G. L., Hall, K. R., Halley, J., Harman, W. A., Jennings, G. D., &
Wise, D. E. (2003). Stream restoration: a natural channel design handbook. NC
State University: North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute.
Doll, B. A., Wise‐Frederick, D. E., Buckner, C. M., Wilkerson, S. D., Harman, W. A.,
Smith, R. E., & Spooner, J. (2002). Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban
streams throughout the piedmont of north carolina. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association, 38(3), 641-651.
Filoso, S., & Palmer, M. A. (2011). Assessing stream restoration effectiveness at
reducing nitrogen export to downstream waters. Ecological Applications, 21(6),
1989-2006.
Glysson, G. D., Gray, J. R., & Conge, L. M. (2000). Adjustment of total suspended
solids data for use in sediment studies Building Partnerships (pp. 1-10).
Knies, S. V. (2009). Riparian buffer effectiveness at removal of NO3-N from
groundwater in the middle Coastal Plain of North Carolina. (Masters), NC State
University, Raleigh, NC.
Line, D. E., Osmond, D. L., & Childres, W. (2016). Effectiveness of Livestock Exclusion
in a Pasture of Central North Carolina. Journal of Environmental Quality, 45(6),
1926-1932.
Narasimhan, B., Allen, P. M., Srinivasan, R., Bednarz, S. T., Arnold, J. G., & Dunbar, J.
A. (2007). Streambank erosion and best management practice simulation using
SWAT. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 4th conference on ‘Watershed
management to meet water quality standards and TMDLs’, San Antonio. ASABE
publication.
NCDEQ. (2005). 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Retrieved from
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-
planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-2005.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
69
NCDEQ. (2014). 2014 Integrated Report Summary Ambient Data. Retrieved from
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5965f22e762
143a3bdea66ea8bcf1f38.
NCDEQ. (2015). 319 Watershed Plan Maps. Retrieved January 4, 2017, from NC
Department of Envrionmental Quality https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-resources-grants/319-grant-program/319-watershed-restoration-
plan-map
NCDEQ. (2016). Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of
Benthic Macroinvertebrates Version 5.0. NC Department of Envrionmental
Quality, Division of Water Resources, Water Sciences Section, Biological
Assessment Branch, Retrieved from https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/BAU/NCDWRMacroinverte
brate-SOP-February%202016_final.pdf.
Noe, G. B., & Hupp, C. R. (2005). Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus accumulation in
floodplains of Atlantic Coastal Plain rivers, USA. Ecological Applications, 15(4),
1178-1190.
Piedmont Triad Regional Council (PTRC), & Triangle J Council of
Governments(TJCOG). (2012). Upper Cape Fear River Basin Conservation and
Restoration Analysis and Strategy. Retrieved from
http://www.ptrc.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1760
Purvis, R. A., & Fox, G. A. (2016). Streambank sediment loading rates at the watershed
scale and the benefit of riparian protection. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms, 41(10), 1327-1336. doi:10.1002/esp.3901
Rabon, D., & Heise, R. Cape Fear Shiner. In U. F. W. Service (Ed.).
Robison, G. E., & Beschta, R. L. (1990). Coarse woody debris and channel morphology
interactions for undisturbed streams in southeast Alaska, USA. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms, 15(2), 149-156.
Rosgen, D. L. (1994). A classification of natural rivers. CATENA, 22(3), 169-199.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0341-8162(94)90001-9
Rosgen, D. L. (1996). Applied river morphology. Pagosa Springs, Colo.: Wildland
Hydrology.
Rosgen, D. L. (2001). A practical method of computing streambank erosion rate. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
70
Conference.
Schafale, M. P., & Weakley, A. S. (1990). Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina. Third approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh.
Simon, A. (1989). A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial ch annels. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms, 14(1), 11-26. doi:10.1002/esp.3290140103
Spruill, T. B., Eimers, J. L., & Morey, A. E. (1997). Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in
shallow ground water of the coastal plain of the Albemarle -Pamlico drainage
study unit, North Carolina and Virginia. Fact Sheet FS -241-96. Reston, Va. US
Geological Survey.
Starr, R., Harman, W. A., & Davis, S. (2015). Final Draft Function-Based Rapid Stream
Assessment Methodology Assessment Methodology.
Annapolis, Md. Retrieved from
http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/stream/StreamsPDF/FinalDraftFunctionBasedRapid
StreamAssessmentMethodologyandAppendices5-29-15.pdf.
US Forest Service. (2012). Uwharrie National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan. Troy, NC.
USDA NRCS. (1995). Soil Survey of Randolph County, NC. Retrieved from
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/north_carolina/NC151/
0/Randolph.pdf.
USDA NRCS. (2017). The PLANTS Database Retrieved from http://plants.usda.gov.
Yang, C. T. (1979). Unit stream power equations for total load. Journal of Hydrology,
40(1-2), 123-138.

Zink, J. M., and G. D. Jennings. 2014. Channel Roughness in North Carolina Mountain
Streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. DOI:
10.1111/jawr.12180

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
71
13. APPENDIX A: PRE-RESTORATION WATER QUALITY AND BIOLOGY
MONITORING
Rigorous surface water and groundwater quality monitoring has been conducted
on the tributaries and mainstem of Millstone Creek since summer 2014. High nutrient and
pathogen inputs from land applied swine wastes are the most prevalent physicochemical
stressors on the Site’s tributaries. The tributary monitoring stations were located on NT
R2 and UTA R2 just above the confluence with UTB. All water quality degradation
observed on NT and UTA is also similarly impacting UTB. For functional parameters in
the SQT, the mean or aggregate of the parameter (which ever was appropriate and most
representative) was used. On a Physicochemical basis, the tributaries are extremely
degraded and “Not Functioning”. However, conductivity of the stream flow was measured
and is suitable for macroinvertebrate habitat and recruitment. The mainstem of Millstone
Creek is also “Not Functioning”, though nutrient concentrations are much lower and fecal
coliform counts are much higher than those observed on the tributaries.
As part of the Millstone Creek mitigation effort, cattle exclusion fencing and
watering stations were installed in summer of 2015. However, due to issues with cattle
watering devices and electrical supply, cattle were not excluded from the conservation
area until approximately December 2015. Data from the pre-exclusion (8/5/14 to 12/2/15)
and post-exclusion (1/1/16 to 9/7/16) periods are separated to evaluate the results of the
cattle exclusion effort, which is a component of the restoration effort. It should be noted
that NCSU BAE staff have observed a few cattle inside the conservation easement during
nearly all visits to the site since December 2015. Generally, only 8-10 cows or fewer have
been observed inside the fence. In some instances, NCSU BAE staff have herded the
stray cows outside the fence during these visits in an effort to preserve the validity of the
pre- and post- fencing comparisons.
13.1 Water Quality
Table 13.1 and Table 13.2 below contain summary statistics of nutrient and
sediment concentration data obtained from water quality analysis results of surface water
samples collected during storm event discharge and non-storm (baseflow) discharge
through 9/7/16. For storm samples on NT , the pollutant concentration means during the
pre- and post-fencing periods are similar with the post-fencing means being slightly
greater. For UTA, the post-fencing means are less than the pre-fencing. The reason for
the seemingly greater effect in on UTA was likely the result of greater channel and bank
erosion and the observation that the cows appeared to spend more time in UTA during
the pre-fencing period given that they were observed there more often and that the area
adjacent to the stream was more inviting (shaded and relatively flat) for ca ttle lounging as
compared to NT (not shaded) where easily accessible.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
72
Table 13.1: Summary Statistics for Stormflow WQ Samples in NT and UTA
North Tributary (NT): Pre-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 6.55 7.47 0.79 2.40 1082
Median 5.72 5.11 0.55 2.25 582
Count 11 11 11 11 11
North Tributary (NT): Post-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 7.45 7.64 0.84 2.62 1274
Median 8.80 5.32 0.80 3.16 1257
Count 7 7 7 7 7
UT Reach A (UTA): Pre-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 12.58 5.70 1.21 3.21 2122
Median 12.90 5.35 0.78 2.43 665
Count 16 16 16 16 16
UT Reach A (UTA): Post-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 10.15 4.83 0.69 2.82 1404
Median 11.90 3.49 0.58 2.71 1558
Count 7 7 7 7 10
Table 13.2: Summary Statistics for Baseflow WQ Samples in NT and UTA
North Tributary (NT): Pre-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 1.87 16.32 0.33 0.22 40
Median 1.48 17.15 0.26 0.13 25
Count 26 26 26 26 25
North Tributary (NT): Post-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 1.00 18.05 0.23 0.10 16
Median 0.97 18.03 0.21 0.08 6
Count 18 18 18 18 21
UT Reach A (UTA): Pre-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 5.28 8.78 0.94 1.02 150
Median 3.74 8.65 0.49 0.55 77
Count 24 24 24 24 22
UT Reach A (UTA): Post-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 3.31 10.09 0.33 0.68 76
Median 2.02 9.64 0.27 0.39 24
Count 16 16 16 16 23

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
73
For baseflow samples from both tributaries Table 13.1 mean concentrations of
TKN, NH3-N, TP, and TSS decreased from the pre - to post-fencing periods, in contrast
the mean concentration of NOx-N increased. This was expected as TKN, NH3-N, TP, and
TSS tend to increase when cattle have unlimited access to a stream and decrease when
excluded, whereas, NOx-N is unaffected. Comparing concentrations between tributaries,
the greatest differences occur for NOx-N. Boxplots comparing stormflow and baseflow
concentrations of NOx-N for UTA and NT (Figure 13.1) show that during the pre- and
post-fencing periods the NOx-N concentrations in NT baseflow were much greater than
in UTA. This suggests the groundwater flowing to the North Tributary has a much greater
NOx-N concentration than that contributing to the UTA. The reason for the higher
concentration for NT is unknown, but may be due to the closer proximity of this tributary
to the swine production operation and waste application equipment. Evaluation of the
nutrient management plan and waste application permit for the farm could perhaps
provide some insight relative to the variation between the tributaries.
Figure 13.1: NOx-N Concentrations pre-fencing (left) and post-fencing (right) for UT
Reach A (UT) and North Tributary (N).
Discharge and pollutant mass export for UTA and NT are included in Table 13.3
and Figure 13.2. The duration of the pre-exclusion fencing period was 1.33 years, which
is marginally sufficient to characterize the hydrology, whereas the post -fencing duration
of 0.67 years was not yet adequate. Discharge in both tributaries decreased considerably
from the pre- to post-fencing periods thereby complicating direct pre- to post-fencing
load/export comparisons (8.6 to 6.3 in/yr for the UTA and 9.3 in/yr to 7.4 in/yr for NT). For
the UTA, export of all nitrogen forms, phosphorus, and TSS decreased from the pre- to
post-fencing period. The greatest decreases by percentage were for NH3-N and TSS. For
the North Tributary, export of all nitrogen forms, except NOx-N, along with phosphorus
and sediment decreased following exclusion fencing. This was expected given that past
studies have shown that exclusion fencing has a little effect o n NOx-N export, at least in
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
UT-storm UT-base N-storm N-baseNOx-N (mg/L)0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
UT-storm UT-base N-storm N-baseNOx-N (mg/L)

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
74
the short-term (Line, Osmond, & Childres, 2016).
Table 13.3: Total load of Nutrients for NT and UTA
North Tributary (NT)
Treatment
Period
Dur.
(yr)
Rain
(in/yr)
Q
(in/yr)
----------------------- Export lbs / ac / yr -----------------------
TKN NOx-N NH3-N TN TP TSS
Pre-fence 1.33 47.9 9.3 8.34 31.15 1.36 39.5 2.12 707
Post-fence 0.67 45.1 7.4 4.03 32.07 0.64 36.1 0.96 401
UT Reach A (UTA)
Treatment
Period
Dur.
(yr)
Rain
(in/yr)
Q
(in/yr)
----------------------- Export lbs / ac / yr -----------------------
TKN NOx-N NH3-N TN TP TSS
Pre-fence 1.33 47.9 8.6 11.76 17.38 1.54 29.1 2.73 1303
Post-fence 0.67 45.1 6.3 5.23 15.37 0.54 20.6 1.28 420

The baseflow discharge on both streams was much greater than the storm
discharge, which was unexpected considering the slope of the pasture and the soils. The
low storm discharge may be attributed to the relatively dense pasture grass, roughness
and contouring of the ground surface. The pasture has many 8-10 ft diameter and 1-2 ft
deep depressions and several terraces. These depressions create a macro-roughness
that likely enhances infiltration and reduces surface runoff. Figure 13.2 shows that
baseflow export for NOx, NH3-N and TN are much greater in baseflow than in stormflow.
In contrast, stormflow export of TP exceed those from baseflow as phosphorus attaches
to sediment. TKN is near equal in stormflow and baseflow. This figure also indicates that
total export is greater for NT compared to UTA. Large reductions in sediment export
occurred as a result of the fencing, especially in the UTA.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
75

Figure 13.2: Total Nutrient Loads From Baseflow and Stormflow for UT to Millstone
Reach A and North Tributary
Stream conductivity is an important indicator of suitable water chemistry conditions
for fish and macroinvertebrates. In-situ conductivity measurements for UTA are shown in
Figure 13.3. As shown, while there are many anomalous measurements , which are typical
of in-situ probes, the vast majority of the conductivity measurements were about 190
µS/cm. During periods of surface discharge (4 large events), the conductivity decreased
considerably. For NT, the majority of the conductivity measurements were about 325
µS/cm, which was considerably greater than those at UTA. One possible reason for the
higher conductivity at the NT was that it had higher NOx-N concentrations, which means
it had more anions in the water to increase the conductivity. This may also help explain
why during periods of surface discharge the conductivity decreased given that NOx -N
concentrations were much less in storm flow samples. The conductivity of most rivers in
the US is generally between 50 to 1500 µS/cm. Studies of inland fresh waters indicates
that streams supporting good mixed fisheries have a range between 150 and 500 µS/cm.
This suggests that tributary conductivity measurements are already within the suitable
range for macroinvertebrate communities. Furthermore, clay soils tend to have higher
conductivity due to the presence of materials that ionize when mixed with runoff or stream
flow. There is additional opportunity to decrease conductivity by preventing bank erosion
and creating shallow groundwater flows within U/S BMPs to enhance water chemistry for
macroinvertebrates.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
76

Figure 13.3: In-situ probe conductivity measurements at NT and UTA.
Boxplots of fecal coliform (FC) levels in grab samples collected after exclusion
fencing installation on the tributaries and on Millstone Creek (Mill-dn) are shown in Figure
13.4. Median levels are similar (about 300 cfu/100ml) for both tributaries with the UTA
having higher 1st and 3rd quartiles. The median fecal coliform level at Millstone Creek was
more than 3 times greater than the tributaries. This was likely due to cattle having
unlimited access to Millstone Creek just upstream of the exclusion corridor and
throughout the watershed, while there was no direct access to the tributaries. Boxplots of
FC levels before (JL-pre) and after (JL-post) livestock (beef cattle) exclusion from a small
stream located near Silk Hope, NC are also shown in Figure 13.4 to compare and
represent a similar restoration site. Note there was a considerable decrease in FC levels
following exclusion of the cattle and that the post -exclusion levels are similar to those of
the tributaries.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
77

Figure 13.4: Fecal coliform in grab samples at Millstone (UT -base, N-base, and Mill-
dn) and Jordan Lake (JL-pre and JL-post).
For Millstone Creek, boxplots of water quality samples collected are presented in
Figure 13.5. The median TKN and NH3-N concentrations were similar to baseflow
medians of the tributaries (post-fencing), whereas the NOx-N was much less than that of
the tributaries. The median TP concentration was almost exactly at the midpoint between
the medians of the tributaries. The median TSS concentration was greater than those for
baseflow from the tributaries, but much less than those for stormflow from the tributaries.
This was expected as the samples collected from Mill-dn were a combination of baseflow
and stormflow.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
UT-base N-base Mill-dn JL-pre JL-postFecal Coliform (cfu/100 ml)

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
78
Figure 13.5: TKN, NOx-N, NH3-N, and TP (left) and TSS (right) concentrations at Mill-
dn.
To provide physicochemical uplift at the site, the proposed restoration design
includes planting and reestablishment of woody and herbaceous riparian vegetation,
reconnection of streams to floodplains, construction of RSCs as BMPs above NT R2 and
UTA R2, and an expanded wetland downstream of UTB. Riparian buffer establishment
will provide shade to decrease in-stream temperatures and supply organic material.
Exclusion fencing and an undisturbed riparian zone may also filter some pathogens from
surface runoff. Uptake and processing of nitrogen, which is a major stressor at the site,
may also be increased through more frequent floodplain inundation and a higher water
table in the riparian zone. The BMPs and expanded wetland area are designed to
increase processing and filtration of nutrients and fecal coliform before being transported
downstream.
13.2 Biology
Macroinvertebrate Assessment
Benthic macroinvertebrate assessments have been conducted at the Site on four
occasions including November 2014, April and November 2015 and May 2016. All
sampling has been conducted using protocols developed by the North Carolina Division
of Water Resources (NCDEQ, 2016). For the first two visits, sampling was conducted only
in the tributaries at three locations (NT, UTA and UTB). The three tributary locations have
been sampled during all four visits to the site. In November 2015 sampling of Millstone
Creek was included. This sampling has varied in location including sites U/S, within and
D/S of the project reach to characterize the project reach and the likelihood of recruitment.
A summary of the sampling results including richness, biotic indices and bioclassification
metrics are provided in Table 13.4. Raw data results are included in the appendices.
For the first two visits (November 2014 and April 2015), the NT exhibited significant
accumulated Coarse Particulate Organic Matter (CPOM) suggesting limited flow. The
benthic fauna was dominated by tolerant taxa including midges (Zavrelimyia in the fall
and Tanytarsus in the spring) and amphipods; no EPT organisms were collected. The NT
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Mill UT NorthTSS Concentration (mg/L)0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
TKN NOx-N NH3-N TPMillstone Concentration (mg/L)

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
79
scored poor and fair bioclassification during these visits, respectively. (Note : DWQ Biotic
Index values for small Piedmont streams with seasonal correction factors applied as
appropriate). UTA had less CPOM suggesting more flow and more cobble and small
boulders were present, however the fauna at this location was also dominated by very
tolerant taxa (mostly midges including Conchapelopia group and Zavrelimyia spp). Two
EPT organisms were collected (one mayfly and one caddisfly) on th e first visit and only
one the second visit. The very high biotic index at this location resulted in a Poor
bioclassification for both sampling visits. During the third site visit in Fall 2015, both
tributaries exhibited positive differences in taxa richness, the presence of intolerant taxa
(having a BI of 2.5 or less) and lower biotic index values. EPT taxa richness and the
presence of intolerant taxa increased in 2015, which resulted in a lower biotic index and
an improved bioclassification (Good/Fair). This sampling suggested that conditions had
improved in both locations. The caddisfly, Diplectrona modesta was present in both of the
tributaries and the caddisfly Lepidostoma spp was found in the UTA. During the fourth
visit in spring 2016, taxa richness values were similar to the values noted from this
location in the fall 2015. However, there was an increase in abundance of tolerant taxa
(especially Simulium spp, Chironomus spp., and Physella spp.), which increased the
Biotic Index values and resulted in a Poor bioclassification for the North Trib. and Fair for
UT Reach A. Mosquito larvae and Crustacea were also abundant during this survey.
The sample location of UTB is approximately 160 ft. below the confluence of NT
and UTA. The instream habitat at this location becomes slightly more heterogeneous and
the presence of bank habitat was noted. For the first sampling in Fall 2014, the total
number of taxa was 18 at this location and 3 EPT taxa were collected (two mayflies;
Paraleptophlebia spp, which was common, and Centroptilum spp: and one caddisfly
Ptilostomis spp). The benthic fauna at this location is also dominated by tolerant taxa
including midges and Physidae snails. Three taxa that have a NC Biotic Index of < 2.5
were collected, which lowered the total biotic index for the site to 6.12 and a Fair
bioclassification using these criteria. The improvement in biological conditions noted at
the NT and UTA during the third sampling, however, was not seen at the UTB station
below the confluence. Comparison of November 2014 and 2015 samples at this location
noted a slight decline in the fauna; slightly lower taxa richness values and a lower number
of intolerant taxa. During the spring 2016 visit, the bioclassification increased only slightly
in UTB. Extremely high numbers of blackfly larvae were collected during this survey, but
interestingly the relatively intolerant baetid mayfly Baetis pluto became abundant during
this survey. This mayfly has only been collected from these stations only during the last
two surveys and only abundantly from this site. These data resulted in a Fair
bioclassification for all four surveys at this reach. Comparisons of total taxa richness and
EPT taxa richness and abundance for the three tributary sampling stations are provided
in figures 13.6, 13.7 and 13.8 below.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
80

Figure 13.6: Total taxa richness for Millstone Creek tributaries

Figure 13.7: EPT taxa richness for Millstone Creek tributaries

Figure 13.8: EPT abundance for Millstone Creek tributaries

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW -2019-01363 January 24, 2020
81
Table 13.4: Macroinvertebrate Assessment Summary

Collection
Location
Mill
U/S
Mill
PR1
Mill
PR1
Mill
D/S North Tributary (NT) UT Reach A (UTA) UT Reach B (UTB)
Collection Date
(yr/mo)
2016
May
2015
Nov
2016
May
2015
Nov
2014
Nov
2015
Apr
2015
Nov
2016
May
2014
Nov
2015
Apr
2015
Nov
2016
May
2014
Nov
2015
Apr
2015
Nov
2016
May
Total Taxa
Richness 25 24 33 31 10 11 19 18 11 15 18 14 18 17 17 16
EPT Taxa
Richness 7 11 8 13 0 0 3 2 2 1 4 2 3 1 1 2
EPT Seasonal
Correction** 7 8 8 10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
EPT Abundance 24 57 41 36 0 0 7 2 2 1 8 2 5 1 3 13
Biotic Index 6.51 5.54 5.67 5.54 7.16 6.37 5.49 6.94 7.43 7.05 5.33 6.62 6.02 5.88 5.78 5.24
BI Seasonal
Correction* 6.71 5.64 5.87 5.64 7.26 6.57 5.59 7.14 7.53 7.25 5.43 6.82 6.12 6.08 5.88 5.44
Number of taxa =
2.5 or less 1 5 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 0 1 1
Classification
Criterion EPT Richness NC Biotic Index NC Biotic Index NC Biotic Index
Bioclassification Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair/
Good Poor Poor Poor Fair/
Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair/
Good
1PR = Millstone Creek Project Reach
* Seasonal correction for BI; +0.1 fall, +0.2 spring
** Seasonal correction for EPT richness, subtract seasonal Plecoptera taxa from list.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
82
Millstone Creek was sampled within the project reach and just D/S of the project
at a location below the confluence with UTB in November 2015. During the May 2016
sampling Millstone Creek was sampled just U/S and within the project reach. The habitat
in all sampling locations is dominated by shifting sand. At all locations, the taxa richness
and abundance in Millstone Creek is much higher than those recorded from all tributary
locations. Total and EPT taxa richness values are 24/11 and 31/13 respectively for 2015
and 25/7 and 33/8 for 2016. Taxa richness and EPT abundance was slightly higher at the
D/S locations. Several EPT taxa were found only at the D/S site during the first visit
including Eurylophella verisimils, Maccaffertium modestum and Triaenodes ignitus. The
only stonefly collected during the spring 2016 survey was collected in Millstone (Perlesta
spp.) whereas four stonefly taxa were collected from Millstone Creek during the 2015
surveys. Because Millstone Creek is much larger and has greater habitat heterogeneity,
NC DWR recommends using the total number of EPT taxa (corrected for season) as the
metric to define the bioclassification (DWR 2013). As a result, all locations on Millstone
Creek were given Fair bioclassifications for both sampling visits.
Fish Assessment
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) was contacted to determine if they
had interest in sampling fish in Millstone Creek to document existing fish habitat and
restoration potential. NC WRC declined the opportunity indicating that improved fish
assemblage was not expected from the proposed restoration project, and thereby a
sampling effort would not benefit the research results. However, WRC provided the
following observations regarding the mainstem of Millstone Creek:
 The project is somewhat high in the watershed; it is fairly sizeable but for the slate belt
it’s still in a range that can see periods of little to no surface flow. That alone will affect
the expected fish assemblage in this region.
 As with any stream restoration project if the site has degraded habitat above and
below the site it will be difficult to reestablish those communities.
 Staff looked at multiple crossings of this system and each one exhibited degraded
habitat.
 Species observed during site visit, sunfish, creek chubs, and corbicula, are all very
tolerant. The upstream and downstream reaches did not have any additional species
diversity. Due to these survey results, we don’t expect recolonization of the restored
reach with anything other than what is currently present.
 Improved aquatic assemblage would not be expected by the proposed restoration
effort. Macroinvertebrate monitoring should be a better biological measure for uplift at
this location.
In general, there is little habitat in the Site streams to support rich and diverse

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
83
macroinvertebrate communities. The tributaries are plane bed systems comprised of
mostly riffle / run bedforms with little to no flow or bedform diversity. No deep pools are
present. The riffles do contain some well-graded gravel substrate, however the particle
size analysis of the bed materials indicated large fractions of sand and silt/clay had also
accumulated in the channel bed. The fine material likely originates from upstream channel
and bank sources and buries suitable habitat for macroinvertebrates as it is transported
downstream. There is a limited amount and supply of LWD to the tributaries to provide
flow diversity and pocket habitats. Woody riparian vegetation is non -existent on UTB and
there is little riparian vegetation on NT and UTA to provide shading and a source of
organic material through leaf fall and die off. Few terrestrial species exist in the riparian
zone other than pasture grasses. The hydraulic conditions of the incised systems are not
suitable for macroinvertebrates as in-stream velocities and shear stresses are increased
at lower flows due floodplain disconnection. Physicochemical inputs to the tributaries are
extremely high and may be the greatest stressor to aquatic organisms and habitat. The
jurisdictional wetland just below the UTB may be a barrier to aquatic organism passage
and potential recruitment. Pre-restoration macroinvertebrate assessments of biotic
indices and EPT taxa present in the tributaries have scored poorly. This is may be due to
several factors including lack of bedform diversity, fine material accumulating in the riffles,
few habitat features and extremely high physicochemical stressors. It is unclear if uplift in
biology functions will be detected on the tributaries, however post -restoration
macroinvertebrate assessments will be conducted for evaluation.
Millstone Creek is a sand bed system with some small gravels deposited on bars
and in riffles, but lacks larger angular gravels typical of other Slate Belt streams suitable
for supporting macroinvertebrate habitat. Some LWD is present within the project reach
and has created pocket pool habitat and cover for aquatic organisms. Similar to the
tributaries, Millstone Creek also lacks riparian vegetation and floodplain connection.
Physicochemical stressors also exist (as described in Section 5.1.4), but at substantially
lower concentrations compared to the tributaries. Interestingly, Millston e Creek has had
a relatively high number of EPT Taxa present during sampling events (mean = 40).
However, biotic indices have remained high because most of the taxa are tolerant species
and EPT Taxa richness has remained low. There is some potential for bi ology parameters
to improve in Millstone Creek with the enhancement of bedform diversity, shade from
riparian vegetation and the addition of large wood and habitat features.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
84
14. APPENDIX B: FIELD MORPHOLOGY DATA
Table 14.1: LWD piece and debris dam counts and scores for Millstone Creek.
Stream Name: Millstone Creek Sample Length (ft): 2040
LWD Score
Pieces 1 2 3 4 5 Count Total
Score
Length/Bankfull Width 20 9 3 3 3 38 74
Diameter 10 9 7 6 6 38 103
Location 4 17 17 38 165
Type 1 16 13 8 38 141
Structure 24 4 6 4 38 70
Stability 1 3 7 3 24 38 160
Orientation 13 6 8 4 7 38 100
Total 69 31 51 46 69 813
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.4
Ave. Total for 300 feet 121
Debris Dams
Length 3 1 4 6
Height 2 2 4 8
Structure 3 1 4 14
Location 1 1 2 4 15
Stability 2 2 4 8
Total 7 1 9 0 3 51
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.0
Ave. Total for 300 feet 8

Table 14.2: LWD piece and debris dam counts and scores for the North Tributary
Stream Name: North Tributary Sample Length (ft): 409
Score
Pieces 1 2 3 4 5 Count Total
Score
Length/Bankfull Width 3 1 3 7 24
Diameter 4 2 1 7 11
Location 2 1 2 1 1 7 19
Type 1 4 2 7 23
Structure 6 1 7 9
Stability 3 1 3 7 20
Orientation 3 1 3 7 20
Total 19 8 9 1 12 126
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.3
Ave. Total for 300 feet 92
Debris Dams
Length 1 1 5
Height 1 1 5
Structure 1 1 3

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
85
Location 1 1 3
Stability 1 1 3
Total 0 0 3 0 2 19
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.05
Ave. Total for 300 feet 14

Table 14.3: LWD piece and debris dam counts and scores for UT to Millstone Reach A
Stream Name: UT Reach A Sample Length (ft): 595
Score
Pieces 1 2 3 4 5 Count Total
Score
Length/Bankfull Width 1 5 6 29
Diameter 2 3 1 6 11
Location 3 2 1 6 11
Type 1 1 3 1 6 17
Structure 5 1 6 7
Stability 3 1 2 6 15
Orientation 2 1 1 2 6 17
Total 16 9 5 2 10 107
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.2
Ave. Total for 300 feet 54
Debris Dams
Length 1 1 2 8
Height 1 1 2 8
Structure 1 1 2 8
Location 1 1 2 6
Stability 1 1 2 6
Total 1 1 3 1 4 36
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.06
Ave. Total for 300 feet 18

Table 14.4: LWD piece and debris dam counts and scores for UTB
Stream Name: UT Millstone Reach B Sample Length (ft): 514
Score
Pieces 1 2 3 4 5 Count Total
Score
Length/Bankfull Width 2 2 4 8 34
Diameter 6 1 1 8 11
Location 2 2 1 3 8 27
Type 1 3 4 8 26
Structure 7 1 8 11
Stability 1 4 1 2 8 27
Orientation 4 2 2 8 20
Total 21 1 14 9 11 156

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
86
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.3
Ave. Total for 300 feet 91
Debris Dams
Length 1 1 5
Height 1 1 3
Structure 1 1 3
Location 1 1 4
Stability 1 1 2
Total 0 1 2 1 1 17
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.03
Ave. Total for 300 feet 10

Figure 14.1: North Tributary Existing Longitudinal Profile
430
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
+0 +50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50Elevation (ft)Station (ft)
North Tributary Profile
TW LTOB RTOB BKF WSE

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
87

Figure 14.2: North Tributary XS1 STA. 0 + 87 FT

Figure 14.3: North Tributary Station 0+87 looking upstream
445
450
455
460
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
North Tributary STA. 0 + 87 FT (NT XS1)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = G5
ABKF = 3.7 ft2
W BKF = 5.9 ft
DBKF = 0.6 ft
DMAX = 0.9 ft
W/D = 9.4
ER = 1.4

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
88

Figure 14.4: North Tributary XS1 STA. 1 + 86 FT

Figure 14.5: North Tributary Station 1+86 looking downstream
440
445
450
455
460
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
North Tributary STA. 1 + 86 FT (NT XS2)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = F5
ABKF = 2.3 ft2
WBKF = 5.8 ft
DBKF = 0.4 ft
DMAX = 0.6 ft
W/D = 14.5
ER = 1.5

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
89

Figure 14.6: North Tributary XS1 STA. 3 + 16 FT

Figure 14.7: North Tributary station 3+16 looking upstream
440
445
450
455
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
North Tributary STA. 3 + 16 FT (NT XS3)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = B5
ABKF = 2.3 ft2
W BKF = 4.9 ft
DBKF = 0.5 ft
DMAX = 0.6 ft
W/D = 10.2
ER = 2.0

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
90

Figure 14.8: UTA Longitudinal Profile

435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
+0 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00Elevation (ft)Station (ft)
UTA Longitudinal Profile
TW LTOB RTOB

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
91

Figure 14.9: UTA XS1 STA. 0 + 64 FT

Figure 14.10: UT Millstone Reach A STA. 0+64 Looking Upstream
455
460
465
470
475
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UTA R1 -STA. 0 + 64 FT (UTA XS1)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = F5
ABKF = 9.9 ft2
W BKF = 11.9 ft
DBKF = 0.8 ft
DMAX = 1.2 ft
W/D = 14.3
ER = 1.5

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
92

Figure 14.11: UTA XS2 STA. 2 + 49 FT

Figure 14.12: UT Millstone Reach A STA. 2+49 Looking Downstream
445
450
455
460
465
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UTA R1 -STA. 2 + 49 FT (UTA XS2)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = F5
ABKF = 8.0 ft2
WBKF = 11.3 ft
DBKF = 0.7 ft
DMAX = 1.2 ft
W/D = 15.8
ER = 1.2

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
93

Figure 14.13: UTA XS3 STA. 3+95 FT

Figure 14.14: UT Millstone Reach A STA. 3+95 Looking Downstream
440
445
450
455
460
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UTA R2 -STA. 3 + 95 FT (UTA XS3)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Class = B5
ABKF = 2.0 ft2
WBKF = 7.2 ft
DBKF = 0.3 ft
DMAX = 1.2 ft
W/D = 26.0
ER = 2.5

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
94

Figure 14.15: UTA XS4 STA. 5+30 FT

Figure 14.16: UT Millstone Reach A STA 5+30 Looking Upstream
435
440
445
450
455
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UTA R2 -STA. 5 + 30 FT (UTA XS4)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Class = F5
ABKF = 14.6 ft2
WBKF = 14.5 ft
DBKF = 1.0 ft
DMAX = 1.3 ft
W/D = 14.3
ER = 1.1

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
95

Figure 14.17: UTB Existing Longitudinal Profile

425
430
435
440
445
6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00Elevation (ft)Station (ft)
UTB Longitudinal Profile
TW LTOB RTOB

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
96

Figure 14.18: UTB STA. 6 + 76 FT

Figure 14.19: UTB STA. 6+76 looking downstream
435
440
445
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UT Reach B STA. 6 + 76 FT (UTB XS1)
Series1 WSE BKF LBH
Type = G5
ABKF = 3.7 ft2
W BKF = 5.6 ft
DBKF = 0.7 ft
DMAX = 0.9 ft
W/D = 8.4
ER = 1.8

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
97

Figure 14.20: UTB STA. 8 + 62 FT

435
440
445
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UT Reach B STA. 8 + 62 FT (UTB XS2)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = G5
ABKF = 3.0 ft2
WBKF = 4.4 ft
DBKF = 0.7 ft
DMAX = 0.9 ft
W/D = 6.6
ER = 1.4

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
98

Figure 14.21: UTB STA. 10 + 98 FT

Figure 14.22: Millstone Creek Existing Longitudinal Profile Summary
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UTB STA. 10 + 98 FT (UTB XS3)
XS WSE BKF
420
425
430
435
440
+0 5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00Elevation (ft)Station (ft)
Millstone Creek Longitudinal Profile
TW LTOB RTOB BKF WSE
Class = E5
ABKF = 2.1 ft2
W BKF = 4.4 ft
DBKF = 0.5 ft
DMAX = 0.9 ft
W/D = 9.3
ER = 20

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
99

Figure 14.23: MC XS1 STA. 1 + 75 FT

Figure 14.24: MS XS1 STA. 1+75 Looking Downstream
425
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Millstone Creek STA. 1 + 75 FT (MC XS1)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = C5
ABKF = 123.6 ft2
W BKF = 46.6 ft
DBKF = 2.7 ft
DMAX = 4.1 ft
W/D = 17.6
ER = 7.1

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
100

Figure 14.25: MC XS2 STA. 3 + 91 FT

Figure 14.26: MC XS2 STA. 3 + 91 FT Looking Upstream
425
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Millstone Creek STA. 3 + 91 FT (MC XS2)
XS WSE BKF
APOOL = 95.9 ft2
W POOL = 42.1 ft
DPOOL = 2.3 ft
DMPOOL = 4.3 ft
PBS = 7.8:1

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
101

Figure 14.27: MC XS3 STA. 8 + 37 FT

Figure 14.28: MC XS3 STA. 8 + 37 FT Looking Upstream.
425
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Millstone Creek STA. 8 + 37 FT (MC XS3)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = C5
ABKF = 75.3 ft2
W BKF = 28.9 ft
DBKF = 2.6 ft
DMAX = 3.3 ft
W/D = 11.1
ER = 7.5

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
102

Figure 14.29: MC XS4 STA. 13 + 33 FT

Figure 14.30: MC XS4 STA. 13 + 33 FT Looking Upstream
425
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Millstone Creek STA. 13 + 39 FT (MC XS4)
XS WSE BKF
APOOL = 151.0 ft2
WPOOL = 43.4 ft
DPOOL = 3.5 ft
DMPOOL = 5.6 ft
PBS = 4.2:1

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
103

Figure 14.31: MC XS4 STA. 17 + 37 FT

Figure 14.32: MC XS4 STA. 17 + 37 FT
425
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Millstone Creek STA. 17 + 37 FT (MC XS5)
XS WSE BKF
APOOL = 105.2 ft2
WPOOL = 32.2 ft
DPOOL = 3.2 ft
DMPOOL = 5.2 ft
PBS = 3.3:1

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
104

Figure 14.33: MC XS6 STA. 19 + 84 FT

Figure 14.34: MC XS6 STA. 19 + 84 FT Looking Upstream
425
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Millstone Creek STA. 19 + 84 FT (MC XS6)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = E5
ABKF = 105.8 ft2
WBKF = 30.9 ft
DBKF = 3.4 ft
DMAX = 4.3 ft
W/D = 9.0
ER = 12.3

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
105
Table 14.5: NT R1 and NT R2 BEHI Assessment
Sta. Bank
Height
BKF
Height
Bank Height/
Bankfull
Root
Depth
Root Depth/
Bank Height Root Density Bank Angle Surface
Protection Adjust.
Near
Bank
Stress
Total
Score
Erosion
Potential
Category
Adjust.
Notes
Units ft ft # Index ft (%) Index % Index ° Index % Index Units ft ft # Index
0+15 12.9 0.7 18.4 10.0 12.9 8.2 50 4.4 70 5.0 55 3.8 3 Mod 34.4 High Sand
0+30 10 0.7 14.3 9.5 10 100 1.0 40 6.0 50 4.2 10 8.7 5 High 34.4 High Sand
0+52 5 0.7 7.1 10.0 2 40 5.2 20 7.8 42 3.6 2 9.4 5 High 41.0 Very High Sand
1+95 6 0.7 8.6 7.9 6 100 1.0 30 6.9 30 2.8 25 7.4 5 Low 30.9 High Sand

Figure 14.35: BEHI assessment locations STA. 0+15, STA. 0+30, STA. 0+52 and 1+95

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
106
Table 14.6: UTA R1 and UTA R2 BEHI Assessment
Sta. Bank
Height
BKF
Height
Bank Height/
Bankfull
Root
Depth
Root Depth/
Bank Height Root Density Bank Angle Surface
Protection Adjust.
Near
Bank
Stres
s
Total
Score
Erosion
Potential
Category
Adjust.
Notes
Units ft ft # Index ft (%) Index % Index ° Index % Index Units ft ft # Index
0+25 7.5 0.9 8.3 10.0 5.5 73.3 2.5 20 7.8 90 7.1 5 9.1 10 Mod 46.5 Extreme Sand +
Strati.
1+89
Left 13 0.9 14.4 9.5 3 23.1 6.9 5 9.2 90 7.1 0 9.5 0 High 42.3 Very High none
1+89
Right 8 0.9 8.9 10.0 3 37.5 5.4 25 7.4 90 7.1 20 7.8 10 High 47.7 Extreme Sand +
Strati.

Figure 14.36: BEHI Assessment Locations (From Left to Right) STA. 0+25, STA. 1+89 Right Bank and STA. 1+89 Left
Bank.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
107

Table 14.7: UT Millstone Reach B BEHI Assessment
Sta. Bank
Height
BKF
Height
Bank
Height/
Bankfull
Root
Depth
Root Depth/
Bank Height Root Density Bank Angle Surface
Protection Adjust.
Near
Bank
Stress
Total
Score
Erosion
Potential
Category
Adjust.
Notes
Units ft ft # Index ft (%) Index % Index ° Index % Index Units ft ft # Index
7+20 1.95 0.9 2.2 8.5 1 51.3 4.3 30 1.95 115 8.9 20 7.8 0 Low 34.4 High n/a
8+50 2.55 0.9 2.8 10 1 39.2 5.3 25 2.55 110 8.6 15 8.2 0 Low 34.4 High n/a
10+20 1.45 0.9 1.6 7 1 69.0 2.9 70 1.45 85 6.7 50 5.2 0 Low 41.0 Moderate n/a

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
108
Table 14.8: Millstone Creek BEHI Assessment
Sta. Bank
Height
BKF
Height
Bank Height/
Bankfull
Root
Depth
Root Depth/
Bank Height Root Density Bank Angle Surface
Protection Adjust.
Near
Bank
Stress
Total
Score
Erosion
Potential
Category
Adjust.
Notes
Units ft ft # Index ft (%) Index % Index ° Index % Index - - - - -
0+43 6 3.2 1.9 7.5 4 66.7 3.1 15 8.0 60 4.0 20 7.3 10 Mod 39.9 High Stratify
2+43 6 4.3 1.4 6.0 2.3 38.3 5.3 25 7.4 60 4.9 25 7.4 10 High 40.9 Very High Stratify
3+83 5.7 3.1 1.8 7.4 2.5 43.9 4.9 30 6.9 90 7.1 25 7.4 10 High 43.6 Very High Stratify
4+49 5 3.1 1.6 6.0 5 100 1.0 80 2.4 85 6.7 90 1.7 10 Mod 27.8 Moderate Stratify
4+92 4.4 3.1 1.4 5.5 4.4 100 1.0 50 5.1 45 3.8 35 6.5 10 High 31.9 High Stratify
7+50 4.8 3 1.6 6.0 4.8 100 1.0 80 2.4 85 6.7 65 3.8 5 Mod 25.0 Moderate Stratify
8+57 3.2 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 21.9 7.1 5 9.2 90 7.1 5 9.1 5 Mod 38.5 High Stratify
11+19 4.5 4.5 1.0 5.9 1 22.2 7.0 10 8.7 60 4.9 10 8.7 10 Mod 45.2 Extreme Stratify
12+02 4.3 4.3 1.0 1.0 4.3 100 1.0 45 5.5 100 7.8 25 7.4 10 High 32.7 High Stratify
15+65 4.4 4.4 1.0 5.9 4.4 100 1.0 85 1.9 90 7.1 70 3.4 10 Mod 29.3 Moderate Stratify
16+97 5.4 2.3 2.3 8.4 2.7 50 4.4 25 7.4 90 7.1 20 7.8 10 Mod 45.1 Extreme Stratify
17+03 4 4 1.0 5.9 1.5 37.5 5.4 20 7.8 85 6.7 15 8.2 10 V. High 44.0 Very High Stratify
18+29 6.1 3 2.0 8.0 3 49.2 4.5 30 6.9 75 6.0 20 7.8 10 V. High 43.2 Very High Stratify
18+68 5.8 3.9 1.5 6.0 5.8 100 1.0 90 1.5 55 4.6 85 2.1 5 Mod 20.1 Moderate Stratify

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
109
15. APPENDIX C: DETAILED MILLSTONE CREEK SEDIMENT SUPPLY ANALYSIS
15.1 Field Collected TSS Data and USGS Equations to Estimate Sediment Loads
A significant amount of suspended sediment data has been produced using the
total suspended solids (TSS) laboratory analysis method. However, TSS concentration
data does not necessarily relate directly to suspended sediment concentrations (SSC)
and suspended sediment loads. Glysson et al. (Glysson, Gray, & Conge, 2000) have
described the differences between TSS and SSC samples in detail:
“The fundamental difference betwe en SSC (ASTM, 1999) and TSS (APHA and
others, 1995) analytical methods arises during the preparation of the sample for
subsequent filtering, drying, and weighing. A TSS analysis generally entails withdrawal of
an aliquot of the original sample for subsequent analysis, although as determined in a
previous study, there may be a lack of consistency in methods used in the sample
preparation phase of the TSS analyses. The SSC analytical method uses the entire water-
sediment mixture to calculate SSC values. Subsampling in itself can introduce error into
the analysis. Also, if a sample contains a significant percentage of sand -size material,
stirring, shaking, or otherwise agitating the sample before obtaining a subsample will
rarely produce an aliquot representative of the sediment concentration and particle-size
distribution of the original sample. This is a by-product of the relatively rapid settling
properties of sand-size material, compared to those for silt- and clay-size material, as
described by Stokes Law. Aliquots obtained by pipette might be withdrawn from the lower
part of the sample where the sand concentration tends to be enriched immediately after
agitation.”
USGS analysis of 14,466 paired SSC and TSS samples from 48 states showed
that the TSS concentrations tended to be substantially smaller than SSC concentrations
throughout the observed range of TSS and SSC concentration. Glysson et al. (2000)
developed a general equation to relate TSS and SSC measurements:
SSC (mg/L) = 126 + 1.0857*[TSS (mg/L)]
This equation resulted in a significant linear relationship and an R 2 of 0.54.
However, USGS recommends exercising caution when relating SSC and TSS using the
general equation, particularly when sand fractions within the sample are high. A more
robust approach would be to develop a regression relationship between TSS and SSC
concentration for the specific monitoring station where the TSS data has been collected.
However, a substantial number (30+) of samples is likely necessary to produce a
significant regression relationship, if the relationship exists.
The general equation was used to relate TSS data to SSC data for the project
reach of Millstone Creek and suspended sediment load was calculated using field
measured flow data from 12/16/2016 to 10/6/2016 (9.6 6 months) (Table 15.1). Based on
these methods, 1,755 tons of suspended sediment passed through the system in the 9.66

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
110
month monitoring period with 37.54 in of rainfall, which can be converted to an annual
sediment load of 2,135 tons using annual rainfall as a basis. However, this estimate of
annual sediment load is likely under predicted by two (2) to four (4) times, because the
majority of the sediment transported by the project reach is sand, which is consistently
under predicted in TSS and SSC measurements as described by Glysson et al. (2000).
This approach also does not account for bedload transported by the stream. For Millstone
Creek, bedload may only include some fine gravels and coarse sand, nonetheless this
fraction of the total sediment load has not been accounted for. By the field collected TSS
and flow data and methods and nuances of TSS and SSC data collection and analysis
described by Glysson et al. (2000), the actual range of annual sediment load moving
through the Millstone Creek project reach may be between 4,300 tons and 8,600 tons.
Table 15.1: Millstone Creek SSC Concentration and Sediment Load from TSS data and
the general USGS Equation:
Sample Date Stream Flow (ft3) TSS (mg/L) SSC (mg/L) Suspended Sediment
Mass (Tons)
12/16/2015 81,349,434 104 239 607
1/7/2016 11,302,862 158 298 105
1/21/2016 22,957,038 9 136 97
2/8/2016 30,130,628 62 193 182
2/25/2016 12,271,916 142 280 107
3/9/2016 9,622,358 20 148 44
3/24/2016 16,014,984 8 135 67
4/5/2016 7,971,933 71 203 51
4/21/2016 4,936,839 14 141 22
5/3/2016 11,077,476 29 157 54
5/18/2016 9,431,462 39 168 50
5/31/2016 3,461,001 139 277 30
6/15/2016 2,499,300 57 188 15
6/28/2016 1,841,857 48 178 10
7/13/2016 605,174 120 256 5
7/26/2016 4,867,325 26 154 23
8/10/2016 1,050,599 308 460 15
8/23/2016 1,594,747 321 474 24
9/7/2016 2,926,892 104 239 22
9/20/2016 11,550,132 348 503 181
10/6/2016 7,300,988 63 194 44
Study Period Load (Tons) = 1,755
Estimated Annual Load (Tons/year) = 2,135
15.2 ArcSWAT Modeling of Historical Annual Sediment Supply
The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) has been integrated with ArcGIS to

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
111
conduct large scale spatial and temporal modeling studies of watersheds. ArcSWAT is
designed to assess the sediment and nutrient loading contributed by different land use
types, sub-basins, reservoirs and streams. SWAT is a physically based basin -scale,
continuous time and distributed parameter hydrologic model that uses spatially distributed
data on soil, land cover data, Digital Elevation Models (DEM) and historical weather data
for hydrologic modeling and operates on a daily time step (Arnold et al. 1998 and Neitsch
et al. 2002). An accelerated and simplified modeling approach was used with ArcSWAT
to estimate historical upland and channel sediment supply to the project reach of Millstone
Creek from 1/1/1990 to 12/31/2006 (17 years). Calibrating and validating the SWAT
model with field collected discharge, water quality, rainfall and weather data was beyond
the scope of this mitigation planning effort. However, sediment data outputs from the
SWAT model were roughly calibrated to field collected TSS data with gui dance from
Narasimhan et al. (2007).
In ArcSWAT, the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Randolph
County was used to extract soil attributes. The land cover data was obtained from the
2011 National Land Cover Dataset and 10m Digital Elevation Model from USGS was used
to characterize watershed topography. Based on these input datasets the Millstone Creek
project reach watershed was divided up into 19 distinct Hydrologic Response Units
(HRUs). Daily records of rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature, solar radiation and
wind parameters were brought in from the ArcSWAT database. Standard values for
typical crop production and management practices were used for row crops, hay
production, timber and pasture lands.
The Yang (1979) equations for channel degradation and sediment transport were
used. Narasimhan et al. (2007) provides a detailed description of using ArcSWAT to
model upland, channel and bank sediment loads. Streambank erosion and power function
parameters in ArcSWAT (spcon and spexp) were adjusted based on field inspection and
study aerial imagery. Channel physical properties such as channel vegetation cover factor
(Cch) (0.1 to 1.0) and channel erodibility factor (Kch) (0.3 to 0.8) were adjusted for individual
stream segments based on field assessment, geological data and study of aerial imagery.
Higher values of Cch and Kch result in greater risk of channel and bank erosion. Model
coefficients were calibrated such the predicted average TSS concentrations from model
were within the range of TSS concentrations measured at the Millstone Creek project
reach monitoring station. This was done based on guidance from Narasimhan
(Narasimhan et al., 2007). Predicted annual sediment loads to the project reach of
Millstone Creek ranged from 811 tons to 28,650 tons with an average annual sediment
load of 11,340 tons (Table 15.2). TSS concentrations ranged from 14 mg/L to 185 mg/L
with an average of 98 mg/L. The 17-year average TSS concentration predicted by model
is similar to the average TSS concentration measured at the Millstone Creek monitoring
station of 104 mg/L.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
112
Table 15.2: ArcSWAT Model Summary for Sediment Load and TSS concentration for
Simulation Period from 1990 to 2006
Modeling Year Sediment Load Delivered (tons) Predicted Reach TSS
(mg/L)
1990 6,678 83
1991 6,467 90
1992 12,420 81
1993 9,467 75
1994 13,370 118
1995 14,500 151
1996 13,190 93
1997 7,539 68
1998 15,650 149
1999 16,870 134
2000 1,970 29
2001 811 14
2002 1,766 28
2003 28,650 185
2004 6,459 81
2005 25,230 161
2006 11,750 127
Study Minimum 811 14
Study Maximum 28,650 185
Study Average 11,340 98

15.3 HEC-RAS Modeling of Annual Sediment Transported
Hydraulic design and sediment transport modeling functions in HEC -RAS 5.0 can
be used to model and simulate rivers with highly mobile beds. These functions and tools
are designed to track cross-section geometry changes at each time step of given flow
series. The quasi-unsteady sediment transport functions can also be used estimate the
sediment load that moves through each cross-section over the duration of the flow series.
Multiple sediment transport modeling equations are available in HEC-RAS 5.0 including
Ackers-White, Engelund-Hansen, Copeland, Myer Peter Muller (MPM), Toffaleti and
Yang. Due the sand bedded nature (with some fine gravels) of the Millstone Creek project
reach, the Yang equations for sediment transport were used for model simulations (Figure
15.1).

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
113

Figure 15.1: HEC-RAS Model of the Existing Millstone Creek Project Reach
Field measured hourly flow data from 12/16/2015 to 11/17/2016 (336 days) from
the Millstone Creek monitoring station was used to populate a quasi-unsteady flow series
for sediment transport modeling. Substrate bulk samples and depth measurements were
collected from the project reach for inputs to the model. A rating curve developed for the
monitoring station was used as the D/S boundary condition to begin the model simulation.
For quasi-unsteady sediment transport modeling, an U/S boundary condition is needed
to describe the influent sediment load. Various boundary conditions may be used
including a sediment rating curve, sediment data series or an equilibrium load. For this
modeling study, an equilibrium load was used as the U/S boundary condition. The
equilibrium load condition assumes that the influent sediment load is equal to the
sediment transport capacity of the cross-section, which is a relatively reasonable
assumption so long as the river system is not in a state of total disequilibrium. The U/S
extent of the project reach of Millstone Creek has shown some signs of minor incision,
widening, sediment aggradation within the channel and some lateral adjustments at select
meander bends. However, the instability present is not to a degree that characterizes the
system as being in a state of total disequilibrium with dramatic changes occurring
routinely.
Outputs from the quasi-unsteady sediment transport simulation of the existing
conditions of the project reach are included in Table 15.3 and Figure 15.2. Figure 15.2
2000
1800
1700
1600
1500 1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
0
MILLSTONE CREEK SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDY Plan: Plan 17 3/2/2017
Legend
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
114
includes graphical representations of simulated streambed elevations on 12/16/15,
3/15/16, 6/15/16, 9/15/16 and 11/17/16. In general, moderate deposition occurred in the
first 500 ft of the reach and sediment settled behind the thalweg elevation of STA. 15+00
FT. Fewer changes in bed elevation occurred through the middle and D/S extents of the
project reach. Sediment transport capacity of the project reach and its importance to the
restoration design approach will be discussed in detail in below.

Figure 15.2: Streambed Elevations from Quasi-unsteady HEC-RAS Model of the
Existing Millstone Creek Project Reach
Table 15.3 details the total sediment load delivered to each cross -section of the
project reach during the 336 day simulation. At STA 20+00 FT the boundary condition
was set to an equilibrium load, which means the total mass of sediment that can be moved
by cross-section 20+00 FT during the simulation period is 8,838 tons or 9,600 tons per
year. Cross-sections D/S of STA 20+00 FT received slightly less sediment load, indicating
that some deposition was occurring within project reach and that cross -sections below
STA 20+00 were not able to transport the entire equilibrium load. The average sediment
moved through the reach was 8,566 tons or 9,305 tons per year.

424.5
425.0
425.5
426.0
426.5
427.0
427.5
428.0
428.5
429.0
429.5
0200400600800100012001400160018002000Bed Elevation (ft)River Station (ft)
Millstone Creek Bed Elevation
16-Dec-15 15-Mar-16 15-Jun-16 15-Sep-16 17-Nov-16

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
115

Table 15.3: Millstone Creek Sediment Loads Delivered to Modeled Cross-Sections
Reach Station (ft) Total Sediment Load Delivered to
Cross-section (tons)
20 + 00 8,838
19 + 00 8,838
18 + 00 8,731
17 + 00 8,617
16 + 00 8,512
15 + 00 8,396
14 + 00 8,408
13 + 00 8,409
12 + 00 8,449
11 + 00 8,466
10 + 00 8,484
9 + 00 8,513
8 + 00 8,500
7 + 00 8,504
6 + 00 8,580
5 + 00 8,594
4 + 00 8,584
3 + 00 8,594
2 + 00 8,589
1 + 00 8,616
0 + 00 8,643
Study Reach Average = 8,566
Annual Reach Average = 9,305

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
116
16. APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL MAPS AND FIGURES

Figure 16.1: Millstone Creek Watershed

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
117

Figure 16.2: 1993 Aerial Imagery

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
118

Figure 16.3: 2014 Aerial Imagery

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
119

Figure 16.4: Millstone Creek Site Tributary DA’s and Topography

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
120

Figure 16.5: Millstone Creek Site Streambank Condition Summary

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
121

Figure 16.6: Morphology Survey Cross-Section and Soil Boring Locations

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
122
Table 16.1: Millstone Creek Streambank Adjustment Summary
Bank 1
Period Left Bank (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank* (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 -16 -5.3 +13 +4.3
2010 - 2014 +12 +3.0 -11 -2.8
2014 - 2016 -18 -9.0 -4 -2.0
Average2 15.3 5.8 9.3 3.0
Bank 2
Period Left Bank* (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 -7 -2.3 -10 -3.3
2010 - 2014 -21 -5.3 +22 +5.5
2014 - 2016 -10 -5.0 +4 +2.0
Average2 12.7 4.2 12.0 3.6
Bank 3
Period Left Bank (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank* (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 -17 -5.7 +14 +4.7
2010 - 2014 +17 +4.3 -12 -3.0
2014 - 2016 -7 -3.5 +6 +3.0
Average2 13.7 4.5 10.7 3.6
Bank 4
Period Left Bank* (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 -3 -1.0 +1 +0.3
2010 - 2014 0 0.0 0 0.0
2014 - 2016 -1 -0.5 -8 -4.0
Average2 1.3 0.5 3.0 1.4
Bank 5
Period Left Bank (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank* (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 +3 +1.0 -7 -2.3
2010 - 2014 +10 +2.5 -6 -1.5
2014 - 2016 -6 -3.0 -4 -2.0
Average2 6.3 2.2 5.7 1.9
Bank 6
Period Left Bank* (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 -2 -0.7 -6 -2.0
2010 - 2014 -4 -1.0 -1 -0.3
2014 - 2016 +2 +1.0 -1 -0.5
Average2 2.7 0.9 2.7 0.9
Bank 7
Period Left Bank (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank* (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 -3 -1.0 +9 +3.0

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
123
2010 - 2014 0 0.0 -7 -1.8
2014 - 2016 -14 -7.0 +3 +1.5
Average2 5.7 2.7 6.3 2.1
*Denotes outside streambank of meander bend
1 ”-“ indicates erosion “+” deposition
2Average of absolute values of adjustments

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
124
Figure 16.7: Millstone Creek Channel Adjustment Summary

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
125
Figure 16.8: Millstone Creek 2007 – 2010 Deposition and Erosion

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
126

Figure 16.9: Millstone Creek 2010 – 2014 Deposition and Erosion

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
127

Figure 16.10: Millstone Creek 2014 – 2016 Deposition and Erosion

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County DRAFT - Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 January 24, 2020
128
17. APPENDIX E: NCSAM, NCWAM, ERTR

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 – First 100 feet of 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 contributes
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 proportions. 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 a 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:
Aquatic organism data was based on results of benthic surveys conducted by Dave Penrose 11/2014, 4/2015, 11/2015, 5/2016. There are no pools
present. Stream is dominated by riffle/run bedform.
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
B. Doll/ NC State University
January 3, 2020
YES
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
LOW
Pb1
Stream Site Name North Tribtuary of Millstone Creek Date of Evaluation
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
YES
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
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 stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(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 appy 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 adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
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
UT to Millstone Creek - Reach A January 3, 2020
35.696791,-79.624136
UTA R1 & R2 605
NC Division of Mitigation Services 4. Assessor name/organization:B. Doll/ NC State University
Randolph
Cape Fear Millstone Creek
property,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 any supplementary
SAW-2019-01363 IMS#204
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2
Rating Calculator Version 2
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
9.5 (average)
24 (average)
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 the "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
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 F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
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 riffles 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)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and 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 (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Spray Animal Waste on Pasture
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [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 include: 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 that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria 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 stream-side area has been modified resulting in 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 – First 100 feet of 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 contributes
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 proportions. 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 a 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:
Aquatic organism data was based on results of benthic surveys conducted by Dave Penrose 11/2014, 4/2015, 11/2015, 5/2016 . There are no pools
present. Stream is dominated by riffle/run bedform.
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
YES
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
B. Doll/ NC State University
January 3, 2020
YES
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
LOW
Pb1
Stream Site Name UT to Millstone Creek - Reach A Date of Evaluation
LOW
HIGH
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
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 stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(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 appy 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 adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
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
UT to Millstone Creek - Reach B January 3, 2020
35.696466, -79.622933
UTB R1 & R2 529
NC Division of Mitigation Services 4. Assessor name/organization:B. Doll/ NC State University
Randolph
Cape Fear Millstone Creek
property,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 any supplementary
SAW-2019-01363 IMS#204
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2
Rating Calculator Version 2
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
1.9 (average)
8 (average)
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 the "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
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 F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
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 riffles 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)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and 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 (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [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 include: 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 that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria 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 stream-side area has been modified resulting in 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 – First 100 feet of 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 contributes
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 proportions. 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 a 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:
Aquatic organism data was based on results of benthic surveys conducted by Dave Penrose 11/2014, 4/2015, 11/2015, 5/2016 . There are no pools
present. Stream is dominated by riffle/run bedform.SiteNotes
No Meter
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
YES
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
B. Doll/ NC State University
January 3, 2020
YES
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
LOW
Pa1
Stream Site Name UT to Millstone Creek - Reach B Date of Evaluation
LOW
MEDIUM
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes)Lu Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1.Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2.Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non-marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4.Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
B. Doll, NCSU
Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
Millstone
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
35.696088, -79.622697
Millstone Creek
03030003
Level III Ecoregion
River Basin
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes)Lu Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1.Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2.Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non-marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4.Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
B. Doll, NCSU
Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
Millstone
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
35.696088, -79.622697
Millstone Creek
03030003
Level III Ecoregion
River Basin
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5.Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.Land Use – opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B < 10% impervious surfaces
C C C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
G G G ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
H H H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7.Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a.Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e.Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
9.Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10.Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11.Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
WC
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12.Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13.Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14.Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16.Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a.Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c.Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18.Snags – wetland type condition metric
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19.Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
Loosely
Mid-StoryShrubHerbWell
AA WT
Canopy
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20.Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22.Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Some question about whether the tributary should be considered Millstone Creek or the trib flowing through the wetland.
22. moderate would be a more accurate description of the conditions on site.
Notes
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Conditon
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Rating
NA
NA
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name Millstone
B. Doll, NCSUNon-Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
NA
LOW
HIGH
Rating
LOW
MEDIUM
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
YES
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5.Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.Land Use – opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B < 10% impervious surfaces
C C C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
G G G ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
H H H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7.Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a.Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e.Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
9.Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10.Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11.Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
WC
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12.Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13.Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14.Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16.Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a.Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c.Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18.Snags – wetland type condition metric
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19.Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
Loosely
Mid-StoryShrubHerbWell
AA WT
Canopy
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20.Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22.Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Some question about whether the tributary should be considered Millstone Creek or the trib flowing through the wetland.
22. moderate would be a more accurate description of the conditions on site.
Notes
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Conditon
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Rating
NA
NA
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name Millstone
B. Doll, NCSUNon-Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
NA
LOW
HIGH
Rating
LOW
MEDIUM
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
YES
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.
Project Name: Millstone CrPnk Rlcn n� iOR
ountName: ando
EP 04
roNumber:
oect Sponsor: N
Project Contact Name: Melonie Allen
rooeContact ddress: 217 West Jones Street, Ra ei h N 27603
ro'ect
ct Contact -mai : elonie. Ilen ncderin ov
P ProjectManager; Me onie Allen
Project Description
E N D ivision o itigation ervices will complete a stream and wetland
enhancement project on Millstone Creek and two unnamed tributaries to Millstone
Creek consisting of approximately 3, 819 linear feet of stream enhancement and 1.2
acres of wetland enhancement. NC DEQ has secured a conservation easement on the
parent parcel owned by Joe Dean and Billie White Cox.
. • • nly
Reviewed By:
(6 et
24
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
D = Z 7 -/L,
Date 'For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

Version 1.4, 8/16/05 2
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 3

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 4
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
The
Catena
Group
Appendix A:
Letters, Responses, Etc.
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]

The
Catena
,Group
National Historic Preservation Act:
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
Files at the North Carolina State Archeology Office were reviewed on December 12ch,
2003. No listed archeological sites were within the project boundaries (Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Feasibility Study, Cox Property, Randolph County, NC.- TIP Project
No. R-0609WM, NCDOT, 2004).

The
Catena
Group
Dale Suiter
USFWS Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
July 27, 2010
Subject: EEP Stream mitigation project (Ken Cox) on Millstone Creek, Randolph
County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Suiter,
The purpose of this letter is to notify you of activities occurring in Randolph County on
the Ken Cox site stream mitigation project. The Ken Cox site has been identified for the
purpose of providing in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. A total
of 3.819 linear feet of stream restoration, 3.76 acres of wetland restoration, and 1.2 acres
of wetland enhancement of Millstone Creek are proposed (Figure 1).
Two endangered species, Schweinitz's sunflower and the Cape Fear shiner, are known to
occur in Randolph County (http://149.168.1.196/nhp/find.php and
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html). Potential project -related impacts to these
two species were evaluated in the Restoration Plan to be submitted to the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) for this project. These findings are summarized below and
provided for your information.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Potential habitat exists for Schweinitz's sunflower on the Ken Cox property along pasture
and road edges but not in the proposed area of impact of steam restoration activities.
Surveys were conducted on September 24, 2007, by Kate Montieth and Jennifer Logan of
The Catena Group and no plants were found. The nearest known population of
Schweinitz's sunflower is over eight miles away, northeast of Asheboro Given the fact
that potential habitat on the site is outside of the area of impact and the fact that no
individuals were found during surveys, it can be concluded that the proposed stream
mitigation project will have "_No Effect" on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
The Cape Fear shiner is limited primarily to small stretches of the Deep, Haw, and Rocky
Rivers of the Cape Fear River basin (USFWS 1988). The most recent data on the Cape
Fear shiner population in the Deep River indicate that it is not currently known upstream
of the Coleridge Dam on the Deep River. Millstone Creek, a tributary in the Deep River
watershed above Coleridge Dam, flows through the Ken Cox site. This portion of the
stream is highly degraded through agricultural activities, is fairly narrow and shallow,

and does not contain habitat elements (shallow rocky shoals) typical of water
bodies where the Cape Fear shiner is currently known to occur. Although the Cape Fear
shiner is reported to utilize smaller tributaries during high water periods in winter months
(http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/Fsh/CFS_Fact_Sheetl.pdi), the presence of the Coleridge
Dam could restrict the known population from utilizing the stream in the project area. It
is possible that a currently unknown population of Cape Fear shiner could be present in
the Deep River above the Coleridge Dam, however, the likelihood of it utilizing the
stream on site is slim due to the extreme habitat degradation. Based on the lack of typical
habitat and the presence of barriers between known occupied habitat and the project area,
it can be concluded that the proposed stream mitigation project will "Not Likely to
Effect' the Cape Fear shiner. Additionally, strict erosion control measures and BMPs
should be utilized during construction to protect downstream aquatic habitats.
Additionally, please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or the Fish & Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA) from the construction of the stream restoration project on the subject
property.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that you do not have any
comments regarding associated laws and that you do not have any other information
relevant to this project at the current time.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have concerning the extent of
site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Kate Montieth
The Catena Group
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
cc:
Melonie Allen
EEP Project Manager
1652-Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Becky Ward
Ward Consulting Engineers, PC
8386 Six Forks Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615

The
Catena
--_ _ Grou 410-B Millstone Drive
- - . p Hillsborough, NC 27278
-``,- - [phone]
July 27, 2010
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject EEP Stream mitigation project (Ken Cox) on Millstone Creek, Randolph County,
North Carolina
Dear Ms. Deaton,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential wetland and stream
restoration project on the Bowman site.
The Ken Cox site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. A total of 3,819 linear feet of stream restoration, 3.76 acres
of wetland restoration, and 1.2 acres of wetland enhancement of Millstone Creek are proposed
(Figure 1).
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated
with this project.
Sincerely,
Kate Montieth
The Catena Group
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
cc:
Melonie Allen
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Becky Ward
Ward Consulting Engineers, PC
8386 Six Forks Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615

The Ken Cox Stream Date:
Novfrnrber 2007 Figure
Catena Restoration Site sc ak-�:
Group Property Boundary As Shown
Randolph County, North Carolina Job ��" 4124

REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNTITLE 1.1PROJECT DIRECTORYPROJECT OWNER NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICESMELONIE ALLEN217 WEST JONES STREETRALEIGH, NC [e-mail] / TSP NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITYBARBARA A. DOLL, PHD, PECAMPUS BOX 7625RALEIGH, NC [e-mail] L. PAGE, PECAMPUS BOX 7625RALEIGH, NC [e-mail] INDEXTITLE SHEET1.1PROJECT OVERVIEW2.1PROPOSED STREAM CROSS-SECTIONS3.1PROPOSED PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS4.1PROPOSED RE-VEGETATION PLAN5.1PROPOSED DETAILS6.1MILLSTONE CREEK MITIGATION SITENC DMS PROJECT: IMS 2045500 JOE DEAN TRAIL, RAMSEUR, NC 27316DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN - DECEMBER 18, 2019
SHEET 4.2SHEET 4.1SHEET 4.3SHEET 4.4SHEET 4.5SHEET 4.6REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNMC: PLAN - PROFILE 4.5SCALE: 1" = 100'Feet0100200GENERAL PROJECT SPECIFICATION AND NOTES1. DEFINITIONS:1.1. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS: THE CONTRACT ANDAPPLICABLE PLAN SHEET(S), DETAILS, SPECIFICATIONS,PERMIT(S), AND/OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS (MEETINGMINUTES, PUNCH LISTS, BID TABS, ETC.) FOR COMPLETEINFORMATION ABOUT THE REQUIRED WORK. ANY ONE OFTHESE PARTS OF THE MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THEINFORMATION REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT WORK.1.2. PROJECT OWNER: RANDY BEST1.3. GRANT ADMINISTRATION: RESOURCE INSTITUTE1.4. ENGINEER: JENNINGS ENVIRONMENTAL PLLC2. THE WORK ON THIS PROJECT SHALL ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWINGSPECIFICATIONS, STANDARDS AND/OR REGULATIONS:2.1. NC DEQ'S "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING ANDDESIGN MANUAL" (2013)2.2. NC DOT'S "2018 STANDARD PROVISIONS"2.3. NC DOT'S "2018 SPECIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS"2.2. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONWIDEPERMIT NUMBER 272.3. THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS3. NOT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN. SOME LOCATIONS MAYBE ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FORALL UTILITY LOCATION AND COORDINATION. ANY UTILITIES SHOWNON THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES ONLY AND IN NO WAY RELIEVES THE CONTRACTORFROM COORDINATING, VERIFYING AND PROTECTING EXISTINGUTILITIES. ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE PROTECTED AND REMAIN ACTIVEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.4. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROJECT AREA UNTILCOMPLETION AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY THE PROJECT OWNERAND ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONSNECESSARY AND SHALL BEAR ALL RISK OF LOSS OR DAMAGE. THECONTRACTOR WILL FURNISH ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT, TOOLS,LABOR, TRANSPORTATION, AND SUPERVISION TO CLEAR THERIGHT-OF-WAY ACCORDING TO THESE SPECIFICATIONS ANDAPPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFINE ALL ACTIVITIES, INCLUDINGEQUIPMENT STORAGE, TO THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE, STAGINGAREAS, AND DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS.5. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CONTRACTOR DEALS WITH PEOPLEAND THEIR PROPERTIES WHILE PERFORMING THIS WORK ISEXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THE PROJECT OWNER AND ENGINEER.THEREFORE, THE CONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTOR'SREPRESENTATIVES SHALL MANIFEST A SPIRIT OF FRIENDLINESSAND COOPERATION WHEN DEALING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS ANDTHE GENERAL PUBLIC WHILE PERFORMING WORK UNDER THISSPECIFICATION.6. EXTREME CARE AND DILIGENCE SHALL BE EXERCISED BY THECONTRACTOR TO ASSURE THE SAFETY OF PERSONS, ANIMALS, ANDPROPERTY. IF AT ANY TIME THE PROJECT OWNER OR ENGINEERDETERMINES THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S METHODS OR EQUIPMENTARE INADEQUATE FOR SECURING THE SAFETY OF THECONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEES OR THE PUBLIC, THE DESIGNATEDREPRESENTATIVE MAY DIRECT THE CONTRACTOR TO TAKESPECIFIC ACTIONS TO ENSURE SAFETY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLIMPROVE METHODS AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THEDESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST TO THEPROJECT OWNER, SO AS TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THEPROJECT OWNER AND ENGINEER'S SAFETY CONCERNS. FAILUREOF THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO MAKE THIS DEMANDSHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF ANY OBLIGATION TOENSURE THE SAFE CONDUCT OF ITS WORK.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL LIGHTS, GUARDS, SIGNS,TEMPORARY PASSAGES, OR OTHER PRECAUTIONS NECESSARYFOR THE SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLABIDE BY ALL SAFETY RULES AND CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONSREQUIRED BY GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER ENTITIES,INCLUDING RAILROADS, SO THE PUBLIC IS SAFEGUARDED FROMACCIDENTS AND DELAYS. GUARDS AND FLAGS REQUIRED BYGOVERNMENTAL OR RAILROAD AUTHORITIES SHALL BE PROVIDEDAT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISEBY THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. CONTRACTOR SHALL AT NOTIME COMPROMISE EITHER SAFETY OR ENVIRONMENTALREQUIREMENTS.8. ANY ALTERNATE ACCESS PLANNED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BEAPPROVED BY THE PROJECT OWNER AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO USE.9. NO FILL IN WETLANDS MAY OCCUR. ALL EXCESS SOILS FROMSTREAM STABILIZATION AND CHANNEL WORK SHALL BE DISPOSEDOF IN AREAS APPROVED BY THE PROJECT OWNER AND ENGINEER.10. SITE SHOULD BE “STORM READY” AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAYAND WORK WEEK.TOPOGRAPHIC SPECIFICATIONS AND NOTES11. ELECTRONIC SURVEY DATA, BASE DRAWINGS AND SITE DATA WERECURATED BY LANDMARK SURVEYING INC. DIGITAL TOPOGRAPHICDATA WAS PROVIDED TO NCSU BAE VIA NCDMS.12. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83(2011) & VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88.ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NAD83(2011) AND ALLELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVD88.13. EXISTING GROUND SURFACES ARE BASED ON FIELD SURVEY. SOMETOPOGRAPHIC CHANGES MAY HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THESURVEY WAS COMPLETED, PARTICULARLY IN AREAS EXPERIENCINGCHANNEL DEGRADATION AND BANK EROSION OR DENSE TREECOVER.14. THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND GRADES SHOWN HEREIN AREBASED ON THE ORIGINAL SURVEY THAT ENCOMPASSES THEEXISTING GROUND SURFACE FROM WHICH ALL COMPUTATIONS OFCUT AND FILL ARE BASED. SLIGHT DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THEEXITING GROUND AND DIGITAL SURFACE AND FIELD CONDITIONSCAN RESULT IN VARIATIONS OF TOTAL EXCAVATED QUANTITIES.THUS, QUANTITIES OF MATERIAL EXCAVATED SHOULD BECOMPARED TO THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLANSHEETS TO MANAGETHE MOVEMENT OF MATERIAL ACROSS THE SITE.STREAM RESTORATION SPECIFICATIONS AND NOTES15. FIELD CONDITIONS AND PROJECT VARIABILITY MAY REQUIREADAPTATION OF THE PLANSHEETS AND/OR DETAILS PROVIDED INTHE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DEPENDING ON SITECONDITIONS OR PROJECT NEEDS. MINOR VARIATION(S) ORADAPTATION(S) OF THE PROPOSED WORK SHOWN ON THEPLANSHEETS AND/OR DETAILS ARE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TOTHE WORK.16. PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALLMARK THE LIMITS OF CLEARING NEAR TREES FOR VERIFICATION OFINTENT BY THE ENGINEER. SOME MINOR ADJUSTMENT OF CHANNELALIGNMENT MAY BE REQUIRED TO PRESERVE TREES OR MINIMIZEIMPACT TO TREES.17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE OUT THE PROPOSED STREAMCENTERLINE USING TRADITIONAL SURVEY METHODS OR SURVEYGRADE GPS EQUIPMENT FOR REVIEW BY THE ENGINEER BEFOREBEGINNING EXCAVATION AND GRADING. DEPENDING ONENCOUNTERED CONDITIONS SOME SHIFTING OF THE STREAMALIGNMENT MAY BE NECESSARY. STAKING MAY BE OMITTED FORPORTIONS OF THE STREAM WHEN SURVEY-GRADE GPS IS USED TOCONSTRUCT THE CHANNEL.18. WHERE PRACTICABLE, EXISTING TREES AND VEGETATION SHOULDBE LEFT IN PLACE TO FACILITATE NATURAL REGENERATION ANDSOIL STABILIZATION.19. ANY HARVESTING OF TREES FROM ONSITE MUST BE APPROVED BYTHE PROJECT OWNER AND ENGINEER.20. CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENTPOSSIBLE, IMPACTS TO THE ADJACENT TREES.21. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT TRACKS AND ACCESS PATHS SHALL BEGRADED AND RE-CONTOURED AFTER CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENTRILL AND GULLY EROSION.22. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE AN EXCAVATOR WITH A HYDRAULICTHUMB TO INSTALL IN-STREAM STRUCTURES.23. EXCAVATION AND GRADING QUANTITIES DO NOT INCLUDEUNDERCUT EXCAVATION FOR INSTREAM STRUCTURES LIKERIFFLES, CROSS-VANES AND TOE WOOD REVETMENT.24. ELEVATIONS OF TRIBUTARIES AT CONFLUENCES MAY NEED TO BEADJUSTED TO MEET CONSTRUCTED CONDITIONS. ADJUSTMENTSSHALL BE MADE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ENGINEER.25. PROFILES MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED TO AVOID ABRUPT CHANGESIN ELEVATION. ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE MADE IN CONJUNCTIONWITH THE ENGINEER.26. STREAM RESTORATION WORK SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED BY FIRSTGRADING THE FLOODPLAIN ADJACENT TO THE CHANNEL TO THEELEVATIONS AND GRADES SPECIFIED IN THE PLANSHEETS. THEPROPOSED STREAM CHANNEL SHALL THEN BE EXCAVATED TO THECHANNEL CROSS-SECTION GEOMETRY AND LONGITUDINAL PROFILEIN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. THIS CHANNEL WORK SHALLBE DONE WITH LOW GROUND PRESSURE TRACK EQUIPMENT.PLANSHEETS PROVIDE DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS AND SLOPES TOAID IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNEL. THE THALWEG CAN FIRSTBE EXCAVATED TO THE ELEVATION SPECIFIED IN THELONGITUDINAL PROFILE AND EXCAVATION AND FINE GRADING OFTHE CORSS-SECTIONS SHALL THEN BE PREFORMED. ANYTEMPORARY STOCKPILING OR DOUBLE HANDLING OF EXCESSEARTH NECESSARY TO BUILD THE CHANNEL SHALL BE CONSIDEREDINCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.27. BANKFULL CHANNEL DIMENSIONS WILL BE HELD TO THEDIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONPLANSHEETS. ELEVATIONS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 0.1'(VERTICAL). WIDTHS AND DEPTHS MUST FALL WITHIN RANGESSHOWN IN THE PLANSHEETS. CHANNEL CROSS-SECTIONDIMENSIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.2' (HORIZONTAL).28. IF THE EXISTING GROUND IS LESS THAN 0.2' HIGHER THAN THEPROPOSED BANKFULL ELEVATION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TOEXCAVATE TO THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND GRADES IN THECONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.29. IN-STREAM STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AS THE CHANNEL ISBEING CONSTRUCTED. INSTREAM STRUCTURES SHALL BE FINISHEDTO A SMOOTH SURFACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADESAND ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. THEFINISHED STRUCTURE SLOPES AND PROFILE ELEVATIONS SHALL BEWITHIN 0.1' (VERTICAL) OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.30. ALL FILTER FABRIC INSTALLED AS PART OF THE INSTREAMSTRUCTURE SHALL BE A NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE UNLESSOTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN STRUCTURE DETAILS ORSPECIFICATIONS.FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE TRIMMED TIGHT TO THESURFACE OF THE STRUCTURE AND SHOULD NOT BE OBSERVED BYVISUAL INSPECTION.31. BOULDER STRUCTURES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED FROM BOULDERSTHAT ARE CUBICAL OR RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE AND SIZEDACCORDING TO THE STRUCTURE DETAILS.32. AFTER THE STRUCTURE IS COMPLETE AND FLOW IS RESTORED TOTHE CHANNEL, SOME ADJUSTMENT TO THE STRUCTURE ORADDITIONAL STABILIZATION MEASURE MAY BE NECESSARY TOACHIEVE THE DESIRED FUNCTION.26. CHANNEL REALIGNMENT WORK SHALL BE COMPLETED ANDSTABILIZED PRIOR TO ALLOWING FLOW TO ENTER INTO THE NEWLYCONSTRUCTED STREAM CHANNEL.27. THE CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL SHALL BE STABILIZED AS SOON ASPOSSIBLE BY TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING, ADDINGSTRAW MULCH TO BARE SOIL AND INSTALLING EROSION CONTROLMATTING FROM THE TOE OF THE BANKFULL CHANNEL TO 4' BEYONDTHE BANKFULL STAGE. PRIOR TO INSTALLING THE EROSIONCONTROL MATTING, PREPARE THE SOIL SURFACE BY LOOSENING 2- 4” OF SOIL OR APPLYING 2 - 4” OF TOPSOIL TO THE PROPOSEDELEVATIONS AND APPLY SEED AND THEN STRAW MULCH. SEEDSHALL BE BROADCAST EVENLY OF THE AREA USING A BROADCASTSPREADER PRIOR TO COVERING WITH THE EROSION CONTROLMATTING. THE MATTING SHALL BE ROLLED OUT IN THE DIRECTIONOF ANTICIPATED RUNOFF FLOW. INSTALL MATTING IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE DETAIL INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.REWORKING OF AREAS THAT DO NOT ESTABLISH VEGETATION ORBECOME UNSTABLE SHALL BE NECESSARY IN THE MATTINGSEPARATES FROM THE SOIL.28. THE HARVESTING AND INSTALLATION OF LIVE STAKES ANDCUTTINGS SHALL BE PREFORMED ONLY DURING THE DORMANTSEASON, TYPICALLY BETWEEN DECEMBER 1 AND MARCH 1. THECONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE PROJECT OWNER AND ENGINEER7 DAYS PRIOR TO HARVESTING TO REVIEW AND APPROVE ALLHARVESTING SITES AND SPECIES.29. LIVE STAKES AND BARE ROOTS SHALL BE INSTALLED BELOW THEBANKFULL STAGE TO THE BASE FLOW WATER SURFACE IN THECHANNEL. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED THROUGH THEEROSION CONTROL MATTING TO A DEPTH THAT REACHES THEWATER TABLE.30. EXCESS EARTH MAY BE USED TO BACKFILL THE OLD CHANNEL ORSPREAD IN OTHER LOCATIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA THATARE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT OWNER AND ENGINEER.31. TOPSOIL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM EXCAVATION AND FILL AREASPRIOR EXCAVATION AND GRADING AND RE-APPLIED TO AREASAFTER ROUGH GRADING IS COMPLETE. 2 - 4” OF TOPSOIL SHALL BEPLACED ON DISTURBED AREAS TO THE ELEVATIONS AND GRADESINCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOUR...PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED BANKFULLPROPOSED CENTERLINEGRADING LIMITSPROPOSED LOG STEPSTANDARD LINES AND S<MBOLSPROPOSED CHANNEL PLUGPROPOSED STREAMBANK GRADINGBRUSH TOE PROTECTIONPROPOSED BOULDER J-HOOK VANECONSERVATION EASEMENTPROPOSED CONSTRUCTED RIFFLEPROPOSED RSC CHANNELPROPOSED RSC LOG RIFFLE
PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR FIBER 700 GRAM6.0'8.0'0.5'WIDTH VARIES PER PLAN6:16:1SAND AND WOOD CHIP MIXDEPTH VARIES PER PROFILEMIN. DEPTH BELOW RIFFLE /CASCADE = 2.5'PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTPROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR FIBER 700 GRAM4.5'4.5'1.5'PROPOSED GRADEWIDTH VARIES PER PLAN6
:
16 : 1PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTSAND AND WOOD CHIP MIXDEPTH VARIES PER PROFILEMIN. DEPTH BELOW POOL = 1.5'TIE TO EXISTINGPER PLANPROPOSED GRADENT R1, UTA R1 RSC CHANNEL RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION (TYP.)2:12:1PROPOSED 8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN FABRICQBKF = 8 CFSWBKF= 8 FTABKF = 3.3 FT2DBKF = 0.4 FTDMAX = 0.5 FTW/D = 19.7PROPOSED RIFFLE / CASCADE1.0' OF 50% NC DOT CLASS A ROCK, 50% NCDOT CLASS B ROCK (CLEAN ONSITE ROCKOF SIMILAR GRADATION MAY BESUBSTITUTED PER THE ENGINEER)8.0'FILTER MEDIA EXTENTSNT R1, UTA R1 RSC CHANNEL POOL CROSS-SECTION (TYP.)REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNBMP XS: NT R1, UTA R1 3.1
PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR FIBER 700 GRAMBANKFULL BENCHBANKFULL BENCHWIDTH VARIES PER PLANTIE TO EXISTINGPER GRADINGPLAN3
:
13 : 1PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTMC R2 RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION STA 14+82 FT TO 20+20 FT (TYP.)MC R2 POOL CROSS-SECTION STA 14+82 TO 20+20 (TYP.)PROPOSED GRADE36.0'3.52.5 : 12
.
5

:

1PROPOSED EROSION CONTROLMATTING OR SOD MAT PERPLAN AND DETAILWIDTH VARIES PER PLAN3 : 1PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTPROPOSED GRADE48.6'7 : 1TIE TO EXISTINGPER GRADINGPLAN3
:
1POINT BAR7.7'PROPOSED BKF WSEWBKF = 36 FTABKF = 85 FT2DBKF = 2.6 FTDMAX = 3.3 FTW/D = 14.0K = 1.09S = 0.0020 FT/FT2 : 118.5'WBKFP = 48.6 FTABKFP = 185 FT2DBKFP = 5.9 FTDMAXP = 7.7 FTPROPOSED BKF WSEPROPOSED IB WSEBANKFULL BENCHBANKFULL BENCHREVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNXS: MC R2 3.2
0+000+501+00
1+502+002+503+003+504+004+294594584574564
5
5
454453452451450449448446447448449450461460468467466465464463462461460459457458462461460459455455454
454453452451450449445
STA: 0+00.0
STA: 4+28.6
STA: 3+37.2
STA: 3+45.8
STA: 3+61.2
STA: 3+66.9
STA: 3+7
9
.
1
STA: 3+8
8
.
1
STA: 0+22.5STA: 0+57.8STA: 0+80.7 STA: 0+95.2STA: 1+20.4STA: 1+43.3
STA: 1+66.3
STA: 1+89
.
0
STA:
2
+
1
2
.
8
STA: 2+3
5
.
4
STA: 2+50.5
ST
A
:

2
+
7
5
.
4
STA: 2
+
9
8
.
2
STA: 3+11.6
STA: 0+40.5STA: 0+70.3 STA: 1+07.7STA: 1+31.0
STA: 1+54.0
STA: 1+76
.
0
STA: 1
+
9
9
.
0
STA: 2+2
3
.
3
ST
A
:

2
+
6
3
.
0
STA: 2
+
8
5
.
8
STA: 3+25.9
STA: 0+00.0STA: 0+29.9
STA: 0+4
6.
04354364374384394404414424434444454464474484494504514524534544554564574584594604614624634644654664674684694704354364374384394404414424434444454464474484494504514524534544554564574584594604614624634644654664674684694700+001+002+003+004+004+35EXISTING GRADENT R2 ENHANCEMENT 2 APPROACH WITHLOG STEPS FOR GRADE CONTROL TO CONFLUENCE WITH UTA/BEND NT R2 ATUTA R2 / UTB CONCLUENCESTA. 4+29.97 FTELV. = 440.18 FTPROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTSAND / WOOD CHIP FILTER MEDIAUSE ONSITE EARTH TO FILL CHANNELUP TO FILTER MEDIAEND NT R1 RSC SYSTEMSTA = 0+00.00ELEV = 460.01STA = 0+22.48ELEV = 457.76STA = 0+40.46ELEV = 457.26STA = 0+40.46ELEV = 457.26STA = 0+57.76ELEV = 455.88STA = 0+70.32ELEV = 455.38STA = 0+70.32ELEV = 455.38STA = 0+80.67ELEV = 454.55STA = 0+95.24ELEV = 454.05STA = 1+07.71ELEV = 453.55STA = 1+07.71ELEV = 453.55STA = 1+20.43ELEV = 452.85
STA = 1+31.05ELEV = 452.45STA = 1+31.05ELEV = 452.45
STA = 1+43.32ELEV = 451.78
STA = 1+53.96ELEV = 451.38STA = 1+53.96ELEV = 451.38
STA = 1+66.34ELEV = 450.70
STA = 1+76.02ELEV = 450.30STA = 1+76.02ELEV = 450.30
STA = 1+89.02ELEV = 449.58
STA = 1+99.05ELEV = 449.18STA = 1+99.05ELEV = 449.18
STA = 2+12.84ELEV = 448.35
STA = 2+23.31ELEV = 448.05STA = 2+23.31ELEV = 448.05
STA = 2+35.44ELEV = 447.33
STA = 2+50.53ELEV = 447.03
STA = 2+63.04ELEV = 446.73STA = 2+63.04ELEV = 446.73
STA = 2+75.39ELEV = 445.98
STA = 2+85.81ELEV = 445.68STA = 2+85.81ELEV = 445.68
STA = 2+98.22ELEV = 444.94
STA = 3+11.57ELEV = 444.64
STA = 3+25.14ELEV = 444.33
STA = 0+31.47ELEV = 456.26STA = 0+31.47ELEV = 456.26STA = 0+64.04ELEV = 454.38STA = 0+86.58ELEV = 453.05STA = 1+01.48ELEV = 452.55
STA = 1+25.74
ELEV = 451.45
STA = 1+25.74
ELEV = 451.45
STA = 1+48.64ELEV = 450.37STA = 1+48.64ELEV = 450.37
STA = 1+71.18ELEV = 449.29STA = 1+71.18ELEV = 449.29
STA = 1+94.04ELEV = 448.18STA = 1+94.04ELEV = 448.18
STA = 2+18.08ELEV = 447.05STA = 2+18.08ELEV = 447.05
STA = 2+41.51ELEV = 446.02STA = 2+41.51ELEV = 446.02
STA = 2+56.79
ELEV = 445.72
STA = 2+56.79
ELEV = 445.72
STA = 2+80.60ELEV = 444.68STA = 2+80.60ELEV = 444.68
STA = 3+04.08ELEV = 443.64STA = 3+04.08ELEV = 443.64
STA = 3+18.74ELEV = 443.34
STA = 3+25.14ELEV = 444.33
STA = 3+37.14ELEV = 443.83
STA = 3+46.14ELEV = 443.20
STA = 3+61.14ELEV = 442.80
STA = 3+67.14ELEV = 442.43
STA = 3+79.14ELEV = 442.15
STA = 3+88.14ELEV = 441.60
STA = 4+00.14ELEV = 440.94STA = 4+00.14ELEV = 440.94
STA = 3+31.18
ELEV = 442.33
STA = 3+53.64
ELEV = 441.30
STA = 3+73.14ELEV = 440.65
STA = 3+94.14ELEV = 439.44
REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNNT: PLAN - PROFILE 4.1SCALE: 1" = 20'PROPOSED WETLAND FEATUREEND NT R1 RSC AT STA 3+26TRANSITION FROM RSC SYSTEM TOENHANCEMENT 2 APPROACH FOR NT R2BEGIN NT R1 RSC SYSTEMSTA 0+00RSC RIFFLE - STEP - POOL SEQUENCERSC STEPCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE WITHLOG STEPEND NT R2 AT CONFLUENCE WITHUTA R2 / UTB STA 4+28.6Feet02040GRADING LIMITSGRADING LIMITSGRADE STREAMBANKS FROMTOE OF SLOPE AT 3:1 SLOPE TOEXISTING GROUNDUTA R2UTB
0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+00449470469468467 466465464 462
4604594584574
5
6
4
5
5
454453452451
45
0
449
448
447
445446447448449450451470469468467467468469470471 466465464463462461461460459458457456454453
452451450449448447STA: 0+00.0
STA: 6+23.2
STA: 5+35.2
STA: 5+43.6
STA: 5+59.2
STA: 5+65.2
STA: 5+77.2 STA: 5+86.7STA: 5+9
8.
2
STA: 6+0
8.
9
STA: 0+47.8STA: 0+72.1 STA: 0+93.2STA: 1+18.0STA: 1+41.0STA: 1+81.0
ST
A
:

2
+
3
5
.
5
STA:
2
+
5
9
.
9
STA: 2+9
9.
6
STA: 3+22.2STA: 3+46.0
ST
A
:

4
+
0
8
.
3
STA: 4
+
3
1
.
3
STA: 4+71.8STA: 4+95.6STA: 0+17.5
ST
A
:

3
+
8
3
.
1
STA: 0+60.0 STA: 0+83.4STA: 1+05.0STA: 1+28.0STA: 1+53.2STA: 1+68.0STA: 1+92.4
STA: 2+07.5
ST
A
:

2
+
2
3
.
1
STA:
2
+
4
6
.
3
STA: 2+72.3
STA: 2+8
6.
9
STA: 3+10.8STA: 3+32.8
STA: 3
+
5
7
.
8
ST
A
:

3
+
7
2
.
5
STA: 4
+
1
9
.
1
STA: 4+44.5
STA: 4+60.4STA: 4+82.4STA: 5+07.6
STA: 5+2
2
.
9
STA: 0+35.4
ST
A
:

3
+
9
7
.
6
STA: 0+00.
0435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475
4354364374384394404414424434444454464474484494504514524534544554564574584594604614624634644654664674684694704714724734744750+001+002+003+004+005+006+00 6+256.0%5.0%5.5%6.0%6.0%6.0%6.0%5.5%6.5%5.0%6.0%6.0%5.0%6.0%6.0%6.0%6.0%4.8%4.1%4.0%2.2%STA = 0+17.52ELEV = 468.45STA = 0+35.36ELEV = 467.70STA = 0+47.79ELEV = 467.07STA = 0+60.04ELEV = 466.58STA = 0+72.14ELEV = 465.92STA = 0+83.43ELEV = 465.47STA = 0+93.13ELEV = 464.89STA = 1+04.95ELEV = 464.42STA = 1+17.96ELEV = 463.65STA = 1+28.04ELEV = 463.28STA = 1+40.95ELEV = 462.51STA = 1+55.95ELEV = 461.76STA = 1+68.02ELEV = 461.01STA = 1+81.00ELEV = 460.23STA = 1+96.02ELEV = 459.48STA = 2+10.44ELEV = 458.73
STA = 2+23.06ELEV = 457.98
STA = 2+35.48ELEV = 457.30
STA = 2+46.33ELEV = 456.86
STA = 2+59.86ELEV = 455.99
STA = 2+74.40ELEV = 455.29
STA = 2+86.91ELEV = 454.54
STA = 2+99.63ELEV = 453.90
STA = 3+10.78ELEV = 453.41
STA = 3+22.21ELEV = 452.73
STA = 3+32.75ELEV = 452.32
STA = 3+46.04ELEV = 451.52
STA = 3+60.28ELEV = 450.77
STA = 3+72.51ELEV = 450.02
STA = 3+83.09ELEV = 449.49
STA = 3+97.64ELEV = 448.95
STA = 4+08.32ELEV = 448.31
STA = 4+19.09ELEV = 447.88
STA = 4+31.29ELEV = 447.15
STA = 4+47.20ELEV = 446.40
STA = 4+60.36ELEV = 445.65
STA = 4+71.79ELEV = 444.96
STA = 4+82.37ELEV = 444.56
STA = 4+95.58ELEV = 443.77
STA = 5+10.27ELEV = 443.02
STA = 5+23.17ELEV = 442.52
STA = 5+35.19ELEV = 442.19
STA = 5+44.19ELEV = 441.76
STA = 5+59.19ELEV = 441.53
STA = 5+65.19ELEV = 441.28
STA = 5+77.19ELEV = 441.28
STA = 5+86.19ELEV = 440.92
STA = 5+98.19ELEV = 440.52
STA = 6+08.87ELEV = 440.29
STA = 0+26.44ELEV = 466.70STA = 0+53.92ELEV = 465.58STA = 0+77.79ELEV = 464.46STA = 0+99.09ELEV = 463.42STA = 1+23.00ELEV = 462.28STA = 1+47.10ELEV = 460.75STA = 1+61.98ELEV = 460.00STA = 1+86.71ELEV = 458.48STA = 2+01.78ELEV = 457.73
STA = 2+16.75
ELEV = 456.98
STA = 2+40.90
ELEV = 455.85
STA = 2+66.08ELEV = 454.29
STA = 2+80.66ELEV = 453.54
STA = 3+05.20ELEV = 452.41
STA = 3+27.48ELEV = 451.32
STA = 3+51.91
ELEV = 449.77
STA = 3+66.40
ELEV = 449.02
STA = 3+90.37ELEV = 447.95
STA = 4+13.71ELEV = 446.88
STA = 4+37.91ELEV = 445.40
STA = 4+53.78ELEV = 444.65
STA = 4+77.08ELEV = 443.56
STA = 5+01.60ELEV = 442.02
STA = 5+16.72
ELEV = 441.52
STA = 5+29.23ELEV = 440.69
STA = 5+71.19ELEV = 439.79
STA = 5+51.85ELEV = 440.03
STA = 5+92.19ELEV = 439.02 4.4%5.5%5.5%5.5%4.5%4.8%6.0%4.5%5.2%5.1%5.4%5.4%EXISTING GRADEUTA R2 ENHANCEMENT 2 APPROACH WITHLOG STEPS FOR GRADE CONTROL TO CONFLUENCE WITH NT / UTBEND UTA R2 ATNT R2 / UTB CONCLUENCESTA. 6 + 23 FTELV. = 440.18 FTPROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTSAND / WOOD CHIP FILTER MEDIAUSE ONSITE EARTH TO FILL CHANNELUP TO FILTER MEDIAEND UTA R2 RSC SYSTEMREVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNUTA: PLAN - PROFILE 4.2SCALE: 1" = 20'WETLAND FEATUREEND UTA R1 RSC STA 5+23TRANSITION FROM RSC SYSTEM TOENHANCEMENT 2 APPROACH FOR UTA R2BEGIN UTA R1 RSCSYSTEM STA 0+00RSC STEP-POOL SEQUENCERSC RIFFLE - STEP - POOLRSC STEPRSC STEP-POOL SEQUENCEPER DETAILFeet02040END UTA R2 STA 6+23AT CONFLUENCEWITH NT R2 AND UTBGRADING LIMITSGRADING LIMITSNT R2UTBGRADE STREAMBANKS FROMTOE OF SLOPE AT 3:1 SLOPE TOEXISTING GROUND
0+000+501+001+502
+
0
0
2+503+003+504+
0
0
4
+
5
0
5+005+290+001+002
+
0
0
3+004+
0
0
5+005+29STA: 0+00.0STA: 0+29.9STA: 0+46.0STA: 0+74.6STA: 0+90.0STA: 1+19.3STA: 1+35.3
STA: 1+63.7
STA: 1+7
8
.
3
STA: 2+06.3ST
A
:

2
+
3
0
.
1
STA: 2+45.1
STA: 2+63.3STA
:

2
+
8
0
.
2
STA: 2+99.7
STA: 3+16.7STA: 3+36.2
STA: 3+54.7
STA: 3+72.5
STA: 4+19.6STA: 4+40.5STA: 4+69.1
STA: 4+84.2
ST
A
:

5
+
1
3
.
3
ST
A
:

5
+
2
9
.
1425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445
4254264274284294304314324334344354364374384394404414424434444450+001+002+003+004+005+006+00STA = 0+00.00ELEV = 440.00STA = 0+29.95ELEV = 439.83STA = 0+44.96ELEV = 439.74STA = 0+74.89ELEV = 439.58STA = 0+89.89ELEV = 439.50STA = 1+19.32ELEV = 439.03STA = 1+34.32ELEV = 438.79STA = 1+63.74ELEV = 438.32STA = 1+78.74ELEV = 438.09
STA = 2+05.56ELEV = 437.61
STA = 2+30.10ELEV = 437.23
STA = 2+45.10ELEV = 437.00
STA = 2+62.27ELEV = 436.50
STA = 2+80.34ELEV = 436.00
STA = 2+98.31ELEV = 435.50
STA = 3+15.90ELEV = 435.00
STA = 3+34.29ELEV = 434.50
STA = 3+72.54ELEV = 434.01
STA = 4+19.72ELEV = 433.51
STA = 4+39.72ELEV = 433.16
STA = 4+69.16ELEV = 432.69
STA = 4+84.09ELEV = 432.44
STA = 5+13.51ELEV = 431.97
STA = 5+29.08ELEV = 431.71
STA = 5+61.41ELEV = 431.12
STA = 5+47.61ELEV = 431.41
STA = 5+81.62ELEV = 430.82
STA = 5+96.32ELEV = 430.50
STA = 0+17.34ELEV = 437.83STA = 0+61.16ELEV = 437.58STA = 1+06.29ELEV = 437.03STA = 1+50.57ELEV = 436.82STA = 1+93.51ELEV = 436.11
STA = 2+19.26ELEV = 435.73
STA = 2+54.97
ELEV = 435.50
STA = 2+72.71
ELEV = 435.00
STA = 2+90.66ELEV = 434.50
STA = 3+08.44
ELEV = 434.00
STA = 3+26.09
ELEV = 433.51
STA = 3+54.96
ELEV = 432.01
STA = 3+97.59ELEV = 432.01
STA = 4+56.00ELEV = 431.19
STA = 5+00.34ELEV = 430.47
STA = 5+38.34
ELEV = 429.91
STA = 5+71.51ELEV = 429.32 0.6%0.5%1.6%1.6%1.5%1.8%1.7%1.7%2.1%2.1%REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNUTB: PLAN - PROFILE 4.3SCALE: 1" = 20'BEGIN UTB ENHANCEMENT 1 APPROACH AT NT R2 / UTA R2 CONFLUENCE STA 0+00LOG STEPLOG STEPFeet02040BEGIN UTB STA 5+29GRADE STREAMBANKS FROMTOE OF SLOPE AT 3:1 SLOPE TOEXISTING GROUNDWETLAND ENHANCEMENT = 1.323 ACSEE SHEET 4.6NT R2UTA R2CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BP: 0+00.00PC: 0+19.47PT: 0+93.69PC: 1+60.11PT: 2+60.10PC: 3+43.95PT: 4+80.28
PC: 5+98.55
PT: 7+30.
5
2
PC: 10+13
.
7
60+001+002+003+00
4
+
0
0
5+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+004104114124134144154164174184194204214224234244254264274284294304314324334344354364374384394404414424434444454104114124134144154164174184194204214224234244254264274284294304314324334344354364374384394404414424434444450+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+00STA = 0+00.00ELEV = 429.82STA = 0+19.47ELEV = 429.75STA = 0+56.58ELEV = 424.70 STA = 0+93.69ELEV = 429.75STA = 1+60.11ELEV = 429.48STA = 2+10.10ELEV = 424.43 STA = 2+60.10ELEV = 429.48
STA = 3+43.95
ELEV = 429.15
STA = 4+12.12
ELEV = 424.10
STA = 4+80.28
ELEV = 429.15
STA = 5+98.55
ELEV = 428.67
STA = 6+64.53
ELEV = 423.62
STA = 7+30.52
ELEV = 428.67
STA = 8+25.00
ELEV = 428.29
STA = 8+75.00
ELEV = 423.27
STA = 9+25.00
ELEV = 428.29 0.4%0.4%0.4%0.4%10.1%10.1%0.8%0.4%REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNMC: PLAN - PROFILE 4.4SCALE: 1" = 40'BEGIN MC R1 ENHANCEMENT 1 APPROACHAT PARCEL BOUNDARYLOG RIFFLELOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKFeet04080BRUSH TOE WITH GEOLIFTSEXISTING TOP OF BANKPROPOSED CHANNEL CENTERLINEEXISTING GROUNDGRADE POINT BAR AT 7:1 SLOPEGRADE STREAMBANKS FROMTOE OF SLOPE AT 3:1 SLOPE TOEXISTING GROUNDLOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKBRUSH TOE WITH GEOLIFTSMATCHLI
N
E

S
T
A

9
+
9
5

F
T
MATCHLI
N
E

S
T
A

9
+
9
5

F
TGRADE STREAMBANKS FROMTOE OF SLOPE AT 3:1 SLOPE TOEXISTING GROUND
PC: 10+13.76 PT: 11+42.29PC: 12+46.10PT:

1
3
+
9
3
.
1
4
PC:

1
5
+
6
9
.
4
1
PT: 17+28.57PC: 18+12.74PT: 19+5
0.
1
6
EP: 20+0
5.
1
710+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+001
8
+
0
0
19+0020+0020+05430431
432431433432431431432433434435430410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445
41041141241341441541641741841942042142242342442542642742842943043143243343443543643743843944044144244344444510+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0020+250.2%STA = 10+13.76ELEV = 427.54STA = 10+78.03ELEV = 422.49 STA = 11+42.29ELEV = 427.54STA = 12+46.10ELEV = 427.12STA = 13+19.62ELEV = 422.08
STA = 13+93.14
ELEV = 427.12
STA = 15+69.41
ELEV = 426.24
STA = 16+48.99
ELEV = 421.19
STA = 17+28.57
ELEV = 426.24
STA = 18+12.74
ELEV = 425.82
STA = 18+81.45
ELEV = 420.77
STA = 19+50.16
ELEV = 425.82
STA = 20+04.79
ELEV = 425.67 0.4%0.5%0.5%0.3%STA = 13+93.14
ELEV = 430.70
STA = 15+69.41
ELEV = 430.24
STA = 17+28.57
ELEV = 429.82
STA = 18+12.74
ELEV = 429.66
STA = 19+50.00
ELEV = 429.40
STA = 20+04.79
ELEV = 429.30
REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNMC: PLAN - PROFILE 4.5SCALE: 1" = 40'END MC R2 RESTORATION ATPARCEL BOUNDARY STA 20+05Feet04080LOG RIFFLELOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKBRUSH TOE WITH GEOLIFTSBEGIN MC R2 RESTORATIONAPPROACH AT STA 13+93 FTPLUG OLD CHANNELPLUG EXISTING DITCH0.144 AC (6,300 FT2)WET FORD CROSSINGAT EASEMENT BREAKSTA 14+52 TO 14+72EXISTING TOP OF BANKWETLAND ENHANCEMENT = 1.323 ACSEE SHEET 4.6PROPOSED BANKFULL STAGEEXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED CHANNEL CENTERLINEEXCAVATE AND GRADE REMNANTFILL MATERIAL AND BLEND AREA TOSURROUND EXISTING GROUND0.052 AC (2,270 FT2)MATCHLINE STA 9+95 FT MATCHLINE STA 9+95 FTGRADE STREAMBANKS FROMTOE OF SLOPE AT 3:1 SLOPE TOEXISTING GROUNDGRADE POINT BARAT 7:1 SLOPEMC R2 GRADING LIMITSMC R2 GRADING LIMITSLOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKEND MC R1 STA 14+52BEGIN MC R2 STA 14+72
3+50 4+004+505+00
5
+
2
9
4+005+00
5
+
2
9
PC: 15+69.41
PT: 17+28.5715+0016+0017+001
8
+
0
0431
432431430
STA: 3+36.2STA: 3+54.7STA: 3+72.5STA:

4
+
1
9
.
6
S
T
A
:

4
+
4
0
.
5 STA: 4+69.1STA: 4+84.2STA: 5+13.3STA: 5+29.1REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNMC: PLAN - PROFILE 4.5SCALE: 1" = 40'UTBWETLAND ENHANCEMENT = 1.320 ACFeet02040PLUG EXISTING DITCH0.079 AC (3,460 FT2)EXCAVATE AND GRADE REMNANTFILL MATERIAL AND BLEND AREA TOSURROUND EXISTING GROUNDTEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS0.024 AC (1,050 FT2)MC R2MC R2 GRADING LIMITSPERMANENTWETLAND IMPACT0.003 AC (150 FT2)
REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNMC: PLAN - PROFILE 4.5SCALE: 1" = 100'Feet0100200GENERAL RE-VEGETATION PLAN NOTES1. SOIL PREPARATION ELEMENTS, TEMPORARY AND PERMANENTSEED AND GROUND COVER SHALL BE SPREAD OVER ALLAREAS WITHIN THE LOD THAT ARE DISTURBED DURINGCONSTRUCTION.2. LIVE STAKES, BARE ROOT STOCK AND CONTAINERIZEDPLANTS SHALL BE LOCATED WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN.3. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE VEGETATION PLAN SHALL BE MADEONLY IF APPROVED BY THE TOWN OR ENGINEER.TEMPORARY SEEDING AND MULCHING4. ALL SEED AND SEED VARIETIES MUST BE OF FROM STATE ANDFEDERALLY LISTED NOXIOUS WEED SEED.5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE SEEDED WITH TEMPORARYSEED AND MULCHED WITH WHEAT STRAW. SEEDING WILL BEPERFORMED USING A BROADCAST SPREADER. OTHERMETHODS MAY BE USED BUT MUST BE APPROVED BYENGINEER IN ADVANCE OF INSTALLATION.6. MAINTENANCE OF SEEDED AREAS SHALL CONSIST OFWATERING, WEED AND PEST CONTROL, FERTILIZATION,EROSION REPAIR, RESEEDING, AND INCIDENTAL OPERATIONSAS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH A HEALTHY, VIGOROUS, WEEDFREE AND DISEASE FEE UNIFORM STAND OF GRASS. ALLAREAS WHICH FAIL TO SHOW A UNIFORM STAND OF GRASSFOR ANY REASON SHALL BE TREATED REPEATEDLY UNTIL AUNIFORM STAND OF AT LEAST 90% COVERAGE IS ATTAINEDWITH NO BARE AREA GREATER THAN FIVE SQUARE FEET.PERMANENT SEEDING.. PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL OCCUR IN CON-UNCTION :ITHTEMPORARY SEEDING :HERE APPLICABLE IDEALLYPERMANENT SEEDING SHALL OCCUR DURING THE PLANTINGSEASON )OR EACH SEED TYPE AREAS )ERTILI=ED )ORTEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL BE SU))ICIENTLY )ERTILI=ED )ORPERMANENT SEEDING ADDITIONAL )ERTILI=ER IS NOTRE4UIRED )OR PERMANENT SEEDINGALL SEED AND SEED VARIETIES MUST BE O) )ROM STATE AND)EDERALLY LISTED NO;IOUS :EED SEED IN ADDITION NONEO) THE )OLLO:ING SEED :ILL OCCUR IN THE MI;THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LOOSEN THE SUB-GRADE TO AMINIMUM DEPTH O) -INCHES AND GRADE TO A SMOOTHEVEN SUR)ACE :ITH A LOOSE UNI)ORMLY )INE TE;TURE THEAREAS TO BE SEEDED ARE THEN TO BE ROLLED AND RAKED TOREMOVE RIDGES AND )ILL DEPRESSIONS TO MEET )INISHGRADES THE CONTRACTOR IS TO LIMIT SUB GRADE AND )INISHGRADE PREPARATION TO AREAS THAT :ILL BE PLANTEDIMMEDIATELY PREPARED AREAS ARE TO BE RESTORED I)ERODED OR OTHER:ISE DISTURBED A)TER )INE GRADING ANDBE)ORE PLANTINGSEED SHALL BE SO:N :ITH A SPREADER OR A SEEDINGMACHINE SEED IS NOT TO BE BROADCAST OR DROPPED :HEN:IND VELOCITY E;CEEDS  MPH SEED SHALL BE EVENLYDISTRIBUTED BY SO:ING IN T:O DIRECTIONS AT RIGHTANGLES TO EACH OTHER :ET SEED OR SEED THAT IS MOLDYOR OTHER:ISE DAMAGED IN TRANSIT OR STORAGE IS NOT TOBE USED A)TER BEGIN SO:N THE SEED SHALL BE RAKED INTOTHE TOP  INCH O) THE TOPSOIL LIGHTLY ROLLED AND:ATERED :ITH )INE SPRAY SEEDED AREAS ON STREAM BANKSSHALL BE PROTECTED :ITH COIR )IBER MATTINGBARE ROOTS11. ALLOW BARE ROOTS TO SOAK IN WATER AN HOUR OR TWOBEFORE PLANTING. DO NOT SOAK THE ROOTS FOR MORETHAN 24 HOURS.12. DIG A PLANTING PIT THAT IS THREE (3) TIMES WIDER THANTHE TREE’S CURRENT ROOT SYSTEM. SPREAD OUT ROOTS TOENCOURAGE OUTWARD GROWTH.13. KEEP THE TREE VERTICAL IN THE PLANTING PIT(PERPENDICULAR TO THE GROUND) SO THAT IT GROWSSTRAIGHT.14. REFILL THE PIT WITH NATIVE SOIL (WHAT WAS REMOVED ATDIGGING TIME), AND ANY OTHER SOIL AMENDMENTS.15. GENTLY TAMP OUT ANY AIR POCKETS FROM THE SOIL ONCETHE PLANTING HOLE IS FILLED.LIVE STAKES16. LIVE STAKES MUST BE DORMANT WHEN CUT. KEEP LIVESTAKES MOIST UNTIL PLANTING. THE STAKE SHOULD BEPREPARED WITH THE BUDS POINTED UP, AND THE BOTTOMSHOULD BE CUT AT AN ANGLE FOR EASY INSERTION INTO THEGROUND.17. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE PLACED WITH 23 TO 34 OF THE LENGTHOF THE STAKE BELOW GROUND AND ANGLED DOWNSTREAM.ENSURE THE BASE OF THE LIVE STAKE WILL REACH THEWATER TABLE.18. AN IRON BAR CAN BE USED TO MAKE A PILOT HOLE TOPREVENT BARK FROM BEING DAMAGED DURINGINSTALLATION.19. INSERT LIVE STAKES POINTED END FIRST INTO THESTREAMBANK.FLOODPLAINUPLAND HARDWOOD FORESTSTREAMBANK
LOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKNOTESEROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR 700 GRAMDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALEA'ADETAILED CROSS-SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALENOTESCONSTRUCTED RIFFLEDETAILED CROSS-SECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALEB'BRIFFLE SLOPE VARIES PER PROFILERIFFLE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL DEPTHAND GRADATION PER NOTESP.C. STATIONPER PLANP.T. STATIONPER PLANBANKFULL STAGESTREAMBANK TOE OF SLOPESTREAMBEDRIFFLE LENGTH VARIESPER PLANBANKFULLCONSTRUCTED RIFFLEP.C. ELEVATIONPER PROFILESELECT RIFFLE SUBSTRATEMATERIAL GRADATION PER NOTESP.T. ELEVATIONPER PROFILEEXTEND RIFFLESUBSTRATE INTORUN MIN. 10.0 FTEXTEND RIFFLESUBSTRATE INTORUN MIN. 10.0 FTFLOWBASEFLOW WSEGLIDERUNBANKFULL WSEBASEFLOW WSEBANKFULL WSE1. RIFFLES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF NATIVE GRAVEL AND COBBLE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ONSITE. THEENGINEER MUST APPROVE THE USE OF ALL ONSITE NATIVE MATERIAL. WHEN NATIVE SUBSTRATE IS NOTSUFFICIENT FOR COMPLETION OF THE STRUCTURE, QUARRIED STONE SHALL BE USED TO SUPPLEMENT THERIFFLE MATERIAL ACCORDING TO THE RIFFLE SUBSTRATE SPECIFICATIONS.2. FOR INSTALLATION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OVER EXCAVATE THE LENGTH OF THE RIFFLE BACKFILL WITHNATIVE GRAVEL AND COBBLE MATERIAL TO THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSED PROFILE.3. CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 10.0 FT U/S OF THE P.T. INTO THE GLIDE ANDA MINIMUM OF 10.0 FT D/S OF THE P.C. INTO THE RUN.4. THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED AT A UNIFORM THICKNESS SUCH THAT, IN CROSS-SECTION, ITSLOWEST ELEVATION OCCURS IN THE CENTER OF THE CHANNEL.5. FINE WOODY MATERIAL MAY BE INTEGRATED INTO THE RIFFLE MATERIAL TO ENHANCE FLOW DIVERSITY ANDHYPORHEIC EXCHANGE.6. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED USING AN EXCAVATOR BUCKET SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLEMENT OFTHE MATERIAL IS KEPT TO A MINIMUM.7. THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH AND COMPACT SURFACE INACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, AND CROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.THE DEGREE OF FINISH FOR INVERT ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADES AND ELEVATIONSINDICATED.8. RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOLLOWINGINSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.9. SEE TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION FOR DIMENSIONS.10. SEE QUARRIED RIFFLE SUBSTRATE SPECIFICATIONS TABLE BELOW.CONSTRUCTED RIFFLECONSTRUCTED RIFFLE1. ALL OUTSIDE MEANDER BENDS WITH RADIUS OF CURVATURE RATIO LESS THAN 4.0 SHALL BE PROTECTEDWITH BANK REVETMENTS.2. COARSE WOODY DEBRIS SHALL CONSIST OF LOGS, ROOTWADS, AND LARGE BRANCHES NOT SUITABLE FORCONSTRUCTION OF LOG STRUCTURES. ALL MATERIALS ARE TO BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. COARSEWOODY DEBRIS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE LARGEST MATERIAL PLACED FIRST. NO LOGS SHALL BEPLACED PARALLEL TO THE FLOW OF WATER, UNLESS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. LOGS SHALL BE PLACED INA CROSSING PATTERN OR WEAVE SUCH THAT EACH LOG IS ANCHORED BY ANOTHER LOG.3. SMALL/FINE WOODY DEBRIS SHALL CONSIST OF MEDIUM TO SMALL LIMBS, BRANCHES, BUSHES, AND/ORLOGS. INVASIVE SPECIES SHALL NOT BE USED. SMALL/FINE WOODY DEBRIS SHALL BE PLACED ABOVE THECOARSE WOODY DEBRIS WITH THE LARGEST MATERIAL BEING PLACED FIRST AND THE SMALLEST MATERIALPLACED LAST.4. ALL WOODY DEBRIS SHALL BE COMPACTED WITH THE EXCAVATOR BUCKET TO REDUCE THE PRESENCE OFVOIDS IN THE SMALL/FINE WOODY DEBRIS LAYER.5. GRAVEL LEVELING BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED ABOVE THE HIGHEST ELEVATION OF THE WOODY DEBRISBEFORE THE SOIL LIFTS ARE INSTALLED.6. THE SOIL BACKFILL USED FOR LIFTS AND TOPSOIL USED FOR LAYERING WITH THE LIVE BRANCHES SHALL BEFREE OF ANY LARGE ROOTS OR WOODY DEBRIS AND SHALL GENERALLY BE FREE FROM ANY GRAVEL ORCOBBLE MATERIAL.7. SOIL BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLING WILL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM; YET, NOTSUCH THAT THE UNDERLYING BRUSH IS DISPLACED OR DAMAGED. THE TOP OF THE BACKFILL FOR THE FIRSTLIFT SHALL BE SLOPED AT APPROXIMATELY 5% AWAY FROM THE STREAM.8. PLACE A LAYER OF TOPSOIL AND LIVE BRANCHES ON THE GRAVEL LEVELING BASE SUCH THATAPPROXIMATELY 6 INCHES TO 1 FOOT OF EACH LIVE BRANCH WILL BE EXPOSED AND THE REMAINDER (2' TO4') OF EACH LIVE BRANCH WILL BE COVERED BY THE SOIL LIFT. LIVE BRANCHES SHALL BE OF THE SPECIESSPECIFIED FOR LIVE STAKES OR APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.9. PLACE A LAYER OF 6.5 FEET WIDE BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AND 700 GRAM EROSIONCONTROL MATTING, ON TOP OF THE TOPSOIL AND LIVE BRANCHES SUCH THAT 2.5 FEET OF THE BLANKETWILL BE BURIED BELOW THE NEXT SOIL LIFT. ALLOW THE REMAINING 4.5 FEET OF BLANKET AND MATTINGTO HANG OVER THE GRAVEL LEVELING BASE.10. PLACE SOIL BACKFILL UP TO THE LIFT HEIGHT SPECIFIED OF NO GREATER THAN 1.0 FT BEING CAREFUL NOTTO PUSH/PULL OR TEAR THE FABRIC PREVIOUSLY PLACED.11. TOP DRESS THE SOIL LIFT WITH TOPSOIL FROM THE FACE OF THE SOIL LIFT BACK INTO THE FLOODPLAIN ATLEAST 4FT.12. THE EROSION CONTROL FABRICS SHALL BE PULLED AS TIGHT AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT TEARING OREXCESSIVELY DISTORTING THE FABRIC. SECURE THE EROSION CONTROL AND NON-WOVEN MATTING INPLACE BY STAKING THE END OF THE EROSION CONTROL FABRIC WITH WOODEN STAKES ON 1.5-FOOTCENTERS.13. REPEAT STEPS 8 THROUGH 12 AS NEEDED TO BUILD SOIL LIFTS UP TO DESIGN BANKFULL ELEVATION.14. THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH AND COMPACT SURFACE INACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, AND CROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS. THE DEGREE OF FINISH FOR ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADES ANDELEVATIONS INDICATED OR APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.15. RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOLLOWINGINSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.16. COIR LOG TOE PROTECTION MAY USED AS ALTERNATIVE BANK REVETMENT WHERE TOE WOOD IS NOTFEASIBLE DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS.DETAILED PROFILE - SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALEDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALENOTESTOE WOOD REVETMENTAPPROX. BASE FLOW WSESREAMBED3:1 TO BANKFULLSELECT GRAVEL BACKFILL AND TOPSOILFOR BASE OF FIRST SOIL LIFTFL
O
W
TOE WOODREVETMENTAFILL VOIDS WITH FINE WOODY MATERIALLIVE CUTTINGSSELECT SOIL BACKFILLUNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED EARTHEXCAVATION LIMITSBANKFULLA'LIVE CUTTINGSBANKFULLSOIL GEOLIFT WITH EROSION CONTROLBLANKET (ECB) AND AND 700 GRAMEROSION CONTROL MATTING (ECM)(EACH LIFT REQUIRES 1 LAYER OF ECBAND ECM)LIVE STAKES AND BARE ROOTSWOOD STAKECOARSE WOODYDEBRIS (4"- 12")MIN. WIDTH OFMATTING = 4'TOE WOOD REVETMENTTOE WOOD REVETMENTRIFFLE SUBSTRATEDEPTH PER TABLE1. ALL LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT AND LIMBS AND BRANCHES SHALL BE TRIMMED FLUSH. LOGS SHALLHAVE MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 1.5'.2. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER LOGS TO PROVIDE A SILL UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BYTHE ENGINEER. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE OFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTER LOG.3. THE HEADER LOG OF THE VANE ARE SHALL TIE INTO THE STREAMBANK AT 12 TO 23 BANKFULL STAGE.4. THE LOG VANE ARM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE OUTSIDE STREAMBANK AND STREAMBED A MINIMUM OF 10.0 FTON EACH END.5. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN 1 INCHES BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTER LOGS SHALL BE CHINKED WITHLIMBS AND/OR BRUSH ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GEOTEXTILE.6. ALL BOULDERS USED FOR THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE STRUCTURAL STONE, CUBICAL OR RECTANGULAR INSHAPE. THE ENGINEER MUST APPROVE THE USE OF BOULDERS THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE ONSITE. BOULDERSDIMENSIONS SHALL BE 3.0 FT X 5.0 FT X 2.0 FT +/- 0.5 FT.7. CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO FIT BOULDERS TOGETHER TIGHTLY.8. GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS SHALL BE MINIMIZED BY FITTING BOULDERS TOGETHER AND PLUGGING WITH NCDOT CLASS A ROCK OR CHINKING STONE APPROVED BY ENGINEER.9. HEADER BOULDERS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER BOULDERS TO PROVIDE A FOUNDATION UNLESSOTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. HEADER BOULDERS SHALL BE OFFSET 1.0 FT UPSTREAM OF THEFOOTER.10. SET BOULDER INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS. NO ELEVATIONS OF THEBOULDERS MAY VARY FROM THE PLAN SHEETS WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM THE ENGINEER.11. ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE A LAYER OF NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACEDAS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE LOG VANE AND BOULDER J-HOOK. SECURE ALLGEOTEXTILE FABRIC ON TOP OF FOOTER LOG USING 3 INCH 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL ON 12 INSPACING ALONG LOG. NAIL NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE TO EDGE OF HEADER LOG AND BACKFILL.12. PLACE BOULDERS UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM OF THE LOG VANE ARM IN THE STREAMBANK. THE FINISHEDELEVATION OF THE BOULDERS SHALL BE BELOW THE FINISHED GRADE OF THE ADJACENT FLOODPLAIN ANDSHALL NOT PROTRUDE OUT OF THE STREAMBANK.13. DIMENSIONS AND SLOPES OF STRUCTURES DESCRIBED IN THE DETAIL MAY BE ADJUSTED BY DESIGNENGINEER TO FIT CONDITIONS ONSITE.14. THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH AND COMPACT SURFACE INACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, AND CROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.THE DEGREE OF FINISH FOR INVERT ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADES AND ELEVATIONSINDICATED.15. RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOLLOWINGINSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.DETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALECROSS-SECTIONVANE ARM INTO STREAMBANK @ 12 TO 23 BKF STAGEB'
B
A'ALOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKLOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKDETAILED SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALESELECTBACKFILL MATERIALSCOUR POOLBELOW STRUCTURELOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKPROPOSED BANKFULL WSEBASEFLOW WSEARM SLOPE = 1 - 3%A'ASCOURPOOLSELECT BACKFILLBEHIND STRUCTUREBANKFULLEXTEND BOULDER SILL INTOSTREAMBANK MIN 10.0 ' OR THREEFULL BOULDER LENGTHSHIGH DENSITYPLANTINGHIGH DENSITYPLANTINGEXTEND VANE ARMINTO STREAMBANKMIN. 15.0'BURY LOGS INTOSTREAMBED MIN. 10.0'.FIT BOULDERS TIGHTLY TOGETHERHEADER BOULDER (SILL)FOOTER BOULDER (SILL)HEADER LOGFOOTER LOG20 - 30oFINE WOODYDEBRIS (2" - 4")1.0' OFFSET1.0' MAXKEY MATTING INTO RIFFLE TRENCHTOP OF WOODY DEBRIS1.5' ABOVE U/S TW PC ELVANCHOR LOGS IN-PLACEWITH BOULDERS U/S AND D/S1.0' MIN.DETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALELOG RIFFLEA'ADETAILED CROSS-SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALELOG RIFFLENOTESLOG RIFFLEDETAILED CROSS-SECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALELOG RIFFLEB'BP.C. STATIONPER PLANP.T. STATIONPER PLANSILL LOGSSILL LOGSSELECTBACKFILL MATERIALBANKFULLCHANNEL TOEOF SLOPEBURY LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 6.0'.BURY LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 6.0'.RIFFLE LENGTH VARIESPER PLANLOG ROLLERNON-WOVENFILTER FABRICMAX. SPACING =13 * WBKFFOOTER LOGGLIDERUNBASEFLOW WSEP.C. ELEVATIONPER PROFILEP.T. ELEVATIONPER PROFILEMAX. DROP =0.2' - 0.3'CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE LOGS SLOPE VARIES PER PROFILEMICROPOOLBELOW STEPRIFFLE SUBSTRATE PERNOTES AND TABLESTREAMBEDRIFFLE MATERIAL1. ALL LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT AND LIMBS AND BRANCHES SHALL BE TRIMMED FLUSH. LOGS SHALLHAVE MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 1.5'.2. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER LOGS TO PROVIDE A SILL UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BYTHE ENGINEER. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE OFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTER LOG.3. SET SILL INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS. NO ELEVATIONS OF THE LOGSILLS MAY VARY FROM THE PLAN SHEETS WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM THE ENGINEER.4. THE VERTICAL SLOPE OF EACH LOG SHALL NOT EXCEED 1% UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.5. ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE SILL LOGS, NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THEENTIRE LENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE. FILTER FABRIC SHALL EXTEND FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTERBOULDER TO THE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION AND SHALL BE PLACED THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THESTRUCTURE. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE USED AS BACKFILL MATERIAL AROUND THE LOGS AND MICROPOOLSSHALL BE ESTABLISHED BELOW EACH LOG.6. FINE WOODY MATERIAL LESS THAN 3" IN DIAMETER MAY BE INCORPORATED INTO THIS STRUCTURE TOINCREASE IN-STREAM ORGANIC MATERIAL AND ENHANCE FLOW DIVERSITY.7. THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH AND COMPACT SURFACE INACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, AND CROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.THE DEGREE OF FINISH FOR INVERT ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADES AND ELEVATIONSINDICATED.8. RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOLLOWINGINSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.9. SEE TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION FOR DIMENSIONS.EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR 700 GRAMLOG SLOPE 0 - 1%BANKFULLBURY LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 6.0'LOG ROLLERRIFFLE SUBSTRATEMATERIAL PER NOTESBASEFLOW WSEBANKFULL WSEREVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNDETAILS 5.1
3'BANKFULL2.5' (TYP)6" MIN. HORIZONTALOVERLAP2.5'(TYP)2.5'(TYP)2'(TYP)2'(TYP)6" MIN. VERTICALOVERLAPAA'700 GRAM COIR FIBER MATTINGFROM TOE OF CHANNEL TO4 FT BEYOND BANKFULLBANKFULLCHANNEL TOE OF SLOPE700 GRAM COIRMATTING2' LONG 2" x 2" WOOD STAKESw/ 3" GALVANIZED ROOFING NAILAT THE TOP TO SECURE MATTING6" MIN. HORIZONTALOVERLAPEROSION CONTROL MATTINGDETAILED STAKING PLANNOT TO SCALEEROSION CONTROL MATTINGDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALE1. EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS USED TO PROTECT RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED STREAMBANKS FROMEROSION. THE MATTING WILL REMAIN INTACT WHILE THE BANK AND RIPARIAN VEGETATIONMATURES, PROVIDING CRITICAL BANK PROTECTION.2. BEFORE INSTALLING COIR FIBER MATTING, RAKE SOIL LEVEL, ADD TEMPORARY AND PERMANENTSEED, FERTILIZER, LIME AND MULCH.3. 700 GRAM COIR FIBER EROSION CONTROL MATTING SHALL BE PLACED ALONG THE LENGTH OF THENEW CHANNEL FROM THE TOE OF SLOPE OUT TO A MINIMUM OF 4.0' BEYOND THE BANKFULLELEVATION.4. SECURE COIR MATTING IN PLACE BY STAKING AND OVERLAPPING AT THE SEEMS WITH ASHINGLE-TYPE METHOD SUCH THAT THE OVERLAPPING PIECE IS IN THE SAME DIRECTION AND ASTHE STREAM FLOW. ADDITIONAL STAKING SHALL BE APPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NOADDITIONAL COST IF THE MATTING SEPARATES FROM THE SOIL MORE THAN ONE INCH UNDER AREASONABLE PULL.700 GRAM COIR FIBER MATTINGSUPPLEMENT WOODEN STAKESWITH 12" ECO-STAKES2' LONG 2" x 2" WOOD STAKESw/ 3" GALVANIZED ROOFING NAILAT THE TOP TO SECURE MATTINGEROSION CONTROL MATTINGDETAILED CROSS-SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALEEROSION CONTROL MATTINGNOTESSCOURPOOLDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALEDETAILED SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALENON-WOVENGEOTEXTILESELECT BACKFILL MATERIALBEHIND STRUCTUREHIGH DENSITYLIVE STAKINGNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILEBANKFULLSELECTBACKFILL MATERIALSCOUR POOLBELOW STRUCTUREB'BA'ATOE OF SLOPELOG SILLLOG SILLP.C. STATIONPER PLANP.C. ELEVATIONPER PROFILESTREAMBEDFIT LOGS TIGHTLY TOGETHERDEPARTURE ANGLE VARIES PER PLAN ORAS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER ONSITE1. ALL LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT AND LIMBS AND BRANCHES SHALL BE TRIMMED FLUSH. LOGS SHALLHAVE MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 1.5'.2. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER LOGS TO PROVIDE A SILL UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BYTHE ENGINEER. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE OFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTER LOG.3. SET SILL INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS. NO ELEVATIONS OF THE LOGSILL MAY VARY FROM THE PLAN SHEETS WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM THE ENGINEER.4. THE VERTICAL SLOPE OF EACH LOG SHALL NOT EXCEED 1% UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.5. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN 1 INCHES BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTER LOGS SHALL BE CHINKED WITHLIMBS AND/OR BRUSH ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GEOTEXTILE.6. ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE LOGS A LAYER OF NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ASSHOWN IN THE DETAIL THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE LOG. SECURE ALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ON TOP OFFOOTER LOG USING 3 INCH 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL ON 12 IN SPACING ALONG LOG. NAILNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE TO EDGE OF HEADER LOG AND BACKFILL.7. SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE FILL MATERIAL GENERATED ON-SITE WITH A MINIMUM D50 OF 60 MM ORA GRADATION SUBMITTED IN WRITING AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. A WELL-GRADED BLEND OFNCDOT CLASS A RIP-RAP AND ASTM #57 ROCK MIXED WITH EARTH WILL BE AN ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTE.SELECT BACKFILL AND SOIL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLEMENT OFTHE MATERIAL IS KEPT TO A MINIMUM.8. THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH AND COMPACT SURFACE INACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, AND CROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.THE DEGREE OF FINISH FOR INVERT ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADES AND ELEVATIONSINDICATED.9. RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOLLOWINGINSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR 700 GRAMLOG SLOPE 0 - 1%BANKFULLHEADERLOGFOOTER LOGBASEFLOW WSEBANKFULL WSEPROPOSED BANKFULL WSEBASEFLOW WSEP.C. ELEVATIONPER PROFILENOTESLOG SILLDETAILED CROSS-SECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALELOG SILLEXTEND LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 6.0'.EXTEND LOGS BEYONDBANKFULL STAGE MIN. 4.0 FTREVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNDETAILS 6.2
RSCDETAILED PROFILE - SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALEWSEWSEWSERIFFLE - STEP - POOL SEQUENCESTEP - POOL SEQUENCE6.0'8.0'RSCDETAILED RIFFLE - SECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALE4.5'3:13:18.0'RSCDETAILED POOL - SECTION C - C'NOT TO SCALEA'AC'CB'BRSCDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALEFLOWCONSTRUCTEDRIFFLEEXTENT OF UNDERLYING FILTERMEDIAPOOLTIE OUT BOULDERKEY INTO SLOPEMIN. 2'EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL INTOGLIDE MIN. 2 FTBLEND RIFFLE MATERIAL INTOSTRUCTURE BACKFILLRIFFLE MATERIALU/S OF STRUCTUREFILTER MEDIAEXISTING EARTH OR FILLMATERIALRIFFLE SLOPE VARIES PER PROFILE8 OZ. HIGH FLOW NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILEBOULDER STEP STRUCTUREEXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL INTO GLIDE MIN. 2'PLACE RIFFLE MATERIAL IN GLIDE U/S OFSTRUCTURE FOR STEP - POOL SEQUENCE MIN. 2'MINIMUM 1.5'MINIMUM 2.5'RIFFLESTEPPOOLRIFFLESTEPPOOLSTEPPOOLRIFFLEGLIDEFILTER MEDIA DEPTH VARIES PER PROFILEMIN. DEPTH = 2.5'8 OZ. HIGH FLOW NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE4.5'FILTER MEDIA DEPTH VARIES PER PROFILEMIN. DEPTH = 1.5'FILTER MEDIAEXISTING EARTH OR FILLMATERIAL0.5'CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE50% NC DOT CLASS A, 50% NC DOT CLASS BMIN. 0.75 ' DEPTHEROSION CONTROL MATTING700 GRAM COIRFILTER MEDIAEXISTING EARTH OR FILLMATERIALEROSION CONTROL MATTING700 GRAM COIRSUPERIMPOSED U/SRIFFLE CROSS-SECTION1.5'REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNRSC 6.3
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE50% NC DOT CLASS A50% NC DOT CLASS BMIN 0.75' DEPTHA'A1. ALL BOULDERS SHALL BE NATIVE STRUCTURAL STONE OR SHOT ROCK,CUBICAL OR RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE.2. DIMENSIONS AND SLOPES OF STRUCTURES MAY BE ADJUSTED BY DESIGNENGINEER ONSITE TO PER FIELD CONDITIONS.3. BOULDERS SHALL BE 1.5 FT X 2.5 FT X 1.5 FT +/- 0.5 FT.4. CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO FIT STRUCTURE BOULDERS TIGHTLY.5. GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS SHALL BE MINIMIZED BY FITTING BOULDERSTOGETHER AND PLUGGING WITH STRUCTURE STONE CLASS A AND SELECTMATERIAL ONSITE OR OTHER CHINKING STONE APPROVED BY DESIGNENGINEER.6. FOOTER BOULDER SHALL BE PLACED INTO THE FILTER MEDIA A MINIMUM OFTHE BOULDER THICKNESS.7. SLOPE OF BOULDERS FROM CENTERLINE TO THE TOP OF THE STRUCTUREARM SHALL BE 2-4%.8. 8OZ. NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAMSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE TO PREVENT PIPING OF STREAM FLOW ANDWASHOUT OF FILTER MEDIA THROUGH BOULDER GAPS. FILTER FABRIC SHALLEXTEND FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTER BOULDER TO THE FINISHEDGRADE OF THE HEADER BOULDER AND SHALL BE PLACED THE ENTIRELENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE.9. TIE OUT BOULDERS SHALL BE KEYED INTO THE TERRACE SLOPE A MINIMUMOF 2 FT. WHERE THIS CONFLICTS WITH SIGNIFICANT TREE ROOTS ORBEDROCK, THE TIE OUT BOULDERS MAY BE ADJUSTED OR ELIMINATED BY THEDESIGN ENGINEER ONSITE.10. THERE SHALL BE NO ELEVATION DROP GREATER THAN 0.5 FT OVER A SINGLESTEP (SEE PROPOSED PROFILE) .11. THE STRUCTURE ELEVATION TABLE IS INCLUDED ON SHEET____.12. WSE = WATER SURFACE ELEVATION13. ELV. PT. = ELEVATION POINT (DESCRIBED IN TABLE BELOW)B'BPOOLFLOW
17.0'TOE OF SLOPESEE TYP. SECTIONHIGH DENSITY LIVE STAKING8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILETIE OUT BOULDERKEY INTO SLOPE MIN. 2'EXTENTS OF FILTER MEDIAVEGETATED BENCHSEE TYP. SECTION8.0'3.2'FLOW
ELV. PT. 1ELV. PT. 2ELV. PT. 3BLEND RIFFLE MATERIAL INTOSTRUCTURE BACKFILLPOOLWSEFLOW8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER MEDIADEPTH PER PROFILECONSTRUCTED RIFFLE50% NC DOT CLASS A50% NC DOT CLASS BMIN. 0.75 ' DEPTHELV. PT. 1ELV. PT. 2ELV. PT. 3BOULDER STEP STRUCTUREPLANNOT TO SCALEBOULDER STEP STRUCTUREDIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONSNOT TO SCALEBOULDER STEP STRUCTURESECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALEBOULDER STEP STRUCTURESECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALEBOULDER STEP STRUCTURENOTES22.0'ELV. PT. 1FILTER MEDIAEXISTING STREAM BEDOR ONSITE FILL MATERIALTIE OUT BOULDERKEY INTO SLOPE MIN. 2'ELV. PT. 2MINIMIZE BOULDER GAPS WITHTIGHT FIT AND CHINKINGD/S WSEU/S WSEHEADER BOULDERFOOTER BOULDER3-5% ARM SLOPE8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEREVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
DECEMBER 18, 2019
PRELIMINARYDESIGNRSC ROCK STEP 6.4